[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 163 (Thursday, August 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48514-48541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16378]



[[Page 48513]]

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

Part VI





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 219



 National Forest System Land Management Planning; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 163 / Thursday, August 23, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48514]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AC70


National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is 
providing notice and opportunity for comment on a proposed rule for 
National Forest System land management planning. This rulemaking is the 
result of a U.S. district court order dated March 30, 2007, which 
enjoined the United States Department of Agriculture from 
implementation and utilization of the land management planning rule 
published in 2005 (70 FR 1023) until it complies with the court's order 
regarding the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (Citizens for Better Forestry 
et al. v. USDA, C.A. C05-1144 (N. D. Cal.)). The purpose of this 
proposed rule is to respond to the court's ruling about notice and 
comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act by 
publishing the 2005 rule as a proposed rule. The Agency plans to comply 
with the court's order regarding the Endangered Species Act. In 
addition, the Agency is preparing a draft environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
    This proposed rule sets forth a framework for National Forest 
System land management planning to provide for sustainability of 
social, economic, and ecological systems and establishes direction for 
developing, amending, and revising land management plans. The proposed 
rule clarifies that, absent extraordinary circumstances, land 
management plans developed, amended, or revised under the proposed rule 
are strategic and are one stage in an adaptive cycle of planning for 
management of National Forest System lands. The intent of the proposed 
rule is to streamline and improve the planning process by making plans 
more adaptable to changes in social, economic, and environmental 
conditions; to strengthen the role of science in planning; to 
strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and other 
governmental entities; and to reaffirm the principle of sustainable 
management consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and 
other authorities.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by October 22, 2007. The 
Agency will consider and place comments received after this date in the 
record only if practicable.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning this proposed rule through 
one of the following methods: E-mail: [email protected]. 
Include ``planning rule'' in the subject line of the message. Fax: 
(916) 456-6724. Please identify your comments by including ``planning 
rule'' on the cover sheet or the first page. Mail: Planning Rule 
Comments, P.O. Box 162969, Sacramento, CA 95816-2969. Please note that 
the Forest Service will not be able to receive hand-delivered comments. 
Submit comments through the World Wide Web/Internet Web site http://www.regulations.gov. Please note that all comments, including names and 
addresses when provided, will be placed in the record and will be 
available for public inspection and copying. The Agency cannot confirm 
receipt of comments. Individuals wishing to inspect comments should 
call Bob Dow at (801) 517-1022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regis Terney, Planning Specialist; 
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-1552, or Ron Pugh, 
Planning Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-
0992.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Additional Documents Are Available
2. The 2005 Planning Rule
3. Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule
     Major Themes and Areas of Public Comment in the 
Proposed Rule
     Plans Should Be Strategic
     Plans Should Be Adaptive and Based on Current 
Information and Science
     Land Management Planning Should Involve the Public
     Plans Should Guide Sustainable Management of NFS Lands
     Environmental Management Systems and Adaptive 
Management
     National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest 
Management Act Planning
     Summary
4. Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule
    Section 219.1--Purpose and Applicability
    Section 219.2--Levels of Planning and Planning Authority
    Section 219.3--Nature of Land Management Planning
    Section 219.4--National Environmental Policy Act compliance
    Section 219.5--Environmental Management Systems
    Section 219.6--Evaluations and monitoring
    Section 219.7--Developing, Amending, or Revising a Plan
    Section 219.8--Application of a New Plan, Plan Amendment, or 
Plan Revision
    Section 219.9--Public Participation, Collaboration, and 
Notification
    Section 219.10--Sustainability
    Section 219.11--Role of Science in Planning
    Section 219.12--Suitable Uses and Provisions Required by NFMA
    Section 219.13--Objections to Plans, Plan Amendments, or Plan 
Revisions
    Section 219.14--Effective Dates and Transition
    Section 219.15--Severability
    Section 219.16--Definitions
5. Regulatory Certifications
     Regulatory Impact
     Environmental Impacts
     Summary of Environmental Impact Statement
     Energy Effects
     Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
     Federalism
     Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
     No Takings Implications
     Civil Justice Reform
     Unfunded Mandates

1. Additional Documents Are Available

    The following information is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet 
at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2007_planning_rule.html: (1) This 
proposed rule; (2) a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) 
analyzing the proposed rule; (3) the Civil Rights Impact Analysis for 
this proposed rule; (4) the cost-benefit analysis for this proposed 
rule; (5) the business model cost study done to estimate predicted 
costs to implement the 2000 planning rule, and (6) the Forest Service 
directives and other guidance on land management planning developed for 
the now enjoined 2005 planning rule. This information may also be 
obtained upon written request from the Director, Ecosystem Management 
Coordination Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1104. The final 
environmental impact statement, when completed, will also be available 
on the above Web site.

2. The 2005 Planning Rule

    The Department published the land management planning rule in 2005 
(2005 planning rule) in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 
1023). The 2005 planning rule at 36 CFR part 219 was based on a review, 
conducted by Forest Service personnel at the direction of the Office of 
the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, of an 
earlier planning rule promulgated in 2000 (65 FR 67514). The review 
affirmed the

[[Page 48515]]

2000 rule's underlying concepts of sustainability, monitoring, 
evaluation, collaboration (working with the public), and the 
consideration of science. However, although the 2000 rule was intended 
to simplify and streamline the development, amendment, and revision of 
land management plans (also referred to as plans), the review concluded 
that the 2000 rule was very costly and neither straightforward nor easy 
to implement. The review also found that the 2000 rule did not clarify 
adequately the strategic nature of land management planning.
    Based on the review and over two decades of experience with plans, 
the Agency published the 2005 planning rule to (1) simplify and 
streamline the development, revision, and amendment of plans; (2) 
clarify that plans are strategic; and (3) ensure that direction for 
developing, revising, and amending plans is consistent with legal 
requirements and the limits of the Agency authorities and the 
capabilities of National Forest System lands.
    On March 30, 2007, the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of California in Citizens for Better Forestry et al. 
v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. C05-1144 PJH, No. C 04-4512 
PJH (N. D. Cal., March 30, 2007), enjoined the United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) from implementation and utilization of the 2005 
planning rule until USDA takes certain additional steps concerning the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    The Agency is committed to transparent rulemaking and public 
participation, and provided a notice and comment period for the 
proposed 2005 rule (December 6, 2002, 67 FR 72770). In the final 2005 
rule, the Agency changed the provisions for timber management 
requirements, changed the provisions for making changes to the 
monitoring program, and added provisions for environmental management 
system (EMS). The Environmental Management System provisions require 
the Agency to define a structure and system of organizational 
activities, responsibilities, practices, and procedures for carrying 
out the Agency environmental policy. The Court found that the proposed 
rule did not provide sufficient notice to the public of these changes 
to the final rule such that the final rule was not the logical 
outgrowth of the proposed rule. Therefore, the Agency is providing 
notice and seeking comment on the proposed rule, which includes the 
changes made to the final 2005 planning rule.
    Regarding NEPA, the court further found that the 2005 planning rule 
did not fit the Agency's categorical exclusion for Servicewide 
administrative procedures. That categorical exclusion, developed with 
public participation, is a recognized method of NEPA compliance. Under 
the court's order, however, further environmental analysis under NEPA 
is required. Accordingly, the Agency is preparing a draft EIS on the 
proposed rule.
    Finally, the court found that the Agency was required to consult on 
the impact of the 2005 rule under ESA. Based upon an analysis of the 
2005 rule, the Agency had concluded that adoption of the 2005 planning 
rule alone would have no effect on protected species or critical 
habitat. The court, however, found that some form of consultation with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries is required. Accordingly, 
the Agency plans to comply with the court's order regarding the 
Endangered Species Act.
    Without conceding the correctness of the court's ruling, which is 
being addressed through the judicial process, the Agency has decided to 
undertake these processes to expedite much needed plan revisions and 
plan amendments.

3. Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule

    Forest planning rules have a long history. The Department adopted 
the first planning rule September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53928). The planning 
rule 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 management plans that 
are now in place for all national forests and grasslands. In addition, 
the Department adopted a revised rule on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 
67514). No plans have been developed, amended, or revised using the 
procedures of the 2000 rule. After review of the 2000 planning rule, 
the Agency proposed to revise the planning rule on December 6, 2002 (67 
FR 72770) with a 90-day public comment period.
    This proposed rule is identical, except as noted below, to the 
currently enjoined rule at 36 CFR part 219 published in the Federal 
Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1023) as amended on March 3, 2006 
(71 FR 10837). The preamble to the 2005 rule contains a detailed 
analysis of comments received and issues identified during the comment 
on the 2002 proposed rule. This proposed rule differs from the 2005 
final rule, in that, the effective date and the end of the transition 
period date in Sec.  219.14 are changed. This proposed rule also 
includes the amendment made March 3, 2006 (71 FR 10837) to change the 
transition provision for the Tongass National Forest plan. The Agency 
believes this proposed rule is based on a better understanding of land 
management planning resulting from the Forest Service's 25 years of 
experience developing, revising, and amending plans under the 1982 
planning rule and 2000 rule transition provisions. After assessing the 
flaws and benefits of the planning rules during these 25 years, the 
Forest Service believes that it is time to rely on its experience, 
think differently about NFS planning, and change our planning 
procedures. This proposed rule embodies a strategic approach to 
planning that emphasizes the desired outcomes of land management and 
the sustainability of resources, rather than the output-oriented 
approach embodied in the 1982 rule. The Forest Service's intent with 
this proposed rule is to promote a more efficient way to protect the 
environment and to facilitate working with the public. The proposed 
rule establishes an adaptive management process with a priority on 
monitoring to allow timely changes to plans to respond to changing 
conditions and new information to ensure that clean air, clean water, 
and abundant wildlife remain available. In this way, the proposed rule 
better allows the Agency to carry out its mission to ``to sustain the 
health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and 
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations'' 
(Forest Service Manual 1020.21). This proposed rule will enable the 
Forest Service to respond in a timely manner to changing conditions 
like hazardous fuels, new science, and many other dynamics that affect 
NFS management. A fundamental concept in this proposed rule is that 
protection and management of the NFS lands should be based on sound and 
current science.
    This proposed rule assures the public the opportunity for an 
effective voice throughout the entire planning process. Finally, 
because this proposed rule will enable more efficient planning, the 
Forest Service will be able to shift its limited resources to the 
public's expressed priorities. These priorities include improved 
conservation of the

[[Page 48516]]

forests and grasslands and better responses to the threats the forests 
and grasslands face, such as critical wildfire danger and invasive 
species that degrade ecological systems.
    To achieve these important goals, plans under this proposed rule 
will be more strategic and less prescriptive than those developed, 
amended, or revised under the 1982 planning rule. The Agency believes 
that strategic, adaptable plans are the most effective means of guiding 
NFS management in light of changing conditions, science, and 
technology. To this end, plans under this proposed rule typically will 
not approve or prohibit projects or activities except under 
extraordinary circumstances. Rather, as described further below, plans 
under this proposed rule typically will contain five components, which 
set forth guidance for subsequent decisions approving or prohibiting 
on-the-ground activities. The plan components are: Desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.

 Major Themes and Areas of Public Comment in the Proposed Rule

    The major themes of the proposed rule discussed in this preamble 
reflect the public comments received on the 2005 rule (70 FR 1023). 
This proposed rule sets forth the process for development, amendment, 
and revision of plans for NFS units, including the national forests, 
grasslands, prairie, or other comparable administrative units in 
compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The Forest Service has developed 125 plans and 
revised 53 plans since enactment of NFMA and has amended numerous 
plans. The Agency expects to complete more than 100 additional 
revisions during the next decade. Based on the decades of experience 
under the 1982 planning rule, transition provisions of the 2000 rule, 
and under the 2005 rule, the Agency has focused this proposed rule 
around the following major themes:
Plans Should Be Strategic
    The purpose of plans should be to establish goals for forests, 
grasslands, and prairies and to set forth guidance to achieve those 
goals. Plans can meet these purposes through components that describe 
desired conditions, provide objectives for achieving desired 
conditions, and that identify guidelines, suitability of areas for 
various uses, and special areas. These five plan components will supply 
clear, concise statements of management intent for all areas of the 
national forests. Typically, a plan should not include decisions that 
approve or prohibit projects and activities and such decisions would 
follow subsequent proposed actions considered by the Agency.
Plans Should Be Adaptive and Based on Current Information and Science
    Information, science, and unforeseen circumstances evolve during 
the 15-year life expectancy of a plan. It must be possible to adjust 
plans and the plan-monitoring program and to react to new information 
and science swiftly and efficiently. An environmental management system 
(EMS) approach will enhance adaptive planning and will be part of the 
land management framework.
Land Management Planning Should Involve the Public
    Plans are prepared for public lands. The Agency firmly believes 
that public participation and collaboration should be welcomed and 
encouraged during planning. Throughout the planning process, 
responsible officials offer people the opportunity to work 
collaboratively to find solutions that balance conflicting needs and 
values, to evaluate management under the plans, and to consider the 
need to adjust plans as conditions and issues change.
Plans Should Guide Sustainable Management of NFS Lands
    The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 
528-531) requires that NFS lands are to be managed to provide a 
continuous flow of goods and services to the nation in perpetuity. To 
meet this requirement, plans must supply a sustainable framework--based 
on social, economic, and ecological systems--to guide the on-the-ground 
management of projects and activities, which results in these goods and 
services.
Planning Must Comply With All Applicable Laws, Regulations, and 
Policies
    Planning must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and 
policies, although none of these requirements needs to be restated in 
plans. For example, the Clean Water Act includes requirements for 
nonpoint source management programs, to be administered by the States. 
The States or the Forest Service then develops Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) for use in the development of projects or activities 
on NFS lands. BMPs are designed to meet State water quality standards 
and prevent adverse environmental consequences. Specific BMPs and other 
legal requirements do not have to be repeated in the plan to be in 
effect and applicable to NFS projects and activities.

 Plans Should Be Strategic

    Land management plans are strategic. A plan establishes a long-term 
management framework for NFS units. Within that framework, specific 
projects and activities are proposed, approved, and carried out 
depending on specific conditions and circumstances in the area at the 
time the Forest Service initiates a project. The U.S. Supreme Court 
described the nature of NFS plans in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club 
(523 U.S. 726, 737 (1998)) (Ohio Forestry), explaining that plans are 
``tools for Agency planning and management.'' The Court recognized that 
the provisions of such plans ``do not command anyone to do anything or 
to refrain from doing anything; they do not grant, withhold, or modify 
any formal legal license, power, or authority; they do not subject 
anyone to any civil or criminal liability; they create no legal rights 
or obligations'' (523 U.S. 733 (1998)).
    The Supreme Court also recognized the similar nature of plans for 
public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 124 S.Ct. 2373 
(2004) (SUWA). The Supreme Court again observed that ``land use plans 
are a preliminary step in the overall process of managing public 
lands--`designed to guide and control future management actions and the 
development of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for 
resources and uses.' '' In addition, ``a land use plan is not 
ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that implement the 
Agency's `project[ion]s.' '' Like a NFS land management plan, a BLM 
plan typically `` `is not a final implementation decision on actions 
which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions under 
specific provisions of law and regulations.' '' ``The BLM's * * * land 
use plans are normally not used to make site-specific implementation 
decisions.'' The Supreme Court acknowledged that plans are ``tools by 
which `present and future use is projected' [and] * * * generally a 
statement of priorities,'' 124 S.Ct. 2373 (2004).
    Under the proposed rule, plans will continue to be the strategic 
plans recognized by the Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry and SUWA. As 
described below, the five components of a plan under the proposed rule 
do not approve or prohibit projects and activities, but rather 
characterize general desired conditions and guidance for achieving

[[Page 48517]]

and maintaining those conditions. Typically, a plan will not approve or 
prohibit activities.
    On December 11, 1997, Secretary of Agriculture chartered the 
Committee of Scientists (COS) to provide scientific and technical 
advice on improvements that could be made in the planning process. The 
Forest Service examined the report by the COS, which said on page xxx 
of the synopsis of their COS Report: ``Collaborative planning begins by 
finding agreement in a common vision for the future conditions of the 
national forests and grasslands'' and said on page xxv of the synopsis 
of their COS report ``it also requires crafting strategies to achieve 
those conditions'' (Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 p.). The Forest 
Service also examined the strategic planning processes used by 
businesses and other government agencies. The Forest Service developed 
a three-part outline to organize plan components, and communicate their 
strategic nature. This outline is based on the plan components in the 
final 2005 planning rule and this proposed rule. The Forest Service 
describes the three parts, vision, strategy, and design criteria, in 
Foundations of Forest Planning, Volume 1--Preparing a Forest Plan. This 
document is available from the Technical Information for Planning 
Systems Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. Within this outline, the 
vision is expressed with descriptions of desired conditions. The 
strategy is crafted from three plan components: Suitability of areas, 
special areas, and objectives. Finally, the design criteria are 
developed using the guidelines plan component. The Forest Service 
directives for the 2005 planning rule (FSM 1921.1, FSH 1909.12, chapter 
10) recommend responsible officials use this three-part outline for 
plans. For example, the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Plan, 
Pre-Decisional Review Version was made available using that outline. 
See http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/projects/forest_revision/gr_plan_prv.shtml.
Planning documentation
    The proposed rule requires a plan document or set of documents 
(Sec.  219.7(a)(1)) to contain all information relevant to planning. A 
plan document or set of documents includes: (1) Evaluation reports; (2) 
all plan components, including applicable maps; (3) the plan approval 
document; (4) any relevant National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA) documents; (5) the monitoring program for the plan area; (6) any 
documents relating to the public involvement process in planning; (7) 
any documents relating to the adaptive management process (including 
EMS) applicable to the plan; and (8) documentation of how science was 
taken into account in the planning process (Sec.  219.11).
Plan Components
    This proposed rule uses the term ``plan components'' to describe 
the parts of a plan. How plans are characterized and how plan parts 
operate has evolved over the years. This evolution has occurred through 
an ongoing evaluation of the role plans play, how plans guide projects, 
how plans have or do not have on-the-ground impacts, how current plans 
enable or restrict responding to changing circumstances and science, 
and how more active and structured monitoring provides better 
information for monitoring, amending, or revising plans as needed. To a 
greater extent than before, plans under the proposed planning rule will 
be strategic and aspirational in nature, setting desired conditions, 
objectives, and guidance for subsequent on-the-ground projects or 
activities. Typically, the Forest Service can meaningfully evaluate 
environmental effects only when projects or activities developed to 
carry out desired conditions and objectives of the plan are proposed.
    The Agency has concluded that plans are more effective if they 
include more detailed descriptions of desired conditions and general 
guidance instead of long lists of prohibitive standards, guidelines, or 
suitability determinations developed in an attempt to anticipate and 
address every possible future project or activity and the potential on-
the-ground effects they could cause. Under this proposed rule, plans 
have five principal components (Sec.  219.7(a)(2)): Desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.
Desired Conditions
    Desired conditions are the social, economic, and ecological 
attributes toward which management of the land and resources of the 
plan area is directed. Desired conditions are long-term and 
aspirational, but are neither commitments nor final decisions on 
projects and activities. Desired conditions may be achievable only over 
a period longer than the 15 years covered by the plan.
    The increased attention to fire regimes provides an example of the 
role of ``desired conditions.'' The Forest Service has been challenged 
with unnatural fuel levels throughout NFS lands. Much of the western 
United States is currently in a severe drought cycle, and the reduction 
of fuel is necessary. To facilitate moving toward a healthier and more 
natural condition on the land, a plan could describe ecological 
conditions closer to those that would have occurred under natural fire 
regimes: For example, desired conditions for desired fuel loads, along 
with desired tree species, structure, distribution, and density.
    The Agency, working with the public, also may seek to achieve or 
maintain desired conditions for attributes, such as quietness, a sense 
of remoteness, or attributes of our cultural heritage. Desired 
conditions also have a key role to play for wildlife habitat 
management. During plan development, it is difficult to envision all 
the site-specific factors that can influence wildlife. For example, in 
the past, plans might have included standards prohibiting vegetation 
treatment during certain months or standards requiring a buffer for 
activities near the nest sites of birds sensitive to disturbance during 
nesting. However, topography, vegetation density, or other factors may 
render such prohibitions inadequate or unduly restrictive in specific 
situations. A thorough desired condition description of what a species 
needs is often more useful than a long list of prohibitions. Thorough 
desired condition descriptions are more useful because they provide 
context, starting point, and vision for project or activity design, 
when the site-specific conditions are known and when species 
conservation measures can be most meaningfully evaluated and 
effectively applied. Again, a thorough description of what the Agency, 
working with the public, wants to achieve ultimately on the ground is 
key to a strategic planning process.
Objectives
    Objectives are concise projections of intended outcomes of projects 
and activities to contribute to the maintenance or achievement of 
desired conditions. Objectives are measurable and time-specific and, 
like desired conditions, are aspirational, but are neither commitments 
nor final decisions approving or prohibiting projects and activities. 
The application of objectives is the same under the proposed rule as 
objectives were applied under the 1982 planning rule.
Guidelines
    Guidelines provide information and guidance for the design of 
projects and activities to help achieve objectives and desired 
conditions. Guidelines are not commitments or final decisions

[[Page 48518]]

approving or prohibiting projects and activities. Guidelines should 
provide the recommended technical and scientific specifications to be 
used in the design of projects and activities to contribute to the 
achievement of desired conditions and objectives. They are the guidance 
that a responsible official would normally apply to a project or 
activity unless there is a reason to vary. The project or activity 
design may vary from the guideline only if the design is an effective 
means of meeting the purpose of the guideline, to maintain or 
contribute to the attainment of relevant desired conditions and 
objectives. If the responsible official decides a variance from the 
guideline is necessary, the responsible official must document how the 
variance is an effective means of maintaining or contributing to the 
attainment of relevant desired conditions and objectives. However, a 
variance does not require an amendment to the plan.
    Section 6 of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) sets forth the requirements for development and 
maintenance of land management plans. Section 6(c) of 16 U.S.C. 1604 
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to incorporate the ``standards and 
guidelines'' required by that section into plans as soon as 
practicable. Section 6(g) directs the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations setting out the process for development and revision of 
plans and specifying the guidelines prescribed by that subsection. 
Subsection (g) requires the regulations to include guidelines for 
various things, such as land suitability identifications, diversity of 
plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of 
the land to meet overall multiple use objectives, and permitting 
harvest level increases, among other things. Subsection (g) does not 
specify that any particular standards must be included nor the form in 
which the regulations must provide guidelines. In the 1982 planning 
rule and the original plans, the terms ``standards and guidelines'' 
were usually used interchangeably. Some plan revisions have called 
mandatory provisions ``standards'' and discretionary direction with 
latitude for variance as ``guidelines.'' The 2000 planning rule did not 
use the term ``guidelines.'' In the 2000 planning rule, a provision 
labeled a standard could be either mandatory or discretionary depending 
upon its wording and the scope of its requirements.
    However, in line with and to emphasize the strategic nature of 
plans, this proposed rule proposes the term ``guidelines'' and does not 
include the term ``standards'' as a required plan component.
Suitability of Areas
    Suitability of areas is the identification of the general 
suitability of an area in an NFS unit for a variety of uses. Plans may 
identify areas as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with 
desired conditions and objectives for that area. Under this proposed 
rule, a plan may identify all uses that are generally suitable for a 
particular area or may identify the major or most prominent generally 
suitable uses. The identification of an area as generally suitable for 
a use or uses is neither a commitment nor a decision approving or 
prohibiting activities or uses. Responsible officials authorize the 
actual suitability of an area for a specific use or activity through 
project and activity decisionmaking.
    The identification of areas as generally suitable does not 
``allocate'' the area but identifies that desired conditions are 
compatible with that use. A future proposed project for a use not 
identified as a generally suitable use may be approved if appropriate 
based on site-specific analysis and if the proposed project is 
consistent with other plan components. The identification of an area as 
generally suitable for various uses is not a final decision compelling, 
approving, or prohibiting projects and activities. The identification 
of generally suitable land areas is guidance for future project or 
activity decision-making. A final determination of suitability of lands 
for resource uses is made through project and activity decisionmaking.
    Suitable use identification has evolved over time. Plans prepared 
under the 1982 planning rule often characterized suitable use 
identification as permanent restrictions on uses or permanent 
determinations that certain uses would be suitable in particular areas 
of the unit over the life of the plan. However, even under the 1982 
planning rule, these identifications were never truly permanent, unless 
they were statutory designations by Congress. Early in the Agency's 
experience with carrying out the 1982 planning rule the Forest Service 
realized that suitability identifications in a plan, like environmental 
analysis itself, would always require site-specific reviews when 
projects or activities were proposed. This site-specific review would 
verify that the proposed project or activity is compatible with desired 
conditions and objectives for that area or compatible with the other 
suitable uses for that area.
    For example, on lands identified as generally suitable for timber 
production, site-specific analysis of a proposal could identify a 
portion of that area as having poor soil or unstable slopes. The 
project design would then exclude such portions of the project area 
from timber harvest based on this site-specific analysis. Thus, the 
Forest Service never made a final determination of suitability until 
the project or activity analysis and decision process was completed. 
This proposed rule better characterizes the nature and purpose of 
suitability identification.
    An illustration of the effect of suitability identifications in the 
proposed rule may be helpful. Under this proposed rule, a plan may 
identify certain portions of an NFS unit as generally suitable for some 
uses. Example uses may include: Mechanized travel, motorized travel, 
non-commercial uses, non-mechanized travel, non-motorized travel, and 
wheeled motorized travel. Suppose for example that an area of an NFS 
unit is identified as generally suitable for wheeled motorized travel 
(or transportation development). Identification of an area in a plan as 
generally suitable for motorized travel does not mean that construction 
of any road is approved or is even inevitable. Rather, the 
identification merely provides guidance for where road construction may 
be compatible with desired conditions. The responsible official may 
approve proposed projects for construction of a road or roads only 
after appropriate project-specific National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) analysis and public involvement.
Special Areas
    Special areas are areas within the NFS designated for their unique 
or special characteristics. Under the proposed rule, these areas 
include wilderness, wild and scenic river corridors, and research 
natural areas. Special areas also may include smaller areas with unique 
botanical, geologic, or other natural feature that makes them special. 
Some of these areas are statutorily designated. Other areas may be 
designated through plan development, amendment, revision, or through a 
separate administrative process with appropriate NEPA analysis.
Monitoring
    The monitoring program is also a central element of adaptive 
management in this proposed rule because monitoring is the key to 
discovering how to make project-specific decisions consistent with 
desired conditions and

[[Page 48519]]

objectives and to discovering what ultimately may need to be changed in 
a plan. Experience has shown that while some monitoring programs and 
specific monitoring techniques have been adequate to evaluate the need 
for changes in plans of national forests, grasslands, prairie, or other 
comparable administrative units over time, some have not. New uses, 
such as mountain biking, were not contemplated 25 years ago. Noxious 
weeds can infest a previously pristine landscape. New methods of 
measuring water quality or wildlife habitat can be developed. 
Therefore, a unit's monitoring program must be readily adaptable. Most 
plans revised under the 1982 planning rule, in fact, have removed most 
monitoring operational details from the plans themselves to allow for 
quicker changes to monitoring activities when needed.
    The proposed rule allows the monitoring program to be changed with 
administrative corrections, instead of amendments, to more quickly 
reflect the best available science and account for unanticipated 
changes in conditions. The responsible official will notify the public 
of changes in monitoring programs, and the responsible official can 
involve the public in a variety of ways to develop program changes.
Streamlining the Planning Rule and Use of the Forest Service Directive 
System
    This proposed rule places the procedural and technical details to 
carry out the NFMA in the Forest Service Directive System (Forest 
Service directives). Forest Service directives are the primary basis 
for the Forest Service's internal management of all its programs and 
the primary source of administrative direction to Forest Service 
employees. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains legal authorities, 
objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance 
needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and 
primary staff to plan and execute programs and activities. The Forest 
Service Handbook (FSH) is the principal source of specialized guidance 
and instruction for carrying out the policies, objectives, and 
responsibilities contained in the FSM. The Forest Service is required 
by section 14 of NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1612(a) to provide adequate notice and 
opportunity to comment on the formulation of standards, criteria, and 
guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs. Forest Service 
regulations at 36 CFR part 216 define standards, criteria, and 
guidelines as those ``written policies, instructions and orders, 
originated by the Forest Service and issued in the Forest Service 
Manual * * *.''
    The Forest Service developed directives for the enjoined 2005 rule 
that set forth the legal authorities, objectives, policy, 
responsibilities, direction, and overall guidance that Forest Service 
line officers, Agency employees, and others would need to use that 
rule. Directives in Forest Service Manuals (FSMs) 1900 and 1920 and 
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapters zero code, 10, 20, 30, 
40, 50, 60 and 80 were issued on January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5124). A 
directive to FSM 1330 was issued on March 3, 2006 (71 FR 10956). A 
directive to FSH 1909.12, chapter 70 was issued on January 31, 2007 (72 
FR 4478). If the United States Department of Agriculture (Department) 
promulgates the proposed rule as final, the Agency would carry out this 
rule using the current directives, modified as necessary to account for 
changes because of this rulemaking. Directives are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index5.html.

 Plans Should Be Adaptive and Based on Current Information and 
Science

    This proposed rule requires that the responsible official take into 
account the best available science (Sec.  219.11) and specifies the 
process for taking science into account. Under this proposed rule, 
science, while only one aspect of decisionmaking, is a significant 
source of information for the responsible official. When making 
decisions, the responsible official also considers public input, 
competing use demands, budget projections, and many other factors.
    Under the 1982 planning rule, planning teams were required to 
``integrate knowledge of the physical, biological, economic and social 
sciences, and the environmental design arts in the planning process'' 
(Sec.  219.5(a) of 1982 planning rule). Therefore, the Agency has been 
under an obligation to take the best available science into account for 
decades. The addition of Sec.  219.11 specifies provisions to make 
plain what has been part of good practice.
    The proposed rule states that the responsible official may use 
independent peer reviews, science advisory boards, or other appropriate 
review methods to evaluate the application of science used in the 
planning process. Forest Service directives (FSH 1909.12, chapter 40) 
set forth specific procedures for conducting science reviews.
    The responsible official must take into account the best available 
science, and document in the plan that science was considered, 
correctly interpreted, appropriately applied, and evaluate and disclose 
incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and 
risk. This evaluation and disclosure of uncertainty and risk provide a 
crosscheck for appropriate interpretation of science and help clarify 
the limitations of the information base for the plan.

 Land Management Planning Should Involve the Public

    The proposed rule clearly expresses the Agency's emphasis on public 
involvement and collaboration. The proposed rule clarifies requirements 
about public involvement by consolidating provisions on consultation 
with interested individuals and organizations, State and local 
governments, Federal agencies, and federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    The Agency expects that, compared with the 1982 planning rule, this 
proposed rule will allow more members of the public to be more 
effectively engaged because development of a plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision will be simpler, more transparent, and faster. The public 
will have the opportunity to engage collaboratively in the development, 
amendment, or revision of a plan and in the development of the 
monitoring program. In addition, the public will have an opportunity to 
comment on a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, and to object 
prior to approval if concerns remain.
    The proposed rule requires opportunities for public involvement in 
the unit's land management planning process (Sec.  219.9) and in 
monitoring (Sec.  219.6(b)(3)). One of the more important changes in 
public involvement is how the Forest Service will work with the public 
to collaboratively develop, amend, or revise a plan.
    The Agency has lots of experience with the type of collaboration 
envisioned under the proposed rule. Collaboration will vary by 
administrative unit by necessity to deal with local, regional, and 
national needs, interests, and values. In addition, the process must 
take into account the capability for collaboration of these 
stakeholders and Forest Service personnel. There are many ways to 
design a collaborative process including open public meetings, 
landscape-based, issue-based, technical reviews, issue presentations, 
joint fact finding, web-based interactions, and various other types of 
communication.
    For instance, from the Forest Service perspective, the 
collaboration effort on

[[Page 48520]]

the White Mountain National Forest, located in New Hampshire and Maine, 
was successful. The collaboration effort began in 1997 and their 
planning effort was guided by the 1982 planning regulations in effect 
at that time. The national forest used a wide variety of public 
involvement, collaboration, and communication methods during the eight 
years they worked on revising their plan, including outreach meetings; 
numerous public planning meetings; monthly meetings of geographically 
based local planning groups; and meetings and conversations with tribal 
officials, local governments, and private individuals and 
organizations. Through these meetings, members of the public were given 
many opportunities to interact with the Agency's planning team and 
provide input on future management of the national forest. 
Collaboration occurred throughout the development of the revised plan 
and environmental impact statement, and was in addition to public 
comment periods required by the 1982 planning rule. These efforts 
culminated with the approval of a revised forest plan in September 
2005. The administrative appeal period closed 90 days later without a 
single appeal being filed, surely an indicator of successful 
collaboration.
    Before the injunction against the 2005 planning rule, the Agency 
had some opportunities to use the public participation provisions of 
that rule. A survey of several of the Forest Service units that have 
conducted collaboration activities under the 2005 planning rule 
indicates potential for successful collaboration under the proposed 
rule. For instance, the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands 
(Grasslands) applied collaborative processes in four local communities. 
Invited researchers and professors at regional universities 
participated in two scientific reviews of the plan and related 
assessments and monitoring questions. The Grasslands reached out to and 
shared information with many local stakeholders including grazing 
associations, environmental groups, federal, state, and local 
government agencies, and others. Some of the media included postcards, 
newsletters, and posters, newspapers, and local radio stations. They 
collaborated diligently with outside groups on the Plan's monitoring 
questions and performance measures. To share the latest information 
about the plan revision, processes used during plan development, and 
the associated documents supporting the plan, the Grasslands planning 
team also kept the plan revision Web site current.
    The Grasslands' first round of public meetings used the 
collaborative tools of structured group exercises, questionnaires, open 
houses, individual questions-and-answers, and group discussions. From 
this the planning team learned what interested parties believed were 
the main topics to deal with and what they would like the Grasslands to 
look like in the future.
    The Grasslands' second round of public meetings centered on the 
proposed plan, which was released in December 2005. In this second 
round, each of several small groups focused on a designated section of 
the proposed plan and engaged in discussion with Forest Service and 
third party facilitators to develop and suggest changes they would like 
to make to the proposed plan. This round focused on whether the 
proposed plan's components embodied the public's expressed desires. 
This round also engaged the public in evaluating the proposed plans' 
monitoring questions and performance measures, which had been developed 
in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy. Two main views were 
represented in the public meetings and comments. Some respondents felt 
their traditional lifestyle was threatened by economic conditions, 
drought, government interference, and the growing population of 
Colorado's Front Range. Other people advocated quiet-use recreation and 
habitat and wildlife protection. From the Forest Service perspective, 
collaboration provided a safe environment where these diverse groups 
could express differing opinions, share ideas, and begin building 
relationships. One result was improved relations, understanding, 
communication, and a confidence about working together. Based on Forest 
Service interpretation of feedback forms, participants were pleased 
with the approach used and with the mixed working group exercises. 
Another important benefit for Agency employees was the opportunity to 
improve their own collaboration skills.
    The Forest Service has found that the traditional way of developing 
plan alternatives under the 1982 planning rule has often had an adverse 
effect on the planning process. The traditional approach of developing 
and choosing among discrete alternatives that are carried throughout 
the entire planning process often proves divisive, because it often 
maintains adversarial positions, rather than helping people seek common 
ground. To overcome this tendency, the proposed rule features an 
iterative approach to planning. The Agency recognizes that people have 
many different ideas about how NFS lands should be managed. 
Furthermore, a plan could potentially include a variety of different 
desired conditions, objectives, suitable uses, guidelines, and special 
area designations. The Agency also recognizes that the public should be 
involved in determining what plan components should be. Therefore, the 
proposed rule emphasizes participation and collaboration with the 
public at all stages of plan development, plan amendment, or plan 
revision.
    The responsible official and the public will review the various 
options to change the plan, and together they will successively narrow 
potential plan component options until a proposed plan is developed. 
However, the proposed rule also recognizes that it is not always 
possible or desirable to present only one proposed plan for public 
comment and, therefore, the responsible official can develop options to 
the proposed plan for public comment when appropriate.
    The Forest Service will ensure the process for plan development 
will be transparent to the public. Key steps in development of the 
proposed plan will be documented in the plan document or set of 
documents, which will be available to the public. While the proposed 
rule requires the responsible official to collaborate with the public 
and that a record of that collaboration be kept, it does not require 
in-depth social, economic, or ecological analysis of every potential 
option for a plan. In-depth analysis, documented in an evaluation 
report, is required only for the proposed plan and the options that 
remain after public collaboration.
    The plan approved by the responsible official will be a result of 
public participation and collaboration that will have included 
consideration of a variety of different ways to manage a national 
forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit. 
Although the responsible official will continue to have the 
responsibility and the authority to make the final decision, the 
proposed plans that the Forest Service will present for public comment 
will be plans jointly and collaboratively developed with the public. 
The Agency hopes this approach to plan development will serve to 
encourage people to work together to understand each other and find 
common solutions to the important and critical planning issues the 
Agency faces. In summary, this proposed rule emphasizes collaboration 
and offers abundant opportunities for more effective public 
involvement.

[[Page 48521]]

 Plans Should Guide Sustainable Management of NFS Lands

    As did the 2000 planning rule, this proposed rule makes 
sustainability the overall goal for NFS planning. Managing NFS lands 
for sustainability of their renewable resources meets the Multiple Use 
and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) mandate that the Secretary 
develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national 
forests for multiple use and sustained yield (16 U.S.C. 529). Managing 
for sustainability will provide for management of the various renewable 
resources without impairment of the productivity of the land, as 
required by the MUSYA. Sustaining the productivity of the land and its 
renewable resources means meeting present needs without compromising 
the ability of those lands and resources to meet the needs of future 
generations. The proposed rule is identical to the 2005 planning rule 
for social, economic, and ecological sustainability requirements.
    NFMA requires guidelines for plans that provide for diversity of 
plant and animal communities (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)) based on the 
suitability and capability of the land area to meet overall multiple-
use objectives. Almost 30 years after passage of the NFMA, the concepts 
of biological diversity at different spatial and temporal scales, 
including genetic diversity, species diversity, structural diversity, 
and functional diversity have been substantially refined and developed. 
Today, the Agency has a vast array of methods available to provide for 
diversity. The complexity of biological diversity often results in a 
correspondingly complicated array of concepts, measures, and values 
from several scientific disciplines.
    The 2002 proposed rule asked for comments on an ecosystem approach 
(67 FR 72770, December 6, 2002). The Agency also hosted a workshop to 
arrange an opportunity for public discussion of the ecosystem approach 
and for identification of other ideas on how best to meet the statutory 
diversity requirement. Both in public comments and during the workshop, 
people expressed an extremely wide range of opinions. The Agency found 
these comments useful in developing a scientifically credible and 
realistic approach for this proposed rule and in the development of 
Forest Service directives that meet legal requirements and the Agency's 
stewardship responsibilities.
    In common with 2002 proposed rule and the 2000 planning rule, the 
proposed rule approaches diversity at two levels of ecological 
organization: The ecosystem level and the species level. This concept 
has considerable support among scientists, has already been tested by a 
number of NFS administrative units developing or revising plans under 
the 1982 planning rule, and the now enjoined 2005 planning rule.
    The Agency developed the proposed rule based on the following 
concepts related to diversity:
    First, maintenance of the diversity of plant and animal communities 
starts with an ecosystem approach. In an ecosystem approach, the plan 
will provide a framework for maintaining and restoring ecosystem 
conditions necessary to conserve most species.
    Second, where the responsible official determines that the 
ecosystem approach alone does not provide an adequate framework for 
maintaining and restoring conditions to support specific federally 
listed threatened or endangered species, species-of-concern, and 
species-of-interest, the plan must include additional provisions for 
these species. This proposed rule defines species-of-concern as those 
species for which the responsible official determines that continued 
existence is a concern and listing under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) may become necessary. This proposed rule defines species-of-
interest as those species for which the responsible official determines 
that management actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve 
ecological or other multiple-use objectives. The Forest Service 
directive (FSH 1909.12, section 43.22) identifies lists of species 
developed by objective and scientifically credible third parties, 
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/).
    Third, Agency managers should concentrate their efforts on 
contributing to sustaining species where Forest Service has the 
authority and capability to carry out management activities that may 
affect species rather than where the cause of species decline is 
outside the limits of Agency authority or the capability of the plan 
area.
    Fourth, the presence of all native and desired non-native species 
in a plan area is important. However, the responsible official should 
have the flexibility to determine the degree of conservation to be 
provided for the species that are not in danger of ESA listing, to 
better balance the various multiple uses, including the often-competing 
needs of different species themselves.
    Fifth, the planning framework should provide measures for 
accounting for progress toward ecosystem and species diversity goals. 
The proposed rule and the Forest Service directives provide a framework 
within which efforts to maintain and restore species will be monitored. 
Progress toward desired conditions and objectives will be monitored and 
the results made available to the public. The adaptive management 
process, which includes monitoring and feedback, will help maintain and 
improve diversity.
    The proposed rule is less detailed than 2002 proposed rule or the 
2000 planning rule with respect to specific ecosystem analysis 
requirements. After reviewing public comments, and after consideration 
of the Forest Service's experience with planning over the past 25 
years, the Agency concluded that such detail about analysis is more 
properly included in the Forest Service directives. These directives 
can be more extensive and can be more easily updated as the Agency 
learns how to improve its analytic processes and as new scientific 
concepts and new technological capabilities become available.
    The Forest Service developed directives for the enjoined 2005 rule 
that set forth the overall guidance that Forest Service employees would 
need to use that rule. The Forest Service directives (FSM 1921.7, FSH 
1909.12, chapter 40) include appropriate analysis processes. The Agency 
believes it is more appropriate to put specific procedural analytical 
requirements in the Forest Service directives rather than in the rule 
itself so that the analytical procedures can be changed more easily if 
new and better techniques emerge.
    The proposed rule focuses on ecosystem diversity as the primary 
means of providing for the diversity of plant and animal communities. 
The proposed rule does not explicitly require analysis of ecosystem 
characteristics, natural variation under historic disturbance regimes, 
or spatial scales. However, guidance on appropriate analysis is 
included in the Forest Service directives (FSM 1921.7, FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 40).
    Another point in common between this proposed rule and 2002 
proposed rule is the concept that the more effective the ecosystem 
management guidance is in sustaining species habitat, the less need 
there is for analysis and planning at the species level of ecological 
organization. This proposed rule recognizes that some additional 
analysis and additional plan provisions may be needed for some species. 
It is the Agency's expectation that in developing the plan components, 
especially the desired conditions, that

[[Page 48522]]

plans will supply sufficient detail for characteristics of both 
ecosystem diversity and species diversity to provide the ecological 
conditions necessary to conserve and recover species and prevent the 
listing of at-risk species. We will collaborate with the ESA regulatory 
agencies in the development of these plan components for listed 
species. However, the proposed rule does not include a requirement to 
provide for viable populations of plant and animal species. Such a 
requirement had previously been included in both the 1982 planning rule 
and the 2000 planning rule.
    The species viability requirement was not proposed for several 
reasons:
    First, the experience of the Forest Service under the 1982 planning 
rule has been that ensuring species viability is not always possible. 
For example, viability of some species on NFS lands may not be 
achievable because of species-specific distribution patterns (such as a 
species on the extreme and fluctuating edge of its natural range), or 
when the reasons for species decline are due to factors outside the 
control of the Agency (such as habitat alteration in South America 
causing a decline of some Neotropical birds), or when the land lacks 
the capability to support species (such as a drought affecting fish 
habitat).
    Second, the number of recognized species present on the units of 
the NFS is very large. It is clearly impractical to analyze all 
species, and previous attempts to analyze the full suite of species via 
groups, surrogates, and representatives have had mixed success in 
practice.
    Third, focus on the viability requirement has often diverted 
attention and resources away from an ecosystem approach to land 
management that, in the Agency's view, is the most efficient and 
effective way to manage for the broadest range of species with the 
limited resources available for the task.
    The ecosystem approach is consistent with the statute. NFMA 
requires the Agency to provide for diversity of plant and animal 
communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific 
land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.
    Requirements for species population monitoring are not included in 
this proposed rule. Population data are difficult to obtain and 
evaluate because there are so many factors outside the control of the 
Forest Service that affect populations. The Agency believes that it is 
best to focus the Agency's monitoring program on habitat on NFS land 
where the Agency can adjust management to meet the needs of certain 
species. Desired conditions are often a focus of the monitoring 
program. The Agency will identify species-of-concern and species-of-
interest (Sec.  219.16). Where ecological conditions for these species 
are identified as desired conditions, the habitat could be monitored to 
assist in avoiding future listing of these species. However, the 
proposed rule does not preclude population monitoring. Plans may 
include population monitoring as appropriate.
    In summary, in compliance with NFMA, the ecological sustainability 
provisions in the proposed rule require the foundation of the plan to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. The proposed 
rule requires a complementary ecosystem and species diversity approach 
for ecological sustainability. The proposed rule at Sec.  219.7(a)(2) 
establishes requirements for developing plan components to guide 
projects and activities. All parts of the land management framework, 
including plan components, monitoring, and plan adjustment, are 
designed to work together to contribute to sustainability. This 
framework requires the responsible officials to act and empowers them 
to tailor the plan to sustainability needs and conditions.

 Environmental Management Systems and Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management and Land Management Planning
    Plans must adapt to ever-changing conditions. Agency policy may 
change, new laws may be enacted, or court decisions can change 
interpretation of existing laws. Fires, invasive species, or outbreaks 
of insects or disease can substantially change environmental 
conditions. Changes in market conditions or public values may shift the 
demand for specific goods and services. Changes in future climate 
elements such as absolute or relative humidity, clouds and sky 
conditions, precipitation, snow depth, snowfall, soil temperature and 
moisture, solar radiation, temperature, wind speed and direction may 
influence the structure, function, and productivity of forest and 
related ecosystems. Scientific findings can change our understanding of 
the environment and of the effects of specific management activities. 
Better monitoring techniques or ways to achieve objectives may be 
found. Plans must reflect the fact that ecological conditions are 
dynamic and that change and uncertainty are inevitable. Consequently, 
plans must allow for quick response to these ever-changing conditions.
    The National Association of University Forest Resources Programs 
and others commented on the 2002 proposed rule about the importance, 
from the scientific perspective, of using adaptive management when 
dealing with complex ecosystems. In 1999, the Committee of Scientists 
(COS) developed recommendations that strongly encouraged the use of 
adaptive management. The COS recommended placing a high priority on 
developing ongoing analyses that are based on monitoring to continually 
adjust or change land management planning decisions. In response to 
these comments and recommendations to place a greater emphasis on and 
commit to adaptive management, the Agency has chosen to rely on 
environmental management systems (EMS) to support the land management 
framework.
    The adaptive management approach supported by an EMS includes 
plans, comprehensive evaluations, monitoring, evaluation, and research. 
Adaptive management requires careful coordination of the work performed 
through these programs. It does not require equal emphases among these 
various programs, but rather requires organizational learning, an 
active pursuit of best available scientific information, evaluation and 
disclosure of uncertainties and risks about scientific information, and 
a response to change.
    A plan with a comprehensive evaluation starts the adaptive 
management cycle. Managers then pursue ways to achieve desired 
conditions and objectives described in the plan. The comprehensive 
evaluation may describe the risks and uncertainties associated with 
carrying out projects and activities under the plan. Managers 
prioritize risks and develop strategies to control them.
    Monitoring and evaluations check for status and change across the 
administrative unit. Monitoring results may show that the desired 
conditions are not being achieved through projects. This may trigger 
changes in the design of future projects to reach desired conditions. 
Alternatively, monitoring results may lead to conclusions that the plan 
should be changed through a plan amendment.
    Research is an important part of adaptive management. Through 
experimentation and long-term ecological studies, researchers 
investigate cause and effect relationships of management practices on 
the environment. Experiments test hypotheses and researchers develop 
reliable knowledge about effects of management practices. The new

[[Page 48523]]

information may be used to amend plans, amend directives, or change 
project level work.
Land Management Plans, Adaptive Management, and EMS
    This proposed rule requires the responsible official to establish 
an EMS based on the international consensus standard published by the 
International Organization for Standardization as ``ISO 14001: 
Environmental Management Systems--Specification With Guidance For Use'' 
(ISO 14001:2004). The Agency is developing a national EMS framework 
that will include aspects and components for sustainable consumption 
and land management that will be included in each unit EMS. Each unit 
will also be required to identify any additional local aspects and 
components that will be added to the local unit EMS. The Forest Service 
would design and implement the national framework elements and the 
local unit EMS to enable the Forest Service to meet its legal 
obligations more efficiently by providing a nationally consistent 
approach to adaptive management.
    The Agency's approach to EMS under the proposed rule incorporates 
lessons learned from the fiscal year (FY) 2006 EMS pilot efforts. These 
pilot efforts involved all Forest Service regions and 18 national 
forests and grasslands. The pilot efforts revealed that a forest-by-
forest approach to EMS: (1) Creates many redundancies, (2) burdens 
field units with unnecessary duplicative work, (3) introduces 
inconsistencies, and (4) makes it difficult to assess regional and 
national trends emerging from EMS efforts because there is no 
standardization between units. Because of these problems, the Forest 
Service now proposes to develop a single, national EMS framework that 
will serve as the basis for environmental improvement on each unit of 
the National Forest System (NFS) and as the basis for the EMS to be 
established on each unit.
    The national EMS framework includes three focus areas: Sustainable 
consumption, land management, and local. The sustainable consumption 
focus area concentrates on the consumption of resources and related 
environmental impacts associated with the internal operations of the 
Forest Service. This focus area is the Agency's way to achieve the 
goals of Executive Order 13423, ``Strengthening Federal Environmental, 
Energy, and Transportation Management.'' The sustainable consumption 
focus area applies to items such as increasing energy efficiency, 
reducing the use of petroleum in fleets, and improving waste prevention 
and recycling programs. The activities covered under this focus area 
include aspects and components that will be addressed in each local 
unit EMS.
    The land management focus area applies to three land management 
activities applicable to all national forests and grasslands. A review 
of the 2006 EMS pilot program and review of the Agency's Strategic Plan 
found each local unit EMS will at a minimum include: (1) Vegetation 
management, (2) wildland fire management, and (3) transportation system 
management as significant aspects. The uniform approach to sustainable 
consumption and land management aspects and components in each local 
unit EMS will enable the Forest Service to track progress in achieving 
the objectives of the Forest Service Strategic Plan and unit land 
management plans and supply a feedback loop that will help improve the 
Agency's response when goals and objectives are not being met.
    The local focus area allows local unit EMS to include aspects and 
components specific to an individual unit's environmental conditions 
and programs. Each Forest Service unit's EMS will likely differ with 
respect to the local focus area as opposed to the nationally 
standardized sustainable consumption and land management focus areas.
    Each administrative unit will implement their own EMS, which 
includes the aspects and components developed under the sustainable 
consumption and land management focus areas of the national EMS 
framework. Additionally, each unit will either include additional local 
aspects and components to the unit EMS or determine that the national 
aspects and components are sufficient to meet local needs. Each unit 
will monitor and collect data for all components of its EMS. Data 
collected and reviewed at the unit level for the sustainable 
consumption and land management focus areas will be to a national 
standard, providing the ability to aggregate this information at the 
regional and national levels. The local data, as well as information 
developed under the national framework, will inform future decisions in 
the adaptive EMS cycle on the local unit.
    The national EMS framework will use a systematic approach to 
identify and manage environmental conditions and obligations to achieve 
improved performance and environmental protection. The national EMS 
framework will facilitate the identification of and help prioritize 
environmental conditions; set objectives in light of Congressional, 
Agency, and public goals; document procedures and practices to achieve 
those objectives; and monitor and measure environmental conditions to 
track performance and verify that objectives are being met. Agency 
management personnel will regularly review performance, and information 
about environmental conditions will be regularly updated to improve 
environmental performance continually.
    By systematically collecting and updating information about 
environmental conditions and practices (for example, through 
monitoring, measurement, research, and public input), the EMS will 
support a foundation for effective adaptive management, plan 
amendments, or even changing specific project or work practices. The 
Agency expects that, whenever possible, EMS and plan documentation will 
be coordinated and integrated to avoid unnecessary duplication.
    Under the proposed rule and to conform to the ISO standard, the 
implementation of ISO 14001 in NFS administrative units will have to 
reflect the legal and other obligations of the Agency, as well as the 
environmental conditions and issues relevant to land management, such 
as sustainability and long-term issues, including cumulative effects.
    The Agency's use of EMS will more efficiently meet legal 
obligations, will increase the transparency of Agency operations, and 
will enhance the Agency's ability to identify and respond to public 
input. Creating a transparent and consistent framework that describes 
how natural resources on administrative units are managed will improve 
the public's ability to participate more effectively in land 
management. The units' EMS will not replace any legal obligations that 
the Agency has under NFMA, MUSYA, NEPA, or any other statute, nor will 
the EMS diminish the public's ability to participate in the land 
management process or its rights under any law. To the contrary, use of 
EMS will significantly improve the public's ability to participate 
effectively in land management planning by providing a record of the 
Agency's efforts to continuously improve its environmental performance.
    The Agency chose ISO 14001 as the EMS model for several reasons. 
First, it is the most commonly used EMS model in the United States and 
around the world. This will make it easier to implement and understand 
(internally and externally) because there is a significant knowledge 
and experience

[[Page 48524]]

base regarding ISO 14001. Second, the National Technology and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal 
agencies use or adopt applicable national or international consensus 
standards wherever possible, in lieu of creating proprietary or unique 
standards. The NTAA's policy of encouraging Federal agencies to adopt 
tested and well-accepted standards, rather than reinventing-the-wheel, 
clearly applies to this situation where there is a ready-made 
international and national EMS consensus standard (through the American 
National Standards Institute) that has already been successfully 
implemented for almost a decade. Third, it has been a long-standing 
policy that Federal agencies establish and implement EMSs to improve 
environmental performance. For example, Executive Order 13148 issued 
April 21, 2000 (E.O. 13148), titled Greening the Government Through 
Leadership in Environmental Management; April 1, 2002, Memorandum from 
the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget to the heads of all Federal 
agencies; Executive Order 13423 issued January 24, 2007 (E.O. 13423) 
titled Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation 
Management. Federal agencies that have implemented EMS in response to 
the E.O. 13148 and the E.O. 13423 have typically used ISO 14001 as 
their model.
    Several administrative units established their EMS as a part of the 
pilot effort before adoption of a consistent national approach. Those 
administrative units' EMS's include locally unique significant aspects 
and components as well as the aspects and components they have in 
common with other units. Those aspects and components they have in 
common with other units are similar to the aspects and components being 
developed under the sustainable consumption and land management focus 
areas of the national EMS framework. Because an EMS must include 
procedures to upload new requirements, these administrative units have 
procedures to transition to the requirements developed under the 
national EMS sustainable consumption and land management focus areas 
and they will subsequently conform to the national framework. 
Therefore, there would not be a transition period under Sec.  219.14(b) 
for the administrative units that have completed EMS's under Sec.  
219.5.
    Administrative units that do not have an EMS will satisfy the 
requirement in Sec.  219.5 after they develop an EMS that implements 
the national framework and either adds significant aspects and 
components under the local focus area or determine that the national 
framework focus areas sufficiently address the local unit's significant 
aspects and components.

 National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest 
Management Act Planning

    The application of NEPA to the planning process as identified in 
this proposed rule is the next iterative step in an evolution that 
began with the promulgation of the 1979 planning rule, revised in 1982. 
In developing the NEPA provisions of this proposed rule, the Agency 
took into account: (1) The nature of the five plan components under 
this proposed rule; (2) the experience the Agency has gained over the 
past 25 years from developing, amending, and revising plans; (3) the 
requirements of NEPA and NFMA; (4) the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations; and (5) the comments by the Supreme Court in Ohio 
Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance about the nature of plans themselves.
    The 1979 planning rule required an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) for development of plans, significant amendments, and revisions. 
This requirement continued in the revised rule adopted in 1982. At the 
time, the Forest Service believed that the NEPA document prepared for a 
plan would suffice for making most project-level decisions. However, 
the Agency came to understand that this approach to complying with NEPA 
was impractical, inefficient, sometimes inaccurate, and not helpful 
with the plan decisionmaking process. Over the course of implementing 
NFMA during the past 25 years, the Agency has concluded that 
environmental effects of projects and activities cannot be meaningfully 
evaluated without knowledge of the specific timing and location of the 
projects and activities.
    At the time of plan approval, the Forest Service does not have 
detailed information about what projects and activities will be 
proposed over the 15-year life of a plan, how many projects will be 
approved, where they will be located, or how they will be designed. At 
the point of plan approval, the Forest Service can only speculate about 
the projects that may be proposed and budgeted, or the natural events, 
such as fire, flood, insects, and disease that may occur making 
unanticipated projects necessary or forcing changes in the projects and 
the effects of projects that were contemplated. Indeed, the Forest 
Service has learned that over the 15-year life of a plan it can only 
expect the unexpected.
    In the course of completing NEPA analysis on the first generation 
of NFMA plans, the Forest Service also became more aware of the 
difficulties of scale created by the size of the national forests and 
grasslands. The National Forest System includes 193 million acres, and 
individual planning units, such as the Tongass National Forest, may be 
as large as 17 million acres. These vast landscapes contain an enormous 
variety of different ecosystems, which will respond differently to the 
same management practices. As the Committee of Scientists (COS) said on 
page 26 of the Committee of Scientists Report:

    Because of the wide variation in site-specific practices and 
local environmental conditions (e.g., vegetation type, topography, 
geology, and soils) across a given national forest or rangeland, the 
direct and indirect effects of management practices may not always 
be well understood or easily predicted. (Committee of Scientists 
Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
DC 193 p.)

    The result is that it is usually infeasible to do environmental 
analysis for a national forest as a whole that is sufficiently site-
specific to allow projects to be carried out without further detailed 
NEPA analysis after the plan has been approved.
    The Agency has found itself preparing much more extensive NEPA 
documentation for projects than it had anticipated when it adopted the 
1979 and 1982 planning rules. Moreover, the extensive changes to 
conditions in the plan area that occurred during the 15-year life of 
each plan made it increasingly impractical to tier project-level NEPA 
documentation to the plan EIS. The requirements of the 1979 and 1982 
planning rules created an inefficient and ineffective system for 
complying with NEPA.
    The 2000 planning rule furthered the existing presumption of 
requiring an EIS for plan development or revision, notwithstanding 
concerns raised by the COS. Secretary Glickman named the COS on 
December 11, 1997. The charter for the COS stated that the Committee's 
purpose was to provide scientific and technical advice to the Secretary 
of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that 
can be made in the National Forest System Land and Resource Management 
Planning Process.
    The COS said, on page 117 of the Committee of Scientists Report:


[[Page 48525]]


    Perhaps the most difficult problem is that the current EA/EIS 
process assumes a one-time decision. The very essence of small-
landscape planning is an adaptive management approach, based upon 
monitoring and learning. Although small-landscape planning can more 
readily do real-time cumulative effects analysis * * *, this kind of 
analysis is difficult to integrate with a one-time decision 
approach. Developing a decision disclosure and review process that 
is ongoing and uses monitoring information to adjust or change 
treatments and activities will need to be a high priority * * *. 
(Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 p.)

    In addition to concern about timely and accurate disclosure of 
environmental effects, the Agency's experience with planning has 
demonstrated the need to clarify what plans do. Neither the 1982 nor 
the 2000 planning rule clearly described or contrasted the differences 
between the effects of plans and the effects of projects and 
activities. This has been confusing to the public and Agency employees. 
As discussed previously in the guidelines and the suitability 
discussions, plan components have not been applied or interpreted 
consistently throughout the Agency and often have been characterized as 
the functional equivalent of final project-level decisions or actions, 
rather than guidance for projects and activities over time.
    This proposed rule clarifies that plan components will be strategic 
rather than prescriptive, absent extraordinary circumstances. Plans 
will describe the desired social, economic, and ecological conditions 
for a national forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable 
administrative unit. Plan objectives, guidelines, suitable uses, and 
special area identifications will be designed to help achieve the 
desired conditions. While plans will identify the general suitability 
of lands for various uses, they typically will not approve projects or 
activities with accompanying environmental effects. Decisions approving 
projects or activities that have environmental effects that can be 
meaningfully evaluated will typically be made subsequent to the plan. 
Plans under the proposed rule will describe desired conditions and 
objectives for the plan area, and provide guidance for future 
decisionmaking. Consistent with the nature of plans recognized by the 
Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, (523 U.S. 726, 737 
(1998)) (Ohio Forestry), plan components under this proposed rule 
typically will not include proposals for actions that approve projects 
and activities, or that command anyone to refrain from undertaking 
projects and activities, or that grant, withhold or modify contracts, 
permits or other formal legal instruments. Typically, plan components 
under this proposed rule will not be linked in a cause-effect 
relationship over time and within a geographic area to effects on the 
human environment.
    Notwithstanding a plan's strategic nature, Agency approval of a 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is a Federal action under the 
CEQ regulations. Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, an EIS is required 
for every report or recommendation on proposals for legislation and 
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 
human environment (16 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1502.3). CEQ 
regulations explain that ``Federal actions'' generally tend to fall 
within several categories. Although these categories include adoption 
of formal Agency plans within the definition of ``federal action,'' not 
all federal actions are major federal actions significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment. Plans under this proposed rule, 
as evidenced by their five components, are strategic and aspirational 
in nature. As previously explained, plans under this proposed rule 
normally will not include decisions with on-the-ground effects that can 
be meaningfully evaluated.
    However, approval of parts of such actions may have environmental 
effects in some extraordinary circumstances. For example, plans 
developed under the 1982 planning rule sometimes included specific 
final decisions (such as oil and gas leasing under 36 CFR 228.102(d)) 
or decisions establishing specific prohibitions (such as decisions 
prohibiting motorized vehicles in certain areas). In some extraordinary 
circumstances, an amendment or revision might include a decision 
approving a project to thin certain trees to reduce fire hazards, which 
might have environmental effects that could be significant. In such 
cases, the Agency would consider these separately under Forest Service 
NEPA procedures, and further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS 
may be appropriate.
    Plan components provide a strategic framework and guidance--they 
typically will not authorize or compel changes to the existing 
environment. Achieving desired conditions depends on future management 
decisions that will help effect a change toward or maintain these 
desired conditions over time. Thus, without a proposal for action that 
approves projects and activities, or that commands anyone to refrain 
from undertaking projects and activities, or that grants, withholds or 
modifies contracts, permits or other formal legal instruments, the plan 
components cannot be linked in a cause-effect relationship over time 
and within the geographic area to effects on air quality; threatened 
and endangered species; significant scientific, cultural, and historic 
resources; water quality; nor other resources. Therefore, the plan 
components typically will not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment.
    NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine how to 
comply with NEPA during the course of NFMA planning. Section 106(g)(1) 
of NFMA directs the Secretary to specify in land management regulations 
procedures to insure that plans are prepared in accordance with NEPA, 
including direction on when and for what plans an EIS is required (16 
U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). The CEQ regulations direct Federal agencies to 
adopt procedures that designate major decision points for the Agency's 
principal programs likely to have a significant effect on the human 
environment and insure that the NEPA process corresponds with them (40 
CFR 1505.1(b)).
    During plan development, amendment, or revision, the Agency 
generally is not at the stage in national forest planning of proposing 
actions to accomplish the goals in plans. CEQ regulations define 
``proposals'' that can trigger the requirement for an EIS as ``that 
stage in development of an action when an Agency subject to the Act has 
a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more 
alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be 
meaningfully evaluated'' (40 CFR 1508.23). The statements of desired 
conditions (goals) and objectives in a plan typically influence the 
choice and design of future proposed projects and activities in the 
plan area. However, the influence that desired conditions have on the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of future projects or 
activities is not known and cannot be meaningfully analyzed until such 
projects and activities are proposed by the Agency.
    Meaningful analysis of the effects of a plan is not possible 
because plan components typically cannot be linked in a cause-effect 
relationship over time and within a geographic area to effects on the 
human environment. This cause-effect relationship is lacking when plans 
do not include proposals for actions that approve projects and 
activities; that command anyone to refrain from undertaking projects 
and activities; or that grant, withhold, or modify

[[Page 48526]]

contracts, permits, or other formal legal instruments.
    The Agency views a final decision on a proposed action as having 
effects on the air quality; threatened and endangered species; 
significant scientific, cultural, and historic resources; water 
quality; or other resources when such effects may occur without 
additional action from the Agency other than routine administrative 
actions to carry out the decision. There normally is a cause-effect 
relationship between the project or activity and the environmental 
impacts. For example, there would normally be a cause-effect 
relationship between the decision to approve a timber sale and the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the environment of the 
timber sale project.
    No such cause-effect relationship exists when the Agency merely 
designates an area as suitable for timber harvest because a timber sale 
may never be proposed for the area. Even though the area is designated 
as suitable for timber harvest, the area may never be used for timber 
harvest. For land management plans developed under the proposed 
planning rule, a cause-effect relationship typically does not exist. To 
establish a cause-effect relationship for a land management plan, plan 
revision, or plan amendment, it is not sufficient to find that one or 
more plan components increase or decrease the likelihood of effects 
from future actions on one of the unit's resources. A plan component 
may indeed be a preliminary step for a later decision, which has 
environmental effects. Unless and until that later decision is made and 
carried out, no effects occur. Thus, the act of planning done, while 
preliminary to the decision, itself causes no effects. It is only when 
a plan component by itself, without further analysis and decisionmaking 
by the Agency, will either allow actions or prohibit actions by the 
Agency or other parties that effects on natural resources may be caused 
by the plan component.
    While a plan includes desired conditions (goals) and objectives, 
the Forest Service does not make a decision on an action aimed at 
achieving desired conditions or objectives until the Agency proposes 
projects and activities under the plan. Thus, the decision to adopt, 
amend, or revise a plan is typically not the point in the 
decisionmaking process at which the Agency is proposing an action 
likely to have a significant effect on the human environment.
    The approach in this proposed rule is consistent with the nature of 
Forest Service land management plans acknowledged in Ohio Forestry 
Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). As described above, in Ohio 
Forestry, the Supreme Court held that the timber management provisions 
of land management plans are tools for further Agency planning, and 
these provisions guide, but do not direct future management. When 
considering the role of land management plans for timber harvesting, 
the Supreme Court explained that:

    Although the Plan sets logging goals, selects the areas of the 
forest that are suited to timber production, and determines which 
``probable methods of timber harvest'' are appropriate, it does not 
itself authorize the cutting of any trees. Before the Forest Service 
can permit the logging, it must: (a) Propose a specific area in 
which logging will take place and the harvesting methods to be used; 
(b) ensure that the project is consistent with the Plan; (c) provide 
those affected by proposed logging notice and an opportunity to be 
heard; (d) conduct an environmental analysis pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to evaluate the effects 
of the specific project and to contemplate alternatives; and (e) 
subsequently make a final decision to permit logging, which affected 
persons may challenge in an administrative appeals process and in 
court.

    The Supreme Court also described plans as merely strategic and 
without any immediate on-the-ground impact in the SUWA decision 
discussed above in the preamble section titled ``The Strategic nature 
of land management plans.'' In both cases, the Supreme Court recognized 
the strategic nature of plans. The Supreme Court's analysis is 
consistent with and reinforces the Forest Service's approach to this 
issue, which is based on 25 years of completing EISs for plans. The 
Supreme Court's analysis also supports the approach to planning and 
NEPA compliance that we are taking in the proposed rule.
    In accordance with NFMA, NEPA, and the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provision of 
NEPA, this proposed rule will ensure that Forest Service NEPA analysis 
will be appropriately timed to coincide with those stages in Agency 
planning and decisionmaking likely to have a significant effect on the 
human environment. The proposed rule emphasizes the clear distinction 
between the adoption, revision, or amendment of a plan, versus projects 
and activities having on-the-ground environmental effects. In this 
proposed rule, the Agency clarifies that plans are strategic. Because 
plans are strategic, this proposed rule specifies that plans, plan 
amendments, and plan revisions may be categorically excluded from NEPA 
documentation as specified in Agency NEPA procedures.
    The CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) require that each 
Agency establish specific criteria for and identification of three 
types of actions: (1) Those that normally require preparation of an 
environmental impact statement (EIS); (2) those that normally require 
the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA); and (3) those that 
normally do not require either an EA or EIS. Actions in this third type 
are defined as categorical exclusions because they do not individually 
or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment; 
therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required (40 CFR 1508.4).
    A categorical exclusion is not an exemption from the requirements 
of NEPA. Categorical exclusions are an essential part of NEPA 
implementation. Categorical exclusions provide a categorical 
determination that certain actions do not result in significant 
impacts, eliminating the need for individual analyses and lengthier 
documentation for those actions. Before the Forest Service approves a 
categorical exclusion, the Agency extensively analyses any effects from 
the type of action under consideration. If the Agency determines that 
potential effects of the action are non-significant and if CEQ finds 
that the Agency's determination conforms with NEPA and the CEQ 
regulations, only then can the Agency approve a categorical exclusion.
    To reduce excessive paperwork, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4(p), 
1507.3, and 1508.4 direct agencies to use categorical exclusions to 
define categories of actions, which do not individually or cumulatively 
have a significant effect on the human environment and do not require 
the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental 
impact statement. Current Forest Service procedures for complying with 
and implementing NEPA are set out in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 
1909.15.
    The Forest Service approved a categorical exclusion for the 
development, amendment, and revision of plans on December 15, 2006 (71 
FR 75481). The categorical exclusion is set out in FSH 1909.15, chapter 
30, which is available electronically at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives. The Agency proposed the categorical exclusion on January 5, 
2005 (70 FR 1062). The Forest Service provided a 60-day comment period 
on the proposed land management planning categorical exclusion 
(Planning CE) (70 FR 1062;

[[Page 48527]]

January 5, 2005). The Forest Service received 55,000 comments in 3,334 
responses (letters, form letters, and petitions). In addition, the 
Forest Service presented and sought public comment on this approach to 
NEPA and NFMA planning in the 2002 proposed rule. The categorical 
exclusion clarifies that, absent extraordinary circumstances, plan 
development, plan amendment, or plan revisions do not significantly 
affect the environment, and thus are categorically excluded from 
further NEPA analysis. The Forest Service will comply with all 
applicable NEPA requirements, including preparation of an EA or an EIS 
where appropriate, for example, when considering specific projects or 
making other project-specific decisions that may affect the human 
environment.
    The Agency identified three key public concerns related to 
categorically excluding plans. First, many people commented that they 
were unsure about how they would be involved in planning if an EIS 
process were not used. Second, they questioned how planning analysis 
would be documented in the absence of an EIS. Third, some asked how 
cumulative effects would be accounted for if a Categorical Exclusion 
(CE) were relied upon. The Agency has fully considered the concerns 
raised by the public and believes the proposed rule addresses the 
concerns as follows:
Public Participation
    This proposed rule includes extensive opportunity for public 
participation that goes beyond the requirements for public 
participation under the NEPA EIS process and improves the clarity of 
the process for public notification (Sec.  219.9). For example, the 
proposed rule requires the Forest Service to involve the public in 
developing and updating the comprehensive evaluation report, 
establishing the components of the plan, and designing the monitoring 
program.
Evaluations and Documentation
    This proposed rule requires three types of evaluation reports: 
Comprehensive evaluations, evaluations for plan amendments, and annual 
evaluations of monitoring information (Sec.  219.6). Evaluation 
reports: (1) Document existing social, economic, and ecological 
conditions and trends; (2) will be available to the public and included 
in the plan document or set of documents; (3) are prepared for plan 
development, plan amendment, and plan revision; (4) use a systematic 
and interdisciplinary approach (Sec.  219.7(a)); and (5) consider 
environmental amenities and values along with economic and technical 
considerations (Sec.  219.10).
    The responsible official will supplement the plan document or set 
of documents with annual evaluation reports and with other information 
as appropriate to form a continually refreshed and current analytical 
base of information. Because of this more current information base, 
evaluations will supply a much stronger and more robust source of 
information to rely on for project and activity environmental analysis 
than a plan level EIS prepared as required under the 1982 planning 
rule.
Cumulative Effects
    Predictive EIS environmental analysis under the 1982 planning rule 
grew increasingly stale over time when the information and analyses 
were not updated. In contrast, the proposed rule will support more 
timely and informed consideration of cumulative effects. To account for 
cumulative effects of management and natural events, this proposed rule 
requires (Sec.  219.6(a)): (1) A comprehensive evaluation of current 
conditions and trends for the development of a new plan or plan 
revision; (2) annual plan monitoring and evaluation; and (3) update of 
the comprehensive evaluation of current conditions and trends at least 
every 5 years. The plan document or set of documents also supports a 
robust information base for the consideration of cumulative effects of 
Agency proposals in NEPA documents prepared for projects or activities.
The Relationship Between EMS and NEPA
    For some elements of the adaptive management process, EMS will 
generate information that may be useful in Agency NEPA analysis of 
projects and activities. However, the greatest improvement in Agency 
operations will be associated with completing the adaptive management 
cycle described in the proposed rule. This will lead to an improvement 
in plan components under which responsible officials will conduct 
project and activity NEPA analysis.
    Under the 1982 planning process, the Agency collects information 
about environmental conditions to prepare detailed NEPA analysis and 
document plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision. There is 
no effective system for keeping this information current, because the 
collection and analysis of information often stops when the NEPA 
analysis and documentation is finished. Therefore, the information 
collected for the environmental documents for 125 NFS units can grow 
stale as environmental, social, and economic conditions change. 
Further, the focus of the information collection and analysis process 
is on NEPA analysis and documentation, rather than for use in the 
ongoing adaptive management process of the administrative unit. 
Therefore, the large volume of information and analysis that is created 
over a long period is often used as a snapshot for making a single 
decision (plan, plan amendment, or plan revision), instead of being 
integrated into a dynamic, ongoing adaptive management system to 
effectively manage units.
    This rule will improve this situation by requiring each forest, 
grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit to carry 
out an EMS that includes defined procedures for identifying 
environmental aspects, keeps that information current, and includes 
monitoring and measurement procedures for continually evaluating 
conditions in the unit. The EMS requirement is separate from any 
obligations to develop EISs, EAs, or CEs. Therefore, the obligation to 
keep this information current and available to the public for review is 
separate from the obligation to create a NEPA document. The Agency will 
use this EMS information to formulate the plans that are the subject of 
this rule, to manage administrative units on an ongoing basis, and to 
develop and to analyze specific project and activity proposals that 
trigger the need for EISs, EAs, or CEs. By carrying out EMS, 
administrative units will collect and evaluate the data on an ongoing 
basis to improve on a timely basis the plan components and create 
documents needed for NEPA. This will enable the Agency to efficiently 
create accurate and relevant NEPA documents. This proposed rule will 
ensure that managers of the administrative unit and the public have 
access to a ``library'' of current information, analyses, and research 
that, through EMS, will be used by managers of the administrative unit 
to adapt management practices to avoid unwanted environmental effects.

 Summary

    This proposed rule emphasizes the strategic nature of NFMA land 
management plans and permits more flexibility in carrying out projects 
in response to ongoing developments in scientific understanding and 
changing on-the-ground conditions, such as unforeseen natural 
disasters. It requires that responsible officials take into account the 
best available scientific information. It requires public involvement 
and collaboration

[[Page 48528]]

throughout the cycle of planning--plan development, plan amendment, 
plan revision, project and activity decisionmaking, and monitoring of 
environmental performance. The proposed rule requires plans to focus on 
the social, economic, and ecological sustainability of the management 
of the NFS, and it has specific provisions for biological diversity at 
both the ecosystem and species level. It clarifies the nature of plans 
and explains how the planning process complies fully with the 
requirements of NEPA. Plans developed and maintained using the EMS and 
other processes required by this proposed rule will improve the 
performance, accountability, and transparency of NFS land management 
planning.

4. Section-by-Section Explanation of the Proposed Rule

    In this proposed rule, the Agency listed the proposed sections in 
order of those that are more general first, followed by those that are 
more specific. The first section introduces the reader to what is 
covered in this proposed rule and acknowledges the multiple-use and 
sustained yield productivity mandate of the Forest Service (Sec.  
219.1). Section 219.2 describes planning in general and the levels of 
planning in the Agency. Then, this proposed rule contains a general 
description of plans (Sec.  219.3); NEPA compliance (Sec.  219.4); EMS 
(Sec.  219.5); the specific plan requirements (Sec. Sec.  219.6-
219.12); followed by objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan 
revision (Sec.  219.13); effective dates and transition (Sec.  219.14); 
severability (Sec.  219.15); and definitions (Sec.  219.16).

Section 219.1--Purpose and Applicability

    This section introduces the reader to what is covered in this 
proposed rule, acknowledges the multiple-use and sustained-yield 
productivity mandate of the Forest Service, and directs the Chief of 
the Forest Service to establish planning procedures in the Forest 
Service directives. The Agency clarifies the goal to sustain the 
multiple uses of its renewable resources in perpetuity while 
maintaining the long-term productivity of the land.

Section 219.2--Levels of planning and Planning Authority

    This section describes planning, the levels of Agency planning, and 
the basic authorities and directions for developing, amending, or 
revising a plan.

Section 219.3--Nature of Land Management Planning

    This section describes the nature of planning, and the force and 
effect of plans.

Section 219.4--National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    This section describes how planning will comply with NEPA.

Section 219.5--Environmental Management Systems

    This section describes the requirements for EMS and responds to 
public comments about how planning relates to adaptive management. This 
proposed rule defines adaptive management as a natural resource 
management approach in which actions are designed and executed, and 
effects are monitored to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of 
future management actions. The ``Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule'' 
section of the preamble describes in detail the provisions of this 
section for EMS.

Section 219.6--Evaluations and Monitoring

    This section specifies requirements for plan evaluation and plan 
monitoring. This proposed rule allows the responsible official to 
change the monitoring program by making an administrative correction 
and notifying the public, rather than requiring plan amendments. This 
administrative correction will enable the plan to more quickly reflect 
the best available science and account for unanticipated changes in 
conditions. The responsible official will notify the public of changes 
in a monitoring program, and the responsible official can involve the 
public in a variety of ways in developing changes to the program. 
Discussions of both evaluation and monitoring are found in the 
``Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble. The 
Agency is proposing a requirement for comprehensive evaluation of the 
area of analysis (Sec.  219.6(a)(1)) at no longer than 5-year intervals 
and conducting an evaluation when amending a plan (Sec.  219.6(a)(2)). 
The Agency has also proposed a provision that the monitoring program 
take into account the best available science to improve the evaluation 
process.
    One clarification about the requirement at Sec.  219.6(b)(2)(ii) 
may help understanding. This paragraph requires that the responsible 
official design the monitoring program to determine the effects of 
management on the productivity of the land. The term ``productivity'' 
refers to all of the multiple uses, such as outdoor recreation, range, 
timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish. Use of this term is broader 
than just commercial uses.

Section 219.7--Developing, Amending, or Revising a Plan

    This section includes requirements for plan components; planning 
authorities; plan processes, including considering lands for 
recommendation as potential wilderness areas; developing plan options; 
administrative corrections; plan document or set of documents; and the 
plan approval document.
    As explained in the ``Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule'' section 
of the preamble, plans previously contained standards. Plans under the 
proposed rule will contain guidelines (Sec.  219.7(a)(iii)) due to the 
strategic nature of plans. The Agency believes mandatory standards are 
too restrictive to be effective for project design because of variable 
site conditions. The Forest Service directives provide additional 
direction for writing plan guidelines, many of which will be 
measurable. To make project consistency with guidelines easy for 
decisionmakers and the public to check, Forest Service directives 
provide criteria for guidelines and require guidelines be written 
clearly (FSH 1909.12, chapter 10). This proposed rule also allows 
forest-wide and area-specific guidelines. As discussed earlier in the 
preamble in the ``Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule,'' if the 
responsible official decides a variance from the guideline is 
necessary, the responsible official must document how the variance is 
an effective means of maintaining or contributing to the attainment of 
relevant desired conditions and objectives.
    Although the proposed rule does not specifically identify standards 
as a plan component, the proposed rule also does not preclude their 
inclusion in plans; responsible officials may include standards in 
plans under extraordinary circumstances. Standards may include specific 
decisions (prohibiting motorized cross-country travel or prohibiting 
boat use on a specific river segment). If a responsible official 
proposes this kind of standard in a plan, the standard must be 
considered in an appropriate NEPA analysis.
    Plans may reference other sources of information besides the five 
plan components of desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, 
suitability of areas, and special areas. Other sources of information 
may include previous plan decisions that remain in place and become 
part of the new plan, or other

[[Page 48529]]

sources of direction and guidance. There is a wide variety of other 
sources of information for project and activity decisionmaking. This 
information can be laws, regulations, policy (FSM and FSH), memoranda 
of understanding, conservation strategies, programmatic agreements, 
species accounts, scientific literature, and other sources. The 
responsible official may cross-reference other sources of information 
in the plan. Plans should not repeat existing direction found in laws, 
regulations, and Forest Service directives.
    Note that at the project or activity level, the responsible 
official can bring the other sources of information to bear in response 
to the specific conditions found in the project area. The responsible 
official adopts project specific guidelines and other sources of 
information for individual projects or activities through the project 
or activity decision. The specific items adopted become binding 
commitments for the life of that project or activity.
    When responsible officials revise plans, some of the plan 
provisions and their NEPA analysis may be still relevant and current. 
If so, the responsible official may propose to retain the previous 
provisions in the revised plan. For example, guidelines for Grizzly 
Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National 
Forests adopted in the April 18, 2006, Record of Decision amending the 
Greater Yellowstone National Forest plans would likely remain relevant 
and current for subsequent project and activity decisions on those 
forests even after those plans are revised in future years. The 
responsible official may carry over provisions into the revised plan. 
Responsible officials would identify the specific provisions that they 
propose to retain in the plan revision. Like other provisions in plans, 
subsequent projects and activities must be consistent with such 
provisions.
    Special area identification (Sec.  219.7(a)(v)) is an integral part 
of the planning process. This proposed rule provides for the 
identification of special areas in the plan. After reviewing comments, 
and consideration of the Forest Service's experience with planning over 
the past 25 years, the Agency concluded that guidance about special 
area concerns, such as potential wilderness evaluations or social and 
economic values, are more properly included in the Forest Service 
directives. Provisions in directives can be more extensive and easier 
to revise as the Agency learns how to improve its processes and as new 
scientific concepts become available.
    The intent is to allow plans to recognize categories of special 
areas established by Congress, the Department, or the Agency. FSM 2370 
and FSH 1909.12, chapter 10 display categories of special areas meeting 
these criteria. To ensure a consistent approach, plans should limit 
special areas to those listed in these directives. If a land area does 
not qualify as a special area, but needs specific guidance, planners 
may specify that through other plan components.
    If the responsible official needs to propose actions or 
prohibitions to reach the desired conditions for a special area, that 
proposal must be covered by separate appropriate National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for an individual area or a group of areas. 
For example, appropriate site-specific NEPA analysis and decisionmaking 
would be required to support the establishment of a research natural 
area or a closure order that prohibits or restricts public access in a 
special area.
    Section 219.7(b) provides for administrative corrections to plans. 
This proposed rule, at Sec.  219.7(b)(5), proposes a category for 
administrative corrections to include non-substantive changes in the 
plan document or set of documents. Administrative corrections may not 
be used to make substantive changes in the plan components. The Agency 
made this proposal to supply a specific way to allow for timely updates 
of new science and other sources of information into the plan document 
or set of documents. Changes to the plan document or set of documents 
may also occur when the responsible official removes outdated 
documents, for example, when a new inventory replaces an older one.
    Administrative corrections may not be used to change long-term 
sustained-yield capacity (LTSYC) or the timber sale program quantity 
(TSPQ). The LTSYC is the amount of timber that can be removed annually 
in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis from lands generally suitable 
for timber harvest (FSM 1921.12, FSH 1909.12, chapter 60). Responsible 
officials base these estimates on the amount of timber that could be 
removed assuming the desired vegetation conditions for the area have 
been fully achieved. This is an NFMA requirement (16 U.S.C. 1611). This 
is a substantive limit and the proposed rule would not allow a 
responsible official to change LTSYC by an administrative correction.
    The TSPQ is the average projected output of wood fiber for the plan 
area. The projected outputs reflect past and projected budget levels 
and organizational capability to accomplish timber harvest activities. 
Calculations of the TSPQ include all planned outputs of wood fiber sold 
from NFS lands. This includes all sawlogs, veneer bolts, and other 
material such as pulpwood and firewood. The TSPQ should be identified 
in the ``objectives'' plan component. This is a substantive plan 
component and the responsible official may not change TSPQ by an 
administrative correction.
    FSH 1909.12, section 65 requires documentation of the projected 
vegetation management practices by acres and volume in the first decade 
of the plan. Projected vegetation management practices are not 
commitments to action and do not have on-the-ground effects. Vegetation 
management practices may include regeneration cutting, uneven-aged 
management, intermediate harvesting, reforestation, and timber stand 
improvement. These projections of acres and volume are mere estimates 
of what the Agency might do in carrying out projects and activities 
under the plan. These projections are not aspirations or outcomes but 
the estimates of potential timber harvest methods within the plan unit 
based on past performance. However, past performance is no indication 
of future performance because circumstances beyond the Agency's control 
may affect performance. Therefore, these projected vegetation 
management practices are not substantive and the responsible official 
may change them by administrative corrections.
    The responsible official must involve the public in designing the 
monitoring program (Sec.  219.9(a)). The responsible official must 
notify the public of changes in the monitoring program (Sec.  
219.9(b)(2)(iii)). The proposed rule allows the plan's monitoring 
program to be changed with administrative corrections, rather than plan 
amendments, to more quickly reflect the best available science and 
account for unanticipated changes in conditions. The responsible 
official can involve the public in a variety of ways to develop program 
changes.

Section 219.8--Application of a New Plan, Plan Amendment, or Plan 
Revision

    This section describes how the responsible official applies new 
plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions to new or ongoing projects or 
activities. This proposed rule requires project or activity consistency 
with the applicable plan. In addition, paragraph b of this section 
describes how projects or activities developed after approval of

[[Page 48530]]

the plan must be consistent with applicable plan components. The 
wording of this section conforms to 16 U.S.C. 1604(i). The Agency has 
placed more guidance on plan consistency in FSH 1909.12 section 11.4.

Section 219.9--Public Participation, Collaboration, and Notification

    The ``Overview of the 2007 Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble 
contains a discussion of public involvement. The Agency has placed more 
guidance on public participation in FSM 1921.6 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 
30.

Section 219.10--Sustainability

    This proposed rule proposes sustainability as the goal for NFS 
planning and proposes the concept of the interrelated and 
interdependent social, economic, and ecological elements of 
sustainability.
    This proposed rule at Sec.  219.10(b)(1) requires plan components 
to provide a framework to sustain the characteristics of ecosystem 
diversity in the plan area. The Agency defines the term characteristics 
of ecosystem diversity at FSM 1905. These characteristics are 
parameters that describe an ecosystem composition (such as major 
vegetation types, rare communities, aquatic systems, and riparian 
systems); structure (such as successional stages, water quality, 
wetlands, and floodplains); principal ecological processes (such as 
stream flows and historical and current disturbance regimes); and soil, 
water, and air resources. Providing the characteristics of ecosystem 
diversity is the primary way a plan will contribute to sustaining 
native ecological systems. Thus, plans provide for sustaining systems, 
the systems provide for diversity, and Forest Service meets NFMA 
requirements.
    To carry out this goal, this proposed rule proposes a two-level 
approach to sustaining ecological systems: Ecosystem diversity and 
species diversity. The Agency defines the specific procedures for the 
two-level approach in FSM 1921.7 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 40. For 
example, FSM 1921.76c specifies how to sustain species diversity. FSM 
1921.76c says plan components for species-of-concern should provide 
appropriate ecological conditions to help avoid the need to list the 
species under the Endangered Species Act. Appropriate ecological 
conditions may include habitats that are an appropriate quality, 
distribution, and abundance to allow self-sustaining populations of the 
species to be well distributed and interactive, within the bounds of 
the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of 
the species within the capability of the landscape and consistent with 
multiple-use objectives. A self-sustaining population is one that is 
sufficiently abundant and has appropriate population characteristics to 
provide for its persistence over many generations. The ``Overview of 
the 2007 Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble contains a further 
discussion of sustainability.

Section 219.11--Role of Science in Planning

    This proposed rule requires the responsible official to take into 
account the best available science. The Agency proposes the words 
``take into account'' because this term better expresses that formal 
science is just one source of information for the responsible official 
and only one aspect of decisionmaking.
    This proposed rule states that the responsible official may use 
independent peer reviews, science advisory boards, or other review 
methods to evaluate science used in the planning process. Forest 
Service directives specify specific procedures for conducting science 
reviews at FSM 1921.8 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 40. The ``Overview of 
the 2007 Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble discusses the role of 
science in planning.
    The Agency is committed to taking into account the best available 
science in developing plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions as 
well as documenting the consideration of science information. Under 
this proposed rule, the responsible official must: (1) Document how the 
best available science was considered in the planning process 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 components based on 
that science; and (4) document that the science was appropriately 
interpreted and applied. Any interested scientists can be involved at 
any of the public involvement stages.

Section 219.12--Suitable Uses and Provisions Required by NFMA

    This section discusses identification of suitable land uses, 
identification of lands not suitable for timber production, and NFMA 
requirements for timber. This proposed rule requires the Chief of the 
Forest Service to develop directives to discuss the timber provisions 
for NFMA. The Forest Service developed directives under the enjoined 
2005 rule that applied to timber. FSM 1921.12 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 
60 specifies guidance for timber provisions of NFMA.
    Guidance for suitable uses, under paragraph (a) of this section, 
describes the identification of suitable land uses. NFS lands are 
generally suitable for a variety of multiple uses, including timber 
harvest and timber production, unless administratively withdrawn or 
prohibited by statute, Executive order, or regulation. On lands 
generally suitable for timber, the Forest Service may harvest timber 
for a variety of purposes, such as creating openings for wildlife or 
for fuels reduction and restoration. If timber production is not an 
objective for lands generally suitable for timber, the responsible 
official must identify these lands as not suitable for timber 
production (Sec.  219.12(a)(2)). More guidance for identification of 
lands not suitable for timber harvest and guidance for timber harvest 
is placed in the Forest Service directives at FSM 1921.12 and FSH 
1909.12, chapter 60.
    In addition, Forest Service directives discuss other NFMA 
requirements for timber. These requirements include limitations on 
timber harvest and provisions for plans to determine forest management 
systems, restocking requirements, harvesting levels in light of the 
multiple uses, and the potential suitability of lands for resource 
management, as well as projections of proposed and possible actions, 
including the planned timber sale program. The Agency placed detailed 
NFMA requirements in the directives (FSM 1921.12, FSH 1909.12, chapter 
60) to balance the specific procedures for timber and the provisions 
for other sections of this proposed rule.
    In addition, the Agency supplies detailed guidance for determining 
the culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) in the Forest Service 
directives. NFMA requires establishment of guidance so that stands of 
timber, not individual trees, generally have reached CMAI. The Forest 
Service directives clarify the technical limits of the CMAI concept at 
FSM 1921.12 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 60.
    Forest Service directives stipulate guidance for restocking 
requirements at FSH 1921.12 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 60. Forest Service 
directives meet the requirement of NFMA to ensure that timber will be 
harvested from NFS lands only where there is assurance that such lands 
can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest. Adequate 
restocking may vary depending on the purpose of a harvest and the 
objectives and desired conditions for the area. Restocking is not 
required for lands harvested to create openings for fuel breaks and 
vistas, to prevent

[[Page 48531]]

encroaching conifers, and other similar purposes. This will apply to 
all timber harvest, including final regeneration harvest. Therefore, 
responsible officials will include guidance in plans for adequate 
restocking depending on the purpose of a harvest, the desired 
conditions, and objectives for the area.
    This proposed rule uses the expression ``generally suitable'' 
because identification of suitability is guidance and responsible 
officials must approve suitability for specific activities through 
project and activity decisionmaking. In response to public comment and 
to clarify the criteria for identifying suitability, this proposed rule 
has listed the resources as outdoor recreation, range, timber, 
watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes so that the resources listed 
are consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 
1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531). Energy resource development and mining 
activities are not included in Sec.  219.12(a)(1) because, even though 
allowable uses on many NFS lands, they are not renewable surface 
resources listed in MUSYA.
    Forest Service directives discuss the upper limit of timber and use 
long-term sustained-yield capacity as the upper limit of timber that 
the Forest Service may harvest during the planning period (FSM 1921.12, 
FSH 1909.12, chapter 60).

Section 219.13--Objections to Plans, Plan Amendments, or Plan Revisions

    This section sets up the objection process as a way the public can 
challenge plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments before the 
responsible official approves them. The Agency expects the objection 
process to resolve many potential conflicts by encouraging resolution 
before the responsible official approves a plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision.
    The Committee of Scientists (COS), in their 1999 report, 
recommended that the Forest Service seek to harmonize its 
administrative appeal process with those of other Federal agencies. The 
COS said a pre-decisional process would encourage internal Forest 
Service discussion, encourage multi-Agency collaboration, and encourage 
public interest groups to collaborate and work out differences. 
Therefore, to be more consistent with the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) and to improve public participation efforts, the Agency is 
proposing the pre-decisional objection process (Sec.  219.13) to 
replace the appeals process under the 1982 rule. The objection process 
complements the public participation process because objectors and the 
reviewing officer can collaboratively work through concerns before a 
responsible official approves a plan.
    The 30-day objection period specified in this proposed rule is the 
same as the BLM protest process. This proposed rule does not specify a 
time limit for Agency responses. This proposed rule has adopted the BLM 
requirement that the reviewing officer promptly render a decision on 
the objection. To move forward it is in the interest of the Agency to 
render a decision promptly. This proposed rule does not include details 
about responding to objections because this information is more 
appropriately placed in the Forest Service directives (FSH 1909.12, 
chapter 50).
    Section 219.13(a)(1) discusses appeals of plan amendments in site-
specific decisions. The Agency specifies specific requirements for 
administrative review of plan amendments approved contemporaneously 
with a project or activity decision in 36 CFR 215 and 218, subpart A.

Section 219.14--Effective Dates and Transition

    This section specifies when a plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision will take effect as well as how responsible officials may 
modify ongoing planning efforts.
    This section defines, for pending or future plan documents, the 
applicable rules during the transition period. During the transition 
period, pending or proposed projects remain subject to the applicable 
forest plan.
    This section allows amendment of land management plans that have 
not yet implemented an EMS using the provisions of the planning 
regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 
299, Revised as of July 1, 2000), if the responsible official provides 
public notice during the transition period which may be up to three 
years. Plan revisions or development of new plans initiated before the 
effective date of this rule may continue under the provisions of the 
planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 or conform to 
this rule once the unit has established an EMS. Except for the Tongass 
National Forest, plan revisions or development of new plans initiated 
after the effective date of this rule must conform to this rule, which 
requires the unit to have established an EMS.
    Paragraph (d)(1) of this section includes transition wording to 
allow the Tongass National Forest to revise its plan either under the 
proposed rule or the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 
2000 (1982 planning rule). The Agency previously published this wording 
on March 3, 2006 in the Federal Register (71 FR 10837). This was in 
response to the August 5, 2005, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision 
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 421 F.3d 
797, that found defects in the 1997 Final EIS and Record of Decision 
for the Tongass Land Management Plan. The court's analysis of the 1997 
forest plan was made in the context of the 1982 planning rule. For this 
unique situation, this proposed rule at 36 CFR 219.14(d)(1) allows the 
Tongass National Forest land management plan to be revised using either 
the 1982 planning rule or the 2005 planning rule. The Tongass National 
Forest mailed out a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment on January 4, 2007. 
The Forest Supervisor is currently reviewing the comments and will 
eventually finish the plan amendment process. Because the amendment is 
still in process and the Agency must change the Tongass Land Management 
Plan in response to the court decision, we are proposing the exception 
to remain as a contingency.
    This section also proposes direction on application of management 
indicator species (MIS) for units that will continue to use the 1982 
planning rule for plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions during 
transition. There has been uncertainty about the application of 
provisions of the 1982 planning rule, particularly for obligations for 
MIS (69 FR 58055, September 29, 2004). For those units with plans 
developed, amended, or revised under the 1982 planning rule, including 
those amended or revised during the transition period for the 2000 
planning rule, Sec.  219.14(f) provides that MIS obligations may be met 
by considering data and analysis for habitat unless the plan 
specifically requires population monitoring or population surveys. 
Other tools can often be useful and more appropriate in predicting the 
effects of projects developed under a land management plan (such as 
examining the effect of proposed activities on the habitat of specific 
species); using information identified, obtained, or developed through 
a variety of methods (such as assessments, analysis, and monitoring 
results); or using information obtained from other sources (such as 
State fish and wildlife agencies and organizations like The Nature 
Conservancy). This proposed rule also clarifies that the appropriate 
scale for any MIS monitoring is the plan area.
    Providing explicitly for MIS monitoring flexibility will allow

[[Page 48532]]

monitoring of habitat conditions as a surrogate for population trend 
data. It is appropriate for a range of methods to be available to 
estimate, or approximate, population trends for MIS. The responsible 
official will determine which monitoring method or combination of 
monitoring methods to use for a given MIS.
    Where responsible officials conduct actual population monitoring 
for MIS, population trend data are most efficiently collected using a 
sampling program rather than an enumeration. In a sampling program, 
population data are collected at a selection of sites throughout the 
geographic range of the population. These sites might be systematically 
designated (for example, using a grid of specific dimension), 
established randomly, or selected in some other way. For species that 
use distinct seasonal ranges (for example, elk that use winter ranges 
distinct from their summer ranges), data may be collected mainly on the 
winter range.
    The sampling area should relate to the geographic range occupied by 
the population, and will usually far exceed the area of one project. 
Because of using sampling procedures in the geographic area used by a 
population, individual project areas might or might not be part of a 
sampling program designed to estimate the population. Based on the 
foregoing, for most species it would be technically and practically 
inappropriate to conduct population trend sampling at the scale of 
individual project areas. Consequently, where responsible officials 
conduct population monitoring for MIS, that monitoring should be 
carried out at the scale most appropriate to the species within the 
overall national forest, grassland, prairie, or other administrative 
comparable unit. Monitoring populations at the sites of individual 
projects is not part of this requirement. Therefore, the transition 
wording at Sec.  219.14 clarifies that MIS monitoring is appropriate at 
the times and places appropriate to the specific species, and is not 
required in individual project or activity areas.

Section 219.15--Severability

    The Agency has proposed a section to discuss the issue of 
severability, so that, if parts of this proposed rule are separately 
challenged in litigation, individual provisions of this rule can be 
severed from other parts of the rule.

Section 219.16--Definitions

    This section sets out and defines the special terms used in this 
proposed rule.

5. Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impact

    The Agency reviewed this proposed rule under U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (Department) procedures and Executive Order 12866 issued 
September 30, 1993 (E.O. 12866), as amended by E.O. 13422 on Regulatory 
Planning and Review. On all substantial matters, this proposed rule is 
identical to the rule on land management planning published as a final 
rule in the Federal Register at 70 FR 1034 (January 5, 2005) (also 
referred to as the 2005 planning rule). Therefore, the Agency has 
determined that documents, studies, and other analyses reporting 
regulatory, economic, civil rights, energy, and other potential impacts 
of the 2005 planning rule are also applicable to this proposed rule.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not an 
economically significant rule. This proposed 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 proposed rule will 
neither interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency nor 
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed rule 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 
(NFS) planning and decisionmaking, this proposed rule has been 
designated as significant and, therefore, is subject to Office of 
Management and Budget review under E.O. 13422.
    An analysis was conducted to compare the costs and benefits of 
implementing the proposed rule to the baseline, the 2000 planning rule. 
This analysis is posted on the World Wide Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2007_planning_rule.html, along with other 
documents associated with this proposed rule. The 2000 planning rule 
was used as the baseline because it is the no action alternative 
(Alternative B). Quantitative differences between this proposed rule, 
and the other alternatives were also estimated. Alternatives included 
Alternative C (the 1982 planning rule), Alternative D (2005 planning 
rule modified to not include the EMS requirement), Alternative E (2005 
planning rule modified to not include EMS and explicitly include timber 
requirements in the rule and standards as plan components). Primary 
sources of data used to estimate the costs and benefits of the 2000 
planning rule are from the results of a 2002 report entitled ``A 
Business Evaluation of the 2000 and Proposed NFMA Rules'' produced by 
the Inventory and Monitoring Institute of the Forest Service. The 
report is also identified as the ``2002 NFMA Costing Study,'' or simply 
as the ``Costing Study.'' The Costing Study used a business modeling 
process to identify and compare major costs for the 2000 planning rule. 
The main source of data used to approximate costs under the 1982 
planning rule is from a 2002 report to Congress on planning costs, 
along with empirical data and inferences from the Costing Study.
    The cost-benefit analysis focuses on key activities in land 
management planning for which costs can be estimated under the 1982 
planning rule, the 2000 planning rule, the proposed rule and the other 
alternative rules. The key activities for which costs were analyzed 
include regional guides, collaboration, consideration of science, 
evaluation of the sustainability of decisions and diversity 
requirements under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 
(16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), monitoring, evaluation, and the resolution of 
disputes about the proposed plan decisions through the administrative 
processes of appeals and objections.
    The proposed rule would reduce the cost of producing a plan or 
revision by shortening the length of the planning process and providing 
the responsible official with more flexibility to decide the scope and 
scale of the planning process. The proposed rule would require a 
comprehensive evaluation during plan development and plan revision that 
would be updated at least every 5 years. Some upfront planning costs, 
such as analyzing and developing plan components, and documenting the 
land management planning process, are anticipated to shift to 
monitoring and evaluation to better document cumulative effects of 
management activities and natural events when preparing a comprehensive 
evaluation of the plan under the proposed rule.
    Based on costs that can be quantified, carrying out this proposed 
rule is expected to have an estimated annual average cost savings of 
$30.8 million when compared to the 2000 planning rule, and an estimated 
annual average savings of $5.4 million when compared to estimates of 
the 1982 planning rule. From this cost-benefit analysis, the estimated 
total costs for carrying out the proposed rule are expected to be lower 
than the 2000 planning rule.

[[Page 48533]]

    Total Agency costs for carrying out the proposed rule, the 2000 
rule, 1982 rule and other alternative rules were discounted at 3 
percent and 7 percent discount rates for the 15-year period from 2008 
to 2022; then annualized costs were calculated for these alternatives. 
By using 3 percent discount rate, the annualized cost for the proposed 
rule was estimated at $99 million, while the annualized costs for the 
2000 rule was $129 million and for the 1982 rule was $104 million. The 
Agency expects the proposed rule to have an annualized cost savings of 
about $30 million when compared to the 2000 planning rule, and an 
estimated annualized savings of $5 million when compared to estimates 
of the 1982 planning rule.
    While using a 7 percent discount rate for the same timeframe, the 
results show that the annualized cost estimate for the proposed rule is 
$99.2 million and the estimated annualized cost for the 2000 rule and 
the 1982 planning rule are $127.2 million and $103.2 million 
respectively. Based on these annualized cost estimates at 7 percent 
discount rate, use of this proposed rule is expected to have an 
annualized cost savings of $28 million when compared to the 2000 
planning rule, and an estimated annualized savings of $4 million when 
compared to estimates of the 1982 planning rule. This quantitative 
assessment indicates a cost savings for the Agency using the proposed 
rule.
    This proposed 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 business entities as 
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required for this proposed rule. The 
proposed rule imposes no requirements on either small or large 
entities. Rather, the proposed rule sets out the process the Forest 
Service will follow in land management planning for the NFS. The 
proposed rule should provide opportunities for small businesses to 
become involved in the national forest, grassland, prairie, or other 
comparable administrative unit plan approval. Moreover, by streamlining 
the land management planning process, the proposed rule should benefit 
small businesses through more timely decisions that affect outputs of 
products and services.

Environmental Impacts

    This proposed rule establishes the administrative procedures to 
guide development, amendment, and revision of NFS land management 
plans. This proposed rule, like earlier planning rules, does not 
dictate how administrative units of the NFS are to be managed. The 
Agency does not expect that this proposed rule will directly affect the 
mix of uses on any or all units of the NFS. Section 31.12 of FSH 
1909.15 excludes from documentation in an EA or EIS ``rules, 
regulations, or policies to establish Servicewide administrative 
procedures, program processes, or instruction.'' The Agency believes 
that this proposed rule falls squarely within this category of actions 
and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that would require 
preparation of an EA or an EIS. However, due to the court's decision in 
Citizens for Better Forestry et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
No. C 05-1144 PJH from the U.S. District Court in the Northern District 
of California, (March 30, 2007) and the Agency's desire to reform the 
planning process, the Agency has determined to prepare an environmental 
impact statement to analyze possible environmental effects of the 
proposed rule and present several alternatives to the proposed rule and 
potential environmental impacts of those alternatives. An environmental 
impact statement (EIS) is being developed concurrently with this 
rulemaking. The Draft EIS is available on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2007_planning_rule.html. The draft EIS 
explains that there are no environmental impacts resulting from the 
promulgation of this proposed rule.

Energy Effects

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 
issued May 18, 2001 (E.O. 13211), ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' It has been 
determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant 
energy action as defined in E.O. 13211.This proposed rule would guide 
the development, amendment, and revision of NFS land management plans. 
These plans are strategic documents that provide the guidance for 
making future project or activity-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 land management plans may identify major rights-of-way 
corridors for utility transmission lines, pipelines, and water canals. 
While these plans may consider the need for such facilities, they do 
not authorize construction of them; therefore, the proposed rule and 
the plans developed under it do not have energy effects within the 
meaning of E.O. 13211. The effects of the construction of such lines, 
pipelines, and canals are, of necessity, considered on a case-by-case 
basis as specific construction proposals. Consistent with E.O. 13211, 
direction to incorporate consideration of energy supply, distribution, 
and use in the planning process will be included in the Agency's 
administrative directives for carrying out the proposed rule.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or reporting requirements for 
the objection process were previously approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned control number 0596-0158, 
expiring on December 31, 2006, for the 2005 planning rule. The OMB has 
extended this approval, effective January 31, 2007, using the same 
control number. This extension was made after the Forest Service 
provided the public an opportunity to comment on the extension as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (71 FR 40687, July 18, 2006). 
The Forest Service received one comment about extension.
    The information required by 36 CFR 219.13 is needed for an objector 
to explain the nature of the objection being made to a proposed land 
management plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. This proposed rule 
retains but simplifies the objection process established in the 2000 
planning rule. The proposed rule removes the requirements previously 
provided in the 2000 planning rule for interested parties, publication 
of objections, and formal requests for meetings (36 CFR 219.32). These 
changes have resulted in a minor reduction in the number of burden 
hours approved by OMB for the 2000 planning rule.

Federalism

    The Agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements 
of Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 13132), 
``Federalism.'' The Agency has made an assessment that the proposed 
rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in this Executive 
Order; 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, nor on the distribution 
of

[[Page 48534]]

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Therefore, the Agency concludes that this proposed rule does not have 
Federalism implications. Moreover, Sec.  219.9 of this proposed rule 
shows sensitivity to Federalism concerns by requiring the responsible 
official to meet with and provide opportunities for involvement of 
State and local governments in the planning process.
    In the spirit of E.O. 13132, the Agency consulted with State and 
local officials, including their national representatives, early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation. The Agency has consulted 
with the Western Governors' Association and the National Association of 
Counties to obtain their views on a preliminary draft of the 2002 
proposed rule. The Western Governors' Association supported the general 
intent to create a regulation that works, and placed importance on the 
quality of collaboration to be provided when the Agency implements the 
regulation. 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 2002 proposed rule prior to its publication. Based on comments 
received on the 2002 proposed rule, the Agency has determined that 
additional consultation was not needed with State and local governments 
for the promulgation of the 2005 planning rule, and thus this proposed 
rule. State and local governments are encouraged to comment on this 
proposed rule, in the course of this rulemaking process.

Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the 
Agency has assessed the impact of this proposed rule 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 NFS land 
management plans and, as such, has no direct effect about the occupancy 
and use of NFS land. At Sec.  219.9(a)(3), the proposed rule requires 
consultation with federally recognized tribes when conducting land 
management planning.
    The Agency has also determined that this proposed rule does not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal 
governments. This proposed rule does not mandate Tribal participation 
in NFS planning. Rather, the proposed rule imposes 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 issued March 
15, 1988, and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not 
pose the risk of a taking of private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. After adoption of this proposed rule, (1) all 
State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule or 
that would impede full implementation of this rule will be preempted; 
(2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) 
this proposed rule would not require the use of administrative 
proceedings before parties could 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), the Agency has assessed the effects of this proposed 
rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 
This proposed 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, National forests, 
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 Land Management Planning

Sec.
219.1 Purpose and applicability.
219.2 Levels of planning and planning authority.
219.3 Nature of land management planning.
219.4 National Environmental Policy Act compliance.
219.5 Environmental management systems.
219.6 Evaluations and monitoring.
219.7 Developing, amending, or revising a plan.
219.8 Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
219.9 Public participation, collaboration, and notification.
219.10 Sustainability.
219.11 Role of science in planning.
219.12 Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA.
219.13 Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.
219.14 Effective dates and transition.
219.15 Severability.
219.16 Definitions.

Subpart B--[Reserved]

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613.


Sec.  219.1  Purpose and applicability.

    (a) The rules of this subpart set forth a process for land 
management planning, including the process for developing, amending, 
and revising land management plans (also referred to as 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 of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), hereinafter 
referred to as NFMA. This subpart also describes the nature and scope 
of plans and sets forth the required components of a plan. This subpart 
is 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 
(16 U.S.C. 528-531), the overall goal of managing the National Forest 
System is to sustain the multiple uses of its renewable resources in 
perpetuity while maintaining the long-term productivity of the land. 
Resources are to be managed so they are utilized in the combination 
that will best meet the needs of the American people. Maintaining or 
restoring the health of the land enables the National Forest System to 
provide a sustainable flow of uses, benefits, products, services, and 
visitor opportunities.
    (c) The Chief of the Forest Service shall establish planning 
procedures for this subpart for plan development, plan amendment, or 
plan revision in the Forest Service Directive System.

[[Page 48535]]

Sec.  219.2  Levels of planning and planning authority.

    Planning occurs at multiple organizational levels and geographic 
areas.
    (a) National. 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 NFMA. The Strategic 
Plan establishes goals, objectives, performance measures, and 
strategies for management of the National Forest System, as well as the 
other Forest Service mission areas.
    (b) Forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative 
unit.
    (1) Land management plans provide broad guidance and information 
for project and activity decisionmaking in a national forest, 
grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit. The 
Supervisor of the National Forest, Grassland, Prairie, or other 
comparable administrative unit is the responsible official for 
development and approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 
for lands under the responsibility of the Supervisor, unless a Regional 
Forester, the Chief, or the Secretary chooses to act as the responsible 
official.
    (2) When plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions are prepared for 
more than one administrative unit, a unit Supervisor identified by the 
Regional Forester, or the Regional Forester, the Chief, or the 
Secretary may be the responsible official. Two or more responsible 
officials may undertake joint planning over lands under their 
respective jurisdictions.
    (3) The appropriate Station Director must concur with that part of 
a plan applicable to any experimental forest within the plan area.
    (c) Projects and activities. The Supervisor or District Ranger is 
the responsible official for project and activity decisions, unless a 
higher-level official chooses to act as the responsible official. 
Requirements for project or activity planning are established in the 
Forest Service Directive System. Except as specifically provided, none 
of the requirements of this subpart applies to projects or activities.
    (d) Developing, amending, and revising plans--(1) Plan development. 
If a new national forest, grassland, prairie, or other administrative 
unit of the National Forest System is established, the Regional 
Forester, or a forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable unit 
Supervisor identified by the Regional Forester must either develop a 
plan for the unit or amend or revise an existing plan to apply to the 
lands within the new unit.
    (2) Plan amendment. The responsible official may amend a plan at 
any time.
    (3) Plan revision. The responsible official must revise the plan if 
the responsible official concludes that conditions within the plan area 
have significantly changed. Unless otherwise provided by law, a plan 
must be revised at least every 15 years.


Sec.  219.3  Nature of land management planning.

    (a) Principles of land management planning. Land management 
planning is an adaptive management process that includes social, 
economic, and ecological evaluation; plan development, plan amendment, 
and plan revision; and monitoring. The overall aim of planning is to 
produce responsible land management for the National Forest System 
based on useful and current information and guidance. Land management 
planning 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) Force and effect of plans. Plans developed in accordance with 
this subpart generally contain desired conditions, objectives, and 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking in the plan area. 
Plans do not grant, withhold, or modify any contract, permit, or other 
legal instrument, subject anyone to civil or criminal liability, or 
create any legal rights. Plans typically do not approve or execute 
projects and activities. Decisions with effects that can be 
meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23) typically are made when 
projects and activities are approved.


Sec.  219.4  National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

    (a) In accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1) this subpart clarifies 
how the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346) 
(hereinafter referred to as NEPA) applies to National Forest System 
land management planning.
    (b) Approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, under the 
authority of this subpart, will be done in accordance with the Forest 
Service NEPA procedures and may be categorically excluded from NEPA 
documentation under an appropriate category provided in such 
procedures.
    (c) Nothing in this subpart alters the application of NEPA to 
proposed projects and activities.
    (d) Monitoring and evaluations, including those required by Sec.  
219.6, may be used or incorporated by reference, as appropriate, in 
applicable NEPA documents.


Sec.  219.5  Environmental management systems.

    The responsible official must establish an environmental management 
system (EMS) for each unit of the National Forest System. The scope of 
an EMS will include, at the minimum, the land management planning 
process defined by this subpart. An EMS for any unit may include 
environmental aspects unrelated to the land management planning process 
under this subpart.
    (a) Plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision must be 
completed in accordance with the EMS and Sec.  219.14. An EMS may be 
established independently of the planning process.
    (b) The EMS must conform to the consensus standard developed by the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and adopted by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as ``ISO 14001: 
Environmental Management Systems--Specification With Guidance For Use'' 
(ISO 14001). The ISO 14001 describes EMSs and outlines the elements of 
an EMS. The ISO 14001 is available from the ANSI Web site at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/default.asp.
    (c) Pursuant to Sec.  219.1(c), the Chief of the Forest Service 
shall establish procedures in the Forest Service Directive System to 
ensure that appropriate EMSs are in place. The responsible official may 
determine whether and how to change and improve an EMS for the plan 
area, consistent with applicable Forest Service Directive System 
procedures.


Sec.  219.6  Evaluations and monitoring.

    (a) Evaluations. The responsible official shall keep the plan set 
of documents up to date with evaluation reports, which will reflect 
changing conditions, science, and other relevant information. The 
following three types of evaluations are required for land management 
planning: Comprehensive evaluations for plan development and revision, 
evaluations for plan amendment, and annual evaluations of monitoring 
information. The responsible official shall document evaluations in 
evaluation reports, make these reports available to the public as 
required in Sec.  219.9, and include these

[[Page 48536]]

reports in the plan set of documents (Sec.  219.7(a)(1)). Evaluations 
under this section should be commensurate to the level of risk or 
benefit associated with the nature and level of expected management 
activities in the plan area.
    (1) Comprehensive evaluations. These evaluate current social, 
economic, and ecological conditions and trends that contribute to 
sustainability, as described in Sec.  219.10. Comprehensive evaluations 
and comprehensive evaluation reports must be updated at least every 
five years to reflect any substantial changes in conditions and trends 
since the last comprehensive evaluation. The responsible official must 
ensure that comprehensive evaluations, including any updates necessary, 
include the following elements:
    (i) Area of analysis. The area(s) of analysis must be clearly 
identified.
    (ii) Conditions and trends. The current social, economic, and 
ecological conditions and trends and substantial changes from 
previously identified conditions and trends must be described based on 
available information, including monitoring information, surveys, 
assessments, analyses, and other studies as appropriate. Evaluations 
may build upon existing studies and evaluations.
    (2) Evaluation for a plan amendment. An evaluation for a plan 
amendment must analyze the issues relevant to the purposes of the 
amendment and may use the information in comprehensive evaluations 
relevant to the plan amendment. When a plan amendment is made 
contemporaneously with, and only applies to, a project or activity 
decision, the analysis prepared for the project or activity satisfies 
the requirements for an evaluation for an amendment.
    (3) Annual evaluation of the monitoring information. Monitoring 
results must be evaluated annually and in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section.
    (b) Monitoring. The plan must describe the monitoring program for 
the plan area. Monitoring information in the plan document or set of 
documents may be changed and updated as appropriate, at any time. Such 
changes and updates are administrative corrections (Sec.  219.7(b)) and 
do not require a plan amendment or revision.
    (1) The plan-monitoring program shall be developed with public 
participation and take into account:
    (i) Financial and technical capabilities;
    (ii) Key social, economic, and ecological performance measures 
relevant to the plan area: and
    (iii) The best available science.
    (2) The plan-monitoring program shall provide for:
    (i) Monitoring to determine whether plan implementation is 
achieving multiple use objectives;
    (ii) Monitoring to determine the effects of the various resource 
management activities within the plan area on the productivity of the 
land;
    (iii) Monitoring of the degree to which on-the-ground management is 
maintaining or making progress toward the desired conditions and 
objectives for the plan; and
    (iv) Adjustment of the monitoring program as appropriate to account 
for unanticipated changes in conditions.
    (3) The responsible official may conduct monitoring jointly with 
others, including but not limited to, Forest Service units, Federal, 
State or local government agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, 
and members of the public.


Sec.  219.7  Developing, amending, or revising a plan.

    (a) General planning requirements--(1) Plan documents or set of 
documents. The responsible official must maintain a plan document or 
set of documents for the plan. A plan document or set of documents 
includes, but is not limited to, evaluation reports; documentation of 
public involvement; the plan, including applicable maps; applicable 
plan approval documents; applicable NEPA documents, if any; the 
monitoring program for the plan area; and documents relating to the EMS 
established for the unit.
    (2) Plan components. Plan components may apply to all or part of 
the plan area. A plan should include the following components:
    (i) Desired conditions. Desired conditions are the social, 
economic, and ecological attributes toward which management of the land 
and resources of the plan area is to be directed. Desired conditions 
are aspirations and are not commitments or final decisions approving 
projects and activities, and may be achievable only over a long time 
period.
    (ii) Objectives. Objectives are concise projections of measurable, 
time-specific intended outcomes. The objectives for a plan are the 
means of measuring progress toward achieving or maintaining desired 
conditions. Like desired conditions, objectives are aspirations and are 
not commitments or final decisions approving projects and activities.
    (iii) Guidelines. Guidelines provide information and guidance for 
project and activity decisionmaking to help achieve desired conditions 
and objectives. Guidelines are not commitments or final decisions 
approving projects and activities.
    (iv) Suitability of areas. Areas of each National Forest System 
unit are identified as generally suitable for various uses (Sec.  
219.12). An area may be identified as generally suitable for uses that 
are compatible with desired conditions and objectives for that area. 
The identification of an area as generally suitable for a use is 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking and is not a 
commitment or a final decision approving projects and activities. Uses 
of specific areas are approved through project and activity 
decisionmaking.
    (v) Special areas. Special areas are areas within the National 
Forest System designated because of their unique or special 
characteristics. Special areas such as botanical areas or significant 
caves may be designated, by the responsible official in approving a 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. Such designations are not final 
decisions approving projects and activities. The plan may also 
recognize special areas designated by statute or through a separate 
administrative process in accordance with NEPA requirements (Sec.  
219.4) and other applicable laws.
    (3) Changing plan components. Plan components may be changed 
through plan amendment or revision, or through an administrative 
correction in accordance with Sec.  219.7(b).
    (4) Planning authorities. The responsible official has the 
discretion to determine whether and how to change the plan, subject to 
the requirement that the plan be revised at least every 15 years. A 
decision by a responsible official about whether or not to initiate the 
plan amendment or plan revision process and what issues to consider for 
plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision is not subject to 
objection under this subpart (Sec.  219.13).
    (5) Plan process.
    (i) Required evaluation reports, plan, plan amendments, and plan 
revisions must be prepared by an interdisciplinary team; and
    (ii) Unless otherwise provided by law, all National Forest System 
lands possessing wilderness characteristics must be considered for 
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during plan development or 
revision.
    (6) Developing plan options. In the collaborative and participatory 
process of land management planning, the responsible official may use 
an iterative approach in development of a plan, plan amendment, and 
plan revision in which plan options are developed and narrowed 
successively. The key steps in

[[Page 48537]]

this process shall be documented in the plan set of documents.
    (b) Administrative corrections. Administrative corrections may be 
made at any time, and are not plan amendments or revisions. 
Administrative corrections include the following:
    (1) Corrections and updates of data and maps;
    (2) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive 
changes;
    (3) Changes in the monitoring program and monitoring information 
(Sec.  219.6(b));
    (4) Changes in timber management projections; and
    (5) Other changes in the plan document or set of documents, except 
for substantive changes in the plan components.
    (c) Approval document. The responsible official must record 
approval of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision in a plan 
approval document, which must include:
    (1) The rationale for the approval of the plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision;
    (2) Concurrence by the appropriate Station Director with any part 
of the plan applicable to any experimental forest within the plan area, 
in accordance with Sec.  219.2(b)(3);
    (3) A statement of how the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 
applies to approved projects and activities, in accordance with Sec.  
219.8;
    (4) Science documentation, in accordance with Sec.  219.11; and
    (5) The effective date of the approval (Sec.  219.14(a)).


Sec.  219.8  Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision.

    (a) Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to 
existing authorizations and approved projects or activities.
    (1) The responsible official must include in any document approving 
a plan amendment or revision a description of the effects of the plan, 
plan amendments, or plan revision on existing occupancy and use, 
authorized by permits, contracts, or other instruments implementing 
approved projects and activities. If not expressly excepted, approved 
projects and activities must be consistent with applicable plan 
components, as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. Approved 
projects and activities are those for which a responsible official has 
signed a decision document.
    (2) Any modifications of such permits, contracts, or other 
instruments necessary to make them consistent with applicable plan 
components as developed, amended, or revised are subject to valid 
existing rights. Such modifications should be made as soon as 
practicable following approval of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision.
    (b) Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision to 
authorizations and projects or activities subsequent to plan approval. 
Decisions approving projects and activities subsequent to approval of a 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision must be consistent with the plan 
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (c) Application of a plan. Plan provisions remain in effect until 
the effective date of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    (d) Effect of new information on projects or activities. Although 
new information will be considered in accordance with Agency NEPA 
procedures, nothing in this subpart requires automatic deferral, 
suspension, or modification of approved decisions in light of new 
information.
    (e) Ensuring project or activity consistency with plans. Projects 
and activities must be consistent with the applicable plan. If an 
existing (paragraph (a) of this section) or proposed (paragraph (b) of 
this section) use, project, or activity is not consistent with the 
applicable plan, the responsible official may take one of the following 
steps, subject to valid existing rights:
    (1) Modify the project or activity to make it consistent with the 
applicable plan components;
    (2) Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity, 
subject to valid existing rights; or
    (3) Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the 
project or activity so that it will be consistent with the plan as 
amended. The amendment may be limited to apply only to the project or 
activity.


Sec.  219.9  Public participation, collaboration, and notification.

    The responsible official must use a collaborative and participatory 
approach to land management planning, in accordance with this subpart 
and consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, 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.
    (a) Providing opportunities for participation. The responsible 
official must provide opportunities for the public to collaborate and 
participate openly and meaningfully in the planning process, taking 
into account the discrete and diverse roles, jurisdictions, and 
responsibilities of interested and affected parties. Specifically, as 
part of plan development, plan amendment, and plan revision, the 
responsible official shall involve the public in developing and 
updating the comprehensive evaluation report, establishing the 
components of the plan, and designing the monitoring program. The 
responsible official has the discretion to determine the methods and 
timing of public involvement opportunities.
    (1) Engaging interested individuals and organizations. The 
responsible official must provide for and encourage collaboration and 
participation by interested individuals and organizations, including 
private landowners whose lands are within, adjacent to, or otherwise 
affected by future management actions within the plan area.
    (2) Engaging State and local governments and Federal agencies. The 
responsible official must provide opportunities for the coordination of 
Forest Service planning efforts undertaken in accordance with this 
subpart with those of other resource management agencies. The 
responsible official also must meet with and provide early 
opportunities for other government agencies to be involved, 
collaborate, and participate in planning for National Forest System 
lands. The responsible official should seek assistance, where 
appropriate, from other State and local governments, Federal agencies, 
and scientific and academic institutions to help address management 
issues or opportunities.
    (3) Engaging Tribal governments. The Forest Service recognizes the 
Federal Government's trust responsibility for federally recognized 
Indian Tribes. The responsible official must consult with, invite, and 
provide opportunities for federally recognized Indian Tribes to 
collaborate and participate in planning. In working with federally 
recognized Indian Tribes, the responsible official must honor the 
government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the Federal 
Government.
    (b) Public notification. The following public notification 
requirements apply to plan development, amendment, or revision, except 
when a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously with approval of a 
project or activity and the amendment

[[Page 48538]]

applies only to the project or activity, in which case 36 CFR part 215 
or part 218, subpart A, applies:
    (1) When formal public notification is provided. Public 
notification must be provided at the following times:
    (i) Initiation of development of a plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision;
    (ii) Commencement of the 90-day comment period on a proposed plan, 
plan amendment, or plan revision;
    (iii) Commencement of the 30-day objection period prior to approval 
of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision;
    (iv) Approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; and
    (v) Adjustment to conform to this subpart of a planning process for 
a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision initiated under the provisions 
of a previous planning regulation.
    (2) How public notice is provided. Public notice must be provided 
in the following manner:
    (i) All required public notices applicable to a new plan, plan 
revision, or adjustment of any ongoing plan revision as provided at 
Sec.  219.14(e) must be published in the Federal Register and 
newspaper(s) of record.
    (ii) Required notifications that are associated with a plan 
amendment or adjustment of any ongoing plan amendment as provided at 
Sec.  219.14(e) and that apply to one plan must be published in the 
newspaper(s) of record. Required notifications that are associated with 
plan amendments and adjustment of any ongoing plan amendments (as 
provided at Sec.  219.14(e)) and that apply to more than one plan must 
be published in the Federal Register.
    (iii) Public notification of evaluation reports and monitoring 
program changes may be made in a manner deemed appropriate by the 
responsible official.
    (3) Content of the public notice. Public notices must contain the 
following information:
    (i) Content of the public notice for initiating a plan development, 
plan amendment, or plan revision. The notice must inform the public of 
the documents available for review and how to obtain them; provide a 
summary of the need to develop a plan or change a plan; invite the 
public to comment on the need for change in a plan and to identify any 
other need for change in a plan that they feel should be addressed 
during the planning process; and provide an estimated schedule for the 
planning process, including the time available for comments, and inform 
the public how to submit comments.
    (ii) Content of the public notice for a proposed plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. The notice must inform the public of the 
availability of the proposed plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, 
including any relevant evaluation report; the commencement of the 90-
day comment period; and the process for submitting comments.
    (iii) Content of the public notice for a plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision prior to approval. The notice must inform the public of 
the availability of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision; any 
relevant evaluation report; and the commencement of the 30-day 
objection period; and the process for objecting.
    (iv) Content of the public notice for approval of a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision. The notice must inform the public of the 
availability of the approved plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, 
the approval document, and the effective date of the approval (Sec.  
219.14(a)).
    (v) Content of the public notice for an adjustment to an ongoing 
planning process. The notice must state how a planning process 
initiated before the transition period (Sec.  219.14(b) and (e)) will 
be adjusted to conform to this subpart.


Sec.  219.10  Sustainability.

    Sustainability, for any unit of the National Forest System, has 
three interrelated and interdependent elements: Social, economic, and 
ecological. A plan can contribute to sustainability by creating a 
framework to guide on-the-ground management of projects and activities; 
however, a plan by itself cannot ensure sustainability. Agency 
authorities, the nature of a plan, and the capabilities of the plan 
area are some of the factors that limit the extent to which a plan can 
contribute to achieving sustainability.
    (a) Sustaining social and economic systems. The overall goal of the 
social and economic elements of sustainability is to contribute to 
sustaining social and economic systems within the plan area. To 
understand the social and economic contributions that National Forest 
System lands presently make, and may make in the future, the 
responsible official, in accordance with Sec.  219.6, must evaluate 
relevant economic and social conditions and trends as appropriate 
during plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    (b) Sustaining ecological systems. The overall goal of the 
ecological element of sustainability is to provide a framework to 
contribute to sustaining native ecological systems by providing 
ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal 
species in the plan area. This will satisfy the statutory requirement 
to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the 
suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet 
overall multiple-use objectives (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Procedures 
developed pursuant to Sec.  219.1(c) for sustaining ecological systems 
must be consistent with the following:
    (1) Ecosystem diversity. Ecosystem diversity is the primary means 
by which a plan contributes to sustaining ecological systems. Plan 
components must establish a framework to provide the characteristics of 
ecosystem diversity in the plan area.
    (2) Species diversity. If the responsible official determines that 
provisions in plan components, in addition to those required by 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, are needed to provide appropriate 
ecological conditions for specific threatened and endangered species, 
species-of-concern, and species-of-interest, then the plan must include 
additional provisions for these species, consistent with the limits of 
Agency authorities, the capability of the plan area, and overall 
multiple use objectives.


Sec.  219.11  Role of science in planning.

    (a) The responsible official must take into account the best 
available science. For purposes of this subpart, taking into account 
the best available science means the responsible official must:
    (1) Document how the best available science was taken into account 
in the planning process within the context of the issues being 
considered;
    (2) Evaluate and disclose substantial uncertainties in that 
science;
    (3) Evaluate and disclose substantial risks associated with plan 
components based on that science; and
    (4) Document that the science was appropriately interpreted and 
applied.
    (b) To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the 
responsible official may use independent peer review, a science 
advisory board, or other review methods to evaluate the consideration 
of science in the planning process.


Sec.  219.12  Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA.

    (a) Suitable uses.
    (1) Identification of suitable land uses. National Forest System 
lands are generally suitable for a variety of multiple uses, such as 
outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish 
purposes. The responsible official, as appropriate, shall identify 
areas within a National Forest System unit as generally suitable for 
uses that are compatible with desired

[[Page 48539]]

conditions and objectives for that area. Such identification is 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking, is not a permanent 
land designation, and is subject to change through plan amendment or 
plan revision. Uses of specific areas are approved through project and 
activity decisionmaking.
    (2) Identification of lands not suitable for timber production.
    (i) The responsible official must identify lands within the plan 
area as not suitable for timber production (Sec.  219.16) if:
    (A) Statute, Executive order, or regulation prohibits timber 
production on the land; or
    (B) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service 
has withdrawn the land from timber production; or
    (C) The land is not forest land (as defined at Sec.  219.16); or
    (D) Timber production would not be compatible with the achievement 
of desired conditions and objectives established by the plan for those 
lands.
    (ii) This identification is not a final decision compelling, 
approving, or prohibiting projects and activities. A final 
determination of suitability for timber production is made through 
project and activity decisionmaking. Salvage sales or other harvest 
necessary for multiple-use objectives other than timber production may 
take place on areas that are not suitable for timber production.
    (b) NFMA requirements. (1) The Chief of the Forest Service must 
include in the Forest Service Directive System procedures for 
estimating the quantity of timber that can be removed annually in 
perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 
1611.
    (2) The Chief of the Forest Service must include in the Forest 
Service Directive System procedures to ensure that plans include the 
resource management guidelines required by 16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3).
    (3) Forest Service Directive System procedures adopted to fulfill 
the requirements of this paragraph shall provide public involvement as 
described in 36 CFR part 216.


Sec.  219.13  Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.

    (a) Opportunities to object. Before approving a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision, the responsible official must provide the 
public 30 calendar days for pre-decisional review and the opportunity 
to object. Federal agencies may not object under this subpart. During 
the 30-day review period, any person or organization, other than a 
Federal agency, who participated in the planning process through the 
submission of written comments, may object to a plan, plan amendment, 
or plan revision according to the procedures in this section, except in 
the following circumstances:
    (1) When a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously with a 
project or activity decision and the plan amendment applies only to the 
project or activity, in which case the administrative review process of 
36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, applies instead of the 
objection process established in this section; or
    (2) When the responsible official is an official in the Department 
of Agriculture at a level higher than the Chief of the Forest Service, 
in which case there is no opportunity for administrative review.
    (b) Submitting objections. The objection must be in writing and 
must be filed with the reviewing officer within 30 days following the 
publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record of the 
availability of the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. Specific 
details will be included in the Forest Service Directive System. An 
objection must contain:
    (1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person 
or entity filing the objection. Where a single objection is filed by 
more than one person, the objection must indicate the lead objector to 
contact. The reviewing officer may appoint the first name listed as the 
lead objector to act on behalf of all parties to the single objection 
when the single objection does not specify a lead objector. The 
reviewing officer may communicate directly with the lead objector and 
is not required to notify the other listed objectors of the objection 
response or any other written correspondence related to the single 
objection;
    (2) A statement of the issues, the parts of the plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision to which the objection applies, and how the 
objecting party would be adversely affected; and
    (3) A concise statement explaining how the objector believes that 
the plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is inconsistent with law, 
regulation, or policy or how the objector disagrees with the decision 
and providing any recommendations for change.
    (c) Responding to objections. (1) The reviewing officer (Sec.  
219.16) has the authority to make all procedural determinations related 
to the objection not specifically explained in this subpart, including 
those procedures necessary to ensure compatibility, to the extent 
practicable, with the administrative review processes of other Federal 
agencies. The reviewing officer must promptly render a written response 
to the objection. The response must be sent to the objecting party by 
certified mail, return receipt requested.
    (2) The response of the reviewing officer shall be the final 
decision of the Department of Agriculture on the objection.
    (d) Use of other administrative review processes. Where the Forest 
Service is a participant in a multi-Federal agency effort that would 
otherwise be subject to objection under this subpart, the reviewing 
officer may waive the objection procedures of this subpart 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 that a joint 
agency response will be provided to those who file for administrative 
review of the multi-agency effort.
    (e) 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.  219.14  Effective dates and transition.

    (a) Effective dates. A plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is 
effective 30 days after publication of notice of its approval (Sec.  
219.9(b)), except when a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously 
with a project or activity and applies only to the project or activity, 
in which case 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, apply.
    (b) Transition period. For each unit of the National Forest System, 
the transition period begins on the effective date of this subpart and 
ends on the unit's establishment of an EMS in accordance with Sec.  
219.5 or three years after the effective date of this subpart, 
whichever comes first.
    (c) Initiation of plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions. For 
the purposes of this section, initiation means that the Agency has 
provided notice under Sec.  219.9(b) or issued a Notice of Intent or 
other public notice announcing the commencement of the process to 
develop a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    (d) Plan development, plan amendments, or plan revisions initiated 
during the transition period.
    (1) Plan development and plan revisions initiated after the 
effective date of this subpart must conform to the requirements of this 
subpart, except that the plan for the Tongass National Forest

[[Page 48540]]

may be revised once under this subpart or the planning regulations in 
effect before November 9, 2000.
    (2) Plan amendments initiated during the transition period may 
continue using the provisions of the planning regulations in effect 
before November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of 
July 1, 2000) or may conform to the requirements of this subpart if the 
responsible official establishes an EMS in accordance with Sec.  219.5.
    (3) Plan amendments initiated after the transition period must 
conform to the requirements of this subpart.
    (e) Plan development, plan amendments, or plan revisions previously 
initiated. Plan development, plan amendments, or plan revisions 
initiated before the transition period may continue to use the 
provisions of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 
2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000), or may 
conform to the requirements of this subpart, in accordance with the 
following:
    (1) The responsible official is not required to halt the process 
and start over. Rather, upon the unit's establishment of an EMS in 
accordance with Sec.  219.5, the responsible official may apply this 
subpart as appropriate to complete the plan development, plan 
amendment, or plan revision process.
    (2) The responsible official may elect to use either the 
administrative appeal and review procedures at 36 CFR part 217 in 
effect prior to November 9, 2000, (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised 
as of July 1, 2000), or the objection procedures of this subpart, 
except when a plan amendment is approved contemporaneously with a 
project or activity and applies only to the project or activity, in 
which case 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, apply.
    (f) Management indicator species. For units with plans developed, 
amended, or revised using the provisions of the planning rule in effect 
prior to November 9, 2000, the responsible official may comply with any 
obligations relating to management indicator species by considering 
data and analysis relating to habitat unless the plan specifically 
requires population monitoring or population surveys for the species. 
Site-specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity 
area is not required, but may be conducted at the discretion of the 
responsible official.


Sec.  219.15  Severability.

    In the event that any specific provision of this rule is deemed by 
a court to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.


Sec.  219.16  Definitions.

    Definitions of the special terms used in this subpart are set out 
in alphabetical order.
    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.
    Area of analysis: The geographic area within which ecosystems, 
their components, or their processes are evaluated during analysis and 
development of one or more plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments. 
This area may vary in size depending on the relevant planning issue. 
For a plan, an area of analysis may be larger than a plan area. For 
development of a plan amendment, an area of analysis may be smaller 
than the plan area. An area of analysis may include multiple 
ownerships.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities: 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 diversity of plant and animal communities 
and the productive capacity of ecological systems. These components 
could include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial 
habitats, roads and other structural developments, human uses, and 
invasive, exotic species.
    Ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem 
types, including their composition, structure, and processes within all 
or a part of an area of analysis.
    Environmental management system: The part of the overall management 
system that includes organizational structure, planning activities, 
responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes, and resources for 
developing, implementing, achieving, reviewing, and maintaining the 
environmental policy of the planning unit.
    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 nonforest use include 
areas for crops; improved pasture; residential or administrative areas; 
improved roads of any width and adjoining road clearing; and power line 
clearings of any width.
    ISO 14001: A consensus standard developed by the International 
Organization for Standardization and adopted by the American National 
Standards Institute that describes environmental management systems and 
outlines the elements of an environmental management system.
    Newspaper(s) of record: The 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. The newspaper(s) of record for projects in a plan area 
is (are) the newspaper(s) of record for notices related to planning.
    Plan: A document or set of documents that integrates and displays 
information relevant to management of a unit of the National Forest 
System.
    Plan area: The National Forest System lands covered by a plan.
    Productivity: The capacity of National Forest System lands and 
their ecological systems to provide the various renewable resources in 
certain amounts in perpetuity. For the purposes of this subpart it is 
an ecological, not an economic, term.
    Public participation: Activities that include a wide range of 
public involvement tools and processes, such as collaboration, public 
meetings, open houses, workshops, and comment periods.
    Responsible Official: The official with the authority and 
responsibility to oversee the planning process and to approve plans, 
plan amendments, and plan revisions.
    Reviewing Officer: The supervisor of the responsible official. The 
reviewing officer responds to objections made to a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision prior to approval.
    Species: Any member of the currently accepted and scientifically 
defined plant or animal kingdoms of organisms.
    Species-of-concern: Species for which the responsible official 
determines that management actions may be necessary to prevent listing 
under the Endangered Species Act.
    Species-of-interest: Species for which the responsible official 
determines that management actions may be necessary or desirable to 
achieve ecological or other multiple use objectives.
    Timber production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and

[[Page 48541]]

regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or 
other round sections for industrial or consumer use.
    Visitor opportunities: The spectrum of settings, landscapes, 
scenery, facilities, services, access points, information, learning-
based recreation, wildlife, natural features, cultural and heritage 
sites, and so forth 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).

    Dated: August 13, 2007.
Sally Collins,
Associate Chief.
[FR Doc. E7-16378 Filed 8-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P