95-8594. National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 18886-18932]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-8594]
    
    
    
    
    [[Page 18885]]
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part II
    
    
    
    
    
    Department of Agriculture
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    Forest Service
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    36 CFR Parts 215, 217 and 219
    
    
    
    National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed 
    Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / 
    Proposed Rules
    
    
    [[Page 18886]]
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    
    Forest Service
    
    
    
    
    36 CFR Parts 215, 217, and 219
    
    RIN 0596-AB20
    
    
    National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
    
    AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Forest Service requests comment on a proposed rule to 
    guide land and resource management planning for the 191-million acre 
    National Forest System. This proposed rule, which would revise and 
    streamline the existing planning rule, describes the agency's framework 
    for National Forest System resource decisionmaking; incorporates 
    principles of ecosystem management into resource planning; and 
    establishes requirements for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, 
    amendment, and revision of forest plans. The intended effect is to 
    simplify, clarify, and otherwise improve the planning process; reduce 
    burdensome and costly procedural requirements; and strengthen 
    relationships with the public and other government entities.
    
    DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing and received by July 12, 
    1995.
        The agency will provide briefings to assist the public in 
    understanding the proposed rule on April 24 at the locations and times 
    listed under Supplementary Information.
    
    ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Director, Ecosystem Management 
    (1920; 3 CEN), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 
    20090-6090.
        The public may inspect comments received on this proposed rule in 
    the Office of the Director, Third Floor, Central Wing, Auditor's 
    Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between the 
    hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Those wishing to inspect comments are 
    encouraged to call ahead (202-205-1034) to facilitate entry into the 
    building.
        Briefings will be held at the addresses set out under Supplementary 
    Information of this notice for proposed rulemaking.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Christensen, Land Management 
    Planning Specialist (202-205-1034).
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Public Briefings and Locations
    
        The Forest Service will hold public briefings on April 24 in the 
    following cities at the addresses and times shown:
        1. Washington, DC--April 24, 1995, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Crystal 
    City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 
    22202.
        2. Missoula, Montana--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., 4B's Inn 
    and Conference Center, 3803 Brooks Street, Missoula, Montana, 59801.
        3. Denver, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., USDA 
    Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Auditorium, 740 Simms Street, 
    Golden, Colorado, 80401.
        4. Grand Junction, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 
    p.m., Grand Junction Ranger District, 764 Horizon Drive, Grand 
    Junction, Colorado, 81506.
        5. Durango, Colorado--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., San 
    Juan Forest Supervisor's Office, 701 Camino del Camino, Durango, 
    Colorado, 81301.
        6. Chadron, Nebraska--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., 
    Nebraska National Forest Supervisor's Office, 125 N. Main Street, 
    Chadron, Nebraska, 69337.
        7. Rapid City, South Dakota--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 
    p.m., Pactola Ranger District Office, 800 Soo San Drive, Rapid City, 
    South Dakota, 81506.
        8. Casper, Wyoming--April 24, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Holiday 
    Inn, 300 ``F'' Street, Casper, Wyoming, 82601.
        9. Albuquerque, New Mexico--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., 
    Southwestern Regional Office, 517 Gold Avenue, S.W., Albuquerque, New 
    Mexico, 87102.
        10. Phoenix, Arizona--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Tonto 
    National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2234 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, 
    Arizona, 85010.
        11. Boise, Idaho--April 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., National 
    Interagency Fire Center, Training Building Auditorium, 3833 Development 
    Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83705.
        12. Salt Lake City, Utah--April 24, 1995, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Federal 
    Building, Room 2404, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 
    84138.
        13. Sacramento, California--April 24, 1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., 
    Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, California, 
    95815.
        14. Portland, Oregon--April 24, 1995, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., USDA 
    Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Robert Duncan Plaza, 
    333 S.W. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97208.
        15. Atlanta, Georgia--April 24, 1995, 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., USDA 
    Forest Service Southern Region Office, 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W., room 
    199, Atlanta, Georgia, 30367.
        16. Brookfield, Wisconsin--April 24, 1995, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., 
    Brookfield Marriott Hotel, 375 South Moorland Road, Brookfield, 
    Wisconsin, 53005.
        17. Juneau, Alaska--April 24, 1995, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Alaska Native 
    Brotherhood Hall, 320 Willoughby Avenue, Juneau, Alaska, 99801.
        Public comments will not be taken at these briefings, which will 
    consist of video presentations prepared by the Chief's Office. As of 
    May 1, one copy of this video material will also be available at the 
    Chief's Office, each Regional Office, each Forest Supervisor's Office, 
    each Research or Experiment Station, the Forest Products Laboratory, 
    the Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Office, and the 
    International Institute of Tropical Forestry. The video may be borrowed 
    by interested parties on a reservation basis by contacting their local 
    Forest Service office or calling the telephone number listed under FOR 
    FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT earlier in this notice.
    
    Background
    
        The Forest Service is responsible for managing the land and 
    resources of the National Forest System. It is headed by the Chief of 
    the Forest Service and includes 191 million acres of lands in 42 
    States, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The National Forest System 
    consists of 155 National Forests, 20 National Grasslands, and various 
    other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
    Under the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) and 
    the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600), these 
    lands are managed for a variety of uses on a sustained basis to ensure 
    a continued supply of goods and services to the American people in 
    perpetuity.
        The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
    (RPA) (88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest 
    Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 USC 1601-1614) 
    (hereafter, NFMA), specifies that land and resource management plans 
    shall be developed for units of the National Forest System. Regulations 
    to implement NFMA are set forth at 36 CFR part 219.
        A forest plan has been approved for every National Forest except 
    the Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino, and Six Rivers National 
    Forests, all located in California. It remains the agency's intent that 
    these National Forests complete their plans under the requirements for 
    forest plan development described by the existing regulation, adopted 
    September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), as amended June 24, 1983 (48 FR 
    29122), and September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383), and as set out in the 
    
    [[Page 18887]]
    Code of Federal Regulations as of July 1, 1993.
        During the 18 years since enactment of NFMA, much has been learned 
    about planning for management of National Forest System lands. The 
    original vision of NFMA raised many varied expectations, some of which 
    remain unfulfilled. Although forest planning efforts to date have 
    produced notable accomplishments in addressing forest management issues 
    and fostering public participation in public land management, many 
    controversies linger. For each National Forest, difficult resource 
    management choices must be made among competing interests, often where 
    there are no universally accepted answers. In such a setting, forest 
    planning cannot be expected to revolve all differences; however, 
    improvements in forest planning requirements and procedures can help 
    better focus the issues and choices and lead to better, more informed 
    decisions.
        This proposed rule is the culmination of a systematic and 
    comprehensive review of forest planning rules and processes. The nature 
    of this review and its findings were described in detail in the Advance 
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on February 15, 1991 (56 FR 
    6508), along with a history of forest planning and an overview of the 
    existing planning rule.
    
    Critique of Land Management Planning
    
        Of particular note in development of this proposed rule is the 
    Critique of Land Management Planning. The Forest Service initiated this 
    comprehensive review of its land management planning process in March 
    1989. Conducted with the help of The Conservation Foundation, the 
    Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University, and 
    others, the purpose of the Critique was to document what had been 
    learned since passage of the National Forest Management Act and to 
    determine how best to respond to the planning challenges of the future.
        The Critique involved over 3,500 people both within and outside the 
    Forest Service. Workshops and interviews were conducted involving over 
    2,000 people who had participated in or had responsibilities for forest 
    planning. These participants represented a broad cross-section of all 
    those who were involved in planning, including members of the general 
    public, interest groups, representatives of other agencies, elected 
    officials, representatives of Indian tribal governments, Forest 
    Supervisors, Regional Foresters, resource specialists, and members of 
    interdisciplinary planning teams. Additionally, there were written 
    comments received from 1,500 interested people. The Critique was 
    completed in May 1990. The results of the Critique are documented in a 
    summary report, ``Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management 
    Planning'' (Vol. 1) and 10 other more detailed reports. In the interest 
    of economy and brevity, the findings of the Critique and other material 
    are not repeated here but should be considered as the foundation and 
    background for this proposed rule.
    
    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    
        An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on February 
    15, 1991 (56 FR 6508). The public comment period closed May 16, 1991. 
    The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included preliminary 
    regulatory text completely revising the existing regulation, based 
    largely on the findings of the Critique. Four public informational 
    meetings were held to stimulate public interest in and comment on the 
    proposal in the Advance Notice and to assist the public in 
    understanding the ideas presented in the Notice. Meetings were held as 
    follows: Washington, DC, February 26, 1991; Portland, Oregon, April 8, 
    1991; Denver, Colorado, April 10, 1991; and Atlanta, Georgia, April 12, 
    1991. Altogether, approximately 50 people attended these meetings.
        In addition to publishing the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
    in the Federal Register, the Forest Service mailed approximately 20,000 
    copies to known interested parties and invited comment on the rule. 
    Over 600 groups and individuals provided nearly 4,700 comments. 
    Approximately 10 percent were from business and industry groups; 11 
    percent from Federal, State, and local government agencies; 11 percent 
    from environmental and conservation groups; 2 percent from recreation 
    and user groups; 1 percent from academia; 1 percent from civic 
    organizations; 9 percent from agency employees; and the remaining 55 
    percent from individual citizens.
        As stated in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the agency 
    received a petition on November 1, 1990, from the National Forest 
    Products Association and 79 other organizations ``to engage in a 
    rulemaking to amend the regulations set out at 36 CFR Part 219 to 
    improve the implementation of land and resource management plans 
    (`forest plants'), provide for prompt amendment, establish specific 
    environmental documentation requirements, and for related reasons.'' 
    This petition for rulemaking included proposed regulatory text and the 
    rationale for it. It represented an alternative approach to changing 
    the NFMA planning regulation at 36 CFR Part 219. The specific 
    recommendations in the petition, along with supplemental comments 
    received from the National Forest Products Association during the 
    public comment period, were considered as part of the public comment 
    associated with the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    
    Basic Conclusions Underlying This Proposal
    
        The proposed rule now being published rests on many of the same 
    basic conclusions as the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which 
    are highlighted here.
    
    1. Many Recommendations of the Critique of Land Management Planning can 
    and Should be Adopted by Revising the Planning Rule
    
        Although a number of specific recommendations have been used in 
    developing this proposed rule, the following major recommendations 
    identified by the Critique are particularly important:
    (a) Simplify, Clarify, and Shorten the Planning Process
        The Critique found that the complexity of the forest planning 
    process was so overwhelming that few people really fully understood it. 
    Further, the Critique found that this complexity often inhibited 
    meaningful communication with the public and other governments, reduced 
    agency credibility, and increased the time and cost needed to complete 
    plans.
        The Critique also identified the problems associated with trying to 
    resolve socio-political issues through a highly technical and 
    systematic set of planning procedures. The importance of balancing 
    technical information with the values and concerns of the public was 
    highlighted in the Critique reports.
        Finally, the planning process is so lengthy and complex that the 
    process of completing forest plans is frustrating for the public and 
    agency employees alike. In addition, the financial expenditure required 
    for such a lengthy and complex process has had a major impact on the 
    agency and diverted funds and personnel from project decisionmaking and 
    other activities.
        While endorsing the need to simplify, clarify, and shorten the 
    planning process, the Forest Service also recognizes that forest 
    planning is inherently complex due to the multitude of resources and 
    statutory responsibilities involved. Sound, yet often complex, 
    technical analyses serve 
    
    [[Page 18888]]
    a critical role in evaluating resource trade-offs and ensuring that 
    resource decisions are based on the best possible information. A 
    balance must be found between the simplicity most people desire and the 
    complex reality of forest planning.
    (b) Clarify the Decision Framework
        The existing regulation does not precisely address the nature of 
    forest plan decisions and the appropriate scope of environmental 
    analysis. During development of the existing forest plans, many people 
    believed that forest plans would make irretrievable resource 
    commitments for all projects necessary to fully implement the goals and 
    objectives of the plan. Confusion over the nature of forest plan 
    decisions has been a principal source of controversy for many plans. 
    Most of the administrative appeals of forest plans challenge whether 
    forest plans and accompanying environmental impact statements satisfy 
    particular requirements of NFMA, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the 
    Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws. Forest plan appellants 
    frequently argue that forest plans irretrievably commit the agency to 
    individual projects but fail to provide the analysis and documentation 
    required by these statutes.
        In fact, the environmental impact statements accompanying forest 
    plans do not attempt to identify, evaluate, and decide every individual 
    project that may be permissible during the normal 10-year period of a 
    forest plan. It would be practically impossible to satisfy these 
    obligations in one single set of decisions or in a single environmental 
    impact statement. Court decisions as well as administrative appeal 
    decisions by the Chief of the Forest Service and the Assistant 
    Secretary of Agriculture have explained the content of forest plan 
    decisions and the scope of environmental analysis. To avoid confusion, 
    the existing rule should be revised accordingly.
    (c) Provide for an Incremental Approach to Revising Forest Plans
        The Critique firmly endorsed an incremental approach to forest plan 
    revision. It was considered a key element to achieving the major 
    recommendations of the Critique to ``Simplify, clarify, and shorten the 
    planning process.'' In Volume 2 of the Critique report, the merits of 
    incremental planning are addressed:
    
        Wiping the slate clean and beginning anew allows the entire 
    universe to alternatives to be examined, unprejudiced by directions 
    and choices that have gone before. In fact, however, change is 
    incremental when the alternatives available are heavily influenced--
    and circumscribed--by the choices made in the past. Examining the 
    entire universe of alternatives in great detail may be both 
    interesting and informative, but it imposes a tremendous demand for 
    analysis that may go largely unused in the real decision process * * 
    *. Federal regulations should be revised to permit an explicitly 
    incremental approach to the revision of forest plans.'' (p. 61)
    
    2. While NFMA Has Some Limitations, It Remains Basically Sound
    
        Such NFMA principles as integrated resource planning, public 
    participation, and an interdisciplinary approach to planning continue 
    to provide a solid foundation for agency planning efforts. The Act also 
    provides flexibility to make needed improvements through rulemaking or 
    agency directives.
        Many of the problems with forest planning are not directly 
    associated with the provisions of NFMA. Public land management is 
    complicated by a long series of laws and regulations enacted over many 
    years. This has resulted in a situation once described by Federal 
    District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton as a ``crazy quilt of 
    apparently mutually incompatible statutory directives.'' (United States 
    v. Brunskill, Civil S-82-666-LKK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 1984) unpublished 
    opinion, aff'd, 792 F.2d 9938 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, the controversy 
    which often has surrounded forest planning must be viewed in light of 
    the many requirements imposed by statutory and regulatory requirements 
    other than the National Forest Management Act (e.g., the National 
    Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, 
    Clean Air Act). It is often the interaction of these other laws and 
    regulations that has increased the controversy surrounding forest 
    planning and land use.
        Some of the dissatisfaction with NFMA can be traced to unrealistic 
    expectations. One of the major findings of the Critique of Land 
    Management Planning was the need for adjustments in the public's 
    expectations of forest planning. Volume 2 of the report of the Critique 
    explicitly addressed this as follows:
    
        Expectations for forest planning are high in some cases, 
    unrealistically so. Some workshop participants expected forest 
    planning would lead to establishment of ``reasonable and 
    sustainable'' production goals. Others thought it would free 
    resource allocation from politics while building a powerful case for 
    budgets and appropriations sufficient to accomplish plan goals. And 
    many apparently thought that forest planning would be a way to 
    influence the political process and sway management to their 
    purposes. Probing more deeply, we found that it was not so much the 
    process to which people objected, but the results of that process. 
    In retrospect, it was inevitable that this would occur. When the law 
    was enacted, representatives of both the Sierra Club and the 
    National Forest Products Association returned to their constituents 
    and proclaimed victory. Obviously, both had different expectations 
    of outcomes under the law. (p.3)
    
    3. Many Opportunities Exist to Streamline the Existing Regulatory Text
    
        In addition to finding numerous opportunities to streamline the 
    substantive procedural requirements for forest planning, one of the 
    findings of the review of the existing regulation was that much could 
    be done to simplify the regulatory text itself and to enhance its 
    readability regardless of major substantive changes. For example, there 
    were numerous opportunities to simplify language, shorten definitions, 
    eliminate similar or duplicative provisions, improve structural 
    organization, and reduce overlap with other laws, regulations, or 
    Executive orders. In addition, language without real substance should 
    be removed. The composite effect of such changes can be a significant 
    reduction in the length of the regulation, an enhancement of its 
    readability, and a positive step forward towards better understanding 
    and simplification of forest planning.
        In reviewing the existing regulation, the agency also has 
    considered the relative roles of the planning regulation at 36 CFR part 
    219 and the Forest Service Directive System. The review indicated that 
    the rule is better suited for defining the purpose and desired results 
    of planning and the minimum standards for planning than for giving 
    detailed procedural guidelines. As a result, some streamlining has been 
    achieved in the proposed rule by shifting detailed procedural direction 
    to agency directives. To implement the revised regulation, the agency 
    plans to reorganize and revise its directives related to forest 
    planning. Subject to procedures in 36 CFR part 216, substantive 
    revisions to planning direction in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1920 
    will be made available for public review and comment prior to being 
    adopted.
    
    4. The Solution to Some Problems With the Planning Process Are Not 
    Within the Scope of the Planning Regulation
    
        Only about one-third of the 232 Critique recommendations concern 
    changes that are appropriate to implement through revision of the 
    planning regulation or issuance of related guidance through the Forest 
    
    [[Page 18889]]
    Service Directive System. The remaining two-thirds of the 
    recommendations must be addressed through other actions or channels, 
    such as increasing accountability for performance or improving 
    training.
        In addition, even though some aspects of planning are within the 
    scope of the regulation, the real success or failure of some endeavors 
    will depend on the commitment and understanding of agency personnel and 
    the public. A good example of this is public involvement. No amount of 
    regulatory detail can guarantee effective and open communication. 
    Certain expectations can be defined and minimum procedures established, 
    but ultimately the success or failure of the communication between the 
    agency and public depends upon the people involved. As a result, the 
    agency recognizes that even though modifying the planning regulation is 
    a major and essential step towards improving the effectiveness of 
    forest planning, such improvements must occur in concert with other 
    changes and commitments in order for the full potential of forest 
    planning to be realized.
        In addition to the preceding four conclusions which had been 
    addressed in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, one additional 
    finding has guided development of this proposed rule which were not 
    reflected in the Advance Notice.
    5. Principles of Ecosystem Management Need to be Reflected in the 
    Planning Regulation
    
        In the decade following promulgation of the existing planning rule, 
    the concept of ecosystem management has slowly and steadily evolved, 
    and the agency has made clear its intention to move toward an ecosystem 
    management approach to National Forest System management. In recent 
    years, the agency has actively promoted implementation of ecosystem 
    management principles within existing legal requirements. Other Federal 
    agencies are proceeding similarly. Additionally, the spotted owl 
    controversy in the Pacific Northwest has become a focal point for 
    exploring ways to implement the principles of ecosystem management. The 
    validity of an ecosystem approach was recently upheld when the Record 
    of Decision (ROD) for the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was 
    sustained from programmatic challenge (SAS v. Lyons, No. C92-479WD 
    (W.D. WA, Dec. 21, 1994)). In that decision, Judge Dwyer stated, 
    ``Given the current condition of the forests, there is no way the 
    agencies could comply with environmental laws without planning on an 
    ecosystem basis'' (slip. Op. @ 32).
        In light of the experience in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, 
    there is much interest in finding ways for Federal land management 
    agencies to better incorporate the principles of ecosystem management 
    when conducting resource planning and decisionmaking activities. The 
    existing NFMA planning regulation was promulgated in 1982, long before 
    the concept of ecosystem management had begun to be widely recognized. 
    By contrast, the proposed rule has been promulgated with recognition of 
    the role of ecosystem management and represents a significant step 
    toward incorporating ecosystem management into the planning process to 
    the extent permitted by current law.
        While basic principles of NFMA remain sound, there are questions as 
    to whether statutory changes may be appropriate if ecosystem management 
    is to become a fully operational concept for the management of National 
    Forest System lands. A related consideration is the interaction of NFMA 
    requirements with numerous other relevant statutes, such as the 
    National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321), the endangered 
    Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or the Federal Advisory 
    Committee Act (86 Stat. 770). Experience to date has shown that the 
    existing ``crazy quilt'' framework of statutes creates some limitations 
    and uncertainties regarding implementation of ecosystem management 
    concepts. Although progress can be made within the existing legal 
    framework, the agency believes that a review of NFMA and other relevant 
    statutes may be appropriate before the concept of ecosystem management 
    can be transformed from an evolving vision into a fully operational 
    reality.
        Moreover, it must be recognized that ecosystem management is a 
    continuously evolving concept. There is still much to be learned 
    regarding how best to implement the principles of ecosystem management 
    when fulfilling the agency's responsibilities for management of 
    National Forest System lands. As a result, the proposed rule should not 
    be viewed as the agency's ultimate vision for implementing ecosystem 
    management, but rather as a transitional step for beginning to 
    incorporate the concepts of ecosystem management into land and resource 
    management planning procedures and to do so in a manner consistent with 
    the requirements of NFMA.
        In summary, as the first generation of forest plans prepared under 
    NFMA is coming due for revision, the Forest Service proposes a 
    substantially streamlined planning rule that builds on 15 years of 
    planning experience and evolving concepts of resource management. The 
    primary outcomes anticipated from the proposed rule include: forest 
    plans and forest planning procedures that are simpler, more 
    understandable, and less costly; stronger relationships with the public 
    and other government entities; the incorporation of ecosystem 
    management principles into forest planning; and clarification of the 
    nature of forest plan decisions and their relationship to other 
    planning and decisionmaking processes.
    
    Comparison of Outlines of Proposed Rule to Existing Rule
    
        The following table allows comparison of the existing table of 
    contents for 36 CFR part 219, subpart A to that in the proposed rule:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Proposed rule                        Existing rule      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    219.1  Purpose and principles................  219.1  Purpose and       
                                                    principles.             
    219.2  Definitions...........................  219.2  Scope and         
                                                    applicability.          
    219.3  Relationships with the public and       219.3  Definitions and   
     government entities.                           terminology.            
    219.4  Sustainability of escosystems.........  219.4  Planning levels.  
    219.5  Framework for resource decisionmaking.  219.5  Interdisciplinary 
                                                    approach.               
    219.6  Forest plan direction.................  219.6  Public            
                                                    participation.          
    219.7  Ecosystem analysis....................  219.7  Coordination with 
                                                    other public planning   
                                                    efforts.                
    219.8  Interdisciplinary teams and             219.8  Regional planning--
     information needs.                             general procedure.      
    219.9  Forest plan amendments................  219.9  Regional guide    
                                                    content.                
    219.10  Forest plan revision.................  219.10  Forest planning--
                                                    general procedure.      
    219.11  Forest plan implementation...........  219.11  Forest plan      
                                                    content.                
    219.12  Monitoring and evaluation............  219.12  Forest plan      
                                                    process.                
    
    [[Page 18890]]
                                                                            
    219.13  Statutory timber management            219.13  Forest planning--
     requirements.                                  resource integration    
                                                    requirements.           
    219.14  Special designations.................  219.14  Timber resource  
                                                    land suitability.       
    219.15  Applicability and transition.........  219.15  Vegetative       
                                                    management practices.   
                                                   219.16  Timber resource  
                                                    sale schedule.          
                                                   219.17  Wilderness       
                                                    designation.            
                                                   219.18  Wilderness       
                                                    management.             
                                                   219.19  Fish and wildlife
                                                    resource.               
                                                   219.20  Grazing resource.
                                                   219.21  Recreation       
                                                    resource.               
                                                   219.22  Mineral resource.
                                                   219.23  Water and soil   
                                                    resource.               
                                                   219.24  Cultural and     
                                                    historic resource.      
                                                   219.25  Research natural 
                                                    areas.                  
                                                   219.26  Diversity.       
                                                   219.27  Management       
                                                    requirements.           
                                                   219.28  Research.        
                                                   219.29  Transition       
                                                    period.                 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    Section-by-Section Description
    
        The principal features of the proposed rule are summarized here, 
    keyed to the proposed CFR section numbers.
    
    Section 219.1  Purpose and Principles
    
        The proposed rule would: (1) Describe the agency's framework for 
    National Forest System resource decisionmaking; (2) incorporate 
    principles of ecosystem management; (3) establish requirements for the 
    implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of 
    forest plans; and (4) articulate the relationship between resource 
    decisionmaking and compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
    Act (hereafter, NEPA). Unlike the existing rule, the proposed rule 
    would not provide direction for development of initial forest plans, 
    because all but four of those plans are in effect.
        Paragraph (b) would identify 10 principles which provide the basis 
    for National Forest System resource decisionmaking and management. The 
    existing rule contains 14 principles. Although the 14 original 
    principles are basically sound in and of themselves, the agency 
    believes the new set of principles better reflects the concepts of 
    ecosystem management and the agency's approach to resource 
    decisionmaking.
        The first principle states the agency's commitment to managing for 
    sustainable ecosystems and the multiple benefits which they can yield. 
    The second principle articulates a key aspect of the agency's approach 
    to ecosystem management--that people are part of ecosystems and that 
    meeting people's needs and desires within the capacities of natural 
    systems is a primary role of resource decisionmaking.
        The third principle reflects the dynamic nature of ecosystems and 
    that they occur at a variety of spatial scales, with the resulting need 
    for flexible planning processes that consider ecological changes over 
    time. The fourth principle recognizes that ecosystems often cross many 
    ownerships and jurisdictions, making it important to coordinate 
    planning efforts for National Forest System lands with other 
    landowners, governments, and agencies. This principle also addresses 
    the need to respect private property rights and the jurisdictions of 
    other government entities.
        The fifth principle notes the importance of open, ongoing, and 
    equitable public involvement. This embodies the agency's belief that 
    such participation by all interested publics is an important and 
    integral part of National Forest System management.
        The sixth principle highlights the vital role of scientists in 
    gathering and analyzing information for resource decisionmaking.
        The seventh principle recognizes that a fundamental goal of 
    managing National Forest System lands is the optimization of net public 
    benefits, which includes consideration of both quantitative and 
    qualitative criteria.
        The eighth principle emphasizes the importance of being able to 
    efficiently adjust forest plans in response to changing conditions and 
    new information.
        The ninth principle makes clear that NEPA procedures define the 
    scope and level of analysis conducted for resource decisionmaking and 
    the need for analysis to be commensurate with the scope and nature of 
    decisions being made.
        The last principle acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in 
    resource decisionmaking, and the need for resource decisionmaking to 
    proceed using an adaptive approach to resource management.
        The 10 principles highlight the underlying concepts and assumptions 
    upon which the remaining sections of the proposed rule are based and 
    set out many of the principles of ecosystem management which are 
    reflected in the proposed rule.
    
    Section 219.2  Definitions
    
        The following words are defined in the existing rule, but would not 
    be included in the definitions provided in the proposed rule, because 
    they are not used or do not vary in meaning from common or well-
    established use of the term:
    
    Base sale schedule
    Biological growth potential
    Capability
    Corridor
    Cost efficiency
    Diversity
    Even-aged management
    Goods and services
    Integrated pest management
    Management concern
    Management direction
    Management intensity
    Management practice
    Planning horizon
    Present net value
    Public issue
    Real dollar value
    Receipt shares
    Responsible line officer
    Sale schedule
    Silvicultural system
    Suitability
    Sustained-yield of products and services
    Timber production
    Uneven-aged management
    
        The following terms are not defined in the Definitions section of 
    the existing rule, but would be defined in the proposed rule:
    
    Catastrophic event
    Category 1 candidate species
    Category 2 candidate species
    
    [[Page 18891]]
    
    Chargeable timber volume
    Conservation agreement
    Culmination of mean annual increment
    Decision document
    Directive
    Directive System
    Ecosystem analysis
    Ecosystem management
    Environmental assessment
    Environmental impact statement
    Even-aged stand
    Forest Supervisor
    Guideline
    Infrastructure
    NEPA documents
    NEPA procedures
    Previous planning rule
    Project
    Proposed action
    Regional Forester
    RPA Program and Assessment
    Resource conditions
    Responsible official
    Species and natural community rankings
    Standard
    Station Director
    Sustainability of ecosystems
    Tribal governments
    
        The following definitions appear in the existing rule and would be 
    modified or retained unchanged in the proposed rule:
    
    Allowable sale quantity
    Forested land (previously listed as ``forest land'')
    Goal
    Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity
    Management prescription
    Objective
    Multiple-use
    Plan area (previously listed as ``planning area'')
    Plan period (previously listed as ``planning period'')
    
        Readers of this Supplementary Information should refer to the 
    definitions section of the proposed rule (Sec. 219.2) for definitions 
    of terms used in this preamble.
    
    Section 219.3  Relationships With the Public and Government Entities
    
        This section focuses on building and maintaining relationships with 
    the public and other government entities and, in conjunction with 
    numerous provisions in other sections of the proposed rule, would 
    substantially strengthen the role of public participation and 
    government coordination compared to the existing rule. This emphasis 
    responds to findings of the Land Management Planning Critique, which 
    highlighted the critical role of ongoing and meaningful public 
    involvement and the need to strengthen coordination with other Federal 
    agencies and State, local and tribal governments. Although the Federal 
    Advisory Committee Act imposes some limitations on how involvement 
    activities can be conducted, a cornerstone of ecosystem management and 
    this proposed rule is the recognition that the public and other 
    agencies and governments must work closely together if resource 
    management issues are to be addressed effectively.
        Although this section would specifically address public 
    participation and government coordination, there are numerous other 
    sections of the proposed rule that reflect the agency's recognition of 
    the importance of people in resource management and that reflect the 
    agency's intent to expand opportunities for public involvement in 
    agency planning and for public comment. For example, six of the 
    principles in proposed Sec. 219.1 highlight the role of people in 
    managing the National Forest System (Sec. 219.1(b)(1), (2), (4)-(7)). 
    There would be two new opportunities for public notice and comment--a 
    30-day comment period for some minor amendments (Sec. 219.9(c)(2)(i)) 
    and a 30-day comment period prior to updating a monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy (Sec. 219.12(c)(2)). In addition, three new 
    provisions designed to provide more information to the public are 
    proposed: (1) the requirement for an annual monitoring and evaluation 
    report (Sec. 219.12(e)); (2) the requirement to periodically update 
    estimated levels of goods and services and management activities 
    (Sec. 219.11(d)(2)); and (3) the requirement to conduct and make 
    available the results of a prerevision review when initiating the 
    revision process (Sec. 219.10(c) and (d)). Involvement in the revision 
    process would also be strengthened by a requirement to provide 
    opportunities for participation in the prerevision review 
    (Sec. 219.10(c)(2)) and in formulation of a communications strategy for 
    the prerevision review and revision effort (Sec. 219.10(c)(2)(ii)). 
    Finally, the proposed rule provides opportunities for involvement and 
    coordination in monitoring and evaluation efforts 
    (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(x)).
        Separate sections in the existing rule for Public Participation 
    (Sec. 219.6) and Coordination With Other Public Planning Efforts 
    (Sec. 219.7), would be combined into one section in the proposed rule. 
    Combining the two sections is not intended to diminish the distinctive 
    roles and importance of the public and cooperating agencies and 
    governments; rather, combining these sections allows the agency to 
    avoid repeating the many provisions that are applicable to both the 
    public and cooperating agencies and governments while still providing 
    the ability to address their specific and unique needs.
        Proposed paragraph (a) asserts that building and maintaining 
    relationships with the public and other Federal agencies and State, 
    local, and tribal governments is an essential and ongoing part of 
    National Forest System planning and management. Paragraphs (a) (1)-(5) 
    would expand on this statement by further describing five purposes for 
    establishing and maintaining communication with parties interested in 
    forest planning.
        The first purpose is to develop a shared understanding of the 
    variety of needs, concerns, and values held by the public. In the past, 
    public involvement efforts have too often promoted polarization of 
    parties and interests. The agency believes communication and 
    understanding of needs, concerns, and values is essential if 
    polarization is to be replaced with cooperative problem solving and a 
    genuine desire to move towards consensus.
        A second purpose is to coordinate planning efforts with other 
    Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments. This 
    reflects the agency's desire to strengthen working relationships with 
    other agencies and governments as well as an awareness of the distinct 
    roles and jurisdictions that must be recognized during resource 
    planning efforts. This purpose also is consistent with the emphasis in 
    ecosystem management that all parties interested in an ecosystem work 
    together rather than approaching resource planning efforts in 
    isolation. The provision would encourage coordination of planning 
    efforts between the Forest Service and other government entities. 
    However, the Forest Service recognizes that the Federal Advisory 
    Committee Act is an important consideration that can influence the 
    extent to which such coordinated efforts can occur.
        The third purpose is to improve the information base influencing 
    decisions and to promote a shared understanding of the validity of this 
    information. If the public is to have confidence in resource decisions 
    made by the agency, there must be confidence in the information used in 
    making those decisions. The public and other agencies and governments 
    can play an integral part in improving the information base used and in 
    helping to assess its validity. For example, this could mean working 
    together with the public, scientific community, and other agencies to 
    conduct an ecoregion assessment, or development of joint data bases 
    with 
    
    [[Page 18892]]
    other agencies. This could also involve providing more opportunities 
    for the public to review the information being used early in the 
    decision process so that concerns about its validity can be identified 
    and resolved in a cooperative and ongoing manner.
        The fourth purpose is to strengthen the scientific basis for 
    resource management decisions through involvement of members of the 
    scientific community. Although the agency has always considered the 
    scientific community as part of the public, the proposed rule would 
    highlight the particular importance of the involvement of scientists in 
    resource planning. This emphasis is appropriate because the concept of 
    ecosystem management recognizes and validates the important role of 
    science and the need to integrate scientific expertise more effectively 
    into resource planning and management.
        The fifth and final purpose is to resolve conflicts associated with 
    resource decisionmaking. The first four goals, if achieved, lay the 
    groundwork for conflict resolution. Although the Forest Service 
    recognizes that resource management issues are often highly 
    controversial and consensus may not be achievable, agency involvement 
    and coordination efforts, nevertheless, should strive to promote the 
    kind of communication and understanding that helps diminish differences 
    and encourages parties with varying interests to work through issues 
    together.
        Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 219.3 would require the Forest 
    Supervisor to maintain and periodically update a mailing list of 
    interested individuals, organizations, scientists, and government 
    agencies and officials. This provision is intended to assure a means by 
    which anyone who so desires can be informed of planning activities.
        Proposed paragraph (c) would require the maintenance of planning 
    records that document forest plan amendments, revisions, and monitoring 
    and evaluation and would ensure public access to these records. This is 
    generally comparable to Sec. 219.10(h) of the existing rule.
        Proposed paragraph (d) would require copies of forest plans and 
    monitoring and evaluation strategies to be accessible to the public at 
    designated locations and is generally comparable to Sec. 219.6(i)(3) of 
    the existing rule.
        Paragraph (e) of this section would direct Regional Foresters to 
    seek to establish a memorandum of understanding or other form of 
    agreement to guide coordination of planning efforts when desired by 
    State officials or affected tribal governments. Paragraph (1) (i)-(ii) 
    set forth the content requirements for such agreements, and paragraphs 
    (1) (iii)-(iv) indicate when Forest Supervisors may execute such 
    agreements and when a memorandum of understanding can be jointly 
    executed by two Regional Foresters. This new provision is intended to 
    help strengthen communication and cooperation between the Forest 
    Service and State and tribal governments. This provision would 
    supplement Forest Service authority to enter into such agreements with 
    other Federal agencies or local governments.
        Proposed paragraph (f) highlights the need for public involvement 
    and government coordination procedures to conform with NEPA 
    requirements and other applicable laws, Executive orders, or 
    regulations. This is included as a reminder that there are numerous 
    requirements already in place with which the agency must comply. 
    Perhaps the two most notable are public involvement requirements 
    associated with NEPA procedures and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
    The Federal Advisory Committee Act has been increasingly recognized as 
    having a substantial impact on how public involvement activities are to 
    be conducted.
    
    Section 219.4  Sustainability of Ecosystems
    
        This section is the central focus of the agency's shift toward an 
    ecosystem approach to resource management. The fundamental premise is 
    that the principal goal of managing the National Forest System is to 
    maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems and that this is 
    essential because sustained yield of benefits for present and future 
    generations is more likely to occur when the ecosystems from which 
    those benefits are produced are in a sustainable condition.
        This section is also based on the premise that a diversity of plant 
    and animal communities is an inherent feature of sustainable 
    ecosystems. Therefore, this proposed regulation is premised on the 
    assumption that maintaining or restoring the sustainability of 
    ecosystems simultaneously meets the NFMA provision to, ``provide for 
    diversity of plant and animal communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)).
        Seven key themes are woven throughout this section.
        1. Adoption of Sustainable Ecosystems As a Goal. This proposed 
    section explicitly establishes the maintenance or restoration of the 
    sustainability of ecosystems as a goal and recognizes that the agency 
    has the discretion to determine what processes and information will be 
    used to work toward this goal. Under the proposed rule, the agency 
    would retain the discretion to determine for each plan area which 
    conditions are indicative of sustainable ecosystems and how the plan 
    area could be managed to promote achievement of those conditions. There 
    is nothing in the proposed rule that establishes a concrete standard 
    regarding ecosystem sustainability or diversity.
        This discretionary, goal-oriented approach to diversity and 
    maintenance of sustainable ecosystems is consistent with the statutory 
    basis for forest planning and the NFMA diversity provision which has 
    been interpreted by court rulings to be a goal within the context of 
    multiple use. ``Diversity is not the controlling principle in forest 
    planning, although it is an important goal to be pursued in the context 
    of overall multiple-use objectives.'' Sierra Club v. Robertson, 845 F. 
    Supp. 485, 502 (S.D. Ohio, 1994). The interpretation of the NFMA 
    diversity provision as a goal rather than a concrete standard is 
    supported by the legislative history of the Act and has been upheld to 
    date in a number of court cases. In Sierra Club v. Espy, No. 93-5050 
    (5th Cir. Nov. 15, 1994) the court recognized that the Forest Service 
    has discretion to determine how it provides for diversity. See also, 
    Sierra Club v. Robertson, 784 F. Supp. 593, 609 (W.D. Ark. 1991); ONRC 
    v. Lowe, 836 F. Supp. 727 (D. Ore. 1993); Glisson v. USFS (S.D. Ill. 
    August 26, 1993); Sierra Club v. Marita, 843 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Wisc. 
    1994); Krichbaum v. Kelly, 844 F. Supp. 1107 (W.D. Va. 1994); Sierra 
    Club v. Marita (Robertson), 845 F. Supp. 1317 (E.D. Wisc 1994); in 
    which courts have upheld Forest Service decisions based on NFMA 
    diversity grounds.
        In addition, the goal statement in paragraph (a) of proposed 
    Sec. 219.4 is consistent with Section 4(a) of the Multiple-Use, 
    Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) which calls for ``* * * 
    harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each 
    with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land * * 
    *.'' Similarly, Section 2(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
    amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., hereafter, ESA), states that one of 
    the purposes of the Act is to ``provide a means whereby the ecosystems 
    upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 
    conserved * * *.''
    
    [[Page 18893]]
    
        The premise is that by maintaining or, where needed, restoring the 
    sustainability of ecosystems, the productivity of the land will not be 
    impaired and the ecosystems upon which plant and wildlife species 
    depend will be functioning properly. Thus, the ecological foundation is 
    in place from which multiple benefits can be derived over time. Without 
    those natural systems functioning properly, the ability to provide 
    multiple benefits would be at risk.
        The goal in proposed paragraph (a) also is consistent with the 
    multiple-use mission of the National Forest System as mandated by 
    Section 2 of the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act, which directs the 
    Secretary to ``* * * develop and administer the renewable surface 
    resources of the national forests for multiple-use and sustained-yield 
    of the several products and services obtained therefrom.'' The Act 
    specifically identifies recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, 
    and fish as values for which national forests are administered. Later, 
    at Sec. 219.6(a), the proposed rule would make clear that forest plans 
    address the full range of multiple-uses in an integrated manner and on 
    a sustained-yield basis.
        2. Recognition of the Relationship between Sustainable Ecosystems 
    and Meeting the Needs of People. The goal statement of Sec. 219.4(a), 
    which is the foundation for this proposed section, clearly links the 
    sustainability of ecosystems to the ability to provide multiple 
    benefits to present and future generations. As stated at 
    Sec. 219.1(b)(2) of the proposed rule, people are considered part of 
    ecosystems, and meeting people's needs and desires within the 
    capacities of natural systems is a primary role of resource 
    decisionmaking. The proposed rule is based on the premise that National 
    Forests are managed to provide multiple benefits to people in a manner 
    that is sustainable over time, and that those benefits which people 
    need and desire will only be sustained when the ecosystems from which 
    they are derived are sustained.
        Although proposed section Sec. 219.4 is focused on the biological 
    and physical aspects of sustainable ecosystems, the proposed rule would 
    make clear that forests plans address the full range of multiple-uses 
    (Sec. 219.6(a)). In addition, proposed Sec. 219.8(c) would make clear 
    that the social and economic effects of resource decisions must be 
    considered when amending or revising the forest plan. Thus, the 
    proposed rule provides a holistic approach to National Forest 
    management by assuring that the needs of people and the capacities of 
    natural systems in both the near and long-term are considered when 
    making resource decisions.
        3. Adoption of ``Coarse Filter/Fine Filter'' Approach. This section 
    of the proposed rule incorporates the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' 
    concept of conservation biology, which holds that a strategy focused on 
    maintaining the function, composition, and structure of an ecosystem as 
    a whole will be adequate to meet the needs of most species. In essence, 
    most species' needs are ``caught'' by the mesh of the ``coarse 
    filter.'' In contrast, some species have additional needs or more 
    narrow habitat requirements that are not adequately met by focusing 
    solely on the ecosystem as a whole. Under these circumstances, 
    additional ``fine filter'' measures are needed to ``catch'' and support 
    the special needs of species whose needs otherwise would have gone 
    unmet.
        The proposed rule provides the ``coarse filter'' by requiring that 
    forest plan goals and objectives address the desired composition, 
    function, and structure of ecosystems. These three aspects are 
    generally considered to be integral to understanding and describing 
    sustainable natural systems. Ecosystem structure includes the 
    distribution and pattern of ecosystem elements such as forest openings 
    and riparian corridors at a landscape scale, and the amount and 
    arrangement of special habitat features such as seeps, snags and down 
    woody material at smaller scales. Ecosystem composition includes the 
    plant and animal species which make up an ecosystem. Ecosystem function 
    includes processes and the relationships among processes, such as 
    nutrient cycling in a system. In many cases, these three aspects of 
    ecosystems will be described in the forest plan for ecosystems at 
    fairly large scales, such as for ecosystems encompassing sizable 
    portions of the plan area.
        The ``coarse filter'' can be provided at a variety of spatial 
    scales, however. For example, proposed paragraph (b)(3) would direct 
    that forest plans are to provide for the protection of rare natural 
    communities. In many cases, these areas provide the ``coarse filter'' 
    even though they may only be a fraction or an acre in size. By 
    protecting rare natural communities, many individual species that are 
    dependent on those habitats and communities are protected, thereby 
    exemplifying the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' concept.
        The ``fine filter'' safeguard is provided in the proposed rule 
    through the requirements to protect threatened and endangered species. 
    For example, proposed Sec. 219.4(b)(4) would require that forest plans 
    provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened and 
    endangered, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act 
    (ESA). It also would make explicit that once a species is listed or 
    proposed for listing, management activities on National Forest System 
    lands which affect the habitat of the species must comply with the 
    requirements of ESA. Additional ``fine filter'' protection is provided 
    by the requirements of Option I to protect sensitive species, and the 
    requirements of Option II to address viability of species which are 
    addressed later in this section.
        4. Clear Intent to Seek to Prevent Listing of Species Under the 
    Endangered Species Act. This proposed rule would send a clear signal 
    that forest plan direction should seek to prevent the need for a 
    species being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA 
    addresses the conservation of species that have been listed as 
    threatened or endangered, but does not address protection of those 
    species for which there is evidence of a trend toward listing but which 
    are not yet listed. Option I of the proposed rule would target and 
    treat as sensitive those species for which there is some evidence of 
    risk but which are not yet imperiled to the point of being listed as 
    threatened or endangered.
        5. Emphasis on Strengthening Cooperation and Sharing of 
    Professional Expertise. Another theme of the proposed rule is 
    strengthened cooperation and coordination with other resource 
    professionals. For example, Option I of the proposed rule utilizes the 
    expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Network of 
    Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in the 
    identification of sensitive species and natural communities. In 
    addition, this section of Option I of the proposed rule parallels both 
    the spirit and application of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
    recently signed by the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
    National Marine Fisheries Service, and other government agencies (94-
    SMU-058; January 25, 1994) to guide cooperation and participation in 
    the conservation of species toward listing. Like this Memorandum of 
    Understanding, the proposed rule (Option I) focuses on those species 
    tending toward listing in order to preclude their designation as 
    threatened or endangered, stresses interagency cooperation to address 
    this goal, and recognizes the value of addressing species conservation 
    within an ecosystem approach.
    
    [[Page 18894]]
    
        6. Focus on Habitat Rather Than Populations. Option I of the 
    proposed rule would emphasize the management of habitat for fish and 
    wildlife species, and not the management of populations as some would 
    interpret the existing rule. As used in this section, habitat 
    capability includes the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitats 
    needed by a species. A focus on habitat capability is more appropriate 
    than a focus on populations because there are many factors affecting 
    populations that are not under the agency's direct control. These may 
    include disease, predation, hunting or fishing pressures, natural 
    cyclical changes and conditions occurring or actions being taken 
    outside the plan area.
        The proposed rule would not alter the current cooperative 
    relationship with State fish and wildlife agencies. The Forest Service 
    role has traditionally been to provide habitat rather than manage 
    numbers of species. States generally exercise jurisdiction over hunting 
    and fishing on National Forest System lands.
        7. Use of Best Available Information. The agency recognizes that 
    there are many uncertainties regarding how to maintain or restore 
    sustainable ecosystems and that scientific knowledge will always be 
    incomplete and evolving. The terms ``sustainable,'' ``restoration,'' 
    ``maintenance,'' or ``deteriorated ecosystem'' are all subject to 
    varying and evolving interpretations. Furthermore, there is an infinite 
    number of ecosystems, and realistically, planning efforts must be 
    allowed to focus on only those ecosystem considerations of most 
    relevance to decisionmaking. Therefore, in concert with the principle 
    that the agency must retain discretion in its approach to maintaining 
    or restoring sustainable ecosystems, the proposed rule (Sec. 219.4(e)) 
    also recognizes the inevitable need to use the best available 
    information in making the various decisions associated with approval of 
    a forest plan. The proposed rule makes clear that there is no 
    expectation that there will ever be a precise and universally accepted 
    understanding or measure of what sustainable ecosystems are and the 
    actions appropriate to maintain or restore them; rather, the 
    expectation established by this proposed rule is that the agency will 
    use the best information available and an adaptive management approach 
    in its efforts to maintain or restore sustainable ecosystems and to 
    manage the National Forest System toward that outcome.
        Adaptive management is considered one of the cornerstones of 
    ecosystem management. This concept acknowledges that our understanding 
    of ecosystems is always changing, that we learn by observing how 
    natural systems respond to actual situations, and that we should adapt 
    our actions accordingly. Adaptive resource management recognizes that 
    decisions cannot always be halted until research is complete, 
    especially since, at times, inaction can have far-reaching 
    consequences.
        Proposed paragraph Sec. 219.4(e) not only would establish the use 
    of an adaptive management approach for dealing with incomplete and 
    changing information, but also would clearly signal that resource 
    decisionmaking need not be halted if there is uncertainty or incomplete 
    knowledge. In accordance with NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1502.22), 
    decisionmaking is expected to proceed using the best information 
    available commensurate with the decision being made, and monitoring and 
    evaluation is to be used to assess the effects of those decisions and 
    to identify new information which may come available. Since project 
    decisions for the decade of the forest plan are approved incrementally 
    during the plan period, the opportunity exits to adapt those decisions 
    as needed to respond to new information.
    
    Options for Providing Diversity
    
        In addition to the provisions of Sec. 219.4(b)(1)-(4), this 
    proposed rule sets out two options for providing diversity. Proposed 
    Option I would provide for diversity by addressing sensitive species. 
    By contrast, Option II which is basically the requirements of the 
    current regulation would provide for diversity by addressing viability 
    of species.
        Option I. Proposed Sec. 219.4(b)(5) creates a system for protection 
    of habitat capability for sensitive species in order to prevent the 
    need for listing the species as threatened or endangered under ESA and 
    to preclude extirpation of the sensitive species from the plan area.
        Paragraph (b)(5)(i) describes how sensitive species would be 
    identified. First, sensitive species can encompass species, subspecies, 
    populations, or stocks of vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular plants, 
    bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. Second, the species must be known to 
    occur or to be likely to occur on National Forest System lands. Third, 
    the species must meet one of the criteria described at (b)(5)(i)(A)-
    (C). These criteria utilize a combination of information derived from 
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Network of Natural Heritage 
    Programs and Conservation Data Centers.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with 
    primary responsibility for administering ESA. The Network of Natural 
    Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers is generally considered 
    to have one of the most comprehensive and accurate compilations of 
    information on species that are imperiled in the United States. The 
    Network consists of approximately 85 data centers, including at least 
    one in each State. Each data center is established within a local 
    institution, most frequently as part of a government agency responsible 
    for natural resource management and protection, and each center 
    functions in support of Natural Heritage Programs. The Nature 
    Conservancy is involved in the establishment and operation of the data 
    centers by providing technical, scientific, and administrative support 
    and training. The Conservancy also makes available the computer 
    technology, data inventory and management methodology, and procedural 
    manuals used.
        Natural Heritage Programs and the Conservation Data Centers provide 
    continuously updated, computer-assisted inventories of the biological 
    and ecological features and biodiversity preservation of the region in 
    which they are located. Most data centers use the Biological and 
    Conservation Data System as the basis for operation, a system developed 
    and refined by The Nature Conservancy since 1974.
        Proposed paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) (A) and (B) would establish the 
    process for ensuring that forest plan direction is responsive to the 
    needs of sensitive species. The first step is to identify the sensitive 
    species for the plan area using the rankings and listings and to 
    identify their habitat needs. Second, the habitat needs for the 
    sensitive species, or assemblages of sensitive species, are compared 
    against current forest plan direction with consideration of the likely 
    contribution of lands outside the plan area. When the forest plan is 
    being revised, habitat needs are compared to the tentatively proposed 
    revisions to forest plan direction. This provides for consideration of 
    sensitive species habitat needs throughout the forest plan revision 
    process and inclusion of this direction in the draft environmental 
    impact statement and proposed revised forest plan when they are 
    released for public comment.
        In accordance with (b)(5)(ii)(B)(1), forest plan direction must be 
    modified if a continuing downward trend in habitat capability is 
    predicted to occur within the plan area and that downward trend is 
    predicted to result in the need for Federal listing of the species or 
    if it is predicted that the sensitive species will be extirpated from 
    the plan area.
    
    [[Page 18895]]
    
        Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(2) would establish that if a conservation 
    agreement has been approved by the Forest Service and either the U.S. 
    Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
    if relevant direction from that agreement has been incorporated by 
    amendment into the forest plan, the requirement to establish direction 
    to protect the habitat capability of the species is met. The forest 
    plan amendment requires full NEPA analysis and disclosure.
        Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(3) would affirm that the needs of a 
    threatened or endangered species take precedence over a sensitive 
    species should a conflict occur relative to protective measures needed. 
    Although it is not anticipated such a conflict would happen often, it 
    is important that the rule provide for such circumstances because the 
    proposed rule's requirements for protection of both sensitive species 
    and threatened and endangered species could theoretically be in 
    conflict. It is reasonable that the rule provide that listed species be 
    given priority in the event of conflict with the needs of a sensitive 
    species since listed species are at greater risk than sensitive species 
    and there is a statutory obligation to provide for the conservation of 
    listed species.
        Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would require management direction for 
    sensitive species to be established using the best information 
    available commensurate with the decision being made. This idea is also 
    echoed in paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, paragraph 
    (b)(5)(ii)(B)(4) would make clear that determinations of whether the 
    habitat needs of sensitive species are adequately met and the degree of 
    protection needed are inherently dependent on professional judgment.
        Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) proposes procedures for handling newly 
    identified sensitive species. The categories and rankings of sensitive 
    species would be reviewed annually as part of monitoring and 
    evaluation, and if additions to the listings have occurred, the 
    adequacy of existing forest plan management direction to meet the needs 
    of those species would be assessed. This paragraph also would make 
    clear that even though the rankings and categories are required to be 
    reviewed on an annual basis, this does not relieve the agency of its 
    obligation to consider new information at any time a project is under 
    consideration that affects the habitat capability of a sensitive 
    species.
        Option II. As an alternative to the regulatory text proposed in 
    Option I of Sec. 219.4(b)(5), the agency has set forth alternative 
    regulatory text, which is almost identical to the existing rule at 
    Sec. 219.19; however, a few nonsubstantive edits have been made to 
    assure consistency of terminology and coding with the remainder of the 
    proposed rule.
        There are five key differences between the Option I approach to 
    sensitive species and the alternative text of Option II which is based 
    on Sec. 219.19 of the existing rule. These are (1) use of the term 
    ``viability''; (2) establishment of clear analytical expectations that 
    are reasonable to implement; (3) scope of species protected; (4) goal 
    of protective measures; and (5) role of management indicator species.
        First, in Option I the proposed rule does not use the term 
    ``viability''. NFMA does not use the term ``viability,'' nor is there 
    anything in the statute or legislative history that indicates the 
    agency was expected to insure viable species or pursue the type of 
    viability analyses described in current scientific literature (for 
    example, M.E. Soule, Viable Populations for Conservation (Cambridge, 
    1989), 189pp.) Rather, the statute requires that the Secretary of 
    Agriculture promulgate regulations to guide the Forest Service 
    development and revision of Forest Plans. One of the statutory 
    requirements is ``specifying guidelines for land management plans 
    developed to achieve the goals of the Program which * * * (B) provide 
    for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability 
    and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 
    multiple use objectives * * *.'' 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B).
        Translating the statutory language to provide for diversity of 
    plant and animal communities through regulations, plans and actions has 
    been and continues to be a formidable challenge, as the Committee of 
    Scientists who provided scientific advice to the Forest Service on the 
    crafting of the current regulation accurately predicted at the time of 
    their promulgation. The Committee stated that, ``it is impossible to 
    write specific regulations to `provide for' diversity: and that ``there 
    remains a great deal of room for honest debate on the translation of 
    policy into management planning requirements and into management 
    programs'' (44 FR 26,6000-01 & 26,608).
        The Forest Service has found that the term ``viability'' has been 
    subject to continuously evolving scientific interpretation and no 
    longer meets the agency's expectations at the time the rule was 
    written. When the existing rule was finalized, ``viability'' was a 
    general concept not associated with specific scientific 
    interpretations. Since 1982, however, the concept of viability has 
    become the object of intense discussion and varying interpretation 
    within the scientific community. The extensive and expensive amount of 
    scientific expertise, data, and technology needed for conducting 
    species viability assessments as currently described in the scientific 
    literature is far beyond what was originally envisioned by the 
    Committee of Scientists when developing the planning rule.
        Even when addressing the overall topic of diversity, the Committee 
    of Scientists clearly had not envisioned the type of highly 
    quantitative analysis which has come to be associated with viability 
    assessments. The Committee stated, ``We analyzed the issue in our 
    report and stressed that, in our opinion, Congress used the term 
    diversity to refer to biological variety rather than any of the 
    quantitative expressions now found in the biological literature.'' 
    (Rules and Regulations, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 
    E--Supplementary Final Report of the Committee of Scientists (August 
    17, 1979), 44 FR 53967 (September 17, 1979)).
        Furthermore, the current regulatory requirement is ``to insure 
    viable populations will be maintained.'' As a practical matter, there 
    is a growing recognition that a requirement to ``insure'' viable 
    populations, if interpreted literally, envisions an outcome impossible 
    to be guaranteed by any agency, regardless of the analytical resources 
    marshalled.
        Rather than continuing use of a regulatory term which is subject to 
    such varying interpretations and expectations, Option I would define 
    more precisely what is required for species protection. This approach 
    in Option I is consistent not only with the original intent of the 
    regulation, but also with the underlying statute.
        Second, the analysis needed to meet the requirements of Option I is 
    better defined, more meaningful, and more capable of accomplishment 
    than the analysis some associate with the existing rule. Species 
    viability analysis has evolved to where it currently involves such 
    information as species habitat needs, trends in habitat capability, 
    trends in other factors affecting population (e.g.--disease, predation, 
    overutilization), relationship of habitat capability to population 
    numbers, population demographics (e.g.--reproductive success, sex 
    ratios, mortality rates), effective population size, genetic 
    measurements, and development of risk assessments. The 
    
    [[Page 18896]]
    technology, data, and scientific expertise to conduct and maintain 
    numerous scientifically sound viability analyses given current 
    scientific interpretations is far beyond what is available to any 
    agency or scientific institution. Although the agency's position has 
    been upheld in court that the requirements of Sec. 219.19 of the 
    existing rule can be met without such complex analyses, the proposed 
    rule offers a timely opportunity to clarify analytical expectations.
        In addition, it is expected that for most sensitive species, the 
    requirements of (b)(5)(ii)(B) of Option I of the proposed rule can be 
    met using habitat capability information. Analyses involving population 
    demographics and prediction of population trends, which requires far 
    more extensive and costly data, would likely only be needed when a 
    continuing downward trend in habitat capability is predicted to be 
    leading toward the listing or extirpation of the species. In addition, 
    it is intended that there be no circumstances where Option I of the 
    proposed rule would trigger the need for studies of long-term genetic 
    diversity, in contrast to the case if thorough viability assessments 
    were to be required.
        Furthermore, Option I of the proposed rule recognizes that 
    individual sensitive species may often be able to be grouped into 
    assemblages of sensitive species with similar habitat needs. By 
    focusing on assemblages of sensitive species rather than individual 
    species whenever possible, analytical burden and costs are reduced 
    without impairment to species protection.
        The third key difference between the proposed approach to sensitive 
    species in Option I and that in Option II is the scope of the species 
    addressed. In contrast to Sec. 219.19 of the existing rule which 
    addresses only native and desired non-native vertebrate species, Option 
    I the proposed rule would include vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular 
    plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. This is appropriate since 
    species other than vertebrates play an important role in ecosystems and 
    merit protection when at risk.
        The scope of proposed Option I also varies from the existing rule 
    in that it would include as sensitive species only those species at 
    risk range-wide; that is, those species imperiled throughout their 
    range. For example, a plant species abundant in several States, but 
    very limited in a particular plan area, would not be of range-wide 
    concern and thus would not be identified as a sensitive species under 
    Option I of the proposed rule.
        The agency believes the focus on species on range-wide concern is 
    appropriate in order to address the two underlying reasons for 
    protecting sensitive species: (1) To address how the agency will meet 
    the NFMA goal of providing a diversity of plant and animal communities, 
    and (2) to attempt to preclude the listing of species under ESA. Both 
    are achieved by proposed Option I without expanding the scope of 
    sensitive species to include those of only local concern.
        Option I of the proposed rule puts considerable emphasis on 
    providing a diversity of plant and animal communities. For example, the 
    provisions of proposed Sec. 219.4 address establishing forest plan 
    direction for sustainable ecosystem conditions, soil and water 
    protection, protection of rare natural communities, protection of 
    threatened and endangered species, and protection of sensitive species 
    in order to attempt to prevent extirpation from the plan area or 
    listing under ESA. These all work together to provide a diversity of 
    plant and animal communities within the plan area.
        Under the ``coarse filter/fine filter'' concept, the ecological 
    conditions which will occur as a result of these various provisions for 
    providing diversity should meet the needs of many species of local, but 
    not range-wide, concern. For example, many species of local concern, 
    but not at risk range-wide, are associated with rare natural 
    communities addressed in the proposed rule at Sec. 219.4(b)(3). The 
    agency believes that adding yet another ``fine flter'' layer of 
    protection, by including as sensitive species those not at risk range-
    wide, and the extensive additional analysis this would require, goes 
    beyond what is necessary to meet the two underlying reasons for 
    protecting sensitive species. It should be noted, however, that nothing 
    in the proposed rule precludes the Forest Service from working with 
    State agencies and organizations to determine whether to protect 
    species of local concern even though such protection would be beyond 
    the requirements of Option I of the proposed rule.
        The fourth key difference between the approach to sensitive species 
    in Option I and the alternative text in Option II is the goal of 
    protective measures. Under the existing rule, the goal is to ensure 
    that viable populations are maintained. But, as explained previously, 
    the concept of a ``viable population'' has been subject to evolving 
    interpretations. Option I of the proposed rule would make the goal much 
    more explicit; that is, for sensitive species, to prevent their listing 
    under the ESA and to prevent their extirpation from the plan area. This 
    second goal is deemed appropriate because, for species of range-wide 
    concern, the agency feels it is undesirable to lose their 
    representation from the plan area due to their contribution to 
    providing a diversity of plant and animal communities. Under some 
    circumstances the first goal, to prevent listing of a sensitive 
    species, may not be adequate to prevent extirpation of a sensitive 
    species from the plan area because a species extirpated from one plan 
    area may not necessarily be more prone to listing as threatened or 
    endangered.
        The final key difference is the Option I of the proposed rule would 
    not require the identification of management indicator species. As 
    noted in the 1991 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, there is 
    diminishing scientific support for focusing solely on individual 
    species as indicators of the welfare of a group of associated species. 
    Instead of requiring management indicator species, the monitoring and 
    evaluation provisions of the proposed rule would allow for establishing 
    whatever measurable indicators are appropriate in order to determine 
    progress towards achieving goals. In some cases, individual species may 
    be an appropriate measure of whether ecosystem goals are being achieved 
    and can be used as indicators.
        Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems. Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 219.4 
    recognizes the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the importance of 
    evaluating ecosystem disturbances in the context of ecological 
    processes and resilience. Ecosystem disturbances are those events that 
    significantly change the existing pattern of an ecological system. 
    Examples of such disturbances include both natural or human-induced 
    phenomena such as wildfires, floods, or oil spills. Resilience is a 
    term used to describe the ability of an ecological system to maintain 
    its functions despite disturbance.
        Paragraph (c) recognizes that disturbances are a natural and 
    sometimes even essential part of many ecosystems. Similarly, other 
    changes may be naturally occurring within an ecosystem, such as the 
    progression of vegetation from one seral stage to another over time. 
    Therefore, sustaining an ecosystem does not imply reaching or 
    maintaining a static condition, but rather managing in such a way that 
    naturally occurring disturbances and changes allow the ecosystem to 
    retain the characteristics which provide resiliency.
        Some examples of ecosystems in which disturbance is required for 
    
    [[Page 18897]]
        sustainability are the fire-adapted pine forests. Lodgepole pine and 
    sand pine communities require stand replacement fire (or some 
    surrogate) to sustain those communities through time. Ponderosa pine 
    and longleaf pine communities require recurring, low intensity fires to 
    sustain the structure and functioning of the ecosystem.
        Paragraph (c) would assure that forest plan direction intended to 
    maintain or restore sustainable ecosystems was developed with 
    recognition of the dynamic nature of ecosystems and natural role of 
    disturbances. It should be noted that this provision does not 
    specifically require analysis of the ``range of natural variability'' 
    or require that future conditions stay within historic ranges of 
    variability. The value of the ``range of natural variability'' in 
    gaining a better understanding of sustainable ecosystem conditions is 
    recognized, but the agency does not intend to mandate that all forest 
    plans must provide for conditions within such a range.
        Multiple Spatial Scales. Paragraph (d) recognizes that ecosystems 
    exist at multiple scales and are infinite in number. For example, the 
    span of ecosystems can range from the microscopic world of life 
    occurring on the trunk of a fallen tree to the range of a migratory 
    bird that travels annually from the tropics to the arctic. It is 
    impossible and unnecessary to expect a forest plan to address all of 
    the ecosystems which occur within a plan area. Therefore, paragraph (d) 
    would establish that the forest plan should address those ecosystems of 
    most relevance to forest plan decisionmaking, with the intent being to 
    limit efforts to a practical number and scope.
        Role of Lands Outside the Plan Area. Consideration of conditions 
    outside the plan area is an integral part of the concept that Federal 
    lands should be managed from an ecological perspective rather than one 
    limited by jurisdictional boundaries. This consideration must occur, 
    however, without detriment to the rights of private landowners or the 
    authorities of other government jurisdictions. Paragraph (a) of this 
    section of the proposed rule would, in part, direct consideration of 
    the contribution of lands outside the plan area when establishing 
    forest plan direction. For example, when evaluating the habitat 
    capability of a sensitive species, the quality, quantity, and 
    distribution of habitat within the species' range would be considered 
    in the context of the plan area. However, this consideration does not 
    mean that the forest plan would in any way address how to manage these 
    other lands. Instead, the responsible official might choose to alter 
    decisions in the forest plan regarding management of National Forest 
    System lands due to conditions on these other lands, if that should be 
    determined to be desirable to help maintain or restore sustainable 
    ecosystems.
        Protection of soil and water resources. Paragraph (b)(2) would 
    address soil and water resources. This paragraph of the proposed rule 
    would not only provide for forest plans to address the protection of 
    soil and water resources, but also the restoration of existing 
    conditions harmful to soil and water quality.
    
    Section 219.5 Framework for Resource Decisionmaking
    
        Paragraph (a) explains that the agency uses a staged decisionmaking 
    process, with forest plans being used to allocate the lands and 
    resources of the plan area through management prescriptions, and 
    project decisionmaking being the point at which site-specific 
    activities are authorized. Paragraph (a) also explains that forest plan 
    and project decisions must adhere to legal requirements and that an 
    additional source of direction guiding management of the National 
    Forest System is direction issued through the agency's Directive 
    System.
        The staged decisionmaking process described in the proposed rule is 
    consistent with a series of administrative appeal decisions. These 
    include the Chief's appeal decision on the Idaho Panhandle Land and 
    Resource Management Plan (Appeal No. 2130, August 15, 1988); the 
    Chief's appeal decisions on the Flathead National Forest Land and 
    Resource Management Plan (Appeals No. 1467 and No. 1513, August 31, 
    1988). For court decisions upholding the staged decisionmaking approach 
    of forest plan and project levels, see Cronin v. USDA, 919 F.2d 439, 
    447-49 (7th Cir. 1990); Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 
    1508, 15511-12 (9th Cir. 1992); Resources Ltd Inc. v. Robertson, 789 F. 
    Supp. 1529 (D.Mt. 1991) aff'd in part (NEPA, NFMA) and reversed in part 
    (ESA), 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended July 5, 1994); Swan View 
    Coalition v. Turner, 824 F.Supp. 923 (D. Mt. 1992); Sierra Club v. 
    Robertson, 810 F.Supp. 1021 (W.D. Ark 1992); Eighth Circuit found no 
    standing and alternatively affirmed lower court on the merits, 23 F.3d. 
    753 (8th Cir. 1994).
        There is currently a conflict between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits 
    as whether the forest plans without a project decision present a 
    justiciable controversy. ``We are aware that on several occasions the 
    Ninth Circuit has entertained challenges to forest plans similar to the 
    Plan here in issue. [citations deleted] * * * we decline to apply them 
    [Ninth Circuit decisions] as a basis for finding that the appellants 
    have standing to attack the Plan outside the context of a proposed 
    site-specific action that causes or threatens to cause injury in 
    fact.'' Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 759-60 (8th Cir. 1994). 
    See also, Wilderness Society v. Alcock, F. Supp. (N.D. Ga. September 
    30, 1994) finding the Eighth Circuit reasoning more persuasive and 
    holding that plaintiffs' claims against approval of the Cherokee forest 
    plan did not present a justiciable controversy.
        Even the Ninth Circuit recognizes that forest plan EIS's are ``an 
    early stage, where the EIS is `merely' programmatic.'' Idaho 
    Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1523. The Ninth Circuit has 
    also held that when a programmatic EIS ``is prepared, site-specific 
    impacts need not be fully evaluated until a `critical decision' has 
    been made to act on site development.'' Salmon River Concerned Citizens 
    v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1357 (9th Cir. 1994).
        Paragraph (a)(1) describes the first stage of the agency's staged 
    decisionmaking process--forest plans. Forest plans allocate the land 
    and resources of the plan area through management prescriptions which 
    consist of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.
        Paragraph (a)(1) would also establish a key point essential to 
    understanding the nature of a forest plan; i.e., that forest plans do 
    not compel the agency to plan for or undertake any specific projects, 
    but do establish limitations on actions that may be authorized later 
    during project decisionmaking. This concept is central to understanding 
    the role of a forest plan and is addressed in more detail under the 
    preamble discussion of Sec. 219.6.
        Paragraph (a)(1) also would clarify that forest plans must not 
    conflict with laws or regulations and should not conflict with policy 
    and procedure issued through the Forest Service Directive System. 
    Although it has generally been understood that forest plans must not 
    conflict with laws or regulations, there is not such common 
    understanding of the relationship of directives issued through the 
    Directive System to forest plan direction. The proposed rule seeks to 
    end this misunderstanding. As noted in paragraph (b)(1), any conflict 
    with an agency directive should be identified and the rationale for not 
    complying with such a directive provided at the time of forest plan 
    amendment or revision. The relationship between forest plans and 
    
    [[Page 18898]]
    directives is addressed in further detail under the preamble discussion 
    of Sec. 219.5(b)(2).
        Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would limit the area covered by a 
    forest plan to one or more National Forests and/or other units of the 
    National Forest System within the jurisdiction of a single Forest 
    Supervisor. One forest plan can be developed, however, when a single 
    National Forest is administered by several Forest Supervisors. 
    Currently, the Tongass National Forest in Alaska is the only National 
    Forest administered by more than one Forest Supervisor. These 
    provisions are not substantively different from the requirements of the 
    existing rule at Sec. 219.4(b)(3).
        Establishing a plan area based on administrative boundaries may 
    appear to conflict with the principles of ecosystem management. Some 
    may argue that resource planning should occur based on areas with 
    shared ecological conditions rather than on boundaries established for 
    administrative purposes. The agency recognizes the benefits that can be 
    gained from taking a more ecological approach to establishing the area 
    to be encompassed by a forest plan. In the long run, a realignment of 
    plan boundaries should be considered. In the short-run, however, there 
    are practical considerations for continuing the current approach.
        First, NFMA does not clearly articulate the area to be covered by a 
    forest plan. Although Section 6(f)(1) of NFMA directs ``one integrated 
    plan for each unit of the National Forest System,'' a unit is not 
    specifically defined. The determination of the unit for planning is 
    complicated by provisions of Section 13 of NFMA, which require certain 
    limitations on timber removal to be determined on a National Forest 
    basis. Provided such timber-related requirements could be met, the 
    agency believes it does have discretion under the statute to redefine, 
    through a new rule, the geographic area to be covered by a forest plan.
        However, realigning the entire National Forest System into a new 
    set of plan areas for forest planning introduces significant new and 
    immediate challenges. For example, where should new boundaries be 
    drawn? Ecosystems exist at a variety of scales, and ecological units 
    can be defined variously. Determining the best boundaries for planning 
    purposes is not a simple process. How can the public be involved in 
    delineating the new plan area? How might a change in boundaries of the 
    plan area affect the public's interest and ability to participate in 
    the planning process? Might the change be perceived to be more 
    advantageous to some segments of the public than others? How would such 
    a change effect National Forests where revision efforts are already 
    underway or scheduled to begin in the near future? How should such a 
    realignment be coordinated with the planning efforts of other agencies 
    and governments? These are questions which the agency is currently not 
    prepared to answer, but which merits careful examination before changes 
    in plan area boundaries should occur.
        This agency also recognizes that roughly two-thirds of all forest 
    plans are or will be undergoing either significant amendment or 
    revision in the next 1-2 years. Redefining plan areas would delay 
    revision, which would be detrimental to the public interest and to 
    resource management, as well as increase the risk of exceeding the 15-
    year period between revisions. Rather than introducing a complex and 
    time-consuming new decision to be made before initiating the planning 
    process, the agency expects to take various administrative actions to 
    mitigate the disadvantages of planning based on administrative 
    boundaries.
        For example, planning efforts can be synchronized among those 
    National Forests that share ecological characteristics through the use 
    of joint planning teams and development of parallel schedules. 
    Similarly, the mechanism for simultaneous plan amendment or revision, 
    as addressed at proposed Sec. 219.5(a)(1)(ii), is intended to 
    facilitate achieving such coordination across plan area boundaries.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would permit forest plan direction to 
    be established for more than one plan area by simultaneously amending 
    or revising the appropriate forest plans. Since this occurs through the 
    amendment or revision of forest plans, NEPA procedures would still 
    apply. For example, if the Regional Forester wanted to establish a 
    forest plan standard for all lands within the range of a particular 
    wildlife species, and the range encompassed three plan areas, the 
    Regional Forester could establish a new standard by simultaneously 
    amending those three forest plans, with associated NEPA disclosure of 
    effects.
        The concept of simultaneous amendment or revision is an essential 
    part of integrating ecosystem management into the agency's resource 
    decisionmaking framework. Ecosystem management necessitates a flexible 
    approach to the spatial scale for planning and decisionmaking; the 
    proposed approach allows resource decisions to be made at whatever 
    scale is appropriate. Even though a forest plan document itself is 
    limited to administrative boundaries, the forest plan direction it 
    contains can be derived from analysis and decisions at any appropriate 
    scale or land area regardless of administrative boundaries.
        The proposed rule would discontinue regional guides as required by 
    the existing rule. As noted in the Advance Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking, agency experience has shown that regional guides may no 
    longer be the most effective and efficient means for providing regional 
    direction. In reality, most regional guides did not fully achieve the 
    role of being the meaningful or effective documents originally 
    envisioned. Moreover, the rigorous requirements of Secs. 219.8 and 
    219.9 in the existing rule siphoned a significant investment of 
    staffing and funds from forest or project planning efforts. The 
    provision for simultaneous amendment or revision would provide a means 
    to establish resource direction at a regional scale, or any other 
    appropriate scale, and, therefore, is believed to be a more effective 
    approach to providing multi-forest direction than a regional guide.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would identify project decisions as the 
    second stage of the agency's decisionmaking process. The proposed rule 
    would make clear that it is at the project level that the authorization 
    is made to conduct resource activities, not at the forest plan level. 
    Paragraph (a)(2) would also make clear that NEPA procedures must be 
    followed when approving a project, and projects must be consistent with 
    the forest plan.
        As discussed previously, various court decisions have upheld the 
    staged decision approach of forest plans and project decisionmaking. 
    One important basis for this staged approach and the relationship 
    between forest plans and projects rests largely upon the requirements 
    for compliance with NEPA. In a landmark court case (State of California 
    v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982)), the Ninth Circuit stated that 
    ``the critical inquiry in considering the adequacy of an EIS prepared 
    for a large scale, multi-step project is not whether the project's 
    site-specific impact should be evaluated in detail, but when such 
    detailed evaluation should occur.'' The court determined that ``[t]his 
    threshold is reached when, as a practical matter, the agency proposes 
    to make an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the 
    availability of resources to a project at a particular site.''
        As a practical matter, it is impossible for a forest plan to 
    identify all of the projects to be implemented for a 10-year period, 
    adequately disclose their site-
    
    [[Page 18899]]
    specific environmental effects in an accompanying environmental impact 
    statement, and comply with the multitude of statutes and regulations 
    applicable to project activities. Furthermore, new information 
    regarding the relationship among proposed projects and effects of 
    proposed actions within a forest is constantly being developed. No 
    matter how sophisticated forest models become, it is doubtful that the 
    order and relationship of possible activities can ever be forecast with 
    enough precision at the forest plan approval stage to meet the 
    requirements of environmental laws or correspond to the realities of a 
    changing world. In addition, many activities occurring on a forest are 
    initiated by forest users and not the Forest Service. The relationship 
    of projects initiated by others and projects planned by the Forest 
    Service is continuously changing. Thus, the forest plan is best viewed 
    as a dynamic management system that provides the framework for further 
    decisionmaking at the project level.
        Under the existing rule, project decisions can be made in a forest 
    plan provided they are identified in the Record of Decision and 
    adequately disclosed in associated NEPA documents. The proposed rule 
    would eliminate this Option in order to clarify the distinction between 
    the two stages of decisionmaking and because this option has not been 
    commonly used in the past.
        The two-stage decisionmaking process described in the proposed rule 
    does not preclude multiple steps at the project level. Examples include 
    some multi-stage recreational development decisions such as for ski 
    areas (Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 322, 336-
    37 (1989)), or the multiple decision points in oil and gas leasing, 
    exploration, and development where a series of decisions is made over 
    time (see 36 CFR 228, 228.102 (55 FR 10423, March 21, 1990)). In most 
    cases, however, project decisions are not of this complexity, and the 
    project decision occurs in a single step.
        Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 219.5 would explain how forest plans 
    are to be reconciled with changing legal requirements, new agency 
    directives, or new information from other planning efforts. In 
    accordance with proposed paragraph (b)(1), if a change in law or 
    regulation conflicts with forest plan direction, the Regional Forester 
    must direct that the plan be brought into compliance following the 
    procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 and specify the timing for 
    doing so. The proposed provision to permit nondiscretionary changes at 
    Sec. 219.9(e) provides a mechanism for quickly changing forest plan 
    direction to respond to changes in legal requirements for which there 
    is no discretion in the manner of compliance.
        Proposed Sec. 219.5(b)(2) (i) and (ii) address responsibilities 
    regarding reconciliation of forest plans with changes in agency 
    direction issued through the Directive System. As described at 
    paragraph (b)(2)(i), an official issuing a directive must determine if 
    forest plans are to be made consistent with a newly issued directive 
    when it appears that the directive would conflict with forest plan 
    direction. If so, the official must specify that plans be changed 
    following the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 and the timing 
    for doing so. In the event of conflict between an agency resource 
    directive and direction in a forest plan, the forest plan takes 
    precedence. Accordingly, the agency maintains discretion to determine 
    when a forest plan should be amended to be consistent with agency 
    directives. As stated at Sec. 219.5(a) of the proposed rule, agency 
    directives are subject to NEPA procedures, as is the process for forest 
    plan amendment.
        Reconciliation of forest plans and agency directives as described 
    at paragraph (b)(2)(ii) addresses those situations where a directive 
    has been issued, but it was not readily apparent at the time that it 
    might conflict with forest plans. To address such situations, the 
    Forest Supervisor is responsible for periodically reviewing resource 
    management amendments or supplements to the Directive System as part of 
    the monitoring and evaluation process. If a conflict occurs between 
    forest plan direction and a newly issued directive, the Forest 
    Supervisor must either amend the forest plan so that it no longer 
    conflicts with the directive, or notify the Regional Forester why such 
    an amendment is not deemed appropriate. Consistent with agency policy 
    at FSM 1103, if the directive had been issued at the National level, 
    the Regional Forester would be expected to notify the Chief of the 
    concerns with the newly issued directive.
        The provisions of (b)(2)(i)-(ii) are closely related to the 
    provision of paragraph (a)(1) of this section which directs that where 
    there is substantial conflict between a resource management directive 
    and a forest plan amendment or revision, the responsible official is 
    expected to identify the conflict and include the rationale for the 
    departure in the decision document. In order to enhance understanding 
    of these provisions, a brief explanation of the Directive System is 
    provided as follows.
        The Forest Service Directive System consists of the Forest Service 
    Manual and Handbooks in which the agency's policy, practice, and 
    procedure are codified. The system serves as the primary basis for the 
    internal management and control of all programs and as the primary 
    source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The 
    Forest Service Manual contains legal authorities, management 
    objectives, policies, responsibilities, delegations, general 
    instructions, and guidance needed on a continuous basis by Forest 
    Service line officers and staff at more than one unit to plan and 
    execute programs. New or revised direction is issued by amendment or 
    interim directive, whereas direction which expands on directives issued 
    by a higher level is issued by supplement. For example, a Regional 
    Forester may issue a regional supplement in order to expand on the 
    national direction issued by the Chief.
        Directives issued through the Directive System are subject to NEPA 
    procedures. In addition, issuance of some Manual direction may be 
    subject to public notice and comment procedures in accordance with 16 
    USC 1612 and 36 CFR 216.6(a), which requires public notice and comment 
    for standards, criteria, and guidelines, when substantial public 
    interest in or controversy over a proposed Manual directive can be 
    expected. Reviewers are encouraged to study 16 USC 1612 and 36 CFR part 
    216 if further information is desired on public review and comment 
    related to changes in Manual direction.
        As previously noted, there are two main reasons why it is important 
    to consider agency directives when amending or revising forest plans. 
    First, it would be unreasonable and illogical for forest plans to 
    substantially conflict with officially established agency objectives, 
    policy, and procedure. Although direction in an approved forest plan 
    would take precedence in case of a conflict, such conflicts should be 
    avoided when establishing forest plan direction to prevent conflicts in 
    performance expectations and potential loss of national or regional 
    consistency.
        A second reason for identifying any substantial conflicts between 
    forest plans and agency directives at the time of amendment or revision 
    relates to the nature of agency directives. Some directives have been 
    established through extensive agency effort and adopted following 
    public review and comment procedures under 36 CFR part 216; for 
    example, the agency's policy and procedures for reauthorizing 
    recreation residences (FSM 2300 and 
    
    [[Page 18900]]
    2700). Other policies are required to be published for comment under 
    other statutes; for example, the regulations implementing NEPA at 40 
    CFR parts 1500-1508 require the agency's NEPA policy and procedures, as 
    issued in FSM Chapter 1950 and FSH 1909.15, to be published. On the 
    other hand, not all agency directives are fully up-to-date, and some 
    inconsistencies may and often do exist within the Directive System. 
    Allowing the responsible official the flexibility to depart from agency 
    directives, provided a rationale is given, will prevent forest plans 
    from having to adhere to inappropriate or outdated agency directives 
    and also will help the agency identify where directive changes are 
    needed. The flexibility to be provided in the planning rule is 
    consistent with current policy in FSM 1103 which requires employees to 
    notify higher authorities when departure from direction is deemed 
    necessary or when directives need to be revised.
        It is not anticipated, however, that there will often be 
    substantial conflict between forest plans and agency directives. First, 
    the proposed rule provides for greatly reducing the amount of 
    repetition between forest plans and directives (Sec. 219.6(b)(2)). 
    Second, the provision for simultaneous plan amendment or revision, as 
    addressed at Sec. 219.5(a)(1)(ii), provides a mechanism for 
    establishing direction known to affect more than one plan, thus 
    eliminating the need to establish such direction through the Directive 
    System. Third, directives are generally very broad and programmatic in 
    nature, thus leaving considerable discretion for forest plans and 
    project decisionmaking to establish more precise and site-specific 
    direction. As a result, there are generally ample opportunity to 
    establish more detailed direction at the forest plan or project stage 
    without substantially conflicting with directives. Fourth, paragraph 
    (a)(1) applies to resource management directives that would conflict 
    with forest plan direction. Directives which provide procedural 
    guidance on the process for amending or revising forest plans is not 
    encompassed by the requirement.
        Paragraph (b)(3) would address the link between the RPA Program and 
    forest plans. Following adoption of a new RPA Program, the Chief would 
    determine those elements of the RPA Program that should be considered 
    in forest plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation as well as 
    establish any necessary agency-wide procedures to achieve this. In 
    addition, Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(vii)(A) of the proposed rule would require 
    the monitoring and evaluation process to consider a newly issued RPA 
    Program. As a result, there would be a link established whereby each 
    new RPA Program would be reviewed to determine whether there is new 
    information which makes it appropriate to initiate forest plan 
    amendment procedures.
        Paragraph (b)(4) would direct Forest Supervisors, as part of 
    monitoring and evaluation, to periodically review results of any 
    applicable ecosystem analyses that have been completed subsequent to 
    plan approval to determine if there is new information which would 
    indicate the need to consider changing the forest plan. Although 
    ecosystem analysis is not a decision process, it may generate 
    information that indicates a need to consider changing a resource 
    decision.
    
    Section 219.6  Forest Plan Direction
    
        Paragraph (a) of this section of the proposed rule would direct 
    that forest plans provide for integration and coordination of all 
    resources on a multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. This paragraph 
    lists the numerous resources to be addressed in a forest plan when such 
    resources occur within the plan area. It also would assure that forest 
    plans address infrastructure needs and land ownership and access 
    patterns to the extent appropriate. None of this would represent a 
    change from the scope of most current forest plans.
        Although forest plans address the full range of resources found 
    within the plan area, this regulation does not attempt to provide 
    direction for management of individual resources except where necessary 
    to respond to specific requirements of NFMA. In contrast to the 
    existing rule which contained 13 sections on individual resources, the 
    proposed rule does not include such detailed direction. For example, 
    the proposed rule does not define goals and objectives for specific 
    resources nor prescribe requirements for how each resource will be 
    evaluated during amendment or revision of forest plans. It is the 
    agency's intent to provide through directive issuances any additional 
    direction necessary to specify how individual resources are addressed 
    in forest plans.
        The agency believes this planning regulation should stay focused on 
    the specific requirements of NFMA, the authorizing statute. It would be 
    beyond the reasonable scope of any one regulation to address all of the 
    laws, regulations, and Executive orders under which National Forest 
    System resources are managed. In addition, the shift to an ecosystem 
    management orientation diminishes the relevance of focusing on 
    individual resources, and supports the need for the more holistic 
    approach taken in the proposed rule.
        Proposed paragraph (b) provides that a forest plan allocates the 
    land and resources of the plan area through management prescriptions 
    which consist of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. These 
    four types of direction, and the maps or similar information 
    delineating where they are applicable, constitute forest plan 
    direction. It is important that the proposed rule clearly define what 
    constitutes forest plan direction, since plan direction can only be 
    changed by amendment. Other information within the forest plan document 
    is not forest plan direction and can be updated without going through 
    amendment procedures.
        The existing rule is not explicit regarding the nature of forest 
    plan decisions, resulting in some confusion by both the public and 
    employees over the years. As noted in the preceding discussion of 
    proposed Sec. 219.5, the nature of a forest plan under the existing 
    rule has been articulated through a series of administrative appeal 
    decisions and court decisions. The proposed rule reflects many of these 
    decisions and explicitly defines forest plan direction and the contents 
    of the forest plan document.
        In Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Lyng, 731 F. Supp. 970, 
    977-78 (D. Colo. 1989), the court upheld the agency's position under 
    the existing rule regarding the decisions made in forest plans. That 
    court decision confirmed that approval of a forest plan results in: (1) 
    Establishment of forest multiple-use goals and objectives; (2) 
    Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (standards and 
    guidelines) applying to future activities; (3) Establishment of 
    management areas and management area direction (management area 
    prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area; 
    (4) Designation of suitable timber land and establishment of allowable 
    timber sale quantity; (5) Nonwilderness allocations or wilderness 
    recommendations; and (6) Establishment of monitoring and evaluation 
    requirements.
        Forest plan direction, as defined at proposed paragraph (b), in 
    concert with other provisions of the proposed rule, overlap most, but 
    not all, of the six items identified as forest plan decisions in 
    Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Lyng. For example, goals, 
    objectives, standards, and guidelines--both on a forest-wide basis and 
    for specific portions of the plan area--are terms common to both the 
    existing rule and 
    
    [[Page 18901]]
    the proposed rule. The definition of ``objectives'' has been modified 
    in the proposed rule, however, as explained at the preamble discussion 
    of Sec. 219.6(b)(1) and (d). Also, under both the existing and proposed 
    rule, management prescriptions are the means by which direction is 
    allocated to specific portions of the plan area. Similarly, although 
    designation of suitable timber land, nonwilderness allocations, and 
    wilderness recommendations are not individually identified in proposed 
    Sec. 219.6, they are encompassed by the management prescriptions 
    described at Sec. 219.6(b) and are addressed specifically at 
    Sec. 219.13(b)(2) and Sec. 219.14.
        Although the term ``management area'' has not been used in the 
    proposed rule, nothing in the rule prohibits continuation of the 
    traditional use of the term, and some mechanism for delineating where 
    direction applies is required regardless of the terminology used. It is 
    anticipated that the term ``management area'' will continue to be used 
    in many forest plans. The proposed rule has not required the use of 
    this term in order to allow the flexibility to develop other terms, if 
    beneficial, to describe the areas to which specific management 
    prescriptions apply. This flexibility is desirable since ecosystem 
    management has heightened the likelihood of direction being established 
    at a variety of scales, and more effective ways may be possible to 
    delineate where a management prescription applies than the traditional 
    management area concept.
        Although there is considerable overlap between the six decisions 
    resulting from forest plan approval under the existing rule and forest 
    plan decisions under the proposed rule, two points of notable 
    difference relate to forest plan objectives and monitoring and 
    evaluation requirements. These differences are addressed in this 
    preamble discussion of Secs. 219.6(b)(1), 219.6(d), and 219.12.
        Under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 219.6, projected levels of 
    goods and services or projected levels of management activities would 
    not constitute forest plan direction. In addition, the proposed rule 
    makes explicit that any projections of the rate of achieving desired 
    resource conditions would not be forest plan direction.
        Based on the definition of ``objectives'' provided in the existing 
    rule, ``objectives'' as used in the existing rule would encompass the 
    types of projections addressed in proposed paragraph (b)(1). The 
    proposed rule would make clear that such predictions addressing the 
    rate of implementation are not forest plan direction. For example, 
    under the proposed rule the forest plan would define resource 
    conditions desirable to achieve, but would not address the rate at 
    which achievement should occur. Instead, any such projections of the 
    rate of achievement would be provided in an appendix in accordance with 
    Sec. 219.11(d).
        These changes are proposed for two reasons. First, experience has 
    shown that the rate at which forest plans will be implemented cannot be 
    established for a 10-year period. As explained earlier, the agency's 
    decision framework provides for staged decisionmaking, with project 
    decisions, rather than the forest plan, being the point at which site-
    specific activities are authorized. Decisions to approve and implement 
    individual projects are subject to many variables, such as the results 
    of project-level NEPA analysis, availability of funding, agency 
    priorities, administrative appeals, and litigation. Since the rate at 
    which forest plans can be implemented is based on decisions which occur 
    during the plan period rather than decisions that can be made at the 
    time of approving or revising a forest plan, it is important to make 
    clear that the rate of implementation is not a decision that can be 
    made in the forest plan.
        Second, if rate-specific direction were to be included in a forest 
    plan, it increases the likelihood of creating a false expectation that 
    specific implementation rates, particularly levels of goods and 
    services, can be assured during the 10-year plan period. As already 
    noted, the agency cannot provide such guarantees. Elimination of rate-
    specific projections from forest plan direction, in concert with the 
    provisions of Sec. 219.11(d), should enhance understanding of the 
    agency's staged decisionmaking process and produce more realistic 
    expectations of what may occur during the plan period.
        While excluding any rate-specific objectives from forest plan 
    direction may appear to some to be a major change from the existing 
    rule, this approach is consistent with a variety of court decisions 
    which have affirmed the agency's staged decisionmaking process and 
    verified that the agency has no obligation to produce the goods and 
    services or to undertake the management activities identified in forest 
    plans. The most notable actual difference resulting from the proposed 
    rule would be that projections of implementation rates can be updated 
    during the plan period without amendment procedures.
        The approach that would be taken under proposed paragraph (b)(1) 
    also represents an evolution in understanding of the relationship 
    between forest plans and the agency's process for formulating budgets. 
    In the past, there have been expectations that the objectives in forest 
    plans would drive the budget process; that is, that funds would be 
    requested at whatever level was necessary to achieve the objectives of 
    the forest plan over the course of a decade, and any lower funding 
    level was interpreted as less than full implementation of the forest 
    plan by many people. In addition, most forest plans were developed 
    without imposing budget constraints, so there was no attempt to 
    establish objectives at levels that reflected probable budget levels. 
    Over time, the agency has recognized the shortcomings of these earlier 
    expectations and approaches, and has been re-evaluating and clarifying 
    the link between forest plans and the budget process.
        The proposed rule is consistent with the recommendations of a 
    national team of Forest Service personnel chartered to study the 
    linkage between budgets and forest plans. Rather than expecting the 
    forest plan to define a desired rate of implementation to guide the 
    budget process, the proposed rule would result in a process where 
    budgets are formulated by considering forest plan direction, the 
    results of monitoring and evaluation, and continuously updated 
    information regarding national and agency priorities. This approach 
    recognizes that annual program development and budgeting, rather than 
    the forest plan, is the most timely and effective mechanism for 
    responding to the continuously changing information which influences 
    the rate at which plan goals can be achieved.
        Proposed Sec. 219.6(b)(2) would direct that forest plans focus on 
    management of the resources specific to the plan area. It would further 
    explain that forest plans should generally not provide direction on 
    procedural aspects of how future project decisions will be made nor 
    repeat other direction established through the Directive System, 
    regulation, Executive order, or law. The existing rule does not have a 
    comparable requirement, and this does represent a change from the way 
    most current forest plans have been developed.
        A sample of forest plans has been reviewed to determine the amount 
    of overlap between direction in forest plans and direction already 
    established through the Directive System, regulation, Executive order, 
    or law. In one case, almost all of the forest-wide 
    
    [[Page 18902]]
    goals and about half of the standards and guidelines overlapped 
    direction that was already established and applicable to almost any 
    National Forest in the country. Although the percentage of overlap 
    varies with each plan, this sample does not appear to be exceptional. 
    It seems there is a high degree of repetition in forest plans of 
    direction that has already been established and applicable to most plan 
    areas.
        This repetition results, in part, from the desire to provide in one 
    document all the direction applicable to the plan area. The reality, 
    however, is that given the volume and breadth of laws, Executive 
    orders, regulations, and agency directives that apply to National 
    Forest lands, it is infeasible to consolidate all of that direction 
    into one document. While some forest plans may currently appear to 
    encompass all relevant direction, it is inevitable that one must still 
    refer to other sources to fully grasp all of the direction applicable 
    to the plan area.
        There are four main sources of overlap which would be eliminated 
    under the proposed rule. First, forest plans would not restate goals or 
    policies that are already established by law, regulation, Executive 
    order, or agency directive. Secondly, forest plans would not repeat 
    procedural direction on how to conduct project analysis and 
    decisionmaking. This type of administrative procedure is appropriate to 
    issuance in the Directive System and not in forest plans. Under the 
    proposed rule, forest plans will be clearly focused on desired resource 
    conditions for the plan area, focusing on management of resources 
    rather than on management of the administrative processes used to make 
    decisions. For example, the Directive System is the definitive source 
    of agency guidance and information on how to conduct NEPA analysis and 
    should be the source of any guidance for conducting specific 
    evaluations or analyses required to make a resource decision.
        Third, forest plans would not repeat instructions related to public 
    involvement and coordination with other government entities. 
    Considerable direction on these topics is already established by law, 
    regulation, Executive order, agency directive, and any additional 
    direction needed is appropriately issued through the Directive System.
        Finally, procedural guidance on how to conduct routine professional 
    tasks would not be repeated in forest plans. For example, agency 
    directives describe how to locate hiking trails and factors to consider 
    when designing recreation sites. Such direction is applicable anywhere 
    in the country and, as a result, should not be repeated in a forest 
    plan. In contrast, if there are special circumstances in the plan area 
    that require establishment of specific standards or guidelines to 
    address local resource conditions, then such local direction would be 
    appropriate for the forest plan.
        The agency anticipates several benefits from reducing the overlap 
    between forest plans and direction already established by law, 
    regulation, Executive order, or agency directives. First, forest plan 
    direction should be substantially shorter, making forest plans more 
    readable and easier to understand. Second, forest plans should be much 
    more focused on local conditions and management needs. Third, the 
    public should have a clearer understanding of the decisions that are 
    actually being made in the forest plan.
        Paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed section would limit the main body 
    of the forest plan document to forest plan directionk. Other 
    information would appear in a brief preface or appendices. One benefit 
    is to make it easier for the reader to distinguish between forest plan 
    decisions and other information that may be found within the document. 
    Currently, it is often difficult for readers to quickly locate the 
    decisions made in the forest plan, and sometimes direction appears to 
    be repeated or intermingled in multiple locations. Another benefit of 
    this approach is that forest plans should be substantially shorter and 
    easier to understand.
        Proposed paragraph (c) would describe the role and function of 
    forest plan goals. Goals would be concise statements that describe a 
    desired end result; they would normally be expressed in broad general 
    terms rather than quantitatively; and there would be no time period 
    specified for achievement. Forest plan goals would serve as the link 
    between broad agency goals already established through legal 
    requirements, agency directives, or the RPA Program and specific, 
    measurable desired resource conditions as defined by objectives in the 
    forest plan. As a result, they will help to translate national goals 
    into end results of more local relevance to the plan area. Pursuant to 
    paragraph (b)(2) of this proposed section, forest plan goals would not 
    repeat national goals, but would rather translate them into end results 
    more specific to the local conditions of the plan area.
        Because forest plan goals are not quantitative in nature, progress 
    towards achieving goals is determined by monitoring achievement of the 
    measurable desired conditions established by forest plan objectives 
    and, if necessary, additional measurable indicators can be established 
    through the monitoring and evaluation process (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).
        Paragraph (d) describes the role of forest plan objectives. 
    Objectives would describe measurable desired resource conditions, or 
    ranges of conditions, intended to achieve forest plan goals. In many 
    cases, a range of conditions is likely to be a more desirable target 
    than a specific condition, because natural systems usually have ranges 
    within which some variation is typical and acceptable. In addition, 
    defining a desired range of conditions is appropriate when there is not 
    enough information to make a more precise statement, or when such 
    precision is not necessary, given the decision being made.
        Paragraph (d) would make clear that objectives must be defined in a 
    manner that permits measurement of whether the objective is being 
    achieved. The ability to directly measure the achievement of an 
    objective, its greater degree of specificity, and its scope being 
    limited to resource conditions are the three features which help to 
    distinguish an objective from a goal. The proposed rule would explain 
    that objectives can be defined to encompass natural resource 
    conditions, conditions resulting from human influences, or the manner 
    in which resources are perceived. As further explained at the preamble 
    discussion of Sec. 219.6(b)(1), this use of the term ``objectives'' in 
    the proposed rule is not the same as use of the term in the existing 
    rule.
        Paragraphs (e)(1)-(2) describe the role of forest plan standards. 
    These paragraphs would make explicit that standards are limitations on 
    management activities and that adherence to standards is mandatory. 
    They are the basis for determining if a project is consistent with the 
    forest plan (Sec. 219.11(a)).
        One particularly important feature of standards is that they must 
    be defined in such a manner that they are clearly within the authority 
    or ability of the agency to enforce; that is, compliance must be within 
    the agency's control. This characteristic is essential, because under 
    the proposed rule standards it would be used for assessing project 
    consistency with the forest plan (Sec. 219.11). When undertaking a 
    project, the two things that the agency has the authority to control 
    are the specific activities authorized and how they are conducted. The 
    agency cannot control the actual results, however, since there are 
    usually various factors beyond the 
    
    [[Page 18903]]
    agency's influence that can affect results. For example, usual weather 
    events or wildfires can affect actual on-the-ground results in 
    unpredictable and uncontrollable ways.
        Proposed paragraph (f) describes the role forest plan guidelines 
    would play under the proposed rule. Guidelines would be used to 
    describe a preferred or advisable course of action. Unlike standards, 
    variation from a guideline does not trigger a forest plan amendment. 
    Guidelines would play two key roles.
        First, guidelines would be used to describe a preferred or 
    advisable method of conducting resource activities. For example, a 
    guideline might recommend that shelters on hiking trails be located at 
    least one mile from trailheads. If terrain or other circumstances 
    related to a specific project made compliance infeasible, the 
    flexibility would exist to locate the shelter closer to a trailhead. 
    However, the guideline would have served to advise the responsible 
    official that construction of a shelter less than one mile to the 
    trailhead should not occur unless special circumstances exist.
        Second, guidelines would be used to describe a preferred or 
    advisable sequence or priority for implementing various types of 
    projects when such guidance is useful in facilitating achievement of a 
    forest plan goal. For example, the forest plan might have a goal which 
    addresses the restoration of hydrologic processes in a particular 
    watershed. Various objectives could be defined describing resource 
    conditions associated with restoration of the hydrologic processes, 
    such as desired vegetative conditions within the watershed, the 
    presence of down woody material in the stream channel, stream 
    temperatures, or turbidity levels. Guidelines could be used if there is 
    a preferred sequence for implementing the types of projects that would 
    achieve these objectives and the ultimate goal. For example, if 
    revegetating exposed soils within the riparian area are needed more 
    urgently than soil restoration projects elsewhere in the watershed, a 
    guideline can indicate that priority. Such guidelines would not be used 
    to identify specific projects, but rather to specify if certain types 
    of projects should be implemented before others in order to achieve a 
    goal in the most timely manner.
        Paragraph (g) would establish requirements for coordinating forest 
    plan direction across plan areas. The intent is to improve consistency 
    between forest plans. In many cases currently, it is difficult to 
    compare forest plan decisions for adjacent forests covered by different 
    forest plans, and direction often changes at an administrative boundary 
    even though the management situation appears to be identical. Paragraph 
    (g) recognizes that there may often be legitimate reason for 
    differences, but that, unless such reasons exist, forest plan decisions 
    within a Forest Service administrative Region and for plan areas 
    adjacent to the Region should be consistent in at least four ways.
        First, management prescriptions for adjacent lands should be the 
    same. The direction for managing a specific area of land should not 
    change at the boundary between forest plan plan areas unless a good 
    reason exists for such change. In addiiton, maps used in the forest 
    plans should be consistent to facilitate review and comparison. For 
    example, this would mean using maps of the same scale and with the same 
    legends and formats.
        Second, management prescriptions for specially designated areas 
    should be the same when they cross plan area boundaries, unless good 
    reason exists for change. For example, direction for managing a 
    wilderness area, scenic trail, or similar specially designated area 
    (Sec. 219.14) should not change simply because of a change in 
    administrative boundary.
        Third, forest plan direction should be the same for adjacent areas 
    when findings of an ecosystem analysis or research used as a basis for 
    the direction are applicable to more than one plan area, unless local 
    circumstances justify variation. For example, if the research used as a 
    basis for establishing a habitat protection standard for a threatened 
    or endangered species applies to a broad area covered by several forest 
    plans, that standard should be the same in each of those plans, unless 
    valid reason existed to alter it.
        Finally, consistency would be required in the use of terminology 
    and classification systems. The intent is to have the same terms and 
    classification systems used wherever feasible.
        In summary, the provisions proposed in Sec. 219.6 would incorporate 
    the results of landmark administrative appeal decisions and court cases 
    which have clarified the nature and scope of decisions made in forest 
    plans. In addition, this section would establish a uniform approach to 
    what appears in the main body of the forest plan and what can be 
    presented in the preface and appendices. These changes to the contents 
    of a forest plan will result in shorter, simpler forest plans that are 
    easier to use and understand, as well as forest plans that are more 
    highly focused on direction specifically tailored for management of the 
    resources of the plan area.
    
    Section 219.7  Ecosystem Analysis
    
        This section would introduce the concept of ecosystem analysis to 
    the planning process, a topic not addressed in the existing rule. 
    Paragraph (a) would define ecosystem analysis as a broad term used to 
    denote various interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide 
    information on and enhance understanding of the physical, biological, 
    social, or economic aspects and interactions of an ecosystem. Because 
    the agency considers humans to be an integral part of ecosystems, 
    studies of social and economic aspects of ecosystems are within the 
    scope of these analyses. Ecoregion assessments and landscape-level 
    analyses are only two examples of the different types of studies that 
    are conducted at various scales which fall under the general umbrella 
    of ecosystem analysis.
        Paragraph (a) would also address the geographic scope of ecosystem 
    analysis. It acknowledges that such analyses can be conducted at any 
    scale deemed appropriate, and emphasizes that areas subject to 
    ecosystem analyses should generally be delineated based on ecological 
    considerations rather than administrative or jurisdictional boundaries.
        Reviewers are cautioned not to confuse the concept of ecosystem 
    analysis with the analysis and evaluation of environmental effects 
    which occurs as part of the NEPA process. The requirements associated 
    with NEPA procedures would be unchanged by the provisions of this 
    proposed section. The two documents used to disclose environmental 
    assessment, are distinct in nature and purpose from an ecosystem 
    analysis.
        Proposed Sec. 219.7 would not require an ecosystem analysis to be 
    conducted as a precursor to resource decisionmaking. In fact, ecosystem 
    analyses are not mandatory, and it is left to agency discretion to 
    conduct them as appropriate. While the area covered by an ecosystem 
    analyses is defined by the ecosystem and not by jurisdictional or 
    administrative boundaries, the proposed rule would in no way impose 
    resource decisions of the Forest Service on private lands. However, in 
    order to make decisions for National Forest System lands, the agency 
    believes it is important to be knowledgeable of the conditions on non-
    Forest Service lands within an ecosystem being studied. This is 
    considered an essential part of taking an ecological approach to 
    management of National Forest System lands.
    
    [[Page 18904]]
    
        Proposed paragraph (b) would make an important distinction between 
    an ecosystem analysis and resource decisionmaking. As noted earlier, 
    ecosystem analysis is not a decisionmaking effort and does not result 
    in a resource decision. Therefore, it does not trigger NEPA analysis 
    nor does the result of ecosystem analysis substitute for a NEPA 
    disclosure document. Rather, an ecosystem analysis is a process by 
    which information is gathered and synthesized in order to enhance and 
    understanding of ecosystems. This information is usually intended as 
    one--but not the only--source of information to be used later when 
    making resource decisions.
        One key provision of paragraph (b) intended to help draw the 
    distinction between ecosystem analysis and resource decisionmaking is 
    the requirement that the findings of ecosystem analysis not be used as 
    a substitute for forest plan goals, objectives, standards, or 
    guidelines. The proposed rule would make clear that the findings of an 
    ecosystem analysis may indicate the need to change forest plan 
    direction, but that such changes must occur through amendment or 
    revision procedures. The agency does not intend ecosystem analysis to 
    be used to identify any preferred or desired alternatives or outcomes. 
    Identification of such preferences would reflect value judgments on the 
    part of those conducting the ecosystem analysis without the benefit of 
    utilizing NEPA procedures. The agency also hopes such a requirement 
    will reduce any confusion regarding the expected results of ecosystem 
    analysis and diminish the risk that such analyses might be mistaken for 
    decisionmaking processes.
        The proposed rule would make clear that ecosystem analysis may be 
    used to identify opportunities for achieving goals and objectives that 
    have already been established by law, Executive order, regulation, 
    agency directive, or the forest plan. For example, this could include 
    identifying various management options or scenarios that might meet 
    established goals and assessing the results if such options were chosen 
    or scenarios were to occur. This kind of assessment can be helpful in 
    determining the potential to resolve issues given existing forest plan 
    direction, or in evaluating the probable effects if current direction 
    were to remain unchanged. In addition, paragraph (b) would make clear 
    that an ecosystem analysis may be used to provide information that 
    indicates a need to initiate forest plan amendment procedures. It will 
    be incumbent upon the agency official responsible for the ecosystem 
    analysis to ensure that such findings are properly utilized and that 
    any consideration of options or strategies is conducted in a manner 
    complementary to using the information for subsequent compliance with 
    NEPA procedures associated with resource decisionmaking.
        Paragraph (c) would list various possible results of ecosystem 
    analysis, depending upon the scope and specific purpose of each 
    analysis. Eleven examples are provided of the type of information which 
    might result from an ecosystem analysis. This is not intended to be an 
    all-inclusive list, but rather to represent the type of results that 
    might be expected. All eleven items are informational in nature and do 
    not represent resource decisions or a narrowing of options to be 
    considered in future decisionmaking efforts.
    
    Section 219.8  Interdisciplinary Teams and Information Needs
    
        Paragraph (a) would require the use of an interdisciplinary team 
    when preparing amendments, revisions, and monitoring and evaluation 
    strategies and reports and when conducting ecosystem analysis. Although 
    the proposed rule would clearly identify when interdisciplinary teams 
    must be used, it would be less specific than Sec. 219.5 of the existing 
    rule, which addresses in more detail the functioning and selection of 
    interdisciplinary teams. Such detail is in excess of what is 
    appropriate to this regulation, especially since NEPA procedures 
    already provide guidance on the use of interdisciplinary teams. The 
    proposed rule would limit interdisciplinary team membership to Forest 
    Service and other Federal personnel. This limitation is primarily due 
    to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which imposes extensive 
    requirements on the creation and use of committees that include non-
    Federal personnel for the purpose of advising Federal agencies.
        Paragraph (b) would direct that the responsible official must 
    strive to obtain and keep updated inventory data needed for 
    decisionmaking. This is intended to emphasize the importance of 
    maintaining data on a continuous basis rather than allowing inventories 
    to become outdated. This is of particular importance in implementing an 
    adaptive approach to resource management. The ability to know if and 
    how management should be adjusted depends on ongoing analysis of 
    information throughout the plan period.
        Maintaining inventory data is also critical to avoiding delays in 
    the revision process. Some forests took as much as two years or more to 
    gather the inventory data needed to develop their initial forest plans. 
    As envisioned under the proposed rule, such information would be 
    maintained throughout the plan period, with little delay needed at the 
    time of revision to obtain new data. Realistically, many forests do not 
    have fully updated inventories at this time, so, regrettably, such 
    delays must still be expected in some cases when forest plans are 
    revised. The updating process would occur prior to or during the 
    prerevision review, however.
        In addition, paragraph (b) would clarify that the information 
    compiled should be commensurate with the decisions being made. It is 
    wasteful to try to obtain highly precise estimates if the decision 
    being made does not require such precision. The proposed rule would 
    make clear that the precision of the data should be commensurate with 
    the precision needed to make the decision (see also Sec. 219.4(e)). 
    Paragraph (b) also emphasizes the need for carefully focused analysis 
    efforts, a noteworthy change from the existing rule. The proposed rule 
    intends that analytical efforts will be focused on the critical 
    questions relevant to specific decisionmaking needs rather than 
    dispersed across a wide range of standardized analytical requirements 
    that may not be relevant to local conditions, issues, and concerns.
        Although paragraph (b) would provide enhanced flexibility to tailor 
    analysis to meet local needs, this should not be interpreted as 
    deemphasizing the importance of sound analyses. While the proposed rule 
    is certainly intended to better focus the analysis, there may or may 
    not be a reduction in the overall quantity of analysis conducted on any 
    given forest. For example, the extensive benchmark analyses required by 
    the existing rule at Sec. 219.12(e) would no longer be required in the 
    proposed rule. In many cases, the effort invested in these benchmark 
    analyses has often diverted too much time and energy from more critical 
    analyses needed for decisionmaking. However, in other cases, the data 
    derived from some of the benchmark analyses proved very helpful. The 
    proposed rule would not require that standardized benchmark analyses be 
    conducted for all resources on all forests, but it would also signal 
    the expectation that such analyses should occur if and when needed for 
    informed decisionmaking.
        This focused approach to analysis is also intended to enhance 
    understanding of and confidence in the agency's analytical procedures. 
    Findings of the Critique of Land Management Planning clearly indicated 
    that many people distrust analytical procedures and view 
    
    [[Page 18905]]
    computer models as mysterious ``black boxes'' that produce 
    incomprehensible and unverifiable answers. The approach in paragraph 
    (b) would keep analytical procedures highly focused and relevant to 
    local decisionmaking needs and thus should help increase public and 
    employee confidence in methodologies and results. Although computer 
    models will still be used, analytical efforts should be better tailored 
    to local needs. Under this provision, forest analysts could devote more 
    time and effort to understanding the data relevant to the specific 
    decisions to be made and to improving ways of communicating that 
    information to the public and decisionmakers.
        Paragraph (c) would assure that social and economic effects are 
    considered when amending or revising the forest plan. As stated at 
    Sec. 219.1(b)(2), meeting people's needs and desires within the 
    capacities of natural systems is a primary role of resource 
    decisionmaking. The forest plan addresses management of land and 
    resources, but decisions as to how those lands and resources should be 
    managed is inherently dependent on considering the effects on people as 
    well as on the resources themselves. Paragraph (c) would assure that 
    commensurate with the decision being made, appropriate indicators of 
    social and economic change, such as changes in community stability or 
    employment, are evaluated during amendment and revision.
        Paragraph (d) would require Forest Supervisors to identify the 
    research needed for decisionmaking, including, but not limited to, the 
    research needed to help resource managers ensure that management 
    practices do not produce substantial impairment of the productivity of 
    the land. This latter requirement responds to Section 6(g)(3)(C) of 
    NFMA. Comparable provisions of Sec. 219.28 of the existing rule are 
    more detailed. By contrast, the proposed rule focuses more directly on 
    making sure that research needs are identified, but would leave to 
    normal agency administrative processes the task of directing 
    formulation of budgets and reporting procedures.
    
    Section 219.9 Forest Plan Amendment
    
        Paragraph (a) would provide for three types of amendments to forest 
    plans--major, minor, and interim. It also would make explicit that: (1) 
    only those elements defined as forest plan direction are subject to 
    amendment, and (2) that amendment is the only method by which forest 
    plan direction can be changed between revisions, unless the changes are 
    nondiscretionary as described at Sec. 219.9(e).
        The term ``major amendment'' in the proposed rule would replace the 
    term ``significant amendment'' as used in the existing rule. This 
    change in terminology should help avoid confusion with the term 
    ``significance'' as it is used in the context of NEPA compliance. 
    Criteria for determining significance for NEPA compliance differ from 
    the criteria for distinguishing the significance of amendments under 
    NFMA. These differences have caused considerable confusion both within 
    and outside the agency with regard to ``significant'' plan amendments. 
    Under the proposed rule, the term ``minor amendment'' would be used to 
    refer to amendments which do not meet the criteria for a ``major'' or 
    ``interim'' amendment.
        Proposed paragraph (b) addresses major amendments. Paragraph (b)(1) 
    would define the only three circumstances which trigger a major 
    amendment. The existing rule does not define specific criteria for 
    triggering a significant amendment, stating simply that ``if the change 
    resulting from the proposed amendment is determined to be significant, 
    the Forest Supervisor shall follow the same procedure as that required 
    for development and approval of a forest plan'' (Sec. 219.10(f)).
        In the absence of criteria in the existing rule, the agency has 
    issued, at FSM 1922.52, two examples indicative of circumstances that 
    may cause a significant change to the forest plan. In addition, FSH 
    1909.12 describes four factors to be used in helping to determine 
    significance. The two circumstances described at FSM 1922.52 are: (1) 
    Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship 
    between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected, 
    and (2) changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest 
    plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the 
    planning area during the plan period. Both of these examples are 
    subject to varying interpretation.
        In reassessing the circumstances that should trigger a major 
    amendment, the agency has focused on two key provisions of Section 
    6(f)(4) of NFMA. First, this section recognizes that some amendments 
    may result in a significant change in the plan. Second, it establishes 
    special requirements for those amendments that would result in a 
    significant change to the forest plan--a three-month comment period and 
    associated requirements for public involvement.
        With these provisions of NFMA in mind, the agency proposes 
    establishing in the proposed rule at Sec. 219.9(b)(1), rather than in 
    the Forest Service Manual, three criteria for triggering a major 
    amendment. The first trigger would be a change to a forest plan 
    standard. The second would be when the chargeable timber volume that 
    can be sold for a decade is amended in such a manner that it exceeds 
    the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of a proclaimed National 
    Forest within the plan area. The third circumstance would be if the 
    forest plan is changed to permit harvest of even-aged stands that have 
    not reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth.
        The first criterion, changing a forest plan standard, reflects the 
    heightened importance of forest plan standards under the proposed rule. 
    As explained earlier in this preamble, adherence to forest plan 
    standards would be mandatory, and standards would be used to assure 
    compliance with legal requirements and to provide environmental 
    safeguards. As a result, standards would have a distinctly stronger 
    role in the forest plan than goals, objectives, or guidelines. 
    Subsequently, the proposed rule would consider a change to a standard 
    or where a standard is applied as a significant change to the forest 
    plan, which thus would trigger a major amendment unless the exceptions 
    identified at Sec. 219.9(c) (4) and (5) apply. The exceptions are when 
    a standard is changed to accommodate a particular site-specific 
    project, or the allocation of a management prescription, which 
    typically includes some standards, to newly acquired lands and the 
    prescription is consistent with the purposes for which the land was 
    acquired.
        The other two circumstances that would trigger a major amendment 
    derive directly from NFMA. In the case of the decadal chargeable volume 
    that can be sold from a proclaimed National Forest exceeding the long-
    term sustained yield timber capacity of that Forest, Section 13 of NFMA 
    requires that such a variation be made following the same public 
    involvement requirements as those for a major amendment or revision; 
    i.e., a 90-day comment period. Similarly, Section 6(m)(2) of NFMA 
    requires a 90-day comment period if stands are to be harvested before 
    reaching culmination of mean annual increment of growth. As a result, 
    the proposed rule would require that such changes be considered major 
    amendments.
        Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would provide that the Regional Forester 
    is the responsible official for major amendments. This delegation of 
    
    [[Page 18906]]
    authority is the same as that under the existing rule.
        Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would describe the procedural 
    requirements associated with major amendment. These differ from those 
    of the existing rule in two main ways. First, there is no automatic 
    requirement to develop an EIS for a major amendment. The intent is to 
    allow NEPA procedures to guide the determination of whether an EIS or 
    an environmental assessment is appropriate for the decision being made. 
    Second, the proposed rule would drop the requirement to use the same 
    process for a major amendment as for development of initial forest 
    plans and revisions (Sec. 219.12(a) of the existing regulation). 
    Instead, the proposed rule would rely on established NEPA procedures to 
    guide the process for major amendment.
        Both changes are expected to help focus and streamline analyses. As 
    described at proposed Sec. 219.8(b), one intent of the proposed rule is 
    to focus analyses on the information needed for decisionmaking and thus 
    to ensure that the nature, scope; and complexity of analyses are 
    commensurate with the nature, scope and impact of the decisions to be 
    made. Relying on NEPA procedures to determine the type of disclosure 
    that is appropriate is a sound means of assuring that analysis and 
    documentation match the nature of the decision.
        Similarly, the requirement in the existing rule to repeat the same 
    steps for a significant amendment as for a revision has proven 
    excessively burdensome. This existing requirement has often resulted in 
    a variety of analysis efforts, such as developing benchmarks or 
    reevaluating the suitability of lands for timber production, which 
    proved to be of little benefit or utility and which diverted energy and 
    focus from more critical factors related to the decision.
        Paragraph (b)(3) of the proposed rule also would state the 
    requirement to provide a 90-day period for public review and comment on 
    a major amendment. This paragraph also specifies the minimum actions 
    the Regional Forester would be required to take to provide for public 
    participation in the major amendment process.
        Paragraph (b)(4) would require publication of legal notice of 
    adoption of a major amendment. Paragraph (b)(5) provides that the 
    effective date of an approved major amendment is the eighth calendar 
    day following publication of legal notice of the decision in accordance 
    with administrative appeal rules at 36 CFR 217.10.
        Proposed paragraph (c) would establish requirements for a minor 
    amendment, which is triggered whenever a change is being made to the 
    forest plan which does not meet the circumstances for triggering a 
    revision, major amendment, or interim amendment.
        Paragraph (c)(1) would designate the Forest Supervisor as the 
    responsible official for minor amendments, unless that authority is 
    retained by the Regional Forester.
        Paragraph (c)(2) addresses public comment periods for minor 
    amendments. As is the case with major amendments, the proposed rule 
    does not specify what type of NEPA documentation must accompany a minor 
    amendment. Instead, NEPA procedures would provide this guidance. 
    Although NEPA procedures require a 45-day comment period for review of 
    a draft EIS, there is no requirement under NEPA procedures for public 
    comment on a draft environmental assessment. Nevertheless, the agency 
    believes that the public should have an opportunity to comment on a 
    minor amendment to a forest plan when an environmental assessment is 
    prepared. Therefore, the proposed rule requires at least a 30-day 
    comment period when an environmental assessment is prepared and at 
    least a 45-day comment period when an EIS is prepared.
        Paragraph (c)(3) indicates that 36 CFR part 217 provides for 
    administrative appeal of forest plan amendments and revisions and 
    guides public notice of decisions to adopt a minor amendment, as well 
    as their effective date. This is further clarified in a conforming 
    amendment to 36 CFR 217.3(a).
        Proposed paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) describe two circumstances 
    where a minor amendment, not a major amendment, is the appropriate 
    mechanism for changing a forest plan even though such an amendment 
    involves changing a standard or changing where a standard applies. 
    Under paragraph (c)(4), a minor amendment would be appropriate when a 
    management prescription is extended to apply to newly acquired land and 
    the prescription is compatible with the purposes for which it was 
    acquired. Without this provision, such a change would trigger a major 
    amendment since management prescriptions include standards, and 
    allocating lands to a management prescription changes where those 
    standards are applied.
        Paragraph (c)(5) provides instructions for handling a proposed 
    site-specific project that would conflict with a forest plan standard. 
    As required at Sec. 219.11(a) of the proposed rule, a project cannot be 
    approved if it conflicts with a forest plan standard. If the 
    responsible official has determined that the project merits an 
    exception to a forest plan standard, but wishes the exception to apply 
    only to the site-specific project rather than changing the standard for 
    all future projects, the proposed rule would specify that the change be 
    made by minor amendment. This is appropriate because of the limited, 
    site-specific scope of the change in the standard(s). However, a minor 
    amendment cannot be used when the circumstances described at 
    (b)(1)(ii)-(iii) apply, since NFMA requires a 90-day comment period on 
    changes of that nature.
        Under the proposed rule, the public could review and comment on a 
    proposed site-specific amendment as part of the project decisionmaking 
    process rather than as disjointed decisions. The disclosure of effects 
    associated with changing the standard would be addressed as part of the 
    NEPA documentation associated with the site-specific project decision. 
    One intent of this integrated approach is to avoid duplicating analysis 
    and documentation. It would be burdensome and confusing for both the 
    public and the agency if a project decision had to be made separately 
    from the forest plan amendment needed to authorize the site-specific 
    exception from the standard.
        The length of the comment period under these circumstances would 
    vary, depending on the nature of the decision being made. If the 
    project decision or amendment required an EIS, then at least a 45-day 
    comment period would be provided in accordance with NEPA procedures. If 
    an environmental assessment would be adequate, then at least a 30-day 
    comment period would be provided in accordance with 36 CFR 215.5.
        A minor amendment associated with a site-specific project would not 
    be subject to administrative appeal under the provisions of 36 CFR part 
    217, but instead would be appealable under 36 CFR part 215 which 
    already governs appeal procedures when a project decision includes a 
    plan amendment. Similarly, the time period between the decision and 
    project implementation is also governed by 36 CFR part 215.
        Paragraph (d)(1) of this proposed section introduces the concept of 
    ``interim amendment.'' The agency believes there is a clear need to 
    provide streamlined procedures for updating forest plan direction when 
    there is new information that indicates a compelling need to promptly 
    change the forest plan in order to provide resource protection, 
    
    [[Page 18907]]
    or when a catastrophic even has occurred, and the process for major 
    amendment, minor amendment, or revision would result in an unacceptable 
    delay.
        Due to the length of time it often takes to fully analyze new 
    information and to complete appropriate amendment procedures, there can 
    be quite a gap between the time the agency is aware that it needs to 
    address a problem and the time normal procedures can be completed. In 
    the meantime, environmental damage may be occurring as a result of 
    these procedural delays. The interim amendment would be a means of 
    addressing those situations where such delay is unacceptable, but would 
    still assure that a thorough analysis of the new information is 
    conducted and possible alternative responses are considered while such 
    interim measures are in place.
        Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would designate the Regional Forester as 
    the responsible official for interim amendments, unless such authority 
    is reserved by the Chief. Placing approval authority at the Regional 
    Forester level should help to ensure that interim amendments are used 
    and developed in a consistent manner and that they are not used when 
    the needed changes can be made within the normal amendment process.
        Paragraph (d)(3) describes the requirements for public notice of an 
    interim amendment and the information that must be disclosed at the 
    time an interim amendment is issued.
        Paragraph (d)(4) establishes an explicit finding that an 
    environmental impact statement is not required for interim amendment. 
    Any change to a forest plan made by interim amendment will be limited 
    in scope and duration and made only to respond to catastrophic events 
    or to ensure resource protection. Given the limited circumstances where 
    it could be used, an interim amendment would never meet the criteria 
    for preparing an EIS as required by NEPA procedures. Nothing in 
    paragraph (d)(4) would limit the preparation of an environmental 
    assessment for an interim amendment.
        As specified in paragraph (d)(5), the effective date for interim 
    amendments is the eighth calendar day after legal notice of the 
    decision is published in a newspaper of general circulation or, if the 
    Chief is the responsible official, in the Federal Register.
        Paragraph (d)(6) provides for a 45-day comment period starting upon 
    issuance of legal notice of the interim amendment. Unlike most comment 
    periods which occur prior to making a decision, this 45-day comment 
    period would occur after the interim amendment is in effect. Based on 
    the comments received, the responsible official may decide to modify 
    the interim amendment or have it remain in effect unchanged. Under 
    either circumstance, the public must be notified and rationale 
    provided. Since an interim amendment is designed to respond to those 
    circumstances where a quick change is necessary, it is not reasonable 
    to delay issuance of the interim amendment until a comment period can 
    occur. However, the provision of paragraph (d)(6) assures the 
    opportunity to public review and comment as soon as possible, provides 
    the responsible official an opportunity to change the interim amendment 
    in a timely manner based on those comments, and ensures that the public 
    is notified of whether the interim amendment is retained without change 
    or is modified and why.
        The duration of an interim amendment would be limited by paragraph 
    (d)(7) to two years. If an interim amendment has not been superseded by 
    an approved amendment or revision within two years, the responsible 
    official would have the option of reissuing the interim amendment or 
    issuing a modified interim amendment. Under such circumstances, all of 
    the limitations and notice and comment requirements for use of interim 
    amendments would still apply. This limit on the duration of an interim 
    amendment is intended to assure that direction established using these 
    procedures is indeed interim in nature.
        Paragraph (d)(8) would expressly prohibit including an interim 
    amendment in a decision document for a specific project. As discussed, 
    the provisions of Sec. 219.9(c)(5) address those circumstances where a 
    forest plan needs to be amended to permit one specific project.
        Paragraph (d)(9) would make clear that under 36 CFR part 217 an 
    interim amendment is not subject to administrative appeal. Since 
    neither the existing planning rule nor the appeals rule address interim 
    amendments, a conforming amendment to 36 CFR part 217 is proposed to 
    exclude interim amendments from the administrative appeals process. 
    Such an exclusion is appropriate due to the short duration of an 
    interim amendment and the circumstances for its use. The 45-day public 
    comment period should provide an effective way for the public and other 
    government entities to communicate with the responsible official about 
    any potential concerns.
        Paragraph (e) would permit nondiscretionary changes to forest plan 
    direction under specified circumstances. There is no similar provision 
    in the existing rule. This provision would allow forest plan direction 
    to be changed without completion of the more rigorous amendment and 
    public comment procedures when the change is needed to comply with a 
    law or regulation and the agency has no discretion in the manner in 
    which it complies. Under such a circumstance, NEPA procedures would not 
    need to be completed and there would be no public comment period. 
    However, the public would be given notice through the annual monitoring 
    and evaluation report that such changes had been made. Examples of such 
    nondiscretionary changes include designating an area as wilderness 
    after passage of wilderness legislation. Paragraph (f) would make clear 
    that the Forest Supervisor may, at any time, make certain changes to a 
    forest plan without amendment procedures. Such changes would be 
    identified in the monitoring and evaluation report. Circumstances 
    allowing such an approach include when changes do not alter forest plan 
    management direction or when the changes are non-substantive in nature, 
    such as correcting typographical errors.
        In addition, corrections to maps which delineate where a management 
    prescription is applied can be made without amendment, provided such 
    changes are due to improved on-the-ground information about the 
    condition to which the management prescription was described to apply. 
    For example, if a management prescription were to apply to all areas 
    visible from a scenic highway but the visible area had not been 
    precisely mapped, the mapped boundaries of where the prescription would 
    apply could be adjusted after a detailed field survey is completed. It 
    is essential that the forest plan state that the prescription is 
    intended to apply to the visible area, however, so that it is clear 
    what attributes the land must have if the map is to be changed in this 
    manner. If, for example, the prescription were to be extended to apply 
    to lands other than those visible from the scenic highway, amendment 
    procedures would have to be followed.
    
    Section 219.10  Forest Plan Revision
    
        This section would significantly revise the procedures for forest 
    plan revision. The existing rule (Sec. 219.12) requires the agency to 
    use the same process for forest plan revision as for developing initial 
    forest plans. The 
    
    [[Page 18908]]
    proposed rule offers a new process specifically tailored to revision.
        Proposed paragraph (a) retains the provision of the existing rule 
    that revision of a forest plan should occur about every 10 years, and 
    no later than 15 years, after approval of the original plan or latest 
    plan revision. Additionally, revisions must occur whenever conditions 
    over most or all of the plan area have changed significantly, for 
    example, to address catastrophic events that have substantially altered 
    resource conditions over most or all of the plan area. These criteria 
    for initiating revisions are based on requirements of Section 6(f)(5) 
    of the National Forest Management Act.
        Proposed paragraph (b) would designate the Regional Forester as the 
    responsible official for revision, as is the case in the existing rule.
        Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) would establish an important new 
    element--the prerevison review of a forest plan, which would be 
    conducted prior to initiating scoping. The purpose of the prerevision 
    review is to identify changed conditions and/or other new information 
    which appear to indicate a need to change direction in the current plan 
    using the results of monitoring and evaluation.
        This requirement for a prerevision review is somewhat comparable to 
    the requirement in the existing rule for completing an Analysis of the 
    Management Situation (hereafter, AMS) (Sec. 219.12(e)), but there are 
    some important differences. The main similarity is that both the AMS 
    and the proposed prerevison review culminate in a determination of the 
    need to change direction in the forest plan. However, a key difference 
    between the AMS and prerevision review is the source of the information 
    and type of analysis required for making such determinations. The 
    existing rule imposes extensive analytical requirements to be met when 
    developing the AMS. As explained earlier in the preamble discussion for 
    proposed Sec. 219.8, these analyses have not always proven relevant to 
    the local situation or helpful to decisionmakers. In fact, the existing 
    requirements have often diverted time and energy from more critical 
    analyses needed for decisionmaking.
        In contrast, the proposed rule focuses on using the results of 
    monitoring and evaluation of making such determinations. As part of the 
    prerevision review, the Regional Forester would be responsible for 
    reviewing the cumulative results of monitoring and evaluation, as well 
    as conducting whatever associated analysis is needed in order to 
    propose the scope of the revision process. In some cases, the type of 
    analysis now required as part of the AMS may be appropriate. However, 
    the proposed rule does not impose such specific analytical 
    requirements; instead, the provisions of Sec. 219.8 (Interdisciplinary 
    teams and information needs) and Sec. 219.12 (Monitoring and 
    evaluation) provide sufficient guidance for obtaining appropriate 
    information for the prerevision review.
        Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require the Forest Supervisor to 
    formulate a communications strategy that describes how the public and 
    other government entities may participate on an ongoing basis in both 
    the prerevision review and revision process. As noted earlier in regard 
    to proposed Sec. 219.3, the agency is stressing the importance of 
    building and maintaining strong relationships based on open and ongoing 
    communication. One purpose of these communications efforts is to 
    improve the information base on which decisions are based and to 
    promote a shared understanding of the validity of this information (see 
    Sec. 219.3(a)(3)). Proposed Sec. 219.10(c)(2) is specifically designed 
    to help achieve these aims by encouraging the public to be involved 
    while these initial prerevision analyses are occurring and data is 
    being gathered in addition to involvement during the revision process 
    itself.
        By participating in the prerevision review, the public and other 
    government entities will have an opportunity to see the data and 
    analytical methods being developed for the revision and to provide 
    improved information or suggest better approaches. This should enhance 
    public confidence in the data and analysis upon which decisions about 
    revising the forest plan will be made. The results of the prerevision 
    review provide the basis for the Notice of Intent to revise the forest 
    plan and to prepare an environmental impact statement for the revision. 
    The prerevision review also provides the public with a thorough 
    analysis of monitoring and evaluation results, and identifies the 
    direction in the forest plan that the Regional Forester believes may 
    need to be changed.
        Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require a meeting with interested 
    representatives of other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal 
    governments in order to establish procedures for coordination and 
    ongoing communication. These provisions reflect the importance which 
    the Forest Service places on establishing a strong working relationship 
    with other agencies and governments as well as on coordinating with 
    them during the prerevision review and revision process.
        Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would provide the public and representatives 
    of other government entities the opportunity to express their ideas and 
    suggestions on the communications strategy as it is being formulated. 
    There is no comparable requirement in the existing rule, and this 
    approach is not commonly practiced within the agency now. This new 
    requirement is intended to greatly improve the effectiveness of public 
    involvement efforts during revision. By providing the public an 
    opportunity to comment on how to develop the communications strategy, 
    involvement efforts should be more responsive to public needs and 
    desires, better timed to assure that the public is involved at those 
    points in the process of most interest, and better suited to 
    facilitating the type of interaction, mutual understanding, and 
    commitment necessary for success.
        Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would assure that those who are on the 
    mailing list described at Sec. 219.3(b) are notified of the prerevision 
    review and formulation of the communications strategy.
        Paragraph (d) addresses scoping, which is required by NEPA 
    procedures and is undertaken to identify important issues and determine 
    the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed 
    action. Scoping is used not only to identify significant environmental 
    issues deserving of study, but also to deemphasize insignificant 
    issues, thus narrowing the scope of the environmental impact statement 
    accordingly (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). A Notice of Intent to revise a forest 
    plan would be issued in the Federal Register, with a 60-day comment 
    period. The Notice would serve to notify the public of the start of the 
    revision process and would provide information on the anticipated scope 
    of the effort. The Notice would also identify opportunities for public 
    involvement in the revision process.
        This process for initiating forest plan revision is a substantial 
    improvement over the existing rule, providing more and better 
    information to the public for use in commenting on the scope of the 
    revision process. In the existing rule, the process for forest plan 
    revision starts from ground zero, repeating the same steps used for 
    developing initial forest plans. Under this current approach, the 
    revision process assumes that the ``slate has been wiped clean;'' that 
    is, that no forest plan currently exists and that there is little 
    information available from which to launch the revision effort.
        In contrast, the proposed rule recognizes that substantial 
    information 
    
    [[Page 18909]]
    regarding the adequacy of the forest plan already exists as a result of 
    monitoring and evaluation. Just as importantly, the proposed rule 
    provides for making this information available to the public during the 
    scoping process so that the public has the best possible information 
    upon which to base its comments regarding the scope of the revision 
    effort.
        Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(iii) identify three actions that the 
    Forest Supervisor would be required to take at the time of issuing the 
    Notice of Intent:
        (1) giving notice to those on the mailing list required at 
    Sec. 219.3(b);
        (2) giving more general notice through a press release; and
        (3) promoting activities to foster ongoing participation in the 
    revision process pursuant to the communications strategy.
        Proposed paragraph (e) specifies four required elements of the 
    revision process:
        (1) Review of the identification of lands suited and not suited for 
    timber production;
        (2) Evaluation of roadless areas for wilderness designation;
        (3) Evaluation of rivers for eligibility as wild, scenic, or 
    recreation rivers under specified circumstances; and
        (4) Update of the appendix information displaying projected levels 
    of goods and services and management activities for the next decade, as 
    required by Sec. 219.11(d)(1). These four requirements, along with the 
    requirements of Sec. 219.10(c), are the main factors which distinguish 
    forest plan revision from major amendment.
        Paragraph (f) would require that a draft EIS be prepared for a 
    proposed forest plan revision. Unlike the existing rule, the proposed 
    rule would not provide additional guidance on how to develop or 
    evaluate alternatives. Rather, the range of alternatives would be 
    developed in accordance with NEPA procedures. Although it is possible 
    that the agency may decide to supplement NEPA procedures to address the 
    unique needs of draft EIS's associated with forest plan revisions, such 
    detailed instructions would be appropriately issued through the 
    Directive System, rather than in a regulation.
        Paragraph (g) describes procedural requirements for public notice 
    and comment on the proposed revised forest plan, draft EIS, and draft 
    monitoring and evaluation strategy. These provisions are designed to 
    comply with the requirements of Section 6(d) of NFMA.
        Paragraph (h) defines the role of the Regional Forester in 
    overseeing preparation of the final EIS and revised forest plan and 
    also directs that preparation of the final EIS and record of decision 
    be prepared and made public in accordance with NEPA procedures.
        Approval of the final plan and determination of the effective date 
    is addressed in proposed Sec. 219.10(i). The final revised forest plan 
    would become effective 30 days after public notice, as required by 
    Section 6(j) of NFMA. Notice of a decision to revise a forest plan must 
    be provided in accordance with 36 CFR part 217, the regulation that 
    guides the process for administrative appeals of forest plans.
    
    Section 219.11  Forest Plan Implementation
    
        Section 6(i) of NFMA requires resource plans, permits, contracts, 
    and other instruments for use and occupancy of National Forest System 
    lands to be consistent with forest plans. This section describes how a 
    determination of consistency is made at the time of project approval, 
    prior to issuing permits or contracts to implement a project decision, 
    as well as how consistency is maintained after forest plan amendments 
    or revisions. This section also provides other direction relevant to 
    forest plan implementation.
        Proposed Sec. 219.11(a) describes how the agency would determine 
    project consistency. A determination of consistency with the forest 
    plan would be based on whether a project adheres to forest plan 
    standards, and this determination must be documented at the time of 
    project approval.
        Paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) list the options available to a responsible 
    official when faced with a project proposal inconsistent with the 
    forest plan. The options are to: modify the proposal to make it 
    consistent with the plan; reject the proposal, or amend the forest plan 
    to permit the proposal.
        Paragraphs (a)(1)-(3) reflect the key role that forest plan 
    standards would play under the proposed rule. As noted earlier in the 
    discussion of proposed Sec. 219.6, standards would be the one component 
    of forest plan direction to which adherence would be mandatory. Unlike 
    goals, objectives, or guidelines, standards define the limitations 
    within which project activities must occur and are limited to those 
    constraints within the agency's authority or ability to enforce. As a 
    result, individual projects can be readily assessed for their 
    compliance with standards.
        By contrast, achievement of forest plan goals and objectives would 
    typically be dependent on the cumulative results of individually 
    authorized projects and, in some cases, naturally occurring changes 
    over time. The impact of any specific project on achievement of a goal 
    or objective could be difficult to measure. Monitoring and evaluation 
    is a more meaningful way to account for progress towards goals and 
    objectives than using forest plan goals or objectives in project 
    consistency determinations.
        Likewise, project consistency determinations would not be based on 
    guidelines. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course of 
    action. Therefore, it would be counter to their intended role if they 
    were used in determining project consistency. In addition, it would be 
    difficult to assess on a project-by-project basis whether a project was 
    consistent with those guidelines that describe specific resource 
    conditions desirable to achieve, just as was the case with forest plan 
    goals.
        Paragraph (b) would require that permits, contracts, and other 
    instruments issued or approved for use and occupancy of National Forest 
    System lands be consistent with standards in the forest plan in effect 
    at the time of their issuance. Also, subject to valid existing rights, 
    they must be revised as soon as practicable after a forest plan is 
    amended or revised, if necessary, to be made consistent with the forest 
    plan. Both of these provisions are based on requirements of NFMA 
    (Section 6(i)) and are similar to provisions of the existing rule 
    (Sec. 219.10(e)), with the exception that the proposed rule would 
    expand this requirement to include amendment as well as revision.
        Paragraph (c) would fill an omission existing in the current rule 
    by making clear that an approved forest plan remains in effect until 
    approval of an amendment or revision. The question of the status of 
    forest plans undergoing amendment or revision has arisen often and 
    would be answered definitively by this paragraph.
        Paragraph (d) would address possible actions during the plan 
    period. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that a display be included in a 
    forest plan appendix predicting the major goods and services which may 
    be produced, as well as the management activities which may occur 
    during the plan period. Rather than displaying this information as 
    precise figures, paragraph (d)(1)(i) would provide for this information 
    to be expressed in terms of ranges reflecting, when practicable and 
    meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect actual 
    accomplishment.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would allow a display of the rate of achieving 
    desired 
    
    [[Page 18910]]
    resource conditions identified by forest plan objectives. Once again, 
    this prediction would reflect, to the extent practicable and 
    meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect achievement. 
    This would not be a required display, but it may be a useful tool for 
    showing how long it would take to achieve the resource conditions 
    envisioned in the forest plan.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would clarify that the information in the 
    displays described at paragraph (d)(1)(i)-(ii) is not forest plan 
    direction and does not compel the agency to take any action.
        Paragraph (d)(2) would require periodic updates of the estimated 
    levels of goods and services and management activities, but provides 
    for the intervals and timeframes to be determined as appropriate. It is 
    the agency's intent to utilize information from other ongoing agency 
    efforts rather than requiring the preparation of new or additional 
    information exclusively for the purposes of these updates. Therefore, 
    the agency believes it is important to retain the flexibility to adjust 
    the intervals and timeframes for which these estimates are provided in 
    order to keep synchronized with whatever agency procedures can be most 
    efficiently utilized. Development of these estimates does not require 
    NEPA analysis.
    Section 219.12  Monitoring and Evaluation
    
        This section is designed to greatly strengthen the role of 
    monitoring and evaluation and contains several changes from the 
    approach taken in the existing rule. The agency believes an expanded 
    and strenghened role for monitoring and evaluation is a cornerstone for 
    implementing the proposed rule and making adaptive resource management 
    a reality for National Forest System lands.
        Paragraph (a) would establish the Forest Supervisor's 
    responsibility to conduct monitoring and evaluation and would require 
    development of a monitoring and evaluation strategy. This strategy 
    would be prepared by the Forest Supervisor simultaneously with revision 
    of a forest plan. In contrast to the existing rule, which provides for 
    monitoring and evaluation to be addressed in the forest plan, the 
    proposed rule would address monitoring and evaluation in a companion 
    strategy document, and it would not be part of the forest plan. 
    Paragraph (a) would also clarify that the strategy does not require 
    NEPA analysis. However, monitoring and evaluation activities are 
    subject to NEPA procedures at the time of implementation.
        There are several reasons the agency is proposing to address 
    monitoring and evaluation in a companion document. First, the 
    requirement to develop a companion document should give considerably 
    more emphasis to monitoring and evaluation than at present and should 
    promote greater recognition of monitoring and evaluation as a critical 
    and integrated aspect of National Forest System management. As the 
    first generation of forest plans is facing revision and with the agency 
    shifting to an ecosystem management approach, monitoring and evaluation 
    is receiving greatly increased emphasis within the agency, and 
    considerably more effort is being invested in developing well-designed 
    and coordinated monitoring and evaluation procedures.
        The agency also anticipates much more emphasis on joint monitoring 
    with other agencies, coordination of monitoring efforts across plan 
    area boundaries, and a shift from a forest-by-forest approach to a 
    corporate approach to monitoring and evaluation activities. All of this 
    will likely require a document that more easily allows for an expanded 
    length and different formats from what is typically found in most 
    forest plans now. Establishing a separate document for addressing 
    monitoring and evaluation activities allows more flexibility in how all 
    of this information can be aggregated and organized. Given the rapidly 
    expanding technologies and knowledge associated with monitoring and 
    evaluation, it is especially desirable to retain as much flexibility as 
    possible so that the most effective means can be found for structuring 
    and displaying relevant information.
        Finally, separating the monitoring and evaluation strategy from 
    decisions in the forest plan should help to streamline the forest plan. 
    The Critique of Land Management Planning revealed that the public wants 
    shorter forest plans, and the agency agrees this is desirable. Yet, 
    circumstances could occur where the length of the monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy could approach the length of the forest plan 
    itself, depending on the monitoring and evaluation format used and the 
    amount of information incorporated from other sources. Therefore, 
    rather than adding to the size of forest plans or creating a 
    disincentive to include all relevant or useful information for 
    monitoring and evaluation in order to keep the forest plan at a 
    manageable size, the agency believes it is appropriate to treat 
    monitoring and evaluation information in a companion document.
        In addition to addressing monitoring and evaluation in a companion 
    document, the proposed rule would make clear that the monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy is not considered forest plan direction. There are 
    distinct differences between forest plan direction and the information 
    in a monitoring and evaluation strategy. Unlike the forest plan 
    direction described at Sec. 219.6 (goals, objectives, standards, and 
    guidelines), monitoring and evaluation strategies do not address how to 
    manage resources. Rather than guiding how to manage resources, these 
    strategies guide how to determine if resource management activities are 
    resulting in the outcomes expected. In essence, they are part of the 
    quality control process for implementing the forest plan.
        The exclusion of monitoring and evaluation from forest plan 
    direction creates two particularly notable changes. First, updates to 
    the monitoring and evaluation strategy would not be subject to 
    procedures for forest plan amendment. This exclusion is logical 
    because, as provided at proposed Sec. 219.12(a), the strategy does not 
    require NEPA analysis, yet the amendment process is focused on 
    evaluating alternatives following NEPA procedures. However, a second 
    important aspect of amendment procedures is the requirement for a 
    public comment period. In order to assure that the public has an 
    opportunity to comment on updates to the monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy, the proposed rule would require a 30-day comment period.
        The second notable change is that the strategy would not be subject 
    to administrative appeal. The monitoring and evaluation strategy does 
    not make decisions about how resources will be managed, but rather 
    establishes procedures for assessing the effects of the forest plan. 
    Although the agency has received hundreds of appeals on forest plans, 
    very few of them involve monitoring and evaluation. Considering the 
    nature of a monitoring and evaluation strategy and the emphasis in the 
    rule on assuring on-going communication and accountability for 
    monitoring and evaluation, the appeals process does not appear to be 
    the most appropriate or effective means for addressing monitoring and 
    evaluation issues.
        The proposed rule has established numerous safeguards to assure the 
    agency's accountability for monitoring and evaluation. Some of these 
    include: public review and comment on the strategy at the time of 
    revision (Sec. 219.12(b)(1)); public comment on proposed updates to the 
    strategy (Sec. 219.12(c)(2)); public notification of 
    
    [[Page 18911]]
    updates to the strategy in the annual monitoring and evaluation report 
    (Sec. 219.12(e)(5)); involvement of the applicable Station Director in 
    the development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation 
    strategies (Sec. 219.12(d)(3)); and the availability of an annual 
    monitoring and evaluation report for public review (Sec. 219.12(e)). In 
    addition, Sec. 219.12(d)(1) and Sec. 219.3 promote ongoing involvement 
    and communication with the public and other agencies and governments 
    throughout all phases of resource planning and management, including 
    monitoring and evaluation.
        Beyond establishing the monitoring and evaluation strategy as a 
    companion document not subject to administrative appeal, paragraph (a) 
    of proposed Sec. 219.12 also would address NEPA responsibilities 
    related to monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy does not require NEPA analysis because it does not contain any 
    resource decisions. It is an operational guide that identifies 
    techniques and procedures for gathering relevant information; it does 
    not compel any specific action or prohibit any action. Therefore, due 
    to the nature of the information it contains, the criteria for 
    undertaking NEPA analysis and disclosure are not met and no NEPA 
    documentation is required.
        In contrast to the monitoring and evaluation strategy, actual 
    monitoring and evaluation activities are subject to NEPA procedures at 
    the time of implementation. For example, if water quality monitoring 
    activities involve placing instrumentation in a stream or require 
    helicopter access into a remote mountain lake to collect water samples, 
    the environmental effects of such activities would have to be 
    considered. In most cases, monitoring and evaluation activities are 
    categorical exclusions under 7 CFR 1.b(3), which clearly excludes 
    ``Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource 
    inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly 
    limited in scope and intensity.'' Such an exclusion does not apply, 
    however, if extraordinary circumstances exist. Extraordinary 
    circumstances might encompass monitoring and evaluation activities 
    affecting such features as inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, Native 
    American religious sites, and Congressionally designated areas (FSH 
    1909.15, Sec. 30.3, para. 2).
        Proposed paragraph (a)(1) lists the types of instructions provided 
    in a monitoring and evaluation strategy and expands the role of 
    monitoring and evaluation from that in the existing rule. Under 
    paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii), the monitoring and evaluation strategy 
    would provide guidance to make sure that projects are being implemented 
    in accordance with the project decision document, and that progress is 
    being made toward achieving plan goals. Since forest plan goals 
    normally are not expressed in quantitative terms, the rule would 
    require that measurable indicators be used to assess achievement. In 
    many cases, those measurable indicators will be desired resource 
    conditions defined by objectives.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) links the monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy for the plan area to monitoring and evaluation efforts needed 
    at scales larger than the plan area. This is a key new concept and 
    reflects how much of the coordination required of the Regional Forester 
    at paragraph (d)(2) of this section will be integrated into forest 
    activities. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) recognizes that an important 
    role of the monitoring and evaluation strategy is to provide for 
    validating the assumptions upon which plan decisions were based and 
    verifying the accuracy of the predicted effects.
        Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) (v)-(x) substantially expand the role of 
    monitoring and evaluation beyond what is required by the existing rule. 
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v), the monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy would include setting priorities for monitoring and evaluation 
    efforts, and it specifies that the highest priority for monitoring and 
    evaluation is those activities believed to have the greatest potential 
    risk to the environment.
        Proposed provision (a)(1)(vi) would require the monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy to address compilation of information to serve as 
    reference points for future evaluations. Similarly, paragraph 
    (a)(1)(vii) would direct that monitoring and evaluation be used to 
    determine if new information exists which substantially affects the 
    validity of the forest plan, such as changes in legal requirements, 
    shifting social or economic trends, new scientific information, or 
    findings resulting from ecosystem analyses. This deliberate outreach 
    for new information is not generally recognized as part of monitoring 
    and evaluation under the existing rule.
        Paragraph (a)(1)(viii) would expand the role of monitoring to 
    include the storage and dissemination of information for use in the 
    budget formulation process. A major source of this type of information 
    is expected to be various ecosystem analyses, as well as information 
    being gathered from various other sources. Although storing and 
    disseminating such information is a vital function, its importance is 
    not always recognized.
        Tracking goods and services provided and management activities 
    conducted, as would be required at paragraph (a)(1)(ix), is 
    traditionally associated with monitoring and evaluation. The final 
    item, identifying problems and opportunities for resolution, is not 
    traditionally considered part of monitoring and evaluation. Under the 
    proposed rule, however, such efforts would be considered as part of 
    monitoring and evaluation and are considered an integral and critical 
    step whereby the monitoring and evaluation results are synthesized into 
    a clear problem statement and evaluation of opportunities for solution.
        The decision as to whether a forest plan needs to be amended or 
    revised is a separate step and not included within the role of 
    monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation only goes as far 
    as providing the information which defines the problem and which 
    describes opportunities for solution. The subsequent determination as 
    to whether an amendment or revision is triggered is based on the 
    information provided through monitoring and evaluation. This 
    determination is made available to the public in the annual monitoring 
    and evaluation report that would be required by paragraph (e) of this 
    proposed section.
        Paragraph (a)(2) provides additional instructions for developing 
    monitoring and evaluation strategies. The proposed rule would make 
    clear that strategies should be realistic and practicable to implement 
    and should recognize possible fluctuations in funding. This paragraph 
    also would assure that monitoring and evaluation efforts are designed 
    at appropriate spatial scales and for appropriate timeframes.
        The agency recognizes that there will always be limitations on the 
    funds and staff available to conduct monitoring and evaluation. One 
    approach for enhancing efficiency is to assure that efforts are 
    designed at the appropriate scales for appropriate timeframes. This 
    will require close coordination of effort and careful planning, but 
    such coordination is essential to prevent redundant efforts and to 
    maximize the results obtained with limited funding.
        The provision of paragraph (a)(2) to recognize funding limitations 
    is one of three provisions in this section which work together to 
    address the issue of funding. The first provision is (a)(1)(v), which 
    would require that priorities be set for monitoring and evaluation 
    efforts in the strategy in order to identify monitoring and evaluation 
    efforts 
    
    [[Page 18912]]
    associated with the management activities having the greatest potential 
    risk to the environment. The second is paragraph (a)(2), which would 
    direct monitoring and evaluation strategies to be designed recognizing 
    that the type and intensity of efforts may need to vary depending on 
    the availability of funds. The third related provision is paragraph 
    (a)(3), which would require that, when funds are limited, the highest 
    priority monitoring and evaluation activities be implemented first.
        Proposed paragraph (b) would require that the monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy be available for public review and comment along 
    with the proposed revised forest plan. This assures the public an 
    opportunity to review the strategy at the time of revision just as 
    would have been the case if it were contained in the forest plan. An 
    important safeguard for ensuring that a timely monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy is developed is the prohibition against approving a 
    revised forest plan prior to approval of the monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy. This provision would assure that there is no delay between 
    finalizing a revised forest plan and having an approved monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy. Finally, Station Director concurrence would be 
    required when approving the strategy. This provision would help ensure 
    that the monitoring and evaluation strategy is scientifically sound and 
    would promote the involvement of the scientific community in 
    development of these strategies.
        Proposed paragraph (c)(1) provides that updates may occur as needed 
    and lists circumstances which might trigger an update. Proposed 
    Sec. 219.12(c)(2) would make the Forest Supervisor responsible for 
    updating monitoring and evaluation strategies as needed and would make 
    clear that such updates do not require NEPA analysis. As previously 
    noted, paragraph (c)(2) would require a 30-day period for public review 
    and comment on proposed updates to a monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy.
        Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would promote coordination of monitoring 
    and evaluation efforts, to the extent feasible, with other Federal 
    agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, interested private 
    landowners, the scientific community, and other interested parties. 
    Such coordination offers opportunities to enhance open and ongoing 
    communication, improve the information base for decisionmaking, reduce 
    costs through shared efforts, and promote an ecological approach to 
    resource management across jurisdictional boundaries.
        Paragraph (d)(2) would require the Regional Forester to be 
    responsible for assuring that monitoring and evaluation needs which 
    extend beyond a plan area are addressed and coordinated. This expands 
    the role of the Regional Forester from that in the existing rule and 
    clearly establishes the agency's intent to address monitoring and 
    evaluation efforts at whatever scale is appropriate, rather than 
    focusing on efforts within a plan area simply because monitoring and 
    evaluation procedures have historically been forest plan decisions. The 
    proposed rule intentionally would not provide detailed instructions on 
    how this coordination is to be accomplished since the agency has not 
    had extensive experience addressing monitoring and evaluation 
    procedures at this scale and flexibility is needed in order to 
    determine the best way to approach this task.
        Paragraph (d)(3) would create an integral and ongoing role for 
    Forest Service research personnel in all phases of monitoring and 
    evaluation. The intent is to provide a sound scientific basis for all 
    monitoring and evaluation activities and to help promote interaction 
    between researchers and land managers. Because the paragraph directs 
    that research personnel should be involved in monitoring and evaluation 
    to the extent practicable, there is recognition that there will be 
    limits to the extent research staff are available for such efforts.
        Paragraph (e) of proposed Sec. 219.12 requires the Forest 
    Supervisor to prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report to be 
    made available to the public, as well as transmitted to the Regional 
    Forester and Station Director. This provision is intended to increase 
    the accountability of the agency for conducting monitoring and 
    evaluation and to enhance communication and involvement of the public. 
    The seven items which would be included in the report assure that the 
    public, Regional Forester, and Station Director are aware of the 
    results of monitoring and evaluation efforts, the implications such 
    results have for needing to change the plan or how it is being 
    implemented, and any changes which have occurred during the year to the 
    plan or monitoring and evaluation strategy.
        Paragraph (f) would limit implementation of projects if funds for 
    associated monitoring and evaluation activities are not reasonably 
    expected to be available. There is no comparable requirement in the 
    existing rule. This represents another means by which the agency 
    intends to increase its commitment to accomplishing monitoring and 
    evaluation efforts. This limitation applies to those monitoring and 
    evaluation activities specifically identified in a decision document 
    associated with authorizing a site-specific project. In addition to 
    assuring that monitoring and evaluation needs are considered at the 
    time of project implementation, this provision should be an incentive 
    to improve the manner in which monitoring and evaluation costs are 
    integrated into project planning.
        The final paragraph of this section would make clear that none of 
    the requirements for conducting and reporting on monitoring and 
    evaluation preclude initiating an amendment or revision at any time.
    
    Section 219.13  Statutory Timber Management Requirements
    
        This section describes those statutory planning requirements that 
    affect the management and harvest of timber on National Forest System 
    lands. Although most of the provisions of this section are directly 
    responsive to specific requirements of NFMA, a few are discretionary. 
    Those of a discretionary nature are identified in this preamble.
        With the agency's emphasis on integrating consideration of 
    resources as part of ecosystem management, devoting an entire section 
    of the proposed rule to the timber resource may seem inconsistent to 
    many reviewers. The attention given to timber in this section, while 
    possibly appearing to be out-of-balance with other resources, is 
    generally the minimum needed to respond to the highly prescriptive 
    requirements for timber management in NFMA. Enacted largely in response 
    to timber-related issues in the mid-1970's, NFMA contains extensive 
    specific direction regarding management of timber resources, much more 
    so than for any other resource.
        Proposed Sec. 219.13(a) addresses reviews of timber suitability 
    determinations. Section 6(k) of NFMA requires that lands not suited for 
    timber production be identified in forest plans. Paragraphs (a) through 
    (c) of this section address compliance with Section 6(k) of NFMA.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would address the NFMA requirement for 
    the 10-year suitability review, and states that the 10-year review 
    should normally occur as part of the revision process. When done as 
    part of the revision process, the entire land base would be considered. 
    In some case, however, it is possible that revision will not have 
    occurred by the time the 10-year period has elapsed. In these cases, 
    proposed 
    
    [[Page 18913]]
    paragraph (a)(1) would require the 10-year review to consider only the 
    unsuitable lands, with all lands reviewed later at the time of 
    revision.
        Although the statute does not require a review of the timber 
    suitability determination for all lands at the time of revision, the 
    agency believes it is appropriate to do so. This comprehensive review 
    will assure that suitable lands are considered for possible 
    reallocation to the unsuited land base rather than focusing only on 
    whether unsuited lands should remain so designated. Proposed paragraph 
    (a)(3) would clarify that the determination of timber suitability may 
    be changed at any time through forest plan amendment.
        Proposed Sec. 219.13(b)(1) would direct that unsuited lands have a 
    fixed location and that they should be identifiable on maps or by other 
    readily recognizable means. This provision aims to assure that these 
    lands can be located during project planning and is also intended to 
    facilitate the 10-year review of unsuited lands. One of the problems 
    with the current approach is that unsuited lands are sometimes 
    designated on a forest-wide basis rather than identified with a 
    specific location. For example, 20,000 acres out of a total of 55,000 
    acres of a particular forest type may have been determined to be 
    unsuited lands, but there is no delineation of which lands within the 
    total are to be treated as unsuited. The location of the unsuited land 
    will be clear if this proposed provision is adopted.
        Paragraph (b)(2) would require that management prescriptions be 
    established to ensure that unsuited lands are managed in accordance 
    with the three provisions of the proposed rule which are applicable to 
    them. These include the requirement to limit timber harvesting except 
    for salvage sales or other sales necessitated to protect other 
    multiple-use values (Sec. 219.13(b)(4)), the provision to continue to 
    reforest unsuited lands (Sec. 219.13(b)(5)), and the provision to allow 
    exceptions to the five-year reforestation requirement when long-term 
    openings are needed (Sec. 219.13(b)(3)(v)(B). All three of these 
    provisions are in response to requirements of NFMA.
        Paragraph (b)(3) describes the five types of lands that are not 
    suited for timber production. The first type is lands which have been 
    withdrawn from harvest by an Act of Congress, the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. This is comparable to 
    the requirement at Sec. 219.14(1)(a)(4) of the existing rule.
        The second exclusion is lands on which timber harvesting would 
    violate statute, Executive order, or regulation. The third requirement 
    would continue the exclusion of non-forested land, as is currently 
    provided in Sec. 219.14(a)(1) of the existing rule.
        The fourth exclusion would be those lands where technology is not 
    available for conducting timber harvesting without irreversible damage 
    to soil and watershed conditions. This parallels a requirement at 
    Section 6(g)(2)(E)(i) of NFMA and Sec. 219.14(a)(2) in the existing 
    rule.
        The final exclusion would be those lands where there is not a 
    reasonable assurance of adequate reforestation within five years after 
    timber harvest. This parallels the requirement at Section 
    6(g)(2)(e)(ii) of NFMA and Sec. 219.14(a)(3) of the existing rule. The 
    proposed rule defines the five year period after final timber harvest 
    to mean five years after clearcutting, after the last overstory removal 
    of a shelterwood or seed tree cutting, or after selection cutting. In 
    shelterwood or seed tree cuts, the entire existing overstory may never 
    be removed, as trees may be left to provide for other considerations. 
    Therefore, the time period begins when the last planned overstory 
    removal is conducted. In selection cutting, the stand is left stocked 
    with trees of varying age and size classes.
        There are two supplemental provisions associated with the five-year 
    reforestation criterion. First, the rule specifies that research and 
    experience are the basis for determining a reasonable assurance of 
    restocking. Secondly, the five-year reforestation requirement would not 
    prohibit creating openings for long-term purposes, such as wildlife 
    habitat improvements, scenic vistas, recreation sites, or other similar 
    uses.
        Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would permit harvest from unsuitable 
    lands only for salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other 
    multiple-use values. This requirement is based on the provisions of 
    Section 6(k) of NFMA.
        Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would affirm that lands not suited for 
    timber production will continue to receive reforestation treatments to 
    protect other multiple-use values as required by Section 6(k) of NFMA.
        Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would explicitly provide that the 
    unsuited land base should not vary among the alternatives at the time 
    of forest plan revision. This requirement is a major change from the 
    existing regulation, and provides a good focal point for comparing 
    differences in the determination of suitability under the proposed rule 
    and the existing rule.
        The existing rule essentially has a three-step process. The first 
    step in the existing rule is closely paralleled in the proposed rule, 
    but the other two are not.
        The first step, described at Sec. 219.14(a) of the existing rule, 
    defines four screening criteria fairly comparable to the six criteria 
    described in the proposed rule. Thus, under the proposed rule, the 
    unsuited land base would be quite similar to the land base identified 
    as unsuited under the first screening step of the existing rule. This 
    screening step does not differ substantially between alternatives, 
    because the criteria are based on conditions or attributes which remain 
    constant even if management objectives vary.
        The second step of the existing rule (Sec. 219.14(b)) requires an 
    analysis which stratifies those lands not identified as unsuited in the 
    first step. The stratification identifies lands with similar management 
    costs and returns. Consistent with the intent of Sec. 219.8(b) to 
    reduce standardized analysis requirements, there is no comparable 
    requirement in the proposed rule.
        The third step in the existing rule (Sec. 219.14 (c) and (d)) 
    screens lands out of the suitable land base based on the objectives of 
    each alternative. More specifically, lands would be considered not 
    suited for timber production if the multiple-use objectives for the 
    alternative precluded timber production, if other management objectives 
    imposed such limitations on timber harvest that requirements of 
    Sec. 219.27 could not be met, or if the lands were not cost-efficient 
    over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives.
        This third step in the existing rule is also not paralleled in the 
    process for identifying unsuited lands under the proposed rule. The 
    proposed rule would address considerations comparable to the third step 
    in the existing rule at paragraph (c), which would make clear that 
    forest plan standards may be imposed on suited lands to prohibit or 
    limit timber harvesting. Economic considerations or an allocation of 
    land to uses incompatible with timber harvesting would be examples of 
    reasons for imposing such standards on suited lands. In essence, 
    paragraph (c) is fairly comparable to the third step of the process 
    under the existing rule, except that paragraph (c) would limit 
    harvesting by imposing standards on the suited land base rather than 
    declaring those lands to be unsuited for timber production.
    
    [[Page 18914]]
    
        In association with the change in determining unsuitable lands, the 
    proposed rule would alter the land base for calculating the allowable 
    sale quantity (ASQ) from that used in the existing rule. In the 
    existing rule, the entire suitable land base is used in calculating the 
    ASQ. Under the proposed rule, as described at Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(i), 
    only those suited lands on which planned periodic entry for timber is 
    allowed over time would be included in ASQ calculations; i.e., if 
    standards have been imposed which are incompatible with timber 
    harvesting over the long-term, then those lands are excluded from the 
    land base used to calculate the ASQ. For example, if a corridor along a 
    scenic hiking trail is allocated to a prescription that does not allow 
    timber harvesting in order to protect scenic values, then the lands 
    would be in the suited land base but would not be included in ASQ 
    calculations.
        It is noteworthy that the proposed rule would limit the land base 
    for ASQ calculations to those lands available for planned periodic 
    entries. Lands would not be included in the ASQ calculations if only a 
    one-time harvest were planned but not planned periodic entries. For 
    example, if a salvage harvest was planned to occur during the plan 
    period in an area where harvest would not otherwise occur nor be 
    planned for future decades, then those lands would be excluded from ASQ 
    calculations.
        Another notable change between the existing rule and proposed rule 
    as related to timber suitability is the rule of economics. In contrast 
    to the existing rule which addresses the economics of harvesting as 
    part of the timber suitability determination, the proposed rule would 
    address the economics of harvesting in the forest plan through 
    establishment of forest plan standards or guidelines.
        Section 6(k) of NFMA states that unsuitable lands are to be 
    identified ``* * * considering physical, economic, and other pertinent 
    factors to the extent feasible, as determined by the Secretary * * *'' 
    Although the agency agrees that economics is an important consideration 
    in determining whether lands should be harvested, experience has proven 
    that it is not feasible to effectively factor in economics as part of 
    the 10-year timber suitability determination. Therefore, in light of 
    the latitude provided by NFMA, the agency is proposing to address 
    economic considerations by means other than the timber suitability 
    process.
        There are various reasons for this change. First, economic 
    conditions fluctuate greatly during the course of a plan period. One 
    year a certain area of land or species may be uneconomic to harvest, 
    and another year market conditions may have changed to where the same 
    area or species would be greatly in demand. This makes it difficult to 
    meaningfully assess the economics of harvesting a particular site over 
    a 10-year period.
        Also, it is generally accepted that the net value of the timber 
    sale program must be considered as a whole rather than by only 
    evaluating individual timber sales in isolation, since some sales of 
    low value are offset by other higher value sales. The timber program 
    also must be viewed with consideration of non-market contributions, 
    such as enhanced hunting use, and not strictly timber sale costs and 
    receipts. These considerations further add to the difficulty of using 
    the process for identifying unsuited lands in forest plans as an 
    effective and timely means by which economic considerations are 
    addressed.
        In contrast to using timber suitability determinations to address 
    economic considerations, the agency believes they can be adequately 
    addressed through other means. For example, forest plan standards can 
    be established to limit harvesting due to economic reasons. Therefore, 
    if harvest limitations are deemed appropriate due to economics, the 
    option exists to use them. In addition, economic considerations can be 
    considered as part of the program development and budget process. This 
    would allow timely adjustment of annual harvest programs, within the 
    limitations imposed by forest plan standards, based on such factors as 
    fluctuating economic conditions. Also, the economics of harvesting any 
    particular site can be considered as part of the project decision to 
    approve harvest of the area.
        The agency believes there are four major advantages to the entire 
    set of changes being proposed to the process for determining timber 
    suitability. First, under the proposed rule, suitability determinations 
    are much simpler and more efficient to conduct, and yet there is no 
    compromise of the ability to exclude lands from timber harvest or from 
    calculation of the ASQ. Secondly, the 10-year review will be completed 
    more quickly, reducing the diversion of time and energy from revision 
    efforts which are generally expected to be occurring at the same time. 
    Third, it allows unsuited lands to be readily identifiable, making it 
    easier for both the public and agency personnel to locate those lands 
    when designing projects. Finally, it allows economic factors to be 
    considered in a more effective and timely manner while reducing an 
    analysis step that has not proven highly beneficial.
        In order to assure that the availability of lands for timber 
    harvest is readily evident despite the proposed change in process for 
    determining suitability, proposed paragraph (c) would require an 
    appendix to display the number of acres of suitable lands where 
    standards have been imposed prohibiting or limiting timber harvest as 
    well as the number of acres where such limitations do not apply. This 
    is not part of the suitability determination, but does provide 
    information comparable to what is currently available in forest plans 
    as part of the timber suitability information.
        Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the allowable sale quantity and 
    makes clear that the ASQ is neither a projection of future sale levels 
    nor a target to be achieved. Although this position is well supported 
    in case law, there has been widespread misunderstanding that the ASQ is 
    a target level for timber production from a National Forest. The 
    proposed rule would make clear this is not the case.
        Proposed Sec. 219.13(d)(1) sets out procedures for calculating the 
    allowable sale quantity (ASQ). As stated at (d)(1)(i) of the proposed 
    rule, the land base for ASQ calculations would be limited to suitable 
    lands on which planned periodic timber harvest is allowed over time.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) explains the role of the long-term sustained 
    yield timber capacity (LTSYTC) when calculating the ASQ. The LTSYTC is 
    defined at Sec. 219.2 and represents the highest uniform wood yield 
    that may be sustained in perpetuity consistent with the forest plan.
        Consistent with Section 13 of NFMA, the chargeable timber volume 
    which can be sold for a decade cannot exceed the LTSYTC except where 
    necessary to meet overall multiple-use objectives. An example of such a 
    departure may be in the case of a forest having severe forest health 
    problems, where accelerated silvicultural manipulations and accelerated 
    timber harvest are critical to its ecological restoration.
        Under the proposed rule, the land base for calculating the LTSYTC 
    would be calculated using the same lands and forest plan standards used 
    to determine the ASQ. Where two or more proclaimed National Forests are 
    included in the forest plan, the proportionate contribution of each 
    National Forest to the total ASQ for the plan area cannot exceed the 
    LTSYTC for each corresponding proclaimed National Forest. In order to 
    assure this 
    
    [[Page 18915]]
    would not happen, a non-interchangeable component could be defined in 
    accordance with (d)(3) of this section. This limitation on the 
    chargeable volume that can be sold for a decade from a proclaimed 
    National Forest does not apply where the proclaimed National Forest has 
    fewer than 200,000 acres of land suited for timber production. These 
    provisions are based on the requirements of Section 13 of NFMA, and do 
    not vary from the existing situation, although the existing rule does 
    not address this to the same degree of detail.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would continue a non-declining flow 
    requirement. When a new ASQ is determined, it may be higher, lower, or 
    the same as the current ASQ. Such fluctuations might be caused by such 
    factors as changes in the suitable land base, new standards, or revised 
    timber growth and yield projections. However, whatever level is 
    established for the decade of the plan must be capable of being 
    sustained or increased during subsequent decades, with exceptions only 
    to meet overall multiple-use goals. This limitation is intended to help 
    assure that harvesting will not occur at so high a rate in the short-
    term that decline is inevitable in the future, unless such a decline is 
    recognized as being necessary to meet multiple-use goals. An example of 
    when such an exception might be appropriate would, once again, be in 
    the case of a forest having severe health problems, where higher levels 
    may be beneficial in the short-term in order to correct imbalances of 
    the forest structure and promote ecological restoration, but with lower 
    harvest levels planned once the restoration phase was complete.
        Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is a requirement of Section 6(g)(3)(D) of NFMA 
    and would require that, when the ASQ is being recalculated, any 
    predicted yields based on intensive management must be reduced if such 
    practices have not been successfully implemented or adequate funds have 
    not been received to continue substantially as planned. This statutory 
    limitation is intended to help safeguard against over-estimating the 
    ASQ due to faulty yield projections.
        Paragraph (d)(2) would clarify that only the timber volume included 
    in the growth and yield projections to determine the ASQ is chargeable 
    to the ASQ. Excluded would be the volume from timber classes not 
    included in the projections, such as merchantable dead timber.
        Paragraph (d)(3) would allow for the establishment of non-
    interchangeable components (NIC's). NIC's allow for separating discrete 
    quantities of the ASQ into individually accountable categories. The 
    proposed rule would stipulate that chargeable timber volume from one 
    NIC cannot be substituted for the achievement of the volume limit of 
    another NIC. In addition, such components would be required where 
    management prescriptions for roadless areas allow planned periodic 
    entries over time for timber harvest. Establishment of NIC's is not 
    limited to roadless areas, however. On forests where the product or 
    species mix is deemed important, the use of NIC's provides a means to 
    maintain the intended balance.
        The provision for roadless area NIC's is intended to help reduce 
    the pressure to over-harvest areas outside of roadless areas if 
    anticipated timber production from roadless areas does not materialize. 
    Although the proposed rule would make clear at paragraph (d) of this 
    section that the ASQ is not a target or projection of future harvest 
    levels, this requirement to establish NIC's for roadless areas is 
    intended to further reinforce this idea and to help to reduce erroneous 
    expectations regarding the role of the ASQ. In addition, other forest 
    plan standards serve to prevent over-harvesting anywhere in the plan 
    area.
        Paragraph (d)(4) addresses a provision of Section 13(b) of NFMA and 
    clarifies that the ASQ may not be used to limit the harvesting of 
    timber for salvage or sanitation purposes or for harvesting timber 
    stands substantially damaged by fire, wind or other catastrophe, or 
    which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. If such 
    timber volume were included in the calculation of the ASQ, it may be 
    substituted for timber volume that would otherwise have been sold under 
    the plan. If the sanitation/salvage timber volume had not been included 
    in the calculation of ASQ, or if it had and it is infeasible to 
    substitute it for other volume, it can be sold over and above the ASQ.
        Paragraph (e) responds to the requirements of Section 6(m) of NFMA 
    and would require that all even-aged stands scheduled for harvest 
    during the planning period will generally have reached the culmination 
    of mean annual increment (CMAI) of growth unless certain listed 
    exceptions apply. This paragraph is similar to the existing rule, 
    except that any change to a forest plan to permit exceptions must be 
    made through a major amendment or done at the time of plan revision 
    (see Sec. 219.9(b)(1)(iii)).
        Proposed paragraph (f) would address the selection of cutting 
    methods. It would make clear that the determination of the appropriate 
    harvest method is to be made at the project level. This has been a 
    source of considerable confusion in the past, with many administrative 
    appeals received by the agency questioning the adequacy of the analysis 
    associated with a forest plan to support the selection of cutting 
    methods. The proposed rule is consistent with numerous court decisions 
    that confirm such decisions are made at the project level rather than 
    in the forest plan. (For example, Sierra Club v. Robertson, 810 F. 
    Supp. 1021, 1026 (W.D. Ark 1992) aff'd 28 F 3d 753, 760 (8th Cir. 
    1994)).
        Paragraph (f) also responds to the requirement of NFMA at Section 
    6(g)(3)(F)(i) which limits the use of clearcutting to those cases where 
    it is determined to be the optimum method. The existing rule does not 
    address what was meant by optimum. Paragraph (f) would establish seven 
    purposes for which clearcutting can be used, provided it is the optimum 
    method and the only practical method for meeting one or more of the 
    purposes. These provisions reflect the agency's intent to continue to 
    reduce the amount of clearcutting from levels which have historically 
    occurred, tailoring its use to those situations which meet the purposes 
    listed. Over the past several years, the agency has already 
    substantially reduced its use of clearcutting.
        Paragraph (g) would require that the forest plan establish the 
    maximum size of areas that can be clearcut in one harvest operation. 
    This is in response to Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iv) of NFMA. Exceptions are 
    allowed for natural catastrophes, or limits established by the Regional 
    Forester on a project basis after public notice. Currently, harvest 
    size limitations are found in the existing rule and regional guides, 
    but regional guides would no longer be maintained under the proposed 
    rule. In light of the fact that research findings on the effects of 
    harvest size have changed and are likely to continue to change over 
    time, it is not appropriate to include such prescriptive direction in 
    this proposed rule. By addressing such limitations in the forest plan, 
    even though they are not applied until the project level, the 
    constraints are integrated with other resource decisions for the plan 
    area and the public is assured the opportunity to review and comment 
    when they are adopted or changed.
        Paragraph (h) would direct the shaping and blending of even-aged 
    harvest methods with the natural terrain to the extent possible in 
    order to ameliorate the visual impacts of such practices. It addresses 
    NFMA Section 6(g)(3)(F)(iii) and is less detailed than the requirements 
    of 219.27(d)(1) of the existing rule.
    
    [[Page 18916]]
    
        Paragraph (i) would assure that timber is only harvested where soil 
    and water can be adequately protected. This provision is based on 
    Section 6(g)(E)(iii) of NFMA.
        Paragraph (j) would require certain displays of timber-related 
    information that must be included in forest plan appendices. This 
    information is expected to be of interest to the public and provides a 
    concise summary of various timber-related analyses or decisions. Items 
    (i)(1) and (i)(2) are intended to help summarize the availability of 
    lands for timber harvest, while (i)(3) and (i)(4) provide information 
    to assure NFMA requirements have been met. The proportion of probable 
    timber harvest methods forest-wide is required to be included by 
    Section 6(f)(2) of NFMA.
    Section 219.14  Special Designations
    
        The purpose of this section is to ensure that forest plans include 
    all of the relevant direction (goals, objectives, standards, and 
    guidelines as described at proposed Sec. 219.6) for lands within the 
    plan area, including those with special designations which may have 
    been evaluated through other planning processes as required by statute. 
    The existing rule addresses only two special designations, research 
    natural areas and wilderness. The proposed rule seeks to integrate 
    direction for all specially designated areas into forest plans to the 
    extent possible.
        Paragraph (a) would explain that forest plan amendment or revision 
    is the mechanism to allocate specific areas to prescriptions for 
    special designations, or to recommend special designation by higher 
    authorities. Various examples of special designations are also 
    provided.
        Paragraph (b) would require that roadless, undeveloped areas be 
    evaluated for wilderness designation during forest plan revision unless 
    Federal legislation directs otherwise. Roadless, undeveloped areas are 
    defined to be at least 5,000 acres in size unless contiguous to 
    existing or Administration-endorsed units of the National Wilderness 
    Preservation System. Due to the differing conditions in the eastern 
    part of the country, a provision is added so that the size limitation 
    would not apply east of the 100th meridian.
        These provisions of the proposed rule differ somewhat from the 
    existing rule. Most notably, the proposed rule is more specific by 
    defining roadless areas in terms of a 5,000-acre minimum for areas in 
    the western part of the country. This size criterion has been agency 
    policy as described in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 7.11, but is not in the 
    existing rule. In contrast, the existing rule provides criteria for 
    evaluating roadless areas, whereas the proposed rule does not, because 
    the agency believes such detailed procedural instructions are better 
    suited for the Directive System.
        It should be noted that nothing in paragraph (b) precludes 
    consideration of roadless areas for the full range of management 
    options. Although wilderness designation must be one of the options 
    considered, roadless areas are also subject to consideration for 
    various other uses or degrees of protection, not unlike the case for 
    most portions of the plan area.
        Paragraph (c) of this section would provide for evaluation of a 
    river's eligibility for wild, scenic, or recreation river designation 
    during revision if legislation requires such an evaluation or if the 
    river was not evaluated under criteria set forth in July of 1987 in 
    Forest Service Handbook 1909.12. Although many forests have evaluated 
    their rivers under these criteria, many have not. This provision is 
    designed to assure that all potential wild, scenic, or recreation 
    rivers are evaluated under the same set of criteria. Although wild, 
    scenic, and recreation rivers were not addressed in the existing rule, 
    the proposed rule includes them since recommendations for river 
    designation, as is the case for wilderness, are made in forest plans 
    with the final decision made by the Congress.
        Paragraph (d) would reinforce the central role of forest plans by 
    requiring that any requirements for additional planning for special 
    areas must be met through forest plans, unless certain identified 
    exceptions exist. This is comparable to Sec. 219.2(a) of the existing 
    rule and is intended to assure that special area planning is integrated 
    with forest plans.
        The proposed rule would specifically require that goals, 
    objectives, standards, or guidelines from special area plans be 
    incorporated into forest plans to maintain the role of the forest plan 
    as the central source of local direction as well as to provide a basis 
    for determining project consistency.
    
    Section 219.15  Applicability and Transition
    
        This section provides for an orderly transition from the existing 
    rule adopted in 1982 to the proposed rule. Paragraph (a) would 
    establish that the proposed rule would apply to the entire National 
    Forest System. Although terms such as ``National Forest,'' ``forest'' 
    or ``forest plan'' have been used within the proposed rule and 
    preamble, this does not limit applicability of the rule to only the 
    National Forest components of the National Forest System. For example, 
    the National Forest System includes National Forests, National 
    Grasslands, Purchase Units, Land Utilization Projects, Experimental 
    Forests, Experimental Range, Experimental Areas, and other areas. The 
    applicability of the proposed rule to the National Forest System does 
    not differ from the existing rule.
        Paragraph (b) would address those situations where an initial 
    forest plan has not been approved at the time the new rule becomes 
    effective. At this time, there are four National Forests where a forest 
    plan has not yet been approved; these are the Klamath, Mendocino, 
    Shasta-Trinity, and Six Rivers National Forests, all in the Pacific 
    Southwest Region (R-5) (California). The new rule would not apply to 
    development of initial forest plans. Therefore, paragraph (b) provides 
    for unfinished forest plans to be completed under the previous planning 
    rule as adopted in 1982. As a result, there would be consistent 
    regulatory guidance for development of all initial forest plans and no 
    disruption of the planning process for any unfinished plans. Upon 
    approval of those forest plans, the provisions of the proposed rule 
    would then apply to future amendments and revisions.
        Paragraph (c) would make clear that forest plans that are already 
    approved remain in effect until amended or revised. This provision is 
    intended to prevent any uncertainty as to the status of existing forest 
    plans.
        Paragraph (d) would make clear that forest plans need not be 
    amended in order to comply with requirements of the new rule prior to 
    the forest plan being revised in accordance with the new rule. This 
    provision is included because the agency does not intend for the new 
    rule to immediately trigger either the amendment or revision of forest 
    plans. It would be disruptive, expensive, and impractical to 
    immediately undertake changes to every forest plan in order to adjust 
    to the newly effective rule.
        Paragraph (e) allows development of the displays required at 
    Sec. 219.11(d)(1)-(2) and Sec. 219.13(j) to be delayed until the forest 
    plan is revised in accordance with the rules of this subpart.
        Paragraph (f) makes clear that the first annual monitoring and 
    evaluation report would be required one fiscal year following adoption 
    of the final rule. This time period allows forests time to plan for and 
    organize work needed to produce the first annual monitoring and 
    evaluation report. Such reports would be developed using the results of 
    monitoring and evaluation activities 
    
    [[Page 18917]]
    described in existing forest plans, since most Forests will not have 
    the newly required monitoring and evaluation strategies developed until 
    the forest plan is revised.
        Paragraph (g) addresses how the transition process would occur 
    regarding usage of ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' as defined in the 
    proposed rule. Many existing forest plans do not distinguish between 
    ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' in the same manner as described in the 
    proposed rule at Sec. 219.6 (e) and (f). In addition, it would not be 
    mandatory for each forest plan to be changed to distinguish between 
    ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' until the time of revision. As a 
    result, it would be appropriate to implement the provision of proposed 
    Sec. 219.11(a), which would require project consistency determinations 
    to be based on adherence to ``standards,'' or the provision of 
    Sec. 219.9(b)(1)(i), which would require major amendment when modifying 
    forest plan standards, without recognizing and providing for the impact 
    of this proposed change in terminology.
        Under the provisions of paragraph (g), until such time as a forest 
    plan were amended or revised to distinguish between ``standards'' and 
    ``guidelines'' in accordance with the terminology defined in the 
    proposed rule, the words used in each existing ``standard'' or 
    ``guideline'' in the current plan would be used to determine whether it 
    is mandatory. More specifically, many current forest plans contain a 
    mix of ``standards'' and ``guidelines,'' of which only some are 
    mandatory. For example, statements using ``must'' or ``shall'' are 
    mandatory in nature and would generally be comparable to a ``standard'' 
    in the proposed rule. In contrast, statements using ``may,'' 
    ``should,'' or ``ought'' provide the flexibility comparable to a 
    ``guideline'' in the proposed rule.
        Proposed paragraph (g)(1) continues existing agency policy that 
    project consistency determinations are based on whether project 
    decisions adhere to mandatory standards or guidelines. This should 
    provide a smooth transition to the new rule.
        Paragraph (g)(2) describes instructions for determining if a future 
    amendment is considered ``major'' during the transitional period before 
    a forest plan has been revised. The triggers for a major amendment that 
    apply during the transition period differ somewhat from both the 
    existing rule and the provisions at Sec. 219.9(b)(1) of the proposed 
    rule. The provisions of proposed (219.9(b)(1) would apply only after 
    forest plans have been amended or revised to fully comply with the new 
    terminology. During the transition period before the plan has been 
    changed to be in full compliance with the new terminology, the 
    provisions of Sec. 219.15(g)(2) would apply.
        In accordance with Sec. 219.15(g), two circumstances must exist 
    simultaneously for a major amendment to be triggered during the 
    transition period; i.e., prior to a forest plan being amended or 
    revised to be in full compliance with the new usage of standards. 
    First, the amendment must change standards or guidelines in the current 
    forest plan which are mandatory. Since many current forest plans do not 
    distinguish between standards and guidelines, there may be mandatory 
    requirements labelled as guidelines in current plans. Thus, the 
    determination during the transition period focuses on whether the 
    change is to a mandatory provision rather than whether it is labelled 
    as a standard or guideline. In accordance with Sec. 219.6(f), this 
    won't be necessary once a forest plan has been revised because there 
    would be no mandatory requirements labelled as guidelines. If, during 
    the transition period a new mandatory requirement was established, such 
    a change to the forest plan would trigger a major amendment.
        The second circumstance which must also occur is that the proposed 
    change to a mandatory standard or guideline would result in a 
    significant change to the forest plan and those changes are predicted 
    to affect resources over a large portion of the plan area during the 
    remainder of the plan period. This is comparable to one of the 
    circumstances currently defined in FMS 1922.52 for significant 
    amendment.
        If both of these circumstances occur, a major amendment would be 
    triggered during the transition period. This amendment would be 
    conducted in accordance with the procedures for major amendment in the 
    new rule, however. It should be noted that many changes to current 
    forest plan standards may not affect resources over a large portion of 
    the plan area during the remainder of the plan period. For example, if 
    the forest plan was scheduled to undergo revision soon, there might be 
    few, if any, changes that could affect resources over a large portion 
    of the plan area within a short period of time. Even though the new or 
    modified standard might apply over the entire plan area, resources on-
    the-ground might not actually be affected if the standard was not going 
    to be in place very long before revision would be initiated. Thus, some 
    changes to standards might not meet the threshold of triggering a major 
    amendment during this transition period.
        The intent of this transition procedure is to begin shifting the 
    emphasis away from changes in output levels and towards recognizing the 
    important role of forest plan standards when determining if a change 
    triggers a major amendment. At the same time, it is designed to 
    recognize that the change in terminology between the existing rule and 
    proposed rule makes it unrealistic to implement the new approach 
    defined at Sec. 219(b)(1)(i) immediately.
        In addition to the requirements related to changing a standard, a 
    major amendment would be triggered during the transition period if the 
    chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from a 
    proclaimed National Forest were established that exceeded the long-term 
    sustained yield capacity of the Forest, or if harvest of even-aged 
    stands were permitted before culmination of mean annual increment. Both 
    of these provisions are identical to the provisions of Sec. 219.9(b)(1) 
    (ii) and (iii). They are applicable during the transition period to 
    ensure that the public involvement requirements of NFMA are met as 
    required by the statute for changes of this nature.
        Proposed paragraph (h) would address how the new rule would be 
    applied when a significant amendment or revision is already in progress 
    as indicated by issuance of a Notice of Intent. At the time of adoption 
    of a final rule, one of two scenarios could occur. If a draft 
    environmental impact statement (DEIS) has not yet been published, the 
    new rule must be adopted. If a DEIS has been published, it is the 
    Regional Forester's option to decide whether to continue under the 
    previous planning rule or to apply the new rule. In those case where 
    the new rule is adopted, paragraph (h) also provides direction so that 
    the Regional Forester can avoid delaying ongoing processes.
        Paragraph (h) is intended to promote prompt application of the new 
    rule. However, it would be unnecessarily disruptive and expensive to 
    impose a new regulation on ongoing significant amendment or revision 
    efforts nearing completion. Similarly, paragraph (h) is intended to 
    allow ongoing efforts which are subject to the new rule to proceed as 
    smoothly as possible. It would be largely redundant, time-consuming, 
    and confusing to the public to require various procedural steps in the 
    processes for amendment or revision to be repeated or accomplished in 
    accordance with the new rule when the effort has already proceeded past 
    the 
    
    [[Page 18918]]
    point where those steps are in a logical sequence.
        Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule would provide for the withdrawal 
    of regional guides within three years of adoption of the final rule. 
    The reasons for eliminating regional guides were explained earlier in 
    the discussion of proposed Sec. 219.5. Paragraph (i) also would require 
    that the Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region (R-5) be 
    maintained in accordance with the requirements of the existing rule 
    until the remaining unfinished plans in that Region are approved. In 
    all other Regions, regional guides would be withdrawn within 3 years 
    from adoption of the final rule. The Pacific Southwest Region would 
    need to maintain its regional guide in order to direct development of 
    unfinished forest plans. The Pacific Southwest Regional Guide would be 
    withdrawn within 3 years from approval of the last forest plan in 
    Region 5. In addition, paragraph (i) would authorize the Chief of the 
    Forest Service to extend any regional guide beyond the 3-year period in 
    extenuating circumstances.
        Paragraph (j) assures that forest plans address limitations on the 
    size of openings (Sec. 219.13(g)) prior to withdrawal of the regional 
    guide. The establishment of size limitations is a requirement of NFMA 
    and is currently addressed in regional guides and the existing rule. 
    This provision will assure that there is no gap in having such 
    direction in place during the transition to the new rule.
        The transition procedures of this proposed rule reflect current 
    circumstances regarding the status of forest planning efforts 
    nationwide and the nature of proposed changes to the existing rule. To 
    the extent that these or other circumstances are different at the time 
    the final rule is adopted, the agency may have to adopt different 
    transitional procedures in order to assure the most practical, 
    efficient, and timely transition possible.
    
    Conforming Amendments
    
        The administrative appeal process for forest plans is set out in a 
    separate rule at 36 CFR part 217, and the administrative appeal process 
    for project decisions is set out at 36 CFR part 215. Due to the nature 
    of changes being proposed to 36 CFR part 219, amendments would need to 
    be made to these appeal rules in order for them to conform to the 
    changes proposed to part 219. First, the terms ``nonsignificant 
    amendment'' and ``significant amendment'' would be replaced by the 
    terms ``minor amendment'' and ``major amendment'' wherever they occur 
    in parts 215 and 217. Second, Sec. 217.3(b) would be removed to exclude 
    regional guides from being subject to administrative appeal since these 
    documents would not be retained under proposed revisions to part 219. 
    Third, the heading of part 217 would be amended to remove reference to 
    regional guides and read: Appeal of National Forest Land and Resource 
    Management Plans. Finally, Sec. 217.3(a)(1) and Sec. 217.4 would be 
    amended to exclude interim amendments from being subject to 
    administrative appeal.
    
    Conclusion
    
        The Forest Service invites individuals, organizations, and public 
    agencies and governments to comment on this proposed rule. To aid the 
    analysis of comments, it would be helpful if reviewers would key their 
    comments to specific proposed sections or topics. Respondents also 
    should know that in analyzing and considering comments, the Forest 
    Service will give more weight to substantive comments than to simple 
    ``yes,'' ``no,'' or ``check off'' responses to form letter/
    questionnaire-type submissions.
    
    Regulatory Impact
    
        This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 on 
    Regulatory Planning and Review. The agency has determined that this 
    proposed rule is a significant regulatory action subject to Office of 
    Management and Budget review. However, this proposed rule does not have 
    a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under 
    the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et seq).
    
    Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
    
        This rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting 
    requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 
    5 CFR 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden on the public. 
    Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
    1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 
    do not apply.
    
    Environmental Impact
    
        This proposed rule would establish procedures for land and resource 
    management planning for National Forest System lands. Section 31.1b of 
    Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; September 18, 1992) 
    excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact 
    statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
    administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The 
    agency's preliminary assessment is that this rule falls within this 
    category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which 
    would require preparation of an environmental assessment or 
    environmental impact statement. A final determination will be made upon 
    adoption of the final rule.
    
    Civil Justice Reform Act
    
        This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
    Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule were adopted, (1) all state 
    and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed 
    rule or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted; 
    (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) 
    it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file 
    suite in court challenging its provisions.
    
    List of Subjects
    
    36 CFR Part 215
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, and National forests.
    
    36 CFR Part 217
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, and National forests.
    
    36 CFR Part 219
    
        Environmental impact statements, Land and resource management 
    planning, and National forests.
    
        Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is 
    proposed to amend parts 215, 217, and 219 of Title 36 of the Code of 
    Federal Regulations as follows:
    
    PART 215--NOTICE, COMMENT, AND APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL 
    FOREST SYSTEM PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
    
        1. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322, Pub. L. 102-381, 106 
    Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C. 1612 note).
    
        2. Amend Secs. 215.1(a) and 215.3(c) by removing the term 
    ``nonsignificant amendments'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term 
    ``minor amendments''.
        2a. Amend Secs. 215.4(e) and 215.7(a) by removing the term 
    ``nonsignificant amendment'' and adding the term ``minor amendment''.
        3. Amend Sec. 215.8(a)(1) by removing the term ``significant 
    amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``major 
    amendment''.
    
    [[Page 18919]]
    
    
    PART 217--APPEAL OF NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
    PLANS
    
        4. Revise the heading for part 217 to read as set out above.
        5. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 472.
    
        6. Revise Sec. 217.3(a) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 217.3  Decisions subject to appeal.
    
        (a) The decisions subject to appeal under this part are decisions 
    to approve, amend through major amendment or minor amendment, or revise 
    a National Forest Land and Resource Management plan, except when a 
    decision to authorize a specific project or activity includes a minor 
    amendment to the forest plan as described in 36 CFR 219.9(c)(5).
    * * * * *
        7. Amend Sec. 217.4(a) by removing the term ``non-significant 
    amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``minor 
    amendment''.
    
    
    Secs. 217.8 and 217.15  [Amended]
    
        7a. Amend Secs. 217.8(a)(2) and 217.15(a) by removing the term 
    ``non-significant amendments'' and adding the term ``minor 
    amendments''.
    
    
    Sec. 217.10  [Amended]
    
        8. Amend Sec. 217.10(i) by removing the term ``significant 
    amendment'' and substituting in lieu thereof the term ``major 
    amendment''.
    
    
    Sec. 217.15  [Amended]
    
        8a. Amend Sec. 217.15(a) by removing ``significant amendments'' and 
    adding ``major amendments''.
        9. Add paragraph (d) to Sec. 217.4 to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 217.4  Decisions not subject to appeal.
    
    * * * * *
        (d) Decisions to amend a forest plan by interim amendment.
        10. Revise part 219 to read as follows:
    
    PART 219--PLANNING
    
    Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
    Sec.
    219.1  Purpose and principles.
    219.2  Definitions.
    219.3  Relationships with the public and government entities.
    219.4  Sustainability of ecosystems.
    219.5  Framework for resource decisionmaking.
    219.6  Forest plan direction.
    219.7  Ecosystem analysis.
    219.8  Interdisciplinary teams and information needs.
    219.9  Forest plan amendments.
    219.10  Forest plan revision.
    219.11  Forest plan implementation.
    219.12  Monitoring and evaluation.
    219.13  Statutory timber management requirements.
    219.14  Special designations.
    219.15  Applicability and transition.
    
    Subpart B--[Reserved]
    
        Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949, 
    2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613).
    
    Subpart A--National Forest System Land and Resource Management 
    Planning
    
    
    Sec. 219.1  Purpose and principles.
    
        (a) This subpart describes the procedures for fulfilling the 
    requirements for land and resource management planning as set forth in 
    the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 
    (hereafter, ``RPA'') as amended by the National Forest Management Act 
    of 1976 (hereafter, ``NFMA'') (16 U.S.C. 1604 et seq.) Specifically, 
    the rules in this subpart are intended to:
        (1) Describe the agency's framework for National Forest System 
    resource decisionmaking;
        (2) Incorporate principles of ecosystem management;
        (3) Establish requirements for implementation, monitoring, 
    evaluation, amendment, and revision of forest plans; and
        (4) Articulate the relationship between resource decisionmaking and 
    compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
    U.S.C. 4321) (hereafter ``NEPA'') and implementing NEPA procedures (see 
    definition at Sec. 219.2).
        (b) The following principles guide National Forest System resource 
    decisionmaking and management:
        (1) The National Forest System is managed to provide sustainable 
    ecosystems which yield multiple benefits to present and future 
    generations.
        (2) People are a part of ecosystems; meeting people's needs and 
    desires within the capacities of natural systems is a primary role of 
    resource decisionmaking.
        (3) Ecosystems occur at many spatial scales and are dynamic in 
    nature, creating a need for planning processes that are flexible in 
    geographic scope and that consider the ecological changes that occur 
    over time.
        (4) Ecosystems cross land ownerships, jurisdictions, and 
    administrative boundaries. Therefore, planning efforts for National 
    Forest System lands should be coordinated with other landowners, other 
    Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments in a manner 
    that respects private property rights and the jurisdictions of other 
    government entities.
        (5) Involving the public in National Forest System planning and 
    decisionmaking on an ongoing, open, and equitable basis is essential.
        (6) The scientific community, including Forest Service researchers, 
    should play a vital role in gathering and analyzing information for 
    resource decisionmaking.
        (7) The National Forest System should be managed in a manner that 
    optimizes net public benefits, considering both qualitative and 
    quantitative criteria.
        (8) The forest planning process should provide for efficient 
    adjustment of forest plans in response to changing conditions and new 
    information.
        (9) NEPA procedures define the analysis process used for resource 
    decisionmaking; such analysis should be commensurate with the scope and 
    nature of the decisions being made.
        (10) Knowledge of ecosystems will never be complete; therefore, 
    uncertainty is inherent in resource decisionmaking. Nevertheless, 
    decisionmaking must proceed using an adaptive management approach, 
    which incorporates applicable science and the best available 
    information.
    
    
    Sec. 219.2  Definitions.
    
        For purposes of this subpart, the following terms mean:
        Allowable sale quantity. The maximum quantity of chargeable timber 
    volume that may be sold within a decade from the plan area.
        Catastrophic event. A sudden event causing widespread or intense 
    destruction or devastation of resources, ecological conditions, or man-
    made features. Catastrophic events include natural phenomena such as 
    wildfire, hurricanes, tornados, floods, or earthquakes as well as 
    events caused by human actions such as large chemical or oil spills.
        Category 1 candidate species. Taxa:
        (1) For which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has on 
    file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) 
    to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species;
        (2) Which appear in a notice of review containing the names of the 
    species considered to be candidates for listing under the Endangered 
    Species Act, which is published in the Federal Register by the USFWS, 
    in accordance with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at the office of the 
    Forest Supervisor or the Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2); and
        (3) For which the USFWS has not yet published proposed rules to 
    list as 
    
    [[Page 18920]]
    endangered or threatened species because such action is precluded at 
    present by other listing activity.
        Category 2 candidate species. Taxa:
        (1) For which information in the possession of the U.S. Fish and 
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates that proposing to list them as 
    endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which 
    persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threat are not 
    currently available to support publication of proposed rules; and
        (2) Which appear in a notice of review containing the names of the 
    species considered to be candidates for listing under the Endangered 
    Species Act, which is published in the Federal Register by the USFWS, 
    in accordance with 50 CFR 424.15, and is available at the office of the 
    Forest Supervisor or the Regional Forester (36 CFR 200.2).
        Chargeable timber volume. All volume included in the growth and 
    yield projections used to calculate the allowable sale quantity.
        Conservation agreement. A formal written document agreed to by the 
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service 
    and another Federal agency, State, local, tribal government, or the 
    private sector to achieve the conservation of a species through 
    voluntary cooperation.
        Culmination of mean annual increment. The age at which the average 
    annual growth is greatest for a stand of trees, with growth usually 
    expressed in terms of cubic foot measure and calculated to include 
    regeneration harvest yields and removals from intermediate stand 
    treatments.
        Decision document. A Record of Decision, Decision Notice, or 
    Decision Memo which is signed by the responsible official and which, in 
    compliance with NEPA procedures, identifies the decision being made and 
    the rationale for the decision.
        Directive. Policy, practice, and procedure issued through the 
    Forest Service Directive System to guide the work of agency employees.
        Directive System. The administrative system composed of the Forest 
    Service Manual and Handbooks by which internal agency policy, practice, 
    and procedure are established, issued, and stored.
        Ecosystem analysis. A broad term used to denote various 
    interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide information on and 
    enhance an understanding of the physical, biological, social, and/or 
    economic aspects and interactions of an ecosystem.
        Ecosystem management. A concept of natural resources management 
    wherein National Forest activities are considered within the context of 
    economic, ecological, and social interactions within a defined area or 
    region over both short- and long-term.
        Environmental assessment. A concise document prepared in compliance 
    with NEPA procedures that serves to briefly provide sufficient evidence 
    and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 
    statement or for making a finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 
    1508.9).
        Environmental impact statement. A detailed document prepared in 
    compliance with NEPA procedures when a Federal action will have a 
    significant impact on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.11).
        Even-aged stand. A distinguishable group of trees of essentially 
    the same age. The difference in age among trees forming the main canopy 
    level of the stand usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the 
    stand at harvest rotation age.
        Forest Supervisor. An individual responsible to the Regional 
    Forester for management of one or more National Forests, National 
    Grasslands, or other components of the National Forest System.
        Forested land. Land not currently identified for non-forest use and 
    of which at least 10 percent is occupied by forest trees or which 
    formerly had such tree cover. Forest trees are those woody plants 
    having a well developed stem and which are usually more than 12 feet in 
    height at maturity.
        Goal. A concise statement describing a desired end result and 
    normally expressed in broad general terms.
        Guideline. A description of a preferred or advisable course of 
    action.
        Infrastructure. The facilities, utilities, and transportation 
    systems needed to meet public and administrative needs.
        Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity. A projection of the 
    maximum potential long-term average sale quantity representing the 
    highest uniform wood yield that may be sustained in perpetuity 
    consistent with the forest plan.
        Management prescription. The set of forest plan goals, objectives, 
    standards, and guidelines that are applicable to a particular part of 
    the plan area, including both forest-wide direction as well as 
    direction applicable only to that specific part of the plan area.
        Multiple-use. As defined by the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 
    1960 (16 U.S.C. 528), multiple-use is the management of all the various 
    renewable surface resources of the National Forests so that they are 
    utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the 
    American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or 
    all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to 
    provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform 
    to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less 
    than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of 
    the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the 
    productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the 
    relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the 
    combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the 
    greatest unit output.
        NEPA documents. The terms used to refer to draft and final 
    environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, findings of 
    no significant impact, and notices of intent to publish an 
    environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.10).
        NEPA procedures. The term used to refer to the requirements of 40 
    CFR parts 1500 through 1508, as supplemented by Forest Service NEPA 
    directives issued in Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest 
    Service Handbook 1909.15, which implement the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969.
        Objective. A statement describing measurable desired resource 
    conditions, or ranges of conditions, intended to achieve forest plan 
    goals.
        Plan area. The geographically defined area of the National Forest 
    System covered by a forest plan, consisting of only those lands and 
    resources under National Forest System jurisdiction.
        Plan period. The period of time between regularly scheduled 
    revisions of a forest plan, normally 10 years but no longer than 15 
    years.
        Previous planning rule. The land and resource management planning 
    regulation, 36 CFR Part 219, adopted September 30, 1982 and amended on 
    June 24, 1983, and September 7, 1983 (see 36 CFR Part 200-End edition, 
    Revised July 1, 1994).
        Project. A site-specific resources management activity or 
    combination of activities designed to accomplish a distinct on-the-
    ground purpose or result.
        Proposed action. A proposal made by the Forest Service to 
    authorize, recommend, or implement an action to meet a specific purpose 
    and need.
        Regional Forester. The individual responsible to the Chief of the 
    Forest Service for management of an administrative region of the 
    National Forest System (36 CFR 200.2).
        Resource conditions. The state of the physical and biological 
    components of 
    
    [[Page 18921]]
    the environment, including both natural features and human influences.
        Responsible official. The Forest Service employee who has the 
    delegated authority to make a specific decision.
        RPA Assessment and Program. Documents required by Sections 3 and 4 
    of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 
    1974 (16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). The RPA Assessment is prepared every 10 
    years and describes the potential of the nation's forests and 
    rangelands to provide a sustained flow of goods and services. The RPA 
    Program is prepared every five years to chart the long-term course of 
    Forest Service management of the National Forest System, assistance to 
    State and private forest landowners, and forest and range research.
        Species or natural community ranking. A rating established and 
    maintained by the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation 
    Data Centers which reflects the biological imperilment status of a 
    species or natural community. Rankings as used in this subpart are 
    defined as follows:
        (1) G1--Species or community critically imperiled globally because 
    of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially 
    vulnerable to extinction; five or fewer occurrences, or less than 1,000 
    individuals, or very few acres remaining.
        (2) G2--Species or community imperiled globally because of rarity 
    or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction; 
    six to twenty occurrences, or less than 3,000 individuals, or few acres 
    remaining.
        (3) G3--Species or community vulnerable throughout range globally 
    and typically having 21 to 100 occurrences, or fewer than 10,000 
    individuals. May be very rare and local throughout its range or found 
    locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) is a restricted 
    range (e.g., a single western State, a physiographic region of the 
    East).
        (4) N1, N2, and N3--Same as G1, G2, and G3 respectively, except 
    these listings refer to a national situation rather than global one.
        (5) S1 and S2-- Same as G1 and G2 respectively, except these 
    listings refer to a State situation rather than global one.
        (6) T1, T2, and T3--Same as G1, G2, and G3 respectively, except 
    these refer to subspecies or recognized varieties that are listable 
    entities under the Endangered Species Act.
        Standard. A limitation on management activities that is within the 
    authority and ability to the agency to meet or enforce.
        Station Director. An individual who is responsible to the Chief of 
    the Forest Service for administering research activities at an assigned 
    Research Station (36 CFR 200.2).
        Sustainability of ecosystems. A concept which reflects the capacity 
    of a dynamic ecosystem to maintain its composition, function, and 
    structure over time, thus maintaining the productivity of the land and 
    a diversity of plant and animal communities.
        Tribal governments. Federally recognized American Indian/Alaska 
    Native tribal governments.
    
    
    Sec. 219.3  Relationships with the public and government entities.
    
        (a) Building and maintaining relationships with the public and 
    other Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments is an 
    essential and ongoing part of National Forest System planning and 
    management. The responsible official shall strive to establish and 
    maintain communication with interested parties in order to:
        (1) Develop a shared understanding of the variety of needs, 
    concerns, and values held by the public;
        (2) Coordinate planning efforts with other Federal agencies and 
    State, local, and tribal governments, with recognition of the distinct 
    roles and jurisdictions of each;
        (3) Improve the information base influencing decisions and to 
    promote a shared understanding of the validity of this information;
        (4) Strengthen the scientific basis for resource management 
    decisions by involving members of the scientific community; and
        (5) Resolve conflicts associated with resource decisionmaking.
        (b) The Forest Supervisor shall maintain a list of individuals, 
    organizations, scientists, and government agencies and officials who 
    have indicated a desire to be informed about forest planning or project 
    activities on the Forest. The Forest Supervisor shall periodically 
    verify the continuing interest of parties on the list and provide 
    notice to the general public of the opportunity to be included on the 
    listing. The list should include the following:
        (1) Representatives of other affected Federal agencies;
        (2) The official or agency designated as a point of contact for the 
    affected State(s) agencies, including, if applicable, the Commonwealth 
    of Puerto Rico;
        (3) Representatives of tribal governments;
        (4) Representatives of county or municipal governments;
        (5) Holders of permits, contracts, or other instruments providing 
    for the occupancy and use of the plan area; and
        (6) Any citizen or organization expressing a desire to be included.
        (c) The Forest Supervisor shall ensure that records documenting the 
    planning process and information used to amend, revise, or monitor and 
    evaluate implementation of the forest plan are maintained and are 
    available for public inspection at the Forest Supervisor's office 
    during normal working hours. Information in the planning records is 
    subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
        (d) Copies of the current forest plan and monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy must be available for public inspection at each Forest Service 
    office on the Forest, in the respective Regional Office, and at least 
    one additional location, as determined by the Forest Supervisor, that 
    offers convenient access to the public.
        (e) When desired by the State or affected tribal governments, 
    Regional Foresters should seek to establish a Memorandum of 
    Understanding or other form of agreement with the Governor of each 
    State in which National Forest System lands are located or with 
    affected tribal governments to guide coordination of planning efforts.
        (1) The following apply to any such Memorandum of Understanding or 
    agreement;
        (i) The document should describe how the State's or tribe's 
    positions on topics related to planning will be established, 
    communicated, and considered;
        (ii) The document should address cooperation in forest plan 
    implementation, monitoring, evaluation, ecosystem analysis, amendment, 
    and revision;
        (iii) The document may be executed by the Forest Supervisor rather 
    than the Regional Forester when all National Forest System lands within 
    the State are managed by one Forest Supervisor; and
        (iv) The document may be jointly executed by the appropriate 
    Regional Foresters when one State encompasses two or more Forest 
    Service Regions.
        (2) Nothing in this section precludes development of a Memorandum 
    of Understanding with other Federal agencies or local governments.
        (f) Procedures for public participation and government coordination 
    must conform with NEPA requirements, the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
    (5 U.S.C. appendix), and any other applicable laws, Executive orders, 
    or regulations.
    
    [[Page 18922]]
    
    
    
    Sec. 219.4  Sustainability of ecosystems.
    
        (a) Goal. The principal goal of managing the National Forest System 
    is to maintain or restore the sustainability of ecosystems, thereby 
    providing multiple benefits to present and future generations. The 
    level and flow of benefits from National Forest System lands should be 
    compatible with the restoration of deteriorated ecosystems and the 
    maintenance of ecosystem sustainability over the long-term. The forest 
    plan addresses this goal by:
        (1) Providing for diversity of plant and animal communities and 
    other conditions indicative of sustainable ecosystems. This is 
    accomplished by establishing forest plan direction as specified in 
    paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. In establishing such forest 
    plan direction, the likely contribution or role of lands outside the 
    plan area should be considered.
        (2) Providing for resource conditions which result in a flow of 
    benefits to present and future generations. This is accomplished as 
    specified at Sec. 219.6(a), and through the establishment of forest 
    plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.
        (b) Role of forest plan. The forest plan establishes goals and 
    objectives describing desired conditions, indicative of sustainable 
    ecosystems within the plan area and establishes standards and 
    guidelines that direct how to achieve those conditions.
        (1) Scope. Forest plan goals and/or objectives should describe the 
    desired composition, function, and structure of ecosystems within the 
    plan area at appropriate spatial scales.
        (2) Soil and water resources. The forest plan must provide for the 
    restoration, protection, and conservation of soil and water resources 
    including, but not limited to, streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, 
    wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. Where there are existing 
    conditions harmful to soil and water quality, the forest plan should 
    include standards and/or guidelines that provide for the restoration of 
    soil and water resources to achieve desired resource conditions. Forest 
    plans should also address the protection of current and future 
    consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses, including instream flow 
    needs.
        (3) Rare natural communities. The forest plan should provide for 
    maintaining or restoring the sustainability of those natural 
    communities known to occur within the plan area that are identified by 
    the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers 
    with rankings of G1, G2, G3, N1, N2, N3, S1, or S2 (Sec. 219.2).
        (4) Threatened and endangered species. The forest plan must provide 
    for the conservation of species listed as threatened and endangered, or 
    proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
    amended, (16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Once species are listed or proposed 
    for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 
    Act, management activities on National Forest System lands affecting 
    the habitat of the listed species must be in compliance with the 
    requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
    
    Option I for Paragraph (b)(5)
    
        (b)(5) Sensitive species. The forest plan must provide for the 
    protection of habitat capability for sensitive species in order to 
    preclude the need for listing these species as threatened or endangered 
    under the Endangered Species Act or their extirpation from the plan 
    area. For the purposes of this section, habitat capability refers to 
    the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat.
        (i) Identification. Sensitive species are those plant and animal 
    species, subspecies, populations, or stocks, including vertebrates, 
    invertebrates, vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens, which 
    are known to occur or likely to occur on National Forest System lands 
    and which are included in one of the following:
        (A) The species is identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
    as a Category 1 Candidate Species;
        (B) The species is identified by the Network of Natural Heritage 
    Programs and Conservation Data Centers with global species rankings of 
    G1 (T1) or G2 (T2);
        (C) The species is identified both by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
    Service as a Category 2 Candidate Species and by the Network of Natural 
    Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers with species rankings 
    of G3 (T3), N1, N2, or N3.
        (ii) Process. In considering whether or not new or modified forest 
    plan direction is needed for sensitive species, the following must be 
    documented:
        (A) Sensitive species for the plan area and their habitat needs 
    must be identified.
        (B) The habitat needs of sensitive species and/or assemblages of 
    sensitive species shall be compared to existing forest plan direction 
    or, in the case of revision of a forest plan, the habitat needs shall 
    be compared against the tentatively proposed revisions to forest plan 
    direction.
        (1) If a continuing downward trend in habitat capability is 
    predicted to occur and predicted to result in the need for Federal 
    listing of the species or if it is predicted that the sensitive species 
    will be extirpated from the plan area, forest plan direction shall be 
    modified to protect the habitat capability of the sensitive species in 
    an attempt to preclude the need for Federal listing or extirpation from 
    the plan ares.
        (2) Where the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
    or National Marine Fisheries Service have approved a conservation 
    agreement for a sensitive species and relevant direction from that 
    agreement is incorporated into the forest plan, the requirement to 
    establish direction to protect the habitat capability of the sensitive 
    species is met.
        (3) To the extent that protective measures for one sensitive 
    species conflict with the recovery of a threatened or endangered 
    species, the needs of the threatened or endangered species shall take 
    precedence.
        (4) Management direction for sensitive species shall be established 
    using the best information available, commensurate with the decision 
    being made. Determinations of whether habitat needs of sensitive 
    species are adequately met as well as determinations of the degree of 
    protection needed are decisions that are inherently dependent on 
    professional judgment.
        (iii) Responding to newly identified sensitive species. The 
    categories and rankings described at paragraphs (b)(5)(i) (A) through 
    (C) of this section shall be reviewed annually as part of monitoring 
    and evaluation to determine if there have been new additions subsequent 
    to the last review. If a new addition has occurred, the habitat needs 
    of the species shall be compared against forest plan direction to 
    determine if a change in that direction is needed. The annual review of 
    sensitive species categories and rankings does not remove the 
    obligation to consider new information relevant to a project decision 
    or, where appropriate, to analyze the effects of a proposed action on 
    habitat capability needs of a sensitive species within the project 
    area.
    
    Option II for Paragraph (b)(5)
    
        (5) Species viability. Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed 
    to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-
    native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, 
    a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated 
    numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its 
    continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order 
    to ensure 
    
    [[Page 18923]]
    that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to 
    support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and 
    that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can 
    interact with others in the planning area. The forest plan shall 
    establish guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for 
    management indicator species to the degree consistent with overall 
    multiple-use goals of the forest plan. In order to do this, management 
    planning for the fish and wildlife resource shall meet the requirements 
    set forth in paragraphs (b)(5) (i) through (vi) of this section.
        (i) In order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish 
    and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate 
    species present in the area shall be identified and selected as 
    management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will 
    be stated. These species shall be selected because their population 
    changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. 
    In the selection of management indicator species, the following 
    categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and 
    threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal 
    lists for the plan area; species with special habitat needs that may be 
    influenced significantly by planned management programs; species 
    commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special 
    interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their 
    population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management 
    activities on other species of selected major biological communities or 
    on water quality. On the basis of available scientific information, the 
    interdisciplinary team shall estimate the effects of changes in 
    vegetation type, timber age classes, community composition, rotation 
    age, and year-long suitability of habitat related to mobility of 
    management indicator species. Where appropriate, measures to mitigate 
    adverse effects shall be prescribed.
        (ii) Planning alternatives shall be stated and evaluated in terms 
    of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal population trends 
    of the management indicator species.
        (iii) Biologists from State fish and wildlife agencies and other 
    Federal agencies shall be consulted in order to coordinate planning for 
    fish and wildlife, including opportunities for the reintroduction of 
    extirpated species.
        (iv) Access and dispersal problems, of hunting, fishing, and other 
    visitor uses shall be considered.
        (v) The effects of pest and fire management on fish and wildlife 
    populations shall be considered.
        (vi) Population trends of the management indicator species will be 
    monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined. This 
    monitoring will be done in cooperation with State fish and wildlife 
    agencies, to the extent practicable.
        (c) Dynamic nature of ecosystems. Ecosystems are dynamic. 
    Therefore, sustaining an ecosystem does not imply maintaining static 
    conditions. Disturbances to an ecosystem should be evaluated in the 
    context of ecological processes and resilience.
        (d) Multiple spatial scales of ecosystems. Numerous ecosystems 
    exist at multiple spatial scales. In order to limit efforts to a 
    practicable number and scope, the forest plan should address the 
    ecosystems of most relevance to forest plan decisionmaking.
        (e) Uncertainty and adaptive management. Understanding of the 
    attributes of sustainable ecosystems and of the environmental effects 
    of various management activities is subject to change as new 
    information becomes available. Resource decisionmaking need not be 
    halted because there is uncertainty or incomplete knowledge; rather, 
    resource decisions should be made in a timely manner using the best 
    information available commensurate with the decisions being made (40 
    CFR 1502.22). Monitoring and evaluation shall be used to assess the 
    effects of resource decisions and to determine if there is a need to 
    adapt resource management in light of new information. Project 
    decisionmaking provides an incremental means for accomplishing the 
    goals and objectives of the forest plan, thereby providing the 
    opportunity to evaluate the effects of on-the-ground activities at the 
    appropriate spatial scale as well as providing the opportunity to adapt 
    project proposals as new information becomes available during the plan 
    period.
    
    
    Sec. 219.5  Framework for resource decisionmaking.
    
        (a) Staged resource decisonmaking. National Forest System resource 
    allocation and management decisions are made in two stages. The first 
    stage is adoption of a forest plan, which allocates lands and resources 
    to various uses or conditions by establishing management prescriptions 
    for the land and resources within the plan area. The second stage is 
    approval of project decisions. Both forest plan and project decisions 
    are subject to the requirements of laws and regulations applicable to 
    National Forest System lands and resources. In addition, direction to 
    guide the management of lands and resources of the National Forest 
    System is issued as needed through the Directive System (36 CFR 200.4). 
    Pursuant to 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, agency directives are subject to 
    NEPA procedures, and, depending on their nature and scope, directives 
    also may be subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 36 
    CFR part 216.
        (1) Forest plans. Forest plans do not compel the agency to plan for 
    or undertake any projects; rather, they establish limitations on what 
    actions may be authorized during project decisionmaking. Forest plan 
    direction must not conflict with applicable laws or regulations. 
    Additionally, forest plans should not conflict with applicable agency 
    directives issued through the Directive System. Where there is a 
    substantial conflict between a resource management directive and 
    direction in a forest plan revision or amendment prepared pursuant to 
    this subpart, the responsible official should identify the conflict and 
    include in the decision document the rationale for the plan's departure 
    from agency directives.
        (i) Plan area. Each Regional Forester shall determine the area to 
    be covered by each forest plan. Options include a separate plan for 
    each National Forest or National Grassland, a plan that covers any 
    combination of National Forests or other National Forest System lands 
    within the responsibility of one Forest Supervisor, or a single plan 
    encompassing one National Forest but which is administered by several 
    Forest Supervisors.
        (ii) Simultaneous amendment or revision. Forest plan goals, 
    objectives, standards, and guidelines that are applicable to more than 
    one plan area may be established through one decision document which 
    simultaneously amends or revises multiple forest plans.
        (2) Project decisions. Authorization of site-specific activities 
    within a plan area occurs through project decisionmaking. Project 
    decisionmaking must comply with NEPA procedures and must include a 
    determination that the project is consistent with the forest plan 
    (Sec. 219.11(a)). Project decisionmaking includes decisions on 
    proposals received from outside the agency as well as those initiated 
    by the agency.
        (b) Reconciling direction in forest plans with other resource 
    direction or planning efforts--(1) Laws and regulations. If, following 
    issuance of new laws or regulations affecting National Forest System 
    resource management, it is determined that the 
    
    [[Page 18924]]
    direction in forest plans within the Region is in conflict with the new 
    direction, the Regional Forester shall direct that affected plans be 
    changed in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 
    of this subpart and shall specify the timing for doing so.
        (2) Agency directive. (i) If resource management direction in a new 
    agency directive appears to conflict with direction in forest plans, 
    the directive issuing official shall indicate as part of the directive 
    issuance whether affected forest plans are to be made consistent with 
    the new directive and, if so, shall direct that affected plans be 
    changed in accordance with the procedures of Sec. 219.9 or Sec. 219.10 
    of this subpart and shall specify the timing for doing so.
        (ii) In addition to adjusting forest plans as required by paragraph 
    (b)(2)(i) of this section, the Forest Supervisor, as part of monitoring 
    and evaluation, should periodically review recent resource management 
    directives to determine if the forest plan is in conflict with newly 
    issued resource directives. If so, the Forest Supervisor shall either 
    initiate a forest plan amendment to eliminate the conflict or give the 
    Regional Forester written notice of why the forest plan should not be 
    changed.
        (3) RPA Program. Following adoption and issuance of each RPA 
    Program, the Chief determines those elements of the Program that should 
    be considered in forest plan implementation, monitoring, and evaluation 
    and establishes such agency-wide processes or procedures as may be 
    necessary to ensure consideration of these Program elements in forest 
    plans.
        (4) Ecosystem analysis. As part of monitoring and evaluation, the 
    Forest Supervisor shall periodically review the results of any 
    applicable ecosystem analyses that have been completed or updated after 
    plan approval and determine if there is new information which would 
    indicate a need to initiate forest plan amendment procedures.
    
    
    Sec. 219.6  Forest plan direction.
    
        (a) Integrated resource management. Forest plans provide for 
    integration and coordination of all resources within the plan area on a 
    multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. To this end, forest plan 
    direction shall be established, as appropriate, to address management 
    of soil, water, fish and wildlife habitat, grazing, timber, oil, gas, 
    minerals, recreation, wilderness, cultural, historic, geologic, 
    vegetative, air, visual, and other relevant resources. In addition, 
    forest plans address management of infrastructure and land ownership 
    and access patterns relative to the plan area to the extent 
    appropriate.
        (b) Scope. Forest plans allocate the land and resources of the plan 
    area to various uses or conditions by establishing management 
    prescriptions consisting of goals, objectives, standards, and 
    guidelines. Goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines may be 
    established to apply throughout a plan area (forest-wide direction) 
    and/or they may be established for only a part of the plan area. The 
    forest plan management prescription for any given site within the plan 
    area is the aggregate of all forest-wide direction and any other 
    direction that is applicable to only that specific part of the plan 
    area. The forest plan must identify where goals, objectives, standards, 
    and guidelines are applicable. Maps or similar information that 
    delineate where goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines are 
    applicable constitute forest plan direction.
        (1) Projected levels of goods and services or projected levels of 
    management activities do not constitute forest plan direction. 
    Moreover, any projections of the rate at which objectives identified in 
    the forest plan might be achieved are not forest plan direction 
    (Sec. 219.11(d)).
        (2) Forest plan direction should focus on resource management and 
    resource conditions specific to the plan area, not on the procedural 
    aspects of making future project decisions. Also, as a general rule, 
    forest plans should not repeat other applicable direction established 
    through the Directive System, regulation, Executive order, or law.
        (3) The main body of the forest plan document is limited to forest 
    plan direction. Background information or other accompanying material 
    are not appropriate to the main body of the document but may be 
    presented as part of a brief forest plan preface or in the appendices.
        (c) Goals. Goals are concise statements describing a desired end 
    result and are normally expressed in broad general terms. Forest plan 
    goals serve as the link between broad agency goals set forth in law, 
    Executive order, regulation, agency directives, and the RPA Program and 
    specific desired resource conditions relevant to the plan area as 
    defined by objectives. The forest plan does not specify a time period 
    for achievement of goals. Additionally, forest plan goals are generally 
    not expressed in quantitative terms; rather, evaluation of associated 
    measurable objectives or monitoring indicators assesses whether goals 
    are being achieved (Sec. 219.12(a)(1)(ii)).
        (d) Objectives. Objectives are statements describing desired 
    resource conditions, or ranges of conditions, intended to achieve 
    forest plan goals. Objectives may describe the desired state of natural 
    resource conditions, such as soils and vegetation; the desired state of 
    resources resulting from human influences, such as infrastructure or 
    historic sites; or how resources are to be perceived, such as visual 
    quality or the nature of the wilderness visitor experience. An 
    objective must be defined in a manner that permits measurement of 
    whether the objective is being achieved. The forest plan does not 
    specify a time period for achievement of objectives.
        (e) Standards. Standards are limitations to be placed on management 
    activities within the plan area to ensure compliance with applicable 
    laws and regulations or to limit the discretion to be permitted during 
    project decisionmaking. Standards are limited to those actions that are 
    within the authority and ability of the agency to meet or enforce.
        (1) Standards are the basis for determining whether a project is 
    consistent with the forest plan as required by Sec. 219.11(a).
        (2) Project compliance with relevant standards is mandatory. A 
    project that would vary from a relevant standard may not be authorized, 
    unless the forest plan is amended to modify, remove, or waive 
    application of the standard.
        (f) Guidelines. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course 
    of action. Variation of a project from a guideline does not trigger a 
    forest plan amendment. Guidelines may be used for the following 
    purposes:
        (1) To describe a preferred or advisable method for conducting 
    resource activities specific to the plan area; and
        (2) To describe a preferred or advisable sequence or priority for 
    implementing various types of projects, when such guidance is deemed 
    useful in facilitating achievement of a forest plan goal.
        (g) Coordination of forest plan direction across plan areas. The 
    Regional Forester is responsible for coordinating direction in forest 
    plans within the Region as well as with adjacent Regions to promote 
    consistent approaches to resource management. In many cases, variation 
    in direction is appropriate due to varying local circumstances; for 
    example, differing resource conditions, public preferences, or socio-
    economic considerations. However, unless there is reasonable basis for 
    such variations, the Regional Forester shall provide for consistency 
    among forest plans within the Region, as well as consistency with those 
    forest plans in other Regions whose plan areas 
    
    [[Page 18925]]
    are physically adjacent to plan areas within the Region. At a minimum, 
    the Regional Forester shall ensure that forest plans within the Region 
    include the following:
        (1) Consistent management prescriptions for adjacent National 
    Forest System lands, including the use of consistent mapping scales, 
    symbols, and other elements to facilitate review and comparison of the 
    management prescriptions;
        (2) Consistent management prescriptions for a specially designated 
    area (Sec. 219.14) that crosses plan area boundaries, such as a 
    national scenic trail extending through several National Forests;
        (3) Consistent direction when findings of an ecosystem analysis or 
    research used as a basis for that direction are applicable to more than 
    one plan area, such as the establishment of a forest plan standard to 
    meet the habitat needs of a threatened or endangered species that 
    occurs on more than one plan area; and
        (4) Consistent terminology and classification systems among or 
    between forest plans.
    
    
    Sec. 219.7  Ecosystem analysis.
    
        (a) Purpose and scope. Ecosystem analysis is a broad term used to 
    denote various interdisciplinary studies conducted to provide 
    information on and enhance an understanding of the physical, 
    biological, social, or economic aspects and interactions of an 
    ecosystem. For example, an ecosystem assessment and landscape-level 
    analysis are both forms of ecosystem analysis. Ecosystem analysis may 
    be conducted at whatever scale is appropriate in order to provide the 
    information desired. To the extent practicable, the area covered by an 
    ecosystem analysis should generally be delineated based on ecological 
    considerations, including social and economic factors, rather than on 
    administrative or jurisdictional boundaries. Ecosystem analyses are 
    conducted whenever deemed appropriate by the agency.
        (b) Relationship to resource decisionmaking. An ecosystem analysis 
    is distinct from resource decisionmaking and does not trigger NEPA 
    analysis and disclosure. Findings resulting from ecosystem analysis are 
    not resource decisions and cannot be used as a substitute for forest 
    plan goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines. Ecosystem analysis 
    may provide information that indicates a need to change forest plan 
    direction; however, such changes would be evaluated and established 
    through forest plan amendment or revision procedures. Ecosystem 
    analysis also may be used to display various opportunities for 
    achieving the goals and objectives already established by law, 
    Executive order, regulation, agency directive, or the forest plan.
        (c) Results. Results of ecosystem analysis vary depending on their 
    scope and specific purpose. Results of ecosystem analysis may include, 
    but are not limited to, the following:
        (1) Identification of trends and historic conditions;
        (2) Identification of anticipated effects if current management 
    continues;
        (3) Identification of resource conditions that would satisfy legal 
    requirements;
        (4) Identification of opportunities to improve monitoring and 
    evaluation strategies;
        (5) Identification of research needs and recommended priorities;
        (6) Identification of opportunities and recommended priorities for 
    project implementation in order to meet forest plan goals;
        (7) Determination of resource capabilities;
        (8) Compilation of a socio-economic overview or assessment; for 
    example, assessments of pertinent social, demographic, and economic 
    data, socioeconomic and cultural trends, or important relationships 
    among physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of resource 
    management;
        (9) Compilation of information for use in monitoring and 
    evaluation;
        (10) Compilation of information for use in NEPA documents; and
        (11) Compilation of updated inventory data.
    
    
    Sec. 219.8  Interdisciplinary teams and information needs.
    
        (a) Interdisciplinary team. An interdisciplinary team must be used 
    to prepare amendments, revisions, and monitoring and evaluation 
    strategies and reports and to conduct ecosystem analysis. The team may 
    consist of whatever combination of Forest Service and other Federal 
    government personnel is necessary to achieve an interdisciplinary 
    approach.
        (b) Analysis and inventory. Analytical efforts should be focused on 
    obtaining and using the information needed for decisionmaking 
    commensurate with the decisions being made. Each responsible official 
    shall strive to obtain and keep updated inventory data appropriate to 
    meet analytical needs for resource decisionmaking. In assessing the 
    environmental, social, and economic factors relevant to decisionmaking, 
    the responsible official shall consider the conclusions resulting from 
    applicable quantitative analytical methods as well as nonquantifiable 
    considerations.
        (c) Social and economic effects. When amending or revising the 
    forest plan, the responsible official shall consider the effects of 
    each alternative on community stability, employment, or other 
    indicators of social and economic change commensurate with the decision 
    being made.
        (d) Research needs. Each Forest Supervisor shall identify and 
    inform the Regional Forester of research needed for decisionmaking 
    including, but not limited to, the research needed to help resource 
    managers ensure that management practices do not produce substantial or 
    permanent impairment of the productivity of the land.
    
    
    Sec. 219.9  Forest plan amendments.
    
        (a) Purpose and type. Except as provided at Sec. 219.9(e), 
    amendment is the only method by which forest plan direction is changed 
    between revisions. Only forest plan direction as described at 
    Sec. 219.6 is subject to amendment. Amendments are categorized as 
    major, minor, or interim.
        (b) Major amendment. (1) A major amendment is appropriate only 
    under one of the following circumstances:
        (i) The proposed change would modify, remove, or add a standard, or 
    modify the geographic area to which a standard applies, except as 
    provided at paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section or except when 
    such a change is made by interim amendment;
        (ii) The proposed change would allow the amount of chargeable 
    timber volume which can be sold for a decade from a proclaimed National 
    Forest within the plan area to exceed the long-term sustained-yield 
    timber capacity of that proclaimed National Forest 
    (Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(ii)); or
        (iii) The proposed change would permit harvest of even-aged stands 
    that have not reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth 
    (Sec. 219.13(e)).
        (2) The Regional Forester is the responsible official for major 
    amendments.
        (3) The public review and comment period on a proposed major 
    amendment and associated NEPA documents is 90 calendar days. During 
    this period, the Regional Forester shall take the following actions:
        (i) Make the proposed amendment and associated NEPA documents 
    available for public inspection at convenient locations in the vicinity 
    of the lands covered by the plan;
        (ii) Notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the 
    opportunity for public review and comment; and
    
    [[Page 18926]]
    
        (iii) Provide opportunities for open communication with the public 
    and other government entities during the review of the proposed major 
    amendment.
        (4) Legal notice of adoption of a major amendment shall be provided 
    in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5.
        (5) A major amendment is not effective until the eighth calendar 
    day following date of publication of the legal notice of the decision 
    (36 CFR 217.10).
        (c) Minor amendment. (1) Unless the authority is reserved by the 
    Regional Forester, the Forest Supervisor is the responsible official 
    for minor amendments.
        (2)(i) For a proposed minor amendment for which an environmental 
    assessment has been prepared, the Forest Supervisor shall publish 
    notice of the proposed amendment and provide at least 30 calendar days 
    for public review of and comment on the proposed amendment and 
    environmental assessment. Such notice shall be published in newspapers 
    of general circulation within or near the Forest.
        (ii) In the event that a draft environmental impact statement has 
    been prepared for a proposed minor amendment, public notice shall be 
    provided in accordance with NEPA procedures. At least 45 calendar days 
    must be provided for public review of and comment on the proposed 
    amendment and draft environmental impact statement.
        (3) Legal notice of decisions to adopt a minor amendment must be 
    provided in accordance with 36 CFR 217.5. The effective date of minor 
    amendments is governed by 36 CFR 217.10.
        (4) A minor amendment shall be used to allocate newly acquired land 
    to a management prescription, provided the prescription is consistent 
    with the purposes for which the land was acquired.
        (5) If the responsible official concludes that a proposed project 
    should be implemented, but that the project would conflict with a 
    forest plan standard, the project may be approved only if the forest 
    plan standard is amended. If such an amendment is limited to apply to 
    only the specific project and the circumstances described at paragraphs 
    (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this section do not apply, then the change is 
    a minor amendment. By contrast, a change to a forest plan standard that 
    would apply to the specific project and to future projects or that 
    applies to one project but meets the circumstances described at 
    paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this section would be a major 
    amendment.
        (i) The environmental effects of modifying or waiving application 
    of the forest plan standard for a specific project must be disclosed in 
    the NEPA documentation associated with the project decision.
        (ii) A proposed minor amendment that applies only to a specific 
    project and that is accompanied by an environmental assessment is 
    subject to the notice and comment procedures of 36 CFR 215.5.
        (iii) A proposed minor amendment that applies only to a specific 
    project and is accompanied by an environmental impact statement is 
    subject to notice and comment in accordance with NEPA procedures.
        (iv) A decision to amend a forest plan for a specific project is 
    subject to the notice and appeal procedures of 36 CFR part 215, and the 
    time period between the decision and implementation is also governed by 
    36 CFR part 215.
        (d) Interim amendment. (1) An interim amendment may be used only 
    when a catastrophic event has occurred or when new information 
    indicates there is a need to promptly change the forest plan in order 
    to provide resource protection and it is unacceptable to delay the 
    changes needed until procedures for major or minor amendment can be 
    completed.
        (2) Unless the authority is subsequently reserved by the Chief, the 
    Regional Forester is the responsible official for interim amendments.
        (3) The Regional Forester shall give notice of an interim amendment 
    to those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) and shall provide legal 
    notice of the decision in a newspaper of general circulation. In 
    addition, if the Chief is the responsible official, notice shall be 
    published in the Federal Register. The notice must concisely summarize 
    the following:
        (i) The circumstances which warrant use of the interim amendment 
    procedure;
        (ii) The changes being made in the forest plan;
        (iii) The anticipated consequences associated with the interim 
    amendment;
        (iv) The anticipated duration of the interim amendment, not to 
    exceed two years;
        (v) The changes being made to the monitoring and evaluation 
    strategy in association with the interim amendment; and
        (vi) The opportunity for public comment.
        (4) An environmental impact statement is not required for an 
    interim amendment.
        (5) The effective date of an interim amendment is the eighth 
    calendar day after legal notice of the decision is published in a 
    newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Sec. 219.9(d)(3) or, in 
    the case where the Chief is the responsible official, in the Federal 
    Register.
        (6) A period of 45 calendar days must be provided for public 
    comment beginning on the date of publication of legal notice of an 
    interim amendment decision. On the basis of public comment, the 
    responsible official may decide to modify the interim amendment through 
    issuance of a new interim amendment or may decide that the interim 
    amendment remains in effect without change. In either circumstance, the 
    responsible official shall publish a notice of the decision and a brief 
    summary of the rationale, and also provide it to those on the list 
    described at Sec. 219.3(b).
        (7) The duration of an interim amendment may not exceed two years. 
    If an approved amendment or revision has not superseded the interim 
    direction within two years of the effective date of the interim 
    amendment, then the responsible official may reissue the interim 
    amendment or issue a modified interim amendment, subject to the notice 
    and comment requirements of this section.
        (8) An interim amendment may not be made through a decision 
    document for a specific project.
        (9) Pursuant to 36 CFR part 217, an interim amendment is not 
    subject to administrative appeal.
        (e) Nondiscretionary changes. If a change in applicable law or 
    regulation occurs which conflicts with forest plan direction and the 
    agency has no choice but to comply and no discretion in the manner in 
    which to comply, the forest plan may be modified to reflect such 
    changes without conducting amendment procedures. The Forest Supervisor 
    shall give public notice of such changes through the annual monitoring 
    and evaluation report (Sec. 219.12). Such nondiscretionary changes are 
    not subject to NEPA procedures.
        (f) Other changes. The following changes to the content of a forest 
    plan may be made at any time, do not require amendment, and are not 
    subject to NEPA procedures. However, such changes are to be identified 
    and briefly described in the next annual monitoring and evaluation 
    report.
        (1) Changes to information that is not forest plan direction 
    (Sec. 219.6), such as the information in forest plan appendices;
        (2) Corrections to forest plan maps which delineate where a 
    management prescription is applicable, provided such changes are the 
    result of improved 
    
    [[Page 18927]]
    information about the location of the on-the-ground conditions to which 
    the prescription was described in the forest plan to apply;
        (3) Corrections of typographical errors or other non-substantive 
    changes.
    
    
    Sec. 219.10  Forest plan revision.
    
        (a) Initiation. Revision of a forest plan should occur about every 
    10 years, but no later than 15 years, from the date of approval of the 
    original plan or the latest plan revision. Revision also must occur 
    when the Regional Forester determines that conditions over most or all 
    of the plan area have significantly changed from those in place when 
    the forest plan was originally approved or last revised; for example, 
    if a catastrophic event has substantially altered resource conditions 
    over most or all of the planning area.
        (b) Responsible official. The Regional Forester is the responsible 
    official for forest plan revision.
        (c) Prerevision actions.--(1) Prerevision review of the forest 
    plan. Prior to initiating scoping pursuant to NEPA procedures, the 
    entire forest plan must be reviewed, using the cumulative results of 
    monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of the review is to identify 
    changed conditions and/or other new information which appear to 
    indicate a need to change direction in the current plan.
        (2) Communications strategy. The Forest Supervisor shall formulate 
    a communications strategy that describes how the public and government 
    entities may participate in the prerevision review and revision of the 
    forest plan on an ongoing basis.
        (i) The Forest Supervisor shall meet, or designate a representative 
    to meet, with interested representatives of other Federal agencies and 
    State, local, and tribal governments to establish procedures for 
    ongoing coordination and communication throughout the prerevision 
    review and the revision processes. These procedures should be 
    documented in the communications strategy.
        (ii) The Forest Supervisor shall publish notice of the prerevision 
    review process and the formulation of a communications strategy in both 
    the Federal Register and newspapers of general circulation within or 
    near the plan area. The notice must include an invitation to the public 
    and representatives of government entities to express their ideas and 
    suggestions on formulation of a communications strategy.
        (iii) The Forest Supervisor shall also give notice of the 
    prerevision review and formulation of the communications strategy to 
    those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b).
        (d) Scoping. Upon completion of the prerevision review, the 
    Regional Forester shall initiate the forest plan revision process by 
    publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to revise the 
    forest plan and to prepare the associated draft environmental impact 
    statement. The Regional Forester shall allow 60 calendar days for 
    public comment. The purposes of the Notice of Intent are to notify the 
    public of the forest plan revision process, the anticipated scope of 
    the revision effort, and opportunities for the public to be involved in 
    the revision process, and also to begin the scoping process required by 
    NEPA procedures.
        (1) In addition to the content requirements established by NEPA 
    procedures, the following apply to a Notice of Intent to revise a 
    forest plan:
        (i) The statement of purpose and need for the proposed action 
    identifies specific opportunities to better achieve agency goals, as 
    set forth in law, Executive order, regulation, agency directives, and 
    the RPA Program, through changes in forest plan direction;
        (ii) The proposed action identifies the direction in the current 
    forest plan which will be evaluated for change; and
        (iii) Significant revision issues describe the topics of concern 
    related to changing forest plan direction and are used to help focus 
    revision analysis efforts on those concerns.
        (2) At the time of publication of the Notice of Intent, the Forest 
    Supervisor shall take the following additional actions to notify the 
    public of the revision process:
        (i) Notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the 
    revision effort and opportunities for involvement;
        (ii) Distribute a press release on the revision effort to 
    newspapers of general circulation within or near the Forest;
        (iii) Publicize and conduct activities designed to foster ongoing 
    participation by the public and government representatives in the 
    revision process pursuant to the communications strategy formulated 
    pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
        (3) The Regional Forester shall consider comments received in 
    response to the Notice of Intent and determine if there is a need to 
    adjust the scope of the revision effort.
        (e) Required elements. The forest plan revision process requires 
    the following evaluations or updates:
        (1) A review of the identification of lands suited and not suited 
    for timber production (Sec. 219.13(a));
        (2) An evaluation of roadless areas for wilderness designation; 
    (Sec. 219.14(b));
        (3) In accordance with Sec. 219.14(c), an evaluation of rivers for 
    eligibility as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers; and
        (4) An update of the information in the appendix to the forest plan 
    which displays projected levels of goods and services and management 
    activities for the next decade (Sec. 219.11(d)(1)).
        (f) Draft environmental impact statement. A draft environmental 
    impact statement must accompany a proposed revision of a forest plan.
        (g) Public notice and comment. The Regional Forester shall give the 
    public notice and opportunity to comment as follows:
        (1) The draft environmental impact statement, proposed revised 
    forest plan, and draft monitoring and evaluation strategy must be 
    available for public comment for at least 90 calendar days. Copies will 
    be made available for inspection at convenient locations in the 
    vicinity of the lands covered by the plan, beginning on the date of 
    publication of the notice of availability of the draft environmental 
    impact statement in the Federal Register;
        (2) The Forest Supervisor shall give notice to those on the list 
    described at Sec. 219.3(b) of the opportunity for public review and 
    comment; and
        (3) The Regional Forester shall either hold public meetings or, 
    alternatively, conduct other activities to foster public participation 
    in the review of the draft environmental impact statement, proposed 
    revised forest plan, and draft monitoring and evaluation strategy.
        (h) Final environmental impact statement and revised forest plan. 
    Following public comment, the Regional Forester shall oversee 
    preparation of a final environmental impact statement and revised 
    forest plan. The final environmental impact statement and record of 
    decision documenting the selected alternative and adoption of the 
    revision shall be prepared and made public in accordance with NEPA 
    procedures.
        (i) Approval. In addition to the Federal Register publication of 
    the notice of availability of the final environmental impact statement 
    and record of decision pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.10, legal notice of the 
    adoption of a revised forest plan shall be provided as required by 36 
    CFR 217.5. A revision becomes effective 30 calendar days after the date 
    of the notice published in the Federal Register.
    
    
    Sec. 219.11  Forest plan implementation.
    
        (a) Project consistency. Project decisions must be consistent with 
    the standards in a forest plan. Deviation of a project from compliance 
    with a guideline is not inconsistent with the 
    
    [[Page 18928]]
    forest plan. A determination of consistency of a project with the 
    forest plan must be documented when the project is approved. If a 
    proposed project is not consistent with a standard in the forest plan, 
    the responsible official may, subject to valid existing rights, take 
    only one of the following actions:
        (1) Modify the proposal to make it consistent with the forest plan;
        (2) Reject the proposal; or
        (3) Amend the forest plan to permit the proposal.
        (b) Application of forest plan amendment or revision to existing 
    authorizations or previously approved projects. Permits, contracts, and 
    other instruments issued or approved for the use and occupancy of 
    National Forest System lands must be consistent with the forest plan in 
    effect at the time of their issuance. Subject to valid existing rights, 
    contracts, permits, and other instruments for occupancy and use that 
    are inconsistent with a new forest plan amendment or revision must be 
    revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with the forest 
    plan.
        (c) Implementation during amendment or revision process. An 
    approved forest plan, including all amendments as may be adopted, 
    remains effective until a new amendment or a revision is approved.
        (d) Possible actions during the plan period. (1) At the time of 
    revision, an appendix to the forest plan shall be prepared displaying a 
    prediction of the major goods and services which may be produced during 
    the plan period, as well as a display of the management activities 
    which may occur during the plan period.
        (i) The display should predict a realistic range of goods and 
    services and management activity levels reflecting, to the extent 
    practicable and meaningful, some of the variables which are most likely 
    to affect production or accomplishment of predicted levels.
        (ii) The display may include a prediction of the rate of achieving 
    forest plan objectives reflecting, to the extent practicable and 
    meaningful, some of the variables most likely to affect achievement.
        (iii) Such a display does not limit nor compel any action by the 
    agency and does not constitute forest plan direction.
        (2) At periodic intervals following adoption of a revised forest 
    plan and for such time periods as is determined appropriate, the Forest 
    Supervisor shall make available to the public an updated estimate of 
    major goods and services and management activity levels that may be 
    produced or occur. Development of these estimates does not require NEPA 
    analysis.
    
    
    Sec. 219.12  Monitoring and evaluation.
    
        (a) Monitoring and evaluation strategy. The Forest Supervisor must 
    conduct monitoring and evaluation efforts and, simultaneously with any 
    revision of the forest plan, shall prepare a comprehensive monitoring 
    and evaluation strategy to guide such efforts. This strategy is not 
    forest plan direction, is not included in the forest plan, and does not 
    require NEPA analysis. However, monitoring and evaluation activities 
    are subject to NEPA procedures at the time of implementation.
        (1) The monitoring and evaluation strategy provides instructions 
    for the following:
        (i) Assessing if projects are being implemented in accordance with 
    the decision documents authorizing the projects;
        (ii) Assessing, through the use of measurable indicators, if the 
    activities being implemented are effective in achieving forest plan 
    goals;
        (iii) Conducting appropriate monitoring and evaluation efforts to 
    occur within the plan area to help meet monitoring and evaluation needs 
    at scales larger than the plan area;
        (iv) Validating the assumptions upon which forest plan direction 
    was established and verifying the accuracy of predicted effects;
        (v) Prioritizing monitoring and evaluation efforts by identifying 
    those monitoring and evaluation efforts that are of highest priority to 
    conduct because they assess the effects of those management activities 
    believed to have the greatest potential risk to the environment;
        (vi) Collecting and compiling appropriate information to serve as 
    reference points for future evaluations;
        (vii) Determining if there is new information or a change in 
    conditions which substantially affects the validity of the forest plan 
    including, but not limited to:
        (A) Laws, Executive orders, regulations, RPA Program updates, or 
    agency directives issued subsequent to approval of the forest plan;
        (B) Changes in biological, physical, social, or economic factors 
    influencing the plan area;
        (C) Findings resulting from applicable scientific research or 
    experience;
        (D) Findings resulting from ecosystem analysis;
        (viii) Storing and disseminating information of use in the program 
    development and budget formulation process, such as updated information 
    on resource capabilities, project opportunities, activity costs, or 
    economic trends;
        (ix) Tracking the goods and services produced and management 
    activities accomplished;
        (x) Involving the public in monitoring and evaluation by 
    identifying opportunities for the public to participate, when 
    appropriate, in monitoring and evaluation efforts;
        (xi) Identifying problems, and opportunities to resolve those 
    problems, for use in determining whether there is a need to amend or 
    revise the forest plan.
        (2) The monitoring and evaluation strategy document should describe 
    procedures and identify planned intervals for implementing and 
    reporting monitoring and evaluation efforts. Because the type and 
    intensity of monitoring and evaluation efforts can vary depending on 
    the availability of funds, the monitoring and evaluation strategy 
    should be realistic and practicable. Monitoring and evaluation efforts 
    should be designed at the appropriate spatial scale and for appropriate 
    timeframes.
        (3) The Forest Supervisor shall give priority to implementing those 
    monitoring and evaluation efforts that assess the effects of management 
    activities having the greatest potential risk to the environment.
        (b) Notice and approval of monitoring and evaluation strategies. 
    (1) A monitoring and evaluation strategy must be made available for 
    public review and comment at the same time as a proposed revised forest 
    plan and in accordance with Sec. 219.10(g).
        (2) The Regional Forester is responsible for approving the 
    monitoring and evaluation strategy in conjunction with approving the 
    revised forest plan. The Regional Forester shall obtain concurrence of 
    the applicable Station Director before approving a monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy. A final revised forest plan cannot be approved 
    before the associated monitoring and evaluation strategy is approved.
        (c) Updating monitoring and evaluation strategies. (1) Updates may 
    occur whenever deemed necessary. Circumstances which might trigger an 
    update to the strategy include, but are not limited to, amendment of 
    the forest plan; consideration of comment from the public or government 
    entities in response to the annual monitoring and evaluation report; 
    availability of new information; emergence of new opportunities to 
    coordinate monitoring and evaluation with others; or 
    
    [[Page 18929]]
    interdisciplinary team recommendations.
        (2) The Forest Supervisor is responsible for updating the 
    monitoring and evaluation strategy as needed. The Forest Supervisor 
    shall obtain concurrences of the applicable Station Director before 
    approving an update to a monitoring and evaluation strategy. Updating 
    the monitoring and evaluation strategy does not trigger a forest plan 
    amendment or NEPA analysis. A proposed update to a monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy must be made available for public review and 
    comment for 30 calendar days. Those on the list described at 
    Sec. 219.3(b) shall be notified of the opportunity for public review 
    and comment.
        (d) Coordination of monitoring and evaluation efforts. (1) 
    Monitoring and evaluation efforts should be coordinated, to the extent 
    feasible, with other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal 
    governments, interested private landowners, the scientific community, 
    and other interested parties. The monitoring and evaluation strategy 
    should include identification of information to be gathered by other 
    entities.
        (2) Monitoring and evaluation efforts should be coordinated across 
    Forest Service administrative boundaries. The Regional Forester shall 
    assure that monitoring and evaluation needs which extend beyond a plan 
    area are addressed and coordinated.
        (3) To the extent practicable, the applicable Station Director 
    should provide for the involvement of Forest Service research personnel 
    in the development and updating of monitoring and evaluation 
    strategies, the implementation and evaluation of monitoring and 
    evaluation tasks, and preparation of the annual monitoring and 
    evaluation report.
        (e) Monitoring and evaluation report. The Forest Supervisor shall 
    prepare a concise monitoring and evaluation report annually. This 
    report shall be transmitted to the Regional Forester and Station 
    Director and be made available to interested individuals, 
    organizations, government agencies, and public officials. The report 
    should include, but is not limited to, the following:
        (1) A summary of the results of monitoring and evaluation efforts;
        (2) Identification of any changes needed in how the forest plan is 
    being implemented;
        (3) Identification of whether amendment or revision of the forest 
    plan is needed;
        (4) A brief description of any amendments which have been initiated 
    or become effective since the previous report;
        (5) A brief description of any updates made to the monitoring and 
    evaluation strategy;
        (6) A brief description of any nondiscretionary changes made to the 
    forest plan pursuant to Sec. 219.9(e);
        (7) A brief description of changes made to information in the 
    forest plan that does not constitute direction, such as changes to 
    appendices (Sec. 219.9(f)).
        (f) Project implementation. When monitoring and evaluation 
    activities are essential to ensuring mitigation of possible 
    environmental effects of a project, such activities must be identified 
    in the project decision document. Moreover, in such case, that project 
    may not be initiated unless there is a reasonable expectation that 
    adequate funding will be available to conduct the monitoring and 
    evaluation activities.
        (g) Initiating amendment or revision. Nothing in this section shall 
    be construed to preclude initiating a forest plan amendment or revision 
    at any time the Forest Supervisor or Regional Forester deems necessary.
    
    
    Sec. 219.13  Statutory timber management requirements.
    
        (a) Review of suitability determination. (1) Lands identified as 
    not suited for timber production must be reviewed at least every 10 
    years. Normally, this should occur as part of forest plan revision; 
    however, if a 10-year period elapses prior to forest plan revision, 
    then the review of unsuitable lands shall occur at the 10-year interval 
    as well as later during forest plan revision. The time period for the 
    10-year review begins upon the effective date of the original forest 
    plan, the effective date of any forest plan revision, or the effective 
    date of any amendment which included a review of all unsuitable lands.
        (2) Notwithstanding the 10-year review, all lands must be reviewed 
    for their suitability for timber production at the time of forest plan 
    revision.
        (3) The identification of lands as suited or not suited for timber 
    production may be changed at any time for forest plan amendment.
        (b) Lands not suited for timber production. (1) Lands not suited 
    for timber production must have a fixed location and should be 
    identified on maps, either in the forest plan or the planning records, 
    or otherwise described in a manner in which they can be readily 
    recognized.
        (2) Forest plan management prescriptions must be established to 
    ensure the management of unsuited lands is consistent with the 
    provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(v)(B) and (b)(4) and (5) of this 
    section.
        (3) Lands are identified as not suited for timber production if any 
    of the following conditions apply:
        (i) The land has been withdrawn from timber harvest by an Act of 
    Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest 
    Service;
        (ii) Timber harvest on these lands would violate statute, Executive 
    order, or regulation;
        (iii) The land does not meet the definition of forested land as set 
    forth in Sec. 219.2 of this subpart;
        (iv) Technology is not available for conducting timber harvesting 
    without irreversible damage to soil productivity or watershed 
    conditions;
        (v) There is no reasonable assurance that such lands can be 
    adequately reforested within five years of final timber harvest. 
    Adequate reforestation means that the cut area contains the minimum 
    number, size, distribution, and species composition of regeneration as 
    identified in the forest plan. Five years after final harvest means 
    five years after clearcutting, after last overstory removal entry in 
    shelterwood or seed tree cutting, or after selection cutting.
        (A) Research and experience are the basis for determining whether 
    the harvest and regeneration practices planned can be expected to 
    result in adequate reforestation.
        (B) The reforestation requirement of paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this 
    section does not prohibit the harvesting of timber when openings are 
    created for wildlife habitat improvement, vistas, recreation uses, or 
    similar long-term purposes.
        (4) Timber harvesting may occur on unsuitable lands only for 
    salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other multiple-use 
    values.
        (5) Lands not suited for timber production are to continue to be 
    treated for reforestation purposes, particularly with regard to the 
    protection of other multiple-use values.
        (6) Identification of unsuitable lands should not vary among 
    alternatives at the time of forest plan revision.
        (c) Lands suited for timber production. Lands that are not 
    identified as unsuitable for timber production shall be considered 
    suited for timber production. However, forest plan standards may be 
    established which prohibit or limit timber harvesting on suited lands. 
    For example, such standards could be imposed on lands otherwise suited 
    for timber production due to economic considerations or due to 
    allocation of the land to uses not compatible with timber harvesting. 
    Each forest plan must 
    
    [[Page 18930]]
    include in the appendix a tabular summary displaying a listing of the 
    number of acres of suitable lands where standards have been imposed 
    which prohibit or limit timber harvesting and the number of acres where 
    such prohibitions or limitations do not apply. This summary is provided 
    as a convenient reference only and is not part of the suitability 
    determination.
        (d) Allowable sale quantity. The amount of chargeable timber volume 
    which can be sold from a plan area for a decade cannot exceed the 
    allowable sale quantity standard established for the plan area. Each 
    forest plan which provides for a timber sale program must establish a 
    standard setting the allowable sale quantity. The allowable sale 
    quantity is a ceiling; it is not a future sale level projection or 
    target and does not reflect all of the factors that may influence 
    future sale levels.
        (1) Calculation procedures. The allowable sale quantity is 
    calculated as follows:
        (i) Land base. The only lands on which the allowable sale quantity 
    is based are those lands in the plan area suited for timber production 
    and on which planned periodic entries for timber harvest are allowed 
    over time. Only one allowable sale quantity can be established per plan 
    area.
        (ii) Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity. The amount of 
    chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from any 
    proclaimed National Forest within the plan area may not exceed the 
    long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of that proclaimed National 
    Forest except as provided by paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or 
    as necessary to meet overall multiple-use goals as established in the 
    forest plan. Any change to the forest plan to permit a departure to 
    meet overall multiple-use goals must be made by a major amendment or 
    revision.
        (A) The long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of a proclaimed 
    National Forest is calculated using the same suited land base and 
    forest plan standards as used for calculating the allowable sale 
    quantity.
        (B) In those cases where a proclaimed National Forest has less than 
    two hundred thousand acres of lands suited for timber production, two 
    or more proclaimed National Forests may be used for purposes of 
    determining the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity.
        (iii) Non-declining flow. When calculating a new allowable sale 
    quantity, the new allowable sale quantity may either decline, remain 
    constant, or increase relative to the current allowable sale quantity. 
    The new allowable sale quantity must be established at a level that is 
    predicted to be sustainable or capable of increasing during subsequent 
    decades, with exceptions permitted only to meet overall multiple-use 
    goals.
        (iv) Intensified management practices. Whenever the allowable sale 
    quantity is changed through amendment or revision, predicted yields 
    that were dependent on implementation of intensified management 
    practices must be decreased if such intensified practices have not been 
    successfully implemented or funds have not been received to permit such 
    practices to continue substantially as previously planned.
        (2) Chargeable timber volume. Only the timber volume that has been 
    included in the growth and yield projections used for the calculation 
    of the allowable sale quantity is attributable to the allowable sale 
    quantity when sold.
        (3) Noninterchangeable components. The allowable sale quantity may 
    be divided into noninterchangeable components. Limits on the sale of 
    chargeable timber volume associated with each noninterchangeable 
    component cannot be exceeded, and chargeable timber volume from one 
    noninterchangeable component cannot be attributed to the volume limit 
    associated with another noninterchangeable component. Where management 
    prescriptions allow planned periodic entries for timber harvest over 
    time into roadless areas, the portion of the allowable sale quantity 
    derived from those roadless areas must be identified as a 
    noninterchangeable component.
        (4) Exception to harvest limit. Nothing in this section prohibits 
    the salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are 
    substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or 
    which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. If the 
    volume from such harvests was included in the calculation of the 
    allowable sale quantity, it may either be substituted for timber that 
    would otherwise be sold under the plan or, if not feasible, sold over 
    and above the allowable sale quantity.
        (e) Culmination of mean annual increment. All even-aged stands 
    scheduled to be harvested during the plan period must generally have 
    reached culmination of mean annual increment of growth. This 
    requirement does not apply to silvicultural practices such as thinning 
    or other stand improvement measures; to salvage or sanitation 
    harvesting of stands which are substantially damaged by fire, 
    windthrow, or other catastrophes, or which are in imminent danger from 
    insect or disease attacks; when uneven-aged methods are used; or to 
    cutting for experimental and research purposes. In addition, exceptions 
    to this requirement are permitted in the forest plan for the harvest of 
    particular species of trees if overall multiple-use goals would be 
    better attained. Any change to a forest plan to permit such exceptions 
    must be made through a major amendment or at the time of revision. 
    Cubic foot measure is used as the basis for calculating culmination of 
    mean annual increment of growth unless the Chief directs otherwise.
        (f) Selection of cutting methods. The determination of the 
    appropriate cutting method is made at the project level. Clearcutting 
    may be permitted only when it is determined to be the optimum method of 
    timber cutting and the only practical method to accomplish one or more 
    of the following purposes:
        (1) Establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of habitat for 
    threatened or endangered species;
        (2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat or water yield values or to 
    provide for recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines, road corridors, 
    facility sites, reservoirs, fuel breaks, or similar developments;
        (3) Rehabilitation of lands adversely impacted by events such as 
    fires, windstorms, or insect or disease infestations;
        (4) Preclusion or minimization of the occurrence of potentially 
    adverse impacts of insect or disease infestations, windthrow, logging 
    damage, or other factors affecting forest health;
        (5) Establishment and growth of desired tree or other vegetative 
    species that are shade intolerant;
        (6) Rehabilitation of poorly stocked stands due to past management 
    practices or natural events; and
        (7) Research needs.
        (g) Maximum size of clearcuts. To provide for those cases where 
    clearcutting may be approved for a specific project, the forest plan 
    must establish the maximum size of areas that could be clearcut in one 
    harvest operation. These sizes do not apply to areas harvested by 
    clearcutting as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as 
    fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm. Exceptions to the 
    established limits also may be exceeded on a project basis after public 
    notice and approval by the Regional Forester.
        (h) Blending of even-aged stands. Blocks, patches, or strips for 
    clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, seed tree cutting, and other methods 
    designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber shall be shaped and 
    
    
    [[Page 18931]]
    blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain.
        (i) Protection of soil and water. Forest plans must not permit 
    timber harvesting where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely 
    affect water conditions or fish habitat unless protection is provided 
    from detrimental changes in water temperature, blockages of water 
    courses, and deposits of sediment.
        (j) Displays of Timber Information. The following information shall 
    be displayed in one or more appendices to the forest plan:
        (1) Acreage designated as lands unsuitable and suitable for timber 
    production.
        (2) Acreage of suitable lands subject to standards which prohibit 
    or limit timber harvesting and the acreage where such prohibitions or 
    limitations do not apply.
        (3) the long-term sustained-yield timber capacity of each 
    proclaimed National Forest either fully or partially within the plan 
    area.
        (4) The proportion of possible timber harvest methods forest-wide.
    
    
    Sec. 219.14  Special designations.
    
        (a) Special designations. Forest plan amendment or revision is the 
    mechanism for the agency to allocate specific areas to prescriptions 
    for special designations, or to recommend special designation by higher 
    authorities. Special designations may include, but are not limited to, 
    wilderness, research natural areas, geological areas, botanical areas, 
    scenic by-ways, national scenic areas, national recreation areas, 
    national natural landmarks, and wild, scenic, and recreation rivers.
        (b) Wilderness areas. Unless Federal statute directs otherwise, all 
    roadless, undeveloped areas shall be evaluated for wilderness 
    designation during forest plan revision subject to the following 
    limitations:
        (1) West of the 100th meridian, areas must be at least 5,000 acres 
    in size unless contiguous to existing units of the National Wilderness 
    Preservation System or contiguous to areas endorsed by the 
    Administration for wilderness designation.
        (2) East of the 100th meridian, areas must be of sufficient size as 
    to make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired 
    condition.
        (c) Wild, scenic, and recreation rivers. The eligibility of rivers 
    for designation as wild, scenic, and recreation rivers shall be 
    evaluated during forest plan revision if any of the following apply:
        (1) Federal legislation requires evaluation; or
        (2) A river eligibility evaluation has not been conducted using the 
    criteria published in FSH 1909.12 in July, 1987.
        (d) Role of forest plans. Where Acts designating special areas 
    within the National Forest System require planning beyond that required 
    for forest plans, the goals, objectives, standards, or guidelines in 
    special area plans shall be incorporated into the forest plan as forest 
    plan direction.
    Sec. 219.15  Applicability and transition.
    
        (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all units of 
    the National Forest System as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609 including, but 
    not limited to, the National Grasslands.
        (b) In those circumstances where a forest plan has not been 
    approved as of [effective date of the final rule], development and 
    approval of the forest plan continue to be subject to the previous 
    planning rule. After plan approval, the rules of this subpart apply.
        (c) Forest plans adopted prior to [effective date of the final 
    rule] remain in effect until amended or revised pursuant to this 
    subpart.
        (d) Prior to adoption of a revised forest plan prepared in 
    accordance with the rules of this subpart, forest plans need not be 
    amended in order to comply with the rules of this subpart.
        (e) The displays required by Sec. 219.11(d)(1) and (2) and 
    Sec. 219.13(j) need not be prepared prior to development of a revised 
    forest plan prepared in accordance with the rules of this subpart.
        (f) The requirement of Sec. 219.12(e) applies starting the first 
    full fiscal year after [effective date of the final rule].
        (g) Until such time as forest plans are amended or revised to fully 
    conform to the definitions and usage of ``standards'' and 
    ``guidelines'' as described at Sec. 219.6(e) and (f), the following 
    apply:
        (l) Consistency determinations (Sec. 219.11) shall be based on 
    whether project decisions adhere to mandatory standards or guidelines 
    in current plans; and
        (2) An amendment shall be considered major when one of the 
    following circumstances exist:
        (i) One or more mandatory standards or guidelines in the current 
    forest plan would be amended in such a manner that the amendment would 
    result in significant change to the forest plan and that change is 
    predicted to affect resources over a large portion of the plan area 
    during the remainder of the plan period;
        (ii) The forest plan would be amended in such a manner that the 
    amount of chargeable timber volume which can be sold for a decade from 
    a proclaimed National Forest in the plan area exceeds the long-term 
    sustained-yield timber capacity of that proclaimed National Forest, 
    except as provided at (Sec. 219.13(d)(1)(ii)(B)); or
        (iii) Forest plan direction would be changed to permit harvest of 
    even-aged stands that have not reached culmination of mean annual 
    increment of growth (Sec. 219.13(e)), including when such a change is 
    made to accommodate a project.
        (h) If a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact 
    statement has been published for a significant amendment or revision of 
    a forest plan prior to [effective date of the final rule], the 
    following apply:
        (1) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying a 
    proposed significant amendment has not been issued, the Regional 
    Forester shall implement the rules of this subpart. In such case, a new 
    Notice of Intent need not be issued; rather, the Regional Forester 
    shall notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of any 
    changes in the amendment process resulting from compliance with the 
    rules of this subpart.
        (2) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying the 
    proposed significant amendment has been issued, the Regional Forester 
    may continue under the previous planning rule.
        (3) If a draft environmental impact statement accompanying a 
    proposed revision has not been issued, the Regional Forester shall 
    implement the rules of this subpart. If a draft environmental impact 
    statement accompanying the proposed revision has been issued, the 
    Regional Forester may continue under the previous planning rule. If the 
    Regional Forester continues under the rules of this subpart, a new 
    Notice of Intent need not be issued, the scoping process need not be 
    repeated, and the prerevision actions required at Sec. 219.10(c) need 
    not specifically occur. However, the Regional Forester must document 
    other analyses or evaluations conducted as part of the revision process 
    which served to review the entire forest plan and to determine that 
    need to change forest plan direction. The Regional Forester shall 
    notify those on the list described at Sec. 219.3(b) of any changes in 
    the process for revision resulting from compliance with the rules of 
    this subpart.
        (i) Except for the Pacific Southwest Region (36 CFR 200.2), 
    regional guides prepared in accordance with the previous planning rule 
    shall be withdrawn no later than three years from [effective date of 
    the final rule], unless the Chief of the Forest Service determines that 
    delay is warranted. The Regional Guide for the Pacific Southwest Region 
    shall be maintained 
    
    [[Page 18932]]
    until such time as all forest plans in the Region are approved. It 
    shall then be withdrawn no later than three years from the date of 
    approval of the last forest plan, unless the Chief of the Forest 
    Service determines that delay is warranted.
        (j) A forest plan must meet the requirement of Sec. 219.13(g) prior 
    to withdrawal of the regional guide for that plan area.
    
    Subpart B--[Reserved]
    
        Dated: April 4, 1995.
    Jack Ward Thomas,
    Chief.
    [FR Doc. 95-8594 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/13/1995
Department:
Forest Service
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
95-8594
Dates:
Comments must be submitted in writing and received by July 12, 1995.
Pages:
18886-18932 (47 pages)
RINs:
0596-AB20: National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/0596-AB20/national-forest-system-land-and-resource-management-planning
PDF File:
95-8594.pdf
CFR: (28)
36 CFR 1508.9)
36 CFR 219.3(b)
36 CFR 219.13(j)
36 CFR 219.10
36 CFR 219.11
More ...