Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />