Notes:
Linked index of page numbers for this notice transcription (groups of 10): 72770 | 72771 | 72772 | 72773 | 72774 | 72775 | 72776 | 72777 | 72778 | 72779 72780 | 72781 | 72782 | 72783 | 72784 | 72785 | 72786 | 72787 | 72788 | 72789 72790 | 72791 | 72792 | 72793 | 72794 | 72795 | 72796 | 72797 | 72798 | 72799 72800 | 72801 | 72802 | 72803 | 72804 | 72805 | 72806 | 72807 | 72808 | 72809 72810 | 72811 | 72812 | 72813 | 72814 | 72815 | 72816 [Transcribed document source information--sic:] [Federal Register: December 6, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 235)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 72769-72816] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06de02-22] Part III Department of Agriculture Forest Service 36 CFR Part 219 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning; Proposed Rules Page 72770 number index DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 219 RIN 0596-AAB86 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing changes to the National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule adopted November 9, 2000. These proposed changes are a result of a review conducted by Forest Service personnel at the direction of the Office of the Secretary. The review affirmed much of the 2000 rule and the underlying concepts of sustainability, monitoring, evaluation, collaboration, and use of science. Although the 2000 rule was intended to simplify and streamline the development and amendment of land and resource management plans, the review concluded that the 2000 rule is neither straightforward nor easy to implement. The review also found that the 2000 rule did not clarify the programmatic nature of land and resource management planning. This proposed rule is intended to improve upon the 2000 rule by providing a planning process which is more readily understood, is within the agency's capability to implement, is within anticipated budgets and staffing levels, and recognizes the programmatic nature of planning. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 6, 2003. Comments received after this date will be considered and placed in the record only if practicable. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: USDA FS Planning Rule, Content Analysis Team, PO Box 8359, Missoula, MT 59807; via email to planning-- rule@fs.fed.us; or by facsimile to Planning Rule Comments at (406) 329- 3556. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments. Persons wishing to inspect the comments need to call (801) 517-1023 to facilitate an appointment. In addition, the Forest Service preliminary draft directives on ecological, social, and economic sustainability, the business model cost study done to estimate predicted costs to implement the 2000 and proposed rules, the Civil Rights Impact Assessment, and the cost-benefit analysis accompanying this proposed rule are expected to be posted during the comment period on the World Wide Web/Internet at www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. These materials, when available, also may be obtained from the Director, Ecosystem Management and Coordination Staff, Forest Service, USDA, Mail Stop 1104,1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1104. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Sutton, Content Analysis Team Program Coordinator, Forest Service, (801) 517-1023. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background^ back to Table of Contents ^The Forest Service (the agency), an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (the Department), is responsible for managing the lands and resources of the National Forest System, which include 192 million acres in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The System is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, 1 national prairie, and other miscellaneous lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary). The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 476 et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 2949 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614), requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 that set out the process for the development and revision of land and resource management plans (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)). The first planning rule, adopted in 1979, was substantially amended on September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026), and was amended in part on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29122), and on September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383). The 1982 rule, as amended, has guided the development, amendment, and revision of the land and resource management plans (LRMP or plans) that are now in place for all national forests and grasslands, including an initial plan recently completed for the Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie that was recently added to the National Forest System (NFS). The Forest Service has undertaken several reviews of the planning process implemented under the 1982 rule. The first review took place in 1989, when the Forest Service, with the assistance of the Conservation Foundation, conducted a comprehensive review of Page 72771 page number index the planning process and published the results in a summary report, "Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning" (1990). The critique concluded that the agency spent too much time on planning; that planning costs too much; and, therefore, that the Forest Service needed a more efficient planning process. These findings are still considered valid and are a prime consideration in the development of this proposed rule. Subsequently, the Forest Service published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 6508; Feb. 15, 1991) regarding possible revisions to the 1982 rule. A proposed rule was published in 1995 (60 FR 18886); however, the Secretary elected not to proceed with that proposal. In response to suggestions from persons who commented on the 1995 proposed rule, the Secretary convened a 13-member Committee of Scientists (Committee or COS) in late 1997 to evaluate the Forest Service's planning process and recommend changes. In 1998, the COS held meetings across the country to invite public participation in their discussions. The Committee's findings were issued in a final report, "Sustaining the People's Lands" (March 1999). A proposed rule based on the COS report was published on October 5, 1999 (64 FR 54074), and a final rule was adopted on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67514). The 2000 Planning Rule^ back to Table of Contents ^In response to many of the findings in the 1990 Critique of Land Management Planning and the 1999 COS report, the Forest Service attempted to prepare a planning rule that would provide a more efficient planning process. The 2000 planning rule (also referred to as the 2000 rule) changed the Forest Service planning process by: (1) Establishing ecological, social, and economic sustainability as the overall stewardship goal for managing the National Forest System; (2) identifying maintenance and restoration of ecological sustainability as the first priority for management of National Forest System lands; (3) requiring collaboration with the general public, interested organizations, Tribal, State and local governments, and Federal agencies in all phases of the planning process; (4) expanding monitoring and evaluation requirements; (5) specifying the use of scientists and establishing detailed requirements for the application of science in the planning process; and (6) providing a dynamic planning framework for solving problems and addressing issues at the appropriate scale. The 2000 rule applies not only to plan amendments and revisions, but also to project-level planning and decisionmaking. The general goals of the 2000 rule are laudable. A major improvement achieved in that rule is the emphasis on sustainability, which assists the Forest Service in providing for multiple uses over time. The 2000 rule also promotes efficiency in that it eliminates zero-based plan revisions as recommended in the 1990 critique, and it removes some analytical requirements of the 1982 rule, such as the requirements for developing benchmarks, which are no longer considered helpful. The 2000 rule also emphasizes public involvement more than the 1982 rule. The 2000 rule gives explicit direction on the use of science in the planning process, while the 1982 rule relied on knowledge shared through an interdisciplinary team approach without procedural requirements for the use of science. The 2000 rule replaces the post- decisional administrative appeal process for challenging plans with a pre-decisional objection process. The 2000 rule also delegates the authority for plan decisions to the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor, rather than to the Regional Forester. The 2000 rule also recognizes the plan as a dynamic document. Despite the positive aspects of the 2000 rule, however, the number of very detailed analytical requirements, the lack of clarity regarding many of the requirements, the lack of flexibility, and the lack of recognition of the limits of agency budgets and personnel led to a reconsideration of this rule. Subsequent Reviews of the 2000 Planning RuleAfter adoption of the 2000 rule, the Secretary received a number of comments from individuals, groups, and organizations expressing concerns regarding the implementation of the 2000 rule. In addition, lawsuits challenging promulgation of the rule were brought by a coalition of 12 environmental groups from 7 states and by a coalition of industry groups (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, No. C-01- 0728-BZ-(N.D. Calif., filed February 16, 2001)) and (American Forest and Paper Ass'n v. Veneman, No. 01-CV-00871 (TPJ) (D.D.C., filed April 23, 2001)). As a result of these lawsuits and concerns raised in comments to the Secretary, the Department initiated a review of the 2000 rule focusing on its "implementability." The "NFMA Planning Rule Review," completed in April 2001, concluded that many of the concerns regarding implementability of the rule were serious and required immediate attention. In addition, the Forest Service developed a business analysis model of the 2000 rule and conducted a workshop with field-level planners to determine the implementability of the 2000 rule based on this business model. The business model reflected business activities directly applied from the 2000 rule and provided the basis for a systematic evaluation of the rule for implementability. The business model identified the following nine major categories of planning activities and associated sections of the 2000 rule: (1) Collaboration (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.12 through 219.18); (2) Best Science/Science Consistency (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.22 through 219.25 with consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.11 and 219.20); (3) Recommendations (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.3 through 219.9 with consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.19, 219.20, 219.21, 219.26, and 219.27); (4) Sustainability (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.19 through 219.21 with consideration of relative text in Sec. 219.11); (5) Developing/Revising Plan Decisions (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.6 through 219.9 and 219.11 with consideration of relative text in Sec. Sec. 219.20, 219.26, 219.28, and 219.29); (6) Write Plan Documentation (primarily Sec. Sec. 219.11 and 219.30); (7) Maintain the Plan (primarily Sec. 219.31); (8) Objections and Appeals (primarily Sec. 219.32); and (9) Miscellaneous (public notifications and selected NEPA activities). Within the context of the nine categories defined, the facilitated workshop centered on answering two questions: (1) Are the business requirements clearly understood? (2) What is the agency's perceived ability to execute the requirements? An important consideration in this business model analysis was that it was conducted by planning practitioners who have current field-level experience. They are the agency experts in a variety of resource areas, including assessing what can reasonably be accomplished, considering existing knowledge and information, the issues relevant to planning areas, and local staffing and funding situations. This review and analysis found the following: Page 72772 page number index across the agency; for example, species viability, population monitoring, and the range of variation within the current climatic period; (2) Compliance with the regulatory direction on such matters as ecological sustainability and science consistency checks would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish; and (3) The complexity of the 2000 rule makes it difficult and expensive to implement. Sustainability. The planners particularly questioned whether or not the agency could achieve the ecological, social, and economic sustainability standards established in Sec. 219.19 of the 2000 rule. Similar concerns were noted regarding the viability provisions for the diversity of plant and animal communities, also in Sec. 219.19 of the rule. The reviewers found that the ecological sustainability requirements in the rule are not only complex, but needlessly so. Although the 2000 rule was intended to increase the focus on ecosystem- level analyses for addressing the diversity of plant and animal communities and, thereby, reducing the far more costly species-by- species approach, the means to accomplish the intent of the rule are not clear. There was disagreement among the reviewers about the degree of potential reduction in the species-by-species analysis burden in the 2000 rule. The role of science. The reviewers affirmed the importance of using the best available science in planning. However, the detailed provisions of the 2000 rule for the use of science and scientists in the planning process raised many concerns. (1) Field-level planners believed the 2000 rule includes unnecessarily detailed procedural requirements for scientific peer reviews, broad-scale assessments, monitoring, and science advisory boards. (2) Moreover, these requirements do not recognize the limits of budgets for use of science, nor does the 2000 rule clearly relate use of science to the scope of issues in the planning process. (3) The 2000 rule also does not recognize limitations on the availability of scientists. The reviewers believed it to be unwise to place such detailed requirements on the use of scientists in the rule given the ambiguities of the rule text and the limited availability of scientists. Although science is needed to inform the Responsible Official, the reviewers concluded that the 2000 rule anticipates a level of involvement by scientists that may or may not be needed considering the planning issues or the anticipated amount of project activities during on-the-ground implementation of the plan. Monitoring. Reviewers identified three major issues arising from the monitoring requirements of the 2000 rule. First, the unnecessarily detailed requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the 2000 rule are likely beyond the capacity of many units to perform. Second, it was considered to be generally confusing throughout the rule to mix programmatic and project level planning direction. Third, the monitoring requirements in the 2000 rule are overly prescriptive and do not provide the Responsible Official sufficient discretion to decide how much information is needed. Also, during development of this revised proposed planning rule, it became apparent that monitoring should be focused on whether on-the- ground management is achieving desired conditions identified in the plan. This focus was not clear in the 2000 rule, as its monitoring direction primarily required a broad array of techniques intended to measure indicators of sustainability. This conceptual change reflects a fundamental difference in philosophy between the 2000 rule and this proposed rule. The 2000 rule tends to be highly prescriptive regarding a variety of aspects of planning. This proposed rule tends to focus more on results, rather than on techniques for achieving results. The Responsible Official is guided by a very large body of law, regulation, and policy that helps ensure responsible management on the ground. The much lower amount of procedural detail in this new proposed rule reflects the agency's assumption that the Responsible Officials will discharge planning duties responsibly and will conduct planning within the bounds of authority. Transition from the 1982 to the 2000 rule. The reviewers also identified concerns with the transition requirements of the 2000 rule. There is a lack of clarity about how projects are to be compliant with the 2000 rule and how the entire rule is to be used in the more limited scope of plan amendments. Planners expressed uncertainty about how transition to the 2000 rule would occur, particularly for site-specific decisions. Finally, to fully implement the 2000 rule the planners felt the relatively short transition period provided is unrealistic given the complexities and uncertainties identified. Having considered the reports of the review teams, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment requested that the Chief of the Forest Service develop a proposed rule to revise the 2000 rule. Provisions and Intent of the Proposed Rule^ back to Table of Contents ^Overview Because of the concerns identified regarding the 2000 rule and because this proposed rule changes the 2000 rule, it is necessary to explain exactly how and why the 2000 rule has been adjusted in this proposal. However, the agency believes it is productive to begin this overview with a vision of the planning process and the contents of resource management plans. The Forest Service believes the direction of many aspects of current planning activities and the basic concepts of the 2000 rule are very valuable and reflect the expectations of the American people for planning on their public lands. Planning
Page 72773 page number index
Plan Contents
The goal of the agency is to have a planning rule that is simpler and easier to implement than the 2000 rule and that allows the agency to more easily adapt to changing issues and opportunities. Available agency budgets, personnel availability, and other resource limitations are recognized as important because they help provide a framework for the Responsible Official to make decisions such as the following: What issues can the Responsible Official reasonably address? What method will be used to solicit meaningful public involvement? What are the pressing resource needs? What data needs to be collected? Does the unit need to hire specialists to support the planning action? Are contracts needed to obtain various kinds of information? Recognition of budget availability and limitations helps the Responsible Official make choices about how to weigh and balance competing needs and to consider the costs and benefits of various actions for optimal results. The proposed rule retains the important improvements of the 2000 rule. These include:
The Forest Service believes the proposed rule will apply these important improvements more efficiently than does the 2000 rule. The Forest Service believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a planning process as possible within the scope of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements. In addition to retention of the key improvements, the agency also looked to earlier versions of published and unpublished proposed planning rules as sources of ideas in revising specific sections. Finally, the Forest Service has applied over 20 years of planning experience to craft this proposed rule. It is also useful at this point to discuss in more detail one important component of the body of direction that governs the Responsible Official's actions. The Forest Service Directive System consists of the Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH), which codify the agency's policy, practice, and procedure. The system serves as the primary basis for the internal management and control of all programs and the primary source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The FSH is the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Examples include Handbooks on land management planning and environmental analysis. As discussed throughout this proposed rule, the Directive System plays and will continue to play an important role in directing field employees on how to conduct planning. Section 219.5 of the 2000 rule is a specific example of direction better included in the agency's Directive System. The agency believes that much of the process direction, such as potential uses of an assessment (e.g., identification of additional research needs), or who has responsibility for a broad-scale assessment (Regional Foresters and Station Directors), or examples of what a local analysis should describe (e.g. likely future conditions, characterizations of the area of analysis) are more appropriately addressed in the Directive System, not Page 72774 page number index a codified rule. Pursuant to NFMA, the Forest Service will provide notice and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed Forest Service Manual direction for this proposed rule because of the substantial public interest in this direction (36 CFR 216.4). The agency must improve its planning processes so that direction and resources will be in place to manage the National Forest System (NFS) lands more effectively. The trend in planning over the past 20 years has been towards more complexity with the result that limited funds and personnel available to the agency are being disproportionately spent on planning and analysis. With this proposal, the agency seeks to produce a planning rule that sets the stage for planning to be done in a reasonable manner, at reasonable costs, in a reasonable amount of time, and thus provide a sound and rational framework for managing National Forest System lands. The agency has evaluated the entire cost of planning for both the 2000 rule and proposed rule. The evaluation shows that there will be efficiencies and reduced costs associated with implementation of the proposed rule. Increasing efficiency and reducing costs are important. The Forest Service believes that the public's primary expectation is that the agency do a good job of land management. The agency needs to balance its planning efforts with its efforts to actually manage the land through the application of plan direction to subsequent actions. There is urgency to make planning more efficient, as there are issues, activities, and resource concerns that are not halted during the planning process and which may pose increased concerns when planning occurs over excessively long timeframes. There is a growing population that will recreate on National Forest System lands whether the agency is prepared to deal with these uses or not. There are growing needs for watershed restoration for such purposes as prevention of flooding and the attendant adverse effects on people, property, and resource health. There are increasing demands for energy resources. Many NFS lands have a critical wildfire problem. Spending disproportionate agency time and money on planning and analysis that is not commensurate with the scope and effect of the decision to be made reduces the agency's ability to address serious land management issues. Additionally, the Forest Service has seldom been able to revise its plans prior to NFMA's 15-year deadline. There have been several reasons for this delay, but one consistent cause has been the excessive length of time needed to plan under existing procedures. Please refer to the November 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 59775), which contains the agency's schedule to systematically approach the NFMA 15- year revision deadline for NFS units, considering critical resource and social/economic issues. Reviewers may also refer to the Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination staff Web site at www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma for the latest update of the agency-wide land and resource management plan (LRMP) revision schedule. The Forest Service believes this proposed rule, if adopted, would improve and streamline the planning process. In accordance NFMA, plans are to be revised from time to time when the Secretary finds conditions on a unit have significantly changed, but at least every 15 years. Plan revisions that take four, five, or six or more years to complete are not responsive to the vision of NFMA, are not responsive to changing issues, and are in danger of exhausting public interest and involvement. When plans cannot be easily amended, many people feel that they need to have all their concerns resolved in a plan revision, because that will be the direction in place for many years. This viewpoint not only can increase contentiousness in planning, but also result in unreasonably high expectations of what a plan does. Several aspects of this proposed rule will improve the ability to not only revise plans more easily, but also to amend them more easily. As stated, the proposed rule is intended to reflect the programmatic nature of planning and provide a process that is within the agency's ability to implement. Fundamental to programmatic planning is the premise that plans are permissive; that is, they allow, but do not mandate, certain activities to take place within the plan area. Consequently, the proposed rule emphasizes that plans themselves generally are not actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment, nor do they dictate site-specific actions. The agency must align its planning processes and performance responsibly. This means targeting dollars spent on planning to those activities that will yield clear benefits. Programmatic land and resource management planning cannot do more than establish a framework for management in an ever-changing environment. The Forest Service believes that the proposed rule provides as efficient a planning process as possible within the framework of NFMA direction. A detailed explanation of the proposed rule that would amend the rules at 36 CFR Part 219 follows. Section-by-Section Explanation of
the Proposed Rule Proposed section 219.1--Purpose and applicability. [to Contents] The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) establishes that NFS lands must be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish values. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary to develop and administer these resources for multiple use and the sustained yield of the several products and services that are obtained from management of the surface resources. The Act defines multiple use as the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the NFS lands so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. The Act further provides that sustained yield of the several products and services means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the NFS without impairment of the productivity of the land. The Forest Service has embraced the concept of sustainability to guide the agency in meeting requirements of MUSYA. Sustainability addresses the "sustained yield" aspect of MUSYA because it requires balancing resource management with the needs of current and future generations "in perpetuity." The concept of sustainability will assist the Responsible Official in assuring that Forest Service management of the various renewable resources will be administered without impairment of the productivity of the land, as required by MUSYA. Sustaining the productivity of the land and its renewable resources means meeting present needs without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations. Meeting present and future needs does not imply all individual needs can be met at one time, either now or in the future. The concepts of multiple use and sustainability are addressed in Sec. 219.1 of the 2000 rule. Because these concepts are so fundamental to planning, they are retained in Sec. 219.1 of this proposed rule. As does the 2000 rule, this proposed rule affirms the health of the land and sustaining its resources within the Page 72775 page number index authority granted by MUSYA as the overall goal for managing the National Forest System. This section of the rule sets forth a clear process for establishing, amending, and revising plans and for monitoring plan implementation. As provided in Sec. 219.1 of the 2000 rule, this proposed rule also recognizes that planning may consider many time frames and geographic areas and that it is an ongoing process. However, the proposed rule would not determine the selection or implementation of site-specific actions. Rather, the proposed rule requires documentation that a future project decision is consistent with the plan. The agency believes that a rule which focuses solely on programmatic-level planning will be better understood and more consistently applied than a rule that includes direction on both programmatic and project-level decisionmaking. Agency guidelines on project-level planning are specified in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15. The USDA Office of General Counsel, Natural Resources Division working paper entitled "Overview of Forest Planning and Project Level Decisionmaking," describes the nature of the agency's two-staged decisionmaking process. The paper is available on the World Wide Web at www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma. The relevant issues, levels and kinds of analysis needed, and decisions to be made in a programmatic plan are quite different from those required for development of site-specific projects. The paragraph in this section regarding the applicability of the proposed rule is the same as Sec. 219.34 of the 2000 rule, except that it adds a reference to subsequent statutes in order to allow for any future additions to the National Forest System. Proposed section 219.2--Nature and scope of a land and resource management plan. [to Contents] This section of the proposed rule establishes the fundamental purpose of a plan and provides specific requirements on how that purpose will be met. In contrast to Sec. Sec. 219.1-219.5 of the 2000 rule, this proposed section describes the nature of a land and resource management plan concisely, and, thereby, sets the stage for a planning process that is more flexible and efficient. Proposed paragraph (a) of this section establishes that the fundamental purpose of a plan is (1) to establish the desired conditions to be achieved through the management of the lands and various renewable resources of the National Forest System and (2) to guide the Forest Service in fulfilling its responsibilities for stewardship of the National Forest System to best meet the present and future needs of the American people. This concept is central to the planning vision. In contrast to the lengthy and non-regulatory exposition of Sec. Sec. 219.1-219.5 of the 2000 rule, Sec. 219.2 of this proposed rule concisely describes the nature of a land and resource management plan. Proposed paragraph (b) is somewhat similar to Sec. 219.2 of the 2000 rule in that it sets out principles on which that rule is based. Rather than dwelling on principles modifying the rules, however, paragraph (b) imposes core requirements for which the Responsible Official will be held accountable in plan development, amendment, or revision. While brief and concise, these requirements touch all the major principles covered in Sec. 219.2 of the 2000 rule--- sustainability, use of science, consultation with government agencies and Tribes, public participation, interdisciplinary planning, and monitoring and evaluation. Proposed paragraph (c) recognizes the role of plans in integrating the various statutory authorities applicable to National Forest System management. It also recognizes the Forest Service Directive System as the primary source of agency-wide management direction relevant to planning and management of National Forest System lands and resources. Planning is conducted in the context of the body of environmental laws, regulations, Executive orders, and policy. The plan itself does not generally repeat existing law, regulation, Executive order, or policy but rather interprets their requirements as they apply to the plan area. Although the proposed rule does not explicitly address integrating statutory authorities, it does at Sec. 219.1(a) identify the principal authorities applicable to National Forest System lands. Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 219.2 describes the force and effect of land and resource management plans, making clear that:
This proposed paragraph better recognizes the programmatic nature of plans than the 2000 rule, and therefore, more accurately describes the nature of a land and resource management plan. Since a plan provides only the framework for management, a plan normally does not specifically authorize any ground-disturbing activities nor does it specifically commit funding or resources. Therefore, the analysis associated with a plan should be proportional to the level of decisions made in a plan. Also, a plan focuses on desired conditions. It zones the forest, grassland, or prairie into defined areas where activities could occur to help meet those desired conditions and sets out a program for monitoring progress toward desired conditions. This kind of plan can be supported by an analysis that evaluates, on a broad level, the areas' suitability for future potential activities. The type of plan level analysis that the Forest Service has found most useful for developing a plan, and for project analysis thereafter, is baseline and general trend analysis, which gives as complete a picture of the forest or grassland as possible at one time and provides the best information of trends of natural processes and of uses in the plan area and surrounding lands. The Forest Service will continue such analyses in the planning process. The Forest Service believes that environmental analyses are most useful when done in the development of site-specific decisions that will execute on-the-ground management. More specifically, while a plan guides project implementation, extensive up-front effects disclosure is generally too speculative to be useful for project analysis. Thus, the opportunity to "tier" a project's NEPA analysis to a plan EIS, as provided in NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.20), is useful only for certain aspects of analysis and in practice has proven more theoretical than real. The Forest Service therefore intends to conduct most detailed analysis on the site- specific project level. Plan management direction should be flexible and allow for adaptive management. Monitoring should not only measure progress toward desired conditions but also help measure the success of adaptive management strategies and actions. A plan is generally a zoning document. It may allow for later, site-specific authorization of activities and may restrict activities in specific areas. There are different ways this zoning is applied depending on the type of existing or potential future activities. For example, a plan may allow transportation development or motorized use on some portions of the National Forest System unit, but not on others. Such a plan decision does not immediately authorize road construction, but rather identifies zones where road construction may occur in the future, based on an appropriate project-specific NEPA analysis, public involvement, and a future decision. Page 72776 page number index Another example of zoning-type direction in a plan is direction that would restrict motorized access in areas where it has been allowed in the past or that would restrict other recreation uses that are currently allowed. The plan itself does not normally execute the restriction. Rather, the restriction would have to be implemented with a subsequent process, such as a closure order or other instrument. It must be recognized that a plan is not the final word deciding forever the fate of an area of land, determining that some actions will certainly occur and others never will occur, over all or part of the plan area. According to the Forest Service's vision of planning, plans can and should be dynamic documents, which can and should be reconsidered throughout their existence and readily amended when circumstances call for change. In summary, the plan is a framework for future on-the-ground management decisions. Site-specific projects are proposed and developed within the constraints of the plan, and are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws and regulations. Proposed section 219.3--Levels of planning and planning authority. [to Contents] This section of the proposed rule identifies three levels of planning-- national, regional, or unit (national forest, grassland, or prairie) level. As in the 2000 rule, the Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor is the Responsible Official for a land and resource management plan, unless the Regional Forester or the Chief chooses to act as the Responsible Official for a specific amendment or revision. The key planning elements listed in Sec. 219.3(d) of the 2000 rule are omitted from the proposed rule because they are unnecessary. Proposed Sec. 219.5 provides direction on indicators or a need to amend or revise a plan. Sec. Sec. 219.7-219.9 discuss the steps to develop a new plan or amend or revise a plan. Sec. 219.10 discusses application of plan direction and Sec. 219.11 provides for plan monitoring or evaluating plans. It is not necessary to summarize these planning elements in a single section. The 2000 rule Sec. 219.3 key element number 7 is not needed because the proposed rule does not provide direction for site-specific decisions. Additionally, in contrast to the 2000 rule, Sec. 219.3 in this proposed rule does not contain direction for site-specific actions. As noted previously, the focus of this proposed rule is the development, amendment, and revision of plans, not site-specific project planning. The Forest Service uses a staged decisionmaking process in which land and resource management plans establish the guidance that governs site-specific project planning and decisionmaking. One new provision of Sec. 219.3 is the recognition of the need to ensure that management direction for designated areas of experimental forests is consistent with the research being conducted and concurred in by the appropriate Station Director. The need for this direction emerged from review by Forest Service Research and Development employees. Proposed section 219.4--Decisions embodied in plans. [to Contents] This proposed section, in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6), retain the five types of plan decisions found in the 2000 rule. Those decisions are "desired conditions," "objectives," "standards," "the identification and designation of suitable and unsuitable land uses," and "the identification of requirements for monitoring and evaluation." For efficiency and clarity, Sec. 219.26 of the 2000 rule, which governs identifying and designating suitable uses, has been incorporated into Sec. 219.4 as proposed paragraph (a)(4). Overall, this section of the proposed rule is similar to Sec. 219.7 of the 2000 rule, although reorganized in this proposal. The proposed rule, however, more explicitly tracks the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). In proposed paragraph (a)(3) of section 219.4, the rule states "Standards generally should be adaptable and assess performance measures." The following is an example of an adaptable standard that assesses performance measures: "No pre-commercial thinning is allowed in lynx habitat unless at least three years of monitoring of snowshoe hares shows that hares are present and are not a limiting factor for lynx. In these cases, pre-commercial thinning may occur on no more than 20 percent of the hare habitat." Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of section 219.4 addresses maximum size openings. The 2000 rule does not provide for maximum size openings. As in the 1982 rule, the proposed rule reinstates this statutory requirement and uses the same maximum size limits, by forest cover type. An additional required standard is added at Sec. 219.4(a)(3)(vii) on the use and application of culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). The addition of CMAI direction was added to the proposed rule in order to clarify how this NFMA requirement is to be applied because there has been some confusion in this area. This new requirement specifies that CMAI considerations apply only to regeneration harvest of even-aged tree stands on suitable lands that are harvested for timber production purposes. This section allows for exceptions to the application of CMAI to be made in the plan; for example, a plan could provide exceptions for wildlife openings or for fuel reduction or fuel breaks. The 2000 rule provides that lands are not suited for a particular use if law, regulation, or Executive order would prohibit the use, if the use is incompatible with the mission or policies of the National Forest System, or if the use would involve substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land. The proposed rule retains the 2000 rule's criteria concerning laws, regulations or Executive orders and the criteria concerning productivity of the land. However, the proposed rule changes the provision of Sec. 219.7(d) of the 2000 rule in two ways. First, the proposed rule no longer uses the criteria of incompatibility with the mission or policies of the National Forest System, because this is so broad that it would not be a useful criterion for the Responsible Official to consider. Instead, the proposed rule adopts a much more explicit criterion to consider; that is, "If agency resource management directives prohibit the use." Second, the proposed rule adds a criterion for determining if lands are not suited for a particular use: "If the use is incompatible with the desired conditions as established for the plan." This criterion was added to clearly recognize that the decisions made in adopting a plan may result in prohibiting some uses on all or parts of a plan area. In addition, this proposed section adds a clarification in paragraph (b) that assessments, surveys, and similar efforts are not plan decisions nor do they constitute a proposed action. This regulatory finding is essential to avoid public and employee confusion about what is a plan decision and what is not. Proposed section 219.5--Indicators of need to amend or revise a plan. [to Contents] This section focuses on emerging issues and new information as indicators of the need to amend or revise a plan. Paragraph (a) of this proposed section is very similar to paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.4 of the 2000 rule in identifying a variety of sources from which issues or problems may come to be addressed in planning. However, proposed paragraph (a) differs from the 2000 rule in that the reference to evaluation of collaboratively developed landscape goals has been removed from this section because of confusion regarding the intent of this provision in the 2000 rule. The concept of collaboratively Page 72777 page number index developed landscape goals is addressed in this preamble in the discussion of proposed Sec. 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation and consultation. Proposed Sec. 219.5 retains the concept of engaging the public in development of desired conditions as a cornerstone of planning. Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 219.5 also differs from the 2000 rule by including a specific requirement for obtaining inventory data, as required by NFMA. The 1982 rule used the term "issues" many times, and issue identification was a cornerstone of how planning was done, but the 1982 rule was not specific concerning the sources from which an issue could arise, except that public participation was a key element of issue identification. In contrast, the 2000 rule specifies how issues originate and gives detailed description of the Responsible Official's consideration of issues. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) lists factors the Responsible Official may use to determine if an issue or opportunity is timely. Like the 2000 rule, this section makes clear that the Responsible Official has full discretion to make this determination. The requirements in Sec. 219.4(b)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of the 2000 rule address the extent to which "consideration" of the issues relate to opportunities of the planning unit to contribute to various elements of resource protection and sustainability. The proposed rule does not include these specific criteria, because it may not be practicable to consider these criteria at the initial stage of planning. There is often a lack of information when issues arise, and it is not always known how the issues relate to the National Forest System unit's contribution to sustainability. For example, there may not be complete information early in the issue identification stage related to opportunities to contribute to recovery of threatened or endangered species. This consideration may not be appropriate or efficient to consider until later in the planning process when the best available science may be assembled, when better inventory data may become available, or when public involvement may help discover opportunities that were not earlier known. This proposed section does not retain the provision at Sec. 219.4(b)(2)(v) that the Responsible Official should consider the extent to which addressing an issue relates to the potential for negative environmental effects on minorities. Potential negative effects are most meaningfully identified and addressed in the analysis phase of planning. Executive Order 12898 and Departmental Regulation 43004-4 (1978) require the Forest Service to determine if proposed actions would create disproportionate adverse effects on minority populations and, if so, to mitigate those effects to the extent practicable. The Forest Service complies with these requirements through its NEPA procedures. Scoping, the process of accepting public comments on a proposed action, should indicate whether environmental justice issues exist and the social and economic effects analysis would display the depth and range of those impacts and possible mitigation. The agency affirms that any action it can affect that would cause a disproportionate adverse effect on minority populations would be addressed through a NEPA procedure, thus there would be no controllable effects that the agency would not disclose, analyze, and mitigate to the extent practicable. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section incorporates the intent of Sec. 219.5 of the 2000 rule with regard to addressing information needs and requires the Responsible Official to keep information gathering within reasonable costs and timeframes. However, this proposed paragraph does not carry forward the detailed provisions of Sec. 219.5 of the 2000 rule for conducting broad-scale assessments and local analysis. These provisions are considered unduly detailed and too inflexible to apply to all National Forest System units, which have a wide variety of issues and information needs as well as differences in budgets and staffing levels. Needed direction on what constitutes broad-scale assessments and local analyses and how the Responsible Official should develop and use this information is more appropriately described in the agency's Directive System. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) makes clear that a decision to consider or not consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to administrative objection. Proposed section 219.6--Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act. [to Contents] This proposed section is intended to replace Sec. 219.6 of the 2000 rule, which defines proposed actions, requires compliance with Forest Service NEPA procedures, and ties scoping to issue development. Applicability of NEPA. NFMA section 6(g)(1) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to specify "procedures to insure that land management plans are prepared in accordance with" NEPA, including "direction on when and for what plans an environmental impact statement shall be prepared" (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). Thus, NFMA provides the statutory authority for the Secretary to specify not only what should be included in a plan, but also when and how the documentation of NEPA compliance applies to the planning process. This includes determining whether a plan decision's NEPA compliance is to be documented in an EIS, an EA and FONSI, or whether a plan decision may be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. The proposed rule maintains the planning process requirements already familiar to the public. These include public notice, public involvement, analysis, public comment on the draft plan, and an objection process for contesting planning decisions. The proposed planning process is intended to be open to all stakeholders and well- informed regarding the environmental effects of the proposed plan and appropriate alternatives. Plan analysis and documentation: The 2000 rule at section 219.9 requires documentation of a plan revision in an EIS and allows the Responsible Official to determine whether or not to prepare an EIS for a plan amendment. The proposed rule at section 219.6, in contrast, applies this authority in a different manner and outlines the environmental analysis and documentation requirements for revisions. An EIS at the planning stage will not be required if the decision to adopt a plan revision or amendment is not an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment or if a component of a plan does not yet authorize an action that commits funding or resources that could have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. In addition, all plans in revision were adopted with full EIS analysis. Therefore, where the existing EIS and subsequent plan and/or project level documentation have adequately evaluated the significance of plan direction, no further supplementation is required. Plans that only establish goals, objectives, standards, land allocations, monitoring requirements, and desired resource conditions do not authorize site-specific implementing actions and would not be expected to have significant effects on the environment or effects that have not been previously addressed in prior NEPA documents. As noted above, the question with respect to NFMA planning is when and how--not whether--to follow NEPA where it applies. NFMA specifically authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to decide how and when to do NEPA environmental analysis for National Forest System plans. The agency may, based on the implementation of the proposed rule, identify a category of Page 72778 page number index plan decisions that do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects and may be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation through a subsequent rule-making process. However, plan decisions including actions that may have significant effects on the human environment must analyze and describe those effects in a more detailed environmental document, including an EIS where relevant. The following examples illustrate this principle.
Plan and project analysis: In contrast to the 2000 rule, the proposed rule at Sec. 219.6(b) requires the detail of analysis at the plan and project level to be proportional to the decisions proposed. The proposed rule requires plans to provide substantial baseline data and trend analysis, which can include the description of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects information at a broad scale appropriate to planning, while requiring more detailed fine-scale NEPA analysis, including the description of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, to be conducted when a site-specific action at the project level is proposed to implement the plan. Experience has shown that site-specific NEPA analysis, based upon more general plan-level analysis, provides a more timely and accurate assessment of the effects of Forest Service management actions than could otherwise be projected under more hypothetical reasoning in more detailed NEPA analysis at the plan level. The proposed rule requires plans to be based on substantial analysis of pertinent issues regardless of the level of NEPA analysis and documentation. These plan analyses would: (1) Serve to help the Responsible Official, the public, and others develop land allocations, standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; (2) help limit the effects of future projects by application of the plan allocations, standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; and (3) provide information useful for analyzing project effects. For example, both options in proposed section 219.13, developed to ensure that the NFMA diversity requirements are met, require ecological analyses. Option 2 in this proposed rule contains very specific analytical requirements. It focuses ecological analyses at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization, requires analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and timeframes, and stresses the importance of analyses conducted over large geographic areas or long timeframes. Option 2 requires description of the influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced disturbance regimes, and a discussion on how these factors influence a forest's or grassland's ability to achieve biological diversity objectives. These analyses are a key part of both the proposed planning rule and the analysis of the ecological effects of proposals for plan decisions. This analysis will also provide essential baseline and trend data that will inform the analysis of the direct and indirect effects of plan implementation at the project level. Cumulative effects analysis: Cumulative effects analysis normally involves analysis both at the plan level and at the project level. Under the proposed rule, plan-level analysis would evaluate existing conditions and broad trends at the geographic scale of the plan area. For example, depending on applicable issues, plan analysis may examine habitats for wide-ranging species at various geographic scales and discuss trends for that habitat. Plan analysis may examine recreation use and trends near a community. Plan analysis may also examine the current distribution and likelihood of spread for noxious weeds and whether existing roads may serve as vectors for that spread. Analysis for site-specific projects will provide additional information that, when combined with the plan-level analysis and monitoring information collected and maintained on the plan's monitoring requirements, would serve as a basis for evaluating the cumulative effects of projects carried out under the plan. For example, where plan analysis documents the quantity and quality of habitat that is available for a wide-ranging species, that plan-level analysis, combined with applicable monitoring data and other inventory information, can provide much of the information needed to describe the cumulative effects of project and other past, current, and reasonably foreseeable projects upon the habitat available for that species. Likewise, if plan analysis indicates that a particular recreation use is high and increasing the risk of loss of a rare plant, then plan direction may require particular measures for rare plant protection near trails in the recreation use area and a closer and more detailed examination for cumulative effects analysis associated with recreation management decisions. If plan-level analysis indicates that uses of existing roads are contributing to the spread of noxious weeds, and monitoring indicates that open roads from nearby projects are contributing to the spread, the project-level cumulative effects analysis may be required to assess mitigation measures that may be needed to restrict travel for the area. Project level NEPA compliance: As stated elsewhere in this preamble, agency guidelines on project-level planning are specified in FSM 1950 and Page 72779 page number index FSH 1909.15. Whether a proposed project is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, or is considered in an EA or EIS depends upon whether that project would have a significant effect on the environment. For those projects that the agency believes there may be significant effects, an EIS will be prepared to display those effects. Pursuant to the FSH requirements, EIS's are required for actions in certain circumstances, for example, herbicide application, or road construction in an inventoried roadless area. In addition, the Forest Service typically documents other types of projects in an EIS. For example, large timber sale projects are normally documented in an EIS. Another example of a type of project that may be documented in an EIS would be an approval of a plan of operation for a large hard-rock mining operation. The reason to do an EA is to determine whether or not an EIS is necessary and to document agency NEPA compliance when an EIS is not necessary. The EA will briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or to reach a finding of no significant impact for the proposed action. Projects typically documented in an EA are those projects that, at the time of the proposal, the Forest Service believes will not have significant environmental effects. Examples of types of projects typically documented in an EA include smaller timber sale projects, road construction, campground construction, special use authorizations, and fuels reduction. The FSH also lists categories of actions that are excluded from NEPA documentation because they do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by the agency in implementation of the regulations. Existing categories include road maintenance, administrative site maintenance, or trail construction. Whether a project is documented in an EIS or an EA or whether it is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation, land and resource management plan analyses will provide critical baseline and trend data that will inform the site-specific analysis for the project. Project level NEPA documentation will analyze project effects as needed, depending on the nature of the project and the applicable issues, and known information. Project analyses will supplement and use monitoring data, pertinent assessments, inventories, research, and the plan analysis information. This plan analysis information will be available regardless of whether the plan is documented in an EA, EIS, or categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. Categorical exclusion for planning: If this proposed rule is adopted, conforming changes would be required in FSH 1909.15, section 20.6. A new categorical exclusion pertaining to categories of plan decisions may be adopted for plan decisions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effects on the human environment and are found to have no such effect by the agency based on the implementation of this proposed rule. A separate Federal Register notice would be published to provide public notice of the proposed category and request for comment. Public comment: The agency recognizes that the manner in which the proposed rule applies NEPA with respect to new plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions is a departure from the approach taken in the 2000 rule and the 1982 rule requiring an EIS for plan revisions, significant amendments, or new plans. This departure is based on the agency's extensive experience with land and resource management planning over the years. That experience indicates that attempting to draw precise conclusions about the environmental effects of plan direction is subject to analytical uncertainty and is ultimately of limited value for purposes of informed decision-making in compliance with NEPA. However, the agency recognizes that some level of NEPA documentation for plan direction is warranted, and that there may be substantial disagreement over the extent of NEPA analysis and documentation that is appropriate. With this proposed rule, the Forest Service is attempting to strike an appropriate balance between broad-scale plan-level analysis and finer-scale project-level analysis with sufficient inter- relationship between the two to ensure NEPA compliance for all decisions. Therefore, the Forest Service specifically requests comments and suggestions from the public regarding how the "significance" of land and resource management plan direction is applied in this proposed rule, what plan decisions authorize an action or commit funding or resources that could have a significant effect on the environment and the circumstances for which an EA or EIS for a plan would be appropriate. It is useful to summarize the differences between elements of NEPA application in the 2000 rule and in this proposed rule. This summary consolidates discussion present in other parts of this preamble. Type of NEPA documentation: The 2000 rule requires preparation of an EIS for a plan revision (36 CFR 219.9(d)). The proposed rule states plans may be categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS when the Responsible Official determines that the action fits an established Categorical Exclusion category and no extraordinary circumstances are present. Public involvement: The 2000 rule has detailed requirements on who should be involved in planning (Sec. Sec. 219.13-219.17). The proposed rule has essentially the same requirements, although they are more succinctly stated. These requirements would still apply for plans categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS. The Forest Service will ensure that categorically excluding land and resource management plans from documentation in an EA or EIS does not result in an adverse or disproportionate effect on groups of people identified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice or other civil rights laws, regulations, and orders. These identified groups include minorities, seniors, women, subsistence lifestyle populations, Tribes, and low income populations. By definition in NEPA, a categorical exclusion address only those actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4). Pursuant to agency policy set out in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, the Responsible Official would still be required to identify potentially affected and interested agencies, organizations, and individuals during the planning process, regardless of which type of documentation is used. Additionally, specific Forest Service guidance on scoping under NEPA will still apply to categorical exclusions. Issues: The 2000 rule has very detailed requirements for issue identification. The proposed rule does not. While the proposed rule would still require the Responsible Official to document a rationale for issue identification in the proposed rule, it is likely that this documentation would be briefer as he or she would not need to cross reference an extensive list of issue sources (refer to Sec. 219.5 in this preamble). The requirements in the proposed rule for issue identification would still apply for plans categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS. Analysis: The 2000 rule contains very detailed requirements for what can be Page 72780 page number index termed "analysis" in Sec. Sec. 219.5, 219.9, and 219.20-219.25. The proposed rule has much simpler requirements. In addition, as pointed out previously in this preamble, the agency has a vision of an analysis that is more proportional to the decisions being made and that the analysis will be much briefer. The number and complexity of requirements in the 2000 rule make it unlikely that a proportional analysis effort would be successful. Alternatives: The 2000 rule does not directly address alternatives to consider in developing a new plan, revision, or amendment. This proposed rule also does not directly address alternatives, but the preamble does in the planning "vision" and signals the agency's intention to work toward consensus with the public with an expected result of fewer alternatives. Neither the 2000 rule nor this proposed rule set out specific NEPA requirements in the planning regulation, in accordance with the desire not to repeat direction contained in law, regulation or Executive order. Proposed section 219.7--Amending a plan. [to Contents] As with the 2000 rule, this section of the proposed rule characterizes an amendment to a plan as an addition to, the modification of, or the rescission of one or more of the plan decisions listed in Sec. 219.4. As with the 2000 rule (at Sec. 219.18(b)), paragraph (a) of this proposed section specifically excludes administrative corrections as amendments. Paragraph (b) of this proposed section identifies issues or opportunities as provided in Sec. 219.5 as potential sources for plan amendments. Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the Responsible Official provide opportunities for consultation and collaboration as addressed in Sec. 219.12 during plan amendment. The process to produce an amendment, including the identification of issues or opportunities, the use of applicable information, an effects analysis, and provisions for consultation opportunities for consultation are the same in the 2000 rule and the proposed rule. While the process steps are the same, the rules are organized differently. The 2000 rule lists all the steps for amendment in Sec. 219.8, while the proposed rule addresses issues in Sec. 219.5, use of applicable information in Sec. 219.13, and effects analysis in Sec. 219.6 by reference to NEPA. The two rules differ in the specific requirements to accomplish the steps in the amendment process. These differences are addressed in the discussion for those individual sections in this proposed rule. Proposed paragraph (d) defines a significant amendment and requires a 90-day comment period for a draft proposed significant amendment, as referenced in Sec. 219.6 and as required by NFMA, (16 U.S.C. 1604 (f) (4)). Under the 1982 planning rule, when amending the plan, the Forest Service has to cope with two processes to determine significance for two different statutes. First, under NFMA, the Forest Service had to determine whether an amendment is a significant change to a plan. Even if an amendment was determined not to be a significant change to the plan, the amendment still required an EIS if it was determined under NEPA to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. This direction has proven confusing to agency personnel and to the public. The 2000 rule uses only the NEPA definition for significance. This proposed rule defines a "significant amendment," as one that would have a significant affect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed rule also provides for a new category of interim amendments in Sec. 219.7(f) to enable the agency to make more rapid adjustments to management direction when necessary, such as when a threatened or endangered species is newly listed or initially discovered to exist in a particular area. In fact, a rapid response to the needs of threatened or endangered species is the prime reason this category of amendment is included. In 1995, for example, the Southern Region of the Forest Service amended their plans to provide interim standards and guidelines for the federally listed red- cockaded woodpecker. This interim direction was to remain in effect up to three years until individual plans could be amended or revised with longer term direction. An interim amendment would expedite needed amendments to a plan, while the agency initiates further analysis and decisionmaking for a permanent amendment. The proposed rule would establish a maximum duration of four years for an interim amendment; however, there are a number of alternative views on the duration and process for these interim amendments, and the agency would especially welcome public comment concerning their use. Proposed section 219.8--Revising a plan. [to Contents] The proposed rule requires a description of the current management situation and an assessment of the adequacy of existing plan direction, a summary of timely and relevant issues to be addressed, and a summary of relevant information. The proposed rule requires consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes, State and local governments and other Federal agencies and contains requirements for public notice of intent to revise a plan. These requirements are much simpler than either the 1982 or 2000 rules. The 2000 rule and the proposed rule are fundamentally different with regard to the amount of information and analysis required to initiate a revision. At Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule, the Responsible Official must develop or supplement extensive information to address ecosystem sustainability and must provide comparable information at Sec. 219.21 to address social and economic sustainability. To initiate a revision of a plan, Sec. 219.9 of the 2000 rule established requirements related to collaboration; identification of issues; analyses and information; identification of special areas; identification of specific watersheds in need of protective or restoration measures; identification of lands classified as not suitable for timber production; identification of and evaluation of inventoried roadless and unroaded areas; and development of an estimate of anticipated outcomes for the next 15 years. Each of these requirements refers in turn to additional requirements elsewhere in the planning regulations. For example, paragraph (b)(4)of Sec. 219.9 of the 200 rule states in order to begin the revision process, the Responsible Official must, "Evaluate the effectiveness of the current plan in contributing to sustainability (Sec. Sec. 219.20-219.21) based on the information, analyses, and requirements described in Sec. 219.20 (a) and (b) and Sec. 219.21 (a) and (b), and provide for an independent scientific peer review (Sec. 219.22) of the evaluation." As the agency launched the November 2000 rule, field-level planners and resource professionals expressed uncertainty about the degree and scope of analysis and information gathering required to initiate a plan revision. They also were concerned about the potential controversy that might be associated with a plan developed under these untested and unclear requirements. Also questioned was the appropriateness of and the agency's ability to conduct pre-revision analysis and presenting some of this information at the revision initiation stage. For example, identification of new proposals for special areas or wilderness recommendations benefit from public involvement and input, which is more fully developed later in the planning process, not at the pre- revision stage. The agency supports sharing as much known information as possible with the public at the early stage of revision initiation, but it does not believe the Page 72781 page number index extensive information and analysis requirements of the 2000 rule are necessary. In fact, the extensive work required to initiate revision will create further delays in revision of plans. Both the proposed rule and the 2000 rule address the statutory requirements for plan initiation; however, the 2000 rule includes more extensive direction on the revision process than does the proposed rule. Both also include public notice requirements. The 2000 rule includes a 45-day public comment period. The proposed rule does not include a specified comment period, although notice is required to invite comment. This proposed change would allow the Responsible Official to tailor the comment period for initiation of plan revision to the scope and complexity of planning issues and opportunities for the unit. The proposed rule and 2000 rule have the same substantive requirement for a 90-day public comment period of a draft proposed revision. Proposed section 219.9--Developing a new plan. [to Contents] This proposed section recognizes that, over time, additional units may be added to the National Forest System, such as occurred with the recently established Midewin Prairie in Illinois. Should Congress establish a new national forest, grassland, prairie, or other unit of the National Forest System, the Responsible Official must determine whether a separate plan is needed or whether an existing plan can be amended. If a new plan is needed, the Responsible Official must follow the requirements of this regulation. The 2000 rule did not address this issue. Proposed section 219.10--Application of plan direction. [to Contents] Paragraph (a) of this proposed section addresses the statutory requirements of the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)(3)(i)) that permits, contracts, and other legal instruments must be consistent with the applicable plan. This paragraph is similar to the provisions of the 2000 rule at Sec. 219.10 requiring all site-specific project decisions, permits, contracts, and other authorizations to be consistent with the applicable plan, which is required by NFMA. However, unlike the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph adds a specific requirement that project decisions disclose the relationship of the project to the plan desired conditions. While all project decisions must be consistent with the plan, it is not practical to require each project decision to be in strict compliance with all aspects of a plan's desired conditions. Sometimes a project may have positive effects on one aspect of desired conditions and negative effects on another. It is also possible that a project may have short- term negative effects that relate to a specific desired condition, with predicted long-term positive effects. At other times a project may have neutral effects related to desired conditions. These examples illustrate the complexity of the relationship of a particular project to the desired conditions in a plan. The agency therefore, has chosen not to include a specific requirement that projects comply with the plan's desired conditions, but rather a requirement that the project decision disclose how the decision relates to the applicable plan desired conditions. Also in contrast to the 2000 rule, this proposed paragraph specifically requires that a new plan, amendment, or revision decision document consider the effects of the plan on occupancy and use already authorized. This change is proposed to ensure that there will be an orderly transition when a new plan, amendment, or revision is authorized. This proposed section also acknowledges that modifications of instruments authorizing ongoing occupancy and use of the plan area necessary to make them consistent with the changes in the plan are subject to any valid existing rights. Paragraph (b) of this proposed section provides that direction in plans undergoing amendment or revision would remain in effect until the Responsible Official signs a decision document for a new amendment or revision. This provision is the same as in Sec. 219.10 of the 2000 rule. Paragraph (c) of this proposed section makes clear that nothing in the rule itself requires a change of approved projects while new information is being assessed. This provision is proposed to clarify the effect of considering new information and fills a gap in both the 1982 rule and the 2000 rule. Paragraph (d) of this proposed section retains the provisions of Sec. 219.10 of the 2000 rule that lists options available to a Responsible Official when a proposal for a project or activity would not be consistent with plan direction. Paragraph (e) of this proposed section recognizes the need for testing and research projects to gain information and knowledge that will assist the land manager. This paragraph makes clear that testing and research projects are subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive orders and must be consistent with the plan. This is a new paragraph developed to acknowledge the important role of research in National Forest System land management and the role of NFS lands as sites for research. This provision also further strengthens the emphasis of this proposed rule on monitoring and evaluation. Proposed section 219.11--Monitoring and evaluation. [to Contents] As at Sec. 219.11 of the 2000 rule, this proposed section specifies that plans must include requirements for monitoring and evaluation, although this proposed rule does not refer to such requirements as a "strategy." This proposed section provides direction on the purpose of monitoring and evaluation, the data sources that may be used, the coordination of monitoring that may occur, possible evaluation activities, and direction on record keeping. Paragraph (a) provides that the Responsible Official ensure that monitoring occurs and that monitoring methods may be adjusted without plan amendment or revision. As with the 2000 rule, monitoring could be conducted jointly with other interested parties such as other governmental agencies, Tribes, and scientific and academic organizations. Paragraph (b) lists situations where evaluation may be used to determine, among other things: trend identification; information and analysis validation; use of performance measures to assess the effects of programs, projects, and activities; and the effectiveness of plan standards. Paragraph (c) of this proposed section would require information to be collected from any of a variety of sources to meet the monitoring requirements. Paragraph (d) requires findings and conclusions to be published annually in reports that are made available to the public. At Sec. 219.11(b), the 2000 rule requires that if there is a need for monitoring and evaluation of site-specific actions, decision documents must include a description of the monitoring and evaluation and the Responsible Official must determine that funding is adequate to conduct monitoring and evaluation before authorizing the site-specific project. This provision is not retained in the proposed rule which is limited to programmatic planning. The monitoring and evaluation provisions of the proposed rule differ from the monitoring provisions of the 2000 rule, which impose far more detailed and specific requirements for monitoring characteristics of sustainability, ecological conditions, and populations of focal species/species-at-risk and for site-specific activities. Monitoring is very important, but given the testing and experimentation inherent in monitoring and evaluation, Responsible Officials need considerable flexibility to design monitoring strategies to fit local Page 72782 page number index situations. The specificity of the 2000 rule does not allow for such flexibility and discretion. To the extent that guidance is needed on who should do monitoring, how monitoring should be done, what monitoring should be done, and how monitoring information should be evaluated, that can best be provided through the agency's Directive System rather than specified in a rule. For example, the detailed provisions in Sec. 219.11(a)(1)(ii)(B) and (C) of the 2000 rule are being evaluated for issuance in the Forest Service Manual or Handbook. Some of these current regulatory requirements will be made optional in order to be responsive to variations in funding, staffing, and information needs among individual National Forest System units. Other monitoring and evaluation provisions of the 2000 rule that are proposed to be removed from the rule are those for which there is no corresponding provision elsewhere in the proposed rule. Also, at Sec. 219.23(c), the 2000 rule requires that scientists play a significant role in developing and evaluating monitoring strategies. The agency certainly believes use of science is important in monitoring and in evaluating results; however, the agency has determined upon review that the degree of required participation of Forest Service research scientists specified in the 2000 rule would overburden the Research and Development mission area of the Forest Service. Moreover, not every plan amendment or revision will require the same degree and intensity of scientific review. Monitoring may take many forms and include different requirements for the understanding of science and involvement by scientists. Different types of monitoring require different levels of scientific rigor in their development and application. For example, if a plan has a standard to keep fences repaired and gates closed to aid with the restoration of certain degraded riparian systems, then monitoring to assess the ability of the managers to keep the fences standing and the gates closed requires little, if any, involvement of science. However, to assess if keeping the fences closed and gates repaired was an effective approach to reach the desired condition of a restored riparian system may well require development and application of particularly rigorous, scientifically valid monitoring protocols. The consistency evaluation process described in Section 219.14 would evaluate the likelihood that the designed monitoring plan would be able to determine the effectiveness of the action (keeping the gates closed and fences repaired) in achieving the objective of ecosystem restoration. As this proposed rule was being developed, a great deal of internal discussion occurred regarding direction for, and decisions on, adaptive management and on whether the proposed rule needed to specifically address this concept. The term "adaptive management" has been used formally and informally within the agency to describe the process of continually adjusting management techniques in response to new information, knowledge, or technologies. The Forest Service recognizes that uncertainty and unknowns exist in the course of achieving any natural resource management goal. The adaptive management process relies on focused monitoring to measure success in achieving desired conditions and to determine if there is the need to make further changes in strategies and implementation. Whether such monitoring would be scientifically rigorous would depend on the resource, the use, and the specific situation. The 2000 rule uses the term "adaptive management," and explains adaptive management concepts and purposes, but it has no specific requirements for how the concept and purposes were to be carried out. Although the agency believes that adaptive management concepts are valid, the agency maintains that it is not necessary for the planning rule to specifically address these concepts beyond stating that measurement of adaptive management results is one of the purposes of monitoring and stating in Sec. 219.4 that the need to provide adaptive management is one reason why plan standards should not be overly rigid. A plan can allow for and address adaptive management without specific direction to do so in the planning rule. Essentially, there is no real difference between the 2000 rule and the proposed rule in the area of adaptive management. Under both rules, plans can include adaptive management strategies and methods in their direction. In fact, both conceptually and operationally, adaptive management is integral to the planning process laid out in this proposed rule, and monitoring and evaluation represent a fundamental component of the adaptive management process, as was the case in the 2000 rule. In this context, an essential linkage exists between plan requirements for monitoring and evaluation, discussed previously, and those for the ecological component of sustainability, discussed later in this preamble under proposed section 219.13. The ecological information and analyses focused on assessing ecosystem and species diversity, as specified in proposed Sec. 219.13(b)(1), contribute directly to adoption of plan decisions that provide for ecosystem and species diversity in the plan area within the multiple use objectives of the plan. Results of monitoring and evaluation are among the information and analyses that may contribute to the development of future plan decisions affecting diversity. Moreover, monitoring and evaluation provide an essential feedback loop to assess whether implementation of plan direction is producing progress toward attainment of desired conditions and plan objectives, as well as the basis for deciding whether plan direction should be modified or changed through plan amendments or revision. As specified in Sec. 219.11(a), data and other information pertinent to characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity, as determined relevant by the Responsible Official, should be included in the monitoring information to be collected. Evaluation of this information should reveal whether progress toward achievement of diversity objectives is being achieved, or whether plan direction or plan implementation must be changed. In this sense, and with specific reference to the ecological component of sustainability, monitoring and evaluation complete the essential feedback loop of adaptive management to assess whether plan direction is achieving the NFMA requirement that plans provide for diversity in a multiple use context. Monitoring and evaluation focused on the characteristics of diversity thus inform both the development of plan decisions and the decision to undertake plan amendments or revisions, thereby ensuring that adaptive management is an integral part of this revised planning rule. Proposed section 219.12--Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation. [to Contents] This proposed section combines Sec. Sec. 219.12 through 219.17 of the 2000 rule. Paragraph (a) of this section is similar to paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.12 of the 2000 rule in requiring the Responsible Official to provide early and frequent opportunities for the public to participate in the planning process, using any of several specified roles, and to encourage such participation. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) incorporate the provisions of Sec. Sec. 219.13, 219.14, 219.16 and 219.17 of the 2000 rule which address engaging Federal agencies, State and local governments, interested individuals and Page 72783 page number index organizations, and private landowners in planning, and paragraph (a)(3) incorporates the provisions of Sec. 219.15 of the 2000 rule, which address engaging federally recognized Tribes in planning. The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.12(b) requires Forest Service participation with others in efforts to cooperatively develop landscape goals. Although the cooperative development of landscape goals may be of value in some planning efforts, this specific activity should not be a requirement because it will not always be useful and may often be unachievable with participating groups. The proposed rule does not refer to collaboratively developed landscape goals; rather, at Sec. 219.12(b), the proposed rule clarifies that the Responsible Official should consider participating in existing groups to address resource management issues within the community. The agency also feels that the list of objectives for collaboration in the 2000 rule are not necessary as they are more appropriately defined under existing law or through the collaboration process itself. In contrast to the 2000 Rule at Sec. 219.18, this proposed section on collaboration, cooperation, and consultation does not include a provision for requiring advisory committees. That provision requires that each national forest or grassland have access to an advisory committee. Having considered employee concerns over this provision, the agency now considers this provision to be inadvisable. There are many valid methods for effectively engaging the public. An advisory committee may be the most effective method in some circumstances, the least effective in others. Each Forest, Grassland, or Prairie Supervisor currently has the option of requesting establishment of an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and implementing regulations issued by the General Service Administration (GSA). The 2000 rule requires that each Forest or Grassland Supervisor have access to an advisory committee with knowledge of local conditions and issues. While the rule does not require each planning unit to have its own committee, many believe that the local conditions and issues requirement effectively require a separate committee for most planning units. The costs of establishing and administering FACA committees is high in terms of Federal employee time and salaries to charter the committees, manage the nomination and selection process, and to set up meetings. There are also meeting facility costs as well as costs for reimbursement of committee members for their transportation, meals, and lodging. While these costs may well be justified to address issues for some planning units, they might be an unwise use of funds on other units. Also, the process for establishing committees can be a long one. The Act and implementing GSA regulations require substantial administrative work including drafting charters, nominating members, checking nominees' backgrounds, giving Federal Register notice, considering public input, and giving notice of the committee members selected. By law, committees must be re-chartered every two years. Requiring most units to undertake the expenditure of time and funds for establishing and re-establishing FACA committees imposes a significant continuing administrative responsibility. Instead of mandating a "one-size-fits-all" national approach to public input, the agency believes that it is better to provide Responsible Officials flexibility to design public involvement strategies to best meet the local needs the most cost effective way. In summary, the proposed rule reduces the amount of process-related descriptions of the public involvement processes. The agency's intention is to continue and support vigorous and active public interaction and involvement without mandating which process would most effectively support this interaction. Consequently, this proposed rule drops the non-substantive portions of the 2000 rule, such as detailed examples of how people, groups, and organizations can contribute to the planning effort. Proposed section 219.13--Sustainability. [to Contents] This proposed section contains direction for how the specific social, economic, and ecological components of sustainability are to be applied. This section of the proposed rule replaces Sec. 219.19 through Sec. 219.21 of the 2000 rule. This proposed rule emphasizes the interconnection between the ecological, social, and economic components of sustainability and requires consideration of each in the planning process. However, the proposed rule departs from the 2000 rule on several important points. Sustainability under this proposed rule is viewed as a single objective with interdependent social, economic, and ecological components. In contrast to the 2000 rule, this concept of sustainability is linked more closely to the MUSYA in that economic and social components are treated as interdependent with ecological aspects of sustainability, rather than as secondary considerations. This change in emphasis is not intended to downplay the importance of ecological sustainability or of maintaining the health and productivity of the land. The proposed rule also affirms the commitment of the Forest Service to meet the NFMA requirement that plans provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species and retains the joint focus of the 2000 rule by considering and evaluating both ecosystem diversity and species diversity, in order to reach plan decisions that provide for diversity within the multiple use objectives of the plan. The proposed rule addresses social and economic sustainability at Sec. 219.13(a). Even though social and economic issues are different they are discussed together because both social and economic components of sustainability address the well-being of communities that are dependent on the National Forests. There are elements of analysis that have implications for both economic and social sustainability. For example, demographics (such as population, age, income, employment, home ownership, school, growth) have implications for both economic and social sustainability. Conversely, there are other elements of social and economic analysis that are clearly distinct. For example, a social analysis might help identify Native American use of medicinal plants to ensure the agency considers how these plants may be protected. A social analysis might also help identify what local people particularly value about National Forest System lands. An economic analysis might identify the interconnectedness between goods and services produced from NFS lands and the economy in surrounding communities in terms of employment and income; for example, the recreation use of NFS lands and service industries. To assess social and economic sustainability, the Forest Service proposes to require the Responsible Official to: (1) Identify values that interested and affected persons want to see sustained; (2) consider how human activities and social and economic conditions and trends affect NFS lands; (3) identify the benefits NFS lands provide; and (4) examine how land management decisions affect social and economic conditions. The Forest Service understands that sustainable social and economic systems are very complex and that programmatic planning decisions form only a part of the environment in which these systems operate. The agency acknowledges that it cannot assure Page 72784 page number index sustainability of those systems. The Forest Service can, however, engage the public in planning, identify social and economic issues, and analyze the relationship of planning to social and economic systems, and, thereby, make positive contributions to communities. As stated in the preamble to proposed Sec. 219.1, plans consider the uses of variable renewable resources within the context of multiple use so the resources of the NFS lands are utilized in a combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 219.13 of the proposed rule incorporates the social and economic components of sustainability in Sec. 219.21 of the 2000 rule, but removes the many highly detailed, discretionary elements from the rule. This simplification is proposed in response to concerns that many of the detailed requirements of Sec. 219.21 do not reflect the variety of social and economic issues that arise across the range of National Forest System lands; that available information may not be sufficient to meet these requirements; and that the required level of detail may not meet the needs of an agency whose administrative units vary in funding and staffing levels. Processes for conducting social and economic analysis are already in the agency's Directive System, are most appropriately located there, and are currently being revised and updated. [SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS] [to Contents] Two options for the ecological component of sustainability are included in paragraph (b) of Sec. 219.13 of the proposed rule, which incorporates the intent of Sec. 219.20 of the 2000 rule for the ecological component of sustainability. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(b)) requires that plans provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the land area, and where appropriate and to the extent practicable, provide for steps to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan, within the multiple use objectives of the plan (referred to hereafter as the NFMA diversity requirement). There has been extensive, ongoing debate concerning how to meet the NFMA diversity requirement ever since the Act was passed. The proposed rule includes two distinct options for meeting the diversity requirement in Sec. 219.13(b). The first option in this proposed rule was developed by modifying the 2000 rule and establishes the viability of vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area as the primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement. This first option significantly streamlines the 2000 rule by removing many of the prescriptive operational details and making other changes described in this preamble. Drawing heavily on the expertise of its research scientists, the agency developed a second option on ecological sustainability that provides a clear alternative to Option 1. In Option 2, the primary basis for judging achievement of the NFMA diversity requirement is the requirement that plan decisions foster the maintenance and restoration of biological diversity in the plan area, at ecosystem and species levels, within the range of diversity characteristic of native ecosystems in the larger landscape within which the plan area is embedded. In preparing two distinct options to meet the NFMA diversity requirement, the agency seeks to stimulate meaningful public discussion and input on this important topic so that the Secretary can make an informed choice at the final rule stage. To ensure that the agency has access to knowledgeable and diverse views on this topic, the Forest Service also plans to host a workshop of subject matter specialists in a variety of policy, management, and resource fields to discuss the strengths and shortcomings of the two proposed options, or variations of these options, for achieving the NFMA diversity requirement. Information regarding this workshop will be provided in a separate Federal Register notice. Comparison to 2000 Planning Rule Several concepts that were essential features of the required ecological information and analyses in the 2000 rule are now treated as optional elements of the analyses and will be covered in the Directive System or other guidance documents. For example, neither of the diversity options specifically requires broad-scale assessments as did the 2000 rule, but each will make use of information from such assessments, where they represent the best science available, and as stepped down from the assessment area to the plan area. Similarly, neither option specifically requires that focal species be identified for the plan area and evaluated to provide insights concerning the ecological integrity of the larger ecological system with which they are associated. Again, however, both options permit such a use of focal species on an optional basis. Option 2, in particular, states that individual species may be identified for analysis in order to develop a more complete understanding of the condition and trends of ecosystems, which is conceptually equivalent to the manner in which focal species were a required element of the diversity analyses in the 2000 rule. As a final example, neither option specifically requires use of the concept of the range of variability under the natural disturbance regime of the current climatic period, but Option 1 identifies range of variability as being among the approaches that may be used to evaluate ecosystem diversity. Both options also eliminate language concerning how plan decisions must address federally listed threatened and endangered species because consideration of federally listed species is integral to the consideration of diversity under either option and because the planning rule need not repeat existing requirements of law. The 2000 rule at Sec. 219.20(b)(3) included requirements that plan decisions Page 72785 page number index promote the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, provide for implementing conservation agreements, and address requirements and recommendations from biological opinions. These requirements are not included under either Option 1 or Option 2 of the proposed rule. The agency reaffirms its commitment to comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including conducting programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species consistent with the multiple use objectives of plans, but sees no reason to specify this in the rule itself. The ESA is among the relevant statutes listed under 219.2(c)(1). Following adoption of a final new planning rule, and contingent on which diversity option is selected, the agency fully intends to develop detailed operational guidance on the means to implement the procedural requirements of the new planning rule, particularly with reference to procedures for meeting the NFMA diversity requirement. This will include detailed guidance in the agency Directive System, as well as "white papers" and other documents. Option 1--Sec. 219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability Under this option of the proposed rule, analysis of the ecological component of sustainability follows a hierarchical, sequential approach. This option requires ecosystem diversity to be evaluated first, with the goal of ensuring that plan decisions provide measurable progress toward maintaining or restoring ecological conditions that support the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species, and other characteristics of ecosystem diversity. Species diversity would be evaluated only after consideration of ecosystem diversity. This hierarchical, sequential approach is based on the assumption that conditions capable of supporting viability for most species are likely to be met through provisions for ecosystem diversity. Where this is not the case, species at risk would be identified and separate analyses of species diversity performed. This approach provides the Responsible Official flexible options for meeting the analytical requirements of Option 1 as the Responsible Official determines the scope and scale of the analysis. There are some required characteristics of ecosystem and species diversity and accompanying evaluation factors, although far fewer than in the 2000 rule. The Responsible Official is not limited to only those characteristics or analytical processes if other information or techniques are available or appropriate. The desired conditions, objectives, standards, identification of suitable and unsuitable land uses, and any special designations and other management areas of a plan should provide the framework for management that would maintain or restore ecological conditions that the Responsible Official determines will provide a high likelihood of supporting, over time, the viability of native and desired non-native vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed within their ranges in the plan area. Note that "high likelihood" is not necessarily a statistical or mathematical determination. Rather, it is an application of expert agency judgment based on a reasonable review and consideration of available information. Option 2--Sec. 219.13(b) Ecological Component of Sustainability Option 2 focuses attention on the general objective of maintaining and restoring ecological conditions that provide for biological diversity in the plan area and on the more specific objective of maintaining and restoring ecosystem diversity within landscapes, and within the framework of larger-scale ecosystem analyses, of maintaining and restoring species diversity within ecosystems. In this sense, Option 2 adopts an explicitly hierarchical approach to analyses of biological diversity, as does Option 1. Option 2 focuses attention directly on evaluating and maintaining biological diversity in the planning or assessment area. Biological diversity is an inclusive concept employed in the scientific and conservation literature to re |