National Forest System Land Management Planning

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Energy Effects
This final rule has been analyzed
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. It has been
determined that this rule does not
constitute a significant energy action as
defined in the Executive order.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. The Department has not
identified any State or local laws or
regulations that are in conflict with or
that would impede full implementation
of this rule.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531–1538), which the President signed
into law on March 22, 1995, the
Department has assessed the effects of
this final rule on State, local, and Tribal
governments and on the private sector.
This rule does not compel the
expenditure of $100 million or more by
any State, local, or Tribal government,
or anyone in the private sector.
Therefore, a statement under section
202 of the act is not required.
Federalism
The Department has considered this
final rule under the requirements of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
Department has made an assessment
that this rule conforms with the
federalism principles set out in this
Executive order; would not impose any
significant compliance costs on the
States; and would not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, the
Department concludes that this rule
does not have federalism implications.
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
This final rule does not have Tribal
implications as defined by Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, and, therefore, advance
consultation with Tribes is not required.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public
This final rule does not contain any
record keeping or reporting
requirements or other information
collection requirements as defined in 5
CFR part 1320 and, therefore, imposes

VerDate jul<14>2003

20:13 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

1023

no paperwork burden on the public.
Accordingly, the review provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part
1320 do not apply.

and are one stage in an adaptive cycle
of planning for management of National
Forest System lands. The intended
effects of the final rule are to streamline
and improve the planning process by
making plans more adaptable to changes
in social, economic, and environmental
Government Paperwork Elimination Act
conditions; to strengthen the role of
Compliance
science in planning; to strengthen
The Department is committed to
collaborative relationships with the
compliance with the Government
public and other governmental entities;
Paperwork Elimination Act (44 U.S.C.
and to reaffirm the principle of
3504), which requires Government
sustainable management consistent with
agencies to provide the public the
the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act
option of submitting information or
and other authorities.
transacting business electronically to
Elsewhere in this part of today’s
the maximum extent possible.
Federal Register, the Department of
Agriculture is simultaneously
List of Subjects in 36 CFR 219
publishing another final rule to remove
Administrative practice and
the planning regulations adopted on
procedure, Environmental impact
November 9, 2000.
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
relations, Forest and forest products,
effective January 5, 2005.
National forests, Natural resources,
ADDRESSES: The following information
Reporting and recordkeeping
is posted on the World Wide Web/
requirements, Science and technology.
Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/
■ Therefore, for the reasons set forth in
nfma/: (1) This final rule; (2)
the preamble, amend chapter II of title 36 supplemental responses to substantive
of the Code of Federal Regulations as
public comments and a description of
follows:
the changes, if any, made in response to
those comments and the reasons for
PART 219—PLANNING
those changes to the 2002 proposed
rule; (3) the Civil Rights Impact
Subpart A—[Removed and Reserved]
Analysis for this final rule; (4) the costbenefit analysis for this final rule; (5)
■ 1. In part 219, remove and reserve
the business model cost study done to
subpart A.
estimate predicted costs to implement
Dated: December 22, 2004.
the 2000 planning rule and the 2002
Mark Rey,
proposed rule, and (6) the notice of
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
proposed National Environmental
Environment.
Policy Act implementing procedures;
[FR Doc. 05–20 Filed 1–4–05; 8:45 am]
request for comment. This information
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
may also be obtained upon written
request from the Director, Ecosystem
Management Coordination Staff, Forest
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Forest Service
Washington, DC 20250–1104.
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
36 CFR Part 219
Dave Barone, Acting Assistant Director
RIN 0596–AB86
for Planning; Ecosystem Management
Coordination Staff (202) 205–1019, or
National Forest System Land
Regis Terney, Planning Specialist,
Management Planning
Ecosystem Management Coordination
Staff (202) 205–1552.
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ACTION: Final rule.
This final rule describes the
National Forest System land
management planning framework;
establishes requirements for
sustainability of social, economic, and
ecological systems and developing,
amending, revising, and monitoring
land management plans; and clarifies
that land management plans under this
final rule, absent extraordinary
circumstances, are strategic in nature
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Table of Contents
1. Forest Service Directives
2. Events Since Publication of the 2002
Proposed Rule
3. Overview of the Final 2004 Rule
• Major themes and areas of public
comment in the final rule.
• The strategic nature of land management
plans.
• Role of science in planning.
• Public involvement.
• Sustainability.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1024

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

• Environmental management systems and
adaptive management.
• National Environmental Policy Act and
National Forest Management Act
planning.
• Summary.
4. Department Response to Comments on the
2002 Proposed Rule
• General Issues.
• Issues in Response to a Specific Section.
Section 219.1—Purpose and applicability
Section 219.2—Levels of planning and
planning authority
Section 219.3—Nature of land management
planning
Section 219.4—National Environmental
Policy Act compliance
Section 219.5—Environmental management
systems
Section 219.6—Evaluations and monitoring
Section 219.7—Developing, amending, or
revising a plan
Section 219.8—Application of a new plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision
Section 219.9—Public participation,
collaboration, and notification
Section 219.10—Sustainability
Section 219.11—Role of science in planning
Section 219.12—Suitable uses and provisions
required by NFMA
Section 219.13—Objections to plans, plan
amendments, or plan revisions
Section 219.14—Effective dates and
transition
Section 219.15—Severability
Section 219.16—Definitions
5. Regulatory Certifications
• Regulatory Impact.
• Environmental Impacts.
• Energy Effects.
• Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public.
• Federalism.
• Civil Rights Impact Analysis.
• Consultation with Indian Tribal
Governments.
• No Takings Implications.
• Civil Justice Reform.-1
• Unfunded Mandates.

1. Forest Service Directives
The Forest Service is developing
planning directives to set forth the legal
authorities, objectives, policy,
responsibilities, direction, and overall
guidance needed by Forest Service line
officers, agency employees, and others
to use this planning rule. A request for
public comment on the Forest Service
directives will be published in the
Federal Register as soon as possible
after adoption of this final rule.
2. Events Since Publication of the 2002
Proposed Rule
The 2002 proposed rule was released
for public review and comment in
Volume 67 of the Federal Register, page
72770, December 6, 2002. Between
February 18–20, 2003, during the
comment period, scientists, experts in
public land management issues,
resource professionals, Tribal officials,

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

State officials, local government
officials, and the public participated in
a diversity options workshop. In
addition, the public comment period on
the 2002 proposed rule was extended
from March 6, 2003 to April 7, 2003 (68
FR 10420, Mar. 5, 2003). The agency
received about 195,000 comments, of
which approximately 7,000 were
original letters. All of the substantive
comments on the 2002 proposed rule
were carefully considered and led to a
number of changes in this final rule.
Also, interim final rules extending the
transition from the 1982 planning rule
to the 2000 planning rule were
published in 2001 (66 FR 27552, May
17, 2001) and 2002 (67 FR 35431, May
20, 2002), the latter rule allowing Forest
Service managers to elect to continue
preparing plan amendments and
revisions under the 1982 planning rule
until a new final rule is adopted.
Finally, an interim rule was published
in 2003 (68 FR 53294, Sept. 10, 2003)
extending the date by which sitespecific project decisions must conform
with provisions of the 2000 planning
rule until replaced with a new rule. To
date, Forest Service officials have
elected to use the 1982 planning rule for
all plan development, amendments, and
revisions.
3. Overview of the Final 2004 Rule
This final rule embodies a paradigm
shift in land management planning
based, in part, on the Forest Service’s 25
years of experience developing plans
under the 1982 planning rule. Having
assessed the current system’s flaws and
benefits during this extended period,
the Forest Service believes it is time to
think differently about National Forest
System (NFS) planning and
management. Thus, based on the
agency’s expertise and experience, the
Forest Service created this final rule to
enable a better way to protect the
environment and to facilitate working
with the public. The final rule
prioritizes agency resources to
monitoring and, when necessary,
provides a process to change plans to
ensure that clean air, clean water, and
abundant wildlife are available for
future generations. This final rule
allows the Forest Service to rapidly
respond to changing conditions like
hazardous fuels, new science, and many
other dynamics that affect NFS
management. Protection and
management of the NFS should be based
on sound science, which is fundamental
to this final rule.
This final rule assures the public an
effective voice in the entire planning
process from beginning to end. Finally,
because this final rule provides for more

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

efficient planning, more resources will
be shifted to the public’s expressed
priorities, that is, improved
conservation of the forests and
grasslands and better responses to the
real threats the forests and grasslands
face, such as critical wildfire danger and
invasive species which degrade
ecological systems.
To achieve these important goals,
plans under this final rule will be more
strategic and less prescriptive in nature
than under the 1982 planning rule.
Emphasizing the strategic nature of
plans under this rule is the most
effective means of guiding NFS
management in light of changing
conditions, science and technology.
Specifically, plans under this final rule
will not contain final decisions that
approve projects or activities except
under extraordinary circumstances.
Rather, as described further below,
plans under this final rule will contain
five components, which set forth broad
policies to help guide future decisions
on the ground: The plan components are
desired conditions, objectives,
guidelines, suitability of areas, and
special areas.
Major Themes and Areas of Public
Comment in the Final Rule
The major themes of the final rule
discussed in this preamble reflect the
public comments received on the 2002
proposed rule. This final rule sets forth
the process for NFS land management
planning, including the requirements
for complying with the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) during
development, amendment, and revision
of land management plans (plans) for
NFS units, including the national
forests, grasslands, prairie, or other
comparable administrative units. The
Forest Service has prepared and revised
plans more than 150 times since
enactment of NFMA and expects to
complete more than 100 additional
plans and revisions during the next
decade. The Forest Service has also
been amending plans during the last 25
years. Based on the experience gained
and public comments on the 2002
proposed rule, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Department) has concluded
that this final rule should be based on
the following principles and practical
considerations:
• Plans should be strategic in nature.
The purpose of plans should be to
establish goals for forests, grasslands,
and prairies and set forth the guidance
to follow in pursuit of those goals. Such
goals can be expressed by describing:
desired conditions, objectives,
guidelines, suitability or areas, and

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
special areas. Typically, a plan does not
include final decisions approving
projects or activities.
• Plans must be adaptive and based
on current information and science.
During the 15-year life expectancy of
a plan, information, science, and
unforeseen circumstances evolve. It
must be possible to adjust plans and the
plan-monitoring program and to react to
new information and science swiftly
and efficiently. An environmental
management system (EMS) approach
will enhance adaptive planning and
should be part of the land management
framework.
• Land management planning must
involve the public.
Plans are prepared for public lands.
Public participation and collaboration
needs to be welcomed and encouraged
as a part of planning. To the extent
possible, Responsible Officials need to
work collaboratively with the public to
help balance conflicting needs, to
evaluate management under the plans,
and to consider the need to adjust plans.
• Plans must guide sustainable
management of NFS lands.
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act
(MUSYA) of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531)
requires that NFS lands be managed to
provide a continuous flow of goods and
services to the nation. To meet this
requirement, plans must focus on
providing a sustainable framework—
based on social, economic, and
ecological systems—that guides on-theground management of projects and
activities, which provide these goods
and services.
• Planning must comply with all
applicable laws, regulations, and
policies.
Planning must comply with all
applicable laws, regulations, and
policies, although all these requirements
do not need to be restated in a plan. For
example, the Clean Water Act includes
requirements for nonpoint source
management programs, to be
administered by the States. The States
or the Forest Service then develops Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for use in
design of projects or activities on NFS
lands. BMPs are designed to meet State
water quality standards and are
intended to result in prevention of
adverse consequences. Specific BMPs
do not have to be repeated in the plan
to be in effect and applicable to National
Forest System projects and activities.
The Strategic Nature of Land
Management Plans
Land management plans are strategic
in nature. A plan establishes a long-term
management framework for NFS units.
Within that framework, specific projects

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

and activities will be proposed,
approved, and implemented depending
on specific conditions and
circumstances at the time of
implementation. The U.S. Supreme
Court described the nature of NFS plans
in Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club,
(523 U.S. 726, 737 (1998)) explaining
that plans are ‘‘tools for agency planning
and management.’’ The Court
recognized that the provisions of such
plans ‘‘do not command anyone to do
anything or to refrain from doing
anything; they do not grant, withhold,
or modify any formal legal license,
power, or authority; they do not subject
anyone to any civil or criminal liability;
they create no legal rights or
obligations’’ (523 U.S. 733 (1998)).
The Supreme Court also recently
recognized the similar nature of land
management plans for public lands
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) in Norton v.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 124
S.Ct. 2373 (2004). The Supreme Court
again observed that ‘‘land use plans are
a preliminary step in the overall process
of managing public lands—‘designed to
guide and control future management
actions and the development of
subsequent, more detailed and limited
scope plans for resources and uses.’ ’’ In
addition, ‘‘a land use plan is not
ordinarily the medium for affirmative
decisions that implement the agency’s
‘project[ion]s.’ ’’ Like a NFS land
management plan, a BLM plan
typically‘‘ ‘is not a final implementation
decision on actions which require
further specific plans, process steps, or
decisions under specific provisions of
law and regulations.’ ’’ ‘‘The BLM’s
* * * land use plans are normally not
used to make site-specific
implementation decisions.’’ The
Supreme Court acknowledged that plans
are ‘‘tools by which ‘present and future
use is projected’ [and] * * * generally
a statement of priorities,’’ 124 S.Ct. 2373
(2004).
Under the Final Rule, plans will
continue to be strategic in nature, as
described by the Supreme Court in Ohio
Forestry and SUWA. As described
below, the five components of a plan
under the Final Rule do not authorize
project and activity decisions, but rather
characterize general future conditions
and guidance for such decisions. Only
in extraordinary circumstances will
project and activity decisions be
implemented at the time of a plan
development, revision, or amendment.
• Planning documentation.
The final rule requires a Plan
Document or Set of Documents to
contain all information relevant to the
planning and EMS processes. A Plan

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1025

Document or Set of Documents
includes: (1) Evaluation reports that,
among other things, document the
public involvement process in planning;
(2) the plan, including applicable maps;
(3) the plan approval document; (4)
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) documents; (5) the
monitoring program for the plan area;
(6) documents relating to the
environmental management system
(EMS) established for the unit; and (7)
documentation of how science was
taken into account in the planning
process.
• Plan components.
The 2002 proposed rule used the term
‘‘management direction’’ to describe the
parts of a plan. This final rule uses the
term ‘‘plan components’’ to describe the
elements of the plan pursuant to the
final rule. How plans are characterized
and plan components operate has
evolved over the years. This evolution
has occurred through an ongoing
evaluation of the role plans play, how
plans guide projects, how plans by
themselves do or do not have impacts
on the ground, how current plans enable
or restrict decisions to respond to
changing circumstances and science,
and how more active and structured
monitoring provides better information
to amend or revise plans as needed.
Proposals for action to accomplish plan
goals and desired conditions, with
effects that can be meaningfully
evaluated and which may be significant,
generally are made at the project and
activity stage.
Through this evaluation, the agency
has concluded that plans are more
effective if they include more detailed
descriptions of desired conditions,
rather than long lists of prohibitive
standards or guidelines or absolute
suitability determinations developed in
an attempt to anticipate and address
every possible future project or activity
and the potential effects they could
cause. Under this final rule, plans have
five principal components
(§ 219.7(a)(2)): desired conditions,
objectives, guidelines, suitability of
areas, and special areas.
• Desired Conditions.
Desired conditions are the social,
economic, and ecological attributes
toward which management of the land
and resources of the plan area is to be
directed. Desired conditions are longterm in nature and aspirational, but are
neither commitments nor final decisions
approving projects and activities.
Desired conditions may be achievable
only over a period longer than the 15
years covered by the plan.
The increased attention to fire regimes
provides an example of the role of

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1026

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘desired conditions.’’ The Forest
Service is challenged with unnatural
fuel levels throughout the NFS. Much of
the western United States is currently in
a severe drought cycle, and fuel
reduction is needed. To facilitate
moving toward a healthier and more
natural condition on the land, a plan
could contain, for example, desired
conditions that include a description of
desired fuel loading, along with a
description of desired tree species,
structure, distribution, and density
closer to what would have occurred
under natural fire regimes.
The agency, working with the public,
also may seek to achieve or maintain
desired conditions for attributes, such as
quietness, or a sense of remoteness, or
attributes of our cultural heritage.
Desired conditions also have a key role
to play for wildlife habitat management.
During plan development, it is difficult
to envision all the site-specific factors
that can influence wildlife. For
example, in the past plans might have
included standards precluding
vegetation treatment during certain
months or for a buffer for activities near
the nest sites of birds sensitive to
disturbance during nesting. However,
topography, vegetation density, or other
factors may render such prohibitions
inadequate or unduly restrictive in
specific situations. A thorough desired
condition description of what a species
needs is often more useful than a long
list of prohibitions. Thorough desired
condition descriptions are more useful
because they provide a better starting
point for project or activity design,
when the site-specific conditions are
better understood and when species
conservation measures can be most
meaningfully evaluated and effectively
applied. Again, a description of what
the agency, working with the public,
wants to achieve is key.
• Objectives.
Objectives are concise projections of
intended outcomes of projects and
activities to contribute to maintenance
or achievement of desired conditions.
Objectives are measurable and timespecific and, like desired conditions, are
aspirational, but are neither
commitments nor final decisions
approving projects and activities.
Application of objectives is the same as
applied under the 1982 planning rule.
• Guidelines.
Guidelines provide information and
guidance for the design of projects and
activities to help achieve objectives and
desired conditions. Guidelines are not
commitments or final decisions
approving projects and activities.
Guidelines should provide the
recommended technical and scientific

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

specifications to be used in the design
of projects and activities to contribute to
the achievement of desired conditions
and objectives. They are the guidance
that a project or activity would normally
apply unless there is a reason for
deviation. If deviation from plan
guidelines is appropriate in specific
circumstances, the rationale for
deviation should be based on project or
activity analysis and explained fully in
the project decision document.
However, deviation does not require an
amendment to the plan.
In the National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.), the terms ‘‘standards’’ and
‘‘guidelines’’ are both used, with no
apparent distinction between them with
respect to their force and effect. In the
1982 planning rule and the first round
of plans, the two terms were usually
written together as ‘‘standards and
guidelines.’’ Some plan revisions have
designed mandatory provisions as
‘‘standards’’ and general direction with
latitude for implementation as
‘‘guidelines.’’ The 2000 planning rule
did not use the term ‘‘guidelines.’’ In the
2000 planning rule, a provision that is
labeled as a standard could be either
mandatory or discretionary depending
upon its wording and the scope of its
requirements.
The 2002 proposed rule, consistent
with the approach in the 2000 planning
rule, continued to use only the term
‘‘standards’’ and did not use the term
‘‘guidelines.’’ However, in line with and
to clarify the strategic nature of plans,
this final rule instead adopts the term
‘‘guidelines’’ and has removed the term
‘‘standards’’ as a plan component. The
Department decided to employ the term
‘‘guideline’’ to reflect a more flexible
menu of choices consistent with the
nature of plans set forth in this rule.
In this final rule, guidelines are
described as ‘‘information and guidance
for project and activity
decisionmaking.’’ Guidelines will not
contain final decisions approving
activities and uses. A Responsible
Official has the discretion to act within
the range of guidelines, as well as the
latitude to depart from guidelines when
circumstances warrant it. In the latter
case, the Responsible Official should
document the rationale for taking such
exception to guidelines.
• Suitability of areas.
Suitability of areas is the
identification of the general suitability
of an area in an NFS unit for a variety
of uses. Areas may be identified as
generally suitable for uses that are
compatible with desired conditions and
objectives for that area. The
identification of an area as generally

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

suitable for a use or uses is neither a
commitment nor a decision approving
activities and uses. The suitability of an
area for a specific use or activity is
authorized through project and activity
decisionmaking.
Suitable use identification has
evolved over time. Suitable use
identification has often been
characterized in plans prepared under
the 1982 planning rule as permanent
restrictions on uses or permanent
determinations that certain uses would
be suitable in particular areas of the unit
over the life of the plan. However, even
under the 1982 planning rule, these
identifications were never truly
permanent, unless they were statutory
designations by Congress. It became
apparent early in implementation of the
1982 planning rule that plan suitability
identifications, like environmental
analysis itself, always necessitated sitespecific reviews when projects or
activities were proposed.
For example, on lands identified as
generally suitable for timber production,
site-specific analysis of a proposal could
identify a portion of that area as having
poor soil or unstable slopes. The project
design would then exclude such
portions of the project area from timber
harvest. Thus, the final determination of
suitability was never made until the
project or activity analysis and decision
process was completed. This final rule
better characterizes the nature and
purpose of suitability identification.
An illustration of the effect of
suitability identifications in the final
rule may be helpful. Under this final
rule, a plan may identify certain
portions of an NFS unit as suitable for
some uses. For example, some areas of
an NFS unit may be suitable for
transportation development or
motorized use. Identification of an area
in a plan as suitable for transportation
development or motorized use does not
mean that construction of a road is
immediately approved or is even
inevitable. Rather, the identification
merely provides guidance for where
road construction may be considered
suitable. Proposed projects for
construction of a road or roads would be
approved after appropriate projectspecific National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis and public
involvement.
This final rule, as discussed next in
this preamble, also includes specific
provisions for identification of lands
generally suitable for timber harvest and
identification of lands not suitable for
timber production as required by
NFMA. However, under this final rule,
other generally suitable uses may be
identified in a variety of ways. A land

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
management plan may identify all uses
that are generally suitable for a
particular area, may identify the major
or most prominent generally suitable
uses, and/or may identify criteria to be
used to determine whether a use is
compatible with the desired condition
of the area.
• Special areas.
Special areas are areas within the NFS
designated for their unique or special
characteristics. These areas include
wilderness, wild and scenic river
corridors, and research natural areas.
Some of these areas are statutorily
designated. Other areas may be
designated through plan development,
amendment, revision, or through a
separate administrative process with an
appropriate NEPA process.
• Monitoring.
The monitoring program is a central
element of adaptive management
planning in this final rule because
monitoring is the key to discovering
how to make project specific decisions
consistent with objectives and to
discovering what ultimately may need
to be changed in a plan. Experience has
shown that while some monitoring
programs and specific monitoring
techniques have been adequate to assess
need for changes in plans of national
forests, grasslands, prairie, or other
comparable administrative units over
time, some have not. New uses, such as
mountain biking, were not
contemplated 25 years ago. Noxious
weeds can infest a previously pristine
landscape. New methods of measuring
water quality or wildlife habitat can be
developed. Therefore, a unit’s
monitoring program must be readily
adaptable too. Most plans revised under
the 1982 planning rule, in fact, have
removed most monitoring operational
details from the plans themselves to
allow for quicker changes to monitoring
when needed.
The final rule allows the plan’s
monitoring program to be changed with
administrative corrections, instead of
amendments, to more quickly reflect the
best available science and account for
unanticipated changes in conditions.
Changes in monitoring programs will be
reported annually, and the Responsible
Official has flexibility to involve the
public in a variety of ways to develop
program changes.
• Streamlining the planning rule and
use of the Forest Service Directive
System.
Part of the strategic and adaptive
nature of planning is to make the
planning rule itself more strategic and
adaptive. Therefore, procedural and
technical details are being moved to the
Forest Service Directive System (Forest

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Service directives). Forest Service
directives are the primary basis for the
Forest Service’s internal management of
all its programs and the primary source
of administrative direction to Forest
Service employees. The Forest Service
Manual (FSM) contains legal
authorities, objectives, policies,
responsibilities, instructions, and
guidance needed on a continuing basis
by Forest Service line officers and
primary staff to plan and execute
programs and activities. The Forest
Service Handbook (FSH) is the principal
source of specialized guidance and
instruction for carrying out the policies,
objectives, and responsibilities
contained in the FSM.
The public will have an opportunity
to comment on both the FSM and FSH
provisions to implement this final rule.
The FSH and FSM provisions will be
issued as soon as possible after release
of this final rule. Thereafter, the agency
will provide the public an opportunity
to comment on future changes to the
adopted provisions where there is
substantial public interest or
controversy concerning the future
changes.
Role of Science in Planning
The 2002 proposed rule would have
required that Forest Service decisions be
consistent with the best available
science. The final rule requires that the
Responsible Official take into account
the best available science (§ 219.11). The
actual process for taking into account
science in planning has not changed
from the 2002 proposed rule. Under the
final rule, science, while only one
aspect of decisionmaking, is a
significant source of information for the
Responsible Official. When making
decisions, the Responsible Official also
considers public input, competing use
demands, budget projections, and many
other factors as well as science.
The final rule, like the 2002 proposed
rule, states that the Responsible Official
may use independent peer reviews,
science advisory boards, or other
appropriate review methods to evaluate
the application of science used in the
planning process. Specific procedures
for conducting science reviews will be
provided in the Forest Service
directives.
The Responsible Official must take
into account the best available science,
and document in the plan that science
was considered, correctly interpreted,
appropriately applied, and evaluate and
disclose incomplete or unavailable
information, scientific uncertainty, and
risk. This evaluation and disclosure of
uncertainty and risk provide a
crosscheck for appropriate

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1027

interpretation of science and helps
clarify the limitations of the information
base for the plan.
Public Involvement
The final rule is similar to the 2002
proposed rule regarding public
involvement requirements, but the final
rule more clearly expresses the
Department’s emphasis on public
involvement and collaboration. The
final rule clarifies requirements
regarding public involvement in the
2002 proposed rule by consolidating
these requirements contained in several
sections of the 2002 proposed rule into
§ 219.9, which requires consultation
with interested individuals and
organizations, State and local
governments, Federal agencies, and
federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The Department expects that,
compared with prior planning rules,
this final rule will allow more members
of the public to be more effectively
engaged because development of a plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision will
be simpler, more transparent, and faster.
The public will have the opportunity to
be engaged collaboratively in the
development, amendment, or revision of
a plan, in monitoring and in the unit’s
environmental management system
(EMS). In addition, the public will have
an opportunity to comment on a plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision, and
to object prior to approval if concerns
remain.
The final rule requires opportunities
for public involvement in the unit’s
land management planning process
(§ 219.9) and in monitoring
(§ 219.6(b)(3)). In response to public
comments on the 2002 proposed rule,
the final rule eliminates the prohibition
on the use of duplicative materials, such
as form letters, when filing an objection
to a plan, thus removing a perceived
barrier to wider public participation
(§ 219.13).
One of the more important changes in
public involvement is how the Forest
Service will work with the public to
collaboratively develop, amend, or
revise a plan. The Forest Service has
found that the traditional way of
developing plan alternatives under the
1982 planning rule was not very useful.
The traditional approach of developing
and choosing among discrete
alternatives that were carried
throughout the entire planning process
often proved divisive, because it often
maintained adversarial positions, rather
than helping people seek common
ground.
To overcome this tendency, the final
rule allows an iterative approach to
planning. The Department recognizes

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1028

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

that people have many different ideas
about how NFS lands should be
managed. Furthermore, a plan could
potentially include a variety of different
desired conditions, objectives,
identification of potential suitable uses,
guidelines, and special area
designations. The Department also
recognizes that the public should be
involved in determining what plan
components should be. Therefore, the
final rule provides for participation and
collaboration with the public at all
stages of plan development, plan
amendment, or plan revision.
The Responsible Official and the
public will review the various options
to respond to the need to change the
plan, and together they will
successively narrow potential options
until a proposed plan is developed.
However, the final rule also recognizes
that it is not always possible or
desirable to present only one proposed
plan for public comment and, therefore,
options to the proposed plan can be
provided for public comment when
appropriate.
The process for plan development
will be transparent to the public. Key
steps in development of the proposed
plan will be documented in the Plan
Document or Set of Documents, which
will be available to the public. While
the final rule requires the Responsible
Official to collaborate with the public
and that a record of that collaboration be
kept, it does not require in-depth social,
economic, or ecological analysis of
every potential option for a plan. Indepth analysis, documented in an
evaluation report, is required only for
the proposed plan and the options that
remain after public collaboration.
The plan approved by the Responsible
Official will be a result of public
participation and collaboration that will
have included consideration of a variety
of different ways to manage a national
forest, grassland, prairie, or other
comparable administrative unit.
Although the Responsible Official will
continue to have the responsibility and
the authority to make the final decision,
the proposed plans that the Forest
Service will present for public comment
will be plans jointly and collaboratively
developed with the public. The
Department hopes this approach to plan
development will serve to encourage
people to work together to understand
each other and find common solutions
to the important and critical planning
issues the agency faces. In summary, the
final rule emphasizes collaboration and
provides for effective public
involvement.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Sustainability
This final rule retains the concept of
the interdependent social, economic,
and ecological elements of sustainability
(§ 219.10) in the 2002 proposed rule.
However, the final rule does not include
many of the specific analytical
processes and requirements set out in
the 2002 proposed rule. Appropriate
processes will be included in the Forest
Service directives. The Department
believes it is more appropriate to put
specific procedural analytical
requirements in the Forest Service
directives rather than in the rule itself
so that the analytical procedures can be
changed more rapidly if new and better
techniques emerge. As for other portions
of the Forest Service directives, public
notice and comment is required where
there is substantial public interest or
controversy.
As did the 2000 planning rule and the
2002 proposed rule, the final rule makes
sustainability the overall goal for NFS
planning. Managing NFS lands for
sustainability of their renewable
resources meets the MUSYA mandate
that the Secretary develop and
administer the renewable surface
resources of the National Forests for
multiple use and sustained yield (16
U.S.C. 529). Managing for sustainability
will provide for management of the
various renewable resources without
impairment of the productivity of the
land, as required by the MUSYA.
Sustaining the productivity of the land
and its renewable resources means
meeting present needs without
compromising the ability of those lands
and resources to meet the needs of
future generations. The final rule is
similar to the 2002 proposed rule for
social and economic sustainability
requirements. However, as stated, there
are changes from the 2002 proposed rule
for ecological sustainability.
NFMA requires guidelines for land
management plans which provide for
diversity of plant and animal
communities (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(B))
based on the suitability and capability
of the land area to meet overall
multiple-use objectives. Almost 30 years
after passage of the NFMA, the concepts
of biological diversity at different spatial
and temporal scales, including genetic
diversity, species diversity, structural
diversity, and functional diversity have
been substantially refined and
developed. Today, the agency has a vast
array of methods available to provide for
diversity. The complexity of biological
diversity often results in a
corresponding complicated array of
concepts, measures, and values from
several scientific disciplines.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

The Department developed the final
rule based on the following concepts
related to diversity. First, maintenance
of the diversity of plant and animal
communities starts with an ecosystem
approach. In an ecosystem approach,
the plan will provide a framework for
maintaining and restoring ecosystem
conditions necessary to conserve most
species.
Second, where the Responsible
Official determines that the ecosystem
approach does not provide an adequate
framework for maintaining and restoring
conditions to support specific federally
listed threatened or endangered species,
species-of-concern, and species-ofinterest, then the plan must include
additional provisions for these species.
This final rule defines species-ofconcern as those species for which the
Responsible Official determine that
continued existence is a concern and
listing under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) may become necessary. This
final rule defines species-of-interest as
those species for which the Responsible
Official determines that management
actions may be necessary or desirable to
achieve ecological or other multiple-use
objectives. Forest Service directives will
identify lists of species developed by an
objective and scientifically credible
third party, such as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or NatureServe (http://
www.natureserve.org/).
Third, agency managers should
concentrate their efforts on contributing
to the persistence of species where
Forest Service management activities
may affect species rather than on
species management where the cause of
species decline is outside the limits of
agency authority or the capability of the
plan area.
Fourth, the presence of all native and
desired non-native species in a plan
area is important. However, the
Responsible Official should have the
flexibility to determine the degree of
conservation to be provided for the
species that are not in danger of ESA
listing, to better balance the various
multiple uses, including the oftencompeting needs of different species
themselves.
Fifth, the planning framework should
provide measures for accounting for
progress toward ecosystem and species
diversity goals. The final rule and the
Forest Service directives provide a
framework within which efforts to
maintain and restore species will be
monitored. Progress toward desired
conditions and objectives will be
monitored and the results made
available to the public. The adaptive
monitoring and feedback process will
help maintain and improve diversity.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The 2002 proposed rule included two
different approaches to the NFMA
diversity requirement labeled ‘‘Option
1’’ and ‘‘Option 2’’ and asked for
comments on both options. The agency
also hosted a workshop to provide an
opportunity for public discussion of
these options and for identification of
other ideas on how to best meet the
statutory diversity requirement. An
extremely wide range of opinions was
expressed, both in public comments and
during the workshop. The Department
found these comments useful in
developing a scientifically credible and
realistic approach for this final rule and
the Forest Service directives to meet
legal requirements and the agency’s
stewardship responsibilities.
The final rule incorporates features of
both Options 1 and 2. In common with
both options, the final rule approaches
diversity at two levels of ecological
organization: the ecosystem level and
the species level. This concept has
considerable support among scientists,
has already been tested by a number of
NFS administrative units developing or
revising plans under the 1982 planning
rule, and was included in the planning
rule adopted in 2000.
The final rule is less detailed than
either Options 1 or 2 with respect to
specific ecosystem analysis
requirements. After reviewing public
comments, and after consideration of
the Forest Service’s experience with
planning over the past 25 years, the
Department concluded that such detail
regarding analysis is more properly
included in the Forest Service
directives. These directives can be more
extensive and can be more easily
changed as the agency learns how to
improve its analytic processes and as
new scientific concepts and new
technological capabilities become
available.
In common with Options 1 and 2, the
final rule focuses on ecosystem diversity
as the primary means of providing for
the diversity of plant and animal
communities. The final rule differs from
Option 2 in not explicitly requiring
analysis of ecosystem diversity at
multiple temporal and spatial scales,
analysis of disturbance regimes, or
analysis of the landscape context.
Guidance on appropriate analysis will
be included in the Forest Service
directives. The agency will seek public
comment on this guidance.
Another point in common between
this final rule and Options 1 and 2 is the
concept that the more effective the
ecosystem management guidance is in
sustaining species habitat, the less need
there is for analysis and planning at the
species level of ecological organization.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Option 1, Option 2, and this final rule
all recognize that some additional
analysis and additional plan provisions
may be needed for some species.
However, the final rule differs from
Option 1 in that it does not include a
requirement to provide for viable
populations of plant and animal species.
Such a requirement had previously been
included in both the 1982 planning rule
and the 2000 planning rule.
The species viability requirement was
not adopted for several reasons. First,
the experience of the Forest Service
under the 1982 planning rule has been
that ensuring species viability is not
always possible. For example, viability
of some species on NFS lands may not
be achievable because of speciesspecific distribution patterns (such as a
species on the extreme and fluctuating
edge of its natural range), or when the
reasons for species decline are due to
factors outside the control of the agency
(such as habitat alteration in South
America causing decline of some
Neotropical birds), or when the land
lacks the capability to support species
(such as a drought affecting fish habitat).
Second, the number of recognized
species present on the units of the NFS
is very large. It is clearly impractical to
analyze all species, and previous
attempts to analyze the full suite of
species via groups, surrogates, and
representatives have had mixed success
in practice.
Third, focus on the viability
requirement has often diverted attention
and resources away from an ecosystem
approach to land management that, in
the Department’s view, is the most
efficient and effective way to manage for
the broadest range of species with the
limited resources available for the task.
Requirements for species population
monitoring are not included in this final
rule. Population data are difficult to
obtain and evaluate because there are so
many factors outside the control of the
Forest Service that affect populations.
The Department believes that it is best
to focus the agency’s monitoring
program on habitat on NFS land where
the agency can adjust management to
meet the needs of certain species.
Desired conditions are often a focus of
the monitoring program. The agency
will identify species-of-concern and
species-of-interest (§ 219.16). Where
ecological conditions for these species
are identified as desired conditions, the
habitat could be monitored to assist in
avoiding future listing of these species.
However, the final rule does not
preclude population monitoring. Plans
may include population monitoring as
appropriate.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1029

In summary, in compliance with
NFMA, the ecological sustainability
provisions in the final rule provide the
foundation for the plan to provide for
diversity of plant and animal
communities. The final rule provides a
complementary ecosystem and species
diversity approach for ecological
sustainability. The final rule at
§ 219.7(a)(2) establishes requirements
for developing plan components to
guide projects and activities. All parts of
the land management framework,
including plan components, monitoring,
and plan adjustment, are designed to
work together to contribute to
sustainability.
Environmental Management Systems
and Adaptive Management
• Adaptive management and land
management planning.
Plans must adapt to ever-changing
conditions. Agency policy may change,
new laws may be enacted, or court
decisions can change interpretation of
existing laws. Fires, invasive species, or
outbreaks of insects or disease can
substantially change environmental
conditions. Changes in market
conditions or public values may shift
the demand for specific goods and
services. Scientific findings can change
our understanding of the environment
and of the effects of specific
management activities. Better
monitoring techniques or ways to
achieve objectives may be found. Land
management plans must reflect the fact
that change and uncertainty are
inevitable. Consequently, plans must
allow for quick response to these everchanging conditions.
The National Association of
Professional Forestry Schools and
Colleges and others commented on the
2002 proposed rule regarding the
importance, from the scientific
perspective, of using adaptive
management when dealing with
complex ecosystems. In 1999, the
Committee of Scientists developed
recommendations that strongly
encouraged the use of adaptive
management. The Committee of
Scientists recommended setting a high
priority on developing ongoing analyses
that are based on monitoring to
continually adjust or change land
management planning decisions. In
response to these comments and
recommendations for a greater emphasis
on and commitment to adaptive
management, the Department has
chosen to include environmental
management systems (EMS) in the land
management framework.
The adaptive management approach
includes land management plans along

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1030

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

with comprehensive evaluations, an
environmental management system,
monitoring, evaluation, and research.
Adaptive management requires careful
coordination of the work performed
through these programs. It does not
require equal emphases among these
various programs, but rather requires
organizational learning, an active
pursuit of best available scientific
information, evaluation and disclosure
of uncertainties and risks about
scientific information, and a response to
change.
A land management plan starts the
adaptive management cycle. Managers
then pursue ways to achieve desired
conditions and objectives described in
the plan. The comprehensive evaluation
may describe the risks and uncertainties
associated with implementing the plan.
Managers prioritize risks and develop
strategies to control them.
Monitoring and evaluations check for
status and change across the
administrative unit. Monitoring results
may show that the desired conditions
are not being achieved through projects.
This may trigger future project changes
to reach desired conditions.
Alternatively, monitoring results may
lead to conclusions that the land
management plan should be changed
through a plan amendment.
Research is an important part of
adaptive management. Through
experimentation, researchers investigate
cause and effect relationships of
management practices on the
environment. Experiments test
hypotheses and researchers develop
reliable knowledge about effects of
management practices. The new
information may be used to amend
plans, change project level work, or
update an environmental management
system.
• Land management plans, adaptive
management, and environmental
management systems.
This final rule requires each national
forest, grassland, prairie, or other
comparable administrative unit to
develop and implement an EMS based
on the international consensus standard
published by the International
Organization for Standardization as
‘‘ISO 14001: Environmental
Management Systems—Specification
With Guidance For Use’’ (ISO 14001).
Each unit’s EMS should be designed
and implemented to more efficiently
meet legal obligations, including
supporting the creation of effective land
management plans, ensuring public
participation in the process, and
providing a framework for adaptive
management.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

The administrative units’ EMS will be
a systematic approach to identify and
manage environmental conditions and
obligations to achieve improved
performance and environmental
protection. Each unit’s EMS will
identify and prioritize environmental
conditions; set objectives in light of
Congressional, agency, and public goals;
document procedures and practices to
achieve those objectives; and monitor
and measure environmental conditions
to track performance and verify that
objectives are being met. Agency
management personnel will regularly
review performance, and information
about environmental conditions will be
regularly updated to continually
improve land management and
environmental performance.
By systematically collecting and
updating information about
environmental conditions and practices
(for example, through monitoring,
measurement, research, and public
input), the units’ EMS will provide a
foundation for effective adaptive
management, plan amendments, or even
changing specific project or work
practices. The agency expects that,
whenever possible, EMS and land
management plan documentation will
be coordinated and integrated to avoid
unnecessary duplication.
The units’ EMS will more efficiently
meet legal obligations, will improve
public participation in the land
management planning process, and
enhance the agency’s ability to identify
and respond to public input. Creating a
transparent and consistent framework
that describes how units are managed
will improve the public’s ability to
effectively participate in land
management. The units’ EMS will not
replace any legal obligations that the
agency has under NFMA, MUSYA,
NEPA, or any other statute, nor will the
EMS diminish the public’s ability to
participate in the land management
process or its rights under any law. To
the contrary, EMS will significantly
improve the public’s ability to
effectively participate in the process.
The agency chose ISO 14001 as the
EMS model for several reasons. First, it
is the most commonly used EMS model
in the United States and around the
world. This will make it easier to
implement and understand (internally
and externally) because there is a
significant knowledge base about ISO
14001. Second, the National Technology
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTAA)
(Pub. L. 104–113) requires that Federal
agencies use or adopt applicable
national or international consensus
standards wherever possible, in lieu of
creating proprietary or unique

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

standards. The NTAA’s policy of
encouraging Federal agencies to adopt
tested and well-accepted standards,
rather than reinventing-the-wheel,
clearly applies to this situation where
there is a ready-made international and
national EMS consensus standard
(through the American National
Standards Institute) that has already
been successfully implemented in the
field for almost a decade. Third, it has
been a long-standing policy that Federal
agencies implement EMS to improve
environmental performance (Executive
Order 13148 issued April 21, 2000 (E.O.
13148), titled ‘‘Greening the
Government Through Leadership in
Environmental Management’’ and an
April 1, 2002, Memorandum from the
Chair of the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget to the heads of
all Federal agencies). Federal agencies
that have been implementing EMS in
response to the E.O. 13148 have
typically been using ISO 14001 as their
model.
The implementation of ISO 14001 in
NFS administrative units will have to
reflect the legal and public obligations
of the agency, as well as the
environmental conditions and issues
relevant to land management, such as
sustainability and long-term issues,
including cumulative effects. For
example, while ISO 14001 requires
implementing organizations to identify
their ‘‘environmental aspects,’’
administrative units implementing their
EMS under this rule will include the
concept of environmental conditions in
land management planning in this step.
Another example reflecting the legal
and public obligations of the agency is
that the units’ EMS must include the
public participation requirements of this
rule, which are much stronger than the
public communication provisions of
ISO 14001. Therefore, the agency will
interpret and implement ISO 14001 in a
manner consistent with the agency’s
legal obligations, its duty to the public,
and the unique circumstances of land
management.
National Environmental Policy Act and
National Forest Management Act
Planning
The application of NEPA to the
planning process as identified in this
final rule is the next iterative step in an
evolution that began with the
promulgation of the 1979 planning rule,
revised in 1982. In developing the
NEPA provisions of this final rule, the
Department took into account the nature
of the five plan components under this
final rule, experience the agency has
gained over the past 25 years from

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
developing, amending, and revising
land management plans; the
requirements of NEPA and NFMA, the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, and the comments by
the Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry
Ass’n v. Sierra Club and Norton v.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
regarding the nature of plans
themselves.
The 1979 planning rule required an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for development of plans, significant
amendments, and revisions. This
requirement continued in the revised
rule adopted in 1982. At the time, the
Forest Service believed that the NEPA
document prepared for a plan would
suffice for making most project-level
decisions. However, the agency came to
understand that this approach to
complying with NEPA was impractical,
inefficient, and sometimes inaccurate.
Over the course of implementing NFMA
during the past 25 years, the agency has
learned that environmental effects of
projects and activities cannot be
meaningfully evaluated without
knowledge of the specific timing and
location of the projects and activities.
At the time of plan approval, the
Forest Service does not have detailed
information about what projects and
activities will be proposed over the 15year life of a plan, how many projects
will be approved, where they will be
located, or how they will be designed.
At the point of plan approval, the Forest
Service can only speculate about the
projects that may be proposed and
budgeted and the natural events, such as
fire, flood, insects, and disease that may
occur that will make uncontemplated
projects necessary or force changes in
the projects and the effects of projects
that were contemplated. Indeed, the
Forest Service has learned that over the
15-year life of a plan it can only expect
the unexpected.
In the course of completing NEPA
analysis on the first generation of NFMA
plans, the Forest Service also became
more aware of the difficulties of scale
created by the size of the national
forests and grasslands. The National
Forest System includes 192 million
acres, and individual planning units,
such as the Tongass National Forest,
may be as large as 17 million acres.
These vast landscapes contain an
enormous variety of different
ecosystems, which will respond
differently to the same management
practices. As the Committee of
Scientists said on page 26 of the
Committee of Scientists Report:
Because of the wide variation in sitespecific practices and local environmental

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

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

The result is that it is usually
infeasible to do environmental analysis
for a national forest as a whole that is
sufficiently site-specific to allow
projects to be carried out without
further detailed NEPA analysis after the
plan has been approved.
The agency has found itself preparing
much more extensive NEPA
documentation for projects than it had
anticipated when it adopted the 1979
and 1982 planning rules. Moreover, the
extensive changes to conditions in the
plan area that occurred during the 15year life of each plan made it
increasingly impractical to tier projectlevel NEPA documentation to the plan
EIS. The requirements of the 1979 and
1982 planning rules created an
inefficient and ineffective system for
complying with NEPA.
The 2000 planning rule furthered the
existing presumption of requiring an EIS
for plan development or revision,
notwithstanding concerns raised by the
Committee of Scientists. Secretary
Glickman named the Committee of
Scientists (COS) on December 11, 1997.
The charter for the COS stated that the
Committee’s purpose was to provide
scientific and technical advice to the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of
the Forest Service on improvements that
can be made in the National Forest
System Land and Resource Management
Planning Process.
The Committee of Scientists said, on
page 117 of the Committee of Scientists
Report:
Perhaps the most difficult problem is that
the current EA/EIS process assumes a onetime decision. The very essence of smalllandscape planning is an adaptive
management approach, based upon
monitoring and learning. Although smalllandscape planning can more readily do realtime cumulative effects analysis * * *, this
kind of analysis is difficult to integrate with
a one-time decision approach. Developing a
decision disclosure and review process that
is ongoing and uses monitoring information
to adjust or change treatments and activities
will need to be a high priority * * *.
(Committee of Scientists Report, March 15,
1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC 193 p.)

In addition to concern about timely
and accurate disclosure of
environmental effects, the agency’s
experience with planning has
demonstrated the need to clarify what
plans, in fact, actually do. Neither the

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1031

1982 nor the 2000 planning rule clearly
described or contrasted the differences
between the effects of plans and the
effects of projects and activities. This
has been confusing to the public and
agency employees. As discussed
previously in the guidelines and the
suitability discussions, plan
components have not been applied or
interpreted consistently throughout the
agency and often have been
characterized as the functional
equivalent of final project-level
decisions or actions, rather than
guidance for projects and activities over
time.
This final rule clarifies that plans will
be strategic rather than prescriptive in
nature absent extraordinary
circumstances. Plans will describe the
desired social, economic, and ecological
conditions for a national forest,
grassland, prairie, or other comparable
administrative unit. Plan objectives,
guidelines, suitable uses, and special
area identifications will be designed to
help achieve the desired conditions.
While plans will identify the general
suitability of lands for various uses, they
typically will not approve projects or
activities with accompanying
environmental effects. Decisions
approving projects or activities with
environmental effects that can be
meaningfully evaluated will typically be
made subsequent to the plan. In
essence, a plan simply is a description
of a vision for the future that coupled,
with evaluation, provides a starting
point for project and activity NEPA
analysis. Therefore, under this rule
approval of a plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision typically will not have
environmental effects.
The formulation of plans under the
final rule as being merely strategic
rather than prescriptive is further
evident in the five components of plans
under the final rule. As described above,
none of the five components is intended
to directly dictate on the ground
decisions which have impacts on the
environment. Rather, they state general
guidance and goals to be considered in
project and activity decisions. These
five components thus do not have any
significant effect on the environment.
Notwithstanding their strategic
nature, approval of a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision is a final
action under the CEQ regulations.
Further, such actions may have
environmental effects in some
extraordinary circumstances, such as
when a plan amendment or revision
includes final decisions approving
projects or activities. For example, an
amendment or revision including a
decision approving a project to thin

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1032

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

certain trees to reduce fire hazards may
have environmental affects that could be
significant.
NFMA requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to determine how to comply
with NEPA during the course of NFMA
planning. Section 106(g)(1) of NFMA
directs the Secretary to specify in land
management regulations procedures to
insure that plans are prepared in
accordance with NEPA, including
direction on when and for what plans
an EIS is required (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)).
The CEQ regulations direct Federal
agencies to adopt procedures that
designate major decision points for the
agency’s principal programs likely to
have a significant effect on the human
environment and ensuring that the
NEPA process corresponds with them
(40 CFR 1505.1(b)).
Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations,
an EIS is required for every report or
recommendation on proposals for
legislation and other major Federal
actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment (16
U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1502.3).
CEQ regulations define ‘‘major Federal
action’’ as including ‘‘actions with
effects that may be major.’’ The
regulations explain that ‘‘Federal
actions’’ generally tend to fall within
several categories. Although these
categories include adoption of formal
agency plans within the definition of
‘‘federal action,’’ not all federal actions
are major federal actions. As applied to
the final rule, land management plans
under this final rule, as evidenced by
their five components, are strategic and
aspirational in nature and generally will
not include decisions with on-theground effects that can be meaningfully
evaluated and that may be major. During
plan development, amendment, or
revision, the agency generally is not at
the stage in National Forest planning of
proposing actions to accomplish the
goals in land management plans. CEQ
regulations define ‘‘proposals’’ that can
trigger the requirement for an EIS as
‘‘that stage in development of an action
when an agency subject to the Act has
a goal and is actively preparing to make
a decision on one or more alternative
means of accomplishing that goal and
the effects can be meaningfully
evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23). Proposals
for action to accomplish plan goals and
desired conditions, with effects that can
be meaningfully evaluated and which
may be significant, generally are made
at the project and activity stage. While
a plan includes desired conditions,
goals, and objectives, the Forest Service
does not actively prepare to make a
decision on an action aimed at
achieving desired conditions, goals, or

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

objectives until the agency proposes
projects and activities. Thus, the
decision to adopt, amend, or revise a
plan, therefore, is typically not the point
in the decisionmaking process at which
the agency is proposing an action likely
to have a significant effect on the human
environment.
The approach in this final rule is
consistent with the nature of Forest
Service land management plans
acknowledged in Ohio Forestry Ass’n v.
Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). As
described above, in Ohio Forestry, the
Supreme Court held that the timber
management provisions of land
management plans are tools for further
agency planning and guide, but do not
direct future management. When
considering the role of land
management plans with respect to
timber harvesting, the Supreme Court
explained that:
Although the Plan sets logging goals,
selects the areas of the forest that are suited
to timber production, and determines which
‘‘probable methods of timber harvest’’ are
appropriate, it does not itself authorize the
cutting of any trees. Before the Forest Service
can permit the logging, it must: (a) Propose
a specific area in which logging will take
place and the harvesting methods to be used;
(b) ensure that the project is consistent with
the Plan; (c) provide those affected by
proposed logging notice and an opportunity
to be heard; (d) conduct an environmental
analysis pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to
evaluate the effects of the specific project and
to contemplate alternatives; and (e)
subsequently make a final decision to permit
logging, which affected persons may
challenge in an administrative appeals
process and in court.

The Supreme Court repeated its
description of plans as merely strategic
without any immediate on the ground
impact in the recent SUWA decision
described above. Both cases reinforce
the observations of the FS in reflecting
on 25 years of completing EISs for
plans, and buttress the approach to
planning and NEPA compliance
described in the final rule.
In accordance with NFMA, NEPA,
and the CEQ regulations, this final rule
will ensure that Forest Service NEPA
analysis will be timed to coincide with
those stages in agency planning and
decisionmaking likely to have a
significant effect on the human
environment. The final rule emphasizes
the clear distinction between the mere
adoption, revision or amendment of a
plan and projects and activities having
on-the-ground environmental effects. In
this final rule, the Department is
clarifying the nature of National Forest
land management plans, and based on
the nature of plans, specifying that

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

plans, plan amendments, and plan
revisions may be categorically excluded
from NEPA documentation as provided
in agency NEPA procedures.
The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500)
require that each agency establish
specific criteria for and identification of
three types of actions: (1) Those that
normally require preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
(2) those that normally require the
preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA); and (3) those that
normally do not require either an EA or
EIS. Actions qualifying for this third
type of action are defined as categorical
exclusions because they do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant impact on the human
environment; therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required (40 CFR 1508.4).
A categorical exclusion is not an
exemption from the requirements of
NEPA. Categorical exclusions are an
essential part of NEPA that provide a
categorical determination that certain
actions do not result in significant
impacts, eliminating the need for
individual analyses and lengthier
documentation for those actions. CEQ
regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1507.3
and 1508.4 direct agencies to use
categorical exclusions to define
categories of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment and do not require the
preparation of an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact
statement, thereby reducing excessive
paperwork. Current Forest Service
procedures for complying with and
implementing NEPA are set out in
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15.
Simultaneously with this rulemaking,
the Forest Service is proposing to revise
its NEPA procedures to provide a new
categorical exclusion for plan
development, amendment, and revision.
The proposed categorical exclusion
describes the extraordinary
circumstances that may require
preparation of an EIS or an EA. The
Forest Service is seeking comment on
the proposed categorical exclusion.
The Forest Service presented and
sought public comment on this
approach to NEPA and NFMA planning
in the 2002 proposed rule. The 2002
proposed rule at § 219.6(b) provided
that if the Responsible Official
determines that a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision, or a
component thereof, would be an action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, or authorizes an
action that commits funding or

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
resources that could have a significant
effect on the quality of the human
environment, then an EIS would be
required. Otherwise, a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision may be
categorically excluded from
documentation in an EA or EIS as
provided in agency NEPA procedures.
The categorical exclusion proposed in
connection with this final rule clarifies
that plan development, plan
amendment or plan revisions in
accordance with this final rule do not
significantly affect the environment, and
thus are categorically excluded from
further NEPA analysis, unless
extraordinary circumstances are present.
Of course, the FS will comply with all
applicable NEPA requirements,
including preparation of an EA or an
EIS where appropriate, when
considering specific projects or making
other project-specific decisions affecting
the environment.
The public identified three key
concerns related to the proposal to
categorically exclude plans from
documentation. First, many people
commented that they were unsure about
how they would be involved in
planning if an EIS process were not
used. Second, they questioned how
planning analysis would be documented
in the absence of an EIS. Third, some
asked how cumulative effects would be
accounted for if a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) were relied upon. The Department
has fully considered the concerns raised
by the public and believes the final rule
addresses the concerns as follows:
• Public participation.
This final rule provides extensive
opportunity for public participation that
exceeds requirements for public
participation under NEPA and improves
the clarity of the process for public
notification (§ 219.9).
• Evaluations and documentation.
This final rule requires
comprehensive and other evaluations in
§ 219.6. Evaluation reports will
document existing social, economic,
and ecological conditions and trends;
and will be available to the public and
included in the Plan Document or Set of
Documents. Evaluations are prepared
for plan development, plan amendment,
and plan revision (§ 219.6); use a
systematic and interdisciplinary
approach (§ 219.7(a)); and consider
environmental amenities and values
along with economic and technical
considerations (§ 219.10).
The Plan Document or Set of
Documents will be supplemented with
annual evaluation reports and with
other information as appropriate to form
a continually refreshed and current
analytical base of information. Because

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

of this more current information base,
evaluations will provide a much
stronger and more robust source of
information for projects and activities
than an EIS prepared under the 1982
planning rule.
• Cumulative effects.
To account for cumulative effects of
management and natural events, this
final rule requires (§ 219.6(a)): (1) A
comprehensive evaluation for the
development of a new plan or plan
revision; (2) annual plan monitoring and
evaluation; and (3) review of the
comprehensive evaluations at least
every 5 years. These evaluations, as
opposed to predictive EIS’s that grow
increasingly stale over time, will
provide more timely and informed
consideration of cumulative effects. The
Plan Document or Set of Documents
provides for a robust information base
for the consideration of cumulative
effects of management in NEPA
documents prepared for projects or
activities.
• The relationship between EMS and
NEPA.
Implementing EMS will improve the
quality of agency NEPA analysis for
projects and activities. In a September
2003 report, titled ‘‘Modernizing NEPA
Implementation,’’ the CEQ NEPA Task
Force stated at page 54, ‘‘Federal
agencies, having made the connection
between EMS and adaptive
management, would be integrating
NEPA-related adaptive management
actions into their developing EMSs.’’
The task force also said that NEPA and
EMS provide ‘‘a synergy that can
encourage a robust analysis when the
EMS information is extensive, current,
and available for use in the NEPA
analy[sis].’’ The Department agrees with
the task force’s conclusions and believes
that requiring each unit to implement an
EMS will improve environmental
performance and effective land
management in addition to enhancing
NEPA analysis and documentation.
Under the existing process,
information about environmental
conditions is collected for the purposes
of preparing detailed NEPA analysis and
documentation for plan development,
plan amendment, or plan revision.
There is no effective system for keeping
this information current, because the
collection and analysis of information
often typically ceases when the NEPA
analysis and documentation is
completed. Therefore, the information
collected for the environmental
documents for 126 NFS units can grow
stale as environmental, social, and
economic conditions change. Further,
the focus of the information collection
and analysis process is on NEPA

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1033

analysis and documentation, rather than
for use in the ongoing management of
the administrative unit. Therefore, the
large volume of information and
analysis that is so expensively created
over a long period is often used as a
snapshot for purposes of making a
single decision, instead of being
integrated into a dynamic, ongoing
system to effectively manage units.
This rule will improve this situation
by requiring each administrative unit to
implement an EMS that includes
defined procedures for identifying
environmental conditions, keeps that
information current, and includes
monitoring and measurement
procedures for continually evaluating
conditions in the unit. The EMS
requirement is separate from any
obligations to develop EISs, EAs, or CEs.
Therefore, the obligation to keep this
information current and make it
available for public review is separate
from the obligation to create any
particular NEPA document. This
information will be used in formulating
the land management plans that are
subject of this rule, managing
administrative units on an ongoing
basis, as well as for specific project and
activity proposals that trigger the need
for EISs, EAs, or CEs. Therefore, through
the implementation of EMS,
administrative units will be continually
collecting and evaluating the data
necessary to create any documents that
may be required by NEPA. This will
make the creation of accurate and
relevant NEPA documents more
efficient. More importantly, it will make
available to administrative unit
managers and the public a ‘‘library’’ of
current information, analyses, and
research that, through EMS, will be used
to manage the administrative unit on an
ongoing basis, and better adapt
management practices to avoid
unwanted environmental effects.
Summary
This final rule represents a paradigm
shift in planning. It emphasizes the
strategic nature of NFMA land
management plans and will permit more
flexibility in implementing projects in
response to evolving scientific doctrines
and changing conditions on the ground,
such as unforeseen natural disasters. It
requires that each NFS unit develop an
EMS that will be used to continually
improve environmental performance
and conditions. It requires that
Responsible Officials take into account
the best available scientific information.
It requires public involvement and
collaboration throughout the entire
cycle of planning, plan development,
plan amendment, plan revision, project

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1034

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

and activity decisionmaking, and
monitoring of environmental
performance. The final rule requires
plans to focus on the social, economic,
and ecological sustainability of the
management of the NFS, and it has
specific provisions for biological
diversity at both the ecosystem and
species level. It clarifies the nature of
plans and explains how the planning
process complies fully with the
requirements of NEPA. Plans developed
and maintained using the EMS and
other processes required by this final
rule will improve the performance,
accountability, and transparency of NFS
land management planning.
4. Department Response to Comments
on the 2002 Proposed Rule
The Forest Service received
approximately 7,000 original letters and
195,000 total comments from a wide
variety of respondents on the 2002
proposed rule. Each comment received
consideration in the development of the
final rule. The following is a summary
of comments and response to issues
raised by these comments. A response to
less substantive issues may be found in
the supplemental response to comments
located on the World Wide Web/
internet (see ADDRESSES).
General Issues
The Department received the
following comments not specifically
tied to a particular section of the 2002
proposed rule.
Comment: Compliance with NFMA.
Some respondents thought the 2002
proposed rule would allow more timber
harvest and road construction than
currently exists and therefore would
violate the National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.). Other respondents believed the
timber industry, other commercial
interests, or Forest Service employees
unduly influenced the 2002 proposed
rule; moreover, they perceived that the
2002 proposed rule would degrade the
environment. Some contended the 2002
proposed rule was influenced by
campaign contributions.
Response: The final rule is not
intended to, and will not, determine the
choices among the multiple uses. The
NFMA requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop regulations
under the principles of the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960
(16 U.S.C. 528–531). Congress gave the
Secretary broad discretion in
interpreting how these principles are
applied. This final rule affirms the
overall goal of MUSYA and provides a
framework for plans to reflect
contemporary priorities and values.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Pursuant to MUSYA, this final rule
adopts social, economic, and ecological
sustainability as the goal of National
Forest System (NFS) management.
Furthermore, timber production from
NFS lands has been reduced
dramatically since NFMA was written.
The sale of timber has fallen from an
annual level of 10 to 12 billion board
feet in the 1970s and 1980s to three
billion board feet in the early 1990s and
below three billion board feet since
then. Finally, the final rule does not
promote or discourage other uses of NFS
lands, such as outdoor recreation, range,
wildlife and fisheries, and so forth. The
planning process itself will determine
the desired conditions and objectives for
each NFS unit.
Comment: Plan oversight and
resource conservation. Some
respondents commented that the 2002
proposed rule would prevent court
oversight of plans, eliminate restrictive
plan requirements, inappropriately
increase Forest Service discretion, and
result in decreased conservation of
resources such as wildlife. Several
respondents wanted the 2002 planning
rule to be stricter, attributing the
collapse of Enron to inadequate
regulatory oversight. Other respondents
were concerned about the possibility of
increased litigation and thought
streamlined planning would shift more
of the analysis burden to projects, thus
slowing project completion.
Response: The final rule establishes a
planning process that complies with
NFMA and provides a broad planning
framework within which issues specific
to a plan area can be resolved in an
efficient and reasonable manner
informed by the latest data and
scientific assessments and public
participation and collaboration.
With respect to concerns that Forest
Service discretion may be unchecked,
there has always been a tension between
providing needed detailed direction in
the planning rule and discretion of the
Responsible Official. However, the
decisions of the Responsible Official are
constrained and guided by a large body
of law, regulation, and policy, as well as
public participation and oversight.
Because every issue cannot be identified
and dealt with in advance for every
situation, the Forest Service must rely
on the judgment of the Responsible
Official to make decisions based on
laws, regulation, policy, sound science,
public participation, and oversight.
The Department of Agriculture
(Department) believes that the final rule
is fully compatible with the nature of
forest planning as described by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry Ass’n v.
Sierra Club 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (A

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

discussion of this case is found in the
‘‘Overview of the Final 2004 Rule’’
section of the preamble.) The
Department expects public oversight
and legal review of planning, as well as
an assessment of the environmental
impacts of specific projects under
NEPA, to occur under the final rule in
accordance with Ohio Forestry. As a
general matter, and consistent with the
Ohio Forestry Ass’n decision, a plan by
itself is not expected to be reviewable by
the courts at the time the plan is
developed, revised or amended; but
when the agency decides on a specific
action, an aggrieved party will be able
to challenge that action and, if
appropriate, seek review of that part of
the plan that is relevant to that action.
After years of experience with
previous planning rules, the Department
is ready to embrace the latest thinking
in management techniques and believes
this final rule provides the proper
balance of regulatory requirements and
flexibility needed to resolve issues on
the ground. By streamlining the
planning process, requiring
environmental management systems
(EMS), and emphasizing collaboration
and public involvement, the final rule
will result in plans that are more up to
date, and should have broader public
support. Similarly, the continual
updating of the evaluations and
analyses associated with plans is
expected to reduce the amount of
analysis needed at the project level.
These concepts of collaboration, EMS,
evaluations, and public involvement are
described in detail in the ‘‘Overview of
the Final 2004 Final Rule’’ section of the
preamble.
Comment: Consultation with a
committee of scientists. Several
respondents were concerned that there
was no consultation with a committee of
scientists in developing the 2002
proposed rule. Several felt that an
independent review was necessary.
Some respondents also felt that the 2002
proposed rule should reflect current
scientific knowledge.
Response: The NFMA does not
require a committee of scientists for
revision of the planning rule.
Nonetheless, the Department based the
2002 proposed rule on the major
recommendations from the 1999
Committee of Scientists report.
Sustainability, public participation,
adaptive management, monitoring and
evaluation, the role of science, and the
objection process, all concepts in the
proposed and final rule, were
recommendations of that report. The
Department realizes that scientific
knowledge will continue to expand.
Therefore, the Responsible Official must

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
take into account the best available
science when plans are developed,
revised, or amended (§ 219.11).
Comment: Environmental
conservation. Several respondents
commented that the 2002 planning rule
should conserve wildlife, wilderness,
historic and cultural sites, special
habitat, watersheds, genetic material,
and reduce fragmentation. One person
commented that planning should be
done on whole ecosystems.
Response: The final rule provides the
processes through which Responsible
Officials conserve and manage resources
with regard to the issues relevant in the
plan area. Those communities, groups,
or persons interested in these important
resource issues can influence plan
components and monitoring programs
by becoming involved in planning
efforts throughout the process,
including the development and
monitoring of the plan, as well as the
development and implementation of
proposed projects and activities.
The Department agrees that better
quality planning is often accomplished
when the appropriate scale is used. For
species or watersheds, evaluation often
needs to be completed at a broader scale
than for an individual unit. The
Department anticipates that the Forest
Service, in its plan evaluations, will
continue to look at issues at the
appropriate scale.
Comment: The 2000 planning rule
was never adequately tested. Some
respondents disagreed with the 2002
proposed rule discussion of the
difficulty of implementing the 2000
planning rule, since the 2000 planning
rule was never used.
Response: The costing study, ‘‘A
Business Evaluation of the 2000
planning rule and the Proposed NFMA
Planning Rules,’’ analyzed each of the
work activities of the 2000 planning rule
and used experienced planners and
resource professionals to estimate how
those work activities would be carried
out. The Department believes that this
analysis on the 2000 planning rule was
adequate to determine how well that
rule could be implemented.
Comment: Costing study of the 2000
Planning Rule. Several respondents said
the report on cost and ability to
implement the 2000 planning rule was
not available.
Response: The Federal Register notice
for the 2002 proposed rule explained
how all associated studies were
available for review. These studies have
been, and still are, available on the
Forest Service’s World Wide Web/
Internet site (see ADDRESSES) and
available from the Director, Ecosystem
Management Coordination Staff, Forest

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–1104, as
described in the ADDRESSES section.
Comment: Inability to complete
revisions. Several respondents said that
the inability of the Forest Service to
comply with a statutorily mandated
revision timeline was due to reasons
other than the requirements of the 1982
or 2000 planning rules.
Response: The Forest Service
experience showed that the cost and
unnecessary complexity of the planning
process for the 1982 planning rule were
the major causes of plan delays; this
experience and the costing study
indicated that the 2000 planning rule
would exacerbate these concerns.
Comment: Cost study and the costbenefit analysis for 1982 planning rule.
Some respondents said the cost study of
the 2000 planning rule and the 2002
proposed rule should also have
considered the 1982 planning rule and
that the cost-benefit analysis should
have considered the costs of the 1982
planning rule, which is the rule that was
actually being implemented at the time
of the study.
Response: When the 2000 planning
rule was developed, the costs to the
Forest Service to implement it were
unknown, while the costs associated
with the 1982 planning rule were
known. The cost-benefit analysis
considered the costs of implementing
the 1982 planning rule, the anticipated
cost of implementing the 2000 planning
rule, and the anticipated cost of
implementing the 2002 proposed rule.
The cost-benefit analysis used
information from a business evaluation
and costing study for the 2000 planning
rule and the 2002 proposed rule.
Although the 1982 planning rule was
not included in the business evaluation,
1982 planning rule costs were included
in the cost-benefit analysis using
applicable costs from the business
evaluation and historical cost
information.
Comment: Biological assessment.
Some respondents commented that the
rule should consider the ‘‘degree to
which the action [the rule] may
adversely affect an endangered or
threatened species or their habitat that
has been determined to be critical under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973.’’ They assert that a biological
assessment of the 2002 proposed rule is
needed to analyze its impacts on
threatened and endangered species and
that the agency must also consult on the
2002 proposed rule with the agencies
responsible for implementing the ESA.
Response: The ESA, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1035

consultation for actions authorized,
funded, or carried out by a Federal
agency. This final rule simply
establishes a process for planning. The
final rule is not an action having a direct
effect on threatened or endangered
species. The agency’s obligations for
conservation of threatened, endangered,
and proposed species remains
unchanged by this final rule; no
consultation is required as part of the
final rule’s development.
Comment: Planning certification. One
organization commented that a
nationally recognized third party should
certify sustainability of National Forests.
Response: The Department believes
that the body of laws that govern
management of NFS lands, the Forest
Service Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan)
required under the Government
Performance and Results Act, the
planning process itself, the expertise of
career professionals, and the
opportunity for public participation are
adequate to ensure sustainability.
Recognizing the point made by the
respondent of the value of using
recognized standards for forest
management, this final rule requires
units to develop and implement an EMS
that conforms to ISO 14001 to manage
natural resources and further the
adaptive management approach
advocated by other respondents. ISO
14001 is the internationally and
nationally recognized standard for
EMSs. The Forest Service understands
that ISO 14001 is not itself a program for
forest sustainability certification and
does not contain specific natural
resource provisions or requirements.
Natural resource management
requirements and priorities are properly
set by Congress and open public
participation, rather than by nongovernmental standards setting bodies
that are not directly answerable to the
citizens of the United States.
ISO 14001 provides a well-accepted
management process that will improve
the Forest Service’s ability to identify
and meet the natural resource goals that
are set by Congress in the NFMA and
MUSYA and the Forest Service’s
commitments to sustainability, good
science, and public involvement in a
disciplined, systematic, and transparent
manner.
Comment: Benchmarks in the 1982
planning rule were useful. Several
respondents said that benchmarks, such
as those required in the 1982 planning
rule, are useful and should still be
required.
Response: The agency’s experience
with the 1982 planning rule is that
benchmarks have not been useful. In
theory, benchmarks define the range of

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1036

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

production possibilities and ecosystem
limits. In practice, however, they are
difficult to develop due to limited data
and uncertainty at the time plans are
developed. However, the final rule does
not prohibit benchmark analysis when it
would provide meaningful information.
Comment: Fix the 1982 planning rule.
Several respondents thought the agency
should consider analyzing and
correcting the 1982 planning rule
instead of developing an entirely new
rule.
Response: In many ways, the final
rule reflects the 1982 planning rule.
However, it makes improvements based
on over 25 years of experience. The final
rule includes the basic plan components
set out in the 1982 planning rule,
includes the provisions required by
NFMA, and expands the public
involvement requirements in the 1982
planning rule by requiring additional
public involvement opportunities and
emphasizing collaboration.
Comment: The final rule should be
subject to NEPA. Some respondents
commented that adoption of the final
rule is itself subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–
4346), and this rulemaking is a major
Federal action having a significant effect
on the human environment. Others
questioned why previous rulemaking
efforts were accompanied by
environmental assessments and why
this rulemaking was not.
Response: The Department disagrees
that this rulemaking is a major Federal
action that has significant effects on the
environment because the final rule,
which sets out a process for developing
plans, plan amendments, and plan
revisions, does not have environmental
effects. The Forest Service Handbook
(FSH) 1909.15, section 31.12, paragraph
2, specifically provides that procedures
for amending or revising land
management plans may be categorically
excluded from NEPA documentation.
The Forest Service produced an
environmental assessment for the 2000
planning rulemaking efforts, but
asserted at the time that it was going
beyond the requirements of the law or
policy. In the spirit of efficiency and
streamlining inherent in this rulemaking
effort, it seemed inconsistent to produce
a NEPA document that was not required
or useful. In summary, this final rule
does not significantly affect the quality
of the human environment and does not
trigger NEPA obligations.
Comment: Integration of planning
process requirements. One respondent
commented that the 2002 proposed rule
listed many requirements and was

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

unclear how these requirements were to
be integrated into a plan.
Response: The Department agrees that
it was difficult to track the planning
process steps in the 2002 proposed rule.
This difficulty is one of the primary
reasons the Department substantially
reorganized the final rule.
Comment: Research. One professional
organization felt that the final rule
should support ‘‘bold and imaginative’’
research on NFS lands.
Response: The Department believes
that the final rule does support research.
The strong emphasis on monitoring,
evaluation, and the Department’s
recognition of the value of
environmental management systems
produce an adaptable process where
scientific experimentation is
encouraged. Topics to be researched,
however, are properly not set out in the
final rule.
Comment: Forest Service directives.
Several respondents expressed concern
about placing management direction in
the Forest Service Directive System
(Forest Service directives) and said that
the Forest Service directives have not
been subject to rulemaking procedures
and do not have the full force and effect
of law. They said that NFMA requires
direction to be in the planning rule and
they are concerned that use of directives
will foster distrust and a confusing
system of malleable and unenforceable
guidelines.
Some respondents were concerned
that placing direction in the Forest
Service directives instead of in the final
rule would reduce meaningful public
participation. Others endorsed the idea
of using the Forest Service directives for
technical details rather than burden the
final rule with these ‘‘how to’’
requirements. Some said that the Forest
Service should retain greater flexibility
and should be able to make decisions
more cost effectively. Finally, some
respondents said that they would like
the Forest Service directives to be
updated and published for public
review concurrent with the planning
rule development.
Response: The Forest Service
directives are the primary basis for the
internal management and control of all
programs and the primary source of
administrative direction to Forest
Service employees. The Forest Service
Manual (FSM) contains legal
authorities, objectives, policies,
responsibilities, instructions, and
guidance needed on a continuing basis
by Forest Service line officers and
primary staff to plan and execute
assigned programs and activities. The
Forest Service Handbook (FSH) is the

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

principal source of specialized guidance
and instruction for carrying out the
direction issued in the FSM. Because
the Forest Service directives are easier
to change and more easily adopt the
latest technology and science, they are
the appropriate place for specific
technical guidance.
As stated in the ‘‘Forest Service
Directives’’ section in the preamble, the
Forest Service is developing planning
directives to provide overall guidance
needed to use this final rule for Forest
Service line officers, agency employees,
and others. The Forest Service will
provide the public with the opportunity
to comment on planning directives as
soon as they are prepared through
notice in the Federal Register.
Comment: Other issues. Some
respondents commented on a variety of
important issues such as roads,
recreation, timber harvest, taxes,
recycling, access, travel management,
public safety, effects on spiritual values,
land exchanges and purchases, fire
protection, paying for restoration, job
creation, certain kinds of motorized use,
and roadless areas and they wanted
those issues addressed in the final rule.
Response: The Department agrees that
the issues raised are important.
However, the final rule is intended to
guide how plans are developed, revised,
and amended. The final rule provides
the overall direction for planning. The
final rule does not provide direction
that is properly found in the plans
themselves, or in the subsequent
decisions regarding projects and
activities on a particular national forest,
grassland, prairie, or other comparable
administrative unit.
Issues in Response to Specific Sections
Following are discussions and
responses to public comments received
on specific sections in 36 CFR part 219
during the Department’s comment
period on the 2002 proposed rule,
including discussion on the differences
between the 2002 proposed rule and the
final rule and why these changes were
made. The Department reorganized the
final rule. As a result, some sections
have new titles and/or a new
designation as shown in the following
table 1. In addition, the heading for
subpart A in the 2002 proposed rule,
‘‘National Forest System Planning for
Land and Resource Management Plans,’’
has been shortened and simplified in
the final rule to ‘‘National Forest System
Land Management Planning,’’ which is
a term also used in the National Forest
Management Act of 1976.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

1037

TABLE 1.—SECTION-BY-SECTION COMPARISON OF THE 2002 PROPOSED RULE WITH THE FINAL RULE
[2002 Proposed Rule] ...............................................................................
Proposed section number and title
§ 219.1 Purpose and applicability ...........................................................
§ 219.2

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

§ 219.3

Levels of planning and planning authority .................................

§ 219.4

Decisions embodied in plans .....................................................

§ 219.5

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

§ 219.6

Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act .................

§ 219.7

Amending a plan ........................................................................

§ 219.8

Revising a plan ..........................................................................

§ 219.9

Developing a new plan ..............................................................

§ 219.10

Application of plan direction ....................................................

§ 219.11

Monitoring and evaluation. ......................................................

[2002 Proposed Rule] ...............................................................................
Proposed section number and title
§ 219.12 Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation ..........................

[Final Rule]
Final section number and title
§ 219.1 Purpose and Applicability.
[some direction moved to §§ 219.2 and 219.3]
[redesignated at § 219.3; planning process requirements incorporated
in § 219.7]
§ 219.2 Levels of planning and planning authority.
[redesignated at § 219.2]
§ 219.3 Nature of land management planning.
[incorporated in §§ 219.7 and 219.12]
§ 219.4 National Environmental Policy Act compliance.
[incorporated in § 219.6 or the Directive Systems.]
§ 219.5 Environmental management systems.
[redesignated at § 219.4]
§ 219.6 Evaluations and monitoring.
[incorporated in §§ 219.2, 219.7 and 219.9]
§ 219.7 Developing, amending, or revising a plan.
[incorporated in §§ 219.2, 219.7, 219.8 and 219.9]
§ 219.8 Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
[incorporated in §§ 219.2 and 219.7]
§ 219.9 Public participation, collaboration, and notification.
[incorporated in § 219.8]
§ 219.10 Sustainability.
[incorporated in § 219.6]
§ 219.11 Role of science in planning.
[Final Rule]
Final section number and title
[incorporated in § 219.9]
§ 219.12 Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA.
[redesignated at § 219.10]
[redesignated at § 219.11]
[incorporated in §§ 219.7]
[redesignated at § 219.12]

§ 219.13
§ 219.14
§ 219.15
§ 219.16
able for

Sustainability ............................................................................
The consideration of science in planning ................................
Special designations ................................................................
Determination of lands available for timber harvest and suittimber production.

§ 219.17

Limitation on timber harvest ....................................................

§ 219.18

Plan documentation, maintenance, and availability ................

§ 219.19
§ 219.20
sions.
§ 219.21
§ 219.22
§ 219.23

Objections to amendments or revisions of plans ....................
Appeals of plan amendments in site-specific project deci-

§ 219.13 Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan revisions.
[redesignated at § 219.12]
§ 219.14 Effective dates and transition.
[incorporated in §§ 219.6, 219.7, and 219.9]
§ 219.15 Severability.
§ 219.16 Definitions.
[redesignated at § 219.13]
[incorporated in § 219.13]

Notice of plan decisions and effective dates ...........................
Transition .................................................................................
Definitions ................................................................................

[incorporated in §§ 219.9 and 219.14]
[incorporated in § 219.14]
[redesignated at § 219.16]

In this final rule, the Department
reorganized sections of the 2002
proposed rule to improve clarity and
reduce redundant material. The
discussion of each section follows the
numbering and titles adopted in the
final rule, with references to where the
text was located in the 2002 proposed
rule. These new sections are ordered
from general to specific. The first
section introduces the reader to what is
covered in the final rule and
acknowledges the multiple-use and
sustained yield productivity mandate of
the Forest Service (remainder of
§ 219.1). Section 219.2 describes
planning in general and the levels of
planning in the agency. Then, the final
rule contains a general description of
plans (§§ 219.3 and 219.4), followed by
the specific plan requirements
(§§ 219.5–219.16).

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Section 219.1—Purpose and
Applicability
This section is coded the same in the
final rule as it was in the 2002 proposed
rule and introduces the reader to what
is covered in the final rule,
acknowledges the multiple-use and
sustained-yield productivity mandate of
the Forest Service, and directs the Chief
of the Forest Service to establish
planning procedures in the Forest
Service directives. The 2002 proposed
rule language is retained in the final
rule, with some clarification regarding
the overall goal to sustain the multiple
uses of its renewable resources in
perpetuity while maintaining the longterm productivity of the land.
Comment: Overall goals of planning.
There were varied comments on the
overall goal of National Forest System
(NFS) planning. Some said that the

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

purpose of planning should reflect
sustainability priorities and values.
Some respondents stated that the best
approach to the purpose and
applicability section is to state that
ecological sustainability is the desired
condition to be achieved through land
management. Some requested that the
Forest Service’s vision statement be
changed to reflect a philosophy of
preservation and sustainability and that
the Forest Service not make
management decisions based on a
productivity paradigm. They stated that
good decisions that restore the forest
will be approved quickly without
controversy and lawsuits, while bad
decisions should be stopped and the
decisionmaker held accountable. Others
requested that the Forest Service give
attention to how plans affect tourism
and recreation.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1038

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Response: The Department agrees that
the mandate under the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 and
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act
(MUSYA) of 1960 is not exclusively for
production or for preservation because
‘‘multiple use and sustained yield’’
applies to all renewable resources,
including outdoor recreation, range,
timber, watershed, wildlife and fish,
and wilderness. These laws direct the
management of all the various
renewable resources of the lands so that
they are used in the combination that
will best meet the needs of present and
future generations of Americans.
Planning for NFS lands is not simple,
and often there is little agreement on
how these lands should be managed.
While relying on the expertise of the
Forest Service and taking into account
the best available science, this final rule
also provides an open process for public
collaboration and participation.
Finally, other overarching planning
guidance, such as the intent of planning
to produce responsible land
management and how a plan aids the
agency to fulfill its stewardship
responsibilities, is discussed in § 219.3.
Comment: Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act (MUSYA). Some respondents
pointed out that ‘‘multiple use’’ is part
of the law and ‘‘ecosystem
management’’ is not. Active forest
management, they asserted, is necessary
for forest health, maintaining biological
diversity, and sustaining wildlife
populations. These respondents
requested that the final rule uphold
what they believe are the active forest
management principles mandated by
the MUSYA. Further, they stated that
timber harvesting is a goal of the
MUSYA. They asked that the Forest
Service provide a high-level sustained
yield of renewable timber resources.
Some respondents requested that the
Forest Service comply with MUSYA by
managing lands according to what they
call its ‘‘wood, water, wildlife, range,
and recreation’’ formula. Others stated
that the 2002 proposed rule violates the
MUSYA requirement that NFS lands be
used to best meet the needs of the
American people. These respondents
requested that emphasis be placed on
recreation, aesthetics, air and water
quality, species habitat, and ecosystem
integrity, rather than natural resource
development.
Response: The final rule is faithful to
NFMA, which requires the use of the
MUSYA to provide the substantive basis
for forest planning. As used in the final
rule, sustainability embodies these
Congressional mandates. The
interrelated and interdependent
elements of sustainability are social,

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

economic, and ecological as described
in § 219.10. The final rule sets the stage
for a planning process that can be
responsive to the desires and needs of
both present and future generations of
the Americans for the multiple uses of
NFS lands. The final rule does not make
choices among the multiple uses; it
describes the processes by which those
choices will be made as a preliminary
step during development of plans. Later,
the plan provides guidance for projects
and activities.
Comment: Forest planning versus
project planning. Some respondents
said that, unlike the 2000 planning rule,
the 2002 proposed rule correctly
focused only on the forest planning
level and not on project planning.
Response: The final rule retains the
focus of the 2002 proposed rule on land
management plans, while at the same
time explaining on how plans and
projects or activities are linked.
Inclusion of an EMS in the land
management framework provides a
current scientific and informational
foundation for the effective
development and implementation of
projects and activities. This framework
ensures the continued relevance of the
entire cycle of planning while
maintaining the distinction between
strategic planning and projects and
activities. As previously noted, there
will be a comprehensive table in the
Forest Service directives that includes
guidance on what direction is
appropriate for the plan level, what
decisions are properly made at the
project or activity level, and what
scheduling, prioritization, or analysis
may take place in between.
Section 219.2—Levels of Planning and
Planning Authority
This section was located in the
proposed rule at § 219.3, but has been
re-designated at § 219.2 as part of the
overall reorganization of the final rule.
This section describes planning in
general, the levels of planning in the
agency, and provides the basic
authorities and direction for developing,
amending, or revising a plan.
Comment: Consistency of decisions
across units and the Responsible
Official. Some respondents were
concerned that plans developed for
individual units, each with a different
Responsible Official, would not be
consistent within larger areas. They said
that the planning framework should be
similar within each State or ecological
region. Some said that without a
regional context, the planning efforts of
each forest or grassland would seem to
take place in a vacuum. Some
commented that plans needed to

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

address species management plans and
conservation agreements for wide
ranging species in a consistent manner.
Some commented that planning needed
to use consistent consultation
procedures with Tribes.
Several respondents commented on
the provision that the Supervisor is
usually the Responsible Official. Those
in favor of this provision said that local
Supervisors and staff are involved with
actual hands-on project implementation
and can better gauge success or failure
of the planning process. Some said that
Supervisors are close to the problem
areas and are better able than Regional
Foresters to seek solutions proactively
and act upon them more quickly. These
respondents felt that Supervisors are in
a better position to facilitate citizen
participation and negotiation between
competing groups and to coordinate
with local or State plans.
Those opposed to this provision were
concerned that the local pressure for
employment in forest products industry
may outweigh the preservation of our
national heritage if decisionmaking was
left in local hands. They said that
Supervisors are susceptible to political
pressure or abuse of their authority. Still
others said Supervisors sometimes do
not have sufficient experience or
expertise to make adequate plan
decisions. Some said that local staff may
not understand how to use inventory
data, monitoring, or ecosystem or
species evaluations and will simply
copy what was done in other locations,
causing endless escalation of planning
efforts. Several respondents said that the
current system has worked well with
the Regional Forester as the Responsible
Official.
Still others said that both national and
local level staffs are necessary, because
local staff cannot reasonably understand
complex and overlapping policies,
regulations, and laws, and national staff
cannot efficiently study local conditions
or gain local consensus. Finally, one
respondent observed that if the planning
process becomes so burdensome that
local officials do nothing but plan, the
system would once again break down.
Some respondents wanted the final rule
to clarify the conditions under which
officials ranking higher than the
Supervisor can act as the Responsible
Official and to explain the types of
decisions that these officials can make.
Response: Supervisors currently
coordinate across unit and Regional
boundaries and will continue to do so
because the evaluations described in
§§ 219.6, 219.7, and 219.10 will often
cross boundaries of adjacent NFS units.
In addition, the final rule provides the
option for higher-level officials to act as

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the Responsible Official for a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision across a
number of plan areas when consistency
is needed. Additional procedural
guidance will be placed in the Forest
Service directives to ensure consistency
as needed for Tribal or public
consultation or for social, economic, or
ecological resource related issues.
The Department intends the final rule
be flexible in addressing different issues
that may arise at different levels.
Therefore, the Department does not
believe that the final rule should
provide the specific criteria for when a
higher-ranking official becomes the
Responsible Official.
The final rule retains the provision in
the 2002 proposed rule for the
Supervisor to be the Responsible
Official because the Department
believes that the Supervisor is the
person most familiar with the resources
and the people on their unit and is
usually the most appropriate person to
make decisions affecting those lands.
This provision has not changed from the
2000 planning rule. Together,
environmental management systems,
science, monitoring, evaluation,
interdisciplinary teams, public
participation, objection process, and
other laws and direction all aid in
providing relevant information for the
decisionmaker.
However, the final rule retains the
provision in the 2002 proposed rule to
allow higher-level officials to serve as
Responsible Officials. Also, the final
rule retains the provision of the 2002
proposed rule for an objection process
in which the Reviewing Officer, who is
the supervisor of the Responsible
Official, must respond to objections
before approval of a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision (§§ 219.13
and 219.16).
Comment: Forest Service Strategic
Plan. Some respondents observed that
the 2002 proposed rule only
acknowledges the existence of the
Strategic Plan and does not provide
guidance about using the Strategic Plan
in new plans, plan amendments, or plan
revisions.
Response: The Strategic Plan provides
an overall vision for management of the
NFS. Land management plans, projects,
and activities contribute to the vision
and Responsible Officials approve them
within the context of the Strategic Plan.
The Department believes that decisions
regarding how plans should use the
Strategic Plan are best made at the
national forest, grassland, prairie, or
other comparable administrative unit
level.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Section 219.3—Nature of Planning and
Land Management Plans
The direction found in § 219.2 of the
2002 proposed rule has been
redesignated at § 219.3 as part of the
reorganization of the final rule. The
direction found in § 219.3 of the 2002
proposed rule has been moved to
§ 219.2 of the final rule. Section 219.3
describes the nature of planning, and
the force and effect of plans.
Comment: Desired conditions as the
purpose of planning. Some respondents
believed that the final rule should
establish desired conditions as the
fundamental purpose of a plan and that
this section of the final rule provides a
clear statement of what a plan will do.
Others said that the focus on desired
conditions may be too narrow in light of
the overall goals of multiple use and
sustained yield. Others commented that
the primary purpose should be to
integrate human activities and
ecological processes. Still others said
that the term ‘‘desired conditions’’ was
too susceptible to multiple
interpretations and the purpose of a
plan should be changed to ‘‘fulfill
multiple-use objectives to ensure
ecological sustainability.’’
Response: The Department concluded
that, while ‘‘desired conditions’’ may
drive how the other plan components
are developed, ‘‘desired conditions’’ are
not the ‘‘primary purpose’’ of a plan.
The final rule has been changed at
§ 219.7(a) to clarify that plans also
provide objectives, guidelines,
suitability of areas, and special areas.
There is further discussion of desired
conditions in the preamble to the final
rule in the section entitled ‘‘The
strategic and adaptive nature of land
management plans.’’ Plans are
developed in light of the overall goal of
managing the NFS lands as described in
§ 219.1, which is to sustain the multiple
uses of its renewable resources in
perpetuity while maintaining the longterm productivity of the land.
Comment: Oil and gas leasing
decisions. Some respondents felt that
the 2002 proposed rule’s emphasis on
the programmatic nature of plans is
contrary to the Federal Onshore Oil and
Gas Leasing Reform Act (Oil and Gas
Leasing Reform Act) of 1987 (Pub. L.
100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–256, 30 U.S.C.
181, 226, 226–3), Forest Service
regulations, and the Mining and
Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C.
21a), which these respondents say,
require project or activity decisions to
be made in a plan.
Response: The Forest Service
directives will include guidance on
making an initial availability decision

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1039

for oil and gas leasing where there is the
geologic potential for the occurrence of
such resources or where there has been
an expression of interest in leasing.
There is no irretrievable or irreversible
commitment of resources unless and
until the Department of the Interior
decides to issue a lease, giving certain
exclusive rights to the lessee. Grounddisturbing activity and the final
irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources occur only
when a decision approves a surface use
plan of operations. Exploration or
development of a lease requires
additional environmental analysis,
public disclosure, and specific project
decisions by the appropriate regulatory
agencies.
Because plans include plan
components that describe which lands
are generally suitable for consideration
for energy and mineral leasing, they
meet the intent of the Oil and Gas
Leasing Reform Act, the Forest Service
regulations for oil and gas resources,
and the Mining and Minerals Policy
Act. Specific project decisions to
explore or develop a lease or mining
claim are properly deferred to the
project or activity level.
Comment: Management zone
authorities. Some respondents said that
only counties have authority to create
zoning ordinances. Others said that the
zoning system creates a dominant or
single use that is contrary to multipleuse.
Response: The Forest Service is
responsible for managing the lands of
the NFS under NFMA and other laws.
The terms ‘‘zoning’’ or ‘‘zone’’ were not
in the text of the 2002 proposed rule,
nor are they in the text of the final rule.
The Forest Service is not issuing zoning
ordinances. The preamble to the 2002
proposed rule described plans as
creating ‘‘zones’’ in the forest. The
Department used the term as a metaphor
to help describe how plans may identify
suitability of areas.
Section 219.4—National Environmental
Policy Act Compliance
Compliance with NEPA was
addressed in § 219.6 in the 2002
proposed rule. This section has been
redesignated at § 219.4 as part of the
overall reorganization of the final rule.
This section of the final rule describes
how planning will comply with NEPA.
Comment: Applicability of NEPA,
NEPA documentation, NEPA
‘‘significance,’’ and the nature of forest
plans. Some respondents said that
NEPA is not applicable to planning,
noting that a plan should provide a
framework for future project and
activity decisionmaking and that the

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1040

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

disclosure of effects in plan-level NEPA
documents is necessarily speculative;
some said that plans do not significantly
affect the environment. Others said that
it might be more advantageous to make
as many project-level decisions during
the forest planning process as possible,
because one NEPA analysis document
could be used to make numerous
decisions. Another said that failure to
make decisions at the plan level would
delay implementation of projects.
Some respondents supported
categorically excluding plans from
NEPA documentation, while others
suggested that the criteria for
categorically excluding plans were
unclear, or that extraordinary
circumstances in the plan area would
always preclude the use of a categorical
exclusion (CE). Some respondents
thought the criteria for determining
whether a CE is appropriate gives the
Responsible Official too much
discretion; others thought the degree of
discretion appropriate. Some
respondents indicated that they did not
see the relationship between
categorically excluding plans from
NEPA documentation and achieving a
more streamlined, adaptive planning
system and holding the Forest Service
accountable for its plans. Some
interpreted categorically excluding
plans from NEPA documentation as not
complying with NEPA, rather than
application of a provision of the NEPA
regulations.
Many questioned how certain
procedures, such as plan analysis and
public involvement, would occur if a CE
is used. Many people questioned how
cumulative effects would be considered
if a CE was used, and how monitoring
would occur. Some wanted clearer and
stronger direction for when a plan might
be categorically excluded and when an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
would be required. Some respondents
asked the Forest Service to distinguish
between effects to the environment and
effects to the human environment.
Respondents stated a number of
reasons in support of an EIS for plans.
Some respondents commented that
plans, by their very nature, are
controversial and therefore should
require an EIS. Some commented that
the requirement of the 1982 and 2000
planning rules to prepare an EIS for
plans and revisions was an
acknowledgment that plans are major
Federal actions having significant
effects on the environment. Others
suggested that a substantial change in
the existing situation on the ground or
a substantial change to an existing plan
would trigger an EIS. Some respondents
said that the 2002 proposed rule

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

misconstrued the role of a plan and thus
the applicability of NEPA, saying that a
plan is not just a simple framework, but
rather creates changes on-the-ground
that have environmental consequences.
Some said that if a plan acts as a zoning
document and authorizes increased
motorized recreational uses, detailed
analysis would have to occur in the plan
analysis for all affected sites. Some
respondents thought that the 2002
proposed rule differentiated between
whether an EIS would be required for
plan revisions, as opposed to new plan
development, arguing that existing
plans must need ‘‘significant’’ changes
because conditions had changed since
the plans were originally adopted.
However, some said that a better
approach, instead of focusing on
‘‘zones,’’ would be to describe where in
the plan area certain uses would have
dominance over other uses. Others said
that plans should set timber sale
schedules; indicate what areas are
available for logging, grazing, off-road
vehicles use, and mineral extraction;
and establish unique areas for
protection, and that NEPA
documentation would be necessary to
make such decisions. They said that
plans should establish measurable and
enforceable standards and objectives.
Others said that management activities
must be analyzed on a site-by-site basis
in a NEPA document for the plan.
Some respondents thought that in the
absence of an EIS, the Forest Service
would ignore information that would
curb timber harvesting. Some thought
that an EIS was needed to ensure
ecological sustainability because
adequate analysis needs a long-term
view that considers science.
Some respondents commented that
there is a history of case law that
requires the Forest Service to follow not
only NEPA, but also the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508.
Some respondents raised a number of
NEPA regulation requirements for
‘‘significance,’’ including the
uncertainty of effects; the potential for
establishing a precedent for future
actions with significant effects;
connectivity of actions; potential
violations of Federal, State, or local
environmental laws; consideration of
the 10 ‘‘significance’’ factors in the CEQ
regulations; and various other factors.
Response: As described in the
‘‘Overview of the Final 2004 Rule,’’ land
management plans under this final rule
will be strategic and aspirational in
nature. They will include decisions
with on-the-ground effects only in
extraordinary circumstances. If a plan
includes on-the-ground decisions, it

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

will not fall within the categorical
exclusion being proposed in connection
with this final rule. Otherwise, it will be
categorically excluded from NEPA
documentation due to the fact that the
adoption or amendment of plans
containing the five plan components
described above is not a major federal
action significantly affecting the
environment. Simultaneously with this
rulemaking, the Forest Service is
proposing to revise its NEPA procedures
to provide a new categorical exclusion
for plan development, amendment, and
revision. The Forest Service is seeking
comment on the proposed categorical
exclusion. Information developed in
plan monitoring and evaluation,
including those required by § 219.6,
may be incorporated by reference in
applicable NEPA documents and used
as basis for the analysis needed for
specific project and activity decisions.
The final rule establishes a planning
process that complies with NEPA in a
manner appropriate for NFMA
planning. The final rule does not
preclude Forest Service participation in
development of an EA or EIS in a joint
planning effort with another Federal
agency.
The Department emphasizes that
project or activity decisions are
generally not appropriate for inclusion
in a plan level document; experience
has shown that including project and
activity decisionmaking in planning has
actually delayed the planning and
project and activity processes without
improving natural resource management
or public participation. Thus, by
sharpening the distinction between
planning and project and activity
decisions, the Department expects both
better planning decisions and more
useful and timely environmental
analysis for project and activity
decisionmaking. Experience has shown
the futility of attempting detailed
project and activity proposals at the
time of plan approval: the NEPA
documentation for the proposed projects
and activities would be largely
speculative and unwieldy and would
not account for unforeseen
circumstances. Most of the document
would be out of date by the time most
of the projects or activities would be
ready for decisionmaking.
Paragraph (d) of § 219.4 specifies that
nothing in this rule alters the
application of NEPA to proposed
projects and activities. For example, a
decision to allow motorized recreational
use within the plan area may be made
contemporaneously with, but not as a
part of, a plan, but such decision can
only be made upon the completion of
the appropriate level of NEPA analysis.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The Department believes that, in
general, an EIS does not need to
accompany planning decisions made
pursuant to NFMA, particularly given
that plans under the final rule will
contain five components merely setting
forth desired conditions, objectives,
guidelines, suitability of areas, and
special areas. Until now, the agency’s
practice under NEPA has been to
require programmatic EISs for plan
development and revision, and EISs or
EAs for proposed plan amendments.
Because a plan, in most cases, is a
framework for future action, EISs
prepared at the plan level had no
proposed ‘‘action’’ on which to focus.
Similarly, disclosure of effects of a plan
included discussions of possible
environmental impacts from an array of
potential projects and activities whose
dimensions and details were far from
certain and ranged over a 15-year period
for implementation without an ability to
predict unforeseen natural events. To
conduct a meaningful evaluation of
environmental impacts, and to provide
helpful information to decisionmakers,
the agency must examine the details of
proposed activities, the extent of those
activities, the specific location of those
activities, the environmental conditions
at the site when the activities are
proposed, past and reasonably
foreseeable future actions that might
relate to the cumulative impacts of the
proposed activities, and reasonable
mitigation measures, if appropriate.
After 25 years of experience, the
Department now knows this information
is not generally available at the time of
plan approval, and that to provide such
specific information at the time of
adopting or amending a plan is an
inefficient use of resources.
Furthermore, between the time of
plan evaluation and the design of
projects, the possibilities change. A plan
EIS disclosure of potential cumulative
impacts and other unit-wide
information are speculative to begin
with, and therefore, quickly become
outdated. The agency has found that a
plan EIS typically does not provide
useful, current information about
potential cumulative impacts at the time
of project or activity proposals;
therefore, relying upon, or ‘‘tiering’’ to,
a plan EIS has not proved to be effective
over the long term.
Under the final rule, approval of a
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision
creates the framework that will lead to
projects and activities for which EISs,
EAs, or reliance on CEs will be
necessary. Accordingly, the Department
believes it is appropriate at the time of
plan development, plan amendment, or
plan revision to begin assembling

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

appropriate data and other information
to be used in those EISs, EAs, and CEs.
Much of this information should come
from the environmental management
system processes described in the other
parts of this rule. However, the
assembling of data and other
information that will be useful in
making future project or activity
decisions does not itself constitute a
proposal for major Federal action. Thus,
the process of implementing NEPA is a
continuum that begins when the
planning framework is established, and
moves through scoping for specific
project and activity decisions,
culminating in a NEPA document for
the project and activity proposals.
Moreover, the final rule does provide
for extensive analysis, as set out in
§§ 219.6 and 219.7. A comprehensive
evaluation must be done for plan
development and revisions and updated
at least every five years (§ 219.6(a)). This
evaluation will provide a broad
overview of current conditions and
trends relevant to the plan area. This
overview, along with information from
annual evaluations and other sources,
will be part of the continually updated
Plan Documents or Set of Documents
that must be considered in project
analysis. These Plan Documents or Set
of Documents will provide a better
context than had been provided in plan
EISs for project cumulative effects
disclosures; therefore, the Forest Service
will make better informed management
decisions at the time it decides to act.
The Plan Documents or Set of
Documents required by the final rule
will make it easier to propose, approve,
and carry out projects.
Conditions can and do change
between the broad ‘‘cumulative effects’’
analysis the agency has done for plan
EIS’s and a later, actual project or
activity decision. Fires can occur,
adjacent landowners can do something
that was not predicted, and the agency
can be doing actions it had not
anticipated at the time it developed the
plan and not undertake projects or
activities it thought it would. Under this
final rule, the Forest Service uses
monitoring and the results of the
comprehensive evaluation with the
most up-to-date site-specific
information to provide a basis for the
consideration of cumulative effects for
projects and activities. Again,
cumulative effects like project or
activity specific impacts are best studied
in the context of a concrete proposal.
The process outlined in the final rule
retains and improves upon the
important planning elements the public
has come to expect, such as public
involvement; taking into account the

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1041

best available science; integrated
analysis of social, economic, and
ecological systems; monitoring and
evaluation. An EIS is not necessary to
ensure that the public is given an
opportunity to participate in the
planning process, or that the agency
obtains high quality information,
considers the best available science, and
considers the long-term view. Under the
final rule, the opportunities for the
public will be greater than those
opportunities required by regulation for
an EIS, because the final rule mandates
public involvement opportunities in
developing and updating the
comprehensive evaluation report,
establishing the components of the plan,
and designing the monitoring program.
Additionally, by requiring an EMS,
combined with the procedures in the
Forest Service directives, the final rule
provides for agency accountability
through impartial and objective audits,
management reviews, and public
disclosure of the results of those
reviews.
Plans under this final rule will not
contain final decisions that approve
projects and activities except under
extraordinary circumstances.
Guidelines, which are intended to
provide some direction in how to
implement decisions, have no influence
until they are applied in a project or
activity. The identification of an area as
generally suitable for a use is not a
commitment or decision approving
projects and activities. Any proposed
use in an area identified as suitable for
that use must be separately considered
under agency NEPA procedures at the
time of a project decision. Desired
conditions and objectives are not
commitments or final decisions
approving projects and activities in the
plan area. Special areas may be
designated by statute or through plan
development, plan amendment, or plan
revision or a separate administrative
process under NEPA and other
applicable laws. In summary, none of
these component parts of a plan is
permanent, or final, in that all are
subject to reconsideration and change
through plan amendment or plan
revision at any time. Should a
Responsible Official nevertheless
choose to include projects or activities
within the context of a plan, plan
revision, or plan amendment,
extraordinary circumstances may be
present such that an EIS or an EA may
be required.
From more than 25 years of NFMA
planning experience, the Department
concluded that it can most efficiently
and appropriately evaluate and analyze
the environmental consequences of an

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1042

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

array of potential projects and activities
when those matters reach the status of
a proposal. Making planning a more
continuous process, not dependent on
environmental impact statements that
only give a prediction at one point in
time, will actually make plans more
relevant to projects by collecting,
evaluating, and monitoring data on an
ongoing basis, thereby maintaining a
current base of information that Forest
Service can use at the project or activity
level.
Comment: Alternative or option
development. Some respondents
questioned how alternatives—when
developing plans, amendments, or
revisions—would be considered if plans
were categorically excluded from NEPA
documentation. Others emphasized the
importance of forming effective
partnerships with government, private
landowners, industries, and others to
promote consensus and reduce the need
for numerous alternatives. Some
expressed concern that the agency
would consider only its proposed plan
and not the comments on, or
alternatives to, the plan. Others asserted
that NEPA requires a full range of
alternatives, while others said only two
alternatives are needed.
Response: Requirements for how
options may be considered while
developing plans, amendments, or
revisions are found in § 219.7(a)(6) of
this final rule. The Department
recognizes that people have many
different ideas about how NFS lands
should be managed and that the public
should be involved in determining what
the plan components should provide.
Therefore, the final rule provides for
participation and collaboration with the
public at all stages of plan development,
plan amendment, or plan revision. The
Responsible Official shall work closely
with the public to develop the proposed
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
Key steps in development of the
proposed plan shall be documented in
the plan set of documents, which will
be available to the public. The proposed
plans that the Forest Service presents
for public comment shall be jointly and
collaboratively developed with the
public.
Section 219.5—Environmental
Management Systems
This section has been added to the
final rule to address public comments
regarding how planning relates to
adaptive management. Adaptive
management was addressed in § 219.11,
Monitoring and Evaluation, in the 2002
proposed rule. Both the proposed and
final rule define adaptive management
as an approach to natural resource

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

management where actions are designed
and executed, and effects are monitored
for the purpose of learning and
adjusting future management actions,
which improves the efficiency and
responsiveness of management. The
‘‘Overview of the Final 2004 Rule’’
section of the preamble provides a
detailed description of the provisions of
this section as developed through the
response to public comments.
The Department has chosen to require
each administrative unit to carry out an
EMS based on standards developed by
the International Organization for
Standards (ISO). Each administrative
unit’s EMS will serve as a framework for
land management planning, adaptive
management and, at the project level,
provide information for EISs, EAs, or
CEs where required by NEPA. The EMS
will provide a structured and
documented process for evaluating each
unit’s environmental conditions, setting
objectives to meet the unit’s legal and
public obligations, developing programs
and procedures for managing the unit
under the land management plan,
monitoring and measurement
procedures to collect and track
information about environmental
conditions, and corrective action and
review processes to provide a ‘‘feedback
loop’’ to push for continual
improvement.
Section 219.6—Evaluations and
Monitoring
This section has been organized to
specify requirements for plan evaluation
and plan monitoring. Monitoring and
evaluation requirements were found in
§§ 219.4(a)(6) and 219.11 of the 2002
proposed rule. The final rule allows the
monitoring program to be changed with
administrative corrections and public
notification, instead of amendments, to
more quickly reflect the best available
science and account for unanticipated
changes in conditions. Changes in a
monitoring program will be reported
annually, and the Responsible Official
has flexibility to involve the public in
a variety of ways in developing any
changes to the program. Discussions of
both evaluation and monitoring are
found in the ‘‘Overview of the Final
2004 Rule’’ section of the preamble.
One clarification regarding the
requirement at § 219.6(b)(2)(i) may be
helpful. This paragraph requires that the
plan monitoring program shall monitor
to determine the effects of management
on the productivity of the land. The
term ‘‘productivity’’ refers to all of the
multiple uses, such as outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed,
and wildlife and fish. Use of this term
is broader than just commercial uses.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comment: General. Several
respondents supported the monitoring
and evaluation provisions of the 2002
proposed rule, because they observed
that the 2002 proposed rule provided
the appropriate level of monitoring and
evaluation. Others thought the 2002
proposed rule gave too much flexibility
to the Responsible Official, weakening
monitoring and evaluation
requirements. Some respondents
wanted the requirements from the 2000
planning rule retained because they felt
the 2002 proposed rule did not have
sufficient requirements to mandate
adequate monitoring and evaluation.
Others thought the Responsible
Official was given the appropriate level
of flexibility to allow for alteration of
monitoring and evaluation strategies
and methods. Still others thought the
2002 proposed rule had burdensome
requirements that needed to be relaxed.
One person suggested the Forest Service
establish an independent division to
ensure monitoring compliance. Some
suggested specific monitoring they
believed was needed.
Several respondents submitted
suggestions about how the Forest
Service evaluates the information
obtained from monitoring. One
respondent stated that the use of
evaluation is fuzzy and needs
clarification. Others suggested that
evaluation could be used to indicate the
need for a new use of the NFS. Another
cautioned that any evaluation of the
information obtained from monitoring
should include an estimate of error
reliability of any apparent trend to
preclude premature or ill-advised
corrections.
Response: The Department believes
that monitoring and evaluation are a
critical and necessary part of the
planning process. As the 2002 proposed
rule provided, the final rule requires the
Responsible Official to provide for
monitoring of degree to which on-theground management is maintaining or
making progress toward the desired
conditions and objectives for the plan
(§ 219.6(b)(2)). The Department has
strengthened this section in the final
rule by adding a requirement for
comprehensive evaluation of the area of
analysis (§ 219.6(a)(1)) at no longer than
5-year intervals and conducting an
evaluation when amending a plan
(§ 219.6(a)(2)). In addition, the use of an
EMS with impartial and objective audits
will address both the concerns
expressed in the comments for local
flexibility and those for agency
accountability and compliance. The
Department has also added a provision
that the monitoring program take into
account the best available science to

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
improve the evaluation process. These
evaluations are an integral part of
answering key planning questions such
as the state of social, economic, and
ecological conditions and trends, and
the need for an amendment or revision.
Comment: Involvement of science.
Several respondents wanted assurance
that science would be involved in
monitoring.
Response: The Department believes
that the taking into account the best
available science is important in
monitoring and in evaluating results.
The Department added the provision
that the monitoring program shall take
into account the best available science
at § 219.6(b). In addition, the final rule
at § 219.11 retains the intent of the 2002
proposed rule (§ 219.14) that requires
the consideration of best available
science during planning, including the
development and implementation of
monitoring program.
Section 219.7—Developing, Amending,
or Revising a Plan
The provisions in §§ 219.4, 219.7,
219.8, 219.9, 219.15, and 219.18 of the
2002 proposed rule have been combined
at § 219.7 of the final rule so that
procedural requirements are located in
one section. This section includes
requirements for plan components;
planning authorities; plan process,
including review of areas with potential
for wilderness recommendation;
administrative corrections; Plan
Document or Set of Documents; and the
plan approval document. The detailed
public participation, collaboration, and
notification requirements found in
§§ 219.7, 219.8, and 219.12 of the 2002
proposed rule have been moved, with
additional detail, and consolidated at
§ 219.9 in the final rule to improve
clarity and readability.
Section 219.7(b) provides for
administrative corrections. The final
rule, at § 219.7(b)(5), adds a new
category for administrative corrections
to include changes in the Plan
Document or Set of Documents, except
for changes in the plan components.
The Department made this addition
because, although an emphasis of the
final rule is to allow for continual
inclusion of new science and other
information into the Plan Document or
Set of Documents, the 2002 proposed
rule included no specific vehicle for
allowing this supplementation and
change to occur. Changes to the Plan
Document or Set of Documents may also
occur when outdated documents are
removed, for example, when a new
inventory replaces an older one. The
addition of this new administrative

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

correction category fills this procedural
gap.
Comment: Desired conditions. Some
respondents said that it is unclear what
the desired conditions for the plan area
will be and who makes the decision on
which desired conditions will be
included in the plan. Some said specific
substantive requirements should be
established, such as requiring desired
conditions to mimic natural conditions,
or employment of a policy such as
‘‘limits of acceptable change.’’
Response: Desired conditions are one
of the plan components (§ 219.7(a))
developed through public collaboration
and participation. The Responsible
Official is the decisionmaker for the
plan. The Responsible Official will
consider public participation, the
comprehensive evaluation, monitoring
information, legal requirements, and
assessments in deciding on desired
conditions for the plan area. The final
rule at § 219.7(a) clarifies that desired
conditions are the ‘‘social, economic,
and ecological attributes’’ toward which
the plan is to be directed.
Because desired conditions are a
component of a plan, but not necessarily
the primary focus of a plan, the final
rule removes the words ‘‘primary focus
of a plan.’’ As it will for all plan
components, the public will have an
opportunity to comment on all aspects
of the proposed plan, including desired
conditions (§ 219.9), and may object to
the plan in whole or in part (§ 219.13)
if they have concerns. A discussion of
plan components is found in the
‘‘Overview of the Final 2004 Rule’’
section of the preamble.
Comment: Objectives. Some
respondents said that plan objectives
must be clear and measurable. They said
that plans should provide for a good
faith commitment to accomplish a
plan’s multiple-use and sustained-yield
objectives. Others said that it may be
counterproductive to write simple
objectives when many factors lead to
complexity in their implementation.
Some said that the 2002 proposed rule
lacks policy direction concerning the
extent to which investment in resource
management activities may support
different outputs. Others said the push
for clear objectives, where there is no
clear science, will lead to direction that
is meaningless and simply become a
tool of a political agenda. Others said
the final rule should explicitly provide
for forest plan objectives to be
established in accordance with
guidelines in the Forest Service
directives.
Response: The final rule retains the
provision of the 2002 proposed rule
stating that objectives are measurable

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1043

outcomes intended to guide
management toward reaching desired
conditions. Objectives can be thought of
as a prospectus of outcomes, based on
past performance and estimates of
future trends. Objectives should be
measurable so progress toward
attainment of desired conditions can be
determined. Variation should be
expected due to changes in
environmental conditions, available
budgets, and other factors. In addition,
the Department added the concept of
maintenance of desired conditions to
the description of objectives, because
the desired conditions may already have
been met and only need to be
maintained.
Comment: Standards. One respondent
commented that clear, measurable
standards are important. One
respondent identified the intent of the
proposed regulations to simplify,
clarify, and minimize the standards.
Some said that only measurable
standards allow the public to know
what the Forest Service is doing. Some
said that NFMA requires enforceable
standards and that judicial review
would be more difficult without
measurable standards. Some said that
standards should be defined as
‘‘requirements’’ instead of ‘‘limitations.’’
Others wanted to make clear that
standards can be forest-wide or areaspecific.
Response: As explained in the
‘‘Overview of the Final 2004 Rule’’
section of the preamble, the Department
has replaced the component of
‘‘standards’’ with ‘‘guidelines.’’ The
Department believes requiring
mandatory standards are too restrictive;
however, guidelines will be used and, in
many cases, will be measurable. Policy
contained in the Forest Service
directives will provide the detailed
direction for writing plan guidelines.
The Forest Service directives will
provide criteria for guidelines, requiring
they be written clearly, so decision
makers and the public know when a
project is consistent with the guidelines.
While the final rule will not require
standards, the public shall be kept
informed about what the Forest Service
is doing by procedures such as: (1)
Providing opportunities for the public to
collaborate and participate (§ 219.9(a));
(2) opportunities to object before
approving plans, plan amendments, or
plan revisions (§ 219.13(a)); and (3)
public notice requirements for land
management planning (§ 219.9(b)),
NEPA procedures for projects and
activities, and annual evaluation of
monitoring results. The final rule also
allows for forest-wide and area-specific
guidelines.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1044

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Special designations. Some
respondents suggested that the final rule
should contain language that addresses
presidential and congressionally
designated areas. Respondents stated
that the 2000 planning rule gives the
Responsible Official too much
discretion when evaluating roadless
areas for special designation. Some said
the final rule should provide standards
for the Responsible Official to follow
when evaluating and considering
special designations of the roadless
areas. Some said these standards should
ensure that evaluations of roadless areas
are completed, taking into account the
best available science, and focus on
ecological sustainability. One group
wanted to ensure that special
designations are not determined in a
vacuum favoring only ecological values,
and the group said that social and
economic values must also be
addressed. Others felt the effects of
special designations should be
considered for recreational access and
mirror the increasing demand for
recreation. Some said the final rule
should require that plans set specific
goals, such as an amount or a percentage
of the forest for special area
recommendations.
Response: Special area identification
is an integral part of the planning
process. The proposed and final rules
provide for the identification of special
areas in the plan. After reviewing
comments, and consideration of the
Forest Service’s experience with
planning over the past 25 years, the
Department concluded that guidance
about special area concerns, such as
roadless area evaluations or social and
economic values, are more properly
included in the Forest Service
directives. Provisions in directives can
be more extensive and can be more
easily changed as the agency learns how
to improve its processes and as new
scientific concepts become available.
Comment: Specific uses. Many
respondents suggested that the final rule
identify specific uses that should be
included in plans. One person suggested
that the final rule provide for large
recreational gatherings. Another said
that livestock grazing should be
specifically discussed.
Response: Plans establish desired
conditions, which include recognition
of the type of societal benefits that the
NFS provides. The final rule begins
with a presumption that lands are
available for multiple uses and that
plans will identify suitable uses that
best fit the local situation.
Comment: Need for amendment or
revision. Several respondents were
concerned about the discretion the 2002

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

proposed rule gives the Responsible
Official in determining when a plan
amendment or plan revision is needed.
Some felt the final rule needs clear
direction on when to propose a plan
amendment or plan revision. Of equal
concern was the discretion given to the
Responsible Official to decide which
issues would be considered in an
amendment or revision. They felt that
without specific requirements resources,
such as flora and fauna, would not be
analyzed for every plan amendment or
plan revision. One respondent did not
want plans to be revised or amended
after disturbance events, such as
wildfire, insect epidemics, and
windstorms. Others supported limiting
the analysis required in amending or
revising a plan.
Response: The final rule provides the
Responsible Official discretion about
whether or not to initiate a plan
amendment or plan revision (subject to
the NFMA requirement that the plan be
revised at least every 15 years) and what
issues to consider (§ 219.7(a)(4)). The
evaluations required by the final rule
will document current conditions and
trends for social, economic, and
ecological systems within the area of
analysis (§ 219.6(a)) and aid the
Responsible Official in determining if a
plan amendment or plan revision is
needed and which issues need to be
considered. The Responsible Official
may amend or revise the plan based on
monitoring and evaluation, as well as
other factors. The Department believes
that the efficiencies of the final rule
would be reduced if the final rule
identified specific issues that must be
considered for every plan revision or
plan amendment.
Comment: Interim amendments.
Many respondents did not support
interim amendments and suggested this
provision be removed or at least have
additional parameters added. Others
supported this concept.
Response: The final rule allows for an
efficient plan amendment process.
Therefore, there is no need for interim
amendments. Accordingly, the interim
amendment provision has been removed
from the final rule.
Comment: Significant plan
amendments. Many respondents were
concerned with how ‘‘significance’’ is
determined for an amendment. Some
wanted significance described, while
others suggested certain factors to
determine significance. Others wanted
to understand the connection between
an EIS and NFMA significance with
respect to the 2002 proposed rule’s
provision that every amendment
prepared with an EIS would be deemed
a significant amendment.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Response: The Department decided
not to distinguish between ‘‘significant’’
and ‘‘non-significant’’ amendments. The
Department is not requiring an EIS with
any plan amendment. The final rule
treats all amendments as ‘‘significant,’’
except when an amendment would
relate only to a proposed project or
activity. Plan amendments prepared
under the procedures described in this
final rule must have a 90-day comment
period (required for significant
amendments by NFMA) and must have
an objection opportunity. Plan
amendments associated with a proposed
project or activity will follow the NEPA
documentation required for the project
or activity, as well as notice and
comment requirements for the project or
activity.
Comment: Roadless area evaluation.
Some respondents felt that under the
2002 proposed rule, the requirements
for evaluation and protection of the
roadless areas’ ecological values had
been eliminated, allowing the
Responsible Official to redefine roadless
area boundaries upon a determination of
circumstances deemed necessary and
appropriate. Some felt this language was
too broad, deferred too much authority
to the Responsible Official, and would
eliminate many lands from
consideration for new wilderness,
though they still met the physical
requirements of a roadless area. Others
supported the requirement that the
Responsible Official review and validate
the maps of inventoried roadless areas
and then adjust them as necessary and
appropriate.
Response: The Department has moved
this provision from § 219.15(b)(3) in the
2002 proposed rule to § 219.7(a)(5)(ii) in
the final rule. Because the 2002
proposed rule caused confusion
concerning roadless area evaluation, the
Department has changed the wording to
describe these areas from ‘‘inventoried
roadless areas’’ to ‘‘lands possessing
wilderness characteristics.’’ The final
rule at 219.7(a)(5)(ii) directs Responsible
Officials to ensure that, unless
otherwise provided by law, all NFS
lands possessing wilderness
characteristics be considered for
recommendation as potential wilderness
areas during plan development or
revision. Policy and guidance contained
in the Forest Service directives will
provide the detailed direction for the
identification of these areas and the
evaluation process to follow in carrying
out this requirement.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Section 219.8—Application of a New
Plan, Plan Amendment, or Plan
Revision
This provision, found in § 219.10 in
the 2002 proposed rule, has been
redesignated at § 219.8 as part of the
overall reorganization of the final rule.
This section of the final rule describes
how and when new plans, plan
amendments, or plan revisions are
applied to new or ongoing projects or
activities. The general outline and intent
of this section in the final rule is similar
to the corresponding section of the 2002
proposed rule. However, § 219.10(e) of
the proposed rule addressing testing and
research projects was removed from the
final rule because the acknowledgement
that these projects are subject to all
applicable laws is not necessary. While
the 2002 proposed rule required project
or activity consistency with standards,
the final rule requires consistency with
the applicable plan.
Comment: Valid existing rights.
Respondents were both for and against
the 2002 proposed rule provision that
new plan direction is subject to valid
existing rights. Those in favor supported
respecting these rights. Those against
said that protection of ecological
conditions should take precedence.
Response: The final rule at
§ 219.8(a)(2) is consistent with NFMA
(16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) which specifies that
any revision in present or future
permits, contracts, and other
instruments made pursuant to the act
shall be subject to valid existing rights.
Comment: Consistency with the
desired conditions. Several respondents
commented that under the 2002
proposed rule, projects do not need to
be consistent with standards; they only
have to disclose the project’s
relationship with desired conditions.
Some said that NFMA requires all
projects to be consistent with the plan
and said that if desired conditions are
in the plan, projects need to be
consistent with them. They also said the
public will be disappointed to find out
that plans have no ‘‘teeth.’’ Others were
concerned that the 2002 proposed rule
emphasizes desired conditions and
objectives, which by definition may
never be attained.
Response: NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(i))
requires that resource plans, permits,
contracts, and other instruments for the
use and occupancy of NFS lands be
consistent with land management plans.
In response to public comment,
§ 219.8(b) was added to the final rule to
describe how projects or activities
developed after approval of the plan
must be consistent with applicable plan
components. The Department removed

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

two provisions: (1) the provision
limiting consistency to standards and
(2) the provision requiring disclosure of
the project’s relationship to desired
conditions.
In the final rule, if an existing or
proposed project or activity is not
consistent with the applicable plan, the
Responsible Official must take one of
the following actions: (1) Modify the
existing or proposed project; (2) reject
the proposal or terminate the existing
project; or (3) amend the plan. The
Department changed the final rule so
the wording conforms to 16 U.S.C.
1604(i).
Comment: Consistency with
standards. Several respondents
commented on the requirements that
projects or activities not consistent with
standards be either modified or rejected,
or the plan be amended. Some said
projects should not be exempted from
standards, while others said that the
final rule should specify that changes
must be considered within the context
of NEPA.
Response: The Department changed
the final rule so that projects or
activities must be consistent with the
applicable plan. A project or activityspecific amendment does not ‘‘exempt’’
a project from the plan, but rather, the
amendment changes the plan, for that
project. If a plan amendment is
necessary as part of a project or activity
decision, that decision will be
considered in accordance with project
NEPA procedures.
Section 219.9—Public Participation,
Collaboration, and Notification
This section of the final rule
consolidates 2002 proposed rule
provisions for public notifications and
comment periods found in §§ 219.7,
Amending a plan; 219.8, Revising a
plan; 219.12, Collaboration,
cooperation, and consultation; and
219.21, Notice of plan decisions and
effective dates. A discussion of public
involvement is found in the ‘‘Overview
of the Final 2004 Rule’’ section of the
preamble.
General comments: Some respondents
expressed the belief that the 2002
proposed rule excludes the public from
participation in the planning process,
and they wanted clarification of what
the public’s role would be under the
final rule. Some were concerned that the
2002 proposed rule no longer requires
landscape goals be developed
collaboratively. Additionally, some
wanted a uniform process for public
involvement. One person suggested the
agency allow e-mail and other
nontraditional forms of public
participation and notification. One

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1045

respondent said the Forest Service
should not allow any public
participation in planning. Many
supported the 2002 proposed rule
requirements for public involvement.
Some respondents stressed the need for
open and vigorous public participation.
One Tribal group supported the
requirement for consultation with
federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Others supported a broader range of
media than is currently being used for
public notification. Another felt the
final rule should be specific about
where plans are made available and
about local public meetings. Some felt
that a Notice of Intent should be placed
in the Federal Register for all revisions.
Response: The Department strongly
supports public involvement in
planning. Public participation,
collaboration, and notification
requirements found in §§ 219.7, 219.8,
and 219.12 of the 2002 proposed rule
have been moved to § 219.9 in the final
rule to improve clarity and readability.
The final rule states that the
Responsible Official shall use a
collaborative and participatory
approach to land management planning.
The final rule does not exclude the
public from participation in the
planning process. There is a wide
variety of methods for public
involvement. For example, where
practical, Responsible Officials may give
extended notice of public meetings,
including the use of unit Internet web
sites. It is virtually impossible at the
national level to specify details for each
type of public involvement used during
a planning process; however, the Forest
Service is developing techniques that
will improve public notification and
participation in the planning process.
Because planners are constantly
improving these techniques, other forms
of direction, such as the Forest Service
directives, are more appropriate ways to
prescribe the ‘‘how to’’ details of public
notification.
Neither the 2002 proposed rule nor
the final rule used the cooperative
development of landscape goals,
because this specific activity should not
be a requirement of all planning efforts.
It may not always be useful and may
often be unachievable with participating
groups. The Department also believes
that one standard process for public
involvement would not be effective for
every unit in the NFS. The size and
scope of issues, the interest level of the
public, and the resources vary across the
country. Therefore, the final rule
requires the Responsible Official to
involve the public, but allows discretion
for the particular type of public
involvement process used.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1046

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

The final rule retains the requirement
of the 2002 proposed rule that the
Responsible Official provide
opportunities for individuals and
entities to participate, consult with
federally recognized Indian Tribes, and
provide for a 90-day public comment
period. The final rule has added
requirements that public involvement
must occur in developing and updating
the comprehensive evaluation report,
establishing the components of the plan,
and designing the monitoring program
(§ 219.9(a)).
Other specific methods and timing for
public participation and involvement
outside of the formal public notice and
comment process will be developed and
implemented on a unit-specific basis so
that they are tailored to the context and
the stakeholders. The Department did
not believe it appropriate to establish
national ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’
requirements. In addition, the
Department agrees with comments on
the need for publication of a Notice of
Intent to revise in the Federal Register
for all plan revisions. The final rule
adds the requirement that notification of
new plans and plan revisions be
published in both the Federal Register
and the newspaper(s) of record.
Comment: Advisory Committees. One
respondent suggested the use of an
advisory committee as a means to
improve public involvement. Another
wanted a multi-agency review board.
Another person wanted to know why
the Department had not required
advisory committees in the 2002
proposed rule. Several respondents
supported the elimination of an
advisory committee (required by the
2000 planning rule) as they felt the
general public would be left out of the
planning process. Two recreation
organizations felt that this elimination
was a vast improvement and would
invigorate the public participation
process.
Response: The Department believes
that an advisory committee, or
something similar, may be the most
effective method to engage the public in
some situations, but it may not be
effective in other cases. As in the 2002
proposed rule, the final rule allows the
Responsible Official the discretion to
determine the methods of public
involvement opportunities, which can
include, but does not require, advisory
committees.
Comment: Local involvement. Several
respondents wanted local input to have
priority over other input. Others were
concerned that only special interests
were being heard.
Response: The NFS lands belong to all
citizens of the United States. The

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Department values involvement by all
interested parties, and understands the
particular importance of local citizens
and governments in the planning
process. Responsible Officials will
address local social, economic, and
environmental issues in the evaluations
for plans, plan amendments, or plan
revisions.
Comment: Public comment period.
Some respondents suggested the
establishment of a required comment
period for plans, plan amendments, and
plan revisions. Some said that all plans
should have a 90-day comment period.
Others wanted the public comment
period to be longer than the NFMA
requirement of 90 days (16 U.S.C.
1604(d)).
Response: The final rule includes a
provision that requires a public
comment period of 90 days for plans,
plan amendments (except for a plan
amendment that applies to project or
activity decision), and plan revisions.
The final rule consolidates the
requirements for public notification and
comment periods into this section so
that it is easier for the public to
understand and the agency to follow.
Section 6(d) of NFMA requires a
comment period ‘‘of at least three
months.’’ The final rule does not
preclude the extension of the comment
period beyond 90 days.
Section 219.10—Sustainability
The sustainability provisions found in
§ 219.13 in the 2002 proposed rule have
been redesignated at § 219.10 as part of
the overall reorganization of the final
rule. This section of the final rule
provides provisions for social,
economic, and ecological sustainability.
The final rule retains sustainability as
the overall goal for NFS planning and
retains the concept of the
interdependent social, economic, and
ecological elements of sustainability
(§ 219.10) in the 2002 proposed rule.
The final rule does not include many of
the specific analytical processes and
requirements set out in the 2002
proposed rule. These provisions will be
placed in the Forest Service directives.
A discussion of sustainability is found
in the ‘‘Overview of the Final 2004
Rule’’ section of the preamble.
The agency also hosted a workshop to
provide an opportunity for public
discussion of these options and for
identification of other ideas on how to
best address the statutory diversity
provision. Interested parties expressed
an extremely wide range of opinions,
both in public comments and in
response to the workshop. The
Department found these comments
useful in developing a scientifically

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

credible and realistic approach for this
final rule to meet legal requirements and
to meet the agency’s stewardship
responsibilities.
Comment: Sustainability definition.
While some respondents focused their
suggestions on clarification of the actual
language of the sustainability section,
other respondents suggested that a
definition of the term ‘‘sustainability’’
would help clarify this topic. Some
suggested using the 2000 planning rule’s
definition for sustainability, others
suggested the Department should seek
legislative clarification of definition,
and others requested a definition that
balances biological productivity, human
use, and economically affordable
management.
Response: The concept of
sustainability is first addressed in this
final rule at § 219.1, which provides
that, consistent with MUSYA, the
overall goal of managing the NFS is to
sustain in perpetuity the productivity of
the land and the multiple uses of its
renewable resources in a manner that
best meets the needs of the American
people. Section 219.10 further clarifies
that the relationship among, social,
economic, and ecological sustainability
is interrelated and interdependent.
Comment: Biological diversity and
species considered. Some respondents
requested that the Forest Service
maintain biodiversity on NFS land.
Similarly, there were a number of
comments regarding what categories of
species to consider in the final rule.
Some respondents wanted to consider
the full array of biodiversity as in
Option 2 of the 2002 proposed rule and
in the 2000 planning rule, and others
agreed with the focus in Option 1 of the
2002 proposed rule, that identified only
native and desired nonnative vertebrates
and vascular plants. Others did not
want to go beyond the specific focus in
NFMA on plant and animal
communities and tree species.
Response: The final rule affirms the
commitment of the Forest Service to
meet the NFMA requirement that plans
provide for diversity of native plant and
animal communities by providing for a
plan framework for sustaining native
ecological systems. The final rule at
§ 219.10(b)(1) requires that provisions in
plan components establish a framework
to provide characteristics of ecosystem
diversity in the plan area. These
characteristics are parameters that
describe an ecosystem in terms of the
composition (such as major vegetation
types, rare communities, aquatic
systems, and riparian systems);
structure (such as successional stages,
water quality, wetlands, and
floodplains); principal ecological

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
processes (such as stream flows and
historic and current disturbance
regimes); and soil, water, and air
resources. Providing characteristics of
ecosystem diversity is the primary
means by which a plan contributes to
sustaining native ecological systems.
Thus, plans provide for sustaining
systems, the systems provide for
diversity, and Forest Service meets
NFMA requirements.
The final rule adopts the concept of
plant and animal species consistent
with terminology in NFMA, as well as
ESA. While adoption of the concept of
comprehensive biodiversity is a worthy
goal, the Department did not deem this
necessary to meet the requirements of
NFMA. The concept of biodiversity
includes the full variety of life and
associated processes. The Department
did not think it was reasonable or
possible to include the full scope and
complexity of biological diversity from
microbes to processes such as
photosynthesis.
Comment: Ecosystem and species
sustainability. Respondents offered a
variety of suggestions regarding the
level at which to evaluate ecosystem
sustainability. Some respondents
requested that the Forest Service use a
hierarchical approach to evaluate
ecosystems, while others suggested a
more iterative process is needed. Some
respondents asked that analytical and
evaluation requirements be spelled out
in the final rule. Other respondents
wanted ecosystem sustainability in the
final rule to generate requirements for
how ecosystems will be maintained and
who will be responsible for their
maintenance.
Some respondents commented on the
level at which species management
decisions should be made. Some
respondents requested that species
management decisions be mandated by
the final rule, while others asked that
decisionmaking be left at the level of
individual plans. Other respondents
said that special provisions to maintain
species are unnecessary; they asserted
that such provisions are not particularly
effective.
Some respondents commented that
species maintenance is important and is
mandated by NFMA; they requested that
the Forest Service retain the
requirements from the 2000 planning
rule. A number of respondents also
requested that the Forest Service work
to restore species that have been
extirpated from the plan area.
Response: The final rule adopts an
overall goal for the ecological element of
sustainability to contribute to sustaining
native ecological systems by sustaining
healthy, diverse, and productive

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

ecological systems as well as by
providing ecological conditions to
support diversity of native plant and
animal species in the plan area. To carry
out this goal, the final rule adopts a twolevel approach to sustaining ecological
systems: ecosystem diversity and
species diversity. The overall goal
demonstrates the Department’s
commitment to ecosystem diversity and
species conservation. This two-level
approach was part of both Options 1
and 2 of the 2002 proposed rule. The
final rule clarifies the two-level
approach and leaves the specific detail
procedures for the Forest Service
directives.
As part of the two-level approach, the
plan area will be assessed for remaining
species diversity needs after plan
components are developed for
ecosystem diversity. The Responsible
Official would evaluate the framework
established by the plan components for
specific federally listed threatened and
endangered species, species-of-concern,
and selected species-of-interest. If
needed, the Responsible Official would
develop additional provisions for these
species to maintain a framework for
providing ecological conditions within
the plan area that contributes to the
conservation of these species. The
Department selected federally listed
threatened and endangered species,
species-of-concern, and species-ofinterest for evaluation and conservation
because: (1) These species are not secure
within their range (threatened,
endangered, or species-of-concern), or
(2) management actions may be
necessary or desirable to achieve
ecological or other multiple use
objectives (species-of-interest). Speciesof-interest may have two elements: (1)
Species that may not be secure within
the plan area and, therefore, in need of
consideration for additional protection,
or (2) additional species of public
interest including hunted, fished, and
other species identified cooperatively
with State fish and wildlife agencies.
Comment: Accountability for
ecological conditions. Citing a need for
accountability for sustainability, a
number of respondents requested the
final rule require land management
plans to ‘‘provide measurable progress
toward maintenance or restoration of
ecological conditions.’’ A
recommendation was made to retain the
provision of the 2000 planning rule that
requires the Responsible Official to be
accountable for the long-term
maintenance and restoration of
ecosystems. A respondent suggested the
Forest Service conduct research on
validating a broad suite of indicators
that can be used to evaluate the efficacy

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1047

of planning in achieving the goal of
ecological sustainability.
Response: The Department believes
that the plan components adopted in the
final rule provide accountability for
ecological conditions in that: (1) The
land management plan’s desired
condition component provides the
overall vision; (2) the objectives
component provides measurable
intentions for attaining the desired
conditions; (3) guidelines provide the
recommended technical and scientific
specifications so that projects and
activities conserve species; and (4) that
other provisions and monitoring ensure
that the combined parts of the plan are
effective. In addition, EMS will ensure
that Responsible Officials conduct
environmental improvement in a
systematic and accountable manner.
Comment: Choosing Option 1 or 2.
There were wide varieties of views on
the ecological sustainability options in
the 2002 proposed rule. In general, the
response from the public can be
grouped into two categories: those who
did not support either option in the
2002 proposed rule and those who
supported at least one of the options in
the 2002 proposed rule. Many
respondents suggested that neither
option is adequate in the 2002 proposed
rule, citing the lack of clarity, the lack
of a Committee of Scientists to assist in
the development of the options, and the
lack of enforceability.
Other respondents considered either
option to be sufficient and remarked
that both options uphold the agency’s
NFMA diversity requirement.
Alternative suggestions from
respondents included creating a hybrid
of Option 1 and 2; retaining the 1982
viability regulation; protecting species
through monitoring; or adopting one of
the new options presented by
participants at the February 2003
diversity workshop.
Response: The final rule conceptually
uses the principles of ecological
sustainability from both Options 1 and
2 of the 2002 proposed rule. The final
rule includes an ecosystem diversity
provision that requires the development
of plan components to establish a
framework to provide the characteristics
of ecosystem diversity. These
characteristics are descriptions of
ecosystem composition, structure, and
processes. Responsible Officials may
identify these characteristics for
multiple spatial scales within the
analysis area and characteristics may
extend to the larger landscape adjacent
to and beyond the plan area. This
ecosystem diversity framework provides
an essential ecological context and
identifies the unique contributions that

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1048

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

NFS lands can make to the three
elements of sustainability.
Option 2 required rigorous analysis of
ecological conditions in relation to the
range of characteristics of native
ecosystems within the plan area, the
range of natural variability. Forest
Service directives will set out the
analytical requirements for ecosystem
diversity including abundance,
distribution, and condition of selected
characteristics of ecosystem diversity
compared to their range of variation
under historical disturbance regimes (or
other ecological reference).
An important principle in the
framework of this final rule is the
concept that the more effective the
ecosystem diversity provision is in
sustaining species within the ecosystem,
the less need there is for species-specific
analysis.
Comment: Species-at-risk,
management indicator species, or focal
species. Some respondents asked that
the final rule require species-at-risk and
focal species to be identified and
maintained. A number of respondents
wanted a survey and monitoring
requirement for management indicator
species (MIS) or focal species in the
final rule. There was a suggestion to use
reliable historic information to analyze
the population viability of focal species.
There were comments in favor of
requiring species surveys and reviews,
as well as comments not to have
mandatory survey and monitoring
requirements for maintaining
populations of wildlife. Other
respondents requested that the Forest
Service continue to use focal species as
a means to analyze and provide for
species viability and species diversity.
Response: The concept of MIS was
not included in the 2002 proposed rule
and is not in the final rule, except for
transition provisions at § 219.14,
because recent scientific evidence
identified flaws in the MIS concept. The
concept of MIS was that population
trends for certain species that were
monitored could represent trends for
other species. Through time, this was
found not to be the case.
The concept of focal species that was
proposed by the Committee of Scientists
and adopted in the 2000 planning rule
is also not used in the final rule. The
focal species concept is untested and it
would not be prudent to potentially
make the same mistake with focal
species as was made with MIS in the
1982 planning rule. However, the
concept of focal species as indicators of
the ecological conditions may have
merit and may be included in the Forest
Service directives as a tool to identify
monitoring approaches to assess

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

progress towards achieving the desired
condition articulated in a plan.
To focus management attention on the
at-risk species, the concepts of ‘‘speciesat-risk’’ and ‘‘species-of-concern’’
presented in the 2002 proposed rule
were further developed in the final rule
to make the provision for species-level
analysis clearer and efficient in the
planning process. However, the
Department changed the terms used.
‘‘Species-of-concern’’ are those species
for which their continued existence is a
concern and listing under the ESA may
occur (§ 219.16). ‘‘Species-of-interest’’
are species for which the Responsible
Official determines that management
actions may be necessary or desirable to
achieve ecological or other multiple use
objectives (§ 219.16). The Forest Service
directives will describe a systematic,
scientifically credible, and efficient
approach, using existing information, to
identify species-of-concern and speciesof-interest.
Comment: Protection of water supply,
water quality, wetlands, and riparian
areas. Various respondents stated the
need to protect the nation’s water
supply and require land management
plans to address water quality
restoration for those areas identified as
water quality limited under the Clean
Water Act. Other respondents believed
the final rule should mandate the
protection of wetland and riparian
areas, which are essential for
environmental quality and human
health.
Response: The Department agrees that
water quality is important, as is
restoration of impaired watersheds. The
final rule provides specific provisions at
§ 219.10(b)(1) for development of plan
components that establish a framework
to provide the characteristics of
ecosystem diversity, which include
water quality, wetlands, riparian areas,
and floodplains. It is not necessary for
the final rule to repeat direction in the
Clean Water Act; in addition, water
related issues are not the same on every
unit of the NFS. Forest Service
directives will provide additional
provisions as needed.
Section 219.11—Role of Science in
Planning
This provision was contained in
§ 219.14 in the 2002 proposed rule, and
was redesignated as § 219.11 as part of
the reorganization of the final rule. The
final rule requires the Responsible
Official to take into account the best
available science. The final rule puts the
burden on the Responsible Official
rather than on the plan. The words
‘‘consistent with’’ has been replaced by
‘‘take into account’’ because this term

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

better expresses that formal science is
just one source of information for the
Responsible Official and only one
aspect of decisionmaking.
The final rule, like the 2002 proposed
rule, states that the Responsible Official
may use independent peer reviews,
science advisory boards, or other review
methods to evaluate science used in the
planning process. Forest Service
directives will provide specific
procedures for conducting science
reviews. The ‘‘Overview of the Final
2004 Rule’’ section of the preamble
discusses the role of science in
planning.
Comment: Role of science. Some
respondents felt that the 2002 proposed
rule should add emphasis to the role of
science, while others felt that the 2002
proposed rule provided a welcome relief
from the 2000 planning rule by
eliminating excessive process
requirements. Some felt that the 2002
proposed rule made the use of science
and the review of science consistency
optional. Others thought that the use of
science in the 2002 proposed rule
appeared to be budget driven. Several
respondents suggested that public
involvement should include science and
scientists. They thought that the
Responsible Official should not make a
decision without the input of science
and scientists. However, one respondent
felt that there should be no consultation
with a panel of scientists when drafting
a plan.
Response: The Department is
committed to taking into account the
best available science in developing
plans, plan amendments, and plan
revisions as well as documenting the
consideration of science information.
The final rule retains the emphasis in
the 2002 proposed rule on the
consideration of science in planning, on
documenting how science was
interpreted and applied, and on
evaluating the associated risks and
uncertainties of using that science. In
response to public comment regarding
the Responsible Official’s obligation to
‘‘demonstrate’’ consideration of science,
the final rule requires the Responsible
Official to ‘‘document’’ such
consideration. The Department believes
that this change gives clearer and
stronger direction as to what is expected
of the Responsible Official in
developing the Plan Document or Set of
Documents and in considering the best
available science.
Under the final rule, the Responsible
Official must: (1) Document how the
best available science was considered in
the planning process within the context
of the issues being considered; (2)
evaluate and disclose any substantial

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
uncertainties in that science; (3)
evaluate and disclose substantial risks
associated with plan components based
on that science; and (4) document that
the science was appropriately
interpreted and applied. Additionally,
the Responsible Official may use
independent peer review, a science
advisory board, or other review methods
to evaluate the consideration of science
in the planning process. Any interested
scientists can be involved at any of the
public involvement stages.
Section 219.12—Suitable Uses and
Provisions Required by NFMA
This section (§ 219.12), which was not
in the 2002 proposed rule, addresses the
provisions found in §§ 219.4(a)(3),
219.4(a)(4), 219.16, and 219.17 of the
2002 proposed rule. The final rule
requires the Chief of the Forest Service
to include in the Forest Service
directives procedures to address the
provisions of NFMA that were
addressed by §§ 219.4(a)(3), 219.16, and
219.17 of the 2002 proposed rule.
Guidance for suitable uses, located in
paragraph (a) in the final rule, has been
moved from § 219.4(a)(4) of the 2002
proposed rule. In addition, the
Department reorganized this guidance to
better describe the overall nature of
identifying suitable land uses. Overall,
NFS lands are generally suitable for a
variety of multiple uses, including
timber harvest and timber production,
unless administratively withdrawn or
prohibited by statute, Executive order,
or regulation. On lands generally
suitable for timber, the Forest Service
may harvest timber for a variety of
purposes, such as to create openings for
wildlife or for fuels reduction and
restoration. If timber production is not
an objective for lands generally suitable
for timber, the Responsible Official must
identify these lands as not suitable for
timber production. Provisions
concerning not suitable for timber
production have been moved with
modifications from § 219.16 of the 2002
proposed rule to § 219.12(a)(2).
Additional guidance for identification of
lands not suitable for timber harvest and
guidance for timber harvest that the
proposed rule addressed at § 219.4(a)(3)
will be placed in the Forest Service
directives. A request for public
comment on the Forest Service
directives will be published in the
Federal Register as soon as possible
after adoption of the final rule.
In addition, Forest Service directives
will address additional NFMA
requirements. These requirements
include limitations on timber harvest
(§ 219.17 of proposed rule) and
provisions for plans to determine forest

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

management systems, restocking
requirements, harvesting levels in light
of the multiple uses, and the potential
suitability of lands for resource
management, as well as projections of
proposed and possible actions,
including the planned timber sale
program. The Department made this
change to provide a better balance
between the specific procedures for
timber and the provisions for other
sections of the final rule.
Comment: Culmination of mean
annual increment. Some respondents
said that the culmination of mean
annual increment (CMAI) requirement
should not be limited to even-aged
harvests and that the protection
provided by a CMAI requirement on
uneven-aged harvests would protect
against over-zealous logging.
Response: CMAI is the age in the
growth cycle of an even-aged stand
where average annual growth is at its
maximum. By definition, CMAI applies
only to even-aged timber stands and not
to uneven-aged stands. However,
detailed guidance for CMAI is moved to
the Forest Service directives because
NFMA does not require this guidance to
be in the rule itself. NFMA requires
establishment of guidance so that stands
of timber, not individual trees, generally
have reached CMAI. The Forest Service
directives will clarify the technical
limits of the CMAI concept.
Comment: Restocking. A respondent
said the rule is inconsistent with NFMA
because it does not require restocking of
lands within five years after final
regeneration harvest.
Response: Section 219.16(a)(3) of the
2002 proposed rule has been removed in
the final rule. Forest Service directives
will address restocking requirements.
Forest Service directives will meet the
requirement of NFMA to ensure that
timber will be harvested from NFS lands
only where there is assurance that such
lands can be adequately restocked
within five years after harvest. Adequate
restocking may vary depending on the
purpose of a harvest and the objectives
and desired conditions for the area.
Restocking is not required for lands
harvested to create openings for fuel
breaks and vistas, to prevent
encroaching conifers, and other similar
purposes. This will apply to all timber
harvest, including final regeneration
harvest. Therefore, Responsible Officials
will include in land management plans
guidance for adequate restocking
depending on the purpose of a harvest,
the desired conditions, and objectives
for the area.
Comment: Suitability. Respondents
both agreed and disagreed with the
presumption that lands are suitable for

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1049

all uses unless identified and
determined to be not suitable. Those
who agreed liked this presumption.
Those who disagreed stated that more
lands are not suitable for all uses than
are suitable, so the process would be
easier to start with the presumption that
lands are not suitable. Some said that
this presumption places commercial
uses ahead of other considerations like
fish and wildlife.
One respondent stated that local
planners should have the discretion to
manage the range of opportunities
offered by the forest and the flexibility
to manage new uses unforeseen in the
planning process.
Response: The Department agrees
with the Committee of Scientists report,
which holds the basic philosophy that
these are the people’s lands; and
therefore, it is appropriate to have a
presumption in the final rule that lands
are suitable for a variety of uses. The
Department removed the declaration
that lands are suitable, unless identified
and determined to be not suitable.
Forest Service directives may use that
analytical and philosophical
assumption. The final rule removes the
word ‘‘determine’’ and replaces it with
‘‘identify’’ to conform to the NFMA. In
the overall adaptive management
process, the starting point for
identifying general suitability of land
uses will likely be the existing suitable
or not-suitable use identifications in
current plans, and incremental changes
will be based on public input, review of
inventory, monitoring, evaluation, and
assessment information. The final rule
uses the expression ‘‘generally suitable’’
because identification of suitability is
guidance and must be approved through
project and activity decisionmaking. In
response to public comment and to
clarify the criteria for identifying
suitability, the final rule has changed
the resources to outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, and wildlife
and fish purposes so that the resources
listed agree with the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960
(16 U.S.C. 528–531). Energy resource
development and mining activities were
removed from § 219.12(a)(1) of the final
rule because, even though allowable
uses on many of the NFS lands, they are
not renewable surface resources listed
in MUSYA.
Comment: Suitable lands. Some
respondents felt that social, economic,
ecological, physical, and other factors
should not be considered when
determining suitability of land for
timber production. Others felt that the
Forest Service should analyze the effects
on these factors when no logging is
proposed, because they felt that the

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1050

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

fiscal support of their communities is
not being adequately addressed due to
the fact that there is no requirement to
supply timber. One respondent felt that
the 2002 proposed rule would allow
‘‘timber sales that are not justified by
their social, economic, or ecological
benefits.’’
Response: The 2002 proposed rule
language is based on the NFMA that
requires the Responsible Official to
consider ‘‘physical, economic, and other
pertinent factors to the extent feasible’’
when identifying lands which are not
suited for timber production. However,
the wording has been changed to
‘‘would not be compatible with the
achievement of desired conditions and
objectives,’’ because desired conditions
and objectives reflect the social,
economic, and ecological attributes
toward which management is to be
directed. In addition, the NFMA does
allow salvage sales and sales
necessitated to protect other multipleuse values on lands identified as not
suited for timber production.
Comment: Salvage logging. There
were concerns expressed by some about
salvage harvest and about timber harvest
in general. While some respondents felt
there should not be any salvage logging
on any lands, others felt that salvage
logging is important to improve the
health of National Forest System lands.
Response: Salvage harvest of timber is
a legitimate management practice,
acknowledged by Congress in NFMA
(16 U.S.C. 1604(k), 1611(b)). The
Department believes that the language
in this section of the final rule on
suitability and salvage is an appropriate
reflection of the intent of NFMA. The
Department believes that specific
decisions on the size of salvage units,
and on where salvage logging would or
would not occur, should be made at a
project level and not at the national
level.
Comment: Prohibitions for logging.
Some suggested that the final rule
should include more prohibitions for
logging, including a prohibition on all
commercial logging on NFS lands
involving riparian areas, virgin forests,
and old growth forests. Others suggested
harvesting should be limited to selective
logging, salvage harvest, or helicopter
logging. One person suggested that the
agency be required to justify logging for
ecological reasons.
Response: The Department believes
that broad-based prohibitions on timber
harvest or timber harvest practices are
not appropriate at the national level,
given the range of ecological conditions
that exist across the units of the NFS
and the multiple-use mandates of
MUSYA and NFMA. Such restrictions

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

may be put in place at the plan or
project level, but should not be part of
the planning regulations.
Comment: Timber harvest. Many
comments were made regarding logging.
Many respondents felt that there should
be more restrictions placed on logging
and that social and economic analysis
should eliminate areas from timber
harvest if such harvests would produce
below-cost sales. Conversely, some felt
that profit was emphasized too much
and there needed to be more emphasis
placed on the effects to the
environment. One person felt there
should be a minimum mean annual
increment threshold of timber growth,
such as 50 cubic feet per acre per year,
to determine if lands were suitable for
timber. Some felt that there should be
more requirements for evaluation of
effects that timber harvests have on fish,
woody debris, watershed, and wildlife
habitat. Another felt that timber sales
should be made affordable to local
purchasers. Still others wanted analysis
to consider the social and economic
effects on timber-dependent
communities.
Response: Consistent with NFMA (16
U.S.C. 1604(k)), the final rule
(§ 219.12(a)(2)) requires the Responsible
Official to identify lands as not suitable
for timber production, if timber
production would not be compatible
with the achievement of desired
conditions and objectives. These
provisions give the Responsible Official
the flexibility to develop criteria that are
appropriate for the specific plan area.
The Department feels that detailed
national direction would not meet the
social, economic, and ecological
concerns of the individual NFS unit.
The final rule establishes parameters
that provide for conscientious decisions
to be made at the local level.
Comment: Suitability for off-highway
vehicle use. Many respondents were
particularly concerned about
management for off-highway vehicle
(OHV) use, because of the presumption
that lands are open for use unless
determined to be closed. Others said
that the travel management component
of plans has been particularly
challenging. They said that plans have
often failed to regulate OHV as new
technology has enabled expanded use.
Other commentators wrote that land
management plans need to clearly
establish limits to OHV use while others
said the Forest Service should inventory
and evaluate lands declared unsuitable
for OHV and other recreational uses to
determine if restoration or mitigation
measures could make them suitable.
Response: As a general matter,
responsible and carefully managed OHV

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

travel is an appropriate use of NFS
lands. Under this final rule, travel
management guidance will be expressed
in desired conditions, objectives,
guidelines, and identification of general
suitability of areas for various uses. That
guidance, in and of itself, would not
close those lands to these uses; such a
restriction would require a subsequent
travel management decision and closure
order pursuant to 36 CFR part 261,
subpart B. Additionally, if a plan
identifies an area as generally suitable
for OHV travel where currently
restricted, the plan would not open
those lands to these uses; a subsequent
project and activity NEPA analysis and
decision would be necessary to effect
the preliminary identification of the
plan. Guidance for resource
conservation is established in the plan
and will be considered in the
subsequent travel management decision.
The final rule allows for levels and
trends of OHV use to be monitored and
changed as appropriate.
Comment: Fuels treatment. Several
respondents, citing recent fire seasons,
suggested that the final rule should
allow for more timber harvest than is
currently being harvested to reduce
fuels, and they felt that the final rule
would accomplish that goal. There was
a concern that much of the dead and
down material was being wasted and
that this biomass could be used to meet
energy and wood supply needs. Others,
however, felt that logging of
commercial-size trees was not necessary
for fuels reduction and the final rule
would do a disservice by allowing it.
One respondent suggested that the fuels
problem could be solved by using
prescribed fire only. Others felt that
fuels treatment should be allowed only
in areas near urban centers to protect
structures.
Response: The Department believes
that the final rule, which is national in
application, should not set out direction
so specific that it cannot take into
account the widely varying conditions
found across the NFS. Such direction is
better developed at the local level.
Comment: Allowable sale quantity.
Some respondents request that the
Forest Service retain the use of
Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) to
inform timber purchasers, communities
who support timber industry, and the
public what the future timber
production forecast will be.
Response: This concept has long
caused confusion for those concerned
with the management of the NFS lands.
While under the 1982 rule, ASQ was the
upper limit of timber that the
Responsible Official may sell from the
lands suitable for timber production,

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ASQ has commonly been misinterpreted
as an absolute commitment to a timber
production target. Neither the 2002
proposed rule nor this final rule provide
for ASQ. Forest Service directives will
address the upper limit of timber and
will likely use the concept of long-term
sustained yield as proposed in the 2002
proposed rule as the upper limit of
timber that the Forest Service may
harvest during the planning period. The
2002 proposed rule used long-term
sustained yield because this
requirement is adequate, and removing
the provision that planning establish an
ASQ reduces the risk of misperception
that ASQ is a target to be achieved,
rather than a limit to harvest.
Comment: Sustained yield. Most
respondents agreed that the concept of
sustained yield is, in principle, a
positive goal. However, some took
exception to how this requirement will
actually be implemented. They felt that
salvage logging and other types of
timber sales not undertaken for timber
production purposes should be
included in the sustained-yield
calculations. Others felt that the use of
‘‘multiple-use objectives’’ gives too
much flexibility in determining
sustained yield, and there is actually no
real limit. One person felt the harvest
limits should mirror forest mortality
rates.
Response: This provision for
estimating the quantity of timber that
can be removed annually in perpetuity
is tied directly to NFMA (16 U.S.C.
1611(a)). The final rule moves detailed
instructions on how sustained yield is
calculated (found in the 2002 proposed
rule at § 219.17) to the Forest Service
directives.
Section 219.13—Objections to Plans,
Plan Amendments, or Plan Revisions
This provision found in § 219.19 of
the 2002 proposed rule has been
redesignated at § 219.13 as part of the
overall reorganization of the final rule.
This section establishes the objection
process by which the public can
challenge plans, plan revisions, or plan
amendments.
The Committee of Scientists, in their
1999 report, recommended that the
Forest Service seek to harmonize its
administrative appeal process with
those of other Federal agencies. The
Committee of Scientists said a predecisional process would encourage
internal Forest Service discussion,
encourage multi-agency collaboration,
and encourage public interest groups to
collaborate and work out differences.
Therefore, to be more consistent with
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
and to improve public participation

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

efforts, the Department is adopting the
pre-decisional objection process
(§ 219.13) to replace the appeals
process. The objection process
complements the public participation
process because the objectors and the
Reviewing Officer can collaboratively
work through concerns before a
Responsible Official approves a plan.
The 30-day objection period specified
in this final rule is the same amount of
time provided in the BLM protest
process. The final rule does not specify
a time limit for agency responses; the
final rule has adopted the BLM
requirement that the Reviewing Officer
promptly render a decision on the
objection. It is in the interest of the
agency to render a decision promptly to
move forward. Because Responsible
Officials would not typically develop
plans, plan amendments, or plan
revisions using EISs, EAs, the
Department removed unnecessary
language in the final rule concerning
NEPA documents. The final rule also
eliminates details on responding to
objections because this information is
more appropriate in the Forest Service
directives. The final rule also removes
the requirement that objectors may only
submit original substantive comments
as objections. These changes make the
final rule easier to read and follow.
References to appeals of plan
amendments in site-specific decisions,
previously at § 219.20 of the 2002
proposed rule, have been moved to
§ 219.13(a)(1) in the final rule to have
requirements for objections and the
reference to appeals in the same section.
Specific requirements for administrative
review of plan amendments approved
contemporaneously with a project or
activity decision are addressed in 36
CFR 215 and 218, subpart A.
Comment: Objection and appeals
process. Some respondents felt that the
final rule should include provisions to
allow post-decisional appeals of plans.
Some wanted both a pre-decisional
objection process and a post-decisional
appeals process. One person felt that the
rule should require an objection process
for plan amendments made in
conjunction with site-specific project
decisions and that the rule should
require an appeals process for other
plan amendments.
Some respondents were concerned
that the objection process would reduce
the influence that the current appeals
process provides, and they claimed the
30-day objection period is insufficient
time to identify issues and to prepare an
objection. Although some respondents
felt that the objection process is an
inadequate protection of public
interests, others supported the objection

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1051

process and felt that requirements for
standing to object should be much more
stringent to prevent what they
characterized as needless obstruction.
Some respondents were concerned that
there was no time limit for the agency
to respond to objections.
Response: The objection process in
the final rule retains the 2002 proposed
rule’s application of the objection
process to plans, plan amendments, or
plan revisions not associated with a
project or activity decision (§ 219.13(a)).
Unlike the provisions at 36 CFR, part
217, applicable to plan development,
plan amendment, and plan revision
under the 1982 planning rule, this final
rule, like the 2002 proposed rule,
integrates the objection process with
public participation prior to plan
approval. The objection process is
expected to resolve many potential
conflicts by encouraging resolution
before a plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision is approved.
Under the 36 CFR part 217 appeal
process, the agency and the public
expend significant human and financial
resources in fulfillment of procedural
requirements. Often an appeal leads to
a polarized relationship where there is
no real incentive to address natural
resource issues and there is a
squandering of human and financial
capital, often without long-lasting
solutions to problems.
Under this final rule, as in the 2002
proposed rule, the Responsible Official,
the Reviewing Officer, and the objector
have the opportunity to seek reasonable
solutions to conflicting views of plan
components before a Responsible
Official approves a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision. The
objection process allows discretion for
joint problem solving to resolve issues.
Comment: Public participation.
Several respondents expressed the
opinion that the final rule should
require participation in the planning
process as a qualification for objection.
Response: The 2002 proposed rule did
not require participation in the planning
process to file an objection; however,
the Department agrees that participation
should be a prerequisite to submitting
an objection. Therefore, the final rule at
§ 219.13(a) requires participation in the
planning process through the
submission of a written comment to
have standing to submit an objection.
Comment: Consistency with law.
Some respondents supported the
requirement in the 2002 proposed rule
that objectors must explain their
position that the plan, plan amendment,
or plan revision is inconsistent with
law, regulation, or policy as well as
provide any recommendation for

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1052

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

change. Others felt this requirement
curtailed public input and required
legal advice to object.
Response: The Department agrees that
a person should be able to object to a
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision
even if the plan is consistent with law,
regulation, or policy. Therefore, the
final rule allows persons to object if
they otherwise disagree with the
decision. Accordingly, § 219.13(b)(3) of
the final rule retains the main elements
of this requirement from the 2002
proposed rule, so that the Reviewing
Officer will know why an objector
objects as well as what the objector
recommends for change. The term
‘‘Executive order’’ has been removed
from the final rule because Executive
orders are already covered under the
term ‘‘policy.’’ The Forest Service
directives will set forth the specific
requirements of the Reviewing Officer
working with the objector(s) to resolve
their issue(s).
Section 219.14—Effective Dates and
Transition
This direction found in §§ 219.21 and
219.22 of the 2002 proposed rule has
been combined at § 219.14 to organize
similar concepts in one location. This
section specifies when a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision will take
effect as well as how Responsible
Officials may modify ongoing planning
efforts to conform to the requirements of
the final rule. The Department modified
this section from the transition language
in the 2002 proposed rule, primarily to
account for integration of EMS into land
management planning.
With this rule, the Department is
simultaneously repealing the 2000 rule
and including the transition provisions
of the former rule. Recently, the
Department clarified that projects were
subject to the requirements of the former
transition rule during the transition
period until the completion of the plan
revision process under the 2000 rule (69
FR 58055, September 29, 2004). The
transition period of the former rule thus
terminates with its repeal. This section
defines, for purposes of pending or
future plan documents, the applicable
rules during the transition period.
During the transition period, pending or
proposed projects remain subject to the
applicable forest plan.
This section also contains new
direction on application of management
indicator species (MIS) for units that
will continue to use the 1982 planning
rule for plans, plan amendments, and
plan revisions during transition. There
has been uncertainty regarding the
application of provisions of the 1982
planning rule, particularly with respect

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

to obligations regarding MIS (69 FR
58055, September 29, 2004). For those
units with plans developed, amended,
or revised under the 1982 planning rule,
including those amended or revised
during the transition period for the 2000
planning rule, § 219.14(f) provides that
MIS obligations may be met by
considering data and analysis relating to
habitat unless the plan specifically
requires population monitoring or
population surveys. Other tools can
often be useful and more appropriate in
predicting the effects of projects that
implement a land management plan
(such as examining the effect of
proposed activities on the habitat of
specific species); using information
identified, obtained, or developed
through a variety of methods (such as
assessments, analysis, and monitoring
results); or using information obtained
from other sources (such as State fish
and wildlife agencies and organizations
like The Nature Conservancy). The final
rule also clarifies the appropriate scale
for MIS monitoring which is the plan
area.
Providing explicitly for MIS
monitoring flexibility will allow for
monitoring of habitat conditions as a
surrogate for population trend data. It is
appropriate for a range of methods to be
available to estimate, or approximate,
population trends for MIS. The
Responsible Official will determine the
which monitoring method or
combination of monitoring methods to
use for a given MIS.
Where Responsible Officials conduct
actual population monitoring for MIS,
population trend data are most
efficiently collected using a sampling
program rather than a total enumeration.
In a sampling program, population data
are collected at a selection of sites
throughout the geographic range of the
population. These sites might be
systematically designated (for example,
using a grid of specific dimension),
established randomly, or selected in
some other way. For species that use
distinct seasonal ranges (for example,
elk that use winter ranges distinct from
their summer ranges), data may be
collected primarily on the winter range.
The area over which sampling is
conducted should relate to the
geographic range occupied by the
population, and will generally far
exceed the area of a single management
project. Because of using sampling
procedures within the overall
geographic area used by a population,
individual project areas might or might
not be part of a sampling program
designed to estimate the overall
population trend of a population. Based
on the foregoing, for most species it

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

would be technically and practically
inappropriate to conduct population
trend sampling at the scale of individual
project areas. Consequently, where
Responsible Officials conduct actual
population monitoring for MIS, that
monitoring should be carried out at the
scale most appropriate to the species
within the overall national forest,
grassland, prairie, or other
administrative comparable unit.
Monitoring populations at the sites of
individual projects is not part of this
requirement. Therefore, the transition
language at § 219.14 clarifies that MIS
monitoring is appropriate at the times
and places appropriate to the specific
species, and is not required within
individual project or activity areas.
Comment: Effective date. One
respondent was concerned that there
was a difference in the effective date of
plan amendments depending on
whether or not they were significant
amendments and suggested the final
rule should not differentiate between
the types of amendments when
determining an effective date.
Response: In the final rule, the only
difference related to the effective date of
plan amendments is dependent on if a
plan amendment is approved
contemporaneously with a project or
activity decision and the plan
amendment applies only to the project
or activity; in which case, 36 CFR, part
215 or part 218, subpart A applies, not
the planning regulations at part 219. All
other amendments have a 30-day
effective date.
Section 219.15—Severability
The Department has chosen to add a
new section to address the issue of
severability, in the event that portions of
this rule are separately challenged in
litigation. It is the Department’s intent
that the individual provisions of this
rule be severable from each other.
Section 219.16—Definitions
This direction was found in § 219.23
in the 2002 proposed rule, but has been
redesignated at § 219.16 as part of
overall reorganization of the final rule.
This section sets out and defines the
special terms used in the final rule. A
detailed discussion on definitions
removed, added, or unchanged is found
in the supplemental response to public
comments located on the World Wide
Web/Internet (see ADDRESSES).
Comment: Collaboration. A few
respondents asked that collaboration be
defined. They said that a
‘‘collaborative’’ process is generally a
specific type of planning process
involving shared power and total
stakeholder involvement. One person

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
wanted the process of collaboration to
be distinguished from processes
authorized under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Response: The Forest Service cannot
‘‘share’’ its administrative authority over
the NFS and must make the decisions
for NFS management, including
approval of plans, plan amendments,
and plan revisions. The agency and the
Department are committed to
stakeholder involvement in planning;
however, the Department does not
believe it is necessary to set the
boundaries of how this process may
operate in planning through a definition
of the process.
Comment: Silvicultural terminology.
Some respondents said that the 2002
proposed rule (§ 219.4) confuses
silvicultural objectives (for example,
achieving an even-aged stand condition)
with harvesting methods. They said that
silvicultural definitions should be taken
from the Society of American Foresters
handbook.
Response: The Dictionary of Forestry
reflects current professional acceptance
and use of terms and definitions.
Because the Dictionary of Forestry has
wide acceptance, it was reviewed and
the silvicultural definitions of the final
rule at § 219.16, and other silvicultural
terminology in the final rule are largely
consistent with definitions found in the
Dictionary of Forestry (Bethesda, MD,
Society of American Foresters, 1998).
5. Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Impact
This final rule has been reviewed
under U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Department) procedures and Executive
Order 12866 issued September 30, 1993
(E.O. 12866) on Regulatory Planning
and Review. It has been determined that
this is not an economically significant
rule. This final rule will not have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy nor adversely affect
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety,
nor State or local governments. This
final rule will neither interfere with an
action taken or planned by another
agency nor raise new legal or policy
issues. Finally, this final rule will not
alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients of such programs. However,
because of the extensive interest in
National Forest System (NFS) planning
and decisionmaking, this final rule has
been designated as significant and,
therefore, is subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
E.O. 12866.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

A cost-benefit analysis was conducted
to compare the costs and benefits of
implementing this final rule to the
baseline, 1982 planning rule. This
analysis is posted on the World Wide
Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/
emc/nfma/, along with other documents
associated with this final rule. The 1982
planning rule was used as the baseline
because all the land management plan
revisions completed to date have used
the requirements of the 1982 planning
rule. Quantitative differences among the
final rule, the 2000 rule, and the 2002
proposed rule were also estimated.
Primary sources of data used to estimate
the costs and benefits of the 2000
planning rule and the 2002 proposed
rule are from the results of a 2002 report
entitled ‘‘A Business Evaluation of the
2000 and Proposed NFMA Rules’’
produced by the Inventory and
Monitoring Institutes of the Forest
Service. The report is also identified as
the ‘‘2002 NFMA Costing Study,’’ or
simply as the ‘‘Costing Study.’’ The
Costing Study used a business modeling
process to identify and compare major
costs for both the 2000 planning rule
and the 2002 proposed rule. The main
source of data used to approximate costs
under the 1982 planning rule is from a
recent report to Congress on planning
costs, along with empirical data and
inferences from the Costing Study.
The cost-benefit analysis focuses on
key activities in land management
planning for which costs can be
estimated under the 1982 planning rule,
the 2000 planning rule, the 2002
proposed rule, and this final rule. The
key activities include regional guides,
collaboration, consideration of science,
evaluation of the sustainability of
decisions and diversity requirements
under the National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
seq.), monitoring, evaluation, and the
resolution of disputes regarding the
proposed plan decisions through the
administrative processes of appeals and
objections.
The final rule would reduce the cost
of producing a plan or revision by
shortening the length of the planning
process and providing the Responsible
Official with more flexibility to decide
the scope and scale of the planning
process. The final rule, by requiring
inclusion of environmental management
systems into the land management
framework, requires a comprehensive
evaluation during plan development
and plan revision that will be updated
at least every five years. Some upfront
planning costs, such as analyzing and
developing plan components, and
documenting the land management
planning process, are anticipated to

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1053

shift to monitoring and evaluation to
better document cumulative effects of
management activities and natural
events when preparing a comprehensive
evaluation of the plan under the final
rule.
Based on costs that can be quantified,
implementation of this final rule is
expected to have an estimated annual
average cost savings of $4.6 million
when compared to the 1982 planning
rule, and an estimated annual average
savings of $36.9 million when compared
to estimates of implementation of the
2000 planning rule. When compared to
the 2002 proposed rule, implementation
of the final rule is estimated to cost $19
million less than the 2002 proposed rule
with Option 1 and $24.9 million more
than the 2002 proposed rule with
Option 2. The higher cost over the 2002
proposed rule is due to increased
monitoring and evaluation requirements
in the final rule.
From this cost-benefit analysis, the
estimated total costs for implementing
the final rule are expected to be lower
than the 2000 planning rule; however,
the estimated cost savings are less than
that predicted on the 2002 proposed
rule because costs for monitoring and
evaluation are expected to be higher. In
other words, although the final rule is
expected to be less costly than the 2000
planning rule, some of those saved costs
are expected to be shifted to monitoring
and evaluation.
This final rule has also been
considered in light of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), and it has been determined
that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required for
this final rule. The final rule imposes no
requirements on either small or large
entities. Rather, the final rule sets out
the process the Forest Service will
follow in land management planning for
the NFS. The final rule should provide
opportunities for small businesses to
become involved in the national forest,
grassland, prairie, or other comparable
administrative unit plan approval.
Moreover, by streamlining the land
management planning process, the final
rule should benefit small businesses
through more timely decisions that
affect outputs of products and services.
Environmental Impacts
This final rule establishes the
administrative procedures to guide
developing, amending, and revising
NFS land management plans. This final
rule, like earlier planning rules, does

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1054

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

not dictate how administrative units of
the NFS are to be managed. The
Department does not expect that this
final rule will directly affect the mix of
uses on any or all units of the NFS.
Section 31.12 of FSH 1909.15 excludes
from documentation in an EA or EIS
‘‘rules, regulations, or policies to
establish Service-wide administrative
procedures, program processes, or
instruction.’’ This final rule clearly falls
within this category of actions and the
Department has determined that no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
would require preparation of an EA or
an EIS.
Energy Effects
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 13211 issued
May 18, 2001 (E.O. 13211), ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.’’ It has been
determined that this final rule does not
constitute a significant energy action as
defined in E.O. 13211. Procedural in
nature, this final rule would guide the
development, amendment, and revision
of NFS land management plans. These
plans are strategic documents that
provide the guidance for making future
project or activity-level resource
management decisions. As such, these
plans will address access requirements
associated with energy exploration and
development within the framework of
multiple-use, sustained-yield
management of the surface resources of
the NFS lands. These land management
plans may identify major rights-of-way
corridors for utility transmission lines,
pipelines, and water canals. While these
plans consider the need for such
facilities, they do not authorize
construction of them; therefore, the final
rule and the plans developed under it
do not have energy effects within the
meaning of E.O. 13211. The effects of
the construction of such lines,
pipelines, and canals are, of necessity,
considered on a case-by-case basis as
specific construction proposals are
made. Consistent with E.O. 13211,
direction to incorporate consideration of
energy supply, distribution, and use in
the planning process is being included
in the agency’s administrative directives
for implementing the final rule.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the information collection or
reporting requirements for the objection
process were previously approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and assigned control number

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

0596–0158, expiring on October 31,
2003 for the 2000 planning rule.
The OMB has extended this approval
through December 31, 2006 for this final
planning rule, using the same control
number. This extension was made after
the Forest Service provided the public
an opportunity to comment on the
extension as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act (68 FR 50512, August 21,
2003). The Forest Service received no
comments regarding extension.
The information required by 36 CFR
219.13 is needed for an objector to
explain the nature of the objection being
made to a proposed land management
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
This final rule retains but simplifies the
objection process established in the
2000 planning rule. The final rule
removes the requirements previously
provided in the 2000 planning rule for
interested parties, publication of
objections, and formal requests for
meetings (36 CFR 219.32). These
changes will result in a minor reduction
in the number of burden hours
approved by OMB.
Federalism
The agency has considered this final
rule under the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 issued August 4,
1999 (E.O. 13132), ‘‘Federalism.’’ The
agency has made an assessment that the
final rule conforms with the Federalism
principles set out in this Executive
order; would not impose any
compliance costs on the States; and
would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, nor on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
the agency concludes that the final rule
does not have Federalism implications.
Moreover, § 219.9 of this final rule
shows sensitivity to Federalism
concerns by requiring the Responsible
Official to meet with and provide
opportunities for involvement of State
and local governments in the planning
process.
In the spirit of E.O. 13132, the agency
consulted with State and local officials,
including their national representatives,
early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The agency has
consulted with the Western Governors’
Association and the National
Association of Counties to obtain their
views on a preliminary draft of the 2002
proposed rule. The Western Governors’
Association supported the general intent
to create a regulation that works, and
placed importance on the quality of
collaboration to be provided when the
agency implements the regulation.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Agency representatives also contacted
the International City and County
Managers Association, National
Conference of State Legislators, The
Council of State Governments, Natural
Resources Committee of the National
Governors Association, U.S. Conference
of Mayors, and the National League of
Cities to share information about the
2002 proposed rule prior to its
publication. Based on comments
received on the 2002 proposed rule, the
agency has determined that additional
consultation was not needed with State
and local governments.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
A civil rights impact analysis was
conducted for this final rule. This
analysis is posted on the World Wide
Web/Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/
emc/nfma/, along with other documents
associated with this final rule. The
analysis found that there no adverse
civil rights or environmental justice
impacts anticipated to the delivery of
benefits or other program outcomes on
a national level for any underrepresented population or to other
United States populations or
communities.
Consultation With Indian Tribal
Governments
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of
November 6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments,’’ the agency has assessed
the impact of this final rule on Indian
Tribal governments and has determined
that the final rule does not significantly
or uniquely affect communities of
Indian Tribal governments. The final
rule deals with the administrative
procedures to guide the development,
amendment, and revision of NFS land
management plans and, as such, has no
direct effect regarding the occupancy
and use of NFS land. At § 219.9(a)(3),
the final rule requires consultation with
federally recognized Tribes when
conducting land management planning.
The agency has also determined that
this final rule does not impose
substantial direct compliance cost on
Indian Tribal governments. This final
rule does not mandate Tribal
participation in NFS planning. Rather,
the final rule imposes an obligation on
Forest Service officials to consult early
with Tribal governments and to work
cooperatively with them where
planning issues affect Tribal interests.
No Takings Implications
This final rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
12630 issued March 15, 1988, and it has

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
been determined that the final rule does
not pose the risk of a taking of
Constitutionally protected private
property.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988 of
February 7, 1996, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform.’’ The Department has not
identified any State or local laws or
regulations that are in conflict with this
regulation or that would impede full
implementation of this final rule.
Nevertheless, in the event that such a
conflict was to be identified, the final
rule would preempt State or local laws
or regulations found to be in conflict.
However, in that case, (1) no retroactive
effect would be given to this final rule;
and (2) the final rule does not require
the use of administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging its provisions.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531–1538), the agency has assessed the
effects of this final rule on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. This final rule does not compel
the expenditure of $100 million or more
by any State, local, or Tribal
governments or anyone in the private
sector. Therefore, a statement under
section 202 of the Act is not required.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219
Administrative practice and
procedure, Environmental impact
statements, Indians, Intergovernmental
relations, Forest and forest products,
National forests, Natural resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Science and technology.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in
the preamble, add subpart A to part 219
of title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to read as follows:

■

PART 219—PLANNING
Subpart A—National Forest System Land
Management Planning
Sec.
219.1 Purpose and applicability.
219.2 Levels of planning and planning
authority.
219.3 Nature of land management planning.
219.4 National Environmental Policy Act
compliance.
219.5 Environmental management systems.
219.6 Evaluations and monitoring.
219.7 Developing, amending, or revising a
plan.
219.8 Application of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision.
219.9 Public participation, collaboration,
and notification.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

219.10 Sustainability.
219.11 Role of science in planning.
219.12 Suitable uses and provisions
required by NFMA.
219.13 Objections to plans, plan
amendments, or plan revisions.
219.14 Effective dates and transition.
219.15 Severability.
219.16 Definitions.
Subpart B [Reserved]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 1604,
1613.
§ 219.1

Purpose and applicability.

(a) The rules of this subpart set forth
a process for land management
planning, including the process for
developing, amending, and revising
land management plans (also referred to
as plans) for the National Forest System,
as required by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974, as amended by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.
1600 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as
NFMA. This subpart also describes the
nature and scope of plans and sets forth
the required components of a plan. This
subpart is applicable to all units of the
National Forest System as defined by 16
U.S.C. 1609 or subsequent statute.
(b) Consistent with the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C.
528–531), the overall goal of managing
the National Forest System is to sustain
the multiple uses of its renewable
resources in perpetuity while
maintaining the long-term productivity
of the land. Resources are to be managed
so they are utilized in the combination
that will best meet the needs of the
American people. Maintaining or
restoring the health of the land enables
the National Forest System to provide a
sustainable flow of uses, benefits,
products, services, and visitor
opportunities.
(c) The Chief of the Forest Service
shall establish planning procedures for
this subpart for plan development, plan
amendment, or plan revision in the
Forest Service Directive System.
§ 219.2 Levels of planning and planning
authority.

Planning occurs at multiple
organizational levels and geographic
areas.
(a) National. The Chief of the Forest
Service is responsible for national
planning, such as preparation of the
Forest Service Strategic Plan required
under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306; 31
U.S.C. 1115—1119; 31 U.S.C. 9703–
9704), which is integrated with the
requirements of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974, as amended by

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1055

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

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1056

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

§ 219.3 Nature of land management
planning.

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

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

The Responsible Official must
establish an environmental management
system (EMS) for each unit of the
National Forest System. The scope of an
EMS will include, at the minimum, the
land management planning process

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

defined by this subpart. An EMS for any
unit may include environmental aspects
unrelated to the land management
planning process under this subpart.
(a) Plan development, plan
amendment, or plan revision must be
completed in accordance with the EMS
and § 219.14. An EMS may be
established independently of the
planning process.
(b) The EMS must conform to the
consensus standard developed by the
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and adopted by
the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) as ‘‘ISO 14001:
Environmental Management Systems—
Specification With Guidance For Use’’
(ISO 14001). The ISO 14001 describes
EMSs and outlines the elements of an
EMS. The ISO 14001 is available from
the ANSI website at http://
webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/
default.asp.
(c) Pursuant to § 219.1(c), the Chief of
the Forest Service shall establish
procedures in the Forest Service
Directive System to ensure that
appropriate EMSs are in place. The
Responsible Official may determine
whether and how to change and
improve an EMS for the plan area,
consistent with applicable Forest
Service Directive System procedures.
§ 219.6

Evaluations and monitoring.

(a) Evaluations. The Responsible
Official shall keep the Plan Set of
Documents up to date with evaluation
reports, which will reflect changing
conditions, science, and other relevant
information. The following three types
of evaluations are required for land
management planning: comprehensive
evaluations for plan development and
revision, evaluations for plan
amendment, and annual evaluations of
monitoring information. The
Responsible Official shall document
evaluations in evaluation reports, make
these reports available to the public as
required in § 219.9, and include these
reports in the Plan Set of Documents
(§ 219.7(a)(1)). Evaluations under this
section should be commensurate to the
level of risk or benefit associated with
the nature and level of expected
management activities in the plan area.
(1) Comprehensive evaluations. These
evaluate current social, economic, and
ecological conditions and trends that
contribute to sustainability, as described
in § 219.10. Comprehensive evaluations
and comprehensive evaluation reports
must be updated at least every five years
to reflect any substantial changes in
conditions and trends since the last
comprehensive evaluation. The
Responsible Official must ensure that

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

comprehensive evaluations, including
any updates necessary, include the
following elements:
(i) Area of analysis. The area(s) of
analysis must be clearly identified.
(ii) Conditions and trends. The
current social, economic, and ecological
conditions and trends and substantial
changes from previously identified
conditions and trends must be described
based on available information,
including monitoring information,
surveys, assessments, analyses, and
other studies as appropriate.
Evaluations may build upon existing
studies and evaluations.
(2) Evaluation for a plan amendment.
An evaluation for a plan amendment
must analyze the issues relevant to the
purposes of the amendment and may
use the information in comprehensive
evaluations relevant to the plan
amendment. When a plan amendment is
made contemporaneously with, and
only applies to, a project or activity
decision, the analysis prepared for the
project or activity satisfies the
requirements for an evaluation for an
amendment.
(3) Annual evaluation of the
monitoring information. Monitoring
results must be evaluated annually and
in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
(b) Monitoring. The plan must
describe the monitoring program for the
plan area. Monitoring information in the
Plan Document or Set of Documents
may be changed and updated as
appropriate, at any time. Such changes
and updates are administrative
corrections (§ 219.7(b)) and do not
require a plan amendment or revision.
(1) The plan-monitoring program shall
be developed with public participation
and take into account:
(i) Financial and technical
capabilities;
(ii) Key social, economic, and
ecological performance measures
relevant to the plan area: and
(iii) The best available science.
(2) The plan-monitoring program shall
provide for:
(i) Monitoring to determine whether
plan implementation is achieving
multiple use objectives;
(ii) Monitoring to determine the
effects of the various resource
management activities within the plan
area on the productivity of the land;
(iii) Monitoring of the degree to which
on-the-ground management is
maintaining or making progress toward
the desired conditions and objectives for
the plan; and
(iv) Adjustment of the monitoring
program as appropriate to account for
unanticipated changes in conditions.

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The Responsible Official may
conduct monitoring jointly with others,
including but not limited to, Forest
Service units, Federal, State or local
government agencies, federally
recognized Indian Tribes, and members
of the public.
§ 219.7
a plan.

Developing, amending, or revising

(a) General planning requirements.
(1) Plan Documents or Set of
Documents. The Responsible Official
must maintain a Plan Document or Set
of Documents for the plan. A Plan
Document or Set of Documents
includes, but is not limited to,
evaluation reports; documentation of
public involvement; the plan, including
applicable maps; applicable plan
approval documents; applicable NEPA
documents, if any; the monitoring
program for the plan area; and
documents relating to the EMS
established for the unit.
(2) Plan components. Plan
components may apply to all or part of
the plan area. A plan should include the
following components:
(i) Desired conditions. Desired
conditions are the social, economic, and
ecological attributes toward which
management of the land and resources
of the plan area is to be directed.
Desired conditions are aspirations and
are not commitments or final decisions
approving projects and activities, and
may be achievable only over a long time
period.
(ii) Objectives. Objectives are concise
projections of measurable, time-specific
intended outcomes. The objectives for a
plan are the means of measuring
progress toward achieving or
maintaining desired conditions. Like
desired conditions, objectives are
aspirations and are not commitments or
final decisions approving projects and
activities.
(iii) Guidelines. Guidelines provide
information and guidance for project
and activity decisionmaking to help
achieve desired conditions and
objectives. Guidelines are not
commitments or final decisions
approving projects and activities.
(iv) Suitability of areas. Areas of each
National Forest System unit are
identified as generally suitable for
various uses (§ 219.12). An area may be
identified as generally suitable for uses
that are compatible with desired
conditions and objectives for that area.
The identification of an area as
generally suitable for a use is guidance
for project and activity decisionmaking
and is not a commitment or a final
decision approving projects and
activities. Uses of specific areas are

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

approved through project and activity
decisionmaking.
(v) Special areas. Special areas are
areas within the National Forest System
designated because of their unique or
special characteristics. Special areas
such as botanical areas or significant
caves may be designated, by the
Responsible Official in approving a
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.
Such designations are not final
decisions approving projects and
activities. The plan may also recognize
special areas designated by statute or
through a separate administrative
process in accordance with NEPA
requirements (§ 219.4) and other
applicable laws.
(3) Changing plan components. Plan
components may be changed through
plan amendment or revision, or through
an administrative correction in
accordance with § 219.7(b).
(4) Planning authorities. The
Responsible Official has the discretion
to determine whether and how to
change the plan, subject to the
requirement that the plan be revised at
least every 15 years. A decision by a
Responsible Official about whether or
not to initiate the plan amendment or
plan revision process and what issues to
consider for plan development, plan
amendment, or plan revision is not
subject to objection under this subpart
(§ 219.13).
(5) Plan process. (i) Required
evaluation reports, plan, plan
amendments, and plan revisions must
be prepared by an interdisciplinary
team; and
(ii) Unless otherwise provided by law,
all National Forest System lands
possessing wilderness characteristics
must be considered for recommendation
as potential wilderness areas during
plan development or revision.
(6) Developing plan options. In the
collaborative and participatory process
of land management planning, the
Responsible Official may use an
iterative approach in development of a
plan, plan amendment, and plan
revision in which plan options are
developed and narrowed successively.
The key steps in this process shall be
documented in the Plan Set of
Documents.
(b) Administrative corrections.
Administrative corrections may be made
at any time and are not plan
amendments or revisions.
Administrative corrections include the
following:
(1) Corrections and updates of data
and maps;
(2) Corrections of typographical errors
or other non-substantive changes;

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1057

(3) Changes in the monitoring
program and monitoring information
(§ 219.6(b));
(4) Changes in timber management
projections; and
(5) Other changes in the Plan
Document or Set of Documents, except
for substantive changes in the plan
components.
(c) Approval document. The
Responsible Official must record
approval of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision in a plan
approval document, which must
include:
(1) The rationale for the approval of
the plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision;
(2) Concurrence by the appropriate
Station Director with any part of the
plan applicable to any experimental
forest within the plan area, in
accordance with § 219.2(b)(3);
(3) A statement of how the plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision applies to
approved projects and activities, in
accordance with § 219.8;
(4) Science documentation, in
accordance with § 219.11; and
(5) The effective date of the approval
(§ 219.14(a)).
§ 219.8 Application of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision.

(a) Application of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision to existing
authorizations and approved projects or
activities. (1) The Responsible Official
must include in any document
approving a plan amendment or
revision a description of the effects of
the plan, plan amendments, or plan
revision on existing occupancy and use,
authorized by permits, contracts, or
other instruments implementing
approved projects and activities. If not
expressly excepted, approved projects
and activities must be consistent with
applicable plan components, as
provided in paragraph (e) of this
section. Approved projects and
activities are those for which a
Responsible Official has signed a
decision document.
(2) Any modifications of such
permits, contracts, or other instruments
necessary to make them consistent with
applicable plan components as
developed, amended, or revised are
subject to valid existing rights. Such
modifications should be made as soon
as practicable following approval of a
new plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision.
(b) Application of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision to
authorizations and projects or activities
subsequent to plan approval. Decisions
approving projects and activities

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1058

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

subsequent to approval of a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision must be
consistent with the plan as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Application of a plan. Plan
provisions remain in effect until the
effective date of a new plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision.
(d) Effect of new information on
projects or activities. Although new
information will be considered in
accordance with agency NEPA
procedures, nothing in this subpart
requires automatic deferral, suspension,
or modification of approved decisions
in light of new information.
(e) Ensuring project or activity
consistency with plans. Projects and
activities must be consistent with the
applicable plan. If an existing
(paragraph (a) of this section) or
proposed (paragraph (b) of this section)
use, project, or activity is not consistent
with the applicable plan, the
Responsible Official may take one of the
following steps, subject to valid existing
rights:
(1) Modify the project or activity to
make it consistent with the applicable
plan components;
(2) Reject the proposal or terminate
the project or activity, subject to valid
existing rights; or
(3) Amend the plan
contemporaneously with the approval of
the project or activity so that it will be
consistent with the plan as amended.
The amendment may be limited to
apply only to the project or activity.
§ 219.9 Public participation, collaboration,
and notification.

The Responsible Official must use a
collaborative and participatory
approach to land management planning,
in accordance with this subpart and
consistent with applicable laws,
regulations, and policies, by engaging
the skills and interests of appropriate
combinations of Forest Service staff,
consultants, contractors, other Federal
agencies, federally recognized Indian
Tribes, State or local governments, or
other interested or affected
communities, groups, or persons.
(a) Providing opportunities for
participation. The Responsible Official
must provide opportunities for the
public to collaborate and participate
openly and meaningfully in the
planning process, taking into account
the discrete and diverse roles,
jurisdictions, and responsibilities of
interested and affected parties.
Specifically, as part of plan
development, plan amendment, and
plan revision, the Responsible Official
shall involve the public in developing
and updating the comprehensive

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

evaluation report, establishing the
components of the plan, and designing
the monitoring program. The
Responsible Official has the discretion
to determine the methods and timing of
public involvement opportunities.
(1) Engaging interested individuals
and organizations. The Responsible
Official must provide for and encourage
collaboration and participation by
interested individuals and
organizations, including private
landowners whose lands are within,
adjacent to, or otherwise affected by
future management actions within the
plan area.
(2) Engaging State and local
governments and Federal agencies. The
Responsible Official must provide
opportunities for the coordination of
Forest Service planning efforts
undertaken in accordance with this
subpart with those of other resource
management agencies. The Responsible
Official also must meet with and
provide early opportunities for other
government agencies to be involved,
collaborate, and participate in planning
for National Forest System lands. The
Responsible Official should seek
assistance, where appropriate, from
other State and local governments,
Federal agencies, and scientific and
academic institutions to help address
management issues or opportunities.
(3) Engaging Tribal governments. The
Forest Service recognizes the Federal
Government’s trust responsibility for
federally recognized Indian Tribes. The
Responsible Official must consult with,
invite, and provide opportunities for
federally recognized Indian Tribes to
collaborate and participate in planning.
In working with federally recognized
Indian Tribes, the Responsible Official
must honor the government-togovernment relationship between Tribes
and the Federal Government.
(b) Public notification. The following
public notification requirements apply
to plan development, amendment, or
revision, except when a plan
amendment is approved
contemporaneously with approval of a
project or activity and the amendment
applies only to the project or activity, in
which case 36 CFR part 215 or part 218,
subpart A, applies:
(1) When formal public notification is
provided. Public notification must be
provided at the following times:
(i) Initiation of development of a plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision;
(ii) Commencement of the 90-day
comment period on a proposed plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision;
(iii) Commencement of the 30-day
objection period prior to approval of a
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision;

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(iv) Approval of a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision; and
(v) Adjustment to conform to this
subpart of a planning process for a plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision
initiated under the provisions of a
previous planning regulation.
(2) How public notice is provided.
Public notice must be provided in the
following manner:
(i) All required public notices
applicable to a new plan, plan revision,
or adjustment of any ongoing plan
revision as provided at § 219.14(e) must
be published in the Federal Register
and newspaper(s) of record.
(ii) Required notifications that are
associated with a plan amendment or
adjustment of any ongoing plan
amendment as provided at § 219.14(e)
and that apply to one plan must be
published in the newspaper(s) of record.
Required notifications that are
associated with plan amendments and
adjustment of any ongoing plan
amendments (as provided at § 219.14(e))
and that apply to more than one plan
must be published in the Federal
Register.
(iii) Public notification of evaluation
reports and monitoring program changes
may be made in a manner deemed
appropriate by the Responsible Official.
(3) Content of the public notice.
Public notices must contain the
following information:
(i) Content of the public notice for
initiating a plan development, plan
amendment, or plan revision. The
notice must inform the public of the
documents available for review and how
to obtain them; provide a summary of
the need to develop a plan or change a
plan; invite the public to comment on
the need for change in a plan and to
identify any other need for change in a
plan that they feel should be addressed
during the planning process; and
provide an estimated schedule for the
planning process, including the time
available for comments, and inform the
public how to submit comments.
(ii) Content of the public notice for a
proposed plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision. The notice must inform
the public of the availability of the
proposed plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision, including any relevant
evaluation report; the commencement of
the 90-day comment period; and the
process for submitting comments.
(iii) Content of the public notice for a
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision
prior to approval. The notice must
inform the public of the availability of
the plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision; any relevant evaluation report;
and the commencement of the 30-day

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
objection period; and the process for
objecting.
(iv) Content of the public notice for
approval of a plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision. The notice must inform
the public of the availability of the
approved plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision, the approval document,
and the effective date of the approval
(§ 219.14(a)).
(v) Content of the public notice for an
adjustment to an ongoing planning
process. The notice must state how a
planning process initiated before the
transition period (§ 219.14(b) and (e))
will be adjusted to conform to this
subpart.

must establish a framework to provide
the characteristics of ecosystem
diversity in the plan area.
(2) Species diversity. If the
Responsible Official determines that
provisions in plan components, in
addition to those required by paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, are needed to
provide appropriate ecological
conditions for specific threatened and
endangered species, species-of-concern,
and species-of-interest, then the plan
must include additional provisions for
these species, consistent with the limits
of agency authorities, the capability of
the plan area, and overall multiple use
objectives.

§ 219.10

§ 219.11

Sustainability.

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

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Role of science in planning.

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

(a) Suitable uses. (1) Identification of
suitable land uses. National Forest
System lands are generally suitable for
a variety of multiple uses, such as
outdoor recreation, range, timber,
watershed, and wildlife and fish
purposes. The Responsible Official, as
appropriate, shall identify areas within
a National Forest System unit as
generally suitable for uses that are
compatible with desired conditions and
objectives for that area. Such
identification is guidance for project
and activity decisionmaking, is not a
permanent land designation, and is
subject to change through plan
amendment or plan revision. Uses of
specific areas are approved through
project and activity decisionmaking.
(2) Identification of lands not suitable
for timber production. (i) The
Responsible Official must identify lands
within the plan area as not suitable for
timber production (§ 219.16) if:

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1059

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

(a) Opportunities to object. Before
approving a plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision, the Responsible Official
must provide the public 30 calendar
days for pre-decisional review and the
opportunity to object. Federal agencies
may not object under this subpart.
During the 30-day review period, any
person or organization, other than a
Federal agency, who participated in the
planning process through the
submission of written comments, may
object to a plan, plan amendment, or
plan revision according to the
procedures in this section, except in the
following circumstances:
(1) When a plan amendment is
approved contemporaneously with a
project or activity decision and the plan
amendment applies only to the project
or activity, in which case the
administrative review process of 36 CFR
part 215 or part 218, subpart A, applies

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

1060

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

instead of the objection process
established in this section; or
(2) When the Responsible Official is
an official in the Department of
Agriculture at a level higher than the
Chief of the Forest Service, in which
case there is no opportunity for
administrative review.
(b) Submitting objections. The
objection must be in writing and must
be filed with the Reviewing Officer
within 30 days following the
publication date of the legal notice in
the newspaper of record of the
availability of the plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision. Specific
details will be included in the Forest
Service Directive System. An objection
must contain:
(1) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the person or
entity filing the objection. Where a
single objection is filed by more than
one person, the objection must indicate
the lead objector to contact. The
Reviewing Officer may appoint the first
name listed as the lead objector to act
on behalf of all parties to the single
objection when the single objection does
not specify a lead objector. The
Reviewing Officer may communicate
directly with the lead objector and is not
required to notify the other listed
objectors of the objection response or
any other written correspondence
related to the single objection;
(2) A statement of the issues, the parts
of the plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision to which the objection applies,
and how the objecting party would be
adversely affected; and
(3) A concise statement explaining
how the objector believes that the plan,
plan amendment, or plan revision is
inconsistent with law, regulation, or
policy or how the objector disagrees
with the decision and providing any
recommendations for change.
(c) Responding to objections. (1) The
Reviewing Officer (§ 219.16) has the
authority to make all procedural
determinations related to the objection
not specifically explained in this
subpart, including those procedures
necessary to ensure compatibility, to the
extent practicable, with the
administrative review processes of other
Federal agencies. The Reviewing Officer
must promptly render a written
response to the objection. The response
must be sent to the objecting party by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
(2) The response of the Reviewing
Officer shall be the final decision of the
Department of Agriculture on the
objection.
(d) Use of other administrative review
processes. Where the Forest Service is a
participant in a multi-Federal agency

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

effort that would otherwise be subject to
objection under this subpart, the
Reviewing Officer may waive the
objection procedures of this subpart and
instead adopt the administrative review
procedure of another participating
Federal agency. As a condition of such
a waiver, the Responsible Official for
the Forest Service must have agreement
with the Responsible Official of the
other agency or agencies that a joint
agency response will be provided to
those who file for administrative review
of the multi-agency effort.
(e) Compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The information
collection requirements associated with
submitting an objection have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget and assigned control
number 0596–0158.
§ 219.14

Effective dates and transition.

(a) Effective dates. A plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision is effective
30 days after publication of notice of its
approval (§ 219.9(b)), except when a
plan amendment is approved
contemporaneously with a project or
activity and applies only to the project
or activity, in which case 36 CFR part
215 or part 218, subpart A, apply.
(b) Transition period. For each unit of
the National Forest System, the
transition period begins on January 5,
2005 and ends on the unit’s
establishment of an EMS in accordance
with § 219.5 or on January 7, 2008
whichever comes first.
(c) Initiation of plans, plan
amendments, or plan revisions. For the
purposes of this section, initiation
means that the agency has provided
notice under § 219.9(b) or issued a
Notice of Intent or other public notice
announcing the commencement of the
process to develop a plan, plan
amendment, or plan revision.
(d) Plan development, plan
amendments, or plan revisions initiated
during the transition period. (1) Plan
development and plan revisions
initiated after January 5, 2005 must
conform to the requirements of this
subpart.
(2) Plan amendments initiated during
the transition period may continue
using the provisions of the planning
regulations in effect before November 9,
2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299,
Revised as of July 1, 2000) or may
conform to the requirements of this
subpart if the Responsible Official
establishes an EMS in accordance with
§ 219.5.
(3) Plan amendments initiated after
the transition period must conform to
the requirements of this subpart.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(e) Plan development, plan
amendments, or plan revisions
previously initiated. Plan development,
plan amendments, or plan revisions
initiated before the transition period
may continue to use the provisions of
the planning regulations in effect before
November 9, 2000 (See 36 CFR parts 200
to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000), or
may conform to the requirements of this
subpart, in accordance with the
following:
(1) The Responsible Official is not
required to halt the process and start
over. Rather, upon the unit’s
establishment of an EMS in accordance
with § 219.5, the Responsible Official
may apply this subpart as appropriate to
complete the plan development, plan
amendment, or plan revision process.
(2) The Responsible Official may elect
to use either the administrative appeal
and review procedures at 36 CFR part
217 in effect prior to November 9, 2000,
(See 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised
as of July 1, 2000), or the objection
procedures of this subpart, except when
a plan amendment is approved
contemporaneously with a project or
activity and applies only to the project
or activity, in which case 36 CFR part
215 or part 218, subpart A, apply.
(f) Management indicator species. For
units with plans developed, amended,
or revised using the provisions of the
planning rule in effect prior to
November 9, 2000, the Responsible
Official may comply with any
obligations relating to management
indicator species by considering data
and analysis relating to habitat unless
the plan specifically requires population
monitoring or population surveys for
the species. Site-specific monitoring or
surveying of a proposed project or
activity area is not required, but may be
conducted at the discretion of the
Responsible Official.
§ 219.15

Severability.

In the event that any specific
provision of this rule is deemed by a
court to be invalid, the remaining
provisions shall remain in effect.
§ 219.16

Definitions.

Definitions of the special terms used
in this subpart are set out in
alphabetical order.
Adaptive management: An approach
to natural resource management where
actions are designed and executed and
effects are monitored for the purpose of
learning and adjusting future
management actions, which improves
the efficiency and responsiveness of
management.
Area of analysis: The geographic area
within which ecosystems, their

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
components, or their processes are
evaluated during analysis and
development of one or more plans, plan
revisions, or plan amendments. This
area may vary in size depending on the
relevant planning issue. For a plan, an
area of analysis may be larger than a
plan area. For development of a plan
amendment, an area of analysis may be
smaller than the plan area. An area of
analysis may include multiple
ownerships.
Diversity of plant and animal
communities: The distribution and
relative abundance or extent of plant
and animal communities and their
component species, including tree
species, occurring within an area.
Ecological conditions: Components of
the biological and physical environment
that can affect diversity of plant and
animal communities and the productive
capacity of ecological systems. These
components could include the
abundance and distribution of aquatic
and terrestrial habitats, roads and other
structural developments, human uses,
and invasive, exotic species.
Ecosystem diversity: The variety and
relative extent of ecosystem types,
including their composition, structure,
and processes within all or a part of an
area of analysis.
Environmental management system:
The part of the overall management
system that includes organizational
structure, planning activities,
responsibilities, practices, procedures,
processes, and resources for developing,
implementing, achieving, reviewing,
and maintaining the environmental
policy of the planning unit.
Federally recognized Indian Tribe: An
Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village, or community
that the Secretary of the Interior
acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe
pursuant to the Federally Recognized

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:59 Jan 04, 2005

Jkt 205001

Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C.
479a.
Forest land: Land at least 10 percent
occupied by forest trees of any size or
formerly having had such tree cover and
not currently developed for nonforest
uses. Lands developed for non-forest
use include areas for crops; improved
pasture; residential or administrative
areas; improved roads of any width and
adjoining road clearing; and power line
clearings of any width.
ISO 14001: A consensus standard
developed by the International
Organization for Standardization and
adopted by the American National
Standards Institute that describes
environmental management systems
and outlines the elements of an
environmental management system.
Newspaper(s) of record: The principal
newspapers of general circulation
annually identified and published in the
Federal Register by each Regional
Forester to be used for publishing
notices as required by 36 CFR 215.5.
The newspaper(s) of record for projects
in a plan area is (are) the newspaper(s)
of record for notices related to planning.
Plan: A document or set of documents
that integrates and displays information
relevant to management of a unit of the
National Forest System.
Plan area: The National Forest System
lands covered by a plan.
Productivity: The capacity of National
Forest System lands and their ecological
systems to provide the various
renewable resources in certain amounts
in perpetuity. For the purposes of this
subpart it is an ecological, not an
economic, term.
Public participation: Activities that
include a wide range of public
involvement tools and processes, such
as collaboration, public meetings, open
houses, workshops, and comment
periods.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1061

Responsible Official: The official with
the authority and responsibility to
oversee the planning process and to
approve plans, plan amendments, and
plan revisions.
Reviewing Officer: The supervisor of
the Responsible Official. The Reviewing
Officer responds to objections made to
a plan, plan amendment, or plan
revision prior to approval.
Species: Any member of the currently
accepted and scientifically defined
plant or animal kingdoms of organisms.
Species-of-concern: Species for which
the Responsible Official determines that
management actions may be necessary
to prevent listing under the Endangered
Species Act.
Species-of-interest: Species for which
the Responsible Official determines that
management actions may be necessary
or desirable to achieve ecological or
other multiple use objectives.
Timber production: The purposeful
growing, tending, harvesting, and
regeneration of regulated crops of trees
to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round
sections for industrial or consumer use.
Visitor opportunities: The spectrum of
settings, landscapes, scenery, facilities,
services, access points, information,
learning-based recreation, wildlife,
natural features, cultural and heritage
sites, and so forth available for National
Forest System visitors to use and enjoy.
Wilderness: Any area of land
designated by Congress as part of the
National Wilderness Preservation
System that was established in the
Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–
1136).
Dated: December 22, 2004.
Mark Rey,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment.
[FR Doc. 05–21 Filed 1–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P

E:\FR\FM\05JAR3.SGM

05JAR3