WSP09638

• File Number: 8027
• Description: Section D General Correspondence - Federal Agencies ‎(Alpha, not Basin Related)‎
• Date: 12/6/2002
• Author: USDA Forest Service
• Title: RMP - Proposed Rules - Federal Register - Part III - 36 CFR Part 219 - National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning: Proposed Rules
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

U1l1l12!J

72784

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No, 235/Friday, December 6. 2002/Proposed Rules

sustainability of those systems. The
Forest Service can, however, engage the
public in planning, identify social and
economic issues, and an<llyze the
relationship of planning to social and
economic systems, and, thereby, make
positive contributions to communities.
As stated in the preamble to proposed
9219.1. 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 (al of9219.13 oftbe
proposed rule incorporates the social
and economic components of
sustainability in S 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 9 219.21 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.
Two options for the ecological
component of sustainability are
included in paragraph (b) of 9 219.13 of
1he proposed rule, which incorporates
the intent of 9 219.20 of the 2000 rule
for the ecological c.omponent of
sustainability. The National Fores1
Management Act (NFMA) [16 U,S,C,
1604 (g)(3)(bll 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 tht3
extent practicable, provide for steps t('l
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 mee1 the NFMA diversity
requirement ever since the Act was
passed. The proposed rule includes two
distinct options for meeting the
diversity requirement in 921 9.13(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 descnbed in this preamble.
Drawing heavily on the expertise of
its research scientists, the agency
developed a second option on ecological
sustainability tha1 provides a clear
alternative to Option I. In Option 2, the
primary basis for judging achievement
of the NFMA diversity requirement is
the requirement that plan decisions
fosler 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 1he larger
landscape within which the plan area is
embedded.
In preparing two dis1inct op1ions to
meet the NFrvlA diversity requirement,
the agency seeks to stimulate
meaningful public discussion and input
on this important 10pic so 1hat the
Secretary can make an informed choice
at the final rule stage. To ensure Ulat 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

Both options in the proposed rule are
considerably streamlined and shorter as
compared to 9219.20 of the 2000 rule.
As discussed earlier in 1his preamble,
the agency's review of the 2000
planning rule judged 1he section on the
ecological component of sustainability
to be needlessly complex and overly
prescriptive and to lack the flexibility
needed to tailor or adapt the required
ecological information and analyses to
the issues iden1ified by the Responsible
Official. the risks to ecological
sustainability. and the availability of
information relevant to the particular
plan area. To respond to this criticism,
most of the operational details of 1he
analyses of ecosystem and species
diversity in 9219,20(aJ(1)(i)(A)-(E).
921 9.20(a)(2)(i)(A)-(H). and
921 9.20(a)(2)(ii)(A)-(D), as well as the
qualifications regarding how plan
decisions should be applied in
9219,20(b)(1)(i)-(vl and
9 219,20(b)(2)(ii)-(iv). will be
transferred, perhaps in modified form,
to the Forest Service Directive System or

to other technical guidance documents
(e.g., white papers). sometimes as
requirements but more often as optional
methods for the Responsible Official to
consider and use as appropriate.
Because this shift in approach to
sustainability represents a major change
from the 2000 rule and because the
specific operational details as to how to
provide for diversi1y of plant and
animal communities and tree species
represent a controversial topic, the
agency has posted this preliminary draft
material per1inent to both options on the
World Wide Webllnternet and made
these documents available at the
address listed earlier in this document
for considera1ion and review during the
public comment period.
Several concepts that were essential
features ofthe 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 oilier
guidanct3 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 integri1y 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 diversitv analvses 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 elimina1e language
concerning how plan decisions must
address federally listed 1hreatened 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 at9 219,20(b)(3) included
requirements that plan decisions