[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