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

I'

tJ,t\~.l ~ l

72776

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

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 docs not normally execute the
restriction. Rather. the restriction would
have 10 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 app1icab1e 1aws and
regulations.
Proposed section 219.3-Levels of
planning and planning authority. This
section of the proposed rule identifies
three levels or planning-national.
regional. or unit (national furest.
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 OHicial for a specific
amendment or revision.
The key planning elements listed in
9 219.3ld) of the 2000 rule are omitted
from the proposed rule because they are
unnecessary. Proposed S 219.5 provides
direction on indicators or a need to
amend or revise a plan. Ss 219.7-219.9
discuss the steps to develop a new plan
or amend or revise a plan. ~ 219.10
discusses application of plan direction
and S 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 9219.3 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, 9219.3 in this proposed
rule does not contain direction for site-
specific actions. As noted previously.
the focus of this proposed rule is the
deve\Dpment, amenamen\. and revision
of plans, not site-specific project
planning. The Fares! Service uses a
staged decision making process in which

land and resource management plans
establish the guidance that governs site-
specific project planning and
decisionmaking.
One new provision of 9 219.3 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 amployees.
Proposed section 219.4-Decisions
embodied in plans. This proposed
section, in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6), relain
the five types 01 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,
S 219.26 of the 2000 rule, .which governs
identifying and designating suitable
uses, has been incorporated into ~ 219.4
as proposed paragraph (a)(4). Overall,
this section of the proposed rule is
similar to s 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 a]]o\,{ed in lynx habitat unless at least
three years of n1oniloring of snowshoe
hares shows that hares are present and
are not a limiting factor for lynx. In
these cases, pm-commercial thinning
may occur on nO more than 20 percent
of the hare habitat."
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(\\) of
section 219.4 addresses maximum size
openings. The :WOO rule does not
provide for ma,cimum 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 S 21 9,4(a)(3)(vii) on the lIse
and application of culmination of mean
annual increment (CMAIl. The addition
ofCMAI direction was added to the
proposed rule in order to clarify how
this NFMA reqtlirement is to be applied
because there hilS been some confusion
in thi~ 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 ofCMAI 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 suitod 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 S 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 propost!d 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 tIle desired
conditions as established for the plan."
This criterion was added to clearly
recognizo 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. This
section focuses on emerging isslles and
new information as indicators of the
need to alTIend or revise a plan.
Paragraph (a) of this proposed section is
very similar to paragraph (a) of ~ 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 1/f1.11
goals has been removed from this ~
section because of confusion regarding
the intent of this provision in the 2000
rule. The concept of colIaboratively