<br />\'
<br />
<br />Ul)iJl~5
<br />
<br />72780
<br />
<br />Federal Register/Vol. 67, No, 235/Friday, December 6, 2002/Proposed Rules
<br />
<br />termed "analysis" in 9S 219.5,219.9.
<br />and 2]9.20-219.25. The proposed rule
<br />has much simpler requirements. In
<br />addition. as pointed out previously in
<br />this preamble. the agency has a vision
<br />of an analysis that is more proportional
<br />to the decisions being made and that the
<br />analysis will be much briefer. The
<br />~lllmber and complexity of requirements
<br />III the 2000 rule make it unlikely that a
<br />proportional analvsis effort would be
<br />successful. .
<br />Alternatil,'8s: The 2000 rule does not
<br />directly address alternatives to consider
<br />in developing a new plan. revision, or
<br />amendment. This proposed rule also
<br />does not directly address alternatives,
<br />but the preambfe does in the planning
<br />"vision" and signals the agency's
<br />intention to work toward consensus
<br />with the public with an expected result
<br />of fewer alternatives.
<br />Neiu1er the 2000 rule nor this
<br />proposed rule set out specific NEPA
<br />requirements in the planning regulation,
<br />in accordance with the desire not to
<br />repeat direction contained in law,
<br />regulation or Executive order.
<br />Proposed section 219.7-Amending a
<br />plan. As with the 2000 rule, this section
<br />of the proposed rule charac\erizes an
<br />amendment to a plan as an addition to,
<br />the modification of. or the rescission of
<br />one or more of the plan decisions listed
<br />in S 219.4. As with the 2000 rule (at
<br />1j2J9.1Hlb)), paragrapb (al of this
<br />proposed section specifically excludes
<br />administrative corrections as
<br />amendments. Paragraph (b) of this
<br />proposed section identifies issues or
<br />opportunities as provided in 9219.5 as
<br />potential sources for plan amendments.
<br />Proposed paragraph (cl requires that the
<br />Responsible Official provide
<br />opportunities for consultation and
<br />collaboration as addressed in S219.12
<br />during plan amendment. The process to
<br />produce an amendment, including the
<br />identification of issues or opportunities,
<br />the use of applicable information, an
<br />effects analysis, and provisions for
<br />consultation opportunities for
<br />consultation are the same in the 2000
<br />rule and the proposed rule. While the
<br />process steps are the same, the rules are
<br />organized differently. The :WOO rule
<br />lists aH the steps for amendment in
<br />9219.8, while the proposed rule
<br />addresses issues in 9219.5, use of
<br />applicable information in 9219.13, ilnd
<br />effects analysis in S 219.6 by reference
<br />to NEPA. The two rules differ in the
<br />specific requirements to accomplish the
<br />steps in the amendment process. These
<br />differences are addressed in the
<br />discussion for those individual sections
<br />in this proposed rule.
<br />Proposed paragraph (d) defines a
<br />significant amendment and requires a
<br />
<br />90-day commenl period for a draft
<br />proposed significant amendment. as
<br />referenced in 9219.6 and as required by
<br />NFMA, (]6 U,S,c. 1604 In (4)),
<br />Under the 1982 planning rule, when
<br />amending the plan, the Forest Service
<br />has to cope with two processes to
<br />determine significance for two different
<br />statutes. First, under NFMA. the Forest
<br />Service had to determine whether an
<br />amendment is a significant change to a
<br />plan. Even if an amendment was
<br />determined not 10 be a significant
<br />change to the plan, the amendment still
<br />required an EIS if il was determined
<br />under NEPA to be a major Federal
<br />action significantly affecting the quality
<br />of the human environment. This
<br />direction has proven confusing to
<br />agency personnel and to the public. The
<br />2000 rule llses only the NEPA definition
<br />for significance. This proposed rule
<br />defines a "significant amendment," as
<br />one that would have a significant affect
<br />on the quality of the human
<br />environment. The proposed rule also
<br />provides for a new category of interim
<br />amendmenls in 9 219.7(f) to enable the
<br />agency to make more rapid adjustments
<br />to management direction when
<br />necessary, such as when a threatened or
<br />endangered species is newly listed or
<br />initially discovered to exist in a
<br />particular area. In fact, a rapid response
<br />to the needs of threatened or
<br />endangered species is the prime reason
<br />this category of amendment is included.
<br />In 1995, for example, the Southern
<br />Region of the Forest Service amended
<br />their plans to provide interim standards
<br />and guidelines for the federally listed
<br />red-cockaded woodpecker. This interim
<br />direction was to remain in effect up to
<br />three years until individual plans could
<br />be amended or revised with longer term
<br />direction.
<br />An interim amendment would
<br />expedite needed amendments to a plan,
<br />while the <Igency initiates further
<br />analysis and decisionmaking for a
<br />permanent amendment. The proposed
<br />rule would establish a maximum
<br />duration of four years for an interim
<br />amendment; however, there are a
<br />number of alternative views on the
<br />duration and process for these interim
<br />amendments, and the agency would
<br />especially welcome public comment
<br />concerning their use.
<br />Proposed section 219.8-Re~'ising a
<br />pIon. The proposed rule requires a
<br />description of the current management
<br />situation and an assessment of the
<br />adequacy of existing plan direction, a
<br />summary of timely and relevant issues
<br />to be addressed, and a summary of
<br />relevant information. The proposed rule
<br />requires consultation with federally
<br />recognized Indian Tribes, State and
<br />
<br />local governments and other Federal
<br />agancies and contains requirements for
<br />public notice of intent to revise a plan.
<br />These requirements are much simpler
<br />than either the 1982 or 2000 rules.
<br />The 2000 rule and the proposed rule
<br />are fundamentally different with regard
<br />to the amount of information and
<br />analysis required to initiate a revision.
<br />At Ij 219,20 of the 2000 rule, the
<br />Responsible Official must de\'elop or
<br />supplement extensive information to
<br />address ecosystem sustainability and
<br />must provide comparable information at
<br />9219.21 to address social and economic
<br />sustainability.
<br />To initiate a revision of a plan, 9219.9
<br />of the 2000 rule established
<br />requirements related 10 collaboration:
<br />identification of issues; analyses and
<br />information: identification of special
<br />areas; identification of specific
<br />watersheds in need of protecti ve or
<br />restoration measures; identification of
<br />lands classified as not suitable for
<br />limber production; identification of and
<br />evaluation of inventoried road less and
<br />unroaded areas; and development of an
<br />estimate of anticipated outcomes for the
<br />next 15 years. Each of these
<br />requirements refers in turn to additional
<br />requirements elsewhere in the planning
<br />regulations. For example, paragraph
<br />Ib)(4)of Ij 2J9.9 of the 200 rule states in
<br />order to begin the revision process, the
<br />Responsible Official must, "Evaluate the
<br />effectiveness of the current phm in
<br />contributing to sustainability
<br />IIjIj 219,20-219,21) based on the
<br />information, analyses, and requirements
<br />described in Ij 219,20 (al and (hI and
<br />~ 219.21 (a) and (b), and provide for an
<br />independent scientific peer review
<br />(9219.22) of the evaluation."
<br />As the agency launched the November
<br />2000 rule, field-level planners and
<br />resource professionals expressed
<br />uncertainty about the degree and scope
<br />of analysis and information gathering
<br />required to initiate a plan revision. They
<br />also were concerned about the potential
<br />controversy that might be associated
<br />with a plan developed under these
<br />untl:!sted and unclear requirements. Also
<br />questioned was the appropriateness of
<br />and the agency's ability to conduct pre-
<br />revision analysis and presenting some of
<br />this information at the revision
<br />initiation stage. For example,
<br />identification of new proposals for
<br />special areas or wilderness
<br />recommendations benefit from public
<br />involvement and input, which is more
<br />fully developed later in the planning
<br />process, not at the pre-revision stage.
<br />The agency supports sharing as much
<br />known information as possible with the
<br />public at the early stage of revision
<br />initiation, but it does not believe the
<br />
|