+(,121/,1(

Citation: 44 Fed. Reg. 53928 1979

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Apr 22 11:46:04 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. 53928 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No: 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and local units of government and other 3. Summary of Public Comment Federal agencies. Analysis Forest Service These rules apply to all land and A total of 245 comments was resources management plans developed 36 CFR Part 219 submitted containing 1,581 specific hereafter for the National Forest-System. comments on the May 4 proposed rules. These rules require an integration of The specific comments break down into National Forest System Land and planning for national forests and Resource Management Planning the following categories: 350 indIvidual grasslands, including the timber, range, citizens; 701 organizations; fish and wildlife, water, wilderness, and 157 AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Government agencies; 367 Department recreation resources, together with and Forest Service. The majority ACTION: Final rule. resource protection activities and of coordinated with fire management and comments received were in letter form, SUMMARY: The Department of the use of other resources, such as Most comments were specific and Agriculture is issuing final regulations t( succinct, and addressed only a few guide minerals. By October 1985, plans land and resource management required by these regulations should be concerns, but several were, by planning in the National Forest System. developed for all National Forest comparison lengthy, detailed, and These rules require an integration of System lands. complex. All suggestions have boon planning for National Forests and - ,reviewed, analyzed, and considered In Grasslands, including the timber, range, 2. Introduction' • preparation of these regulations and fish and wildlife, water, wilderness, and Public participation was extensive supporting Final Environmental Impact recreation resources; together with and' was a major factor in developing Statement. resource protection activities and the final regulations. The public was Comments are available for review at coordinated with fire management and invited to comment on the first draft of the Office of Land Management the use of other resburces, such as the regulations which appeared in the Planning, Forest Service, USDA, 14th minerals. These rules will implement Federal Register August 31, 1978 (Vol. and Independence Ave., S.W., provisions of the Forest and Rangeland 43, No. 170). Two public hearings were Washington, D.C. Renewable Resources Planning Act of also conducted specifically to obtain Section-by-Section Comments 1974, as amended by the National Fores t views. From the initial inception of work Management Act of 1976. to develop the regulations through to the Section 219.1-Purpose DATE: Effective October 17, 1979. present time, the Forest Service and the This section received limited public ADDRESSES: A copy of these final rules Department have maintained an open. comment. Comments suggested adding may be obtained from: Chief, Forest door policy with the public ana interest to environmental impacts the words Service, USDA, P.O. Box 2417, groups to obtain informati6n as well as ,"economic" and "social." "Economic" Washington, D.C. 20013. to explain work and progress. Eighteen and "social" were added as well as - Committee of Scientists' meetings were replacing the use of "preferences" with FOR FURTHER -INFORMATION 6ONTACr. open to the public, and a total of 737 Charles R. Hartgraves, Director, Land "changing, social, and economic individual responses containing 5,373 demands." Management Planning, P.O. Box-2417, distinct references to various parts of Washington, D.C. 20013, 202-447-6697. The Committee of Scientists and the August 31, 1978 draft regulations others recommended that a statement be 1. Purpose were received, a substantial number of added recognizing that the national which were elaborate, detailed, and' forests are ecosystems and their The Forest affd Rangeland Renewable explicit. Included were letters.from Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) management requires consideration of members of Congress, Federal, State the interrelationships of the various (88 Stat. 476, et seq.), as amended by the and local governments, representatives National Forest ManagementAct of 1971 environmental factors. This concept has of various interest groups, as well as the been included under planning principles. (NFMA) (90.Stat. 2949, et seq.) (16 U.S.C general public. As a consequence it was 1601-1614), specifiet that an Comments also suggested that decided to revise the first draft of the consideration of the relationship of interdisciplinary approach will be used regulations (August 31, 1978) and to in land 'and resource management mineral resources to renewable republish them accompanied by a Draft resources and preservation and planning and that there will be a Environmental Impact Statement. This periodic review of the planning process, protection of religious freedom's of appeared in the Federal Register, Vol. American Indians be included under til followed by any necessary amendments 44, No. 88, May 4,1979. Since then to keep it current with statutory- planning principles. These have nov another 245 responses have been been added to the final regulations. requirements. These statutes also received containing 1,581 distinct provide for the establishment and comments which have been analyzed Section 219.2-Scope and Applicability revision of national, regional and local and considered during the preparation There were very few comments on resource goals and objectives which are of the final regulations and Final based on a periodic assessment of the this section. There was a question on Environmental Impact Statement which the meaning of "special area future supply and demand of renewable .follows this Summary of Public resources from public and private forest authorities." This was not changed in Comment Analysis. the regulations since examples of and range lands. Achievement of these . The these Cofinmittee of Scientits has authorities were listed in the section, goals and objectives is the purpose of prepared a Supplemental Final Report to the planning process provided in these The applicability of the regulations was the Secretary of Agriculture as to the clarified, however, to explicitly include regulations. These acts also require scientific and technical adequacy of the public participation in the development, waters as well as lands in the National May 4, 1979 draft of regulations. This Forest System. review and revision of land and report was submitted to the Secretary resource management plans, and the on August 17, 1979, and is printed as Section 219.3-Definitions coordination Many of such plans'with State Appendix E of the Final Environmental comments requested changes in Impact Statement. the published definitions as well as the

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53928 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53929 addition of fnany new definitions. The 219.5, Regional and Forest Planning The public also expressed confusion Department reexamined the definitions Process, and 219.9. Regional Planning with the term "no-action" alternative. section and a number of changes were Procedure. The "no action" alternative is required for. by CEQ regulations. The "no action!" made. Definitions were added "base Section 219.5-PlanningProcess timber harvest schedule", "biological alternative language was expanded to growth potential", "goods and services", This section was retitled "Regional state that it is the "most likely condition "management prescription", and and Forest Planning Process" to more expected to exist in the future if current "planning area." correctly portray its coverage. Some of management direction would continue The following terms were redefind the comments pointed out that there was unchanged". because of comments received for some confusion and misconception that Concern was expressed over using clarity: "diversity", "management this process applied to the formulation cost-effectiveness as a criterion of direction", and "management practice." and establishment of RPA goals and formulation of forest alternatives and "Environmental assessment" was objectives. that "cost-effectiveness" was not changed to "environmental analysis" to With respect to economic analysis defined. The term cost-effectiveness has coincide with the terminology used in practices, many commentors pointed out been changed to "cost-efficient" to the Council on Environmental Quality that the economic analysis criteria display the intent to maximize the guidelines. "Environmental documents" including the discount rate of interest present net worth of each alteriative was redefined to include a list of should be established as soon as subject to meeting the objectives of the documents required by 40 CFR 1508.10. possible. The Forest Service plans to be alternative. The criterion has been Minor changes in wording were made responsive to this need through the modified to include the expression "to to the following terms: "capability", issuance of manual and handbooks the extent practicable" to recognize that "Responsible Forest Service Official", before December 1979. judgment must be used in the practical and "standard." Some respondents Inventory data and information application of the "efficiency" criterion wanted to change the definition of collection was of prime concern to the to a management task as complex as a "multiple-use" and "sustained-yield of Committee of Scientists and the general forest plan. the several practices and services." public as well. These comments The Committee of Scientists suggested These were not changed since they were centered around the determination of that the phrase "restore renewable defined by the Multiple Use-Sustained adequacy of the data, data collection resources" was unclear as used in the Yield Act of 1960. There were requests procedures, compatability requirements for definition of additional terms such as criterion that "all alternatives will to obtain uniformity among forests, and provide the treatments needed to restore "wildlife", "recreation', "range", the need to include criteria for "wilderness", "facilities", "mitigating renewable resources." This criterion has coordination and cooperation with other been reworded to clarify that each measures", "reasonable", "minimize", agencies for data collection, storage, and others. Terms such as these, which alternative will provide for the orderly and evaluation. The Department is elimination of backlogs of needed are to have the standard dictionary concerned that too much emphasis has definition or were in common usage, treatment for the restoration of been placed on the quantity of data renewable resources as necessary to were not redefined for purposes of these gathered instead of what data are regulations. achieve the multiple-use objectives of actually necessary to do planning that alternative. Section 219.4-PlanningLevels effectively. Therefore, in changing final The Committee of Scientists As in the previous August 31, 1978 regulations, emphasis has been placed recommended that language be added draft, public comment on the May 4, on the kinds and quality of data under Estimated Effects of Alternatives, 1979, proposed NFMA regulations necessary. Acquisition of new data and which will require the interdisciplinary continued to point out the need for a information will be scheduled and team to display how the regional and clearer description of the iterative planned so that it is appropriate for the forest plans respond to the fange of nature of the three levels of planning decision to be made. goals and objectives assigned from the and the process for developing and The necessity for consistency in data RPA Program. This language has been selecting the RPA Program and the collection procedures between all levels added to the final regulations. relationships between the Program and of planning was addressed by the Also in response to comments the various levels of planning. public. The Department recognized the and received, two additional anticipated Therefore, the "national" level of need for common data definitions effects of implementation of each planning was completely rewritten in standards to assure uniformity of added: information between the three levels of alternative were this section in response to the requests (1) The relationship of expected for clarification of the process for planning and added provisions for this to the regulations. These data outputs to the forest production goals in developing and selecting the RPA the current regional plan and Assessment and Program. Section 219.9, definitions and standards will be Regional Planning Procedure, was established by the Chief, Forest Service. (2) The energy requirements and strengthened to explain how the In addition, these regulations require consideration of potential effects of regional plan will implement RPA that information be developed froni various alternatives. Program goals and objectives as well as common data definitions and standards The Committee of Scientists pointed provide information for the National ard will be used to prepare the 1990 and out that items (ii) arid (iv) of paragraph Forest System portion of the assessment subsequent Assessments and Programs. (g) in the May 4 draft were actually in capability. In addition, language was The paragraph relative to the conflict; therefore, item (iv) was deleted. deleted concerning transfer of Formulation of Alternatives has been It was not clear if the term "plan information among planning levels restructured upon recommendation of Implementation" was meant to identify (219.4(c)(1) through (4)], because it was the Committee of Scientists. As forest, regional, or national planning. confusing and appeared conflicting with previously written, some of the criteria The language was, therefore, rewritten other provisions. The concepts in was too stringent and unclear as to to clarify reference only to regional and 219A(c) are now covered under Sections intent. forest planning implementation.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53929 1979 53930 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Section 219.6-Interdisciplinary of monitoring and evaluation will be objectives. The historical standard for Approach conducted that includes consideration of definition of commercial forest land, 20 Public comments emphasized the need the effects of national forest cubic feet/per acre/per year, will be to establish operating procedures for the management onland, resources, and used. The Department feels this interdisciplinary team, as well as communities adjacefit to or near the provides a,useful screen which specifically state the authority and national forest being-planned. This has -eliminates land from further function of the team. The final been added in order-to further consideration which definitely does not regulations respond to this need by -coordinate Forest Service activities with qualify for commercial timber specifying that the team will ensure those on adjoining-lands. production, while not arbitrarily "coordinated planning which addresses foreclosing on reasonable timbei Section 219.9-RegionalPlanning production outdoor recreation, range, timber, Procedure possibilities. Clarification of the need for, or lack of watershed, wildlife and fish, and In response to comments that the May wilderness opportunities." Further, the the need for, the gathering of new data 4 proposal did not adequately deal with was an issue. This is discussed under language was added that the planning. the visual resodrce, the following § 219.5 of this Analysis of Public team activitids must be consistent with references to such have been made Comment. the principles of tie Multiple Use-. throughout the regulations and are noted Comments indicated'there was some Sustained Yield Act and those principles as follows: 219.3i), 219.5(g)(1), 219.5(h), confusion as to the order of planning- stated in § 219.1. The above is in 219.6(a), 219.10(b)(13), 219.12(i)(1)(ii), are regional or forest plans developed keeping with the concept and intent 219.12(i](4), 219.13(b)(6), 219.13(b)(7), first? suggested The regulations were not changed by the Committee of 219.13(c)(6), 219.13[d)(2)(i), 219.13(g). in this regard as it is the intent that a Scientists. Operating procedures found Specifically, § 219.12(b)[6) now states regional throughout plan should be developed the regulations will be that "The visual resource will be befbre the forest plans. However, during supplemented by a work plan for each inventoried and evaluated as an the transitional period the regulations team. integrated part of the forest planning allow for the development of forest Section 219.7-PublicParticipation process, addressing both the landscape's plans prior to regional plans, but require visual attractions and the public's visual The direction that forest plans be reviewed upon given for public expectation." completion of the regional plan and participation was generally acceptable The comments conicerning amended accordingly. to the public, with the exception of the administrative appeal of regional plans appeali provisions in § 219.7(o). The are addressed in'thisanalysis under Section 219.11-ForestPlanning public generally conmented that the § 219.7. Procedure limitation on administrative appeals of Comments on documentation planning decisions would place an Section 219.10-Criteriafor.Regional -PlanningActions requirements indicated a concern that ufidesirable restriction on public flexibility of line officers would be participation. The title was changed to "Regional seriously and adversely affected by The forest plan appeals provision has Planning Actions" at the suggestion of having to justify and document every been completely rewritten and moved to the Committee of Scientists. The section action. The NFMA strengthens and § 219.11 to allow forest plans to be deals both with decision criteria and refines the plagning process by ensuring appealed under § 21-1.19 of this Chapter process procedures; therefore, the that related activities are if the potential appellant was involved- Committee felt the use of the term - comprehensive and fully open to the in the public participation phase and "criteria" -to be inappropriate. public. The comments commented made which on the draft environmental Public comments indicated that the would weaken this requirement could statement/forest plan with respect to list of managdment concerns should not be accepted since the legislation the specific issue being appealed. - include consideration of meeting the requires public participation in the Intermediate decisions made during the RPA Program:In response to these planning process, and documentation pldnning process up to the time the plan comments, implementation of goals and required by the regulations will serve to is approved are not appealable. objectives of the RPA Program (through show how the responsible employee Under the final regulations, regional regional policies and goals) has been arrived at his/her decision. plans are not subjected to the appeals clarified. Section 219.10(c) has been Section 219.11(4) contains the new procedure (CFR 211.19). However, rewritten to the effect that, consistent language on appeals within of forest plans, 45 days of the decision of the with regional and forest resource which is addressed in detail in Chief, Forest Service, to approve or capabilities, regional plans will discussion of § 219.7 of this analysis. disapprove a regional plan, any person implement the goals and objectives of There was some confusion whether may request the Chief to reconsider his the regional polici es and goals, assigning the forest plan is a separate decision. document The Chief must respond within resource production objectives to each or the preferredalternative in the EIS. 30 days to the request for forest area as well as providing The plan is the selected alternative in recorfsideration. The reconsideration information for the national assessment. the final EIS. It will be expanded and provision relating to regional plans has Some coniments advocated the published as a separate document been with placed in § 219.9. establishment of a definite minimum the EIS. The clarified wording in Section 219.8-Coordination biological growth figure for timber §§ 219.9 and 219.11 of the regulations oflublic harvesting (§ PlanningEfforts 219.10(d)(2)); a minimum of should help clarifythils section. 50 cubic feet/per acre/per year was The majority of comments expressed suggested. the 50 cubic feet/per acre/per Section 219.12-Criteriafor Forest were in agreement with this section as yearstandard was rejected as it was felt PlanningActions proposed in the May4 draft. that this cutoff point might arbitrarily This section was changed to "Forest The Committee of Scientists suggested eliminate viable timber production - Planning Actions".for the reasons cited that a new subsection be added to .possibilities prior to evaluation of the in § 219.10 of this analysis. include the requirement that a program ability of lands to meet specific forest Approximately 20 percent of all

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53930 1979 Fade.tel Re ister / Vol. 44. No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53931 Fede.ral Re .ster I Vol. 44NI na S Rl a R t comments were directed to this section, dangerous to log in light of soil considering the biological and physical the majority of which concerned two sensitivity data. In other words, the conditions of the site and transportation- issues: (1) lands not suitable for timber potential timber land rankings may end Costs and returns for timber production- prodq'ction and (2) departures from up dictating land allocation patterns for would be calculated for a range of nondeclining even flow. all of the resource uses, particularly in management intensities for each It was suggested-that light of the pressure to meet assigned category. The management intensity misinterpretation and confusion could timber production goals with a limited which maximized the present net worth result from the requirement to classify budget. To avoid this return to for each category would be identified. ordering of categories would not be as "unavailable" those lands which had functionalism In resource planning. it but been "administratively withdrawn from was recommended that separate required. nor would the adoption of the this rankings of the relative suitability of timber profit maximizing management timber production." Therefore, intensity. as follows: ". lands for all other resources and uses language was rewritten The costs and returns for the range of legislatively withdrawn or should be required. There were many by the other suggestions on language changes, management intensities for each administratively withdrawn category would be considered, along Secretary or the Chief, Forest Service," including recommendations by the Committee of Scientists. Considering with other resource information, in indicating the inclusion only of those formulating alternatives and in lands which have gone through a these comments and the recommendations of the Committee of determining the relative suitability of withdrawal process approved by the lands ,ithin the planning areas to meet Secretary or Chief. Thus, there should Scientists, § 219.12(b](2) has been rewritten using mostly the the multiple-use objectives for each be no misinterpretation that these lands forest alternative in a cost-efficient would include marginal lands or special recommendations of the Committee of Scientists. manner. Other wording changes components in current forest plans. suggested by the Committee in the May There were considerable comments The difference between the Department procedure for identifying 4 proposed regulations have been concerning the identification of lands materially adopted. suitable for timber production unsuitable lands and the Committee of Scientists' recommendations concerns One common recommendation was (§ 219.12(b)(2)]. The timber industry that the regulations clearly state that contends that economic criteria used to the preliminary economic analysis of benefits must exceed costs in order for determine suitability should be applied lands prior to formulation and lands to be classified "suitable for in a way which identifies as unsuitable evaluation of forest alternatives. timber production." This only those lands which are not Specifically, the Committee of Scientists recommendation was not adopted since economically viable timber production has recommended ranking the lands by the regulations require that. based upon opportunities in their own right (before benefit-cost criteria to establish their consideration of management discretionary environmental and relative economic efficiency in meeting objectives, lands will be tentatively multiple-use constraints are applied). timber goals which have been assigned classified not suited for timber They feel it is important that criteria for to the forest through the regional plan. production if they are not cost-efficient determining suitability eliminate the Although there are some technical in meeting forest objectives. economic burden for discretionary difficulties in carrying out the Many asked for clarification of environmental and multiple-use Committee's proposal, the main "assurance that lands can be restocked contraints. It was felt that if this is not Department objection to the procedure within 5 years." Some felt the time- done, the economic viability of is that, without knowledge of the frame too long: however, the NFMA management is distorted by the decision multiple-use objectives of each specific specifically allows for restocking within to emphasize other objectives. The forest alternative, the ranking will not 5 years after harvest. This requirement industry stated that this becomes a self- generally correspond to the most cost- has been referenced throughout the fulfilling cycle which plays into the efficient method of meeting overall regulations. hands of those who, on one hand. forest objectives. As only timber It was recommended that the measure advocate maximum emphasis to benefits were to be included in the of direct benefits used in the preliminary nontimber objectives on the national preliminary efficiency analysis, a one- economic analysis be clarified. The term forests and, on the other hand, complain to-one correspondence between the "expected future stumpage prices" has that timber management is not a viable preliminary ranking and final land been expanded to "expected gross economic proposition there. allocation for a forest alternative would receipts to the government." The The environmental commentor be achieved only in the absence of following language has been added for guardedly approved of the strengthened multiple-use objectives and harvest flow clarification: "Such receipts will be economic criteria for determining lands constraints. based upon expected stumpage prices suitable for timber production. However. The Department feels that useful from timber harvest considering future it was pointed out that there was a information can be generated before supply and demand situation for timber, serious danger in the ranking procedure alternative formulation and evaluation timber production goals of the regional proposed. The ranking procedure without being prescriptive. The purpose plan. and guidelines to be developed presents a powerful tool for planners of the preliminary analysis would be to through direction in § 219.5[c](6:*' that may have a negative result. The provide the background costs and A high level of interest has been concern is that it was possible-that once benefits of timber production for a range expressed concerning the use of "local lands suited for timber prodfiction are of management intensities to permit economic stability" as a criterion for ranked, planners would feel compelled flexibility in meeting overall forest examination of a departure alternative. to develop land allocation proposals objectives efficiently during alternative Some public comment felt that this was that devote all of the higher ranking evaluation. "illegal" because the words "local lands to timber production, even though The Department preliminary analysis economic stability" do not appear such lands may be critical to proposes that the planning area be directly in NFMA. Other public maximizing forest benefits other than stratified into categories of similar comments refer to the legislative history timber production or may be relatively management costs and returns and suggest that considerations of "local

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53931 1979 . 3932 Federal Re ister t Vol. 44, ,No., 161 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 531932 Federal Register I Vol. 44,No 11IMnaSpebr7,99IRusadRgltin economic stability" is one objective of particular the nmaximum size limitation planning area", and § 219,13(g) directs multiple use management. There is no of openings and protection of riparian that management practices "preserve limitation in NFMA on the reasons for areas. and enhance species and communities departures, but the act does provide that Comments on the size of openings diversity similar to that which would be the Secretary's approval of a departure were evenly divided between those who expected in an unmanaged part of the must be to meet overall multiple-use oppose the national limits proposed in planning area." Industry stated that both objectives, provided that any such the May 4 draft regulation and those of these objectives cannot be achieved departure "must be consistent with who favored these limits. These limits simultaneously. Their comments further multiple-use management objectives of have been retained and-a maximum size stated that section 6(g)(3)(B) was the land management plan." The limit of 80 acres for yellow pine types in concerned primarily with type Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act certain southern states has been added conVersion-specifically conversion of defines multiple-use as "the to be responsive to special needs" hardwoods to pine in the South. They identified in the Southern Region. (See management of all the various surface felt this was what should be focused on. resources of the national forests so that § 219.13(d)(2)). they are utilized in the combination that The comments on the protection of In the Committee of Scientists' report, will best meet the needs of the riparian areas were also equally which is printed with the Final American people. . .."The Department divided. Section 219.13(e) was rewritten Environmental Impact Statement, the feels the definition within the Multiple- to include that this special attention Committee has pointed out that they Use Act supports the use of local area will include at least the riparian also feel the Forest Service has created economic stability" as one factor for ecosystem. This was in response to problems for itself in rewriting two examination of a departure alternative. comments that the area protection sections relating to diversity and to Therefore, the regulations continue to should be variable and should some extent, distorted the intent of the use "local economic stability" as'a correspond to the recognizable area provisions contained in their criterion for examination of a dependent dominated by riparian vegetation. recommendations. It was the alternative. Factors have been listed which will be Committee's opinion, that Congress used It was further suggested, and adopted, considered in the determination of what the term diversity to refer to biological that the word "overall" which appears' management practices-may be variety rather than any of the in the act, be used as a modifier to undertaken in these areas. "multiple quantitative expressions now found in use objectives". Changes in the paragraphs on the biological literature. diversity were made to reflect the intent Under the wilderness provisions of Upon the advice of the Committee of § 219.12(e), there was some confusion of the National Forest Management Act; over the terminology "initial generation e.g., to deal with plant and animal Scientists and the comments from the interest groups, § 219.13(b)(5) was of forest plans." This paragraph was communities and tree species as rewritten for clarity and provides for - recommended by the Committee of revised by eliminating the conflicting uses other than wilderness for those Scientists and several commentors. lahguage and referring to paragraph (g). lands released for nonwilderness As was pointed out in the Committee Paragraph (g) was rewritten classification pursuant to RARE II of Scientists' report, diversity is one of incorporating the Committee's decisions. the most difficult issues with which the recommendations, specifically providing The Committee of Scientists regulations deal. One environmental that "The selected alternatives will expressed satisfaction with respect to group stated that the May 4 draft still provide for diversity of plant and animal the treatment of wilderness in the did not meet the congressional mandate communities and tree species to meet regulations. that the regulations address "steps" to the overall multiple-use objectives of the Comments on the fish and wildlife be taken to provide fofdiversity. planning area." The concepts provisions were directed mainly toward Management practices which enhance recommended by the Committee have questions regarding indicator species; diversity should be described, and the been incorporated except that the words some suggested that the language be influence of silvicultural systems on "unmanaged forest" have been replaced changed to include invertebrates as forest structure and diversity should be with "natural forest." indicator species. This request was niet. discussed. They also stated that it was There was some criticism that the., particularly important'that the impact of Section 219.14-Research rotation proposed rules did not adequately age on the development and The language was revised to better ensure consideration in the decision stability of forest ecosystems be reflect suggestions of the Committee of process 6f range, recreation, soil and addressed. This recommendation was Scientists to stress the importance of water, minerals, and the visual resource. rejected by the Department as it would research in meeting the needs of the However, the Committee of Scientists be virtually impossible to describe each felt these sectibns were adequate and management practice and forest National Forest System, The annual the Department agrees. Only minor structure for the variety of ecosystems report required at the national level will word changes have been made to these- involved ihroughout the Nation. This be prepared with assistance from sections. will be covered by each forest plan as regions and forest and range experiment Asnoted in § 219.9 of this analysis, directed by the regulations in stations. the visual resource has been addressed § 219.13(g). Section 219.15--Revlslon of Regulations in the regulations to a greater extent. It The timber industry comments stated ,has been added to the list of that direction in §§ 219.13(b](5) and . It was'generally accepted that the 5- requirements wlich the forest plan must 219.13(g) goes far beyond the intent of year interval review of the regulations specifically address.' (§, 219.12(i)(6)) law. In addition, they stated that the two was appropriate. sebtions-are in conflict; § 219.13(b)(5) Section 219.13-ManagementStandards directs that management practices' Section 219.16--TransitIonPeriod and Guidelines preserve diversity of "endemic and Comments were few, and this section 'Aiproximately 20 percent of all desirable naturalized plant and animal was generally acceptable to the public comments addressed this section, in species similar to those, existing -inthe as was written in the May 4 proposal.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53932 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53933

Dated: September 12. 1979. Summary-Final Environmental Impact accomplished with the aid of Bob Bergland, Statement interdisciplinary teams, public Secretary. participation, and is coordinated with ProposedRegulations for National the land management planning Final Environmental Impact Statement ForestSystem Resource Planning,1920 processes of States, local governments. Land ManagementPlanning, Forest and other Federal agencies. FinalRegulations for NationalForest Service, USDA The NFMA was enacted to resolve System Planning,1920 Land Responsible Federal Agency: United long-standing issues about managing Afanagement Planning,Forest Service. States Department of Agriculture, National Forest resources. The central USDA Washington, D.C. 20013. or primary issues and concerns which Lead Agency:. United States Responsible Official: Bob Bergland. are discussed in this FEIS and which the Department of Agriculture, Washington. Secretary of Agriculture, Washington. proposed regulations address are: D.C. D.C. 20013. -The conceptual framework for the For Information Contact: Charles R. integrated planning process. Responsible Official: Bob Bergland, Hartgraves, Director, Land Management -The interdisciplinary approach to Secretary of Agriculture, Washington. Planning. USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box planning. D.C. 20013. 2417, Washington. D.C. 20013 (202/447- -Diversity of tree species and plant For Further Information Contact: 6697). and animal communities. Charles R. Hartgraves, Director, Land Date of Transmission to EPA and to -The role of economic analysis. Management Planning, USDA Forest the Public: Draft May 7.1979. Final: -The determination of lands not Service, P.O. Box 2417, Washington. D.C. September 17.1979. suited for timber production. 20013 f202-447-6697). Summary -Departures (limitations on timber Abstract: This Final Environmental removal). (FEIS) I. The Department of Agriculture will -Size of openings created by harvest Impact Statement analyzes and issue regulations to guide land and evaluates alternative cutting. sets of proposed resource management planning for the -Public participation. regulations developed in response to National Forest System. This Final -Management of wilderness areas, Section 6 of the National Forest Environmental Impact Statement and disposition of roadless areas. Management Act and describes the analyzes and evaluates alternative sets -Coordination in planning between preferred alternative which appears of proposed regulations and identifies Federal State. and local governments. Appendix E. The regulations prescribe the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix -Protection of riparian areas. the process for preparation of all land F). The alternatives were developed in H. Alternatives Considered In This and resource management plans response to the Forest and Rangeland Final Environmental Impact Statement. developed hereafter for each Renewable Resources Planning Act of There is an infinite variety of ways for administrative unit of the National 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National language to capture the intent of NFMA Forest System. Also prescribed, and Forest Management Act of 1970 in process, management standards, and integrated into the planning process, are RNEMA). guidelines. Alternatives presented in a number of technical standards which To be understood, the regulations this FEIS cover language to address the govern the conduct of management have to be read in their entirety. They central issues and concerns mentioned practices. The FEIS describes the are complex. Thus, many requirements above. Since NFMA mandates conceptual basis for the planning can be fully understood and appreciated development of regulations, a "no process described in the proposed only upon a complete reading of several action" alternative was not created for regulations, and the issues central to sections to ascertain relationships presentation. discussion, and evaluation between requirements in one and those in the DEIS or in this FEIS. (For a their need. in another. The alternative regulations are description of pre-NFMA planning The NFMA requires that regulations policy and direction, the reader is procedural. Although their promulgation be issued which describe the process for would have only indirect referred to Forest Service Manual 8200.] effects on the developing and revising land Neither is a public comment quality of the human environment, there management plans for administrative alternative presented in this FEIS. are important policy matters to consider units of the 187-million-acre National Though the DEIS contains such an in the use and application of a given Forest System (NFS). The alternative alternative (Alternative No. 5). it was alternative. This is especially true in the regulations explain the process and conceptual, and consequently was application of technical standards contain management guidelines and difficult to analyze in terms of effects. (specified management.standards and standards which relate to the national, Therefore, it was decided not to create guidelines) whose impacts are variable regional, and local resource goals and present a similar alternative in the depending upon where they are applied, established by the Forest Service FEIS. Instead, the public comment The qualitative nature of effects is Renewable Resources (RPA) Program. received was analyzed and used to addressed in this Final Environmental The process and guidelines described create the FEIS Preferred Alternative. A Impact Statement. Specific impacts will insure in various ways that economic, summary of this comment is presented be discussed in detail and in environmental, and ecological aspects in section VII. It is further discussed in quantitative terms in regional and forest are consistent with the RPA, Multiple section IV, Alternatives Considered, in level plans prepared under these Use-Sustained Yield Act, and other terms of how the comment contributed proposed regulations. An environmental statutes which affect Forest Service to the Preferred Alternative. impact statement will be prepared for activities. The regulations provide for Alternatives considered in the FEIS such plans pursuant to Council on integrated planning throughout the NFS are: 1. Forest Service Draft Regulations Environmental Quality and Forest for the management, protection, and use as published in the Federal Register, Service National Environmental Policy of timber, range, fish and wildlife Vol. 43, No. 170, August 31,1978, as Act regulations. habitat, water, recreation, and further explained and evaluated in a wilderness resources. The integration is published Environmental Assessment

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53933 1979 53934 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Report, and Supplement, dated August productivity. The relative contribution Regulations, and the Forest Service 24, and, September 12, 1978, respectively. toward enhaiicement of each alternative Perferred Alternative Regulations were 2. Environmental Group's proposals is illustrated in the appropriate tables. also printed in the May 4, 1979 Federal for § 219.10(d), as published in the The actual results, quantitatively, will Register to accompany the DEIS, and Federal Register, August 31# 1978. not be known until individual plans are were therefore available to reviewers, ' 3. Timber Group's proposals for completed. Consequently this material Is not printed § 219.10(d), as published in the Federal IV. Consultation with others, including again in this FEIS but is made part of it Register, August 31, 1978. the public, was extensive and was a by reference. Copies of the DEIS and the 4. Committee of Scientists Final major factor in developing the material which accompanied it are Report, to the Secretary of Agriculture, alternatives discussed in the DEIS and available to anyone upon written dated February 22, 1979, and the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The request. recohmended regulations attached public was invited to comment on the All those groups or ipdividuals who thereto. first draft of the regulations which have commented on the DEIS will be 5. Public comment on the August 31, appeared in the Federal Register August sent a copy of this FEIS. .1978 Draft Regulations; the summary or 31, 1978. Two public hearings were also Table of Contents consensus view. This Alternative was conducted specifically to obtain views. only used in the Draft Environmental 1. Introduction From the initial 'inception of work to Legslative Development Background Impact Statement and was not develop the regulations through to the evaluated in the Final Environmental Management of the National Forest System Impact Statement. In the present time, the Forest Service and the Evaluation of tie National Forest System FEIS public Department have maintained an open comments fron the May 4, 1979 Draft Planning Process door policy wit h the public and interest Description of Central Issues and doncerns 'Environmental Impact Statement were Addressed by the Alternatives analyzed and used groups to obtain information as well as Considered to help develop the to explain work and progress. Eighteen List of Preparers of the DEIS and I'IIS Preferred Alternative, Number 8. II.The Affected Environment 6. -The DEIS Preferred Alternative Committee of Scientists meetings were opened to the public, and a total of 737 1I1. Evaluation Criteria publighed May 4, 1979 in the Federal IV, Alternatives Considered Register,'Vol. 44, No. 88: Regulations individual responses containing 5,373 Planning Process Framework distinct references to various parts of with provisions for nationally ' - - Language to Address Issues established standards for protection of the August 31, 1978 draft regulations V. Implementation Effects riparian areas and harvest cut openings. were received, a substantial number of Vi. Evaluation of Alternatives 7. Regulations identical in all respects' which were elaborate, detailed, and VII Consultation with Others to Alternative No. 6 EXCEPT that explicit. Included were letters from VIII. Appendices standards for protection of riparian members of Congress, Federal and State 1. Introduction -areas and harvest cut opening sizes will Agencies, local governments, 'be established through.the regional-, representatives of various interest Legislative Development Background planning piocess. groups, as well as the general public. As , The Forest and Rangeland Renewable 8, Revised and Final Regulations, the a consequence it was decided to revise ResourcesPlanning Act of,1974 (RPA, Preferred Alternative, developed in the first draft of the regulations (August as amended by the National Forest response to comments received on the' 31,1978) and to republish them Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), Is a DEIS. accompanied by a Draft Environmental comprehensive Impact Statement. This appeared framework and primary Ill. NFMA reiluires an integrated plan in the source of direction to the Forest Service .for each administrative unit of the NFS. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 88, May 4, to fulfill its mandate to manage the The planning process prescribed. 1979. Since then another 245 responses National Forest System (NFS]. The ,establishes an interdependency of land have been received coritaining 1581 central element of the Act is the management and resource planning. distinct comments, all of which have institution of land and resource It is virtually impossible to quantify been analyzed and considered during managment planning the specific as a basicmeans effects of implementing any the preparation of this FEIS. to achieve effective use and protection of the alternative regulation proposals. Appendix "A" contains a list of of renewable resources and a proper The regulations direct the process of Federal agencies, State governments, balance of the use of NFS lands, preparing and revising plans, and have national-organizations and individuals Section 6 of the Act requires the no direct effect on the human from whom written comments were Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe environment, nor do they commit land received following publication of the NFS land and resource management or resources. The regulations establish first-&aft regulations on August 31, 1978. planning regulations. The standards and procedures for planning future The list also indicates by (*) those from guidelines in these new regulations must commitments. whom written comments were received be incorporated into NFS land and Effects on the production of goods and on the DEIS published May 4, 1979 in the resource management services are conjectural plans and every and cannot be Federal Register. effort is to be made to complete such verified quantitatively until the jilanning All those who commented on, or who plans by September 30, 1985. is completed. Anticipated impacts will otherwise requested copies of the An initial draft of the proposed be identified in plans prepared pursuant August 31, 1978 draft regulations, regulations was published in the Federal to the regulations and to the NEPA received a 'copy of the DEIS as Register, Vol. process. 43, No. 170, August 31, published in the Federal Register on 1978 (pp. 39046-39059) for public review Some general qualified effects or May 4, 1979. They also received a and comment. impacts of the An Environmental alternatives are complete copy of the Forest and Assessment Report and Supplement presented in table form by issues. For Rangeland Renewable Resources were example, also prepared dated August 24, each alternative enhances Planning Act of 1974 as amended by the and September 13, 1078, respectively, plant and animal diversity, protects soil National Fore st Management Act of and water These draft regulations had been under values and the visual 1976. The COinimttee-of Scientists preparation resource, and ensures long term since the spring of 1977, Report and their Recommended when the Secretary of Agriculture

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53934 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53935

appointed a Committee of Scientists to uses were minor. Priority was given to included specific coordinating provide advice and counsel on the protecting these public lands from fires, requirements to ensure compatabiity of development of the regulations required damaging insects and diseases, and resource uses. They did not set resource. by Section 6 of NFMA. Publication of unauthorized use. Resource production development goals. Such goals were these first draft regulations prompted and use served local rather than established by separate resources substantial comments, suggestions, and regional or national needs. Most Forest development plans prepared for each recommendations from the general Service planning in that era centered on. National Forest. The Ranger District public, and various resource and specific work plans for forest land multiple-use plans were used to environmental groups. It was, therefore, rehabilitation, protection, and coordinate the actions taken to achieve decided to revise the August 31, 1978 reforestation. the objectives of the National Forest draft regulations and to submit By the late 1930's, however, there System resource development plans. alternative regulations to the public in existed a general public awareness that District Rangers were also required to draft form to be accompanied by a Draft more intensive management of the prepare a special impact analysis before Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). National Forests--and the utilization of undertaking any significance resource These draft alternatives as influenced their various renewable resources on a development project. The analysis by the subsequent public comment, are sustained-yield basis-should also serve contained a statement on the nature and the basis for the Preferred Alternative the national interest. This prevalent scope of the project, the expected presented in this FEIS. philosophy, coupled with a need for impact the project would have on each The regulations (the Preferred vital timber during World War 11, resource, and how the project would be Alternative) may be implemented no spawned a dramatic expansion of carried out to conform to the multiple- sooner than 30 days following the date National Forest resource management use plan requirements. The format of the Notice of Availability of this FEIS is and utilization in the 1940's and 1950's. these reports was similar to that of published in the Federal Register by the Although early laws governing the present-day environmental impact Environmental Protection Agency. establishment and administration of the statements. Management of the NationalForest National Forests referred only to timber In the early 1960"s. another factor had System (NFS) and water resources, the other also entered the resource picture- resources-wildlife, forage, and outdoor intensified public concern for The Forest Service administers 187 recreation-have always been protected environmental policy. Suddenly, it. million acres of Federal land located in and managed. By 1939, the Forest seemed; the Nation realized that clean 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Service had made clear its policy to air. clean water, and natural beauty Islands. The management of those lands administer the National Forests on were just as important to its standard of also affects all or portions of about 39 multiple-use principles. living as industrial products. Increased million acres of intermingled State and Following World War II, the agency concern for the Nation's forest lands privately owned lands. Except where completed an appraisal of the Nation's was part of this awakening special, restricted uses are prescribed forest situation and developed the environmental consciousness. Many by law, this Federal land is managed concept of composite resource planning. Americans became aware of the under the concept of multiple use (as The various resources were inventoried, National Forest System and realized defined by the Multiple Use-Sustained and a composite plan prepared that that although these public lands Yield Act of 1960) for a variety of described types of vegetation. location contained substantial amounts of the products, services, and uses including of streams and other bodies of water, Nation's remaining natural resources. wood, water, wildlife and fish, forage. areas requiring special management, there were limits to their uses. wilderness, and outdoor recreation. The planned recreation areas, primary The desire for a quality environment, enduring resource of the National Forest transportation routes, and other however, did not lessen the need for System is its capability to meet a wide pertinent factors. forest products and services from the variety of public needs. Multiple-use Recognizing the lack of specific National Forests. On the contrary, while management provides the architecture statutory direction to manage all the concern for the environment reached for harmoniously nurturing the balance resources of the National Forests under new heights, so did the demand for betweenproductive ecosystem longevity multiple-use principles, the Forest products and services. One result of this and socieTaI desires. Careful analysis of Service proposed a multiple-use act in was the passage of the 1964 Wilderness use relationships and available the late 1950's. Passage of the Multiple AcL Since the 1920's, the Forest Service opportunities within a context of Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 has Identified and designated areas of equitable distribution and just provided congressional endorsement of high wilderness value on the National compensation are required to meet the the Forest Service policy and practice of Forests. Development of these areas goals embodied in the Multiple Use- equal consideration of all National was precluded by direction of the Sustained Yield Act of 1960. So that the Forest renewable resources. Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief. various uses are harmonized to Land management planning was minimize conflicts and Forest Service. the Wilderness Act adverse impacts formalized into a distinct process upon created the National Wilderness on the land, the relative values of the passage of the Multiple Use-Sustained Preservation System and provided for different resources are considered in Yield Act. Until shortly after passage of the designation of Federal land to be determining forest and rangeland the National Environmental Policy Act preserved in their natural state. resource use patterns that will meet the of 1969, this process was commonly By the mid-1960's, the Forest Service needs of the American people. referred to as "multiple-use planning," was caught in a dilemma. On one hand. and the Evolution of NationalForest System basic documents that described conflicting demands for forest resources Planning how the various resource uses would be were increasing rapidly; on the other coordinated were called "multiple-use band, the renewable resource base was During the early 1900's, most National plans." Separate plans were made for perceived as shrinking with the Forest System lands were inaccessible, each National Forest Ranger District. Implementation of the Wilderness Act. public demands for goods and services These multiple-use plans usually Some critics claimed that were low, management and conflicts among resource zoned National Forest System land and of the National Forest System was out of

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53935 1979 53936 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations balance, that some uses were being derisionmaking. Also featured are The NFMA contains direction on increased at the expense of others, and requirements for coordination with harvest scheduling practices followed that the Forest Service was ignoring its plan ing processes of State and local by the Forest Service, The annual mandate to manage the National Forest governments and other Federal allowable sale quantity (harvest) from System for multiple uses. And, agencies,- and an interdisciplinary each National Forest will generally be seemingly, the public wasn't being given approach to plan development and limited to a quantity equal to or less a chance to formally influence the maintenance. It reaches beyond the 187 than a quantity which can be removed Forest Service decisionmaking process. million acres of the National Forest annually on a sustained-yield basis. The The Forest Service land management System to recognize the importance of Act gives the flexibility to depart from planning process changed in three major scientific research and cooperation with this policy through land management aspects in response to these public State and local governments and private planning, including public participation. concerns and to the National landowners. So, in effect, it addresses Departures from the standard policy Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of all three major areas of Forest Service must be in harmony with multiple-use 1969. operations in carrying outits national management objectives developed The first change converted Ranger forestry leadership role-management during the planning process and District multiple-use plans to land of.the National Forest System, natural described in the land management plan. management unit plans. Unit plans are resources research, and cooperative Land areas not suitable for timber considerably more detailed. They apply forestry assistance to State andprivate production will be identified In land to geographic areas containing similar, landowners. management plans considering physical, social and physical resources and land A major part otthe NFMA is devoted economic and other factors. These lands characteristics rather than to Ranger to strengthening the' Forest and are not to be harvested for 10 years Districts, and they are accompanied by Rangeland Renewable Resources except for salvage sales or sales to environmental impact statements. Planning Act (RPA). All but one of the protect other multiple-use values. The second change incorporated more first -12 sections are amendments to it, Such lands will be reviewed every 10 strict interdisciplinary analyses into the :nearly tripling the length of the years thereafter and may be returned to planning process. Before NEPA, Resources Planning Act. Some of these production if appropriate. multiple-use plans received amendments include requirements for Silvicultural standards will Insure multidisciplinary review. After NEPA, recommendations in the RPA Program that, generally, stands of trees shall be review was accomplished through which evaluate major Forest Service harvested when mature (culmination of interdisciplinary interaction. program objectives; explain mean annual increment of growth). The third change formally involved opportunities for all -forest and However; timber stand improvement the public in forming and reviewing unit rangeland owners to improve their' measures, salvage operations and plans. lands; recognize the need to improve removal of trees for multiple-use In August 1974, Congress enacted the and protect soil, water and air; and state purposes are not precluded. This means Forest and Rangeland Renewable national goals relating to all renewable that stands of trees within the National Resources Planning Act (RPA). Although resources. " Forests in general shall be sawtimber it did not significantly change existing Land management planning direction rather than pulpwood size before Forest Service land management is the core of the Act. Regulations-the harvesting. The Act also directs that planning procedures, it made the Pxefeired Alternativ*e piesentedin this diversity of plant and animal development and maintenance of FEIS-will be promulgated which communities should be provided for and National Forest System land and prescribe the process for development approprlate tree species diversity resource management unit-plans and revision -ofland management plans. maintained. In brief, there should be no statutory requirements. It re-emphasized Management guidelines -will deal with large-scale conversations of National that an interdisciplinary approach be .overall NFS land management and Forest lands to a single-tree species, used in the development and require that lands be identified The Act incorporates into law the maintenance of land management plans. according to their suitability for substance of the so-called "Church It required that periodic comprehensive resource management. Guidelines." These guidelines include programs be developed that would These guidelines will relate to the the caution that clearcutting siould only integrate all Forest Service activities. RPA Program goals to ensure that be -used where it is the optimum method. And it more directly involved Congress economic, environmental, and ecological Public participation in development in evaluating Forest Service programs aspects are consistent with the Multiple- andrevision of land and resource and in assigning priorities. The RPA also Use Siustained-Yield Act and RPA. They management planning was a prime provided for an assessment of the will providd for the diversity of tree consideration in congressional thinking. Nation's renewable resources, including species and plant and animal The phrases "public participation" or those of the National Forest System. communities, and for research, "public involvement" are used 11 times This Assessment provides the basic management evaluation, and monitoring in the Act and are clearly indicated in information for resource management to prevent impairment of the land's other sections. planning at national, regional and local productivity. Regulations must be written to carry levels. Each administrative unit of the out the public participation aspects of The National Forest Management Act National Forest System will prepare, the law. Not only has Congress ordered of 1976 amended RPA to provide through an interdisciplinary team fuller public participation in the additional statutory direction on the approach and with the aid of public decisionmaking process, but it also preparation and revision of National participation, an integrated, made rules so the public can participate Forest System land and resource comprehensive land management plan with relative eas6. management plans. to be revised at least every 10 years A Committee of Scientists-composed Major highlights of NFMA are land (NFMA permits revision on a 15 year of non-Forest Service personnel-was management planning, timber cycle). The land management plan and established to help develop regulations management actions, and public supporting functional plans must be for all land management'planning participation in Forest Service integrated. including timber and other resource

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53936 1979 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53937 plans, by providing scientific advice and assistance and advice to non-Federal ranges; and research to provide a sound counsel, and to insure that the plannirq landowners for dispersed recreation. technical and ecological base for range process developed is interdisciplinary. 2. Wilderness. The primary mission of management. use and protection. this element is to secure the benefits of 5. Timber. The primary mission of this DitectionforPlanning and Managemel an enduring resource of wilderness by element is to enhance the growth, Planning for resource allocation and assuring that suitable, needed, and utilization, and utility of wood and the conduct of subsequent managemen t available National Forest System lands wood products to help meet the Nation's practices require (1) the best available will be designated for preservation and short- and long-term needs. It includes resource data and information, includiing protection in their natural condition. management activities in the National the views of citizens and special interest National Forest System wilderness Forest System and on non-Federal groups, other Federal, State and local areas are administered for the use and lands, as well as research activities that agencies, and (2) the synthesis and enjoyment of the American people so as contribute to the improvement, growth. evaluation of such data and informatio n to leave the resource unimpaired for and timely and efficient harvests of utilizing professional and administrathive future use and enjoyment, to preserve timber from forest land, consistent with judgments as to how best to meet their wilderness character, and to other resource values; the efficient statutory goals and objectives and provide for the gathering and processing and utilization of wood and achieve the interests and expectations disseminating of information regarding wood-related products; and the of the public. To accommodate these their use. development of better management- requirements, all Forest Service The classification and study of methods. activities are grouped into 12 program National Forest System areas for 6. Water. The primary mission of this elements comprised of eight resource possible wilderness designation are element Is to protect, conserve, and elements (recreation, wilderness, included in the Lands support element. enhance water resources within the wildlife and fish, range, timber, water, while the management of such areas is National Forest System consistent with minerals, and human and community included in the Recreation resource other resource values. This element also development) and four support elemen ts element. Wilderness research is related includes watershed and river basin (protection, lands, soils, and facilities). to recreation research to provide planning and development, in knowledge to manage and protect cooperation with States aid other Resource program elements are wildernesses and unique ecological agencies, designed to increase defined as major Forest Service mission- features. knowledge about the water resource. oriented endeavors that fulfill statutor 3. Wildlife and Fish. The primary Included are research and cooperative or executive requirements and indicatc mission of this element is to provide activities to meet water quality and a collection of activities from the productive wildlife and fish habitats, quantity standards onsite and offsite to various operating programs required tc with special emphasis on threatened reduce pollution and to improve water accomplish the agency mission. and endangered species. Management of resource features. Support program elements are wildlife and fish habitats Is closely 7. Minerals. The primary mission of activities and costs that do not primarily coordinated with the States, because this element is to integrate the benefit a single resource element. • States have prime responsibility for exploration and development of mineral However, these elements encompass tlI management of wildlife and fish resources within the National Forest activities that are necessary to maintai populations. This coordination includes System with the use and protection of and facilitate outputs of several or all maintaining close working relations other resource values. Research and resource elements. among National Forest System units and cooperative activities related to the The mission elements that follow for other Federal, State, and private land -reclamation of mined lands are also each program element provide overall managers. The element includes included. national direction for the activities activities necessary to protect, 8. Human and Community within that element. administer and develop National Forest Development. The primary mission of Land management planning is the System wildlife and fish habitats; assist this element is to help people and principal device for conveying non-Federal land managers through communities to help themselves. The management direction to and from the cooperative forestry programs; and element includes activities that provide: national level to National Forest develop new knowledge through Youth development through resource planning areas. research on the environmental conservation work and learning Resource ProgramElements requirements of wildlife and fish and experiences; adult employment and attainable management alternatives training opportunities through various 1. Recreation. The primary mission of under these requirements. Federal human resource programs; rural this element is to provide outdoor 4. Range. The primary mission of this community planning development recreation opportunities for the Nation, element is to provide for efficient ways information and services; and technical This includes all activities necessary tc of livestock grazing on forest and forestry assistance and research for protect, administer, and develop outdo'or rangelands commensurate with other urban areas in the establishment, recreational opportunities within the commodity, environmental, social, and management, and protection of open National Forest System so that they aesthetic needs. Ecological and space and the use of trees and woody meet their appropriate share of the management information about range shrubs. Nation's existing and anticipated ecosystems is provided for non-livestock demand compatible with other resourca purposes, such as endangered plants Support ProgromElements values; protect, manage, and provide and wild free-roaming horses and 1. Protection. The primary mission of trails and other acdtss to the scenic and burros. This element includes all those this element is to protect and maintain cultural resources within the National activities that bear directly upon forest and rangelands. It includes insect Forest System; conduct research to management, use, and protection of and disease control, fire protection, law improve the effectiveness of providing National Forest System range resources; enforcement development of knowledge and managing outdoor recreational cooperative activities for the use and through research, and the technical opportunities; and provide technical improvement of non-Federal forested assistance needed for National Forest

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53937 1979 53938 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

System and other public and private planning levels and resource departures should be handled outside of forest and rangelands. management functions be defined?Does the forest planning process or as a 2. Lands. The primary mission of this planning proceed from the top down, separate and distinct step after the element is to assist in land management from the bottom up, or through iterative, forest plan has been completed. Another planning and provide special land-use negotiated cycles between levels? concern is the question of what administration, landownership 2. The Jnterdisciplinary Approach to conditions should trigger the formulation adjustment, multiresource studies, and Planning. The primary concerns are the of a departure alternative, as well as new knowledge through research which purpose of the interdisciplinary team, how the approval process for such an primarily benefits multiple resource who can be members, what disciplines alternative might be determined. element outputs,These.activities cover should be represented, what should be 7. Size of Openings Created by technical assistance and cooperation on the professional and technical Harvest Cutting. Controversy over non-Federal lands as well as within the qualifications of teams members, and timberliarvest methods on National National Forest System. the responsibilities of team leaders? Forest lands sparked the NFMA 3. Soils. The primary mission of this' 3. Diversity of Tree Species and Plant -legislation. Congressdebated whether to element is to protect, conserve, and and Animal Communities. mandate strict nondiscretionary enhance the soil productivity of forest Congressional intent concerning prescriptions for the management of and rangelands. It includes the "diversity" seems clear: it will be National Forest lands and resources, or development of new knowledge through considered in planning, and it is to be to require development of regulations to research, surveys, protection, provided and maintained by guide a planning process which would rehabilitation, and improvement management. The basic iisue is whether incorporate certain technical standards abtivities directed toward non-Federal the regulations should be very specific and guidelines to govern management lands as well as within the National or provide discretionary authority in activities. The latter course was taken, Forest System. providing diversity through management but the issue of prescription vs. planning 4. Facilities. The primary missionof -practices and activities. Of further process continued during development this element is to provide and maintain concern-is whether to prescribe by of the proposed regulations. The crucial capital improvements such as buildings, regulation how to measure diversity, issue is bow specific should be the roads, fences, bridges, dams, and and should existing diversity be standards and guidelines for planning airfields. maintained and reduced only to achieve and managing each of the resources. For necessary multiple-use objectives. example, should the regulations CentralIssues and Concerns Addressed 4. The Role of Economic Analysis. prescribe the maximum size of openings by Alternative Regulations NFMA-requires economic analysis of created by harvest cuts, or instead The NFMA was enacted to resolve management program alternatives to should they describe the process by long-standing issues concerning the determine economic consequences,.and which the size of such openings would management of National Forest that economic analysis will be be determined on the basis of more site resources. It clarified rules about the use undertaken at all appropriate places specific information. of silvicultural practices and required throughout the planning process. At 8. Public Participation. The minimal that certain land and resource issue is the nature of economic tests elements of adequate public management planning -practices be which might be made, and whether involvement are mentioned in the developed and used. The alternative Congress intended that benefits must NFMA: The public must be adequately regulations described in the DEIS and exceed costs for each and every, informed throughout the planning this FEIS respond to the NFMA by proposed management practice. process; plans must be available in prescribing a planning process and 5. Determination-of Lands Not Suited convient locations; documents forming a technical standards and guidhlines to for Timber Production. A primary issue plan must be integrated and located governplanning and management is the role that economics should exert together to facilitate public review; and activities. The central or primaryissues in dete'rmining lands not suited for. procedures for public participation must and concerns which the alternative -timber production. Some critics argue be identified in regulations covering the regulations attempt to address-are that NFMA prohibits management planning process. described below. These issues are practices where costs exceed benefits The issues.are the adequacy provided further discussed in two ways: First in and that, as a consequence, timber , within the regulations for allowing the section IVin terms of-how the various harvesting mayinot occur where benefits public.to influence the decision process. alternative regulations address the are less than costs. Another In the past, this has included the use of issues; and second, in section Vin terms interpretation is that a strict economic the administrative review process to of relative effects (on issues of the test is not required, but rather that alter the decisions. There is substantial alternatives -on certain factors. economics be one of several criteria doubt as to whether the appeal process, 1. The Conceptual Framework for The used to determine suitability for harvest. as previously applied, is permitted under Integrated Planning Process. There are 6. Departures (Limitations on Timber NFMA. Should the scope and level of many major proven conceptual models Removal). The National Forest public involvement be described in for planning-decisionmaking policy ManagementAct limits the sale of regulations or be discretionary? Should formulation. Which model op timber from each National Forest to a regulations define the agency as an combination is best suited to quantity which can be removed active participant in representative congressional direction that the Forest annually in perpetuity on a sustain'ed- democracy? In the past this role has Service define a unified planning yield basis with discretion to depart been reserved for elected officials. process with supporting guidelines and from this policy in order to meet overall Should public participation be required standards to implement on each multiple-use objectives. This provision in certain steps of the 15lanning process? administrative unit of the National to depart is not in Section 6, but in 9. Management of Wilderness Areas Forest System? Should emphasis be on Section 11 (or.Section 13 of the amended and Disposition of Roadless Areas. process or on prescription? To what RPA). This separation has raised the NFMA provides little guidance about extent and detail should the issue of whether the determination of wilderness resource planning. Issues to relationships among and between the timber allowable sale quantity and resolve through the proposed regulations

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53938 1979 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53939 are the need to identify and appraise Donald L Funking: Group Leader. Program Air. The Nation's air quality is additional candidate areas and whether and Management Planning. Timber mandated by the Clean Air Act (Pub. L. Management StafE USDA Forest Service. 88-206) and its amendments. The 1977 to establish maximum allowable levels Washington. D.C.; B.S. Forest management. of use. amendments (Pub. L 95-95 specified. University of Maine, 1956; Graduate certain Federal 10. Coordination in Land Use Planning among other things, Studies. 1968-69. Stanford University. Palo areas, such as national parks, between Federal, State and Local Alto, California. wilderness, national monuments, Governments. Planning by different Timothy Sale: Planning Systems Coordinator. national seashores, and other areas of entities that does not consider mutual USDA Forest Service. Systems Application national or regional values, be and policies can frustrate National Unit for Land Management Planning. special goals for air quality protection. The issues are the Washington Office. Ft. Collins. Colorado. designated Forest management. The amendment adopted a system by need to be aware of, evaluate, and II. The Affected Environment which the entire nation would be and policies of other consider the plans designated specific air quality classes. and to involve The affected environment is the entire planning bodies, Three categories were established- from them National Forest System, approximately appropriate representatives Class I, Class IL and Class IIL Presently, in National Forest planning activities. 187 million acres of Federal land by the Forest Service. and each class represents a defined. 11. Protection of Riparian Areas. At administered about 39 million acres of intermingled allowable increase in particulate matter issue is the question of whether and sulfur dioxide. Class I allows the regulations should prescriptively State and privately owned lands. The consists of 154 National smallest pollution increment. designate a uniform protective strip formal System Forests totalling 183.4 million acres, 19 Clean Air Act Amendments initially around water bodies or provide criteria classfied all lands. Mandatory Class I for protection that allows for local National Grasslands with 3.8 million acres, and about 0.5 million acres of status was given to internationalparks, management variability. smaller purchase units, land utilization national wilderness areas over 5,000 List of Contributorsto the preparation projects, and research areas. Initial acres in size, national memorial parks of this Fina!Enviromnental Impact reservation of public domain land that exceed 5.000 acres, and national Statement contributed 160 million acres to the parks that exceed 6.000 acres and were in existence on the data of enactment of The FEIS was prepared by an System with the remaining 28 million acres acquired by purchase, exhange, the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. All interdisciplinary team composed of the other areas (except those redesignated following individuals: transfer, or other forms of acquisition. The majority of land, 163.8 million Class I by regulation prior to August 7. Charles R.Hartgraves: Team leader Director, acres, is located.in the western portion 1977), were designated Class EL Land Management Planning, National 164 of the Act gives State and of the United States, including Alaska. Section Forest System, USDA Forest Service, recognized Indian Tribes Approximately 23.9 million acres are federally Washington, D.C.; B.S. Range Management, authority to redesignate classifications located in the East. Although the land 1962, New Mexico State University, Las for areas within their geographic base is not evenly distributed Cruces, New Mexico. authority was Lawrence W. Hill: Staff Assistant. Land throughout the country, National Forests boundaries. This Management Planning, USDA Forest and Grasslands provide an opportunity constrained to the extent that Class I areas could not be Service, Washington, D.C.; B.S. Forestry, for all people to enjoy the many goods mandatory and certain other areas 1958, University of Michigan; M.F. and services they offer. Lands within the redesignated may be redesignated only as Class I or (Watershed Management) 1959, University NFS span a broad range of land forms IL of Michigan. and environment. For a discussion of Walter L Stewart: Operations Research Environmental Amenities. Perception the reader is Analyst. USDA Forest Service, Systems land surface divisions, of our environment is primarily a visual Application Unit for Land Management referred to work by Edwin H. 1 experience, but our senses of smell. Planning, Fbrt Collins. Colorado; B.S. Hammond. taste, touch, and hearing contribute to Economics, 1969, Berea College. Kentucky; Vegetation. The vegetation of the complete our perception of M.A. Economics, 1971, Ohio University, National Forest System is as diverse as Athens, Ohio; Ph. D., Recreation Resources, environmental amenities. Mainenance of the plains', valleys, and mountains on air quality provides environments "1976,Colorado State University. Fort which it grows. Collins, Colorado. pleasant to our senses of smell and Gregory S. Alward. Operations Research For a thorough discussion about the enhances opportunities to enjoy Analyst, USDA Forest Service. Systems relationship of vegetation to various expanded views and vistas. Application Unit for Land Management generalized ecosystems in this Nation. The landscape character of this Planning, Fort Collins, Colorado; B.S. the reader is referred to work by Robert 2 Nation can be described in terms of land Environmental Sciences, 1973, Grand G. Bailey. Potentiql natural vegetation and rock forms (topography), Valley State College, Allendale, Michigan; of the United States was mapped by A. waterbodies, and vegetative patterns. M.S. Resource Planning. 1975, Colorado W. Kuchler in 1966.3 This mapping These are components of the visual State University. Fort Collings, Colorado. represents vegetation that would occur John W. Russell Assistant Director. Land resource that, when seen in varying Management Planning, Systems Branch. naturally in a given area if succession combinations, can be used to evaluate USDA Forest Service, Forf Collins, were not interrupted. the visual quality of an area. Colorado; B.S. Range Science 1958, New Maintenance and protection of the Mexico State University. Las Cruces. New Hammond. Edwin FL 1964. Analysis of visual resource is an important factor Mexico; M.S. Range Science (Systems Properties in Land Form Geography: An application to Broad Scale Land Form Mapping. Annals of the for the millions of people who view Ecology) 1971. Association of American GeograpberL Volume National Forests, and management of Donald A. Renton: Director, Land Use 54:11-23. this resource is an important part of USDA Forest Service, Regional Planning. .Bailey. Robert G. 1978. Ecoregions to the United total land and resource management Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico; B.S. States. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest within the National Forest System. Zoology (Wildlife Management) 1952, and Discussion. Service. Map the lack of it, Michigan State University; Ph.D. Systems 3 Kuchler. A. %V.196. Potential Natural Noise. or more precisely Ecology (Range Science] 1975. Colorado Vegetation Map. U.S. Department of Interior. is an amenity savored by the American State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Geological Survey. Map and Discussion. public. Complete solitude may usually

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53939 1979 53940 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

be 6btajned within wilderness and more other permits were third. Twenty-five may be necessary to interpret the remote roadless areas. A quiet, relaxed percent of the receipts received were "intent" of the Act in order to make this environment can be found throughout returned to counties and States where evaluation. most National Forests and Grasslands. the revenue originated for the purpose of 2. Scientific and Technical Adequacy. But other users oftenprefer noise and funding schools and developing A number of issues contained In the bustle.The management challenge fbr secondary roads. Additional receipts in proposed regulations relate to scientific the National Forest System is to provide the form of deposits and vilue added and highly technical aspects of natural a ctoss-section of environments the' bring the total to more than $1 billion. resource management. While there may many publics wish to use. Total dollar receipts are not a large be general agreement among the - Resource Use. Management of the . factor when compared to.the Nation's scientific community on most of these 'lands and renewable surface resources income, but they do represent much issues, some disagreement does exist of the National Forest System - more then returns to the U.S. Treasury. 'and much political controversy has 'emphasizes the continuous production The direct benefit created by the sale surrounded some of the technical of multiple-use benefits for the and use of National Forest and aspects of management. The scientific American people, In contrast, Grassland resources accounts for more and technical aspects of various management emphasis for lands than 180,000 person-years of alternatives must be separated from the administered by the National Park , employment. Indirect benefits from political controversies which surround Service is preservation of areas of supporting industries add additional them, and evaluated solely on the basis, natural, historical, recreational, or employment and-dollar incomes to this of generally accepted scientific scenic attractions. The National Wildlife -total. Investments in transportation knowledge. Refuges are managed to trotect various systems, cooperative assistance, and 3. Acceptability to Diverse Publics, wildlife species. other non-qualifiable factors are also ".General acceptance of the regulations Is For a more complete description of the positive benefits derived from the essential if the planning process is to be resource uses made of and planned for National Forest System. iesponsive to the specific concerns on the National Forest System, the For many, the National Forest System identified during the legislative history reader is urged to review the Draft is a special place remembered because of the Act. Alternatives will be .Environmental Impact Statement for the of a recreational experience. It has evaluated on the basis of,input from 1980 Update of the Forest Service RPA - symbolic meaning for thoseliving within public participation. Acceptability will Program. This document, released for its shadows or concern for management" continue to be evaluated as the public review onMarch27,1979, is. .of this Federal land,wh'ether they preferred alternative regulations are available from Forest Service Regional depend upon it, have:intimate. promulgated and put to use. Public Offices and headguarters in knowledge of it, or only recognize it as feedbacl will be influential in the Washington, D.C. - "being there". development and use of supplementary Cultural Resource. Development of Land use decisions can affect every' material essential to carrying out the this Nation can-be traced through many individual. Those-with an economic or planning process. remaining archeological and historical specializedrecreatibn interest'can be 4. Achievement of RPA Program sites, an invaluable asset for study of affedted if areas are identified for Goals. The NFMA provides for a what has preceded us. However, the wilderness use. Others with more of a 'planning process as part of the RPA cultural resource on National Forests preservation orientation may be " -Program development process, and and Grasslands is neither fully - - disturbed if a favbrite roadless area • requires standards and guidelines to discovered nor totally understood. -becomes available for use of its - govern management activities. These Historical sites are being discovered as commodity resources, and roads are management activities in turn affect we continue to know-mori of-this land. - :built into the area.-Various uses of land commodity and amenity production Though-the resource has not-been are complex in nature and at times goals and targets (outputs) established completely inventoried, it is pi'otected _.conflicting. What is ideal for one group ii the RPA Program. In addition to by law and is recognized as an integral of individuals may adversely affect " identifying outputs, the Program must part of the total Forest Service land-and others. Within this framework, the also specify the results anticipated and resource management program. process for planning and managing the the benefits associated with Socio-economic Environment. This is National Forest System must occur investments, and compare the inputs related to population and demand for III. Evaluation Criteria , - and anticipated costs with the total goods and services. Our,220 million - .related benefits, direct and indirect residents rely upon the wealth of natural Criteria for evaluating alternative returns. The costs and benefits of resources this country can-provide for regulations are based :primarily on the 'producing commodities is considered food, shelter, and employment. In ' specific guidelines and'btandards - within a franiework of environmental addition, many seek escape from normal identified in the National Forest protectiofi: Program provisions must activities that surroundthem and find Managem nt Act. The options for also protect and where appropriate, relief in natural attractions that abound developing the regulations are limited to. improve the quality of soil, water, and in mountains, lakes, and valleys of this some extent by legal requirements and air-resources. - 'diverse land. TheNational Forest the intent of the-law. This not only . Alternatives will be evaluated System provides both physical needs narrows the range of available recognizing these dual goals- essential for comfort and diversified alternatives but also reduces the degree commodity production and environments that promote quality of " of evaluation required in proposing the ' .environmental protection. For life. regulations. The-following evaluation ; environmental protection, alternatives Direct cash receipts from the National criteria will-be applied: will be judged on the extent to which Forest System in fiscal year 1977 totaled , 1. NFMA Requirementd, Alternatives they provide safeguards against a little more than $691.5 million. Timber will be evtaluated on the basis of how • resource damage or abuse. This reflects receipts were by far the largest source, well they achieve the specific . howthe alternatives provide for or with receipts from mineral leases and requirements of the National Forest - improve the non-commodity or amenity royalties second. Fees from grazing and-' Management Act. In some instances it . values. For commodities, the

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53940 1979 Federal Register / Vol 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53941

material for the purposes of clarity and since its creation in the development of alternatives will be judged on the basis Section to maintain or increase reader understanding. Alternative No. 5 a land management process (see of their tendency I). This process for allocating resources; supply goals (targetsl consistent with in the DEIS dealt with public comments using timber on the original draft regulations which determining outputs. and measuring the evolving RPA Program, and tradeoffs has evolved from as the commodity affected. - appeared in the Federal Register on impacts 5. Compliance with Executive Order August 31.1978. These public comments practical experience and application Alternatives will be were used.in the evaluation and revision mostly at the forest level. Intense public No. 12044. of the National evaulated against direction that of the original draft regulations and are interest in management as simple and clear as reflected in Alternative 6 (the preferred Forests has produced modifications in regulations be This possible; that regulations shall achieve alternative) of the DEIS. Following the evolving planning process. legislative goals effectively and publication and distribution of the DEIS. public interest culminated in passage of efficiently; that regulations shall not the Department received 1581 additional the NFMA which requires the Forest impose unnecessary burdens on the specific comments which dealt with the Service to define, through rulemaking, a ecofiomy, on individuals, on public or DEIS preferred alternative (Alternative unified planning process with supporting organizations, or on State and 6]. Since Alternative 5 dealt with guidelines and standards to be private administrative local governments. comments received on the original draft implemented on every 6. Accountability. Evaluation will be regulation only. This information is unit of the National Forest System. made as to how visible accountability is available in the May 4,1979. DEIS and, NFMA thus created the need to evaluate made through regulation in terms of who therefore, is not repeated in this FEIS. current planning and decisionmaking in is responsible for actions and decisions. This section is now organized as detail. It set the stage for developing the 7. Capability to Implement. Forest follows: function and content of land Service programs and personnel A summary description of alternatives management plans. If the present requirements are subject to constraints is provided for each of the alternatives planning system is to be improved, as set by Congress and the Executive (with the exception of Alternative 5) NFMA strongly implies, then knowledge branch. Alternatives will be evaluated identified in the DEIS. These is needed about general planning theory. in light of personnel and skill alternatives include the Planning This would provide a conceptual basis requirements, and time required-to Process Framework, Alternative 1. for developing operational planning undertake and complete planning Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative process alternatives. actions specified. 4, Alternative 6 (DEIS preferred The advantages and limitations of 8. Flexibility. In the application of alternative], and Alternative 7. various planning process concepts and resource management standards and A description of Alternatives 1,2,3,4,6, approach possibilities are described in guidelines, it must be recognized that and 7 relative to the issues identified in material appended to and made part of local resource conditions vary Section I of this document the minutes of the May 24-26,1977 considerably, thus necessitating special A table which identifies the Committee of Scientists Meeting. A brief requirements or exceptions. Alternatives substantive changes which the description of planning concepts and will be evaluated on the basis of the Department now proposes to make to approaches appears in Appendix "B" of extent to which they permit local Alternative 6 of the DEIS as a result of this FELS. management discretion. Procedural internal review and public review and The alternative regulations presented standards necessary to address special comment. This table shows the location in this FEIS are a composite structure of needs and exceptions must be judged on of changes and the reason and nature mixed scanning and the systems theory. the basis of their ability to maintain for changes to Alternative 6. These and the mutual causal approach. This quality, conformity, and adequate changes constitute Alternative 8, the selection best provides for the review of management actions while not preferred alternative of this FEIS. interdisciplinary approach to integrated burdening the entire management A summary description of Alternative planning mandated by NFNA. systems with trivial details. 8 (the preferred alternative of this FEIS). Altern ati'es for Regulation Language to A description of Alternative 8 as it Address CentralIssues IV: Alternatives Considered relates to the 11 issues identified in Many requirements in the alternative Section I of this document NFMA mandates development of regulations cannot be understood regulations to set forth a process for the Summary Descriptionof DEIS without reading several sections to development, maintenance, and revision Alternatives ascertain the relationships between of National Forest System land and requirements in one and those of A variety of approaches could be used resource management plans. The another. Therefore, the reader is urged to develop regulations in response to regulations are also to contain to read and study the regulations in their Section 6 of the NFMA. Variations standards and guidelines to govern the entirety. within the actual planning process, the conduct of management activities. As a The purpose of this section is to definitions of specific terms, and consequence of this mandate, a -no describe the substantive alternatives establishment of various standards action" alternative was not created for which have been considered during the could be developed in numerous ways. presentation. discussion, and evaluation prodess of developing both the draft and There are at least two sets of in the DEIS or this FEIS. The only the proposed final regulations for land alternatives to develop and consider. realistic "no action" alternative might management planning for the NFS. This One set concerns planning precess. The have been planning as currently section concludes with a description of other concerns regulatory language. practiced according to direction in the Preferred Alternative for this FEIS, style, and structure in terms of Forest Service Manual 8200. The .Alternative No- 8. describing the rules which are to be continuation of this direction is clearly Organizationof tids Section. The applied through the planning process to not what Congress intended by enacting organization of this section is similar to management of National Forest System NTMA. that of the DEIS (Federal Register, May lands and resources. There are an infinite variety of ways 4,1979); however, some changes have The PlanningProcess FrameworA- for language to capture the intent of been made in the presentation of The Forest Service has been.involved NFMA in management guidelines and

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53941 1979 153942 Federal Register '/ Vol.-44; No. 181 / Monday, Septeniber'".', 1979 -/ Rules'and Regulatjins , - I

standards. The language is presented in of the NFMA requirements. The resource management planning process, a reasonable range of alternatives to management standards for determining All proposed departures are submitted address the central issues and concerns lands not suitable for timber production tothe Chief, Forest Service, via the presented in Sbctioh I. areamong the most detailed of all the, Regional Forester. If approved, the Chief The various alternative language sets standards presented. The draft requires would then direct the forest supervlsor proposed are described below and are both biological-growth minimums and to prepare the proposals and a draft and arranged by source (see the Summary, economic efficiency considerations. The final EIS. Final approval for all Part II)in the order corresponding to the biological growth minimums 'are not • departures rests with the Secretary, eleven central issues identified in ' * specified nationally, but are required to Alternative Section 3-Timber Groups' 1.However, in the interest of be stated in the regional'plans.- Proposalsfor Section 219.10(d) (Federal brevity, and to facilitate analysis, some Protction standards for streams and ,of Register August 31, 1978). This the language presented isin summary lakes are not specified, but are' required alternative form. All of the original addresses two issues: material, to'be stated in the forest plans. - determination of lands not suitable for including public commentsis'available Standards-for selection of silvicultural timber for, review in its original production, and departures from form at Forest systems and for size limits for openings nondeclining yield. This proposal Service Headquarters, in Room 4021 created by cutting are to be determined South Agriculture Building, Washington, emphasizes the role of timber by the regional planning process. The production targets assigned to the D.C. administrative appeals process would This information includes the' ,forests through the RPA Program., remain unchanged from the present Consequently, suitability determination following: (1) Draft Regulations, August situation. Departures would be handled '31, 1979 as published in the Federal- (as opposed to nonsuitability] is at the forest planning level. Throughout stressed and is recognized as being Register, Vol. 44, No. 170, includiig the draft, the primary language proposals by Environmental emphasis is upon -largely dependent upon the ability of the' and Timber procedures to be followed and concerns forests to meet the assign6d targets. A groups. to be addressed, all within a framework (2) Committee of Scientists Report of minimum biological growth potential is February 22,1979 to the Secretary, which would permit a great deal of local to be speicffied by the regional plan. and and (forest level) management discretion. 'suggested regulations, published in the It economic analysis is required to Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 88, May 4, is functional in its approach-to determine if lands are efficient for 1979. formulating standards. and guidelines, producing timber. Lands would not be (3) Forest Service Revised'Draft and not specific that the determinations used for timber production If those lands Regulations, the Preferred Alternative of localized standards and guidelines is were not ne6ded to meet the assigned (No. 6) of the DEIS, published'in the'' " part of, and as a consequence a result of targets and they were not efficient for Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 88, May 4," the planning process. produicing timber. Departures would be 1979, as part of the DEIS. Alternative-2-EnvirohmentalGroups' considered and formulated if.no timber I (4) Public comment on item number --Proposalsfor T219.10(d) (Federal harvest alternatives could achieve the one (1) above. . I , Register August 31, 1978). This assigned goals, or if implementation of (5) Public comment on item number alternative addresses only two issues; the alternatives would result in local three (3) above.. the determination of lands not suitable economic instability or inadequately Items-(1), (2), and (3) above-have for timber production, and procedures maintain local or national supply needs. already been published with the DEIS - for'allowing departures from, Departures would not require approval and made available to the public. nondeclining yield. This proposal above the forest planning level. iCons'equently, they are not printed again specifies a national minimum biological Alternative 4-Committee of in this FEIS. Instead they are growth potential for timber production, Scientists FinalReport to the Secretary incorporated herein by reference. Copies Under the requirements of this (Febriiary9, 1979), and Recommended will be made available upon receipt of alternative, no timber harvesting would Regulations attachedthereto. The written request. occur for at least 10"years on National Committee of Scientists reviewed the A summary description of the DEIS Forest.System lands on whi6h the original draft regulations and alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and-7 is biological growth potential is below 50 recommended alternative language and, provided below. Each alternative is cubic feet per acre per year growth of in some instances. completely briefly described or characterized new as industrial wood in natural stands. There material for inclusion in the regulations, foll0os: are several other factors to be used in Generally, Alternative 1-ForestService the Committee's proposals Draft * the determination, including size and expand and Regulations (Federal add specific detail to the Register August 31, 'location of isolated tracts, original 1978). The original'draft draft (August 31, 1978) regulations are nonmarketable species, slope and soil regulations. largely procedural in nature. The A number of organizational stability. In addition to these changes for regulation material are also process which is to be followed in constraints, an economic efficiency test making landmanagement decisions sugg6sted. The Committee's revisions is is required for the determination. Lands indlude the outlined with greatest emphasis upon addition of considerably are not to be harvested forat least 10 more detail to the relationship emong planning at the forest level. National, years if direct benefits from and regional, growing planning levels (national, regional, and and forest levels of planning harvesting timber-are less than the are implied; however, the draft contains forest), specifications for the anticipated direct costs to the " interdisciplinary planning approach, very little detail for regional planning. government, including interest on rationale and requirements for public For the most part, the resource capital investments. Direct costs and standards and guidelines which appear participation, more substintial direct benefits are defined. This., requirements for coordination; and more in the draft can be characterized as alternative stipulates that departures broad statements of concerns which specific requirements for resource may be considered only after the-forest standards and guidelines, indluding ,must be addressed throughout the plan has been approved. In other words, wilderness management, riparian zones, planning process. For several issues, the- departure determinations would not be fish and wildlife, and diversity. The draft langua'ge is merely a restatement permitted as part of-the Forest land and administrative appeals procedure wbuld

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53942 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 5Q943

remain unchanged from the present. The be set in regional plans, and lands be regional plan and its content similar to Conmittee has proposed a new and ranked for their economic efficiency for requirments specified for forest plans. detailed treatment of regional planning producing timber;, requirements that Alternative 6: The recommendations similar to forest planning. The departures from non-declining yield be of the Committee of Scientists have Committee's recommendations for lands analyzed through the NEPA been adopted in the preferred not suited-for timber and for departure, environmental assessment process and alternative. In addition, a great deal similar to those of the August 31, 1978 be approved by the Chief; setting of more detail has been added to planning draft, are more specific and clear. An maximum size of harvest cut openings criteria and requirements throughout the added requirement for departures (40-, 60-, or 100-acre maximums entire planning process. Although the specifies that each must be approved by depending on geographic location) with revised regulations contain many more the Chief, Forest Service. Although the exceptions provided for through regional "prescriptive" requirements than the Committee recommends a 30-meter plans where larger openings will earlier draft, the revised version is more protection strip for riparian areas it produce more desirable combinations of "process" oriented than the original agrees with the August 31,1978 draft benefits; and special protection of draft. A completely new section devoted that the maximum size for openings streams and lakes by requiring special entirely to a description of the "planning created by timber cutting be set by attention to strips 100 feet along both process" has been added. There is also regional plans or regional silvicultural sides of perennial streams, lakes and an expanded. much more detailed guides, and not be set as a national other bodies of water. The treatment of the role and function of standard. administrative appeal procedure is national, regional, and forest level Alternative 5-Public Comment on modified as a result of this alternative. planning. The interrelationships among the August 31, 1978 Draft Regulations. Organizational changes include addition the planning levels have been outlined. Though the DEIS contained this of material concerning regional There are two new separate sections Alternative (No. 5) it was conceptual planning, and separation of planning devoted to regional planning. One and did not lend itself to comparative process criteria from resource describes in detail the regional planning analysis as did the other alternatives. management standards and guidelines. procedure and the other establishes Consequently, it was decided not to The planning process has been clarified criteria for regional planning actions. include a similar alternative in the FEIS. and expanded explicitly to cover The requirements for forest planning instead, public comment on the DEIS national and regional, as well as forest have been expanded and are detailed in was analyzed and used to modify the level planning. the same manner as those for regional DEIS Preferred Alternative. This has Alternative 7-Revised Draft planning. Provisions are made through become the FEIS Preferred Alternative. Regulations. These regulations are regional planning to provide a range of It is further described in this Section as identical in all respects to Alternative objectives which forest plans must Alternative 8, and again in Section VI. No. 6 except that riparian protection address though the planning process. Alternative 6-The Preferred areas and harvest cut opening sizes will Issue No. 2-The Interdisciplinary Alternative Identifiedin the DEIS. be established through the regional Approach to Planning. Alternative 1: These revised draft regulations contain planning process. The August 31,1978 draft states that an interdisciplinary approach shall be provisions for nationally established Alternatives by Issues standards for protection of riparian followed. With the exception of a areas and for the size -of harvest cut Regulatory language sets follow for requirement for two or more specialities openings. This alternative is the end the eleven selected issues discussed in to be represented, no specific result of public involvement and work Section I. Since Alternatives 6 and 7 are requirements for team make-up or by the Committee of Scientists with the identical except for issues 7 and 11, qualifications are given. Complete Forest Service in the process of Alternative No. 7 is discussed only for discretion is given to the forest developing the regulations required by these two issues. Alternative 2 and 3 supervisor for deciding both NFMA. A number of organizational address only issue 5 and 6 and are composition and qualifications. changes, the incorporation of new shown for these issues only. For a Alternative 4: The Committee material, and more specific direction discussion of Alternative 5, The reader recommends more specific language on have considerably changed the should refer to the DEIS. description of interdisciplinary process, actital alternative compared to the original Issue No. 1-Conceptual philosophy that is to guide the Framework team; and requirements for composition draft of August 31, 1978. Most of the for an Integrated Planning Process. of Scientists of team and for qualifications of Committee Alternative 1: The August 31.1978 draft members. recommendations are reflected in this regulations are a mix of approaches Alternative alternative. It is important to point out 6: Most of the Committee with emphasis given to a "process" of Scientists' proposed language has here that these recommendations were oriented approach. Three levels of been adopted in the revised version. The also strongly influenced by interactions planning (forest, regional, and national) role and responsibilities of interest groups of the team with the Committee. are described in terms of information have been more clearly specified. The Key substantive coverage by this flows. However, the planning process is revision includes alternative includes requirements for the following: More described only in terms of forest level composition of the team and for detail concerning the relationships planning and is not related to the other qualifications for team members. among planning levels; detailed two levels. Issue No. 3--Diversity. provisions for Alternative 1: - the conduct of regional Alternative 4:!The Committee of The August 31,1978 draft requires that planning; more thorough treatment and Scientists endorses the "process" inventory information include clarity of purpose concerning public approach as opposed to a "prescriptive quantitative data for determining participation and coordination approach." It is recommended that the species and community diversity. The activities; more specific concerning important interactive nature of the three forest planning section also specifies. determinations of lands not suited for levels of planning.be conveyed in the that each management alternative timber production with the direction that regulations, and that the regulations also include provisions biological for diversity and that growth potential minimums specify procedures for developing the effects of each alternative on diversity

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53943 1979 53944 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

be estithat d.'There is'also a specific Alternative 4: The Committee - wood in natural stands (higher standard requirement to estimate diversity effects. concludes, that language in the draft may be established by regional plan). for fish and wildlife. Methods or regulations dealing with economic , 2."'Not available" If lands are measures of diversity are ungpeciied.. analrsis is often: vague and mustbe administratively or legislatively, Alte~native 4: The Committee improved if direction is to be clear. The, withdrawn. generallysupports tieatment-of diversity Committee has proposed more specific 3. Land, are "not suited" if: A. They in the regulations..Recommendations for dire6tion for ensuring that competent consist of isolated tracts of commercial clarifying and strengthening the economic analysis occurs in all forest land (stringers] such that -language in 'a number of places are appropriate places in the planniig organizing and scheduling periodic included. The.Committee recommends process and are displayed for harvest is impractical; against requiring the use of quantitative consideration of the econ6mic B. They contain non-marketable diversity indices, In' addition, the consequences of alternatives. timber species; Committee adds-to the regulations Alternative 6: Substantial C. Slope is equal to or greater than the specific language to ensure that planned requirements relating to economic angle of repose of the soil, or the critical type c6nversions mustibe justified by efficiency analysis, evalaution criteria, angle for slope stability; detailed analysis showing biological, and guiding principles for nianagement D. Lands have soil types for which economic,'and social consequences. have been added in this alternative. erosion rates during the first 10 years Alternative 6; The Committee of Additional analysis requirements have following logging would cause loss -of Scientists' recommendatioris for been specified for regional and forest soil greater than the amount that would clarifying language and establishing planning including sutiply and demand be generated naturally through periodic criteria-have been adopted for this assessments and economic impact weathering during one period of alternative. Management standards and' evaluation for alternatives considered. rotation; or guidelines for diversity have bedn The role of economic analysis in the E. No technology has been developed expanded with more emphasis on type determination of lands not suitable for or is expected to be developed in the conversions. Additional requirements timber production and consideration of' next 10 years, that is or will be available have been specified to ensure, . community stability objectives have and feasible for use In the forest during' coordination with other Federal, State, been clarified. Requirements have been such period, that will enable timbur and local agencies. Specific specified for economic'evaluation of production from the land without requirements for designation and values foregone by Wilderness significanf or long-lasting resource management of special interest areas designation.- damage to soil,, productivity, or and research natural areas have'been - Issue Mo.5.--Deternina tion of Lands watershed conditions; without added. Not Suited for Timber Production. significant adverse impact on threatened Issue No. 4-The Role of Economic Alternative 1: The August 31, 1978 draft or endangered species; and with Analysis. Alternative 1: The August 31, regulations outline a process for assurance that such lands can be 1978 draft regulations suggest that determining lands not suited. ,adequately restocked within 5 years population and employment data be 1. Lands are considered "not capable" after final harvest. collected, that demand projections be if biological growth potential is below a 4. Lands classified as "capable,. used, and required that expected minimum set-by the regional plan. available, and suited" for timber', benefits be included in this analysis. 2. Lands are "not available" if they production are further identified as: Specific requiiements for analysis have already been designated for some A. "Notavailable" for timber include effects on distribution of goods, other use. production if those lands will be services and uses, changes in payments, 3. Lands are "not suited" if timber managed to meet objectives of the forest to local governments, income, production would result in adverge. plan that either preclude timber ," employment, and economic efficiency. impacts upon soils, productivity, production or limit timber productori to' Direct and-indirect benefits and costs watershed, threatened or endangered the point where silvicultural systems are to be estifiated using standards and species, or cannot be restocked in 5 and resources could not be employed practices to be established later by the. - years. within the standards andguidellne's for Chief, Forest Service, Economic impact 4. Lands that have been classified as silvicultural "capable, systems'and resoarce estimates of different range management available, and suitable" are to protection contained in these regulations alternatives on local livestock industry be further reviewed during the and in the forest plan; are also required. It is required that formulation of alternatives stage of B. "Not suited" for timber production lands be classified as not suitable for planning and are classed as "not if the anticipated direct benefits from timber produciton if "an economic available" if'management objectives for growing and harvesting timber are less analysis reveals that the lands are not the area preclude timber production or than the anticipated direct costs to the efficient for producing timber." limit production to the point where government, including interest on Alternative 2: The'overall issue of silvicultural standards cannot be met. capital investments required by timber economic analysis is not addressed. 5. Lands. that are classed as "capable,, production activities. Specific standurds Economic efficiency analysis for the available; and suitable" may be, and practices for making the economic classification of lands suitable for classified as "not suited"ifan economic analysis required by this section tre to timber would be provided for in this analysis reveals'that these lands are not be established by the Chief, Forest ' ' alternative as part of the regulations efficient for producing timber. I' - Service in recommended under Issue regulations which shall be No. 5. (See 6. No timber harvesting can occur for effective on the same date as these Issue No. 5, Alternative No. 2) at least 10 years on lands "not suitable." Alternative 3: The proposal does not regulations, and shall be applied Alternative 2: This alternative uniformly and nationally, provided that address the general issue of economic includes the followinglimits for analysis. Some economic evaluation in determining net benefits from tfmber' identifying timber producing lands: production the following principles shall requirements are included in "suitable 1. Lands are "not-capable" if be followed: lands" requirements.. (See Issue No. 5, biological growth potential is below 50' (1) Direct Alternative No..3) benefits include the cubic feet.per a~re per year of industrial anticipated revenue from harvesting

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53944 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53945

timber crops, and any benefits that can administration, protection, and access 2. Long-term sustained-yield, base be reasonably attributed to increased are borne proportionately by those other timber harvest schedules, and production of other services such as resource values produced while the land departures are subject to the following forage, water flows, and wildlife; is under primary management for guidelines: (2) Direct costs include the anticipated timber." A. "For the long-term sustained-yield investments, maintenance, and Alternative 4: The August 31, 1978 capacity and the base harvest degree of operating management and planning draft provides for a 5-step process for timber utilization consistent with the costs attributable to timber production identifying lands not suited. The goals, assumptions and standards activities, and any costs that can be Committee does not consider this contained in or used in preparation of reasonably attributed to decreased adequate and recommends the following the current Renewable Resource production of other services and to procedure: Program and regional plan. For the long- mitigation measures necessitated by the 1. Lands are screened to determine if term sustained-yield capacity, the impacts of timber production. In the they are "available" for (i.e., not already management and utilization case of roads, only the additional designated for offer use) timber assumptions must reflect those investments in the road system required production; projected for the fourth decade of the by timber growth and harvesting 2. "Available" lands are then regional plan. For the base harvest activities are to be included in direct screened to identify areas that are "not schedule, the management and costs; and suitable" for timber production because ((3) The rate of interest utilization assumptions must reflect the used to of physical, technical, biological projected changes in practices for the discount future benefits and costs shall (including a minimum productivity four decades of the regional plan. be equal to the rate expected for standard), or environmental factors; Beyond the fourth decade, the alternative uses of Federal funds, as set 3. Lands passing these tests are then assumptions by the Office of Management'and subjected to economic analysis must reflect those and projected for the fourth decade of the Budget. ranked to determine their relative regional plan." 5. No timber harvesting shall occur on- economic efficiency for commercial lands classified as "not capable" or "not timber production; and B. "For departure alternatives to the available," for timber harvesting and for 4. Alternative land management plans base harvest schedule which provide 10 years on lands "not suited," are formulated, lands are allocated to outputs above the current regional plan, excluding salvage sales and other timber harvest on a cost-effective basis, assume an appropriate management special circumstances. and these allocations then may be intensity." Alternative 3: The'alternative makes a adjusted and revised on the basis of C. "In accordance with the key factor upon which suitability multiple-use considerations. established standards, assure that all determinations will be made on the Alternative 6: The treatment of this even-aged stands scheduled to be production goals assigned to the forest issue in this alternative is based upon harvested during the planning period through the regional plan from the RPA the Committee of Scientists' shall generally have reached the Program. The proposal requires that recommended language and culmination of mean annual increment timber producing lands be identified in organization. Minimum biological of growth. Mean annual increment must the following manner: growth standards to be used in the be based on management intensities and 1. "Not capable" if biological growth determination of timber production utilization standards expressed as units potential is below minimum standard capability wyill be established by the of measure consistent with the regional defined by the regional plan. regional plan using the criteria specified plan. Exceptions to those standards are 2. "'Not available" if the land is in the regulations. Lands with potential permitted for the use of sound legislatively or administratively for commercial timber production will silvicultural practices, such as thinning withdrawn from timber production. be evaluated using the assumptions and or other stand improvement measures; 3. "Not suited" if technology is not criteria in the regulations to determine for salvage or sanitation harvesting of now available or none is expected to be their relative economic efficiency for timber stands which are substantially developed within the next 10 years that this use. Lands which are more damaged by fire, windthrow, or other would permit harvesting which meets "efficient" (relative to other lands) will catastrophe, or which are in imminent silvicultural guidelines. be allocated for timber production danger from insect or disease attackr for 4. Lands classified as "capable, before less "efficient" lands are used. the improvement of age-class available, and suited" will be further There is no minimum economic return distribution; or for the removal of reviewed and identified as "not suited" specified in the regulations, nor Is there particular species of trees after if those lands are not needed to meet a firm requirement that net benefits consideration has been given to the production goals from the regional plan must exceed costs for this use. multiple uses of the area being planned and "lands are not efficient for Issue No. 6-Departures.-Alternative and after completion of the public producing timber." Additional economic 1: The August 31, 1978 draft requires that participation process applicable to the analysis requireients for this the allowable sale quantity be preparation of a forest plan." determination include: "Any economic determined on the principle of sustained D. 'For all harvest schedules, achieve analysis will be based on the yield and only based on lands "capable. a forest structure by the conclusion of assumptions that the lands are managed available and suitable." The following the scheduling period that will enable primarily for timber production and are requirements are specified: perpetual timber harvest thereafter at in fully regulated condition; that 1. For the base harvest schedule the the long-term sustained-yield capacity. technically feasible management planned sale and harvest for any future consistent with the long-range multiple- practices are applied which have a net decade must be equal to or greater than use objectives of the alternatives." economic benefit given anticipated the planned sale and harvest for the 3. Departures should be considered future price levels and cost levels preceding decade, providing that the under any of the following conditions: reasonable and directly related to planned harvest is not greater than the. A. "None of the timber harvest efficient and prudent timber long-term sustained yield capacity (non- alternatives formulated has management; and the capacity that the cost of declining flow). to produce the goods, services, or uses

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53945 1979 53946 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 /, Rules and Regulations

to meet objectives specified for the area base timber harvest schedule and in the August 31,1978 draft with the by the regional plan." demonstrate that forest structure by the addition of: B. "'Attainment of the multiple-use end of the planning horizon would 1. Statement of basic policy with objectives of the forest plan will be enable perpetual harvest thereafter at regard to 'timber harvest scheduling:.. enhanced by more rapid and efficient the long-term sustained-yield capacity; 1 2. Language to make clear that achievement of the long-term sustained- and departures from the base harvest yield capacity of the forest owing to C. Each departure shall be evaluated' schedule and the planning required for present forest structure or by reducing in accordance with regulations covering- departures is discretionary; and high mortality losses." ,estimated effects of alternatives and 3. Authority for approving any C. "Implementation of the base compared with the forest plan. Such departure above the base timber harvest schedule would cause instability comparison shall include an evaluation schedule should lie with the Chief. or dislocation in the economic area in of the consistency of the departure with Alternative 6: The Committee of which the forest is located." the multiple-use objectives of the forest Scientists' proposals have been adopted, 4. The proposal also specifies how the plan. ,With the exception of specifying that the harvest schedule is to be selected: 5. The Secretary, after review of the Chief, Forest Service, must approve A. "Selection of a harvest schedule final EIS, must approve all departure departures, this alternative for the must be made following a comparison of regulationh is similar to the original proposals. draft requirement concerning this issue, management alternatives. ... This Alternative 3: The proposed comparison must include an evaluation alternative altered the provisions set out Consideration of local economic of the sustained-yield goals, silvicultural disruptions-has been maintained. in Alternative No. 1 in the following Issue Aro. 7-Size of Openings Created standards and guidelines, and the wayA: effects of timber removal on other by Harvest Cutting 1. For base timber harvest schedule(s) Alternative 1,The August 31,1970 resources .... The selected harvest "the planned sale and harvest for any schedule provides the allowable sale daft requires that maximum size limits future decade rtlust be equal to or less for clearcutting will be determined quantity, or the quantity of timber that than the long-term sustained-yield may be sold from the area of land through the regional planning process, capacity" rather than the preceding Alternative 4: The Committee covered by the forest plan for the plan decade and "thetotal harvest must also period. Within the planning peribd, the alternative agrees with the August 31, be the maximuniuchievable from the 1978 draft that maximum size limits be volume of timber to be sold in any one foresl during the first rotation." year may exceed the average annual set regionally. 2. Add an.exception to the standards Alternative 6: This alternative for the allowable sale quantity so long as the for assuring that all even-aged stands total amount sold for the planned period regulations establishes the maximum scheduled to be harvested generally size for openings created by timber does not exceed the allowable sale have reached the culmination of mean quantity." cutting. These maximum sizes are: 60 annul increment of growth-"for the acres for the Douglas fir forest type of Alternative 2: The proposal would not improvement of age-class distribution." permit departures'within the regular, California, Oregon. and Washington; 100 3. "For all harvest schedules, other acres of the-hemlock-Sitka spruce forest planning process, but specifies that a than the base harvest schedule, achieve forest plan may be amended to increase type of coastal Alaska; and 40 acres for the allowable sale in the a forest structure by the conclusion of all other forest types. There are or decrease that will enable following manner. the forest rotation provisions for exceptiong to these size 1. Regional Forester may ask the" sustamied-yield capacity, consistent with limits. These are: Chief, Forest Seririce to "consider" thelong-range multiple-use objectives of 1. Regional plans may specify smaller dephrture if departure would,"enhance" the alternatives." maximum sizes for geographic areas of multiple use objectives by "'improving 4. An additional condition for forest types based upon the factors age-class distribution, reducing high. departure was added. "Implementation detailed in the revised regulationb, mortality losses, or reducing conflicts." of analternative plan would provide 2. Regional plans will include 2; The Regional Forester must submit greater public benefits, including, but - provisions for exceptions that will a report giving iformation tosupport not limited to a combined flow of public permit larger size openings than those recommended departure. and private timber that better meets specified in the regulations. The 3. The Chief may agree to "consider". local andurat6nal'demands or achieving minimum set of factors to be considered departures anddirect the Forest to the extentpossible a betterbalance for exceptions, is outlined in the revised Supervisor to prepare proposals, and between expenditures for timber regulations. Forest plans must conform draft and final EIS's are required for management and the return to the to the size limitations establlshed by the proposals. Federal Government from the sale of regional plan. Any exceptions (except 4. In formulating proposed departures, timber and the value of other related catastrophic losses) to exceed the 60-, the following is required: - uses." " 100- or 40-acre maximum size limits A. Each departure proposed shall, 5. Additional factors were added in must be approved by the Chief, Forest reflect management direction . the step for selecting the harvest Service. At least 30 days public notice established in the forestplan regarding s c h e d ul e : . . . .. must be given before the size limits may constraints on harvest, type of , A. "Selection of harvest schedule' be exceeded. silvicultural systems to be used, and mist be made following a comparison of Alternative 7: The revised draft silvicultural standards and guidelines. management alternatives and the public regulations require that maximum size Lands that would be affected by the benefit to be achieved from each." limit for harvest cut openings will be increase or decrease in harvest level- B. "The responsible Forbst Service determined through the regional shall be specifically identified; Official shall describe in writing the planning process. I B. Each departure shall assume a justification for the selection made and Issue No. 8--Public Participation degree of timber utilization and the standards used." Alternative 1: The August 31, 1978 management intensities consistent with ' Alternative 4: The Committee draft regulations use a theme of criteria those assumed in the preparatin of the recommends adoption of the principles - to achieve compliance dnd uniformity.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53946 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53947 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 I Monday, September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations 53947 Thii concept of rulemaking provides input will be used in the planning management. Minerals development latitude for adaptation to future social process. In addition, the public considerations are not addressed changes, but does not specifically state participation responsibilities of the specifically in regard to wilderness standards on the role the public may interdisciplinary team have been issues: however, provisions for these exercise in the decision process. clarified. One important change has concerns are included elsewhere in the Standards are established for the been made to the limitation for public revised regulations. Requirements are availability of documents and their comments. This alternative provides for specified to ensure that levels and kinds required residence. Criteria for the type 90 days written responses for national of wilderness use are evaluated and of meetings to be held and where in the and regional planning comments considered in wilderness management. process they are to take place are (original draft specified 60 days]. The Special attention is also required for off- discretionary in this version of the appeals process is modified in this site impacts and adjacent area regulations. The administrative appeals alternative. Objections to planning management. process is unchanged in this alternative. decisions (to adopt plans) in this Issue No. 10-Coordination Alternative 4: The Committee of alternative are excluded from review Alternative 1: The August 31,1978 Scientists' version of the regulations under the current administrative appeal draft requires coordination with -other contain more specific requirements in procedure. affected public entities and Indian several areas. The Committee felt that IssueNo. 9--Management of tribes." Notice of preparation or revision the vague and broad discretion in the Wilderness Areas and Disposition of of forest plans must be given to State August 31,1978 draft regulations would Roadless Areas agencies, Indian tribes, and heads of "lead to discontent and an unhappy, Alternative 1: The August 31,1978 county boards affected. Documentation uninformed public." draft regulations require that: of all consultation is required. The more specific areas recommended 1. Lands designated by Congress or Alternative 4: Committee proposes by the Committee of Scientists are: the Forest Service as suitable for substitute language to assure that other 1. A general policy statement and wilderness will be studied for possible governmental units understand how objectives of public participation. inclusion in the Wilderness System; they can be involved in Forest Service 2. Provide for a mutual program of lands designated to be managed for non- planning, that the Forest Service make information and educational exchange. wilderness will not be considered for real efforts at coordination, and that 3. Provide explicitly for public possible wilderness in the rust participation at the beginning of the Forest Service planners will evaluate generation of forest plans. and consider the plans of other process, after conclusion of inventories 2. During the 15th-year revision governmental units as they and assessment, and before a preferred (second generation) of forest plans. develop plans. Specifically, alternative is chosen. other areas will be evaluated for recommendations- 4. The responsible official should possible wilderness designation. include requirements that: show evidence that allpublic input to 3. The "appropriateness" of 1. The responsible Forest Service the plan has been analyzed, evaluated designating the lands under 2 above will officials be aware of the plans and and considered. be considered. policies of other units of government; 5. More specific language on the kind 4. Forest plans must provide direction 2. Appropriate State and local of places 4o meet such as county for management of designated government representatives be involved courthouses in affected counties. Wilderness and Primitive Areas. and consulted; 6. The nature of public participation' Alternative 4: Committee recommends 3. A request be made of each State for be made more explicit-by: clarifying language to address two appointment of a person to coordinate A. Stressing that informal activities issues: Identifying and appraising State involvement: are to ba encouraged for information, additional candidate areas, and 4. The forest plan documents that exchange. establishing maximum allowable levels plans, programs and policies of other B. Stating that notifications shall be of use. Key provisions include: units of government have been made highly visible. 1. Forest plans will include an analyzed. C. Officials responsible shall continue evaluation of the wilderness resource 5. Coordination take place at crucial to meet all other obligations for carrying present and provide management times in the planning process; out public participation requirements. planning for it. 6. An attempt to be made to identify 7. The public should be made aware 2. All potentially eligible lands should goals and plans of owners of of the kinds of informational materials be considered at each revision of the intermingled private lands; and that will be available. forest plan. 7. That there be coordination within In summary, the Committee of 3. Costs and benefits should be the Forest Service in the designation of Scientists' version of the regulations on considered in the same way as are other special purpose areas. public participation in the planning resources in considering wilderness Alternative 6: With some minor process proposes more prescriptive rules status. modifications, the Committee of than the August 31. 1978 draft 4. Criteria for designation should be Scientists' detailed proposals have been regulations. The administrative appeals evaluated continuously as experience adopted. process is unchanged in this alternative. dictates; and" Issue No. 11-Protection of Riparian Alternative 6: Much of the language 5. Determination of "carrying Areas and organization recommended by the capacity" should be made for each area. Alternative 1: This version 'of the Committee of Scientists has been Alternative 6: The proposals regulations speaks indirectly to adopted in the revised regulations. As a recommended by the Committee of management of the riparian area in the result, the revised version is Scientists have been adopted in the water and soil resources section. These significantly more detailed than the revised regulations. In addition, the regulations direct that existing or original draft. The revision includes language of the original draft has been potential watershed conditions that will explicit material on the purpose of altered in order to clarify the factors to influence soil productivity, water yield. public participation, required public be considered in evaluating wilderness water pollution or hazardous events will notices, and the manner in which public potential and wilderness area be evaluated.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53947 1979 '53948 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Alternative 4: This alternative use management objectives; (3) The is described under 219.9 and 219,11, , provides prescriptive regulatory consideration of departures from the, respectively; (5) Provisions are made for language as protection for riparian base harvest schedule is-o be developing and adopting common data areas. It provides for special attention to unconstrained during planning and is definitions and standards to be applied be given to a strip approximately 30 mandatory under certain stated between all planning levels. Data meters wide along both sides of all conditions. However, thb final selection acquisition is to be scheduled and perennial streams, lakes and other of a departure alternative is keyed to the planned, and its nature is to be bodies of water. Any activities principle that it must be consistent with, appropriate for the management conducted in this area would be carried the multiple use objectives stated in the decisions required; (6) An 80-acre size- out so as not to result indetrimeqtal . - land management plan; (4) The approval of-harvest-cut opening is established for change and only carried out if multiple- or disapproval of forest plans is the yellow pine types in certain southern use benefits exceed costs. appealable under 36 CFR 211.19, but no6t states; (?] The 100-foot "special 'Alternative 6: The.treatment of this. for regional plans. For the latter, a attention" zone around water bodies Is issue in the revised regulations is based reconsideration process is established. expandecd to include recognition of primarily upon the.recommendations of The reconsideration and appeal process riparian ecosystems. the Committee of Scientists. This alternative proposes, that special Location and Description of Major Changes In DEIS Preferred Alternative No. 6 and Incorporated Into attention be given to lands and FEIS Alternative No. 8, Preferred Alternative vegetation for approximately 100 feet along both sides-of all perennial Regulation section Regulation section * Natura of the change streams; lakes, and other bodies of DEIS FEIS K water. All management activities which 219.1(b)(b)...... '." Additional text forclarircElon enr description of planning seriously and adveisely affect water fundamentals. conditions or fish habitat will be 219.3(c)-;-...... Definition added for base timber harvest schedule, Definition added for biolog!cal growth potential permitted only if conducted so as to 219.3(h)..-'... 219.3) ...... *Claafication.--defnition consstant with CEQ Regulatlong ..protect these waters from detrimental (environmental documents). change. Interdisciplinary teams will 219.3(m)...... Definition added for goods and services. 219.3"(o) and (p) 219.3 (r,(s). (t),(u). Expanded definitions fatmanalembnt dirtction, Intensity, determine constraints to be placed on L practico. prescriptions: to clarity the relation between management activities in the riparian, practices end prescriptions. •')19,3(x)...... Previously overlooked detn ton f(oplanning area added, area to assure protection of water .,2194(b)(1) .... ,.219.4()(1) ...... Revises description of Natonal t6vel Assessment and Pro quality and other multiple-use values. * -_ gram ctvity and clarifies rektfonshp to regionaland Alternative 7: This alternative forest level planning. Deletedas superfluous. requires that special attention be given 219.5(c)(6)., 219.5(c)(6) ...... Establishes rule fordeternrumng d~scount rate to be used. to riparian areass-(perennial streams, 219.5(d)....1.. .. -). 219.5 ...... d Provides forvariable data resonllon based on nature of decisions to be made. that data needs are to ba ena. lakes and other bodies of water). The lyzed, planned, and acqusitbn scheduled; and provides riparian area will be identified using for adoption of common data datinitions and standards. 219.5(0.....- 219.5(0)...... ;...... Formulation ofalternatives rewritten to reduce ambiguity, criteria established in regional plans. 219.5(g)...--' 219.5(g)...... Estimated effects of alternatives expanded to Include mea. surements of effects frommeeting targets established Alternative 8-The Preferred through RPA Program. "Alternative 219.5(g)(5)(iii and (iv) _ Deleted--tedundant. 219.6(a) . 219.6(a) ...... Paragraph expanded to provide more explicit direction and This alternative is a revision of the philosophy concerning Intardscplinary approach to plan ning. May 4, 1979 DraftEnvironmental Impact 219.6(b).. .. 219.6(b) ...... Adds areas ofprofessional knowledge and makes donsUl. Statement Preferred Alternative - tation obllgatory when specalized knowledge on learn Is (Alternativ~e 6). Alternative 8 was notavailable. 219.7(d) and (e) ... 219.7(d) and (a) ...... Revised to provide more exp'citdrectlon about public par. created as the result of review and ticipatiod process and use of Information, analysis of public comments on the May, •219..7(a) r219.7(a)...... Deleted. (See 219.9(b) and 219.11t(c).) 219.8(t) ...... New text to provide for monitoring effects of plan Impte. ,.4,-1979 Preferred Alternative version. mentation on adjacent, private and other ownership The Committee of Scientists' views on lands, ...... New text to exclude decis:ons to approve or disapprove to the May 4 version was included in the glonal plan from admiiattraise appeals procedure: pro. public comment analysis. While there' vides for reconsderat.on of such decisions: provides for are some minor changes in all-major -__ _- stays of Implementation. 0219.1"0(c)'...... , Rewritten forclarification to show how plans must respond provisions of the Regulations, significant to and reflect RPA program goals and objectives. ..changes are displayed in the Table 219.11(c)(4) ...... New text to replace DEIS text In 219.7(o): provides for ap. presented below. For. example, some ',. •"""-- ,'- _plan; peals specifiesof decisions procdu.res to approve for remand, revisione forest and changes of interest are: (1) Planning, amendment descdbqs process totfoeuesting stay o I. process descriptions are strengthbned to plementation, and prereuis,4a3 for potential appellants to file for appeals. exhibit and describe the links between 219.11(9) . 219.11(g)(1) and (2)...... Clarifies and augments consdeardtbons required In reglonal the RPA Program and Assessment, and - management situation aralyses. regional and forest planning; (2) 219.11(h) .1.(h)...... To explicitly state that the Forest Plan isthe selected alter. The, native from the FEIS. ,A process for determining lands not suited 219.11()(3) 219.14(h)(3) ...... Rewritten to make exp.ci t at forest plat will contain for timber productioa is clarified to statement of multiple use management objectives. 219:12(b)(2)(3)14)_.:"_-'" 219.12(b)2)(3)(4) ...... Rewritten to clarify the process of datermining lands not show how certain physical and suited. economic factors are interpreted to 219.12(19(d)(1)1i,(D) ...... Clarifies and simplifies tangiga, determine land suitability for production, and how this relates to, i, formulating alternatives to meet multiple

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53948 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53949

Location and Description of Major Changes In DfIlS Preferred Alternative No. 6 and Incorporated Into Appeals of actions or decisions FEIS Alternative No. 8, Preferred Alternative-Continued subsequent to implementation of the regional plan are permitted in the Regulation section Regulation secton Nature of the charge Preferred Alternative. This alternative DEIS FEIS also has an added requirement defining the kind of information required to lor #W depm z vA be 219.12(d)(1)n'i 219.12(d)1Xi) Rewritten cat y eshablhes support requests for stays of decisions to approve or disapprove forest or 219.12(e}t)() 219.12(e)(1)() Espqnrd1 wkure kUagency cooperalion aind conu- regional plans, or subsequent actions or 219.12(g)(2) 219.12(g)(2)-- - - Provides that inlcator speces may be vertebrate audfor decisions. tinvertebrate. Issue No. 9-W'ilderness. This 219.13(d)(2) 219.13(d)(2) Adds yeow pine typ and sets 80-acr, W* foraniest coponrgs in cortm southen states. alternative is the same as origin-area 219.13(e) 219.13e) - - - Revised to mclude at least the am covered by the lwo presetnted in the DEIS Preferred Lanecosystem. 219.13(g) 219.13(g) Revised to reflect terms as used In the NFMA ("Cp d Alternative. antisa cmoninities" and 'boo speces'). Issue No. 10-Coordination. The treatment of this issue in Alternative 8 is 6 except Issue No. 1-Panning Process use objectives. The reason for this identical to that of Alternative Framework. This alternative change was the previous language a provision is added which requires to consider the effects of incorporates some new or amended provided only for the determination to monitoring the NFS on adjacent and language to generally strengthen the be based on effects and/or managing nearby lands managed or under the overall planning process, including the achievements of single functional of other government addition of some new definitions. The objectives. The interdisciplinary team. jursidiction agencies or local. relationship of forest and regional with review of public comment, felt this Issue No. 1.1-Protection of Riparian planning to the Assessment and revision of provision more closely Areas. Alternative 6 has been revised to and strengthened in reflects the legislative intent. Program is clarified provide that special attention zone will terms of identifying information Other provisions remain essentially at least include the riparian ecosystem. and specifications that plans the same as described in Alternative 6. transfers Also, factors are listed which will be how they respond to Issue No. 6-Departures. The must describe considered in determining what program goals and objectives, as well as provision for making departures in the Alternative appeared to management practices may be use management DEIS Preferred state the multiple undertaken in these areas. objectives for the planning area. The many reviewers to be more broad than what NFMA seems to permiL Therefore. V. Effects of Implementation data and information acquisition in response to public process is expanded to require analysis and substantially comment, the language was clarified to A major effect of the alternative of these needs. illustrate that the consideration of regulations proposed-if adopted-will Issue No. 2-Interdisciplinary departure alternatives will be be to integrate land management Approach. This alternative amplifies the unconstrained during planning and is planning and functional (resource) philosophy underlying the approach to mandatory under certain conditions. planning. Planning of lands and planning. However, if any departure alternative is resources of the National Forest System Issue-No. 3--Diversity. Some editorial to be selected, it must be consistent with will be conducted by interdisciplinary revisions have been made to clarify multiple use objectives stated in the, teams rather than by individual resource terms and intent o the regulations. The land management plan. or functional staff units. In many cases treatment of this issue remains in Issue No. 7-Size of Openings Created the same people and skills will be concept basically unchanged from the by Harvest Cutting. The treatment of involved but in a different way. Some DEIS preferred alternative. The this issuein Alternative 8 is identical to additional personnel ceilings will be legislative language "+diversity of plant that of Alternative 6, except that an 80- required because of new skill and animal communities " and "diversity acre size limit is established for yellow requirements such as analysts, of tree species" is maintained in the pine types in certain southern states. economists, biologists and writers. proposed regulations. Issue No. 8-Public Participation. Although resource management Issue No. 4-The Role of Economic Public participation provisions are planning has always been a major Analysis. A provision has been added identical to those in the DEIS Preferred responsibility in the Forest Service, the which specifies that the discount rate for Alternative (No. 6) except for the matter emphasis has primarily been on analysis is to be established by the concerning appeals. In the Preferred functional planning rather than on integrated resource planning (called in the absence of such an alternative, appeal is discussed under Chief and multiple-use planning- unit planning. established rate, the rate used in the § § 219.9 and 219.1L The approval or multi-disciplinary pLanning; etc.). In RPA program may be used. Some minor disapproval of forest plans is appealable functional planning editorial changes have been made under 36 CFR 211.19. Such appeal was most instances Functional the deletion ofrepetitious excluded in the DEIS. The approval or remained a separate activity. including planning material. disapproval of regional plans is, planning and land management Issue No. 5-Determination of Lands however, excluded from review under 36 often were carried out relatively Not Suited for Tmber Production. The CFR 211.19, but provisions are made for independently, and budgeting was still provisions in regulations for determining reconsiderations of decisions by the along functional lines; the outcome was lands not suited for timber management responsible officer. In the case of forest inevitable: land management planning has been modified to clarify the process plans, the appeals process is made became in itself a function, much like and to specifically portray that these consistent with intent of NFMA range management, timber management, determinations will first be based upon regarding the revisions of plans, public and engineering. NFMA requires an economic and physical factors, then participation in those revisions, and the integrated plan for each unit of the integrated to provide for evaluating role of the interdisciplinary team in the National Forest System. The planning effect and/or achievement on multiple process. process prescribed in thi alternatives

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53949 1979 53950 Federal Register / Vol. 44, .No. 181 I Monday, Septqmber 17,,,1979 / Rules and Regulations

establishes an interdependency of land alternatives in long-term costs-to the . Effects upon the social environment management and resource planning. -Forest Service as any particular are difficult to quantify. No significant The specific effects of implementing alternative regulation might be impacts or differences between " . any of the alternative regulation promulgated. The integration of all alternatives are anticipated: The social proposals are virtually impossible to planning efforts into one process should environment is defined as the bompbslte quantify. Regulations developed to eventually reduce the costs. of social variables likely to be affected direct the process of preparation and Land management planning in the by planning for management of the NFS: revision of land management plans have recent past has cost about $14 million population, dynamics, community no direct effect on the human annually. The anticipated annual costs economy, educational quality, health environment. The regulations do not and additional man years thro6gh 1984 and environment, housing quality, commit land or resources. They only are shown in the following table. The leisure opportunities, community establish procedures, and standards and table reflects plans as currently identity, minorities, and land use and guidelines for planning future t - scheduled. Costs include planning at all tenure. Specific social effects will be commitments. Some general qualified three levels, forest, regional and determined and evaluated through the effects or impacts of alternatives are national. planning process for the appropriate presented below in table form by issues. level of planning. Public participation Is Actual effects on the production of Increased Cumulative required throughout the development Fiscal Number.of Total annual man years man-years goods and services will be determined year forest costs for over ,1978 and revision of all plans, resulting in and verified when the planning is plans planning base year more public awareness and completed. Impacts will be identified in funclions understanding of National Forebt regional or in individual forest plans.. 1979. .... $19.860.000 60 System management. These plans are subject to a complete 1980 ...... 21.100.000 90 This particular requirement is . environmental assessment with 1981.3..... 22.500.000 120 responsive to the concerns 1982 ...... 22,800.000 120 expressed maximum public participation. Effects '1983....- 23.200,000 120 before the NFMA was passed and, generated by the land and resource 1984 ...... 14,700.000 60 specifically to Section 6(d) of the Act, management alternatives will be 1985. 12.000,000 0 Relative Effects of Alternatives by analyzed in the environmental impact These costs reflect an increase Issues: To establish a basis for statement prepared during the actual for measuring anticipated implempntation what has beenland use or land - - planning effort. - . There effects of each alternative, an are several provisions within' management planning historically. New independent set of key variables was each alternative that affect the output of' skill requirements, the need for identified by the interdisciplinary team ,goods and services, particularly timber additional personnel ceilings, and the. for each issue. These variables are the production. The determination of the uncertaifity of the availability of the factors affected by alternatives. The allowable sale quantity will directly skills could require more contracting tables show in relative terms how the affect the level of timber available from and resultant higher costs. Monitoring alternatives impact the factors listed, the National Forests. This is particularly requirements may also add significantly Language for alternatives Z and 3 apply true if departures from non-declining to costs. only to issues 5 and 6. Therefore, flow are considered and selected. The The effects of implementing impacts for these two alternatives are identification bf lands not suited for alternative regulations on the physical shown only for these two issues., timber production may-reduce the and biological environment are not ' Language for Alternative Not, 6 and 7 Is commercial forest land base, measurable except qualitatively. Each the same for all issues except 7 and 11, particularly where the minimum alternative set of regulations enhances Therefore, impacts for Alternative 7 are biological growth potential standard is plant and animal diversity, protects soil shown only for these two issues. set above the current minimum of 20 and water values and the visual Issue No. 1-The conceptual cubic feet per acre per year. Also, • resource, and ensures long-term framework for an integratedplanning establishment of the maximum size of productivity. The actual results will be process. As discovered earlier there are harvest cut opening and the protection known after the individual forest or a number of different conceptual of riparian areas will affect the overall regibnal plans are completed. frimeworks for attempting both vertical cost of timber production or the total The alternative regulations require, and of supply. horizontal integration of the level that a monitoring and evaluation planning process. Integration requires a Generally, some outputs Will decline process be identified and adhered to as link vertically between the temporarily. However, the capacity a part of plan implementation. This organizational hierarchy of national, exists to expand activities ith higher process will, reveal how well the regional and local levels, and a merging' level investments so that most outputs objectives of the forest plan have been 'functionally at ,the local level the could be increased in the long run. met: quantify the effects of management planning of range, wildlife and fish, ' The increased requirements imposed activities upon the physical and recreation, timber, water, minerals, and by the NFMA'and regulation will biological environment; and develop a other resources. Therefore, the increase costs through 1985 or until all data base for plan updating. conceptual plans are developed. This would method chosen has a be There is no reliable way to estimate significant effect on further options for primarily due to establishment of the, quantitatively the'effect 6n the resolving other issues. For example the neW procedures, requisite training economic environment of promulgating incre mental approach limits public needs, and the variations anticipated any of the alternative regulations. It is participation in long-range decisions, between the various National Forests assumed that better management while mixed scanning and Grasslands in terms framework tends of planning decisions will result from improved to enhance this option. (See appendix already accomplished or in progress. As economic analysis, because those - the Forest Service becomes-more decisions will be based on cost The practical concerns-surrounding familiar with the new process, the cost effectiveness data. Overall management this choice relate to such basic items as should decline. There should be no of the NFS should become more cost ',significant public participation, the decision difference between effective and efficient. process, and agency responsiveness.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53950 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53951

The alternative choice for how the Issue No. 3.--( Oi4w~ Reafve Efocts of Issue No. 4.-Roe coon*An ss ) Relatve regulations are to be promulgated under Atema6ves Etlect of(Afemates a given conceptual framework may have Altenatve No. long reaching effects on how the Impacts o altmatve on 1 4 6 8 Akernatve No. integrated planning process will be krW dofafernesv on 1 4 6 8 Geneti VNW __ (1) (1) (1) V) carried out. Typeconvesion ' 2 A 4 4 Ptriigprocema 1 2 4 3 3 Issue No. 1.-(Pnning Framework)Relative Effects Pt vin process a- 4 2 2 3 Naes of Wah reqred . 2 4 3 3 of Alternatves Capab~ty df Fared Survice to ' Relative to current situatlon. Genetic variability Inrcinde Wriptlergt &9clon. 4 2 3 3 for this analysis habitat diversity. 2 Continuum from tl) to (S) toward increasing coml iety. Alteraive No. incrasinsg complexity on a scale of tO)to(ts). ' Relative easeto convert to another ly M ss cs) an 'Coninuzzm from (1)none specifed p. oxesgs interms of Inpact ofalternative on 1 4 6 8 a scale from (1) to (5) toward increasing ,cuity. complexity of rigor 'No change. 'Low to High cc a scale of p) to t() Publc perception of process' 2 3 4 5 'Increase. Agency responsiveness o Issue No. 4-Role of Economic Issue No. 5-Lands Not Suitedfor de withissues 2 L M+ M+ M+ Analysis. Analysis for determination of Planning and decisiornakkrg Timber Production.The issue in the process3 2 4 4' 5 both efficiency and impacts has "lands not suited for timber production" generated considerable debate. Much of question appears to be a means, not 'On a continuum of increasing understanding from I toS. it centers on the "state of the art" and ends, question. There is little writh 5high. the possibilities of a given technique disagreement over the desired results 'Response to external stimuli as low. moderate or high. being universally practical for 3On a continuum of increasing complexity from Ito. that there should be identified in the withshigh. nationwide implementation. The nature land managementplanning process Issue No. 2-Interdisciplinary of economic tests to be made and lands not suited for timber production. Approach. The major debates over whether Congress intended that benefits The debate focuses bn where in the must exceed costs for proposed process this identification should occur regulations on the interdisciplinary management practices are the key teams and approach have focused on and how prescriptive the analysis considerations for measuring effects of screens should be in the regulations. technical more than behavioral alternatives in the issue. characteristics. Team composition and leadership have been discussed from Issue No. 5-(Lands Not Suite) Relative Efects of Aflternatives differing viewpoints, as well as individual qualifications necessary for Alemasve No. legitimate memberships. In addition Impact ofaltmstives on 1 2 3 4 6 8 there has been continuing concern over Totai comercl tibr bsand s.pply 3 5 2 2 3 3 the roje the interdisciplinary team will YAd~fe habitat abxmnd4arceidv eay, 33 413 2/3 33 3/3 414 Plannin process - 2 5 2 4 4 4 play in the decisonmaking process. The Anenies 1 key effects evaluated for this issue are 3 S 2 3 3 4 team formation, duties and compared to cigrent *Atuaion on a Scale 0t (1) least t0 (5)most reduction oxicrilg ccon&iealin d f r.pl use cbiLec, qualifications. 'In teems of ksxcoasks and-a." nd av~siton a scale of (1) io (5). 5 NIq Issue No. 2.--(tntierscinaryApproach)Relative 'Increasing compsty on a cl; o( (1) Ia (5). In terms of tedencpy to kripso"aoVra quahty of water and vWAwiresouces. Effect of Alternatives scale (51 o(5). 5 tigt

Ateenative No. Issue No. 6-Departures.The National allowable sale quantity should be Wmpad of tema ve on 1 4 6 8 Forest Management Act requires as a handled either outside of the land general policy that the Secretary limit management planning process or as a Team fomfation 1 3 4 4 the sale of timber from each National separate and distinct step after the land Team dufes__ _ 2 4 4 4 Team menber quawicatins, 1 4 4 4 Forest to a quantity which can be management plan has been completed. removed annually in perpetuity on a Provisions within Section 6 clearly ' Continuum from (1)dicretionary to (5)specfic sustained-yield basis with the discretion provide that decisions on the level of compositiom to depart from this policy in order to 'Continuum from (1)weak to 15)strong direction given. timber harvest be made within the 'Continuum from (1)discretionary to (5) specific meet overall multiple-use objectives. integrated land management planning requirements. This provision is found in a separate process. It is also required by NFMA Issue No. 3-Diversity.Diversity is section of the Act (Section 11, or that if a departure is selected, that it the condition of being different. The provisions (Section 6). This separation must be consistent with the multiple use classification, measurement and control has caused some interests to believe management objectives stated in the of the elements which make up diversity that the determination of the timber land management plan. of forests and ranges are activities associated with managing renewable Issue No. 6-(Depmr'e)Rolalive Effects ofAfernatives resources. It is the proportional distribution of diverse situations, Ahermative No. such Impacts as different habitats, that determines the on ltemntves on 1 2 3 4 6 8 availability of timber, wildlife, range Inmninigprocoess 2 5 2 3 3 3 production, recreation, streamflow, Opportty tocharge imber SU"rf 4 1 5 3 3 3 aesthetics and other benefits. Therefore, 'On a scale 0( (1) low lo (S) hNg Wowd Incrnaskig; dffity Somake a depark.re diversity determinations have important 'On a scale of (1) to (5) toward icresai agenicy Sex*tift to make ddtermination. implications in terms of bpportunities for resource planning and management options.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53951 1979 53952 Federal Register/ Vol. 44, No. 181 7 Monday, 'September 17, 1979 / Rules und Regulations

Issue No. '7-Size of-Ojenings. At allowed within a-Tivensflvicultural " Issue No. 1M.-(Cordnafron) Rletho Effects of debate is the issue oT'the size of harvest system. Should size standards be stated :A r A lterative No cut openg io be allowed within agiv'en prescri-ptively or should-sizebe' silvicultural.syste m. Should size -4etermined through the planning process Impact of alternative on I 4 6 'standards be stated prescriptivelyior on a regional-or site speQific basis? - should size'be'harvest cut opening tobe Planning process.t..... 2, 4 3 4 Levels of ewareness and Issue No. 7-(Sie of Openings) Relative Effects ofAlternatives understanding '_...... 2 4 0 3

.Alternative No, 'Increasing complexity on a scale of (1)to (5) 2ncreasing Improvement on a scale of (1)to (5]. I4 .678 Issue No. 11-Protectionof Riparian Impacts ofalternatives on - - Areas. The riparian ecosystem Per acre harvest costs '_ _ _ Nochange -No change _.lncrese...___4o change - fIncrease. Water quality ...... No change -No change ..._Jncraae....No change- ' Increase. Tepresents one of -the richest areas in Timber supply '. No change -No change .__Decrease___No change:.-' Oocroase. lerms of flora and fauna within'tho National ForestiSystem. The.sclentific 'Relative to-current stuationwhich Inthis analysis Is alternative No. 7. 'Rel tiveIocurrent iatlon Increase harvestcostsameans some marginal sades'becon unavallabe ,-thus reducing har- community is divided on 'whether this vestInsome areas. . ecosystem is.fragile orresilent. There Issue No.,8-Public ParticiOation. are manydemandsin this zone; for Issue No. 10-:Coorination.At issue aesthetics, water quality consideriatlon, Public:partidipationrin . ForestService is the amount andlevel of coordination recreation opportunities, decisionmakingihas been-an issue of that-nhouldbe road requireddufingland-and construction opportunities, wood, forago experimentation and debate since the- resource management planning-between passage ofthe National Environmental and wildlife opportunities. It's also h the Forest-SeMce and other planning,' nice place toeat yourlunch., ' Policy Act in 1969. Central:to 'the issue is entities. Whe. er.pescriptive .. the openness Conflicting demandi for uses inthqsd that -shall be maintained requirements or .process direction for areas by the'agency so that the public ,ma, are escalated in the more arid achieving desired end resylts is the. parts of the West where ,this become informed-about NationalFoiest ecosystem matter to be evaluated. . is m6re scarce. The principle issue is the matters and, if sufficiently interested, to degree to which the regulations I participate through various --- forums, prescribe standards for riparian -areas, including the administrative review - procedures, in the development, review Issue-No. -11.-Protectn Sfps-inAipe tan Areas Relative Effects of Alternative -and revision of land management plans. Alternative No. 'Issue No. 8-(Publc Parfctpa on) Relative Effects Impacts of alternatives on I 4 a 17 of Altematives '0, Planning process ' 1 5 5 4 5 Per acre harvest costs_ _ _ No Change-Ir.Increas-...ncrease ...... No chang Increase. Alternative No. Amenity values a ______NoChange. Increasem ,Incease ..iNo Change.;Increae. Impacts of alternatives on 1 4 6 8 Timber supply 4 .1 . 2 2 1 2 Wildlife end Tlsherleshabitat ...... ;No Change - Increase..... Increase...... No Change-.. Increase. Planning process'...... 2 4 4- 5 Publics' awareness and - 'Incteasing conmplexltylona-scelo o,(1)-to'(5). understanding . 2 4 5 5 Public access to the decision 4qettive to current situation. 'Water and scenic quality. process-...... 4 4 3 5 'Retstiveto current situation on a zale of (0) nq reduction to (3) most reducton.

Increasing complexy.onascaleof (1) to (5). "V.-Evaluation of1he Alternatives - almost continuously throughout the. 2Increasinglmprovement on a scale of (1) to (5). Yarious approaches for planning, development of the proposed Issue No. -9-Managementof numerous definitions-of terms, and a regulations. The following is an, WildernessandDisposition of Roadiess variety of alternativd descriptions and evaluation of how the alternative sets of Areas. How often and to what-extent language foramanagement standards and regulations meet the evaluation criteria shalwilderness valuesbe considered? - guidelines were analyzed and evaluated described-in Section-111., At issue is ihe question of whether Between Alternative Evaluation, undeveloped areas should be considered forvwilderness during each major plan Alternative No. revision if they are, still-ifi Ban essentially Selection criteria L.- 1 32 33 4 6 7 0 natural state, and should maximum Effectiveness of meeting, congressional ntent on I . NFMA 1 levels of -use be deferred through 3 2 ,2 4, 4 3 4 Basis in technical andsdentifc prmcIP1 3 2 3 5 4 5 4 regulations? Acceptableto publk -. -1 2 1 4 9 4. 6 Issue No. 9.-(WdemessManagement) Relative RPA proram goals Amenity values t . - - 2 3 2 4 5- 4 5 Effects of Alternatives irnber supply • 3 1 5 -2 -2 4 2 Confornty with executIve-order #12044 concern- Ing simplicity-carity of the'.requlationseconomic Alternative No. burden =.- 3/2 3/5 3/2 2/3 4/3 '4/2 6/3 4 Impacts of alternatives on 1 4 6 a Establishing accountability - . ; 2 4 2 '4 4 4 4 Capability to Implementt .... • 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 Disposition of RARE II area '. No Yes No No vTeexb1ity provided 4 2- 5 4 3 4 - 3 Use of areas...... - 2 4 4 4 S fRaigs-are-on-a scale-of (1)'low toj(5) high Itlerms -ofhow the alternative regulation ^Ste meet the critoda listed, See 'To consider inland and resource management plan Section-Il-for-a-fuU.descipoWnof-eachcritera. before 1985. 2Higher.numberindlcates-greaterturdon. 'Prcea, for determining potentials of areas and 'Altrnatives,2 and 3 concern only Lands Not Suited for Timber Production and Harvestsche~UD& Fof evaluationpur- lItatons to be placed on Iem is from (1) discretionary and poses those language sets were substituted for the corresponding Ian~uge inAlternative I thus providing a complete roguilation unspecified t6 (5] required and specific. set to evaluate. -Expressed in termsof the relative degree of erwvronmental protectionadequacy. 'Effect on Supply from (I) potential reduction to (5) potential Increase.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53952 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53953

Rationalefor Rating Alternatives and and scientific recommendations. The in the Preferred Alternative, though for the Selection of the Preferred August 31, 1978 draft, and the some limits are set. The detail and Alternative: The alternative planning Environmental and Timber groups' clarity of requirements mandated in the processes and languages sets described proposals do not contain the same level Preferred Alternative should, however, to address the central issues have been of prescribed precision as the other two result in more complete, balanced analyzed and evaluated in this versions because they deal only with consideration for environmental statement. The NFMA established two specific issues. There was wide protection during the land management bounds within which to develop the variation in the public comments on the planning process, and therefore, more regulations. It required that a Committee August draft and the DEIS. Issues raised adequately provide for the supply of of Scientists assist in the development by the public were also reviewed by the amenities than other alternatives. of guidelines and procedurs. By utilizing Committee of Scientists. Timber Supply and Other this prescribed method, including It is possible, as the state of the art Commodities: Many of the provisions of provisions for publicparticiaption, the evolves in such areas as resource NFMA may directly effect some RPA range of alternatives for consideration valuation, diversity measurements, etc., program goals such as timber supply; narrowed to the preferred alternative that direction will have to be modified others such as diversity and riparian proposed for adoption. This set of to accommodate new techniques and provisions can indirectly effect regulations appears in the Appendix of approaches. protection and/or production costs of this FEIS. Acceptability to the Public:In most commodity goals. Meeting CongressionalIntent on evaluating public reaction to alternative Some issues assessed affect RPA. NFMA: NFMA presents congressional regulations, more than 7,000 separate timber and other commodity goals in policy concerning the balance between comments, as well as the texts of different ways. For example, the protection of the environment and the specific proposals from the general riparian issue can affect the land base need to provide adequate supplies of public, Environmental, Timber. and available for grazing domestic livestock wood products. With this policy other Industrial groups, were reviewed and for producing timber. The lands not direction, Congress endorsed the (5323 on the first draft, 1581 on the suited issue can affect the land base concept that silvicultural prescription DEIS). In addition, the Committee of available for timber harvesting. Others, should be determined by the Scientists' report proposals were the size of openings for example, may professional resource manager, not the examined in depth. All of the above influence wildlife habitat, or the legislator. Congress expects, however, information was used in alternative conversion of non-commercial forest that the regulations called for in NFMA evaluation. While none of the lands to production of wildlife and will provide better controls on alternative regulation sets will be domestic livestock forage. Opening size management planning and acceptable to all interested groups, the affects the cost of harvesting timber decisionmaking and that these controls interdisciplinary team concludes that because marginal timber from smaller will be influenced by interdisciplinary the Preferred Alternative incorporates areas may be excluded from harvesting. planning, and substantial public the most acceptable version to all Thus the supply could be reduced, participation throughout the planning publics. This version describes in more incurring higher prices. process. specific language the actions to be taken The August 31,1978, version provided The August 31, 1978 draft regulations by the Forest Service during the land more discretion to the land manager in met the intent of NFMA, but provided management planning process. This selection and use of guidelines and more discretion in the selection and use factor, coupled with the degree of criteria that affect the supply of goods of guidelines and standards governing environmental protection it affords, and services that flow from the National . management activities. The Preferred weighed heavily in identifying Forest System lands. Most of the other Alternative represents a sensible Alternative 8 as the Preferred alternatives reduce that discretion and compromise between discretionary Alternative. consequently are expected to reduce management and management by Achievement of RPA Program Goals commodity supply to varying degrees or inflexible rules. The alternative retains increase the cost of maintaining or the option for more explicit management Amenities: Public concern about increasing the supply of these affected controls and direction if future environmental protection helped secure resources. Overall RPA Program management under the proposed passage of the National Forest commodity goals can be achieved with regulations fails to meet congressional Management Act. The alternatives the Preferred Alternative through more expectations. considered ranged from considerable intensive management of the National Basis in Technical and Scientific flexibility at the national forest level in Forest System. Principles:There are substantial the August 31,1978 version, to a more Conformity with Executive OrderNo. differences of opinion on many of the detailed approach to environmental 12044: Executive Order No. 12044 directs issues for which direction is provided in protection proposed by the Committee that regulations prepared be as simple the alternative regulations. Congress, of Scientists. Some of the key elements and as clear as possible. An evaluation recognizing these differejces, directed between alternatives were size of of alternative language sets for the Secretary to appoint a Committee of openings, riparian area protection, regulations display a considerable range Scientists for advice in the preparation determination of lands not suited for from simple to complex descriptions of of these regulations. The timber management, diversity, public direction and intent. The August 31,1978 interdisciplinary team that prepared this participation, coordination with other version of the regulations reflects a statement believes that the Committee planning units and interdisciplinary rather informal process-oriented of Scientists' version of teams. approach while other versions, such as the regulations The August represents the state of the art in 31,1978 regulations the Committee of Scientists and the provided considerable discretion in technical and scientific areas. In most Preferred Alternative are more explicit. instances, the Preferred Alternative is riparian area protection, and provisions While the President's Executive Order based upon the Committee's technical for diversity. Discretion is also provided prescribes simplicity and a reduction ir implementation and economic burdr-s, .

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53953 1979 53954 Federal Register / Vol. 44, :No. "1,81 :/ M~onday, September 17, 1979 ./ Rules and Regulations 53954 Federal 'Register / Vol. 44,No18 MndySetme17199.RusadReltis it also requires the agency to be regulatins nor the Timber Groups' Alterntive does not Include a national responsive to public commenL The proposal wouldsignificantly-affect biological growth minimum for timber Interdisciplinary. team found these two either of these factors. The harvest, it-does include a number of directives in conflict because the -public, Environmental Groups' alternative detailed standards including maximum through 'their comments, addressed the would-require more detailed economic size for openings created by cutting; need for regulations to provide more evaluation for lands not suitable for riparian protectionarea more detailed specific and prescriptive language. timber-harvest,.and ajmoredetailed, requirements for coordination, public The interdisciplinary team carrying time-consuming procedure for participation, diversity and forest type out this -evaluationfelt thfatthe need to departures. The Environmental Groups' conversionsz wilderness management respondto public commentwas an alternative is,therefore, considered to and roadless area evaluation. As a impprtant factor. As a result, ma1 be somewhat more demanding than the result of-these requirements, the alternatives tend to be slightly August 31, 1978 draft and Timber Preferred Alternative provides inflationary because of their overall Groups' -proposal.The .Committee of compromise flexibility. tendency to increase costs to manage Scientists alternative is quite demanding Vii. Consultation with others the National Forest System. as :aT-esilt of:suggested revisions to the Accountability,The xegulations must interdisciplinary teim approach, Opportunities for public involvement clearly state -who is responsible for economic analysis requirements, in the development of the regulationo certain actions, the mature and-extent-of diversity provisions, public paficipation have been made available beginning responsibilities delegated, and clearly. requirements, coordination, and with the enactment of the NFMA in describethe appeal mechanisms in required riparian areas.'Public 1976. The Work Plan Outline was made terms of substance and procedures. comments indicate the -needfor mbre available on March 5, 1977. It Identified Relative to the :other alternatives, the expanded interdisciplinarytteams,_ the tasks to be completed in the August 31, 1978 draft regulations are greater public participation and development of the regulations Including considered to be weak in this respect. coordination,.more detailed:economic the opportunity forpublic participation The principal reasons for this-low analysis, and longer time limits for in thd effort. ranking are: 9 A Committee of Scientists (see 1. August 31, 97,draftimplies public Teview:of plans."The public Appendix D) was appointed by the that a comnients on'the firsldraft -and the bEIS great manydecisions will be made Secretary of Agriculture In response to were somewhat less demanding than the Section 6(h) of the Act, which charged during the regional planning process, but Committee of Scientists' alternative, -but does not specifywhat .the regional plan the Committee to "provide scientific and more demanding than the August 31, technical advice and counsel op is, or how it will bedone, or -who is 1978 environmental lor-timber groups' responsible for it. proposed guidelines andprocedures to . proposals. 'Since the Preferred assure that an effective interdisciplinary 2. Draft does not clearly-define the Alterative largely-reflects the role and responsibility-of the approach is proposed and adopted." interdisciplinary leam. Committee of Scientist -proposals, 'the However, the Secretary broadened this 3. With the exception of the regional 'feasibility of;this ilternativels charter to include advice and counsel on planning shortcoming, the -appeal consicdered to'be the'same as for the all -parts of Section,6,of the Act. The procedures are adequate. , Com-ittee ol Scientists alternative. Committee met many times in various The Environmental Gioups' proposal Flexibility: Flexibility is related-to the locations !(see Appendix'C). ts work addresses accountability in the degree iowhich regdlaitions permit site- was conducted in three phases. The first departures-issue. Both the Chief-arid' specific-management discretion and w;as to work with Forest Service Secretary are ddentified as responsible allowance for exceptional .. personnel to consider and prepare for-approving-departures. There is, circumstances.'Both the August31, 1978 language'for the regulations. This 'phase therefore, a high degree of accoutability draft and the Timber Groups' terminated-upon publication of he draft forthis issue. The Timber Groups' alternatives are considered to'be highly regulations 'which appeared in the alternative does not -alter the draft with flexible, especially with regard to August 31, 1978 Federal 'Register.The respect to this point. The Committee.of openings created by nutting, biological second phase of the'Committee's work Scientists' proposals add specifications growth minimums for tiniber, and was to evaluate the draft regulations and requirements for regional planning, prote'tion standards for.streams and- and to-prepare-a reportto the Secratary. interdisciplinary approach and. lakes. The Environmental Groups' This phase was completed when'the clarifyig~details to the appeals'process. alternativeh lighlyinflexible with. Committee submitted its repo't lorthe This alternative is considered to possess regard to.minimum biological growth Secretary on February 22, 1979.'Tho last a higher egreeof accountability than standards. The Committhe of Scientists phase -was completed with he does the August 31, 197,8draft or the proposal would result in somewhat less submission of the'Committee's arepot on Timber.Groups' proposals. Thepublic flexibility than he -draft, primarilyas-a the DEIS Prefered Alternative comments stressed -theneed for more result of the .riparian area requirements. Regulations,'The first Teport, 'togather details on regional planning and-the The Committee'sproposals to determine with -the Committee's proposed interdisciplinary approach. Suggested size opening standardsat the xegional regulations, is the basis 'for-the revisions were similar to those .of the level-are identical to those-atf the August Committee-of Scientists Alternative ,CommitteeofScientists' alternative. The 31, 1978 draft.Many.publiccomments discussed in;theFEIS,'The second report Preferred Alternatiye hasincorporated were-directed .toward site specific was considered as-partof'the entire the concerns'voiced by fthe Committee -of concerns and were, therefore, highly- public comment record on the'DEIS. Scientists and the .public comments. inflexible when considered from the The public, (State, local officials, Capabilityj.to mplement. The viewpoint pf national regulaions. - interest group representatives -nd evaluation of feasibility is related.,to Alternati=es B, 7, and8 are based others) was given the opportunity'to personnel and-skill reguirements, -and primarily upon -the revisions ,suggested attend the Committee Of Scientists the time required to undertake -and by the.Committee of-Scientists and the meetings, and frequently participated in complete planning actions:specified. concerns voicea throughout the public the'discussions. The complete minutes Neither the August 31, 1978 draft comments. While the Preferred - of all these meetings are available for

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53954 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53955

review in the Forest Service published in the Federal Register, VoL Headquarters in Washington. D.C. Since Headquarters, Land Management 40, No. 88. May 4.1979. the total submission is so voluminous, it Planning. Room A-021, South Agriculture Since publication of the DEIS, another is impractical tareproduce it in the Building, 12th ind Independence Ave. 245 letters and responses have been FEIS.The substantive comment is. S.W., Washington, D.C., and in the ieceived containing 1581 distinct therefore, presented below in summary Library of Congress, and in Forest comments. All have been analyzed and form, organized by section Service Regional Office headquarters. considered, including the Committee of corresponding to the organizationof the The public was also given the Scientists' comments on the DEIS proposed regulations. ie. 219.1.219.2. opportunity to attend other meetings Preferred Alternative, during the etc. convened especially to obtain comments -preparation of the FETS and the final on the August31, 1978 draft regulations. regulations identified in the FEIS as the Summary of Comments by Section The proceedings of those meetings were selected Alternative. 219.1 Purpose published and are also available for All commentors on the DEIS will be review at Forest Service headquarters. furnished a copy of the EIS. Comments relating to this section of The Forest Service received 737 letters the draft regulations concentrated on the Summary of Public Comment Received need to include cultural as well as containing 5,373 identifiable comments on the concerning the August 31, 1978 draft DEIS Dated May 4,1979 natural resources and for giving regulations. These letters and comments Appendix "A" contains the list of consideration to renewable as well as are available for review in Forest individuals and organizations who non-renewable resources. A number of Service Headquarters along with the submitted comments on the DEIS and commenters praised planning report and its summary of the public related material which accompanied it coordination requirements in this comment analysis. As a consequence of in the Federal Register, May 4, 1979. section. this public involvement, it was decided There were 245 submissions which 219.2 Scope andApplicabilty to revise the regulations and re-issue contained 1581 distinct comments. Of It was suggested that the term them-accompaniid by a draft this total, about 1400 comments were* "special area environmental impact statemenL The issue oriented, that is, were either authorities- be defined. comments, along with the suggestions specific to the DEIS Draft Regulations or 219.3 Defintions received through meetings open to the to the issues presented, discussed, and public, the work of the Committee of evaluated in the DEIS. The distribution Almost every term received comment; Scientists. and the technical reports of these comments by source, by section however, the majority of response dealt with the differentiation prepared by the Forest Service staff, of the regulations [preferred alternative "guidelines" between formed the basis of the alternatives in the DEIS), and by other categories is and "standards"; discussed in the DEIS which was shown in the following table: clarification of "diversity"; and the definition of "capability". Several Distributoniof Pub Commert on the DEIS and Related Material by Source and Comment Category respondents questioned the definition or "Responsible Forest Service official". Type Ofrespondent 219.4 PlanningLevels Couentcategory To' lad~idual Oman:3oa Govagesc n Food The majority of comments centered on the process for developing and selecting Reguilaors the RPA Program -and the relationships 219 Prpose. 4 13 8 31 between the Program and the various 2192 Scope andappoizc"ty_ 2 3 1 1 7 219.3 .Deiions _ _9 36 7 33 85 levels of planning. The thrust of most 219.4 1>lanrrng . . . 6 26 6 29 67 comments was that the draft regulations 219.5 Regional and forest planning process. 24 e2 9 W0 161 219S interdsci8nary approach 9 16 4 11 40 should more clearly define these 219,7 Ptft.parfipaon 58 45 11 11 125 relationships. 219.8 Coorrinaliof publc planni eftforts 4 12 7 7 30 2199 Regional pannigrpoaedu. . 5 14 7 29 56 219.5 PJaningCritiera 219.10 PRenalplarning act.on - 14 39 11 1 82 219.11 Ferplar ,wprocedkre 15 26 2 33 78 Numerous comments were received 219.12 Foes;(axiN actons - 76 181 20 48 _VW 219.13 Umgenent standards and uide- concerning the relationship between the kes 102 129 31 41 3M interdisciplinary team and "the 219.14 Research_ 1 I 2 0 4 219.15 tevisoofesgu aDtons 1 4 3 0 a responsible Forest Service official." The 219.16 ?snWonpieod 0 4 0 4 need to clarify the definition of "responsible official" was noted. Subtotal ,,,a. . 330 613 Many 138 W85 1.448 comments dealt with specific criteria Introductorsy natcia0 inFlEDMAL Raewrcaof listed in the draft regulations: ayw4.197 0 2 0' 0 2 Economic analysis criteria-Many Ues- 8 89 14 0 or Co"ntte ef S a report 1 5 1 0 7 commentors pointed out that the Ceea.Jttee of Sanpstspoposed Teguations I 8 0 0 7 No section_16 economic analysis criteria shoulibe 6 4 2 29 established as soon as possible. Subtotalovar _ 26 88 19 2 13:5 Data inventory-Most of these Grandse.I 358 701 157 387 1.581 comments centered around the determination of adequacy of the data. data collection procedures, The majority of comments received detailed, and complex. All were compatability requirements lo obtain were in letter form. Most of the reviewed, analyzed, and considered in uniformity among comments were forests, and 1he need specific and succinct. the preparation of the FETS. to include criteria for coordination and and addressed only a few concerns, but All comments received are available cooperation with several were, by other agencies for data comparison lengthy. for review at Forest Service collection. storage, and evaluation.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53955 1979 53956 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Analysis of the management 219.j RegionalPlanning Proteduie biological growth standard be ' situation-it was suggested that the Several comnmenters suggested that established to use in the determination term "society" be clarified. Numerous the proposed regulations do not of lands suitable for timber. It was commenters pointed out the problems adequately deal with visual resources or suggested that 50 cubic feet per acre per, associated with estimating "demand". unquantified environmental amienities. year might be an appropriate standard. Formulation of alternatives. The Others were concerned that timber Other connents discussed potenlial not required "No Change" alternative was. problems associated with record of harvesting on steep slopes was considered meaningless by most decision, the transition period between specifically prohibited. Many commenters. Concernabout using cost forest plans developed prior to-regional commenters objected to the provision effectiveness asa criteria for plans, and the standards for determining that lands would be classified as formulating alternatives was also "signficiant deviation" between regional unsuitable if, based on multiple-use expressed. , " - I ., plans and the national piogram funding objectives, the land was suitable for Estimated effects of alternatives- or implementation. resource uses that would preclude Most coiments were related to timber production. Numerous problems inherent in estimating benefits 219.10 "Criteriafor RegioialPlonning commenters recommended that the and coists. Suggestions were'made for Actions regulations clearly state that benefits must exceed costs in order for lands to additional effects to be measured such Many commenters noted that the list - as the impact of the plar oh'the of managementconcerns'did not include be suitable for timber production, exploration and development of mineral wilderness considerations, meeting the Several comments raised the question of resources. A number of commenters RPA program, or visual 6r inieral restocking of timber lands. The, suggested that unconstrained'single proposed regulations state that lands resource.concerns. It was suggested that Will be considered resource outputs (resource outputs these be included. A number of suitable for timber ignoring other multiple-use ' .... production if there is "assurance that commenters advocated the - , such lands can be adequately consideration) and multiple-use outputs "establishment of a definite minimum per restocked of each atlernative should be compared. within 5 years." There was some acre growth figure for timber harvesting. speculation as to the exact meaning of 219.6 Interdisciplinpiy'Approach A minimum of fifty cubic feet pOr'acre this provision. It was suggested that this per year was mentioned most often. lanuage be clarified, Responses on this section of the Response It was to the clearcut size issue was reconmended that "direct benefits" not regulations emphasizbd the need-to. mixed. In addition to pro and'con , establish operating procedures; and to -be measured in terms of "future comnients regarding the level (national stumpage prices", but rather, benefits spell out more fully the authority and or regional) at which size limits should the function of the Interdiciplinary , 'should be net receipts on returns to the be set, there were a number of treasury. Team, including'hcw involvement of comments regarding the actuil size state' and local agencies will be The treatment of the departures issue 'limits themselves. Several'commentS was sharply criticized. It was suggested' imcorporated. 'Oier comments dealt stated that the draft regulations implied with the 'need to Add other'disciplines repeatedly thatthe justifications shown that little o no new data would be " for departures were inappropriate and and private citizenstd the team. Some gathered and asked for clarfidation of commenters suggested that private perhaps illegal. Most commenters this point. There was some confusion as asserted that departures may be sector contract consulting should be to whether or not regional-planning emphasized in the regulations. considered only to the meet multiplo-use came before forest planning. objecties of a plan. 219.7 Publicparticipation. 219.11 -ForestPlanning Procedures Some 6ommenters on the wilderness The majority of comments on this planning provisions of this section Several commenters expressed the suggested that the exclusion of RARE II section of the draft regflations dealt opinion that the,"forest plan content" with the proposed changes in the non-wilderness lands from the first should require detailed.maps of the forest plans was inappropriate. Some appeals process. Almost all commenters planning area including existing disagreed with these proposed changes. - felt that there was a need to specifically resources and existing and planned consider areas which were not Numerous suggestions were received on activities. Comments on documentation methods of public involvement and' inventoried during RARE II. There were requirements indicated a concern that a number of comments criticizing the notification. The use of the'term "to 'the flexibility of line officers would be' extent possible" was questioned. Most absence of mineral exploration and seriously and adversely effected by development considerations from this comments suggested that this w6as hav',ng to document and justify every inappropriate and should be eliminated ,section, A nuipber of commenters action. The use of the term "significant expressed their agreement and support in this context. Many commenters felt change" in the discussion of forest plan that '15 days public notice for public of the proposed regulations. ' amendments andrevisions was Comments on the fish and wildlife participation activities for forest level ,questioned by several commenters. It provisions planning activities was 'inadequate. of this section'were directed was suggested that additional clarfiying mainly toward questions regarding 219.8 Coordinationof PublicPlanning language be included for this point. indicator species. Many commenters Efforts 219.12 Criteriafor Forest Planning suggested that the language he clarfied to insure The majority of comments Actions that invertebrates may be used expressed as indicator species. A number of agreement with thig section of the diaft Approximately 20 percent of all. regulations; however, respondents agreed with the provision some commenters" comments receiyed dealt with this for using state lists for threatened and did point out that state and local section of the proposed regulations. endangered coordination plants and animal species in the easteinUriited Most of these were directed to two- as a -basis for identifying indicator States would be extremely'diffi6ult and issues:"lands not suitable for timber" species. time consuming because of the greater and "departures." Many commenters Most of the comments recqived number of state and local agencies. recommended that a national ininmuih' regarding mineral exploration and

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53956 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53957 development weire sharply critical of the The types of comments received published in the Federal Register. VoL proposed regulations. The Major concerning the riparian protection strips 43, No. 170. and onthe DEIS and criticism was that the proposed rules did were similar to those dealing with the Preferred Alternative (Regulations) not adequately insure that these clearcut size issue. That is, comments published in the Federal Register. Vol. considerations would be given were about equally divided pro and con, 44. No. 88, May 4,1979. appropriate weighting in the actual and most were either strongly in favor Appendix B: PlanningProcess Systems decision process. Similar criticisms were or strongly opposed. Several Considered. made concerning the treatment of commenters expressed the opinion that Appendix C: Dates and locations of rangeland -esources, recreation, soil and the 100 foot strip could be interpreted as Committee Meetings, and other Public water, and visual resources. a maximum distance and-suggested that Meetings. the language be clarified to clearly Appendix D: Names and Affiliations of 219.13 Man agementStandardsand indicate that it was not the maximum. It the Committee of Scientists appointed Guidelines was suggested that the riparian buffers by the Secretary as requiredander Approximately .20 percent of all should include seasonal as well as NFMA. Section 6(h). comments received dealt with this perennial streams. Appendix E. Supplementary Final section of the proposed regulations. Numerous commenters responded to Report of the Committee of Scientists. Most of the comments on this section the diversity provisions of this section. Appendix F: Table of Contents and were concerned with two issues: While most commenters appeared to index for final regulations. For Maximum size limits for tree openings agree with the intent of this provision, purposes of the Federal Register the and riparian protection strips. The large some concern was expressed regarding regulations follow the Appendix. the use of the term 'desirable" plant and number of comments received on these Appendix A issues indicate that they continue to be animal species. The-meaning of the the most controversial issues raised by word "desirable" in this context was Everyone who commented on the the proposed regulations. questioned. Several commenters who August draft received a copy of'heiDEIS The comments on clearcut size are appeared to agree with the diversity and relate materiaL The attached list about evenly divided between those provisions also warned that the indicates those who commentedon the who oppose the national limits language used might result in a August 31,1978 draft and the DEIS and established in the proposed regulations substantial additional work burden for related material. The lattergroup. those and those who are in favor of these the Forest Service as well as limiting who commented or otherwise requested limits. The most frequent criticism management flexibility. There -were material in the May 4,1979 Federal raised by those who opposed the many comments suggesting that the Register, are indicated by an asterisk national limits was that there was little diversity provisions should be Federal/State/Local Govemment or no justification established for the strengthened. 100-, 60-, and 40-acre limits. This was Other comments included suggestions FederalGovernment considered to be a major omission, to require consideration of fuel and Agriculture. U.S.Dept. of especiallyin view of the Committee of energy requirements in the planning 'Soil Conservation Soil. Box 2007 Scientists' recommendation against process, rangeland and range use, and Albuquerque. NM 8103. setting national limits of any kind. timber removal on steep slopes. The 10- 'Soil Conservation Service. 3041L xthStreet, Almost all of those apposed to these year maximum time for re-establishing Room 345. Boise. ID 13702. national size limits snggested that the vegetative cover disturbed by temporary Commerce. U.S. Dept. of Committee of Scientists' roads was considered to be too lengthly. National Oceanic &Atmospheric Adm.. recommendations be adopted in the 219.14 Research National Marine Fisheries Service, FT, Washington. D.C. 20235 final regulations. A number of There were relatively fewcomments commenters opposed the national limits National Oceanic &Atmospheric Admin.. on thegrounds that the maximum sizes on this section of the regulations. Northeast Region, Fisheries Management Several commenters expressed concern Operations Br. Gloucester, MA m930. allowed were too large. It was the regulations do not specifically 'Council on Environmental Quality,72z frequently suggested that maximum size identify basic research as a valid and Jackson Place NW.. Washington. D.C. for all areas be set as 40 acres or equal use of the NFS. 20000. smaller. Several commenters were Environmental Protection Agency. Office or concerned that if the size limits -were set 219.15 Revision of Regulations Federal Activities (A-104), Washington, nationally, then all clearcuts would tend The recommendation was made that D.C. 20460. to'be the maximum size allowed. Some all revisions to the regulations be Interior. U.S. Dept. of the asserted that the 40-acre size limit for accompanied by an Environmental *Ofice of the Secretary the east and south would result in Impact Statement. It was agreed that the Bureau of Land Manaaement greatly xeduced future timber volumes 5-year review interval of the regulations 'Bureau of Mines available for sale. The 100-acre size was appropriate. Bureau of Reclamation limit for the Alaska region received severe riticism. It was suggested that 219.16 TransitionPe-riod Office of Environmental Project Review US. Fish &Wildlife Service the limits should be at least 160 acres for There were few comments on this HCRS, Federal Lands Planning Alaska. It should be reiterated that section of the regulations. One Heritage Conservation &Recreation Service, public comment -on this issue was rather commenter suggested that clarifying Washington. D.C. 20243 evenly divided between those who language be added to further explain the *Bureau of Land Management 36 E. South opposed the draft language and those process to be used during the transition Temple, Salt Lake City. uT 84111. .who Were in agreement. Generally. period. Transportation. US. Dept of those who expressed agreement gave VUL Appendix Index Federal Highway Administration. their unqualifimd support and frequently Washington, D.C. 200. praised the treatment of this issue in the Appendix A:Listof Commentors of the Honorable Dale Bumpers, UnltedStates proposed regulations. August 31,1978-Draft Regulations Senate. Washington. D.C. 20510.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53957 1979 53958 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Council of State Governments, P.O. Box Boating Industry Association (Jeff W. Honorable Thomas S.Foley, House of 1l1 Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. 11910, Lexington. KY 40578. Napier), I N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Honorable Jim Weaver, House of Denver Water.Dept.,. 1600 W. 12th Avenue, 60611. Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. Denver, CO 80254: Bohemia' Inc., P.O'. Box 202 ,Grass Valley, The Library of Congress, Environment and East Central Planning &'Dev. Region, Chief/ CA 95045. Natural Resources, Congressional Research Comprehensive Studies Div., P.O. Box 930, Booker Associates, Inc. (Peter F. Jackson), 343 Service, Washington, D.C. 20540. Siginaw, MI 48606. • Waller Avenue, Lexington, KY 40504. Smithsonian Institute Bldg. Wilson Center Elko County Manger; Elko County Boyd Lumber Corp. (Butch Koykka), P.O, Box (Samuel Hays), Washington, D.C. 20560. Courthouse, Elko, NV 89801. 112, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284, Western States Legislator, Forestry Task Brady, Blackwell Associates, P.C. (Larry State abd Local Government Force, 1107 9th St., Suite 614, Sacramento, Resentreter), 520 E. 18th, Cheyenne, WY Alaska, State of ,- CA 95814. 82001. Plywood Corporation (Robert L. .Office of the Goverhor,.Division of Policy Barbara Tucker, State of Connecticut Senate, Brookings Pouch AD, State Capitol, Hartford, CT 06615. Rogers), P.O. Box 820, Brooklngs, OR 07415. Development &Planning, Co. (John C, Juneau, AK 99811. Senator Bbb Lessard, Senate District 3, State Brown-Bledsoe Lumber Capitol, Rm 24H, St. Paul, MN 55155. Baskerville, Jr.), P.O. Box 10090, Arizona, State of Senator Ivan M. Matheson, Utah State Greensboro, NC 27404, State Land Dept., Conservation Division, 1624 Sqnate, Salt Lake City, UT 84114. Brunswick Pulp Land Co. (C. H. Martin), P.O. W. Adams, Phobnix, AZ 85007. Box 860, Brunswick, GA 31520.' Organizations Colorado, State of Burlington Northern (S,G. Merryman), 050 A. C. Dutton Lumber Corp. (Arthur D. Central Bldg., Seattle, WA 98104, Dept. of Natural Resohrces, 1313 Sherman St., Dutton), 12 Raymond Avenue, Burrill Lumber Co. (Daniel E. Goltz), P.O. Box Rm 718, Denver, CO 80203. 220,MaMdford, OR 97501. Division of Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 ' *Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska Loggers Association (Donald A. Bell), Buse Timber & Sales, Inc. (Ron Smith), 3812 Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO AK 28th Place, N.E., Marysville, WA 0270. 80216. 111 Stedman, Suite 200, Ketchikan, 99901. California Assoc. of 4WD Clubs, Inc. (Ed Florida, State of Alaska Lumber &Pulp Co., Inc. (J.A. Dunkley), P.O. Box 609, Sacramento, CA Florida Game &Fresh Water Fish Comm., 620 Rynearson), P.O. Box 1050, Sitka, AK 99835. 95803. S. Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32304. Alaska Women in Timber (Helen Finney), 111 California Trout (Herbert I.loseph), 1510 Stedman Street. Ketchikan, AK 99901. Napa Street, Vallejo, CA 94590. Georgia, State of Canal Wood Corporation (N. V. *Department of Natural Resources,-270 Allied Timiber Company (Don Shalope], 2300 Southwest 1st Ave., Portland, OR 97201. Chamberlain), P.O. Box 308, Chester, SC Washington St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30334. Alpine Lakes Protection Society (Donald 29706. Idaho, State of Parks], 3127 181st Avd., NE, Redmond, WA *Cascade'Holistic Economic Consultants Dept. of Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut Street, 98052. (Randal O'Toole), P.O. Box 3479, Eugene, Boise, ID 83707. *AMAX (Stanley Dempsey), 13949 W. Colfax OR 97403. Ave., Bldg. #1, Golden, CO 80401. Central lbascades Conservation Council Louisiana, State of American Forestry Association (Richard (Tony George], P.O. Box 731, Salam, OR Wildlife and Fisheries Comm., 400 Royal Pardo), 1319 18th St., NW, Washington, 97308. Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. D.C. 20036. Chaco Energy Co. (J. W. Delchmann), P.O. Michigan, State of Americin Hardwood Industries, Inc. (Charles Box 1088, Albuquerque, NM 87103, Hamlin), Sixth Avenue Union City, PA Champion International Corp. (Gordon Chamber of Commerce, Natural Resources J. 50R. 16438. Crupper), P.O. Box 1208, Salmon, ID 03407. Programs, 501 S. Capitol Ave., Suite *American Indian Law Center, Inc. (Vicky Champion Timberlands (L Heist), I Lansing, MI 48933. Santana), 1117 Stanford, NE, Albuquerque, Landmark Square, Stanford, CT 00921. Montana, State of NM 87196. (Richard A. Sirken), 405 Norway Street, Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Division, American Petroleum Institute (C._T. Saw yer & Norway, MI 49870. , Helena, MT 59601. Wilson M. Laird), 2101 L Street, NW, Chemeketans (W. B. Eubanks), 3601/2 State Nevada, State of Washington, D.C. 20037. Street, Salem, OR 97301. American Plywood Association (M. J. Chevron, USA, Inc. (L C. Solleau Il], 675 Governor's Office of Planning Cqordination, Kfiehne), P.O; Box 2277, Tacoma, WA Market Street, San Francisco, CA 04105. Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89710. 98401. *Citles Service Company (Catherine Perman), Dept. of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 10678, *Animal Protection Institute of America Box 300, Tulsa, OK 74102. Reno, NV 89510. (Belton Mouras &Richard Spotts], 5894 Citizen's Committee to Save Our Public New Mexico, State of South Land Park Drive, P.O. Box 22505, Lands (Ellen Drell), P.O. Box 1471, Willta, *Dept. of Natural Resources. Santa Fe. NM Sacramento, CA 95822.. CA 95490. 87503. Appalachian Hardwood Manageient, Inc. Citizens for N. Idaho Wilderness (John (James L Grundy), P.O. B6x 427. High Adams), Route 2, Culdesac, ID 83524, Oregon, State of Point NC 27261. Clearwater Forest Industries (Robert H. Dept. of Forestryi Office of State Forester, Appalachian Mountain Club (Sara H. Krogh), P.O:Box 340, Kooskia, ID 83539, 2600 State Street, Salem, OR 97310. Surgenor), 5 Joy Street. Bostdn,MA 02108. Colorado Mining Association (David R. Cole), Utah, State of Arcata Redwood (Terence L.Ross), P.O. Box 330 Denver Hilton Office Bldg., 1515 218, Arcata, CA 95521. Cleveland Place, Denver, CO 80202. *Office -ofthe Governor, Salt Lake City, UT , Arroyo Grande,Resource Conserv. Dist. Columbia Audubon Society (Charles H. 84114. Arroyo Eastman), 4805 Barber Street, Columbia, SC 118 State Capitol, (William L Denneen), P.O. Box 548, State Planning Coordinator, Grande, CA 93420. 29203. Salt Lake City, UT 84114. Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. (Jay M. Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Dan Meyer), P.O. Washington, State of - Caudill), Box 902,5, Aspen, CO 81611. Box 50,'Wiscohsin Rapids, WI 64494. Office of the Governor, Legislative Bldg., *Atlantic Richfield Company (J.R. Mitchell & ContinentalrForest Industries Ui.0. Cantrell), Olympia, WA 98504. Clarie Mosley), 555 17th Street, Denver, CO P.O. Box 8969, Savannah, GA 31402. Dept. of Game. Dept. of Natural Resources, 81611. Day Mines, Inc. (Warren A. Cohen), PO. Box .600 North Capitol Way, Olympia, WA Basin Electric'-Power Corp. (Clarence A. 1010, Wallace, ID 83873. 98504. Bind), 1717 E. Interstate Ave., Bismark, ND Defenders of Wildlife (Sara Polenick), 0101 Buncombe County Soil &Water Conservation 58501. Griffin Lane, Medford, OR 97501. District, P.O. Box 2836, Asheville, NC Bell-Gates Lumber Corp. (Jerrol A. Gates), *Pesigning With Nature R. L.Elkum), Box 28802. Jeffersonville, VT 05464.' '527, Moose Lake, MN 55767.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53958 1979 .Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53959

Diamond Internatonal Corp. (Roger A. Race). (Margie Ann Gibson] Northwest Office. 4512 lzaak Walton League of America (Loren New York Woodlands Dept., Plattsburgh. University Way, NE., Seattle. WA 98105. Hughes &Bill Fleischman) (Union County NY 12901. Friends of Wildlife (Beula Edmiston). 14 W. Chapter), LaGrande. OR 97850. - DuPage Audubon Society (Lisa Zebrowskij, Markland Dr.,'Monterey Park. CA 91754. J. Gibson Mcllvain Co. Route 7, White 27 W. 722 Elm Drive, West Chicago, IL Marsh, MD 2116z. 60185. Greater Snake River Land Use Congress (Bill James W. Sewall Co. (Robert B. Fiske). Box 'Eagle Valley Environmentalists (Gilbert Ryan), P.O. Box 90,. Boise. ID 83701. 433. Old Town. Maine 04468. Walter). P.O. Box 155, Apple River, IL Group Against Smog and Pollution (Patricia 'John Muir Institute (Henry H. Carey), Box 61001. B. Pelkofer, P.O. Box 5165. Pittsburgh. PA 4551. Santa Fe. NM 87502. East Central Idaho Planning & Development 15206. Kern Plateau Association. Inc. (R. -LDoody), Assn., P.O. Box 330; Rexburg, ID 83440. Gulf Lumber Co.. Inc. (Billy Stimpson). P.O. 153 Mankins Circle. Porterville. CA 93257. *Ecology Action for Rhode Island (Elizabeth Box 1663. Mobile. AL 36601. 'Kentucky Rivers Coalition (Kevin Murphy), Schiller). 286 Thayer Street. Providence. RI "Hammermill Paper Co.. P.O. Box 1440. Erie. P.O. Box 1308. Lexington. KY 40590. 02906. PA 16533. Kinzva Corporation (Allen R. Nistad). Route Edward Hines Lumber Co. Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. (John C. Hampton). 2 Box 2100. Heppner. OR 97836. Terminal Sales Bldg., Portland. OR 97205. (Gilbert W. Zieman &Jane E. Booth). 200 Kogap Lumber Industries (S. V. McQueen & Herbert Lumber Company South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604. (Lynn Herbert), Jerry S. Lausmanni. P.O. Box 1608. *(Paul F. Ehinger & William F. Berry), 1500 P.O. Box 7, Riddle, OR 97469. Medford. OR 97501. Valley River Dr., Suite 240, Eugene: OR Hines Lumber Co. (Julian H. Bucher). P.O. L D. McFarland Co. (D. R. Netrol. P.O. Box 97401. Box 484, Kremmling. CO 80459. 670. Sandpoint. [D 83864. '(Jack Heaston), P.O. Box 227, John Day, OR Hitchcock & Pinkstaff (John W. Hitchcock). Lake Pleasant Forest Products Corp. (Dean 97845. P.O. Box 57, 419 East 6th Street. Hum. P.O. Box 149. Beaver. WA 98305. (John J. Mahon), P.O. Box 808, Saratoga, WY McMinnville. OR 97128. 'Lane County Audubon Society (Sydney 82331. Hocking Valley Rack Shop (Greg Vicker). Herbiert). P.O. Box 506& Eugene. OR 97405. Ellingson Lumber Co. (John M. Brown, P.O. 4650 Columbus-Lancaster Rd. NTW. Carroll. League of Women Voters OH 43112. Box 866, Baker, OR 97814. *(Ruth Hinefeld &Lee Carpenterl. 1730 M Elsa Wild Animal Appeal (Karen Johnston). *Hood Canal Environmental Council (Donna Street NW, Washington. DC 20036. P.O. Box 4572,-North Hollywood, CA 91607. Simmons], P.O. Box 120. Hoodsport. WA League of Women Voters of California (loan Environmental Action of Michigan, Inc. (Alex, 98548. Sagadz), Rich), 942 Market St. Suite 505. San 409 Seymour, Lansing, MI 48933. Idaho Conservation League (Pat Ford). Box Francisco. CA 94102 -Environmental Defense Fund (Kathleen 844, Boise, ID 83701. Zimmerman), 152518th Street NW, League of Women Voters of Florida (Lois Idaho Environmental Council (Gerald A. Harrison), 1035-S South Florida Avenue. Washington, DC 20036. Jayne) P.O. Box 1708. Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Environmental Impact Services (Mark Lakeland. FL 3380. Idaho Mining Association (A. 1. Teske), P.O. League of Women Voters of lodiana (Nancy Brosseau}, 3815 East Bellevue, Tucson, AZ Box 1738, Boise. ID 83701. 85716. Doemel], RR 8. Oak Hill Road. 'Environmental Information Center (Noel Idaho Pole Company Crawfordsville. IN 47933. Rosetta), Box 12, Helena, MT 59601. (J. R. McFarland). 227 S. First. Sandpoint. ID League of Women Voters of'Pennsylvania Evansville Veneer & Lumber Co. (John C. 83864. (Margot Hunt]. 8th &Market Streets. Ackerman), 100 South Kentucky Ave., (Art Crane), Box 1129, Bozeman. MT 59715. Philadelphia, PA 29103. Evansville, IN 47714. Idaho Stud Mill (Gordon Wilson]. P.O. Box League of Women Voters of Tennessee Exeter Exploration Company (Jean Enstrom). 167, St. Anthony. ID 83445. (Shirley C. Patterson). 1701 Zlst Avenue, P.O. Box 17349, Denver, CO 80217 Idaho Study Group [Lee Miler). 215 4th South. Suite 404. Nashville. TLN 37212. Exxon-USA (H. W. Hardy), P.O. Box 2180. Street. Lewiston. ID 83501. (Caroline Williams. 6903 Hickory View Lan Chattanooga. TN 37421. Houston, TX 77001. Idaho Trails Council (Bernice E. Paige), Route Far West Ski Association (Nancy J. (Carla M. Hansmannj. 1496 18th Avenue. 5. Box 59. Idaho Falls. ID 83401. Seattle, WA 98122. Ingalsbee], 3325 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1340. Independent Petroleum Association (Jack M, Los Angeles, CA 99010. Allen]. P.O. Box 1046. Perryton. TX 78070. *Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Federal Timber Purchasers Assoc. 'Industrial Forestry Association (N. E. (Lloyd Jones &D. L Finney). P.O. Box 6600. (James R. Craine, 3900 S. Wadsworth Blvd., Bjorklund}. 225 S. W. Broadway. Rm 400, Ketchikan. AL 99901. Suite 201, Denver, CO 80235. Portland. OR 97205. (Philip V. Petersen & Lowell Ambrosini), P.O. (Erwin Kulosa), P.O. Box 14429, Albuquerque. 'Inquiring Systems. Inc. (David Kafton, 2532 Box 120. Ukiah. CA 95482. NM 87191. Durant Ave.. Suite 250, Berkeley, CA 94704. (Theresa L Brass). P.O. Box 756. Escanaba. *Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs (Dixie 'Institute for Forest Ecosystems Decisions M1 49829. Boade). P.O. Box 71, Petersburg, AK 99833. (Richard Field & Peter Dress. Forestry (Kent Studebaker). 1300 SW Fifth Avenue. (Karen M. Fant), 5119 27th, NE, Seattle, WA Sciences Laboratory, Carlton Street. Portland. OR 97201. 98105. Athens. GA 30602. M. A. Rigoni. Inc.. 215 Sunset Lane. Perry. FL Finch. Pruyn & Co., Inc. (Norwood W. International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife (Anne 32347. Olmsted), Glens Falls, NY 12801. Erdman). 1412 16th Street NW., M. L King Co. (Frederick %%.King). P.O. Box Fly Fishermen for Conservation, Inc. (Karl Washington. DC 20030. 456. Joplin, MO 64801. Klavon), 6628 N. Barton, Fresno, CA 93710. International Ecology Society (R. J. Kramer). M. S. Hancock. Inc. (K. David Hancock). Forest Engineers, Inc. (S. A. Newman), P.O. 1471 Barclay Street. SL Paul MN 55106. Casco, Maine 04015. Box 156, Everett. WA 98208. International Paper Co. Massachusetts Audubon Society (Deborah N. Forest Land Services, Inc. (James S. Paxton). Howard). Lincoln. MA 01773. P.O. Box 1211, Elkins, WV 26241. (H. S. Winger). P.O. Box 2328. Mobile. AL Mauk Forest Products. Inc. CF. L Young). P.O. *Forest Service Timber Purchasers Council 36601. Box 430. Meridian. MS aw0 (Everett Wells), c/o Georgia Pacific Corp.. (W. R. Richardson, Jr.). P.O. Box 549, Panama Mead (Darrel F. Roberts). World P.O. Box 407, Glenwood, AR 71943. City, FL 32401. Headquarters. Courthouse Plaza N.. Fourply, Inc. (Dee W. Sanders), P.O. Box 890. (Charles W. Compton), P.O. Box 400. Dayton. OH 45463. Grants Pass, OR 97526. Richmond Hill, GA 31324. 'MECCA Wildlife Task Force (Bette Kent). Friday Harbor Laboratories (Gerald *International Snowmobile Industry Assoc. 5913 Ewing Ave. South. Minneapolis, NV Audesirk, Friday Harbor, WA 98250. (Derrick Crandall), Suite 850 South. 1800 M 55410. Street NW., Washington. DC Friends of the Earth 20036. *Mendocino Environment Center (Tom Irrigation Association (Jean Roper. 13975 Wodetzkl). Box 557. Mendocino, CA 95460. (Gordon Robinson], 124 Spear, San Francisco. Connecticut Avenue. Silver Spring, MD Merrill &Ring, Inc. (Glenn Wiggins). P.O. Box CA 94105. 20906. 30, Port Angeles. WA 98382.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53959 1979 53960 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September' 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Metropolitan Area Planning Council Outdoors Unlimited, Inc. Bloomington Group (Paul Hughes), P.O. Box (Alexandra D-iDawson), 44 School Street, (Roberta Andersen), Two Clocktower Square, 961, Bloomington, IN 47401, Boston, MA 02108. 14221 E. 4th Ave., Suite 220, Aurora, CO *Florida Chapter (Doug Alderson, 2311 *Michigan Forest Association (Barbara 80011. , Mavis Circle. Tallahassee, FL 32301. Clark), P.O. Box 1064, Traverse City, MI (Rme Kohrt), P.O. Box 167, St. Anthony, ID Harvey Broome Group (Sharon Simpson) 144 49684. 83445. Fox Road, Knoxville, TN 37922. Michigan United Conservation Clubs (Dennis Owens-Illinois, Inc. (J.-G. Barton), P.O. Box 1, *Ozark Chapter (Roy Hengerson, 707 Fijalkowski), P.O. Box 30235, 1ansingM1 Big Island, VA 24526. . Clayton, Columbia, MO 65201. 48909. *Ozark-Mahoning Co. (M. L.Hahn), *Rocky'Mountain Chapter (Connally Moars Minnesota Forest Industries (M. 1. Latimer, Rosiclare, IL 62982. and Mary E. Hays), 1627 Vine Street, 908 Pioneer Bldg.,'St. Paul,,MN 55101. Pacific Management Group, Wells Fargo Denver, CO 80200. Montana'Pole & Treating Plant (William C. Bldg., 2140 Shatlack Avenue, Berkeley, CA Santa Lucia Chapter (JanClucas), 1727 Dockins), P.O. Box 3506, Butte, MTr 59701.' 94704. Corralitos Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 'Montana Wilderness Association (Doris *Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Assn. (Bill 93401. Milner), Route 1, Box 1410, Hamilton, MT Larldn), 3205 Butterfield Rd., Yakima, WA Upper Missouri Group (Jack Schmidt, 1012 59840. 9890.1. I Billings Avenue, Helena, MT 59601. *Packaging Corporation *Motorcycle Industry Council. Inc. (John F. of America (Robert Utah Chapter (Brian Beard), 93 East 1st F. Davis), P.O. Box 316, Wetzel), 1 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite Manistee, MI 49660. South, Logan, UT 84321. Paul Bunyan Lumber Company (Milton 522, Washington, DC.20036. Wyoming Chapter (Ken Morgan), Box 580, Schultz & R. H. Richards, Jr.), P.O. Drawer' National Audubon Kemmerer, WY 83101, Society {Michael D. 487)Anderson, CA 96007. Zagata), 1511 K Street NW., Washington, Shell Oil Company (D. E. Clark) P.O, Box 570, Placer County Conservation Task Force Houston, TX 77001. DC 20005. (Gayle Russell), 460 Racetrack Street, *National Audubon-Society (Pauline Plaza), Alibum, CA 95603. Simpson Timber Company 9250 W. 5th Avenue, Lakewood. CO 80226. (Max Schmidt, Jr. & Starr WReed). 900 4th National Catholic Rural Life Potlatch Corporation Conference Avenue, Seattle, WA 98164. (Bishop Maurice J..Bingman], 3801 Grand (Richard V. Warner & C. R. McKinley], P.O. (George A. Adams), Shelton, WA 98584. Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50312. Box 390, Warren, AR 71671. *Society for Americarn Archeology (Fred *National Forest Products Association (John (R. M. Steele, 1'.O. Box 3591, San Franiisco, WerdorO, Southern Methodist University, Crowell, Ralph D. Hodges CA 94119. and Doug Dept. of Anthropology, Dallas, TX 75275, MacCleery), 1619 Massachusetts Ave., *(Jay Gr~enfeld, Jim McNutt, James Morris NW, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Washington, DC20036. and Mary Lou Franzese, P,O. Box 1016, Lewiston, ID 83501. Forests (Paul 0. Bofinger), 5 South State National Governors' Association (Robert N: Street, Concord, NH 03301. Wise), Hall of the States, 444 N, (Thomas Smrekar),Box510, Cloquet, MN Capitol. *Society of American Foresters (W. S. Street, Washington, DC 20001. 55720, *Public Lands Institute (Todd Bacon), 1740 Bromley & B. L. Orell], 5400 Grosvenor National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Lane, Washington, D.C. 20014. Association (Richard D. Snyder), 1990 M High Street, Denver, CO 80218." *Public Lands (Omer Humble), 330 Denver *Society for Range Management (Lorenz Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC Bredemeir, 2760 W 5th Avenue, Denver, 20036. Hilton Office Bldg., 1515 Cleveland Place, Denver, CO 80202. CO 80204. *National Wildlife Federation (Peter Kirby & Puget Sound Plywood, Inc. (G. South Carolina Environmental Coalition (Bill Thomas Kimball),1412 16th Street, NW, C. Carver), P.O. Box 1378, Tacoma, WA Frye), P.O. Box 5761. Columbia, SC 29250. Washington, DC-20036. 98401. *Resources for the Future (John Krutilla), 1755 South Fork Watershed Association (Robert *Natural Resources'Defense Council, Inc. Massachusetts Ave.. NW, Washington, DC A. Barnes], P.O. Box 749, Porterville, CA 93258. (Tom Barlow,& Toni Stoel]. 917-15th Street; . 20036. NW, Washington, DC 20005. Robert F. Knoth & Co., 134 F.Bay Street, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. # I (Leonard Steinberg), (Trent Orr), 2345 Yale Street, Palo Alto, Charleston, SC 29401. Box 2770, Juneau, AK CA 99803. 94306. Rocky Mountain Energy Co. (Elizabeth H. Southeast Lumber Manufacturers New England Power Service (Gordon E. Richardson 4704 Harlan, Denver, CO Assoclation Marquis), 20 Turnpike Road, Westborough, 80212. (Robert L. Davis), P.O. Box 87175, College Park, GA 30337. MA 01581. *Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Asociation (Jack Swenson, Southern Idaho Forestry Association New England Trail Rider Association 345 Petroleum Club Bldg., (Randy (David Harris), Box 1091. Sanderson), P.O. Box 66, West Newbury Denver, CO 80202. Boise, ID 83701. *Saint Joe Minerals Sun Studs, Inc. (Fred MA 01985. Corp. (Harold Myers), Sohn, P.O. Box 1127, P.O. Box 500, Viburnum. MO 65566. Roseburg, OR 97470. New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee St. Regis Lumber (William B. Ward), SWF Plywood Company (Stanley A. Vail, (Bob Langsenkamp], P.O. Box 81, Silver Klicldtat, WA 98628. P.O. Box 68, Burnt Ranch, CA 95527. City, NM 88061. St. Regis Paper Co. Tahoe Research Group (Robert L. Leonard), *Northwest Pine Association P.O. Box 1125, Tahoe City, CA 05730. (John K. McBride), P.O. Box V-X, Libby, MT Tahoma Audubon Society (Nancy N. (Charles Arment), 415 NE Burgess Place,' 59923. Kroening), 3320 N. Puget Sound Bend, OR 97701. (H. Avenue, D. Plillips, Deferiet, NY 13628. Tacoma, WA 98407. (Scott Horngren), 238 Peyton Bldg., Spokane, (R.A. Martin],P.O. Box1593, Tacoma, WA Tenneco, Inc. (Casey E. WA'99201,' 98401. Westell, P.O. Box 2511, Houston, TX 77001. 'Northwest Timber Association (Martin Schnabel Lumber Co. (John J.Schnabel), P.O. Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Devere), 1355 Oak Street, P.O. Box 5554, Box 129, Haines, AK 99827. Planning Eugene, OR 97405. (Kenneth S! Warren), 130 Tabor Road, Oak Scott Paper Co. Oregon Archeological Pres. Comm, (Irene H. Ridge,-TN 37830. Warner), 19790 S. Old River Drive, West (H. D. Fisher]; Scott Plaza, Philadelphia, PA Tennessee Forestry Association (Dan Linni, OR 97068. 19113. Simmons, P.O. Box 12000, Nashville, TN 37212. Oregon Student Public Interest Research, (Kurt Munnich), Everett, WA 98201. Tennessee Native Group (Kirk Roberts), 918 S. W. Yamhfll, Seaboard Lumber Co. CD, E. Dyson). PO. Box Plant Society (Robert E. Farmer, Jr.]. c/o Portland, OR 97205. 3603, Seattle, WA 98124. Dept. of Botany, The *Sierra Club--Legal University of Oregon Wilderness Coalition Defense Fund,'Inc. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (Andy Kerr, 37916. 'P.O. Box 3006, Eugene, 'OR 97403., (Julie E. McDonald), 311 California Street, Tennessee River-Pulp & Paper Co. (W. W, Suite 311, San Francisco, CA 94104. Vickery), P.O. Box 33, Counce, TN 38320.'

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53960 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53961

Texaco. Inc. (William K. Tell, Jr.), 1050 'United Mobile Sportlishermen. Inc. (William Wildlife Management Institute (Daniel A. Seventeenth Street NW, Washington. DC E. Miller), 7 Sussex Lane, Bethpage. NY Poole), 709 Wire Building. 1000 Vermont 20036. 11714. Ave., NW, Washington. DC 20005. -Texas Committee on Natural Resources University of Arizona (William A. Calder. Willamette Industries. Inc. fEdward C. Fritz), 4144 Cochran Chapel Il). 326 BSE. Tucson. AZ 85721. Road, Dallas, TX 75209. University. Bowling Green State (Jane L (John W. Davis). P.O. Box 907. Albany. OR Texas-Eastern Transmission Corp. (Jay S. Forsyth), Department of Geology, Bowling 973Z1. Christopher), P.O. Box 2521, Houston, TX Green, OH 43403. (Gene D. Knudson). First National Bank 77001. University of California (William 1. Libby). Tower. Portland. OR 97201. The Anaconda Company (Holly D. Neel). 555 145 Mulford Hall. Berkeley, CA 94720. Williams, Trine & Greenstein (David W. Seventeenth Street. Denver, CO 80217. 'University, East Carolina (Raymond L Griffith). 1435 Arap3hoe Avenue. Boulder. I Busbee), Greenville. The Anschutz Corporation (Peter B. Doty), NC 27834. CO 80302. 2400 Anaconda Tower, 555 17th Street. University of Georgia (Ole Hendrickson. Jr.), Wyoming Mineral Corp. (W. A. Elsenbarth). Denver, CO 80202. Institute of Ecology, Athens. GA 30602. 3900 South Wadsworth Blvd.. Lakewood. The Brazier Co. [William E. Heaton), P.O. Bo University of Idaho (Ruthann Knudson), Dept. CO 80235. 99945, Tacoma, WA 98499. of Sociology/Anthropology. Moscow, ID Wyoming Saw Mills. Inc. (Richard C. The Bunker Hill Company (Stephen V. Coss), 83843. Newman & Stanley W. Stephens). P.O. Box 608. Sheridan. WY 82881. P.O. Box 29, Kellogg, ID 83837. University.Box 8264, Idaho State (Ralph Maughan), Pocatello, ID 83209. The Conservation Foundation (William K. Employees Reilly), 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW. University of Massachusetts (Dena F. Washington, DC 20036. Dincauze), Dept. of Anthropology. Amherst. 1. Lamar Beasley. Washington Office. The Dawes Arboretum (M. C. Markham). MA 01003. Steven Calish. Forest Economist.Deschutes Newark, OH 43055. University of Michigan (Kathryn Bricker), National Forest. 211 NE Revere. Bend. OR The Endangered Species Committee of Biological Station. Pellston. MI 49709. 97701. California (Mark J. Palmer), 2701 College University of Montana Jack Crellin. Forest Supervisor. R-3. Carson. National Forest. P.O. Box 553. Taos. NM Avenue. Berkeley, CA 94705. (Thomas M. Power), Dept. of Economics. The Gila Wilderness Committee (Jack 87572. Missoula, MT 59801. Roy Droege. US. Forest Service Brennan). 314 W. 13th Street Silver City, (Arnold W. Bolle}. School of Forestry. NM 88061. Richard Dryland. WO. Missoula, MIT 59812. Dr. Alan Fox, Economist. PP&B. Pacific NV. The Headwaters Association (Alan Winter), University of Nevada-Reno (John L Artz), . Box 113, Williams, OR U.S. Forest Service, Portland. OR 97304. 97544." 1000 Valley Road. Reno. NV 89512. The McGinnis Lumber Co., Inc., P.O. Box Edward Gryczan. Forester. 3825 E. Mulberry University, New Mexico State (ferry St.. Fort Collins. CO 80524. 2049. Meridan, MS 39301. Schickedanz). Box 3AE. Los Cruces. NM The Mountaineers (Jack S. Sanford), 719 Pike Adrian Haught. USDA--FS, P.O. Box 2417, 88003. Washington. DC 20013. Street. Seattle, WA 98101. University. Oregon State (K D. McKimniny, The Native American Rights Fund (Walter R. David E. Ketcham. Enivornmental Forest Products Dept., Corvallis, OR 97331. Coordinator. Forest Service. P.O. Box 2417. Echo-Hawk), 1506 Broadway. Boulder. CO 'University of Tennessee (Aaron 1. Sharp). 80302. Washington. DC 20013. - Dept. of Botany. Knoxville. TN 37916. Bruce McMillan. Environmental Mgmt. The Nature Conservancy (Robert E. Jenkinsl. University. Utah State (Carl M. Johnson). 1800 N. Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209. Officer. Wallowa-Witman NF. P.O. Box College of Natural Resources. UMC52. 907, Baker, OR 97814. The New Mexico Natural History Institute Logan, UT 84322. (Roger S. Peterson), Box 369, St. Johns James O'Keefe. Management Analyst. USDA- College, Santa Fe, NM 87501. University of Washington (Donald K. FS, P.O. Box 2417. Washington. DC 20013. The Northcoast Environmental Center (Tim Grayston). Dept. of Anthropology DH-05. Gerald Patchen. Willamette NF. P.O. Box McKa '), 1091 H Street Arcata, CA 95521. Seattle. WA 98195. 10607. Eugene. OR 97440. The Ptarmigans (Russell M. Maynard), P.O. (Wesley K. Wallace), Dept. of Geological F. Carl Pence. Bridger-Teton NF. P.O. Box Box 1821, Vancouver, WA 99204. Sciences, Seattle, WA 98195. 1888, Jackson. WY 83001. * The Robert Dollar Co. (Keith Cloudas), P.O. *University of Wisconsin--Madison (Wayne Steve Plevel. Coronado NF, 301 W. Congress, Box 998. Klamath Falls, OR 97601. Tlusty), DepL of Landscape Architecture. Tucson. AZ 85o701. 25 Agricultural Ann Puddicombe. Targhee %T, SL Anthony. - The Wilderness Society Hall Madison, WI 53706. University, Yale (David M. Smith), 205 ID 83445. (Charles H. Stoddard, William Turnage. John Prospect St.. Sage Hall. New Haven. CT Robert Rehfeld. Superior NT. P.O. Box 338. I-ooper & Peter Troast), 1901 Pennsylvania 06511. Duluth, MN 55801. Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20006. Veach-May-Wilson. Inc. (John B. Veach. Jr.), Donald Renton. USDA-Forest Service. 517 * Utah Chapter (Paul Shields). 2813 Village P.O. Box 5857, Asheville, NC 28803. Gold Ave.. SW. Albuquerque. NTM 87102. . Way. Ogden, UT 84403. W. S. Van De Grift, Inc. (Leo 1. Hughes). P.O. F. Dale Robertson. Forest Supervisor. Mt. [Dick Carter). 523 Judge Building. Salt Lake Box 498, Hamilton WA 98255. Hood NF, 19559 SE Division St Gresham. City. UT 84111. Washington Environmental Council (Amerlia OR 97O3O. The Wildlife Society (Harry Hodgon), 7101 Heilman), 107 S. Main. Seattle, WA 98104. Einar L Roget, Acting Deputy Chief. USDA- Wisconsin Ave., NW. Washington, DC Wausau Papers (Jack Hamilton). Brokaw. WI FS, P.O. Box 2417. Washington. DC 20013. 20014. 54417. Craig Rupp. R-2. 11177 West 8th Avenue. Box Thomas Lumber Co. (Homer G. Faulkner). Western Forestry & Conserv. Assoc. (Steele 25127. Lakewood. CO 80225. P.O. Box 1883, Klamath Falls, OR 97601. Barnett), American Bank Building Portland. Zane Smith. Jr.. R-5. 630 Sansome Street. San Timber Products Co. (Dugan H. Pearl), P.O. OR 97205. Francisco. CA 94111. Box 1669. Medford, OR 97501. *Western Regional Council (George Dibble). Ed Stone. Washington Office. -Trout Unlimited Wilderness Ad Hoc Committee, P.O. Box Ross S. Whaley. Director, Forest Resources, 8144, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Economics Research Staff. Forest Service- (Jim Belse ,}, 1740 High Street, Denver. CO. *Western Timber Association (George A. USDA. P.O. Box 2417. Washington. DC 80218. Craig), 211 Sutter Street. San Francisco. CA 2003. _(C. Dixon). Box 12, Rt 1, Fishersville, VA 94108. Lawrence Whitfield. R-8.1720 Peachtree S -22939. *Western Wood Products Association (R. M. Road, NW. Atlanta. GA 30309. True Oil Company (Robert 0. Byron). P.O., Fredsall), 1500 Yeon Building. Portland, OR Peter Wingle. R-9. 633 West Wisconsin Drawer 2360, Casper, WY 82602. 97204. Avenue. Milwaukee. Wi 53203. U.S. Ski Association (Barry Segal), 1726 "Westvaco {R. S. Wallinger & J.M. Crockett). * - Champa, Suite 300. Denver, CO 80202. P.O. Box WV. Summerville, SC 29483. Individuals ..Umpqua Wilderness Defenders (Phyllis Weyerhauser Co. (James W. Wadsworth), Edward L Adams. R.R. 4 Union HilL Zegers). P.O. Box 15. Roseburg, OR 97470. *P.O. Box 127. New Freedom. PA 17349. Carbondale. IL 62501.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53961 1979 *653962 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / M~onday, September 17, 1979 -'Rules and Regulations 536I eea eitr/Vl 4 o 81IMnaSpebr1,17 ue and Re Ion Frances andFrank Adamson, 1301 Rose John C.Borzia, 1306 Kimberly, Rock Springs, Nancy Collin, 124 E. Michigan, Fresno, CA Street, Berkeley, CA 94702. WY 82901 93704. Eleanor Y. Adelman, 2615 SE 22nd Avenue, *Freeman Bovard, 670 A. College Ave., *Anthony Colter, 1008 SW 37th, Pendleton, Portland OR 97202. Claremont, CA 91711. OR 97801, Mark Aitken, c/o Reed College, Box 24, Joseph Bower, Box 1055, Hayfork, CA 96041. Marylyn Conley, 114 Elliot Upper, Ketchikan, Portland, OR 97202. Richard Bowling, 800 Foxwood Drive, Clifton AK 99901. *Jerry Akers, 2115 WillowBlvd., Pearland, Park, NY-12065. Laura H. Connolly, 520 Sweet Ave., Lag TX 77581. Mike Braden, 613 E. Axton, Bellingham, WA Cruces, NM 88001. 'Charles Adrich, 2525 South 2nd Street, 98225. Ms. Lin Cook, P.O. Box 254, Lowell, OR 97452, Arlington, VA 22204. *Richard E. Bradley, 101 Russell Street, Richard Cooper, Route 2, Box 44-A, *Charles Allen, 710 Catalina Avenue, Seal Warren, PA 16365.. Caledonis, OH 43314. Beach, CA 90740. Mr. Larry Brandon 6915 Lakeside Hills, Don Copp.ock, 3931 SE Liebe. Portland, OR W. Dale Allen, 508 Oakland Avenue. Florissant, MO 63033. 97202. Tallahassee, FL 32301. Mamie L. and Melvin J. Branson, Route 1. Margaret Core, E. King Road, Blue River, OR Judith A. Anderson, 1319 Stanley #2, Colbran, CO 81624. 97413. Glendale, CA 91206. Patricia Breshears, 1305 Millbrook Road, L. F. Cottam-USFS Retired, P.O, Box 215, Mrs. Arden L. Andresen, 747 Hyslip Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27609. Taos, NM 87571. Westfield, NJ 07090. *George A. Bridges, 3124 Brophy Drive Dennis Coules, 522 Oeste Drive, Davis, CA Richard Andrews, East Hill Road, Andover, Sacramento, CA 95821. 95616.' VT 05143. Morton R. Brigham, 3519 13th St., Lindston, ID Daren Coulter, 3818 SE 31st Street, Portland, Lynn Appleton &Jay Anderson. Route1, Box 83501. OR 97202. 152, Halfway, OR 97834. Mr. & Mrs. Richard Bridgman, 108 Strathmoor *Don Crawford, 825 Camas, Moscow, ID Sam Angove, North 1711 Flora Road, Drive, Berkeley, CA 94705. 83843. *John P. Brown, Greenacres, WA 99016. 2948 Fairview'Drive, James L. Crawley, California State Medford, OR 97501. " *Charles Arment, 415 NE Burgess Place, University, 6000J Street, Sacramento, CA Bend, OR 97701. J. Wilcox Brown, North Bow Road, 95819. Dunbarton, NH 03301." Dr. John H. M. Austin, 380 Riverside Drive, Charles J.Cremeen, Marlin Bnmer, 294 Olio Route, Waldron, AR Apt. 4-H, New York, NY 10025. Pendleton Road, Clemson, 72958. SC 29631. *Dixie Baade, P.O. Box 71, Petersburg, AK *Daniel Cristol, 412 W. Price Street, 99833. Ronald Buentmeir, P.O. Box 490, Columbia Falls, MT 59912. Philadelphia, PA 19144: Kristine & Terry Baber, 195 W. Boston Mills LauraCrosslin, c/o Reed College, Box 372, Road, Peninsula, OH 44284. *Joyce Burk, 1129 Elizabeth St., Barstow, CA 9231f. I Portland, OR 97202. Colin Bagwell, R.F./A.C.F, 1601 Sun Valley D. Elizabeth Cuarda, P.O. Box 1211, 200 Road, Huntsville, AL 35801. David Bums, 1901 SW 44th, Pendleton, OR 97801L. , National Bank of Alaska Building, Juneau, Scott Bailey, 26004 Crenshaw Blvd., Torrance, AK 99802., CA 90505. Eric Burr, Box 175, Kirkwood, CA 95646. Mrs. M. E. Burton. 85 Cherry Lane,Teaneck, Cal Cummings, Denver Service Center. P.O. *Dennis Baird, P.O. Box 8787. Moscow, ID Box 287, Denver, CO 80225. 83843. NJ 07666. *Andrew Butler, 112 Malvern Road, Oak Kirkwood M, Cunningham, 12145 W. Nevada Robert Bakker, 175 5th Avenue, San Drive. #201, Lakewood, CO 80228. Francisco, CA 94118. Ridge, TN 37830. Victoria Byre, 848 W. Washington, *Calvin Dahm, 235 Exeter Place, Apt. 104, St. *C. Ballsun, 4840 Santa Montica, San Diego, Oak Park, IL 60302. Paul, MN 55104. CA 92107. 'Robert J. Cacchione, 1826 Solano Drive, NE, David Dalquist, 1260 17th Ave. NW., *Andy Bartson, P.O. Box 8864, Missoula, MT Rochester, MN 55901. 59807. Albu.querque, NM 87110. David Bette Lou Daramanes, 1146 SW Chestnut Bastasch, 695 Knight's Bridge Road,Canby, Campbell, 2434 E. Marie, Simi Valley, - CA 93065. Drive, Portland, OR 97219. OR 97501. S. J. Carbone, 525 Paige Margaret W. Davis, P.O. Box 1674. Sedadna, *Dr. Rudolf Beckinfg, 1415 Virginia Way, Street, Schenectady, 'NY 12307. . I AZ 86336. Arcata, CA 95521; *Paula Carrell,.96 Tamalpais Road, Berkeley, Robert Davis, P.O. Box 1674, Sedona, AZ Chuck Bell, P.O. Box 193, Lucerne Valley, CA 92356. CA 94708. 86336. Mr. J. Chris Carter, 45 East Loucks, William Dennison, 584 Woodlle Drive, Red Jonathan S. Benjamin, P.O. Box 200, Suite 207,. Cheshire, Sheridan, WY 82801. Bluff, CA 96080. OR 97419. Mr. J.H. Carter, III,P.O. *Drs. Deirdre & Randy Rand, 606 Glenwood *William Berry, 680 N. 158th, Springfield, Box 891, Southern OR Pines, NC 28387. Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941. 97477. Richard L. Casperson, P.O. Box 643, Idaho Jack Desmond, 5423/2 E 12th Street, *T. Betsch, Box 292-Route Eugene, 2, American Beach, Springs, CO 80452. OR 97941. FL 32034. Kay Cenideros, 27310 Rosemont Way, Bob Dick, 135 Nisqually Cut Janet & Michael Hemet, Off Road SE., Bieri, M.D., 1621 CA 92343. Olympia, WA 98503. Featherstone, St. Louis, Missouri 63131. Louis A. Cherbeneau, P.O. Box Graydon Dill, 810 Waynoka Mr. James 1964, Estes St., Hastings, NE E. Bigham, Route 2, Box 82, Park, CO 80517. 68901. Huntsville, TX 77340. _ Bill Chestnutt, Regional Forester, P.O. Box Jon DritleyBox 104, C/o Coe David Birkner, 2301 W. Raye St., College, Cedar 98199." Seattle, WA 326, Montgomery, AL 36101. Rapids, IA 52402. *Marguerite Christoph, 4435 Brindisti Street, *John Duffield, 2, Richard E. Bissell, Route Box 481-A, Shelton, 2908 W- Poplar Street, San Diego, CA 92107. WA 98594. Philadelphia, PA 19130. *Josephine E. Ciak, 405-G Ridge Road, North *Wiley Dupea, St. Route Greg Blpmstrom, 2148 Western Ave., Arcata, 1, Box 128, Arlington,' NJ 07032. Lilliwaup, WA 98555. CA 95521. Hal Clark, Box 2775, Aspen, CO 81611. Glenn Eades. Lin Cook Boggs, P.O. Box 254, Lowell, 16109 NE 571h, Redmond, WA OR *James Clark, P.O. Box 1211, Juneau, AK 98052. 97452. 99802. R. R. Edgar, Director Susan Boltansky, c/o Reed of Woodlands, Bowater, College, Box 96, *James W. Clarke, 402 Burgundy Drive, Calhoun, Portland, OR 97202. TN 37309. , Rockville, MD 20850. R. L. Eikum, Box 527, Marion Bond, 5733 Levertt Ct. No. 72, Moose Lake, MN 55707. Jan Clucas, 1727 Corralitos Ave., San Luis *Mr. & Mrs: Douglas Alexandria, VA 22311. Elledge, Route 1, Box Obispo, CA 93401. 95E, Valley, Carey L. Booth, 4118 SE 29th No. 4, Portland,. WA 99818. Dr. Robert N. Coats, 1042 Ventura Ave., *Phyllis OR 97202. Ellis, 6212 Rosedale St. NW., Gig Albany, CA 94706. Harbor, WA 98335. Thomas Bordon, State Forester, Colofado *Francis Anthony CoCo, 446 E. Main St., Apt. State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. *James Elshernd, 4905 Race Road, Cincinnati, D, New Iberis, LA 70560. OH 45211.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53962 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 [ Monday, September 17,. 1979 / Rules and Regulationi 53963

Mrs. R. L Elton, Jr., Box 307, Wimberley, TX Kay Gibson.1140-South 48th Terrace, Kansas 'Dave Howard. P.O. Box 11, Olympia, WA 87676. City. KA 66100. Ronda Engman, 571 South Danby Road, *Betsy Glassmam c/a SEACC. BoxlOG M. C. Howard. 948 Spanish Drive S.. Spencer, NY 14883. Juneau. AK 99801. LongheatKey FL3354& *Robert Evans, I.. Box 154, Rio Grande, Of. Charles Coodmacher, ca Reed College. Box David Howells 45674. 363. Portland. OR 97202. Andrew Honig. 131 Pastiempo Drive R. A. Evans, 826 N. 14th SL.--4--7, *Janet Gordon, Nelson. NEL04355. Bakersfield. CA 9330. Milwaukee. WI 53233. *S. Paul Gordon, Box 2376, Ruldoso. N'M Robert Ifadnut, 10-Elm Street Winetka, IL J. Paul Everett. Route, Box 309, Shelton, WA 88345. 60093. 98584. 'Gregory Govan. Route 1.Box4Z C.Faber. Fred Huff. Country Slore. Route Z Box 787. Edwin R. Eyster, 47412 School Street, VA 22938. Las Cruces, N, 88001. Oakridge, OR 97463. Mr. & Mrs. Edward Graves. 908 Beech Drive, Bennett Hughes. BOx 47M St. Leonard. MD Anne Fege, 2422 Ross Road; Silver Spring, Walnut Creek. CA 94596. 2085. MD 20910. Michael Gregory. Route 1.Box 25A. McNeaL . AZ 85617. Stephen Irving Ph.D.. Suite 519, DuPont Plaza Leland Ferguson, Dept. of Anthropology, U. of Center. Miami. FL 3313T S. Carolina, Columbia, David Grimes, 1514 St. Christopher. SC 29208. 'Jay lselin, RFD, Marlborough. NH 03455. Warren Fetter 1541 California St., 47, San Columbia, Missouri. 65 Cordon Iverson. 708 Highland Drhe Francisco, CA 94109. Robert Groves, Box 688, Eastham. MA 02042. Bellinghani, WA 98225. *Virlis L Fischer, 3508 Victory Ave.. Las 'Ronald Guenther' 2900 Highway 20, Fort Vegas, NV 89121. Bragg, CA 93437. Mary Jackson. 240 Ayer Road. Willi'amsville, NY 14221. Mr. & Mrs. H. K. Fisher, Route-1, Box 104, Vern Gurnsey. Timber&WXbod Products Haines, OR 97833. Group, P.O. Box 50, Boise. ID 837Z&8 Eliot Jenkins, 2223 Grant Tower. 2221 SW-ist Marion Fisk.Route 1, Box 6, Tfeton, WA Dr. Elizaheth Haaand, 170 Wynnewood Ave- Portland OR 9720L 98947. Professional Building; Dallas,.TX 75224. Steven Jeske, 3205 SE 52nd Ave.- Portland, Eugene Fobes, Forest Products Consultant 'Frederick Hackett, 19 Hawkins RoadStony OR 97206. Route 5, Box 140, Madison, WI 53704. Brook NYII9TO. 'Elizabeth Johnson. 84, University Ave- Apt ElmerForbath, 1905 Longfellow St.,Badiwht, *Jerry Haggard. 363 1st Ave, Phoenix, A. 1104. Honolulu. HI 9682. -NY 11510. 85003. Russ Jolay. 7710 K jersey. PortlaiuL OR Jacques Forest, 423( 60th NE., Salem, OR Deborah Han. Box 2894. Globe, AR 85501. 97203. 97303. George Halekam Box 1324, Wauconda-. WA F. N. Jones, Jr P.. Box 816. Carthagm MO L Powell Foster, 919 Scenic Court, Cngsport 98859. 64830. TN 37663. EdwardWalL 642 Caino Lefo, Sant Fe, N.W *Stephe- rones. RI) #L Walto Y 13&6. *Barbara Francisco, 122 S. State, Ann Arbor, 87501L Tom Jopson. Route 'LBox59.CoveaoC& MI 48401. Gene Harty, 3117 C Lori Place, NE. 95428. *NeIson Frew, 387 Turtlebeach Road, Albuquerque. NU a11. A. W. Judson. P.O. Box 672, Corvallis. OR *Bruce Harvey, Marstons Mills, ME 02648. P.O. B1ax89;.Cornella. CA 97330. 30531. Philip Friedman. P.O. Box 612, LaPorte. CQ Dennis Jurkovich 8 ProntoDrve; San jose, 80535. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hastings. 2525 Kansas CA 95123. . *Joel Frykman. Consulting Forester. 1067 Ave., Apt. 5. Santa Monica. CA 90404. T. . Kaczynskf 403 N. Ridge Aye. Lombard. Henderson Drive, Ogden, UT 84404 Clayton Heath, Jr., P.O. Box 56, Epsom.n N IL 60148. 03o.; Jim Fulcher. M.D., Scotia and Venning, Linda Kastl. 86-4257 Road. ElmhursL NY Betty Heckel, 290 Dolphin Way, Laguna, McCtellanville, SC29458. 11373. Beach, CA 281. Rutk Gabey, P.O. Box 2131, S.Hackensack, David Keiser, 2570-Springbroo. Medford OR C. X. Heffner, 73 0Applegate Road, NJ 07606. 97502. Jacksonville, OR 97530. Sylvia Gagnon. 4660 W. Hillside Drive, Duane Kent. P.O. Box 540 Eagle CO 863. Lewis Helot, 3057 Naples Drive. Toledo. OH Eugene. OR 97405'. 43615. Jerry Ker. State Capitol Building. Room 1U4. *Tim Gammell, 709 SW 13th, Pendleton, OR Salt Lake Dennis Heldt, 3657 Naples Drive. Toledo City. UrT 8-114. OH Delyn 97801. 43615. Kies. 4903 NE 32nd Place. Portland OR John Gardner. c/o Reect College,Box 309, Jim Heleniak. 4106 5th Ave. #1. San Diego. 97211. Portland OR 97202. CA 92108. Manford Kilmer. 1515 Riemer Roa&. Michael and Ruth Gardner, 2218 York Road. Lisa Heller. James Conley and Donaid Wadsworth. OH 4428L Helena, MT 59601. Kvavlei 385 Forest Hills Way. NW, Salem. Hildy Kipphut. 930 Johnson. msouta- MT Ms- Terni Gardner. 1077 Holmes Ave., OR 97304. 59601. Campbe, CA 95008. Mr. Carl Hemmgsen. 5082AAscot Court. J. A. Kittrick. NW45 OrioaDrive.Pullman. William Gardner,.808,Merrie Road, Raleigh., Alexandria, VA22311. WA 99163. NC 27606. Roy Hengrsom Forestry Chairman 707 H. M. Klaiber. 64 Viorette Ave., Watervlle. Ella Gay. 29.Tyler Drive. Route 1, Part Richey. Clayton, Columbia. MO 651 ME 04901. FL 33568. Kurt Herzog..144(INR loth Street Grants L M. Kocher, 99 Sycamoz.MitRVa-ey.CA Muriel Geach, 239.W. Garnder Street, Long Pass, OR 97526. 94941. Beach, CA 90805. J. P. Hess, 20"E, 3rd Ave., #= Selah; WA Bart Koehler Box 870, Laramie.WY 82070. I-L M. Geary, 2545 S. Birmingham Place, 98941. Emmy Koponen, 491t Rlncoa NW. Tulsa. OK 74114. Jim Hester, 1522 K SL NW., Room 530. Albuquerque, NM 87106. Eric Gebler 609 NW 11th.St, Pendleton. OR Washington, DC 20060. 'Lowel K'assne :4-acoe St_ 97801 lJearr Hill. 214Kim Drlve. Lafayette; LA 70503' Burlington, VT 05401. Thelma, Gentry. 322 East.Arch St., Madison. *Valerie HillarcLOI. Scott Street, .Mrs. Jeanne Kronman. Pari sh Drim.Bo 237. KY 42431. ' Crangeville. ID -8830. Locust Valley. NY 11560. Daniel George, DMD,.Box 8678, Aspen. CO 'Mike Hogan. 4 Avis Court. Odnde. CA Nancy laKruse. cta ReedCollegm Bc ws. 81611. 94563. Portland, OR 97202. Mrs. R. Gershfield, 22 West St. Sharon, MA Carl Holcomb, Route- 2.Box 385. Blacksburg Erwin Xulosag950 Lagrima de Om NIL 02067. VA 24060. Albuquerque. NM 87111.' Eric Gerstung, 1132 MCIaren Drive. David Holden. Route-4.Bra 68 Brookings, SD Cynthia Kuttner.124Poat Road, Scarsdale, Carmichael, GA 95608. 57&06. NY 10583. *John Gerry, Jr. 711 Wesley. Evanston. IL Glen: Holstein M9 Poleline Ruad.5 CamerntIaFolettee; PD. Box 306 Egene 6020&± Davis, CA 96M1G. OR 97403. Jeffrey Gibson. 3292 Donley Street. San .David Hough. p.o. Bosc3B'LWilsonville OR Jim Lamb. 4007 Coodfellaw Drive, Danlas Tx Diego, CA 92117. 97070. 75229.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53963 1979 53964 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

C. L McGowan, 1901 Plyinoujth Rock, Woody Nishitani, 7830 N. Edison, Portland, Richard Lancia, School of Forest Resources, . OR 97203. Department of Forestry; North Carolina Richardson, TX 75081. , State University, Raleigh.. NC 27650.. *Jerry McKague, Box 301, Pilot Rock, OR *Frank Norris, 2124 Broadway, San Diego, Mary Ridgely Lang, 303 Kennard Ave., 97868. CA 92102. Edgewood, MD 21040, Ladd McQueen, 1611 Myers Lane, Medford, John Norris, 105 Caspar Place, Novato, CA Joe Langston, 3717 South Pinal'Drive, OR 97501. 94947, Mark-McQueen, 1626 Myers Lane, Medford, Elanne Nusich, 3301 1st Street South, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. Virginia, MN 55792. N. B. Langworthy, The Btuckaroost, McLeod, OR 97501. - 4 MT 59052., 'Tim McNulty- Ohode, P.O. Box 42Z Port Dita Obler, Box 378, c/o Reed College, Robert Laniak, 495 Waltham Street, Townsend, WA 98368. , Portland, OR 97202. Lexington, MA 01273;. ' ...... Betty McNutt, 1122 West OregodAve., Faye Ogilvie, 5529 27th Ave. NE., Seattle, WA Clifford Lansd"on,J., P.O. Box 250, Glendale,. Klamath Falls, OR 97601.. . 98105. OR 97442. Harry Mersmanm Box 794, c/aRepd College,. Marion O'Gorman, 733 Mar Vista Drive, Dr. Charles Larson, Dean, School of Portland, OR 97202 Vista, CA 92083. R. Marriner Orum, 2389 Floral Hill Drive, Environmental & Resokur6e Mgmt., SUNY HowardI WA 98424. Millin, 2410 Berr Lane E, Tacoma, College 6'f Envirbomiental Science and Eugene, OR 97403. Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13i10.' Rebecca Millard, 1419 Ashland Ave., *R.-F. Ostergaard, 166 Hermosa Drive, W. M. Larson, Box G, Austin, TX 78712."" Evanston, IL 60201. Durango, CO 81301. "Thomas Lee, No. 409 W.Main St., Urbana, David Millikin, c/o Reed College, Portland, Annette Parsons, 1776 Beverly Drive, Arcata, IL 61801. • OR 97202. CA 95521. Alfred Leech, 482B Barton Run Blvd., Barriss Mills, 915 N. Chauncey Ave., W. Sue Patten, Pershing Blvd., Cheyenne, WY. Marlton, NJ 08053. Lafayette, IN 47906, 82001, Christopher Lenian, Assistajit Piofessor, Leon, Minclder, Ph.D., 623 Bogie Lane, Route Dave Pavechek, 4761 21st Ave, NE., Seuttlo,I Brandeis University, Department of 1, Country Club Estates, Blacksburg, VA WA 9815, Politics, Waltham, MA 02154.. 24060. *Hale Pearce, 71 Edison Ct., Coldwbter, MI Sherman Lewis, 2787 Hillcrest Ave.&, Walter & Vicki Mintkeski, 6815 SE 31st St., 490364 I Hayward, CA 94542. Portland, OR 97202. *Ed Pearson, 501 Mercury Lane, Prineville, Steven Lindland, 5253 Timber Trail NE, Harold Miossi, P.O. Box 606, San Luis OR 97754. - Silverton, OR 97381. Obispo, CA 93401; -' *John and Linda Peck, Rural Route 4, St. Dean Littlepage, 37875 Jasper-,Lovell Road, Cathryn Miotoret, 845 NW Colorado, Bend, Cloud, MN 56301. Jasper, OR 97401. OR, 97701. Barbara Peckarsky, 126 Sunnymede, Apt. 7, William Livingston, P.O. Box38-7 University Vina Mongeon, Box 152, Wales, MA 01081. Madison, WI 53713. Br., Las Cruces, NM 88003. Blair Moody, 480 Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff, *Maryann Pella, Route 5, Box 90C, Thico, CA Daniel Lowgel, 113 Devon, Parchment, l4I AZ 86001. 95926. 49004. , -: , , Jerome Moore;1820 Plymouth Rock, W. R. Penny, 231 Fountain Ave., Paducah, KY Jan Loelner, Box 4931, Adpen, CO 81611. Richardson, TX 75081. -42001.I Rebecca Long, 1314 Arcadia,-Colorado *Donell Moreland, P.O. Box 157, Carencro, Robert Peters, 19 Edgefield Rd. Waban, MA Springs, CO 80906. , LA 70520. 02168. Alan Lott, 3506 Wild Cherry Road, Baltimore, Joe Marsillo, c/o Reed College, Box 792, Mr,Elin Peterson, Research Assistant, MD 21207. Portland, OR 97202. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth Christopher Lowe, c/o Reed College, Box 649, John Morris, 105 Caspar Place, Novato, CA " College, Hanover, NH 03755 Portland, OR 97202. - , 94947. Henry Phibbs II,Murie Cabin, Box 1002, Douglas Lucius, c/o Reed College, Box 754, James Mueller, Pine Grove, Star Route 2, Box Jackson, WY 83001 Portland, OR 97202. 13, Iron Mountain,.Ml 49801. *R.A. Piper, 2147 E. Hamlin St., Seattle, WA Andy Lukes, Route 4, Missoula, MT 59801. Robert Mueller, Route 1, Box 250, Stounton, 98112. *George Lundy, N 72 W 18480 Good Hope VA 24401. *Phillip Plaza, Route 2, Box 429, Clehon, WA Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051. Kurt Munnich, 4704 W. Glenhaven Drive, 98816. *Donald MacKenzie, Route i, Box 145, Everett, WA 98203. . William M. G.Popper, 529 Alameda, Kooskia, ID 83539. *Richard Myren, R.R. No. 5, Box 567Q juneau, Berkeley, CA 94707. Arthur Mackwell, 2220 20th NW, Washington, AK 99803. *Bob Posey, 4754 Kings Highway, Jackson,, DC 20006. Daniel Napier, 210 Coolidge Ave., Niagara, MS 39206. Elayne Maki, Route 1-Box 242,.Deer River, WI54151.- Richard Pratt, 1131 Shady Ave., Pittsburgh, MN 56636. Mrs. Richard Nebel, 2 East Third Street, New 'PA15232. *Brandt Mannchen, 4055 S. Braeswood No. Castle, Delaware 19720. Marilyn Price, 45 ML Tiburon, Tiburon, CA 303, Houston, TX 7702 . .Arthur Win. Nelson, Jr., P.O. Box 3426, 94920. Susan-Marks, 1353 E 50th. St., Chicago, IL Meridian, Mississippi 39301. Charles Putnam, Route 4.Columbia, MO 60615. Dennis Nelson, 435 Simms Ave.; Council 65201. John Marsh, Jr., 217 GoddingAve.', NW., New . Bluffs, IA 51501. *Kathy Nemec, 3211 E. Rosier No. 8, Bismark, Charles W. Quaintance, 735 SW St. Clair, Philadelphia, OH 44663. , Portland, OR 97205, Bruce Mason, c/o Reed College, Box 677, ND 58501. Dr. Deirdre Conway Rand, 606 Glenwood Portland, OR 97202. *Aldn Nessman, 5425 Blockstone Ave.. Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941. Fred Mass, W214-6th No. 201, Spokane, WA Chicago, IL 60615. Bob Randolph, 1028 W. 22nd St., Merced, CA 99024. Mrs. Geri Netherton, Box 153, Seeley Lake, 95340. Laurie Matthews, P.O. Box 4791, Arcata, CA MI 59868. *John Reed, 101 Penn Ave., LeGrande, OR 95221. *Donald Nettleton, Burlington Northern, 700 S 97850. Jackie Maughen, Box 8264, Pocatello, ID Ave. West, Missoula, MT 59801. Richard Reid, 300 Palmcrest Drive, Apt. 75, 83209. *Leonard Netzorg, Suite 216, Mohawk Daly City, CA 94015. *W. B McCallum, 304 NW Johns. Lane, Building, 222 SW Morrison St., Portland, Sally Reid, 13500 Wingo St., Pacolma, CA Pendleton, OR 97801 ., OR 97204. 91331. J. D. & H..P. McClymonds, P.O. Box 539, D. R.iNeuzil, 9110 NE 21st Place, Bellevue, *Rexford Resler, 1319 loth St., NW, Oakhurst, Ca 93644, WA 98004. Washington, DC 20036. Drew C. M. McCormick, c/o Reed College, *Caroline Newhall, 67 Sea Oak Lane,.Iilton Robin Resnick, c/o Reed College, Box 947, Box 719, Portland, OR 97202. Head, SC 29928. Portland, OR 97202. Carrcpero McCredie, 3395 SE 9th; Portland, OR Beth Newman, 522 Oeste Drive, Davis. CA Walter Revers, 227 Monte Vista, Larkspur, 97202. 1 . 95616 CA 94939. Arthur McDade, Jr., Apt. D6, 404 Tunnel Mark Nielson, 2325 Roosevelt Ave., Berkeley, Mr. Brad Reynolds, 421 16th Ave. E., Seattle,, Blvd., Chattanooga, TN 37411. CA 94703. WA 98112.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53964 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53965

Amy Ballard Rich. 1350 Chimelton No. 9. H. Richard Seibert. Jr., Director, Natural Jim Stratton. P.O. Box 3982. Eugene OR Eugene, OR.97401. : Resources, 1776 F St. NW , Washington. DC 87403. Clarence Richen, 2822 NE32nd Place, 20006. Dwight Stringfellow. Box 53=Arcata. CA Portland. OR 97212.. Roseta & Robert Sepich. 15213-14 Ave. CL 93521. Jennifer Riefler, 60W Confer Way, Ashland, South.'Spanaway,,WA 98187. Susan Subak. 152 N. Sco ,ile-Oak Par% IL OR 97520. Donald Shaeffr, Box 313, Milligan College. TN- 60302. Professor Robert Rienov.. Hollyhock Hollow 37682. 'Bruce E. Sundquist. 20 College Park Drive, Farm, RD.. Selkirk, NY 12158. George Shaffer. 0130 SE47th. Portland. OR Monroeville. PA 1514&. Eleanor Robbins, 7901 Brooklyn Bridge Road, 97206. Robert Sutherland. Etersburg Star Route. Lauren. MD. 20810. William Shealy. 3624 Royal Palm Arch. Whitehorn. CA 95489. Eugene Robbins. 1548,Tennyson Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23452. *John R. Swanson. P.. Box 922.Berkeley. Temperence, MI 48182. Bo Shelby. 1876 SW Brooklane, Corvallis, OR CA 94701. Thomas Roberts, Sherman Ave., Route 4, Box 97330. Mack Taylor. Box 2--70. Siver City. NNf 393. Bemidji. MN' 56801. David Shiah. 3459 Macomb.St.. NW, 88061. Gordo Robinson Forestry Consultant. 16 Washington. DC20018. Mr. Reggie Thackston. 9W Cyn hia StApt. 8, Road, Tiburon, CA 94920. Apollo Howard Shaken. 128A Almont Drive. Beverly OK 74578. Laurence Rockefeller 57 East 73 St. New Wilburton. Hills, CA 9z11. *Toby Thaler Skokomsh Indian Tribe, Route York. NY 10021. *Danny Simom 3123 Mentor, Wichita. KS- William Rockie; 26601 Stafford,Wilsonvlle, 5. Box 432 Sheltom WA 98584. 67213. Dale Thomas. Box 40. Redway, CA 96560. OR 97070. John Sisk. 181 Orchard Ave., Boulder, CO Kirk & Lisa Thompson, 315 N. Gold Stree L *Gordon Rodda, 713 NW 25th Ave., 8030Z Silver City. NM 8806. Ganesville, FL 32601. William Skelton; 452z Alta Vista Way, Lym Thompson. 119a4 LakeJun Richard-Robl, 22769 I-Sghway 36, Cheshire. Knoxville, TN 37919, Mesquie. TX 75160. OR 97419. Mr. & Mrs. Steven Slap. 371 7th,Ave.. Apt. 19- *Ms. Ethel W. Thorniley. 1883 Schoenterr. *Leonard Rolph. Route 2, Box 9, Glenwood. 1. New York. NY 10001. WA 98619. Ann Smith, c/o Reed College. Box l, Detroit M' 4a2. Box 135 Athena. ORs7s a. Noel Rosetta.1100 Missoula, Helena, MT Portland. OR 972o johnTillman. 59601. 'ArIo Smith, Emeritus Professor of Biology; Kent L Tanks. cio Mar e Ieny. Victo-. Im Ryan Ross, 1812 Birch Lane, Davis, CA 95616- SW at Memphis. 3724 Oakley Av. 83455-. *Harold Rowe, P.O. Box 711, Lakeview, OR Memphis, TN 38111. John E. Tonnesen. 1946fllsdale Di 9763.. *Blanche Smith, 119-CfDumbarton RoacL Sonora. CA 95320. Brian Royer, Box 144. Curlew, WA 9911& Baltimore, MI 21212. Douglas Toothman. Route 1. Box M *Lawrence Rozas, Route 3-Box 343K. New H. Don Smith. 228 17hAve-., Lewistom Montrose. West Virginfa 2603 Iberia. LA.70560. ID 8350L Jeanne W. Torasian. 1251 Country club Mel Ruder, P.O. Box 13B9; Columbia Falls, Drive.EstesPa&k CO 801. MT 59912. *James.T. Smith. R1:Irls.St., ApL 20. Los Alamos, NM 87544. ' WalterTrial. P.O. Box 983 Coeur dAkn ID CharlesRunyar 115 Flower Lakewood, CO- 83814. 80221. James Smith4 Box 2554,Campus Station. Socorro, NM 87801. Bruce Tripp; 44 WalkerSt- Saliaoutk ME Lynn Rupe, The University of Vermont, 340 02540. Waterman Bldg. Burlington, VT 05401. *Kenneth Smolinsky. 1880 NW42ndTerr. B- 105, Lauderhill. FL 33313. Rebecca A. Ullrich, Box 1073. Reed College. Thomas.Ryan. Sr..P.O. Box403, Lee Street Portland, OR 97202. Staatsburg. NY 12580; "Randy Snodgrass; 3110 Maple Drive NE., Jefry Van Valkenbur*g. 222 West t The - Charles Sanders, 700 Salisbury St, Holden. Atlanta, GA 30305. Dalles. OR 97058. ME Sally Snyder, c/o Reed College. Box 102$, 01520. Karla Vanderzandem 4isN. 8t. Aspen. cO Ed SargenL MD.. 29724 Maine-Peoria. Shedd. Pbrtland, OR 97202. 81611. OR 97377. *A. G. Soderlunc&4001 ML Barnard Ave. San *Nicholas Van Pelt. P.O. Box 9096 Reno,. NV A. Sartorfo, General Delivery, Fish Camp, CA, Diego, CA 92111. 93623. . Gail Solomon. 2506 Eight Ave., Oakland. CA 89507. Mr. & Mrs. William Sattler 4050 Poplar Ave., 9460C. Mr. Nicholas Van Pelt, General Delivery- Concord, CA 94521. *Richard Spotts, 0330 Havenside Drive 5, Nicasio. CA 94941. D. R. Saunders, Box 882, Eagle, CO 81631. Sacramento, CA 95831. Ferrell and Tina Varner 425 Hudson. *Fred Sawyer. 191Z.SE.4lst Portland, OR Bob &Ira Spring, 18819 Olympic View Drive, Oakland CA 94616. 97214. Edmonds, WA 9802o. Steve Veatch. 62-4 N. Cascade. -25,Cororado. Ted Schaefer, 3312 West Cooper Drive, Mark Srere; Box 107 c/o Reed College. Springs;, CO 80903. Flagstaff. AZ 86001. Portland, OR 9,20= Mark Veblen. c/o Reed College. BoxIl3. -*Carleton Schaller, Jr., 16 School St., Littleton. Dr. Geoffrey Stanford, Director, Greenhills Portland. OR 97=02. NH 03W6 Center and Experimental Station, Route 1. Bernard Venograde. 120aMichigan Avenue. Elizabeth Schiller; 76. Sunset Ave., Nortr Box 801, CedarHilLkTX 75104L Ames, IA 50010. Providence RI 02906. Brat Stafford. 425-25th, Hood River. OR Mr. Bernard 1. Verdegan. Route 2.Box 1& Anne Schmidt, #1008, co:Reed College; 97031. Hillsboro, OR 97123. Portland. OR 97202. Alan Stein.Box:535.Petersburg, AK 99833. Mary Vieregg,.D.t Box. 14.F. Clark's Mary and Conrad Schmidt. 3272 Gleneagles Dr. & Mrs. D. Steinberg. 4174 Pomona Way, Summit. PA 18411. 4 Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20906. Livermore, CA 94550. Jennifer Wagner. 2324 Culver Avenue, Jason Schoener, 74 Ross Circle, Oakland, CA Leonard Steinberg. Acting Executive Director, Kettering. OH 45420. 94618. P.O. Box 2778, Juneau. AK 99803. Mr. Peter C. Wagstaff, Attorney at Law. 105 Fred Schomber. 31460 13th Ave. SW. Federal Michael W. Steinburg, 326 South 19th St. -5- North Fourth Street. Coeur d7AIene. ID Way, WA 98003. B. Philadelphia, PA 19103. 83814. J. E. Schroeder, State Forester, 2600 State Jillian Stevenson. 3130 SW Gale Avenue. Peter C. Wagstaff. P.O. Box 117, Coeur Street. Salem, OR 97310. Portland. OR 97201. d'Alene. ID 83814. A. W. Schuette, 1191 Polaris Circle, Pittsburg, Roger G. Stewart. R.D. 3, Ski Drive, Neshanic Myron Wall, P.O. Box 60527. Sacramento, CA PA 15241. Station. NJ 08853. 9586. Denise Carol Schwartz, 1o Royal Park Drive, Charles H. Stoddard. Wolf Springs Forest. Stephen G. Waller. 9010 Fairhaven Avenue. Apt. 1-H, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309. Minong, WI 54859. Upper Marlboro, MD 20870. Tinothy Schveers, Box 248, 241 East Beau Charles W. Stout, Star Route 1, Box l-F. Stephen J. Walsh. M.D. 337 Spruce Street. SL., Washington, PA 15301. DeRidder, LA 70034. San Francisco, CA 94118. Bill Sefler. Route 1. Box 409, Forest Grove. OR Mrs. Carol Strand, 1 S. 445 School, Lombard, Stan Walthall. c/o NPRB-EIS. Room 221 9711. IL 60148. Power Block. Helena. NIT 59601.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53965 1979 and Regulations 53966 Federal Register / Vol. '44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules

*Edward Yardeau, Box 155, Eastham, ME struggle: policy and decisions result Audrey Ward, National Academy of when equilibrium -between groups Iqt Scientists, 2101 Constitution Ave., 02642. William Yoke, 3030 Kingman Blvd.,'Des reached. Washington, DC 20418, 6. Game theory: policy as rational Box i64, Heppner, OR 97836. Moines, IA 50311. Glen Ward, P.O.' MO in competitive situations, This Is William B. Ward, Box 266, Klickitat, WA James Young, 90Lami St., St. L!uis, choice 98628. 63104. the making of rational decisions in. 105 Evans Lane, Oak" Beatrice M. Zimmer, 5373 Balama Terrace, situations where participants have Kenneth S. Warren, O Ridge, TN 37830. Apt. #5, Cincinnati, 45223. choices to make and the outcome Mrs. Robert S. Watson, 36 Ardor-Drive, Appendix B depends on the choices made by each of Orinda, CA 94563. ' them. There is no independently best Susan Watson,'36 Ardor Drive, Orinda, CA' Planning process or system choice. This theory provides a way of 94563. alternatives which are considered are thinking clearly about policy or Kenneth J. Webb, 11521 8 N., Seattle, WA described below. For a more complete decisions choices in conflict situations. 98125. " discussion, the reader is referred to the 7. Institutionalism Theory: policy and William Webb, Environmental Consultant, The Eyrie, 220 South'winds Drive. Sanibel. mfnutds ofthe May 24-26, 1977 decisionmaking as inherant Institutional FL 33957. Committee of Scientists meeting., activity. The activities of individuals W. L. Webb, 'The Cliff Hanger', Blue .,Incrementalism: policy of and groups are generally directed NY.12812. decisionmaking as variations on the governmental institutions. Public Mountain Lake, Weeks &Rusch toward Mr. Martin Weeks, Bogue, past. The landmanager views public policy and decisions are authoritatively P.O. Box 435, Vermillion, SD 57069. policy and decisionmaking as a determined, implemented, and enforced Charles A. Wellner, USFS Retired, 439 Styner continuation of the'past government by governmental institutions, Ave., Moscow,.ID 83843. activities with only incremental 8. Elite Theory! policy or decision as Fred Wendorf£ Dept. of Anthropology, S. process is based on Dallas, TX 75221. modifications. This 'the preference of an elite. Elite shape Methodist University, the successive comparison of a limited Holly R. Thau& Hank Werner, 572 Fanny mass opinion on policy or decision Way NE, Salem, OR 97301. array of policies or decision alternative. questions more than do the masses Mrs. Pauline E. Wessels, 400 South 12th 2. Rationalism: policy or because the latter are apethetic and ill- Street, Quincy, IL 62301. decisionmaking as efficient goal. informed. In other words, policies flow or John Wpstrope. 9354 Mellenbrook, Columbia, achievement. A rational policy from elites to the masses: they do not MD 21045. decision is one thatis correctly designed arise from the masses, Charles B. White, 334 Monroe Street, Denver, to maximize or minimize net value CO 80206. 9. Anti-Planning: policy and achievement. Policy and decisionmaking decisionmaking as output of an *Charles White, Yegge, Hall &Evans, 2900 is approachdd through means-ends Energy Center One, 717 17th Street, Denver, individualistic decisionmaking. This Is a analysis. First, the desired ends are of planning. A system or CO 80202. metans common form Aienue, Forest determined, then the alternative to be Lora White, 101-19 Ascan are designed. problem exists which needs Hills, NY 113Z5. " to achitive them The manager studies aspects Scanning: policy and managed. David D. Whitesitt, Box 322, Seeley Lake, MT 3. Mixed -of the problem he deems important, 59868, decisionmaking as variations, on the modified efficient goal utilizes data from staff, and decides Edward Williams, 98 Maddox Drive, NE, past in line with what todo. Atlanta, GA 30309. achievement. This process is a mixture given. Major problems outside the planning *Finis, William S., No address of Incrementalism and Rationalism. It the type of Lee Wilson,'P.O. Box 160, Arroyo Grande, details and realm itself greatly constrain attempts to limit the procedure which can be used, CA 93420. explores longer run alternatives. planning Richard Wilson, 2111 Nimitz Drive, Des- 4. System Theory: policy and ' Two concepts of considerable Plaines, IL 60018. as rational system'output. This importance are "paradigm" and Headwaters, P.O. Box 113, decisions Alan Winter, of the scientific "people". A "paradigm" is a got of Williams, OR'97544. theory is an extension method. The problem is defined, conceptual constructs which govern the Mr. Harold Wisdom, Dept. of Forestry, VPI, viewpoints of people involved in a Blacksburg, VA 24061. objective set, alternatives developed are and evaluated, and a decision made as planning process. The people Jerome Witler, 29625 SW Serenity Way,. referred to as "hierarchists," Wilsonville, OR 97070. to the preferred course of action. A Tom Wodetzki, Box 187, Albion, CA 95410. mechanism of monitoring and updating "individualists," and "mutualists," who Harold W. Wood Jr., 3409 88th St. S., #4,. -isneeded. use different paradigms, respective "one Tacoma, WA 98409. 5. Group Theory: policy and way casual," "random process," and Lea Wood,'1745 Cox Road, Aptos, CA 95003. decisionmaking as a group equilibrium. "mutual casual." These notions were *Bob Wunner, 5825 Jacoby Cr Rd-,Bayside, 'This is based on the belief that also considered and used as part of tho CA 95524., interaction among groups is the central' 'conceptual basis for designing the Virginia"Wyatt, 2119 WE21st Ct.. Renton, planning process. WA 08055. fact-of political decisiomaking. Groups'

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53966 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53967 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17. 1979 / Rules ~nd Regulations 53967 Appendix C Dr. William Webb, Wildlife Biologist. charge pertained only to subsection 6(g) formerly Professor In Wildlife of NFMA. the complex Committee of Scientists and other Management. State University of New interrelationships among the various Meeting Dates and Locations: York, Syracuse, New York. now retired. sections of the Act required that, in May 24-26,1977-Washington, D.C. Appendix E--Supplementary Final order to do its job effectively, the June 19-21,1977-Boise, Idaho Committee had to consider all July 27-28, 1977-Juneau, Alaska Report of the Committee of Scientists, August 17,1979 provisions of NFMA that relate to land August 29-30,1977-Denver, Colorado management planniug and timber September 21-23,1977-Minneapolis. Introduction Minnesota management. October 27-28,1977-San Francisco. This report contains the views of the The Committee met 18 times at the California Committee of Scientists, established various locations throughout December 1-2, 1977-Atlanta, Georgia pursuant to section 6(h) of the National country. Its meetings were entirely open January 16-18,1978--Phoenix. Arizona Forest Management Act of 1976 and provided an excellent opportunity February 23-24,1978-Biloxi, Mississippi for members of interest groups to have March 29-30,1978-Dallas. Texas (NFMA), as to the scientific and technical adequacy of theNMay 4. 1979. access to the drafting of the regulations. April 17-18,1978-Washington, D.C. suspect that Congress July 14,1978-Washington, D.C. draft of regulations prepared by the Although we September 28-29,1978-Denver, Colorado Forest Service to implement the land envisioned a more reactive role for us, it November 1-2,1978-Seattle, Washington and resource management planning proved most efficient for us to December 7-8,1978--Sacramento, California provisions of NFMA. In our earlier participate at times in the actual January 8-9,1979-Houston. Texas report (Federal Register 44(88): 26599- drafting process. Therefore. the final January 26,1979-Washington, D.C. 26657) we commented wording of the regulations does contain June 20-21,197-9--Asheville, North Carolina. at length on some material that originated in the various aspects of the scientific. Committee. Public Meetings on the National technical, and legal adequacy of the first Forest Management Act Regulations: This final report was prepared by the draft of the regulations published Committee after a meeting in Asheville, September 15,1978-Washington, D.C. August 31, 1978 (Federal Register N.C., on June 20-21. attended by four November 27,1978-Washington, D.C. 43(170: 39046-39059). We also phrased members (Cooper. Foil. Stone. Appendix D our recommendations in specific Teeguarden). Box. Stark and Webb have regulatory language (Federal Register Members of the Committee of read and approved the report. 44(88]: 2643-26657). Our earlier report stated that the first Scientists appointed by the Secretary of In the present report, our final Agricultdre, pursuant draft of the regulations, despite some to Section 6(h) of statement, we comment on how well the NFMA: important deficiencies, represented a revised second draft (Federal Register major step forward in Forest Service Dr. Arthur W. Cooper, Committee Chairman. 44(88): 26583-26599) speaks to issues policy. Furthermore. we considered it Botanist and Professor, School of Natural raised in our earlier report and upon the generally responsive to NTMA even Resources, North Carolina State University many improvements and additions that Raleigh, though a number of important issues North Carolina. have been made to the August 31,1978, Dr. Thadis W. Box, Dean, College of Natural were not adequately handled. The Resources and Professor of Range Science. draft. In addition, we recommend second draft is a major improvement Utah State University, Logan, Utah. changes in language where such seem upon the first. It not only contains the Dr. R. Rodney Foil, Mississippi Agricultural needed. . needed specificity in important areas and Forestry Experiment Station, A word about the Committee of but also shows evidence of substantial Mississippi State, Mississippi, and Scientists and its work is in order. The creative thinking by the Forest Service specialist in forest resource management. Committee is composed of 7 persons in revising the original draft. It shows Dr. Ronald W. Stark, Forest Entomologist anc appointed by the Secretary of clear evidence that the Forest Serce Coordinator of Research, University of Agriculture. It began its work In May. idaho. Moscow, Idaho. has considered both the public 1977. and essentially completed its Dr. Earl L Stone, Jr., Soil Scientist and comments on the first draft and the Professor, Department of Agronomy. duties in January 1979. Section 6(h) of specific recommendations of the Cornell University, Ithaca. New York. NFMA charges the Committee to Committee of Scientists. Dr. Dennis E. Teeguarden, Professor of provide the Secretary with scientific and Despite this praise. there ae still -Forestry Economics, College of Natural technical advice and counsel on the some problems involved with the second Resources, University of California, proposed guidelines and procedures to draft. Some problems are associated Berkeley, California, and specialist in assure that an effective interdisciplinary with organization: others are associated applying operations research to forest approach for implementing section 6 of with inadequacies or omissions. We resource allocation problems. NFMA is adopted. Although the actual identify these and suggest corrective language. Other problems arise from the

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53967 1979 53968 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations fact that the precise methodologies regard to prescriptions for the solution revisions. We propose that it be necessary to execute some of the-critical of on-the-ground management problems. reworded as follows: "(3) Proposed planning steps simply have not been Much of our report was. directed to Program alternatives. The Program is developed. We cannot develop such providing what we,considered to'be formulated from the Assessment technology; we -simply identify where appropriate specificity in key areas. The analysis of resource supply and demand these problems occur, point out their second draft-of the regulations contains relationships and from alternative significance, and express our-confidence a very high percentage of the program objectives prepared at the that they can be solved if NFMA is recommendations made in our report national level and reviewed and supported-as Congress intended. and adds some specificity deemed evaluated at the regional and forest After a brief general-comment, our necessary by Forest Service officials. levels for feasibility and compatibility views are presented in th& order that The aggregate effect of these with regional and forest capabilities as subjects appear in the Mayo4,1979, recommendations is a very detailed set expressed in regional and forest plans." second draft. When we refer to section of regulations. The degree of detail has, Section 219.4(b)(3) should cite section numbers in the second draft we identify in some cases, led to the charge that the 13 of NFMA in addition to section 0 as them as sections from the "second second draft is "over-specific." It is our the authority for development of land draft." Materials coming from our earlier view that this charge is invalid. We and resource management plans. report are identified by section number consider that, in virtually all cases, the Section 219.5 Planning Process, of the "COS report." 'there we do not degree of specificity in the second draft Organizationally is this section comment on a section or on a requiredis reurdi in orderre toome meet represents the largest difference requirement it can be assumed that we congressional intent as specified ,in between the first draft and our report, support the text proposed by the Forest NFMA and its legislative history. Itis on the one hand, and the second draft Service in its second draft. simply not possible to cdrry out the on the one A andersecnd dt General Comment planning requirements of NFMA in on the other. As we understand it this accordance with a set of regulations that sectionis designed to show that certass The second draft of the regulations is contain nothing but generalities, general features of the planning process a very careful exposition of a planning" Answers to vital management issues can pertain to the development of both process. As we stated in ourseport on be discovered by professionals, but regional hnd forest plans. It is followed the first draft, we consider such Congress intended, and the public by two sections (219.9 and 219.11) emphasis on-process entirely proper, desires, thatdesiresd the p~roc~ss thats used beefll fully dealing withptanen the specifics procedures of regional because we interpret NFMA as described in regulations. Although some and forest planmng procedures instructing the Forest Service to develop may wish differently, the degree of respectively. We have no quarrel with a process for planning use of lands in specificity represented by the second this organization per se, although it Is the National Forest System. draft-and the recommendationst of our not what we recommended in our report. The planning process of the second s w t Our view is that if the Forest Service repors. wplanners.feel comfortable with the draft is developed from the first. We felt requires. organization of the second draft, then It that the process described in the first draft could be made to work. The Section-by-Section Analysis should be adopted. We do recommend, improvements in the planning process Section 219.21 Purpose. however, that section 219.5 be retitled embodied in the second draft, together No:comment. "Regional and Forest Planning Process" with the greater specificity of that draft, Section 219.2 Scope and applicability. to more accurately portray its intent. makes a competent blueprint for future No comment. Our concerns stem from what has planning. On the whole, we approve of Section 219.3 Definitions. been left out in generalizing to create the changes in the second draft. In our No comment. ? : - this new general section and for analysis we point out some concerns Section 219.4 Planning levels requirements that are now not stated in and propose language to cope -with In our earlier report, we criticized the clear enough terms, them. section on "Planning-levels" in the first Our first concern i'sthat all refrenco We also repeat here the admonition of draft as failing to make clear the to the discount rate that will be used in our earlier report: that the regulations iterative nature ofthe exchanges among economiccalculations, such as the have to be read in their entirety to be the various planning levels, and for , determination of suitable lands for understood. The regulations are a inadequate description of development timber-harvest, has been removed from complex, finely-tuned, document. Many of the regional plan and its content. We the second draft. The discount rate is an requirements cannot be understood' pointed out the RPA/NFMA planning important factor in calculations and the without reading several sections and process must begin with on-the-ground public is entitled to know where the observing the relationships between assessments of the capabilities of each Forest Service will obtain this datum, requirements in the several sections. - National Forest to supply goods and Accordingly, we recommended that Finally, our report points out that the services at various budgetary levels, and § 219.5(c)(6) be reworded as follows: "(0) first draft regulations were not specific of local demands Such information Guidelines for economic analysis enough in prescribing actions and should then be aggregated at the practices established by the Chief, procedures to meet the requirements regional and national levels into Forest Service, that will become and intent of NFMA. This matter was regional plans and the RPA Assessment effective within one year after final the subject of intense debate in our and Program. Regional-and forest goals publication of these planning rules In the meetings and the debate continues. Our are then formulated by disaggregation of Federal Register,!including a discount report presented the view that the these data. The key is'continuous rate of analyses either equal to the rate regulations should be specific in iteration and interchange of information . used in the RPA Program or otherwise establishing the principles of land between the various planning levels. justified; and" management planning and establishing We consideg that § 219.4 of the second - We are concerned also about the process to be used in applying those draft adequately captures the sense of treatment of inventory data and principles. We further'itated that the this concept. The language of one information collection in § 219.5(d). regulations should not be specific in section (219.4(c)(3)) however needs Because the requirements in this area

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53968 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53969

were specific in § 219.9[c) of the first with the omission of some important addition to economic implications, are draft and even more specific in ideas and the unworkability of several to be assessed. § 219.10(c) of our report, the change to provisions. We suggest that: 2. The economic requirements of brief general requirements.in § 219.5(d) 1. Section (f)f1)(iii) should be § 219.5(g)(5) be rewritten. Specifically. of the second draft could be interpreted reworded. The section Is so stringently !ii) and (iv) should be restructured, as indicating that the Forest Service worded as to be unreasonable in its inasmuch as they now appear to conflict does not consider availability of data to requirements. For example, it could be with one another. The procedure be a major problem in planning. We interpreted as requiring the restoration described in (ii) for assignment of dollar stressed in our report, and we now of an animal species that had been values to nonmarket goods and services stress again, that unless adequate data extirpated from the region of the forest is, in our opinion, suspect and should be are available, the entire planning prior to the time It became a National eliminated. Subsection (iv) hints that the process will be a meaningless game. No Forest. Section [e)(1)(li) of our 219.10 preferred alternative will be the one that plan can be any better than the data could serve as a guide for more maximizes net worth and this inference that underlie it. Consequently, attention moderate language. should be eliminated. We suggest that to data collection, storage, and 2. Section (f0f1)(iv) is operationally our § 219.10[f)(4). or its sense, be treatment is a very important feature of difficult. We suggest that the wording substituted for (iv). The words "real- the planning regulations. used be: "(iv) Each identified major dollar" in (iii) might better be replaced We do not believe that the wording of public issue and management concern by the term "constant-dollar." § 219.5(d) is intended to downplay the will be addressed in one or more 3. A subsection be added to tie the importance of inventory data acquisition " alternatives: and" effects of the alternative to the regional and management. Statements made in 3. The word "cost-effective" be plan such as: "(8) Display the our meetings indicate that none of the changed to "efficient" in I 219.5(f0(1)(v) relationship of expected outputs to the National Forests now has adequate and § 219.12(b)[4)(lUd where it also forest production goals given in the inventory data-to support planning. occurs. The intent of the use of regional plan." Initial planning efforts the term by certain lead "cost-effective" is to maximize the 4. A special crbss-reference be added forests, however, apparently have given at the end of 219.5[g) to indicate that undue attention to data gathering present net worth of each alternative subject to meeting the objectives of the each alternative will be evaluated in without a clear relationship to the alternative. Therefore, the following terms of the management standards decision process. The altered language sentence should specified in § 219.13 (b and fg), attempts to correct this misemphasis. be added to § 219.5(I)(1)(v): We recommend that a reference to the We believe such correction can be "Efficient refers to the set of practices standards in § 219.13 (b) and (g) also be achieved without downplaying the which maximize the sum of anticipated distounted direct benefits added to § 219.5(h) to indicate that they cardinal importance of a sound will play an important role in the inventory process and suggest that the less anticipated discounted direct costs." evaluatibn of alternatives. matter be resolved in the following way: Finally, does the term "plan 1. The wording in § 219.5(d) should be 4. A new subsection [iv) should be inserted in § 219.5(f)(2), to show the role implementation" (§ 19.551)) apply to retained but augmented by clear forest planning. regional planning, or direction of RPA goals and objectives in that each regional and forest national planning? Although Forest plan should outline a program for formulating alternatives, as follows: Service officials have control over gathering and managing •"(iv) the extent to which it fulfills the data related to program proposals and plan the specific needs goals and objectives assigned in the of that region or implementation, to what extent do all forest. A review of this problem by the regional or forest plan, as appropriate." levels in the agency have control over Society of American Foresters proposes Section 219.5(g) dealing with budget allocations?If the certain criteria for this information plan. estimation of the effects of alternatives intent of the section is to define We commend them to the Forest Service exemplifies the loss of specificity which appropriate actions to be undertaken if budget allocations as being sound and useful for what we occurred as the planning requirements are think is needed. were generalized to relate to both the not sufficient, then (il(21 and (1(3) 2. Material describing the nature of regional and forest plan. A comparison should be combined. inventory data that will be needed in of this section with its counterpart in our Section 219.6 Interdisciplinary support of the respective plans should report, § 219.10[f) shows that the version Approach. be inserted in the sections on criteria for in the second draft consists primarily of This section is improved over the first regional plans (§ 219.10 and forest plans very general statements similar to those draft. Requirements relating to the (§ 219.12). The insertion in criteria for contained in (1) through (4) of our report. appointment of the team. its modus regional plans need not be long, but plus an outline of the economic analyses operandi,and the philosophy that is to substantially more detail, in line with that are to be made in determining the guide it are all more explicitly stated. § 219.10(c) of our report, should be benefits and costs associated with each However, we continue to be included in the section pertaining to alternative. Nowhere is there any real concerned with this section because of forest planning. direction with respect to estimating NFMA's special charge to the In § 219.5[e)(2) the word "demand" is environmental or social effects. Our Committee that is ". . . assure that an used in two senses. We suggest that for direction that the impact of each effective interdisciplinary approach is clarity the words -level of demand" alternative on diversity be assessed proposed and adopted." Our report set used in the sixth line of the section be (§ 219.10(f](1) (vi) and (vii) (in our out three issues critical in assuring an changed to "level of goods and report)) is also lacking. Accordingly, we effective interdisciplinary approach: services." suggest that: These are 1) composition of the team Section 219.5(f) dealing with the 1. The entire section be rewritten to and the qualifications of its members; 2) formulation of alternatives is rather reflect a better balance among the the philosophy that guides the team: and different from that which we effects that are to be assessed and to 3) the actual planning process that the recommended in § 219.10(f) of our show that environmental and social team uses. Some minor additions, report. Our concern is not with this but effects and effects on diversity, in patterned after suggestions in our report,

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53969 1979 53970 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, Septenber 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

will better assure that the section § 219.5, be added as the introduction to certain-minimum number of key steps in provides an effective interdisciplinary 219.65of the second draft: the planning process, and that the approach. ,, Section 219.6 Interdisciplinary responsible official must document thht The requirements of the secpnd draft Approach. he has analyzed and evaluated public with regard to item 1) above are The Forest Service shall use an input. Our proposed admonitions to virtually identical to those of our report interdisciplinary approach at each level encourage informal activities, with one important exception. We of tI3anning in the National Forest discourage obscure notification, and recommended in our § 219.6(b) that, System to assure that plans provide for encourage clarity in writing have been when Forest Service employees with multiple use and sustained yield of the omitted. Finally, a very controversial appropriate expertise or qualifications products and services to be obtained limitation on the right of appeal has are not available, the team shall from the National Forests in accordance been inserted as a new § 219.7(o) in the (emphasis added) consult persons other with the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield • second draft. than Forest Service employees. The Act 6f 1960. This approach should insure If the sense of the following minor second draft states only that the team coordinated planning for outdoor additions are made to § 219.7 of the i"may" consult such persons. We sugges t recreation, range, timber, watershed, second draft, then the requirements for that "shall" as in our original language wildlife and fish, .and wilderness. Land public participation activities (excluding is better direction in the event the management systems, harvest levels, the appeal provision) will be more required expertise is lacking. and procedures must be determined useful and acceptable, Our report also emphasized that it with due consideration for (1) their 1. The order of the statements of would be highly desirable for qualified- effects on all resources, (2J the definition intent in§ 219.7(a) should be altered. As employees of state agencies to be abl& of "multiple use" and "sustained yield" presently ordered, they suggest that to serve as members of planning teams. as provided in the Multiple Use- . informing the public of Forest Service We think that this is the most direct wa:y Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and (3) the activities is more important than to meet Congress' expectation that "... availability of lands and their insuring that the Forest Service the expertise of affected'state agencies suitabilities for resource management. understands the needs and concerns of wilt be obtained and used..." An interdisciplinary team, appointed the public. We recommend that (a)(3) be Furthermore, this procedure seemed to by the responsible Forest Service placed first, as the concept was in our us to have the added value of official, shall be used at each level of report, and the others numbered substantially increasing the credibility planning. Through essentially accordingly. We also suggest that (a)(5) of Forest Service planning, particularly continuous interactions, the team shall be reworded as follows: "(5) at the state level. It now appears, insure that planning achieves the goals Demonstrate that public concerns and however, that this is legally not possible of multiple use and sustained yield input are evaluated and considered in It is a fact, however, that careful management, by giving consideration to reaching planning decisions." The coordination among Forest Serviie and all resources and to the effects of inclusion of the concept in (a)(4) Is state planners is critical to the success management of one resource upon other excellent. In reality, however, it is a of plans, particularly in areas of shared resources. The interdisciplinary team statement of the basic goal of public responsibilities, such' as wildlife shall be guided by the fact that the participation,,and the other statements management. It is not clear to us that thi forests and rangelands of the National are goals subordinate to it. Therefore, full desires of Congress for co'ordination Forest System are ecosystems and, we suggest that the concept embodied In with the states can be realized through hence, that management for goods and (a)(4) be moved up to the lead language the coordination process alone. services requires an awareness of the of (a) where it can serve as part of the Therefore, we iecommend that the interdependencies among plants introduction to the various subgoals of Forest Service explore other ways in animals, soil and other environmental public participation. If this is done, then which it can make judicious use of non- factois that occur within such , the first sentence of § 219.7(f) should be Forest Service employees asI ecosystems. Proposed management deleted. participants in the interdisciplinary -programs must be both consistent with 2. The requirements from line 10 to the planning process. the nature of these interactions and end of § 219:6(c) in our report, which are The material in the second draft based upon the results of economic and omitted from 219.7(d) of the second relating to the qualifications of team social aiialysis. ' draft, should be teinserted. This will members is similar to what is in our Section 219.7 Public provide minimal assurance that Participation. activities will stress informality and that report. We consider the spelling out of The guidance provided in this section materials additional attributes are written in such a way as of team members ii is generally adequate. Sufficient to be of maximum value to the public. § 219.6(c) of the second draft to be a direction is provided for the public 3. The notice requirements at the end good addition. We suggest only two participation effort so that Forest of minor additions in this area. § 219.6(d) of our report should be Service planners can be clear as to what inserted at the end of I 219.7(c) of the 1. insert the word "higher" after "or" is expected of them. Perhaps more second draft. in line 10 of-§ 219.6(c), and important, sufficient guidance is 4. A sentence should be added at the 2. add the last two sentences of provided so thatThe public can end'of § 219.7(e) of the second draft 219.5(c) from ourreport to the end-of, understand Forest Service obligations containing the sense of the last sentence § 219.6(c) of the second draft. and procedures relating to public of our §219.6(j). We suggest. "In We consider that the policy direction participation. addition, the plan shall contain written to the team in the second draft § 219.6(a]I Although the section is somewhat material demonstrating that the is still weak. It specifies reasonably well different from that proposed in our significant issues raised during public what the team is supposed to do but report, it speaks to many of our participation have been analyzed and does not specify the philosophy that-will suggested additions to thexequirements evaluated,'? guide it. We suggest that the'sense of the contained in the first draft. The second 5. The sense of our § 219.6(g) should following two paragraphs, an amaflgam draft, however, fails-to specify that be inserted at an appropriate place in from the introduction and (a) of our public participation is required at a § 219.7 of the second draft. This will

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53970 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53971

insure that public participation activities We suggest that state and local Section 219.9 is straight-forward and occur at certain key steps during the growth plans be added to the inventory we find few problems in it. We planning process' We feel that the requirement of § 219.8(0). Growth plans. recommend small changes as follows: public should know where these steps where such exist, can be powerful 1. In § 219.9(a) we suggest, that for are (where in the process it can expect expressions of political and social desire clarity, the phrase "forest planning to be involved) and that the Forest with regard to the location of industry areas" in the first sentence be changed Service officials need to have these and public services. To ignore them is to "National Forests or forest planning spelled out so as to assist in planning unwise as we point out in our report. areas: public participation programs. We further suggest that the final draft 2. In § 219.9(d). the role of the State 6. Section 219.7a1) of the second draft include § 219.7[) of our report or its and Private Forestry and Experiment should be reworded as follows: "All sense. It seems important to make clear Station elements of the Forest Service is documents considered in development that the mutual effects of land not clearly specified. We suggest that of plans will be available at the office management practices on National this could be done in the third sentence where the plan was developed." Forests and adjacent lands is a proper of § 219.9(d). Solution of the problem presented by subject of the monitoring program. If 3. Section 219.9(11(6) should read the limitation on such a requirement is not specified, we "National Forest System programs." administrative appeals 4. Section embodied in § 219.7[o) of the second think it likely that monitoring will be 219.2(i) on monitoring seems draft is a much more difficult problem. confined to more obvious subjects such forced, and put in more for symnnetry We understand why the Forest Service as water quality, soil changes, and biotic than for real effect. The items to be inserted this provision. It fears that effects. monitored seem very broad and very endless appeals of planning decisions We also suggest the deletion of the difficult to quantify. The section may prevent for years the final words "and on which management is certainly does no harm but if it is to be implementation of a plan. The being practiced similar in character to left. we suggest that it be reworked so as administrative morass that such a that being practiced on adjacent to be somewhat more substantive and situation would create is clearly national forest lands" which appear at clearer in its objectives. The section undesirable. On the other hand, we the end of the first line of § 219.8(g) of should make clear that regional goals understand why so many readers of the the second draft. Although this phrase and objectives are to be the subjects of second draft, object to the Forest originated in our discussions of monitoring and that specific on-the- Service 'Proposal. No one willingly coordination with the Forest Service and ground management practices will be wishes to surrender the xight of were included in our report. they now monitored in conjunction with the administrative appeal and have his appear toplace an inappropriate individual forest plans. source of redress for planning decisions limitation on the intent of the section. Section 219.10 Criteria for Regional lie only in the courts. It appears to us Finally, we find that most of the cross- Planning Actions. that §219.7{o) will be undesirable and referencing additions we have We find more substantive problems in unacceptable to many. We recommend recommended at the end of our section this section dealing with regional that the Forest Service develop a on coordination have been omitted from planning criteria. The title is misleading different solution, even though this may the second draft. Although such cross- inasmuch as the section includes criteria mean changes in its administrative referencing adds redundancy and length of two sorts: criteria for planning and appeal procedures. to the regulations, we consider it useful decision criteria. How the term is used Section2l9.8 Coordination of Public in understanding the relationships of the is not entirely clear. Perhaps it would be Planning Efforts. various requirements to each other, and better simply to title the section recommend that it be restored. "Regional Plan Content" and structure it This section is vastly improved over around the outline Section 219.9 Regional Planning in § 219.9(h). the treatment in the first draft. It is now Uncertainty as to the meaning of the a workable blueprint for coordination of Procedure. word "criteria" crops up again in Forest Service planning with that of Our report stated that the proposed conjunction with the long list of other State and Federal agencies. three-tiered planning process, involving concerns in § 21910(b). Most of these Because this section so closely national, regional, and forest planning are not expressed as criteria and might follows the recommendation of our was sound. We are pleased to see this better be phrased simply as concerns to report, we have no substantive changes concept substantially improved in the be considered in regional planning. to suggest. One important matter is the second draft. The requirements Section 219.10(c) is weak because it procedure outlined in § 219.8(d) of the governing the regional planning does not make clear the relationship second draft to facilitate coordination procedure have been greatly expanded between the regional plan and the RPA with State governments. This involves a and clarified. Furthermore, a section Assessment and Program. The words requirement that regional foresters seek dealing with the content of the regional "contribute and respond to" are hardly agreements with Governors or their plan and the planning criteria to be operational. We suggest the initial designated representatives on certain included in it has been added. Taken wording of the section be changed to: crucial procedural measures. We had together, these sections provide an "Cc) To the extent consistent with suggested that the Forest Service adequate framework for developing the regional and forest resource capabilities, request each-Governor to designate a regional plan. Although regional plans regional plans will meet RPA goals and person to act as contactperson with are not called for in NFM. we objectives by providing long-range respect to all planning activities. thoroughly agree with the Forest Service policies, goals, and objectives;" Although the Forest Service proposal is view that they are critical to the whole Section 219.10(d) creates problems on different from ours, it appears equally RPA planning process. Nevertheless, several counts. First. the section clearly likely to work and equally capable of some changes in §§ 219.9 and 219.10 of specifies material that relates to the producing the desired results, that is, a the second draft are desirable, in order content of the regional plan. The closer liaison with each state during all that the regional plans can play the vital standards and criteria enumerated are levels of planning. role envisioned by the Forest Service., items that must be developed in each

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53971 1979 No0. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53972 Federal Register / Vol. 44, 53972 Federal Register I Vol. 44, N6. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations regional plan and which then set" and by the public that may seek to with respect to criteria for inventories, dimensions on the individual- forest interact with the Forest Service in the particularly those basic to the forest plans in a given region. We suggest development of regional plans. plan. We suggest that the sense of either that § 219.9(h) be moved into Section 219.11 Forest-Planning § 219.10(c) from our report could be § 219.10 to form the basis for the section, Procedure. made a new § 219.12(b) In the final draft, or that § 219.10(d) be moved to This section closely parallels the We agree that a "shopping list" such as 219.9(h)(5). Either move-would resolve construction of the first draft and that of this does not assure competent the inconsistency. § 219.9 of our report. The principal inventory but it does indicate that the The content of 219.10(d) also poses differences are in (a) the greater agency is indeed serious about problems. The section is similar to specificity of the second draft, (b) accumulating an adequate data base to 219.8(e) of our report except that it-omits inclusion of several sections (plan support its planning and management our sections (1) silvicultural systems, (5) content, monitoring and evaluation) that programs. management intensity and utilization were previously included with the The very difficult problem of standards, (6) regeneration criteria, and section describing the forest planning determining lands available, capable, (7) cost standards for determination of and suitable land process, and Cc) addition of some new for timber production and suitable for timber harvest. Section material [planning records). harvesting is treated in § 219.12(b) of the 219.10(d) of the second draft also omits Our report stated that the procedures second draft. Our report analyzed this important language at the end of our proposed issue § 219.8(e) relating for forest planning were at length and proposed an to the use of Regional satisfactory and that they laid out the alternative procedure to that contained Silvicultural Guides and to consistency major responsibilities and requirements in the first draft. The second draft among regions. We recommend that: to be met. The proposed changes in this generally follows our 1. Our § 219.8(e)(1) and (5) be inserted proposal. as written section strengthen it, and we therefore Nevertheless the procedure outlined in in § 219.10(d) of the second support its adoption. the draft. second draft contains some 2. Our § 219.8(e)(6) be inserted in Section 219.12 Criteria for Forest problems that need to'be resolved § 219.10(d) of the second draft but that Planning Actions. before it will be entirely satisfactory. subsequent wording relating to the The second draft creates two sections These problems and our proposed development of Regional Silvicultural (Criteria for forest planning actions resolutions are as follows: Guides'be revised so as to'make clear (§ 219.12) and Management standards 1. Section 219.12(b)(1)(1) requires that that this section need not be subject to and guidelines (§ 219.13)) from material any land that has been ". . the same public participation previously included in a single section of legislatively or administratively constraints as are the other sections. We the first draft and in our report. We felt withdrawn from timber production".bo consider this to be apk'ropriate because morecomfortable having the material designated as not suited for timber of the technical complexity of the issue. related to the management of a given production. We agree that such a screen 3. A section relating to determination resource included in a section treating should be used first in determining the of cost standards be inserted in that resource. As our report noted, suitability of lands for timber harvest, § 219.10(d) of the second draft as however, placing all guidance for Because there is some ambiguity as to what is meant by the term follows: "(9) Establishment of the'price planning and managing each resource in "administratively standard(s) to be used in determining an individual subsection dealing with withdrawn", however, the potential economic suitability of that resource, might imply continuation we recommend that the term be defined land for commercial timber production of functional resource planning. This by reference to the authority used to as required in § 219.12(b)." may-be sufficient reason for the Forest make the withdrawal. 4. All of the material at the end of our Service to espouse-the treatment ' 2. Some of the criteria used in making § 219.8(e) beginning with thq words contained in the second draft despite the economic tests for suitability have "These prescriptions, size limits, and whatever awkwardness results. been moved to § 219.5, and the wording standards.. ." and ending with the- Whatever the reason, our opinion is that of others has been altered in the second words ", . . justify such differences." be if the Forest Service understands this draft. These changes are substantive added at the end of § 219.10(d) of the structure, and can operate comfortably and appear to imply policies with which second draft.' under it, there is no technical reason we disagree. The Forest Service has The statement in § 219.10(f) of the why it should not be adopted. chosen not to use our proposal that second draft that "Very little new data The content of §§ 219.12 and 219.13 of direct benefits be expressed in terms of will be gathered through land and the second draft, taken collectively, is an "alternative cost standard." We resource inventories" concerns us. We close to that recommended in our report. recognize that the concept is untried and recognize the practical need to develop We had criticized the section on that its implementation might be regional plans,. or at least the first management standards and guidelines difficult, but the concept has merit and generation of them, without a massive in the first draft as being too limited in should be retained as an alternative effortto gather new data.-The tone and specificity and failing to deal with a approach. implication "expected However, the use of of (f), however, is that data numnber of critical issues. We are future stumpage prices" as are not important to the regional plan pleased at the adoption of the basic the measure of direct benefits In the and that it can bb fabricated entirely framework together with nearly all of second draft needs further development from existing data. We think this the specific planning criteria and before implication it can be accepted as a valid is wrong and that it fails to management standards of our report. measure of public benefit. convey the problem that Our the Forest We have a number of specific reservations about using stumpage price Service faces. We suggest that suggestions, however, for change Which as a mqasure of public § 219.10(f) be rewritten soas to provide benefit were we ,think will substantially strengthen discussed in our previous report (see our some more substantive standards for the section and render it more discussion of § 219.10(d) data gathering in conjunction of the first with the satisfactory. draft). What is and what is not Included regional plan. Such guidance is sorely As nbted above in our comments on in the term needed both by Forest Service planners "stumpage" needs to be § 219.5, the second draft is deficient defined. For example, does it include

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53972 1979 Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53973 roads and other aspects of the sale of schedule (§ 219.12(d) of the second is prepared. We concur with this timber? Furthermore, because the draft) are essentially those of the first exception and consider the revised draft benefit/cost criterion will be used, draft which, in turn, derived from wholly satisfactory with respect to the either formally or informally, as a language we recommended. We support wilderness resource. decision criterion, "stumpage price" the proposed language, we consider that The second draft includes virtually all becomes a policy matter. the provisions for determining of the language that we recommended Accordingly, we recommend that a departures from the base schedule are for special guidelines to govern the schedule of prices, whether expressed both appropriate and consistent with planning for wildlife and fish as stumpage price or alternative cost NFMA, and we concur with the change (§ 219.12(g)), range (§ 219.12(h)), standard, be determined as a part of the that requires a plan containing a recreation (§ 219.12(i]), and soil and regional plan. We have included departure to be approved by the Chief of water resources (§ 219.12[k)). We have recommended language for such the Forest Service. Several minor no further recommendations in regard to determination in conjunction with our problems in this section have been these sections. comments on § 219.10 of the second brought to our attention and we suggest We are pleased to see that a section draft (See discussion of § 219.10(d), Item they be dealt with as follows: dealing with mineral resources 3). Because of the geographic variation 1. It was pointed out to us in our June, (§ 219.12j)). is contained in the second in Forest Service Regions, this schedule 1979, meeting that the present wording draft. We also commend the Forest will have to be broken down by of § 219.12(d(1)(ii)(1D) seems redundant Service for including provisions relating subregions in the regional plan. and unnecessary in light of the specified to cultural resources and for research 3. A statement concerning the requirement for "long term sustained natural areas. All three of these new "interest rate used to discount future yield" elsewhere in § 219.12(d](1)(i). provisions add an important dimension benefits and costs of timber production" Furthermore, this paragraph could to the regulations. has been eliminated entirely from the require unnecessarily expensive Section 219.13 Management Standards second draft. We understand that this analyses when extremely irregular and Guidelines. determination may well be made by an initial conditions combine with short- As mentioned, the content of § 219.13 authority other than the Forest Service. run objectives so as to make it such as OMB or the Secretary of impossible to, achieve the long-term is similar to material in parts of§ 219.11 Agricillture. Despite ibis, we think that sustained-yield structure except after a of our draft. The section dealing with specification of the ultimate source of considerable period of time. We standards that all management practices the interest rate used would help public consider this paragraph as necessary, will meet (§ 219.13(b]) is an expansion understanding. As stated earlier, we however, because it spells out a design ofour § 219.11(a). Likewise, the suggest that it be added among the standard for the determination of requirements of most other sections can economic criteria outlinedin departures. Therefore, we recommend be tracked back to our I 219.11(a) § 219.5(c)[6), and cross-referenced into that the initial wording of (D)be altered which, in part, can be tracked to the § 219.12[b). as follows: "[D) For all harvest report of the Forest Service Silviculture 4. Because specification of the schedules, demonstrate that each is Task Force presented to our meeting in practices associated with a particular consistent with achievement of a forest the fal of 1978. Generally speaking we intensity of management is critical to the structure that will enable perpetual find the language in § 219.13 of the economic test for suitability, we timberharvest . . second draft acceptable. Certain issues recommend that the following qualifier 2. Section 219.12(d)[1)[iii) has now deserve further comment, however, and be inserted after the first sentence of been worded in such a way that only in some cases minor changes of wording § 219.12(b)2)/iii) in the second draft: one alternative is required in seem called for. "However, the practices associated with conjunction with the calculation of a The silvicultural provisions of the a particular intensity of management departure. Furthermore, the wording second draft (§ 219.13 Cc) and (d)) differ must be economically efficient." requires that the alternative be from our recommendation in only one 5. Section 219.12(b)(4) is unclear. "considered and formulated." We major respect, that is, control of the size Paragraph (4)(i) seems to relegate timber recommend the following substitute of openings created by harvest cutting.three production to a residual use. The shift in wording: "(iii) One or more alternatives The second draft establishes order of the three paragraphs, (i), (ii), providing for departures from the base categories of maximum size according to and IBM)from that in our report changes harvest schedules will be formulated, forest regions and type, with a blanket the emphasis of the section. We considered and subjected to 40 acres maximum applying to all types recommend that the order and wording comparative analysis when any of the of the contiguous U.S. other than the embodied in (A), (B), and (C) of our following conditions occur." Douglas-fir type where the limit is 60 § 219.(e)(1)(iiH) be used instead of the Finally, it has been pointed out to us acres (§ 219.13(d)). Larger openings may treatment now in the second draft. that the timber harvest scheduling be permitted as exceptions in regional 6. Section 219.11(e)(1)(iv) in our report provisions relate primarily to even-aged plans. These provisions are in contrast has been omitted from the second draft management and harvesting. This may to our rationale and suggested Although the basic concept embodied in create problems if the provisions are to regulation language (§ 219.11(a)(3)) this paragraph seems to be treated in the be applied to other harvest and which assigned setting of appropriate evaluation ofulternatives requirements, management systems. maximums to the regional plans in the we consider the sense of the paragraph Provisions of the second draft relating interests of greater precision and important to a thorough understanding to identification and management of flexibility. of the determination of lands suitable wilderness (§ 219.12 (e) and (1)) agree Otherwise the provisions of the draft for timber harvest. We recommend that with our report (§ 219.11(g)) in all under Vegetation Management this paragraph be reinserted as respects, except to specify that lands (§ 219.12(c)) and Management Standards § 219.12(b)(5) of the final draft, -with the designated for non-wilderness purposes and Guidelines § 219.13(c) are in close current (5) becoming (6). in the recent RARE I classification need agreement with our suggested language The provisions governing not be again assessed as wilderness as (§ 219.10(a)(2) and § 219.11(a)(3)). The determination of timber harvest the first generation of new forest plans factors to be considered in establishing

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53973 1979 53974 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations - -I A

size limits for openings in the-regional We also call attention to the term - nearly accord with the sense of our plan, under our proposal (§ 219.11(a)(3)), "tree openings" in the lead sentence of original proposal. however, now appear as considerations § 219.13(d) of the seco0nd draft.'This term 'We wish to emphasize also that the when establishing exceptions to is ambiguous and should be replaced requirement for special planning of nationally prescribed maximums in the with language such as "When openings strips bordering permanent streams and regional plan. are created in the forest by the lakes is'by no means an automatic We recognize that setting national application . provision for "buffer strips", The maximum size limits has taken on a In our report we pointed out that the required planning may indeed call for symbolic importance for some first draft of the regulations contained "buffer strips" to trap sediment, to environmental groups. The provisions of numerous provisions intended to prevent equipment, animal, or human' Alternative No. 6 of the DEIS in this safeguard soil stability, soil productivity activity along water margins, or to respect are an evident concession to and water resources, and recommended control water temperature where those such feelings, and do not have any two additional provisions: an emphasis are appropriate. But elsewhere the factual basis in forest-ecology and land - on official technical handbooks physical circumstances and the outcome management. We recognize also that consolidating site specific instructions, of interdisciplinary planning may result present practices on National Forests and a special planning requirement for in quite other treatments, provided that commonly are within the indicated streamside and-lakeside margins. watei quality is not impaired. maximums so that delays, added costs The present draft in {§§ 219.12(k) and Accordingly we consider the use of the or lower returns, and reduced 219.13 (b), (c), (e) and (f)) includes term "buffer strip" as a synonym for management options may occur in essentially all of the previous and special planning strips unfortunate, not relatively few locations if the provisions recommended provisions contained in' in accord with the specific language of for exceptions are indeed used- our proposed language (§ 219.11(a) (4), the regulations, and likely to mislead the effectively. In our judgment, however, (5) and 219.11(f)) but with improved casual reader. We recommend that it be the imposition of nationally prescribed phrasing. There are two consequential replaced in the DEIS, Moreover we maximums lacks any technical or differences, however. - recommend that the ratiqnale for scientific foundation, and will in no way Section 219.13(e) of the second draft, treatment of such strips, as contained In improve the quality of resource establishing the spedial planning strips, our report, be made explicit in the final management. Rather it is simply an- states that, "no management practices EIS to avoid possible misunderstanding. unnecessary constraint or source of, will be permitted (in these) that ' Diversity continues to be one of the delay in interdisciplinary planning at the seriously or adversely affect water most difficult issues with which these Forest and Regional levels . conditions or fish habitat." This regulations must deal. We analyzed the We again call attention to the compares with our proposed language, "all management issue in our report and stressed that, in discussion of this issue in our-report: activities, such as..., our opinion, Congress used the term "There simply is no scientific will be conducted in such a way'as to diversity to refer to biological variety justification for establishing any single protect these waters from detrimental' rather than any of the quantitative maximum (or minimum) area limit for changes... (in compliance with other expressions now found in the biological the entire nation, nor yet for any region cited regulations) and to the extent that literature. Accordingly, we supported a as a whole. In our view, the sole total multiple use benefits exceed straightforward definition of the term, technical purpose of maximum size costs." We regard the latter language as such as that found in the second draft limits is as an outside safeguard against more realistic and flexible in practice, (§219.3(e)) and helped develop a the unpredictability of natural events with an emphasis on finding solutions, treatment of diversity that Insured it and on-the-ground misjudgments or where these exist, rather than would be considered throughout the excesses of zeal. That purpose is served encouraging blanket prohibitions.. planning process rather than as one only when the limits are made, Section 219.13(f) of the second draft, isolated step in the process. appropriate to particular sets of terrain, which includes provision for official The treatment of diversity In the soil, climatic probabilities, and technical handbooks, omits our second draft is generally consistent with vegetation. A single arbitrary value, requirement that these contain our report. However, there are some selected as a compromise, must- performance stanqards and tolerance important differences to bq resolved in necessarily prevent or needlessly limits. We recognize that an objective the final draft. Our § 219.10, describing hamper planning operations at some basis for setting definitive standards " the forest planning process, required locations while providing wholly and limits is lacking in many instances (§219.10(c(2)(vii)) that quantitative inadequate safeguards to more difficult at present, and hence our proposal may data useful for determining diversity be or hazard-prone situations at others. be too stringent. Nevertheless-we regard collected. No such requirement appears The present draft regulations require the establishment of such standards and in the second draft; it will be restored that each regional plan establish limits as preferable to use of unspecified, however,, if our recommendations maximum limits for the area to be cut in qualitative terms. relating to inventory requirements are one harvest operation, according to The second draft also contains an followed.: geographical area and forest type important new provision § 219.13(b)(12) 'urthermore, our sections on the (§ 219.10(d)(3)(vi]). These provisions' regarding establishment of vegetation on formulation of alternatives spell out no less than ten factors that the total area disturbed-by roads. (§219.10(e)(2)(iv)) and estimation of thoe must be considered in setting these Among other benefits the resulting effects of alternatives (§219.10(f)(1) limits. Furthermore, the regional-plan (vi) is stabilization of disturbed surfacs " and (vii)) both required that diversity be subject to the environmentalimpact would reduce likelihood of sedimeht considered in structuring and evaluating statement process." entering streams in some situatiohs. alternatives. Both of these Accordingly, we reiterate our original . Accordingly, we consider requirements he revised' have been lost in the process of recommendation that each regional plan draft as highly satisfactory in re'pect'to of maximums - generalizing the planning process to establish a series soil and Water protection, but pertain both appropriate to particular forest to regional and forest plans. types recommend that the provision din special Because both of and physical situations. these requirements art planning strips be changed to more " critical to an appropriate evaluation of

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53974 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No.. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53975 diversity, we recommend that they be references appear in the definition in the Scientists, such as ours, in the process of reinserted. Our proposed changes in second draft (219.3(e)). The argument further revision of these regulations. §219.5 of the second draft would resolve against including references to species Therefore, we recommend that such a this problem. and abundance in the treatment of provision be included. In rewriting two key sections relating diversity is that no references to these Section 219.16 Transition Period. to diversity, the Forest Service seems to dimensions of the diversity problem No commenL have created problems for itself and, to appear in NFMA or its legislative some extent, distorted the intent of the history. If this were as far as the matter Closing Comments provisions contained in our report. The went, it could be resolved by omitting In closing, we would emphasize two sections involved are them from the definition. However, in several points. Some relate to our § 219.11(a](1)(v) from our report which is assessing the diversity of plant and review of the second draft of the equivalent to § 219.13(b)(5) of the animal communities the Forest Service -regulations; the remainder concern the second draft, and § 219.11(a)(6) from our must deal with both numbers and kinds actions required during the next few report, which is equivalent to § 219.13(g) of species. It is simply not possible to years to successfully implement these of the second draft. We recommend assess diversity without knowing what regulations. these be rewritten as follows: kinds of species compose the different We must stipulate that, of necessity. "[5) Provide for and maintain diversity in communities in a region and the our review of the second draft has been plant and animal communities to meet overall numbers of each that are present for the limited. Each of us has read the draft multiple-use objectives, including, where simple reason that kinds and numbers thoroughly and four of us discussed it at appropriate and to the degree practicable, are the biological ways that diversity is our last meeting. Because of the preservation of the variety of endemic and measured. On the other hand, complexity of the regulations and the desirable naturalized plant and animal controlling the maximum numbers and species currently found in the area covered rather sweeping reorganizational by the forest plan;" general distribution of say, deer and changes made in the draft, however, "(g] Diversity of plant and animal bear, may be absolutely necessary in there is a possibility that we have not communities and tree species will be multiple use management. The problem caught or evaluated all changes of considered throughout the planning process. is a true administrative "Catch-22", and consequence. Inventories will include quantitative data it seen's to us the Forest Service ran do The planning process described by making possible the evaluation of diversity in little other than it has done in phrasing these regulations is a complex one. It terms of its prior and present condition. For its regulatory response to Congress' will be costly, in terms of personnel and each planning alternative, the direction. interdisciplinary team will consider how resources, to implement. Our report diversity will be affected by various mixes of Section 219.14 Research. comments on the need for adequate resource outputs and uses. including The requirements for incorporating numbers and a balanced mix of proposed management practices. The research into the planning process seem interdisciplinary team members in the selected alternative will provide for diversity Forest Service if the planning envisioned of plant and animal communities and tree to.have been simplified over those In our report. We have concluded that the by these regulations is to become species to meet the overall multiple-use reality. We objectives of the planning area. To the extent essential points are in the second draft continue to be concerned consistent with the requirement to provide for and that additional wording would not about this matter, and problems diversity, management practices, where be particularly useful. encountered by the Forest Service its appropriate and to the extent practicable, A recommendation that emerged from trails of these regulations on certain will preserve and'enhance the diversity of our discussions, however, is that the "lead Forests" suggest that such concern plant and animal communities and tree is justified. Originally, The Forest species so that it is at-least as great required annual report, which is to as that describe the status of major research Service hoped to be able to develop which would be expected in an unmanaged interdisciplinary planning teams for part of the planning area. Reductions in programs and relate this to National existing diversity of plant and animal Forest management (219.14(c) of the given forests by assigning specialists to communities and tree species will be made second draft), be developed at the temporary duty at a succession of only where needed to meet overall multiple- regional, rather than national, level. We National Forests. In this way the same use management objectives. Planned type feel that research can best be specialists could deal with similar issues conversions will be justified by an analysis coordinated at the regional level and on several forests progressively, thus showing biological, economic, and social holding down personnel costs. For a consequences, and the relation of such that the report will be more useful if prepared there. variety of reasons that appear to be well conversions to the process of natural justified, it change." We call attention again to the need for now appears desirable to "Wealso recommend better coordination between research train local planners to deal with their that the word own issues, in order that there be local "natural" in the fifth line and forest management. Coordination of of the forest planning and-Forest Service leadership in the development of the definition of diversity in § 219.3(e) be research is an administrative matter, plan and, more importantly, local removed. The wording that we commitment to its implementation. Key recommend for § 219.13(b](5] however, and it is unlikely to be makes measurably improved by requirements specialists assigned from the Region can clear that preservation of the variety of in regulation form. provide some leadership and quality endemic and desirable naturalized plant control, but the urgent need is for and animal species is a goal of diversity Section 219.15 Revision of Regulations. planning competence on each forest considerations. Therefore, the word We are pleased that a provision for "natural" supervisor's staff. This requires more is not necessary in the periodic revision of the regulations is personnel skilled in planning, especially definition. included. Although we understand that in such areas as economics, data Finally, many comments have been the Secretary of Agriculture can appoint management and recreation, than are raised indicating that no reference whatever advisory committees he might now available. This need must be met should be made to "species" or "species desire, we still feel that there is great somehow if planning is to succeed. s abundance" in the definition of diversity benefit to be derived from continued It seems clear to us, therefore, that our that appears in the final draft. Such involvement of a Committee of report was correct in stating that Forest

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53975 1979 53976 Federal.Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Service estimates of the cost of planning far easier. Although we disagreed many- for the National Forest System. They were grossly conservative. Our report times, we were able to resolve'virually determine resource management cited Department of Agriculture data; all of our substantive differences. We practices, harvesting levels and contained in the House Report on particularly wish Chief McGuire'wel" 6n procedures under the principles of NFMA, indicating planning costs of $20, the occasion of his retire'ment. We trust' multiple use and sustained yield and' the million per year for the five fiscal years that new Chief Max Peterson will have availability and-suitability of lands from for 1977-1981. Revised figures (p. the support and forbearance of all, boih resource management, All levels of 26576) in the draft EIS accompanying the inside and outside the Forest Service, as planning will be based on the following second draft indicate the costs will be. he turns to the difficult task of principles: nearly $1.40 million for the seven fiscal implementing these sweeping years from 1979-1985. This averages (1) That the National Forests are regulations. ecosystems and their management for slightly less than $1 miilliqn per plan. An Title-36 of the Code ofFederal increased manpower need ofi.9 man goods and services requires an Regulations, is amended by adding a awareneis of the interrelationships years pek plan is ais6 estimated.' new Part 219, consisting ofSubpart A as among plants, animals, soil, water, air, Although these figures are higher thali set out below. earlier estimates, we still regard them as and other environmental factors within conservative. The total added effort and PART 219-PLANNING such ecosystems. Proposed management will consider these interrelationships:, costs required by inventory, economic Subpart A-Natfonar Forest System Land analysis, and monitoring requirements and Resource Management Planning. (2) Consideration of the relative alone pose new dimensions, farbeyond -values of'all renewable resources, anything now Sec, including the relatiolnship under way in the Forest 219.1 Purpose_- of mineral Service. 219.2" Scope and Applicability. resources to these renewable resources: Thus we again emphasize ourearlier 219.3 Definitions. (3y' Establishment of goals and statement that, if the Congressional 219•A PlanningLevels. objectives for the sustained yield of intention of NFMAis to be realizedc, 219.5 Regional and Forest Planning Process, products and getvices resulting rroni adequate funding for increased' 219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach. multiple-use management without 219.7 personnel and data acquisition must be Public Participation. impairment of the productivity of the made available by eachadministration 219.8 Coordination of Publin Planning', land: and by Congress. If this is not done, the Efforts. 219.9 Regional Planning Procedure. (4) Protection and, where appropriate, process will not work. improvement The 219.10 Regional Planning Actions.' or the quality of renewable regulations provide guidelines for 219.11 planning, Forest Planning Procedure.. resources; and the standards or 219.12 Forest Planning Actions. procedures for developing 6tandards, for (5) Preservation of important historic, 219.13 Management Standards and cultural critical management actions on the Guidelines. and natural aspects of our national National Forests. We think that sound. 219.14 Research. heritage; wise answers to local and regional 219.15 Revision ofiRegulations• (6] Protect and preserve for American problems, such as timber harvest 219.10, Transition Period. Indians'their inherent right of freedom to scheduling, harvest methods, and Authority.-Secs. 6,and 15, 90 Stat. 2949, believe, express and exercise their wilderness allocation, can be generated 2952. 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613); and 5 U•S.C. traditional religions: 301. through the RPA/NFMA planning (7) Provision for the safe use and process. The task now is to make that.. Subpart A-Nattonar Forest System enjoyment of the forest resources by the process work. We trust thatboth --, Land and Resource Management public: Congress, and the-various groupswith, Planning (8)Protection of all forest and interests in management of the National rangeland resources § 2191 Purpose. froni depredations Forests; will allow-the planning prdcess by the forest pests, using ecologically to be implemented and allow it to deal - (a] The regulations in this subpart set compatible means with critical management problems. forth a process. for developing,-adopting- (91 Coordination with We close this report and our and revising land and resource the land and resource planning efforts of other participation on a positive note The: management plans for the National Forest Service has been Federal agenctes, State and locqi through, some Forest System. The purpose of the. governments. trying times, recently. RARE:II, NFMA. planning Indian tribes, and process is to-meet the adjacent private landowners: and reorganization have been, difficult requirements of the Forest and issues with which to deal. The agency Rangeland Renewable Resources (10) A systematic. Interdisciplinary has come through all of these with its Planning Act of 1974, approach t6 ensure coordination and as amended integration professional stature intact. The quality (hereafter RPA) including procedures. of planning activities for of the regulations developed for under the National EnvironmentalPolfcy" multiple-use management:. implementing the. planning provisions of Act of 1969 (hereafter NEPA) for (11) Early and frequent public NFMA indicates that the Forest Service assessing economic, social, and participation; can respond to public concerns in a , environmental impacts. These (121 Establishment of quantitative and professional,.yet sympathetic, way. As regulations prescribe how land and qualitative standards and guidelines for we said in our report, if the agency can- resource management planning is to bb" land and resource planning and bring the same dedication to conducted on NationalForest System ; managemeWt- implementing .the regulations. that it. lands. The resulting plans will'prov-id (13) Management of National brought to writing them, Forest then certainly, for multiple use and sustained yield oft System lands in a manner that is the outcome-will be positive. goods and services from IFinally, the. Nati6nal sensitive to economic efficiency; and a word of thanks and Forest System. congratulations (14) Responsiveness to changing to Chief~ohn R. (b) Plans guide all natural resouce" McGuire and his staff. The conditions in the land and changing assistance management activities and establishi. they provided us made a difficult task social and ecopomic demands of the management standards and'guidelifes', American people.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53976 1979 Federal Register / Vol 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53977 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 I Monday. September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations 53977 § 219.2 Scope and applicability. resource outputs (benefits) resulting pest population on various resources The regulations in this subpart apply from such action. In this analysis, values, alternative regulatory tactics to the lands and waters in the National incremental market and nonmarket and strategies, and benefit/cost Forest System. Planning requirements benefits are compared with investment estimates for these alternative for managing special areas, such as and physical resource inputs. strategies. Regulatory strategies are wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, (i) "Environmental analysis": An based on sound silvicultural practices national recreation areas, and national analysis of alternative actions and their and ecology of the pest-host system. trails, will be included in land and predictable short- and long-term Strategies consist of a combination of resource management planning pursuant environmental effects, which include tactics such as stand improvement plus to the-e regulations. Whenever the physical, biological, economic, social. selected use of pesticides. The special area authorities require and environmental design factors and overriding principle in the choice of additional planning, those authorities their interactions. Environmental strategy is that it is ecologically will control in implementing the assessment is the concise public compatible or acceptable. planning process under this subpart. document required by the regulations for (p) "Long-term sustained yield implementing the procedural capacity": The highest uniform wood § 219.3 Definitions. ' yield from lands being managed for For purposes of this subpart the requirements of NEPA, (40 CFR 1508.9). )j]"Environmental documents": A set timber production that may be sustained following words shall have these under a specified intensity of meanings: of concise documents to include, as applicable, the environmental management consistent with multiple- (a) "Allowable sale quantity": The use objectives. quantity of timber that may be sold from assessment, environmental impact statement, finding of no significant (q) '"Management concern": An issue the area of land covered by the forest or problem requiring resolution, or plan for a time period specified by the impact, or notice of intent. (k) "Even-aged silviculture": The condition constraining management plan. This quantity is usually expressed practices identified by the on an annual basis as the average combination of actions that results in the creation of stands in which trees of interdisciplinary team. - annual allowable sale quantity. (r) 'Management direction": A (b) "Assessment": The Renewable essentially the same age grow together. statement of multiple-use and other Resource Assessment required by Managed even-aged forests are the goals and objectives, the management RPA. characterized by a distribution of stands (c) "Base timber harvest schedule": of varying ages (and therefore tree sizes) prescriptions, and the associated The Timber Harvest Schedule in which thioughout the forest area. Regeneration standards and guidelines for attaining the planned sale and harvest for any in a particular stand is obtained during a them. future decade is equal to or greater than short period at or near the time that the (s) "Management intensity": The the planned sale and harvest for the stand has reached the desired age or relative cost of a possible management preceding decade of the planning period size and is harvested. Clearcutting, direction and/or management practice. and this planned sale and harvest for shelterwood cutting, seed tree cutting, (t) "Management practice": A specific any decade is not greater than long-term and their many variations are the action, measure, or treatment. sustained yield capacity. cutting methods used to harvest the (u) "Management prescription": (d) "Biological growth potential": The existing stand and regenerate a new Management practices selected and average net growth attainable in a fully one. In even-aged stands, thinnings, scheduled for application on a specific stocked natural area of forest land. weedings, cleanings, and other cultural area to attain multiple-use and other (e)"Capability": The potential of an treatments between regeneration cuts goals and objectives. area of land to produce resources, are often beneficial. Cutting is normally (v) "Multiple use": "The management supply goods and services, and allow. regulated by scheduling the area of of all the various renewable surface resource uses under an assumed set of harvest cutting to provide for a forest resources of the national forests so that management practices and at a given that contains stands having a planned they are utilized in the combination that distribution of age classes. level of management intensity. will best meet the needs of the Capability depends upon current (1)"Goal": A concise statement of the American people; making the most state or condition that a land and conditions and site conditions such as judicious use of the land for some or all resource management plan is designed climate, slope, landform, soils and of these resources or related services to achieve. A goal is usually not over areas large enough to provide geology, as well as the application of quantifiable and may not have a specific management practices, such as sufficient latitude for periodic date for completion. adjustments in use to conform to silviculture or protection from fire, (in) "Goods and services": The insects, and disease. changing needs and conditions; that various outputs produced by forest and some lands will be used for less than all (f) "Corridor": A linear strip of land rangeland renewable resources. The which has ecological, technical, of the resources; and harmonious and tangible and intangible values of which coordinated management of the various economic, social, or similar advantages are expressed in market and nonmarket over other areas for the present or future resources, each with the other, without terms. impairment of the productivity of the location of transportation or utility (n) "Guideline": An indication or rights-of-way within ifs boundaries. land, with consideration being given to outline of policy or conduct. the relative values of the various (g] "Diversity": The distribution and (o)"Integrated pest management": A resources, and not necessarily the abundance of different plant and animal process in which all aspects of a pest- combination of uses that will give the communities and species within the area host system are studied and weighed to covered by a land and resource provide the resource manager with greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output." (16 U.S.C. 531(a)) management plan. information for decisionmaking. (h) "Economic efficiency analysis": A Integrated pest management is, (w) "Objective": A specific statement- comparison of the values of resource therefore, a part of forest or resource of measurable results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives - inputs (costs) required for a-possible management. The information provided course of action with the values of includes the impact of the unregulated reflect alternative mixes of all outputs or

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53977 1979 53978 Federal Register -/ Vol. 44, |i No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 [ Rules and Revulations

achievements which can be attained at harvest schedule provides the allowable a given budget level. Service, will develop the Assessment Objectives maybe sale quantity. Future-periods are shown which will include an analysis of expressed as a range of outputs. to establish that sustained yield will be (x)"Planning present and anticipated uses, demand area": The area covered achieved and maintained. for, and by supply of the ltenewablo a Regional or ForestPlan. (jj) "Timber production". The irowing, resources of forest, range, and other (y) "Policy": A guiding principle upon tending, harvesting and regeneration associated which is based of lands with consideration, a specific decision or set regulated crops of industrial wood. and an emphasis on, pertinent supply. of decisions. Industrial wood includes logs; bolts or and demand and price relationship (z) "Program": The Renewable other round sections cut from trends; an inventory Resource Program trees for of present and required by the RPA. industrial or consumer use, except potential renewable (aa) "Public issue": resources and an A subject or fuelwood. evaluation of dpportunities for question of widespread public interest (kk] "Uneven-aged silviculture": The improvingtheir relating yield of tangible and to mdnagement of National combination of actions that result in the intangible goods and services, together Forest Systemlands identified through creation of forests in which trees of with estimates of investment costs and public participation. several or many ages may grow direct and indirect returns to the Federal (bb) "Public participation activities": together. Managed uneven-aged forests Government; a description of Forest Meetings, conferences. seminars. may take several forms depending upon Service programs and responsibilities in workshops, tours, written comments, the particular cutting methods used. In research, cooperative programs, and response to survey questionnaires,' and some cases, the forest is essentially management of the National.Forest similar activities designed. and held to similar throughout, with individual trees System; and analysis of important policy obtain comments from the general of many ages and sizes growing in close issues and consideration of laws, public and specific publics about association. In other cases, small groups regulations, and other factors expected National Forest System land. of trees of similar age may be to influence and affect significantly the management planning. intermingled with similar groups of use, ownership, and management of (cc) "Real dollar value"-Avalue from different ages; although the groups are forest, range, and oilier associated which the effect of change in the even aged, they amnot recorded lands. This assessment will be based on purchasing power of the dollar has been separately. Finally, an uneven-aged the future capabilities for each forest removed. forestmay contain two or three distinct and regional planning area. Based on (dd) "Responsible official": The Forest age classes on the same area, creating a the Assessment which will include Service employee who has bieen storied forest. Under uneven-aged information generated during the delegated the authority to carry out a silviculture, regeneration is obtained regional and forest planning process, the specific planning action. several or many times during the period Chief will-develop alternative Programs. (ee) "Silvicultural system": A required to grow an individual tree to In formulating those alternatives the combination of interrelated actions maturity. Single-tree selection cutting, costs 6f supply and group selection the relative values whereby forests. are tended, harvested, cutting, and other forms of both market and nonmarket outputs and replaced. The combination. of of partial cutting are used. to harvest will'be considered. trees, obtain regeneration, and provide The alternatives will management practices used fo- include national renewable resource manipulate the vegetation results in appropriate intermediate culture. goals, quantified Cutting is usually regulated by objectives, resource forests of distinctive form and character, outputs and represent ' range of and this determines the combination of specifying the number or proportion of trees of particular sizes to retain within expenditure levels sufficient to multiple resource benefits that can be demonstrate full opportunities for obtained. Systems are classified as, each area, thereby maintaining a planned distribution of size classes. management. A portion of each national even-aged and uneven-aged.. goal and objective, expressed in the (ff) "Standard": A principle requiring Scheduling by area harvest is often used as well selected Program as a range of outputs. a specific level of attainment, a rule to will b.e assigned to each region and be measure against. § 219.4 Planning levels. incorporated into each regional plan. (gg) "Suitability": The appropriateness (a) The planning process requires a The objectives assigned to,each region of applying certain resource continuous flow of information and will be based on local supply management practices to a particular management direction among the three capabilities and market conditions. area of land, as determined by an Forest Service administrative levels: Economic efficiency and potential analysis of the economic and nationhl, regional, and designated forest environm6ntal effects will be considered evironmental consequences and the planning area Management direction in these assignments, alternative uses foregone. A-unit of land will be based principally upon locally (2) Regional.Each regional forester may be suitable for a variety of derived information about production. will develop a regional plan in individual or combined management capabilities,-reflect conditions and. accordance with the procedures, practices. circumstances observed at ail levels; standards,land guidelines specified in (hh) "Sustained-yield of the several and become increasingly specific as. this subpart. The required planning products and services": "The planning progresses from the hiational to process is established in § 219.5. achievement and maintenance in regional level, and from the regional to Procedural requirements for regional perpetuity of a high-level annual or designated forest planning area. In this plans are established in §§ 219.9 and regular periodic output of the various structure, regional planning is the 219.10, and resource management renewable resources of the national priocipal process for conveying standards and guidelines are set forth In forest without impairment of the management direction from the national § 219.13. The-regional planning process productivity of the land." (16 U.S.C. level to designated forest planning areas will respond to and incorporate the 531(b)) and for conveying information from. sucl? Program direction established by the (ii) "Timber harvest schedule": The' areas to, the national level. Chief. Forest Service, under paragraph quantity of timber planned for sale and. (b)Planning levels and relationships (b)(1) of this section. Regional objectives harvest, by time-period, from the area of are sef forth in paragraphs, (b) (1)- will be assigned to designated land forest covered by the forest plan. The first through (3) of this section. planning areas. These assignments will period, usually a decade, of the selected (1) National.The Chief, Forest be based upon: supply capabilities,

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53978 1979 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and. Regulations 53979 socio-economic assessments, potential action as additional information interdisciplinary team will collect, environmental effects, economic becomes available. assemble, and use data, maps. graphic efficiency criteria, community stability (b) Identification of issues, concerns. material, and explanatory aids, of a objectives, and resource management andcopportunities.The interdisciplinary kind. character, and quality, and to the standards and guidelines which have team will identify and evaluate public detail appropriate for themanagement been established by the planning issues, management concerns, and decisions to be made. Existing data will process. The regional forester may resource use and-development be used in planning unless such data is request adjustment of assigned regional opportunities, including those identified inadequate-Data and information needs objectives prior to their incorporation through publiaparticipation activities may vary as planning problems develop into the plan. Any adjustment will and coordination with other Federal from identification of public issues. require the approval of the Chief, Forest agencies, State and local governments, management concerns, and resource use Service. and Indian tribes throughout the and development opportunities. (3) Forest Forest plans will be planning process. All public issues and Acquisitions of new data and developed for all lands in the National management concerns are investigated information will be scheduled and Forest System in accordance with the and evaluated in order of their apparent planned as needed. Methods used to procedures, standards, and guidelines importance. The responsible official will gather data will be consistent with those specified in this subpart. The planning determine the major public issues, used to monitor consequences of process is established in § 219.5, and - management concerns, and use and activities resulting from planning and procedures are setfor.th-in §§ 219.11 and development opportunities. to be management. Data will be stored for 219.12. Resource management standards addressed in the planning process. ready retrieval and comparison and and guidelines are established in (c) Planningcriteria. Criteria will be periodically will be evaluated for § 219.13. One forest plan may be prepared to guide the planning process accuracy and effectiveness. Common prepared for all lands forwhich a forest and management directiom Process data definitions and standards to assure supervisor has responsibility, or criteria may apply to collection anduse uniformity of information between all separate forest plans may be prepared of inventory data and information, planning levels will be established by for each national forest, or combination analysis of the management situation. the Chief, Forest Service. As information of national forests, within the and the design and formulation of is recorded using common data jurisdiction of a single forest supervisor. alternatives. Decision criteria will be definitions and standards, it will be These forest plans will constitute the developed and used to evaluate applied in any subsequent planning land and resource management plans alternatives and to select one process.Information developed from developed in accordance with § § 6 and alternative to serve as the proposed common data definitions and standards 13 of the RPA, as amended, and will plan. All criteria, including any will be used in the preparation of the include all management planning for revisions, will be developed by the 1990, and subsequent Assessments and resources. Forest plans will address the interdisciplinary team and approved by Programs. goals and objectives established by the the responsible official. Generally, (e) Analysis of the management regional plan. The objectives assigned to criteria will be based on: situation.The analysis of the each forest will be evaluated in order to (1] Laws, executive orders. management situation is a assure that they are compatible with regulations, and Forest Service Manual determination of the ability of the local supply and demand, economic policy; planning area covered by the Regional efficiency, community stability, and (2) Goals ancobjectives in the or Forest Plan to supply goods and potential environmental effects. Based. Program and regional plans; (3) Recommendations and services in response to society's demand upon this evaluation, the forest for those goods and services. The supervisor may request adjustment of assumptions developed from public issues, management concerns, and analysis will display the capability to assigned objectives prior to their supply outputs and uses, and projected incorporation into the forest plan. Any resource use and development opportunities; demands for the outputs or uses over such adjustment requires the approval time. It will identify any special of the regional forester. (4) The plans and programs of other Federal agencies., State and local conditions or situations which involve § 219.5 Regional and Forest Planning governments and Indian tribes; hazards to the resources of the planning Process. - (5) Ecological, technical and economic area and their relationship to proposed (a) Generalplanning approach.The factors; and possible actions being considered. NEPA environmental analysis process (6) Guidelines for economic analysis The analysis will determine: will be included in the process for practices, including standards for (1] Ranges of various goods, services development of a regional or forest plan. benefits and costs, and the discount rate and uses that are feasible under existing Except where the planning process of interest will be established by the conditions at various levels of requires additional action, a single Chief, Forest Service, andbecome management intensity;, process will be used to meet the effective within one year after final (2] Projections of demand. using best planning requirements and the NEPA publication of these planning rules in the available techniques, with both price process. The planning process adapts to Federal Register, and and non-price information which, in changing conditions by identifying (7) The resource management conjunction with supply cost public issues, management concerns, standards and guidelines in § 219.13. information, will be used to evaluate the and use and development opportunities. (d) Inventory dataand information level of goods and services that It consists of a systematic. set of collection. Each responsible official will maximizes net public benefits; t the interrelated actions which include at obtain and keep current inventory.data extent possible, demand will be assesed least those set forth in paragraphs (b) appropriate for planning and managing as a price-quantity relationship; through (k), of this-sectiorr that lead to the resources- under his or her (3) Potential to resolve public issues management direction. Planning actions, administrative'responsibility. and will and management concerns; in addition to those in this- section may assure that the interdisciplinary team (4) Technical, economic, and be necessary in particular situations. has access to the best available data, environmental feasibility of providing Some actions may occur simultaneously- which may require that special the levels of goods, services, and uses and it may be-necessary to repeat an . inventories or studies be prepared. The

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53979 1979 53980 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations resulting from assigned goals and and preservation of aesthetic and criteria developed pursuant to objectives; and cultural resource values: paragraph (c) of this section, The official (5) The need, as a result of this (2) The relationship between local, will document the selection with a analysis, to establish or change shbrt-term uses of the renewable description of the benefits, relative to management direction. resources and the maintenance and other alternatives as described In (f) Formulationof alternatives.A enhancement of long-term productivity; paragraph (h) of this section. reasonable range of alternatives as (3) The adverse environmental effects (j) Plan implementation. During the provided for in paragraphs (1) and-(2) of which cannot be avoided; implementation of each plan the this paragraph, will be formulated by (4) Resource commitments that are following requirements, as a minimum, the interdisciplinary team to provide irreversible and irretrievable; will be met: different ways to address and respond (5) Effects on minority groups and (1) The responsible official will assure civil rights; that annual program proposals and to the major public issues, management * (6) Effects on prime farmlands, concerns, and resource opportunities implemented projects are in compliance identified during thi§ planning process. wetlands and flood plains; with the plan; Alternatives will be described in draft (7) The relationship of expected - (2) Program budget allocations meet and final environmental impact outputs to the forest goals given in the the objectives and are consistent with current regional plan;. all applicable standards and guidelines statements. The energy requirements and (1) Alternatives will reflect a range of (8) specified in the plan: and consideration of potential effects of (3) Plan implementation Is In resource outputs and expenditure levels. various alternatives; and In formulating these alternatives; the compliance with § § 219.9(d) and, (9) Direct and indirect benefits and 219.11(d). following criteria will be met: costs, estimated in accordance with (i) Each alternative will (k) Monitoring and evaluation, At be capable of paragraph (c)(6) of this section, analyzed intervals established In the plan, being achieved; insufficient detail to: (ii) A no-action alternative will be management practices will be evaluated (i) Determine the expected real-dollar on a sample basis to determine how formulated, that is the most likely investment, administrative and condition expected to exist in the future well objectives have been met and how operating costs of the plan; closely management standards and if current management direction would (ii) Estimate the real-dollar value of continue unchanged; guidelines have been applied. The all outputs attributable to each plan results of monitoring and evaluation (iii) Each alternative will provide for alternative to the extent that'dollar the orderly elimination may be used to analyze the management of backlogs of values can be assigned to nonmarket situation during revision of the plan as needed treatment for the restoration of goods and services using physical provided in paragraphs (k) (1), (2) and renewable resources as necessary to outputs or relative indices of value when (3) of this section. achieve the multiple-use objectives of such values may not be reasonably - (1) The plan will describe the that alternative. assigned and; following monitoring activities: (iv) Each identified major public issue (iII) Evaluate the'economic effects of (i) The actions, effects, or resources to' and management concern will be alternatives, including the distribution of be measured, and the frequency of addressed in one or more alternatives; goods and services, the payment of measurements; and taxes and charges, receipt shares, (ii) Expected precision and reliability (v) Each alternative will represent to payments to local government, and of the monitoring process- and the extent practicable the most cost income and employment in affected (iii) The time when evaluation will be efficient combination of management communities. reported. practices examined that can meet the (h)Evaluation of alternatives.The (2) Evaluation reports will contain for objectives established in the alternative; interdisciplinary team will evaluate the each monitored management practice at (2) Each alternative will state at least: significant physical, biological, social, least a quantitative estimate of (i) The condition and uses that will economic and environmental design performance comparing outputs and result from long-term application of the effects of each management alternative services and their costs with thoso alternative, according to the planning decision projected by the plan and (ii) The goods and services to be criteria. The evaluation will include a analysis of the documentation of evaluated measured produced, and the timing and flow-of comparative effects. these resource outputs; management alternatives and will (3) Based upon the evaluation reports, (iii) Resource management standards compare economic efficiency and the responsible official will make and guidelines; and distrbutional aspects, outputs of goods changes in management direction, or (iv) The purposes of the managment and services, and protection and revise or amend the plan as necessary to direction proposed. enhancement of environmental meet the goals and objectives. (g) Estimatedeffects of alternatives. resources. The responsible official will, The interdisciplinary team will estimate review the interdisciplinary team's §219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach. and display the physical, biological, ealuation and will recommend a (a) A team representing several economic, and social effects of preferred alternative or alternatives to disciplines will be used at each level of implemehting each alternative including be identified in the draft environmental planning to insure coordinated planning how the plan responds to the range of impact statement. which addresses outdoor recreation, goals and objectives assigned-to it from (i) Selection of alternative.After range, timber, watershed, wildlife and the RPA Program. These effects will publication of the draft environmental fish, and wilderness opportunities. The include at least the following: impact statement, the interdisciplinary team is to coordinate and integrate (1) The expected outputs for the team will evaluate public comments planning activities consistent with the planning periods, including appropriate and, as necessary, revise the , principles of the Multiple-Use marketable goods and services, as well appropriate alternative. The responsible Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and § 219.1 as non-market items, such as protection official will recommend a selected of this subpart. Through interactions and enhancement of soil, water and air, alternative for the final environmental among its members, the team will impact statement using the decision integrate knowledge of the physical,

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53980 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53981 biological, economic and social (d) The responsible official will (7) The location and availability of sciences, and environmental design arts appoint a leader of the interdisciplinary documents relevant to the planning in the planning process. Team functions team. Team leadership should be process. include, but are not limited to: assigned to individuals possessing both (d) Public participation activities (1) Assessing the problems and a working knowledge of the planning should be appropriate to the area and resource use and development process and the ability to communicate people involved. Means of notification opportunities associated with providing effectively with team members. The should be appropriate to the level of of goods and services; team leader will coordinate the planning. Public participation activities (2) Obtaining the public's views about specialists, focusing their attention on may include, but are not limited to. possible decisions; team goals. requests for written comments, meetings, conferences, seminars, (3) Coordinating planning activities § 219.7 Public Participation. within the Forest Service and with local, workshops, tours, and similar events State and other Federal agencies; (a) Because the land and resource designed to foster public review and (4) Developing the land and resource management planning process comment. To ensure effective public management plan and associated determines how the lands of the participation, the objectives of environmental impact statement National Forest System are to be participation activities will be defined pursuant to the planning process; managed, the public is encouraged to beforehand by the interdisciplinary (5) Giving the responsible official participate throughout the planning team. The Forest Service will state the an objectives of each participation activity integrated perspective on land and process. The intent of public resource participation is to: to assure that the publicunderstands management planningr and what type of information is needed and (6J Establishing monitoring and (1) Ensure that the Forest Service understands the needs and concerns of how this information relates to the evaluation standards and requirements planning process. The responsible for planning and management activities. the public: (2) Inform the public of Forest Service official and interdisciplinary teams will (b] The team will be composed of consult and be guided by Forest Service Forest Service personnel who land and resource planning activities; (3] Provide the public with an Handbook 1626. collectively represent.diverse (e) Public comments will be analyzed specialized areas of professional and understanding of Forest Service programs and proposed actions; individually, and by type of group and technical knowledge about natural organization to determine common resource management applicable to the (4)Broaden the information base upon which land and resource management areas of concern and geographic area being planned. The team will distribution. The results of this analysis consider problems collectively, rather planning decisions are made; and (5) Demonstrate. that public issues will be evaluated to determine the than separating them along disciplinary variety and intensity of viewpoints lines. The team is encouraged to consult and inputs are considered and evaluated in reaching planning decisions. about ongoing and proposed planning persons other thanForest Service and management standards and employees when required specialized (b) Public participation In the preparation of draft environmental guidelines. Conclusions about comments knowledge does not exist within the will be used to the extent practicable in team itself impact statements for planning begins with the publication of a notice of intent decisions that are made. (c) The responsible official, in (1)The primary purpose of public appointing team members, will in the FederalRegister. After this participation is to broaden the determine and consider the publication, all public participation for land and resource management planning information base upon which planning qualifications of each team member on decisions are made. Publicparicipation the basis of the complexity of the issues will be coordinated with that required by the NEPA activities also will help in monitoring and concerns to be resolved through the and its implementing and evaluation of implemented plans. pla. Each team member will, as a regulations. minimum, Suitable public participation formats, either have successfully (c) Public participation, as deemed requirements, and activities will be completed a course of study in a college appropriate by the responsible official. determined by the responsible official. or university leading to a bachelor's or will be used early and often throughout (g) All scheduled public participation higher degree in one or more specialized the development, revision, and activities will be documented by a areas of assignment or have recognized significant amendment ofplans. Public summary of the principalissues expertise and experience in professional participation activities will begin with a discussed, comments made, and a investigative; scientific, or other - notice to the news media, which register of participants. responsible work in specialities which includes as appropriate the following (h) At least 30 days' public notice will members represent. In addition to information: be given for public participation technical knowledge in one.or more (1) The description of the proposed activities associated with the resource specialities, members should planning action; development of national or regional possess other attributes which enhance (2 The description and map of the plans. At least 15 days' public notice the interdisciplinary process that, as a geographic area affected: will be given for activities associated minimum, should include: (3) The issues expected to be with forest plans. Any notice requesting (1] An ability ta solve complex discussed; written comments on national and problems; (4)The kind, extent, and method(s) of regional planning will allow at least 90 (2 Skills in communication and group public participation to be used. calendar days for responses. A similar interaction; (5) The times, dates, and locations request about forest planning will allow (3) Basic understandingof land and scheduled or anticipated, for public at least 30 calendar days for responses. natural resource planning concepts, meetings; (i] A list of individuals and groups processes, and analysis techniques; and (6) The name, title, address, and known to be interested in or affected by (4)The ability tr conceptualize telephone number of the Forest Service the plan will be maintained. They will planningproblems and feasible official who may be contacted for be notified of public participation solutions. further information; and activities.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53981 1979 53982 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No.- 181 -/ Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53982 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations (j) The responsible official, or his agencies, State and local governments, to participate in the planning process Is representative, will attend or provide for and Indian tribes. not thereby reduced. (f1The responsible official will review adequate representation at public (b) The responsibleteam, official, will through participation activities. the interdisciplinary the planning and land use policies of (k) Copies of approved plans will be coordinate Forest Service planning with other Federal agencies, State and local available for public review, as follows: land and resource management planning governments and Indian tribes, The (1) The Assessment and the Program of other affected government entities intensity of the review will be will be available at national and Indian tribes to ensure that planning appropriate to the planning level and headquarters, each regional office, each includes: requirements of the envisioned plan. forest supervisor's office, and each (1) Recognition of the objectives of This rev4iew will include, but not be district ranger's office; other Federal, State and local limited to, plans affecting renewable (2) The regional plan will be available governments, and owners of natural resources, minerals, community at national headquarters, that regional intermingled and adjacent private lands, and economic development, land use, office and regional offices of contiguous as -expressed in their plans and policies; transportation, water and air pollution regions, each forest supervisor's office (2] An assessment of the interrelated control, cultural resources, and energy, of forests within and contiguous to that impacts of these plans and policies; The planning records will document this region, and each district ranger's office (3) A determination-of how-each review. in that region: Forest Service plan should deal with the (g) The responsible official, in the (3) The forest plan will be available at impacts identified; and development of forest plans and to the the regional office for that forest, that (4) Where conflicts are identified, extent feasible, will notify the owners of forest supervisor's office and forest consideration of alternatives for their • lands that are intermingled with, or supervisors' offices contiguous to that resolution. dependent for access upon, national forest, each district ranger's office in (c) The responsible official will give forest lands. Planning activities should that forest, those district rangers' offices notice of the preparation, revision, or then be coordinated to the extent in other forests that are contiguous to significant amendment of a land and feasible 'vith these owners. The results that forest, and at least one additional resource management plan, along with a of this coordination will be included In location determined by the forest " general schedule of anticipated planning the plan as part of the review required supervisor, which will offer convenient actions, to the Stath Clearinghouse in paragraph (f) of this section. access to the public; and . - (h) The responsible official, in (OMB Circular A-95] for circulation developing the forest plan, will (4) The above plans may be made among State agencies. The same notice seek available at other locations convenient will be mailed to all Tribal or Alaska input from other Federal, State and local to the public. governments and universities, to help Native leaders whose tribal lands may resolve management concerns In (1)Documents considered in the be impacted, and to the heads of county the development of plans will be available planning process and toidentify areas boards for the counties that are -where additional research is needed, at the office where the plans were involved. These notices will be issued- developed. This input should be included in the simultaneously with the-public notice discussion of the research (in) Upon issuance of a draft required in § 219.7(b). needs of the environmental impact statement on a designated forest planning area. (d) To facilitate coordination with (i) A program of monitoring and plan, revision, or significant amendment, State governments, regional foresters and-'concurrent with the public evaluation will be conducted that will seek agreements with Governors or includes consideration of the effects of participation activities of this section, their designated representatives on the public will have a 3-month period to national forest management on land, procedural measures such as resources, and communities adjacent to review the statement for the proposed exchanging information, providing plan, revision, or significant imendment. or near the national forest being planned advice and participation, and time and the effects upon national forest During that time, additional public ' frames for receiving State go1ernment participation activities will take place to management of activities on nearby input and review. If an agreement is hot lands managed by other Federal or review the actions proposed in the draft reached, the regional forester will environmental impact statement. government agencies or under the provide an opportunity for Governor jurisdiction of local governments. (n) Fees for reproducing requested and State agency review, advice, and documents will be charged according to suggestion on guidance that the regional § 219.9 Regional Planning Procedure. the Secretary's Fee Schedule (7 CFR Part forester believes could affect Or 1, Subpart A, Appendix A). (a) Regi nalplan. Regional planning influence State governient programs. will provide national forests (forest § 219.8 Coodination of Public Planning (e) The responsible official in planning areas) with goals and Efforts. developing land and resource plans, will objectives, regional Issue resolution, and (a) Efficient management of the meet with the designated State official program coordination for National resources of the National Forest System (or designee), representatives of other Forest System, State and Private results from planning that is coordinated Federal agencies and Indian tribal- Forestry, and Research, A plan will be among all levels of government, governments at the beginning of the developed for each administratively including other Federal agencies, State planning process to develop procedures designated region in the National Forest and local governments, and Indian for coordination. As a minimum, such. System. The preparation of a, regional tribes. Such coordination ensures that conferences will also be held after plan, revision, or significant amendment government objectives, policies, and public issues and management concerns will comply with the requirements of the have been identified and prior to,,, programs for resource management are,, planning'process established in §§ 219,5 compatible to the extent possible. .-. recommending the selected alternative. and 219.10 and this section, Therefore, the Forest Service will Such conferences may be held in' (b) Responsibilities.The Chief, Forest coordinate its national, regional, and conjunction with other public .. Service, will establish agency-wide forest planning with the equivalent and participation activities, provided that policy for regional planning and approve related planning efforts of other Federal the opportunity for.government-officials all regional plans, revisions, or

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53982 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53983 significant amendments. The regional (iv) Identify and discuss all factors are coordinated with the regional plan. forester will be responsible for the considered by the Forest Service in The research station director will use preparation of the regional plan, and making the planning decision, including the regional plan to help identify revisions or significant amendments to how such factors entered into its research needs for National Forest the regional plan. The regional decision; and System lands. Differences between interdisciplinary team will develop a (v) State whether all practicable annual budget proposals and actual regional plan using the process means to avoid or minimize funding allocations may require the established in § 219.5 which shall environmental harm from the alternative regional forester to make changes in include the steps in paragraphs (b) (1) selected have been adapted, and, if not, scheduling. When each regional plan is and (2) of this section. why they were not. approved, each forest plan in that region (1) A draft environmental impact (2) Disapprove the plan, and return it will be revised or amended to bring it statement will be prepared, describing to the regional forester with a written into conformity as soon as practicable. the proposed plan, revision, or statement of the reasons for When each regional plan is revised or significant amendment. A notice of disapproval. The Chief, Forest Service amended the affected forest plans will intent to prepare this statement will be may also specify a course of action to be be revised or amended to conform as issued in the Federal Register. The draft undertaken by the regional forester in soon as practicable. statement will identify a preferred order to remedy the deficiencies, errors, (e) Amendment. The regional forester alternative. Beginning at the time of or omissions of the plan or may amend the regional plan through an notification of availability of the draft environmental impact statement. environmental analysis which will be environmental impact statement in the (3)(i) The approval or disapproval of a used to determine the significance of Federal Register, the statement will be regional plan, revision, or significant proposed amendments. If the analysis available for public comment for at least amendment, or reconsideration under indicates the preparation of an paragraph (ii) of this paragraph. is not environmental impact statement is 90 days at convenient locations in the subject to review under § 211.19 of this necessary, the amending process will vicinity of the lands covered by the plan, chapter or any other administrative follow the same procedure as used in revision, or significant amendment. appeal procedure. This exclusion does During this period, and in accordance the preparation of the plan. If the not apply to appeals or decisions to be amendment is determined not to be with the provisions in § 219.7, the taken under the regional plan on the significant, it may be implemented by responsible official will publicize and grounds of nonconformity or to appeals the responsible official after public hold public participation activities as of decisions taken under the plan which notice. The regional plan will be deemed appropriate for adequate public are appealable grievances under reviewed for possible amendment in input. § 211.19 of this chapter. conjunction with the development of the (2) A final environmental impact (ii) Any person may request the Chief, Assessment and Program or whenever statement will be prepared, and after Forest Service, to reconsider the the funded and implemented program the regional forester has reviewed and decision to approve or disaprove a deviates significantly from the 5-year concurred in the statement, the regional regional plan, revision, or significant levels specified in the regional plan. forester will recommend to the Chief, amendment. A written request for (0)Revision. The regional forester will Forest Service that it be filed with the reconsideration must be filed within 45 determine by an analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency. At days of the time of the Chiers decision management situation whether a least 30 days are required between the and must be accompanied by a written revision is necessary because conditions date of notice of filing of the final statement giving the reasons why the or the demands of the public in the environmental impact statement and the decision to approve or disapprove is region have changed significantly. decision to implement actions specified erroneous and any factual information Revision will not become effective until in the plan, revision, or significant necessary to support these reasons. A considered and approved in accordance amendment. The plan, revision, or written decision on the request for with the requirements for the significant amendment will be based on reconsideration will be made within 30 development and approval of a regional the selected alternative. days of the receipt of the request and plan. (c) Plan approval. The Chief, Forest will state the reasons for the decision (g) Planningrecords. The regional Service, will review the proposed plan, reached on the request. forester and the interdisciplinary team revision, or significant amendment and (iii) Any person, either at the time of will develop and maintain a system that the final environmental impact requesting reconsiderdtion or prior to records decisions and activities that statement and take either of the actions filing such a request, may request the result from the process of developing a in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this Chief, Forest Service, to stay the regional plan, revision or significant section. decision approving or disapproving the amendment. This system will contain all (1] Approve the plan. If approved, the regional plan. revision, or significant planning records including a work plan plan will not become effective until at amendment providing a showing is to guide and manage planning, the least 30 days after publication of the made that, without a stay, precedures which were used in notice of the filing of the final implementation will result in completing each planning action and the environmental impact statement The irreversible harm or will have an results of those actions. These records Chief, Forest Service, will attach to the immediate direct and adverse effect on document the accomplishment of legal final environmental impact statement a the requesting party. and administrative planning concise public record of decision which (d) Conformity. The regional forester requirements. They include at least the docunents the approval. The record of will manage the national forest lands draft environmental impact statement, decision will accomplish the following: under his or her jurisdiction in final environmental impact statement, (i) State the decision; accordance with the regional plan. The regional plan, and record of decision. (ii) Identify all alternatives considered regional forester or area director will The adequacy of the record system will in making the decision on the plan, assure that all State and Private be approved by the regional forester. revision, or significant amendment; Forestry programs planned with the (h) Regionalplan content. The (iii) Specify the selected alternative; States or other governmental agencies following general format and content

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53983 1979 53984 Federal Register, / V ol.* 44, No. 181 / Monday, Septeritber 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53984 Federal Register' I Vol.' 44, No. 181 I Monday, Septerhber 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations outline is required for all regional plans. The appropriate planning actions of the resource production objectives to each, In addition, the regional forester may regional planning process will be guided forest area to be covered by a Forest specify formats and require further by at least the criteria provided in -plan, and issuing needed guidelines for content within the following outline paragraphs (b) through (g) of this resolving the major public issues and, appropriate to the planning needs of thal section. Additional planning criteria management concerns which are region: may be found in the guidelines for identified through public participation (1) A brief description'of the major managing specific renewable resources and coordination activities. Information public issues and management concerns set forth in the Forest Service Manual developed in regional plans will be which are pertinent to the region, and Handbooks. made available to the National level indicating the disposition of each issue (b) In addition to public issues and Assessment and Program activity. or concern; management concerns identified through (d) Each regional plan will establish (2) A summary of the analysis of the, public participation and coordination,' standards and guidelines for: regional management situation; -each regional plan will address issues (1) Prescribing according to including a brief description of the and concerns referred from national or geographic areas, forest types, or other existing management situation, demand forest planning. Some management suitable classifications, appropriate and supply projections for resource concerns that should be considered in systems of silviculture to be used within commodities and services, production regional and in forest planning are the the region; potentials, and xesource use and needs to: (2) The maximum size, dispraral, and development opportunities; (1) Provide goods and services size variation of tree openings created (3) Description of management efficiently; by the application of even-aged direction including programs, goals and (2) Produce timber and wood fiber; managment and the state of vegetation objectives; (3) Manage and utilize range resources that will be reached before a cutover (4) A distribution of regional and i-nprove-range grazing; area is no longer considered an opening, objectives to each of the forest planning (4) Manage fire to improve and protect using factors enumerated in § 219.13(d); areas, and additiona' objectives added resources; (3) The biological growth potential to to reflect specific regionalneeds; (5) Protect resources from disease, be used in determining the capability of (5) Management standards and pests and similar threats; land for timber production as required In guidelines and those specific standards (6) Enhance water quality and § 219.12(b)(1)(ii); and guidelines listed in § 219.10(d); quantity, soil productivity, and restore (4) Defining the management intensity (6) Description of the monitoring and watershed conditions; and'utilization standards to be used in evaluation necessary to determine and (7) Adjust landownership as needed determining harvest levels for the report achievements and effects; to support resource management goals; region: (7) Appropriate 'references to (8) Provide various recreation options; (5) Recommended transportation information usedin development of the (9) Maintain or improve fish and corridors and associated standards for regional plan; and wildlife habitats; forest planning, such as standards for (8) The names of.interdisciplinary (10) Improve critical and essential corridors,'for transmission lines, planning team members, together with a habitats of threatened or endangered pipelines, and water canals. The summary of each member's. -plant and animal .species; designation of corridors is not to qualifications and areas of expertise; (11) Assess probabilities of mineral preclude the granting of separate rights. (i) Monitoring and evaluation. exploration and development for of-way over, upon, under, or through the Monitoring and evaluation of planned immediate and future needs, and public-lands where the authorized actions and effects will be carried out in consider non-renewable resources in the official determines that confinement to a compliance with § 219.5(k). Monitoring mangement of renewablenatural corridor is not appropriate; and evaluation will include, but-is not resources;, (6) Identification of potential uses of limited to: (12) Construct. operate, and Maintain available air quality increments (42 , (1) Management practices relating to transportation facilities; -. U.S.C. 7473(b)) and protection of the regional or subregional programs; (13) Identify, protect, and enhance the. portion of the increment needed to (2) State and Private Forestry' visual quality; implement forest plans: and programs carried out in conjunction with (14) Require corridors to the extent (7] Provision of a unit of measure for states or other governmental agencies; practicable, to minimize adverse expressing mean annual increment as (3) Economic and social.impact on environmental impacts caused by the required in § 219.12(d)(1](ii)(C). regional publici proliferation of.separate rights-of-way;', (e) Public participation and (4) Resohrce outputs orenvironmental (15)( Discover, manage, protect, and coordination activities will be adapted impacts which relate to areas more interpret cultural resource values which to the circumstances of regional widespread than national forests or are qualified or may qualify for planning. Particular efforts will be made States; inclusion in the National Register of to involve regional and national (5) Research.programs which Historic Places; representatives of interest groups. are ((16) Identify typical examples related to other research activities or of Coordination will stress involvement important ongoing management practices on a botanic, aquatic, and geologic with appropriate Federal agencies, State regional scale; and types, and protect them through and local governments, and Indian (6) National Forest Systerm programs. establishmhent of research natural areas; tribes. Regional foresters will seek , and agreements with Governors, or their § 219.10 Regional Planning Actions. (17J Provide forvarious wilderness ,'designated representatives, on (a) The regional interdisciplinary* management options. procedures for coordination in team, as directed by' the regional' ' ' (c) Consistent withxegional andforest" accordance with § 219.8(d), forester, will follow the process and resource capabilities, regional plans will (f) Data for regional planningwill be procedures established in §§ 219.5 implement the goals and objectives of based principally on information from through 219.9 in preparing the regional the RPA Program by establishing forest planning, with other data plan. revision, or'signiflcitnt amendment. regional.p6licies and goals, assigning provided by the States, other Federal

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53984 1979 I Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53985 agencies, and private sources. Very little Environmental Protection Agency. At requesting review participated in the new data will be gathered through land least 30 days are required between the planning process, administrative review and resource inventories. Data and date of notice of filing of the final is limited to those issues which the information standards and guidelines environmental impact statement and the requesting party raised during established nationally will be followed decision to implement actions specified participation in the planning process. in structuring and maintaining required in the plan, revision, or significant Participation in the planning process data. amendment. The plan, revision, or means direct and documented (g) The regional analysis of the significant amendment will be based on involvement with the responsible management situation will, as the selected alternative. official or the interdisciplinary team in appropriate, consider results of each (c) Approval process.The regional the planning process described in forest's analysis of the management forester will review the proposed plan. § 219.5 of this subpart. Except as situation for that region. revision, or significant amendment and provided in this paragraph, the the final environmental impact provisions and procedures which apply § 219.11 Forest Planning Procedure. statement and take one of the actions in to administrative review under § 211.19 (a) ForestPlan. The preparation of a paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this of this chapter apply to the review of forest plan, revision, or significant section. decisions approving or disapproving a amendment wilt comply with the (1) Approve the plan. If approved, the ;orest plan, revision, or significant requirements of the planning process plan will not become effective until at amendment. established in § § 219.5 and 219.12 and least 30 days after publication of the (ii) The reviewing officer will this section. notice of the filing of the final determine whether the deficiencies, (b) Responsibilities.The forest environmental impact statement. At the errors, or omissions, found in the plan, supervisor and the interdisciplinary time of filing the FEIS with the revision, or significant amendment, are team are responsible for the activities Environmental Protection Agency, the of such a nature as to require set forth in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of regional forester will attach to the Final reconsideration. If reconsideration is this section. Environmental Impact Statement a necessary, the Chief, Forest Service, will (1) Forestsupervisor. The forest concise public record of decision which remand the plan. revision, or significant supervisor has overall responsibility for documents the approval. The record of amendment, to the Regional Forester the preparation and implementation'of decision will accomplish the following: with instructions as to how to proceed the forest plan and appoints and (i).State the decision; in the reconsideration. supervises the interdisciplinary team. (ii) Identify all alternatives considered (iii) Any person, either at the time of (2) Interdisciplinaryteam. The team in making the decision on the plan, Will implement the public participation filing a request for review, or prior to revision, or significant amendment; the and coordination activities. The team filing such a request, may request (iii) Specify the selected alternative; reviewing officer to stay a decision will continue to function even th6hgh (iv) Identify and discuss relevant membership may change, and will approving or disapproving the forest factors considered by the Forest Service plan, revision, or significant amendment, monitor and evaluate planning results in making the planning decision, and recommended revisions and including how such factors entered into providing a showing is made that, without a stay, implementation will amendments. The interdisciplinary team its decisions; and will develop a forest plan, revision, or (v) State whether all practicable result in irreversible action or will have an significant amendment using the means to avoid or minimize irreparable harm or planning process established in § 219.5, environmental harm from the alternative immediate, direct and adverse effect on including the steps in paragraphs selected have been adopted, and, if not, the requesting party. (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section- why they were not. (d) Conformity. As soon as (i) A draft environmental impact (2) Disapprove the plan which will be practicable after approval of the plan, statement will be prepared, describing returned to the forest supervisor with a revision, or significant amendment, the the proposed plan, revision, or written statement of the reasons for forest supervisor will ensure that, significant amendment. A notice of disapproval. The regional forester may subject to valid existing rights, all intent to prepare this statement will be also specify a course of action to be outstanding and future permits, issued in the Federal Register. The draft undertaken by the forest supervisor in contracts, cooperative agreements, and statement will identify a preferred order to remedy the deficiencies, errors. other instruments for occupancy and use alternative. Begining at the time of the or omissions of the plan or of affected lands are in conformity with publication of the notice of availability Environmental Impact Statement. the plan. All subsequent administrative notification in the Federal Register, the (3) Transmit to the Chief, Forest activities affecting such lands, including statement will be available for public Service, for approval or disapproval, if budget proposals, will be in compliance comment for at least 3 months, at the selected-harvest schedule is not the with the plan. The forest supervisor may convenient locations in the vicinity of base timber harvest schedule for the change proposed scheduling to respond the lands covered by the plan, revision, designated forest planning area as to minor differences between planned or significant amendment. During this required in § 219.12(d)(2). annual budgets and appropriated funds. period, and in accordance with the (4)(i) Persons who participated in the Such scheduled changes will be provisions in § 219.7, the responsible planning process, or who can show good considered an amendment to the forest of official will publicize and hold public reason why there were unable to plan, but will not require preparation participation activities as deemed participate, and who have an interest an environmental impact statement appropriate for adequate public input. which is, or may be adversely affected unless the changes significantly alter the (ii) A final environmental impact by a decision to approve or disapprove relationship between levels of multiple- statement will be prepared, and after a forest plan, revision, or significant, use goods and services projected under the forest supervisor has reviewed and amendment, may request a review of planned budget proposals as compared concurred in the statement, the forest that decision. Intermediate decisions to those levels projected with actual supervisor will recommend to the made during the planning process and appropriations. An environmental regional forester that it be filed with the prior to the approval or disapproval impact statement will be prepared if the decision are not reviewable. If the party

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53985 1979 .53986 Federa!1 Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 538 eea eite o.4,N.18 ody em be 7 99/Rue n euIon scheduling changes will result in (2] A summary of the analysis of the (v) Unit costs associated with carrying significant adverse environmental management situation, including a brief out the planned activities as compared impacts -nottakerinto account in an description of existing management with unit costs estimated in the forest existing environmental impact situations, demand and supply plan. statement; conditions for resource commodities and (3) Based upon the evaluation reports, (e) Amendment. T e responsible services, production potentials, and use the interdisciplinary team will official may amend a plan through an and development opportunities; recommend to the Torest supervisor such environmental analysis or through the (3) Long-range policies, goals, and changes in management direction, procedures established for the objectives, and the specifidcmanagement revisions, or amendments to the forest preparation and approval of the forest prescriptions planned; to meet the plan as deemed necessary. policies and to achieve the multiple-use plan. Such an amendment will be § 219.12 Forest Planning Actions. deemed significant if the analysis goals'and objectives; indicates the need to prepare an -(4) Proposed vicinity, timing, (a) In the preparation of the proposed ervironmental impact statement. If such standards and guidelines for proposed forest plan, revision, or significant and probable management pra6tices; amendment, the interdisciplinary team, a need is indicated, the amending will process will follow the same procedure (5) Monitoring and 9valuation as directed by the forest supervisor, as in the preparation of the plan. If, requirements which are pertinent at the follow the planning process established in §§ 219.5 through 219.8. 219.11, and In based on the environmental analysis, forest level;. this section. The criteria in paragraphs the amendment is determined not to be (6) Appropriate references to information used in development of the (b) through (in) of this section provide significant, it may be implemente'd by the minimum requirements to be the forest supervisor following forest plan; and considered if appropriate for the forest appropriate public'notification. (7) Names of the interdisciplinary being planned. Additional planning (f) Revision. A forest plan will be planning team members, together with a criteria may be found in the guidelines revised at least every 10 years, or more sumnimary of each member's for managing specific renewable frequently whenever the forest qualifications and primary resources set forth in the Forest Service supervisor determines that conditions or responsibilities or contributions to the Manual and Handbooks. the demands of the public in the area foret planning effort. (b) Each forest plan will identify lands covered by the plan have changed. (i)Monitoring and evaluation. available, capable, and suitable for significantly. The interdisciplinary team Monitoring and evaluation of planned timber production and harvesting during may, through the mdnitoring and. actions and effects will be'carried out in the planning process in accordance with evaluation process, recommend a compliance with § 219.5(k) and the planning criteria In paragraphs (1) revision of the forest plan at any time. paragraphs (i) (1) through [3) of this throught(4) of this paragraph. Revisions are not effective until section. In addition, management (1] During the analysis of the considered and approved in accordance practices associated with each of the management situation, data on all with the requirements for the - resources planned will be -evaluated National Forest System lands will be development and apprval of a forest with reference to the standards and reviewed and those lands meeting all of plan. The forest supervisor will review guidelines contained in the forest plan the requirements- of paragraphs (b)(1) (1] the conditions on the land covered by through monitoring on an appropriate through (iv) of this section will be the plan at least every 5 years to sample basis. Methods used to monitor tentatively identified as available, determine whether conditions or consequences of activities resulting from capable and suitable for timber demands of the public have changed planning and management practices will production. Those lands that fail to meet significantly. be consistent with those used to gather any of these requirements will be (g) Planningrecords. The forest data 'and information. designated as not suited for timber supervisor and interdisciplinary team (1) Monitoring requirements in the production. will develop and maintain a system that forest plan will include descriptions of: (i) The land hag not been legislatively records decisions and activities that -(i) Activities, practices and effects withdrawn or administratively result from the process of developing a that will be measured and the frequency withdrawn by the Secretary or the forest plan, reiision, or significant of measurements; Chief. Forest Service, from timber amendment. Records will be maintained (ii) Expected precision and reliability production. that support analytical conclusions and of the monitoring process; and (ii) The biological growth potential for alternative plans made by the team and (iii) The time at which evaluation theland is equal to or exceeds the approved by the forest supervisor reports will be prepared. minimum standard for timber production throughout the planningprocess. Such (2) An evaluation report will be defined in the regional plan. supporting records provide the basis for prepared for management practices (iii) Technology is available that will the development of, revision, or monitored and will contain at least the ensure timber production from the land significant amendment to the forest plan following. without irreversible resource damage to and associated environmental (i) A quantitative estimate of soils, productivity, or watershed documents. performance comparing outputs and conditions. (h) Forestplancontent. The forest services with those projected by the (iv) There is reasonable assurance plan is the selected alternative forest plan; that such lands can be adequately described in the Final'Environmental (it) Documentation of measured restocked as provided in § 219.13(h)(3). Impact Statement. The plan will contain effects, including any change in (2) Lands that have been tentatively the following: productivity of the land; identified as available, capable, and (1) A brief description of the major (iii) Recommendations for changes" suitable for timber production in public issues and management concerns (ivI A list of needs for continuing paragraph (1) above will be further which are pertinent to the forest, evaluation of management systems and reviewed and assessed prior to indicating the disposition of each issue for alternative methods of management; formulation of alternatives to determine or concern; and the'costs and benefits for a range of

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53986 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53987 management intensities for timber under consideration over the time period (ii) The determinations of the production. For the purpose of analysis. of the program. appropriate long-term sustained-yield the Forest will be stratified into (4) Selection among alternatives will capabilities, base harvest schedules, categories of land with similar be done in accordance with § 219.5(i). and departure alternatives to the base management costs and returns. The Lands identified as tentatively not harvest schedule will be made on the 6tratification should consider suited in paragraph (b)(3) of this section basis of the guidelines which follows: appropriate factors that influence the will be designated as not suited fo, (A) For the long-term sustained-yield costs and returns such-as physical and timber production in the selected capacities and the base harvest biological conditions of the site and alternative. schedules, assume an intensity of transportation. This analysis will (c) When vegetation is altered by management and degree of timber compare the direct costs of growing and management, the methods, timing, and utilization consistent with the goals, harvesting trees to the anticipated intensity of the practices determine the assumptions, and standards contained receipts to the government, including level of benefits that can be obtained in, or used in the preparation of the capital expenditures required by timber from the affected resources. The current Program and rbgional plan. For production, in accordance with § 219.5 vegetation management practices the base harvest schedule, the and paragraphs [i) through (iii) below chosen for each vegetation type and management and utilization and will identify the management circumstance will be defined in the assumptions will reflect theprojected intensity for timber production for each forest plan with applicable standards changes in practices for the four category of land, which results in the and guidelines and the reasons for the decades contained in. or used in the largest excess of discounted benefits choices. Where more than one preparation oF the current Program and vegetation management practice will be regional plan. Beyond the fourth decade. less discounted costs. used in a vegetation type, the conditions the assumptions will reflect those (i) Direct benefits are expressed by under which each will be used will be projected for the fourth decade of the expected gross receipts to the based upon thorough reviews of regional plan; - government. Such receipts will be based technical and scientific literature and (B) For alternatives with harvest upon expected stumpage prices from practical experience, with appropriate schedules which depart from the timber harvest considering future supply evaluation of this knowledge for corresponding base harvest schedule. and demand situation for timber, timber relevance to the specific vegetation and assume an appropriate management production goals of the Regional plan. site conditions. On National Forest intensity; and § 219.5(c)(6). System land, the vegetation (C] In accordance with the established (ii) Direct costs include the management practice chosen will standards, assure that all even-aged anticipated investments, maintenance, comply with the management standards stands scheduled to be harvested during operating, and management and and guidelines specified in § 219.13(c). the planning period will generally have planning costs attributable to timber (d) The selected forest management reached the culmination of mean annual production activities, including alternative includes the timber harvest increment of growth. Mean annual mitigation measures necessitated by the schedule which provides the allowable increment will be based on management impacts of timber production. sale quantity. The harvest schedule of intensities and utilization standards (iii) Economic analysis must consider each alternative, including those which assumed in paragraphs (ii)(A] and (B) costs and returns of managing the depart from base harvest schedules, will above and expressed as units of existing timber inventory in addition to be formulated in compliance with measure consistent with the regional long-term potential yield. § 219.5(c) and the criteria in paragraphs plan. Exceptions to these standards are (3) During formulation and evaluation (1) and (2) of this paragraph. permitted for the use of sound of each alternative as required under (1) Alternatives will be formulated silvicultural practices, such as thinning § 219.5(f) and (g), combinations of that include determinations of the or other stand improvement measures: resource management practices will be quantity of the timber that may be sold for salvage or sanitation harvesting of defined to meet management objectives during the planning period. These timber stands which are substantially for the various multiple uses including quantity determinations will be based damaged by fire. windthrow or other outdoor recreation, timber, watershed, on the principle of sustained yield and catastrophe. or which are in imminent range, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. will meet the constraints set out in danger from insect or disease attack: or The formulation and evaluation will § 219.13. For each management for the removal of particular species of consider the costs and benefits of alternative, the deteralination will trees after consideration has been given alternative management intensities for include a calculation of the long-term to the multiple uses of the area being timber production from paragraph (2) in sustained-yield capacity and the base planned and after completion of the accordance with § 219.5(fJ(v). Lands will harvept schedule and when appropriate, public participation process applicable be tentatively identified as not suited for a calculation of timber harvest to the preparation of a forest plan: and timber production if: alternatives that may depart from the (D) Each harvest schedule will (i) Based upon a consideration of base harvest schedule as provided in provide for a forest structure that will multiple-use objectives for the paragraphs (i) through (iii) of this enable perpetual timber harvest at the j alternative, the land is proposed for paragraph. long-term sustained-yield capacity, and resource uses that preclude timber (i) For the base harvest schedules the multiple-use objectives of the production, such as wilderness; planned sale and harvest for any future alternative. (ii) Other management objectives for decade will be equal to or greater than (iii) Alternatives with harvest the alternative limit timber production the planned sale and harvest for the schedules which depart from the activities to the point where silviculture preceding decade of the planning principles of paragraph (i) above and standards and guidelines set forth in periods provided that the planned. will lead to better attaining the overall § 219.13 cannot be met; or harvest is not greater than the long-term objectives of multiple-use management (iii) The lands are not cost-efficient in sustained-yield capacity consistent with will be considered and formulated when meeting Forest objectives including the management objectives of the any of the following conditions are timber production for the alternative alternative. indicated:

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53987 1979 53988 ' Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

(A) High mortality losses from any which have been endorsed-by the identified for planning, and the reasons cause can be significantly reduced or administration. for their selection will be given. The prevented or forest age-class (2) Each area designated for species considered will include at least: distribution can be improved, facilitating evaluation under paragraph (1) above Endangered and threatened plant and future sustained yfeld management; will be evaluated in terms of current animal species identified on State and (B) Implementation of the national guidelines or, in their absence, Federal lists for the planning area: corresponding base harvest schedule by criteria developed by the species with special habitat needs that would cause a substantial adverse interdisciplinary team with public may be influenced significantly by impact upon a community in the participation. In the latter case, the planned management programs, species economic area in which the forest is criteria will include a's a minimum: commonly hunted, fished, or trapped' located; (i) The values of the area as and additional plant or animal species wilderness; (C] None of the alternatives already . (ii) The values foregone selected because their population considered provides a timber harvest and effects on changes are believed to indicate effects schedule that achieves the.goals of the management of adjacent lands as a of management activities on other Program as provided in § 219.4(b). consequence of wilderness desighation; species of a major biological community (2) The harvest schedule of the (iii) Feasibility of management as or on water quality. On the basis of management alternative selected in wilderness, in respect to size, non- available scientific information, the accordance with § 219.5(i) provides the conforming use, land ownership effects of changes in vegetation type, allowable sale quantity (the quantity of patterns, andexisting contractual timber age classes, community timber that may'be sold from the area of agreements-or statutory rights; composition, rotation age, and year-long land covered by the forest plan) for the (iv) Proximity to other designated suitability of habitat related to mobility plan period. If the selected harvest wilderness, and relative contribution to of management indicator species will be schedule is not the base timber harvest the National Wilderness Preservation estimated. Where appropriate, measures schedule for the designated forest System; and to mitigate adverse effects will be planning area, the forest plan will be (v) The anticipated long-term changes prescribed. transmitted to the.Chief, Forest Service, in plant and animial-species diversity, (3) Biologists from State fish and for approval. The decision of the Chief including the diversity of natural plant wildlife agencies and other Federal may be appealed to the Secretary. and animal communities of the forest planning agencies will be consulted in order to pursuant to the procedures in § 211.19 of area and the effects of such coordinate planning with State plans for this chap'er., changes on the values for which fish and wildlife. (e] Lands reviewed for Wilderness wilderness areas~were created. (f)The forest plan will provide (4) Access and dispersal p'roblema of designation under the review and hunting, fishing, and other visitor uses evaluation' of roadless areas conducted direction for the management of designated wilderness and primitive- will be considered. by the Secretary of Agriculture but not (5) The effects of pest andfire designated as wilderness oi designated areas in accordance with the provisions- of Part 293. In particular, it will: management on fish and wildlife for further planning'and lands whose populations will be considered. designation (1) Provide for'limiting and as primitive areas has been distributing visitor use of specific (6) Population trends of the terminated will be managed for uses management indicator species will be other than wilderne'ss in accordance . portions in accord with periodic -estimates of the maximum levels of use monitored and relationships to habitat with this subpart. No such area will be changes determined. This monitoring considered for that allow natural processes to operate designation as freely and that do not impair the values will be done in cooperation with State wilderness until a revision of the forest fish and Wildlife agencies, to the extant plan under § 219.11(f). When revising for which wilderness areas were created; and practicable. the forest plan, roadless areas of public (2) Evaluate the extent to which (7) Critical habitat for threatened and landi within and adjacent to the forest, wildfire, endangered species will be determined, will be evaluated and considered for insect, and disease control measures may be desirable for and measures will be prescribed to recommendation as potential wilderness protection prevent the destruction or adverse areas, as provided in paragraphs (e) (1) of either the wilderness or adjacent areas and provide for such ffodification of such habitat. Objectives and (2) of this paragraph., will be determined for threatened and (1) During analysis of the management measures when appropriate. - (g) Fish and wildlife habitats will be endangered species that will' provide for, situation the following areas will-be managed to maintain viable where possible, designated for evaluation: populations their removal from of all existing native vertebrate species listing as threatened and endangered (i) All previously inventoried species through appropriate wilderness resources not yet designated; in the planning area and to maintain and (ii) Areas contiguous to existing improve habitat of management conservation measures, including the designation of special areas to meet the wilderness, primitive areas, or indicator species. To meet this goal, ,administratively proposed wildernesses, management planning for the fish and protection and management needs of regardless of Which agency has wildlife resource will meet the such species. requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) (h) Identify lands suitable for'grazing jurisdiction for the wilderness or and browsing in accordance proposed w iliderness. through (7) of this paragraph and be with (iII) Areas, regardless of size, that are guided by Chapter 2620, Forest Service criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3),of contiguous to roadless and undeveloped Manual: this paragraph and as guided by Chapter areas in other Federal ownership that (1) The desired future condition of fish 2210, Forest Service Manual. and have identified wilderness potential; wildlife, where technically possible, (1) The procedures used will include, and will be stated in terms both of animal but not be limited to, the following: (iv) Areas designated by Congfess for population trends and of amount and (i) Range condition and trend studies: wilderness. study, administrative quality of habitat. (ii) Records of estimated actual use by proposals pending before Congress, and (2) Management indicator species, domestic livestock, feral animals and other legislative proposals pending vertebrate and/or invertebrate, will be management indicator species of

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53988 1979 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53989 wildlife, and estimated percentage (4) In formulation and analysis of on mineral resources and activities. utilization of key forage species; alternatives as specified in § 219.5 (f) including exploration and development. (iII) An estimate of the capability of and (g). interactions among recreation (k) Planning the management of the the rangelands to produce suitable food opportunities and other multiple uses water and soil resources will be in and cover for the management indicator will be examined. This examination will accordance with paragraphs (1) through species of wildlife: and consider the impacts of the proposed (6) of this paragraph, and be guided by (iv) An estimate of the present and recreation activities on other uses and Chapter 2510, Forest Service Manual. potential supply of forage for sheep, values and the impacts-of other uses and (1) Current water uses, both cattle, and feral animals. activities associated with them on consumptive and non-consumptive. (2) In the analysis of management recreation opportunities, activities, and within the area of land covered by the situation, assess the capability of the quality of experience. forest plan. including instream flow planning area to produce forage without (5) Formulation and evaluation of requirements. will be determined, in permanent impairment of the resources. alternatives under paragraphs (3) and cooperation with appropriate considering the 2ondition of the (4) above will be coordinated to the government entities. vegetation, statutory, and administrative extent feasible with present and (2) Existing impoundments. withdrawals, characteristics of soil and proposed recreation activities of local transmission facilities, wells, and other slope, and accessibility to grazing and and State land use or outdoor recreation man-made developments on the area of browsing animals. plans, particularly the State land covered by the forest plan will be (3) Alternative range management. Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation identified. practices will consider. Plan and recreation opportunities (3) The probable occurrence of (i) Grazing management systems; already present and available on other various levels of water volumes. (ii) Methods of altering successional public and private lands, with the aim of including extreme events which would stages for range management objectives. reducing duplication in meeting have a major impact on the planning including vegetation manipulation as recreation demands. area. will be estimated. described in § 219.13(c); (6) The visual resource will be (4) Plans must comply with the (iii) Evaluation of pest problems. and inventoried and evaluated as an requirements of the Federal Water availability of integrated pest integrated part of the forest planning process, addressing both the landscapes Pollution Control Act as amended by management systems; the Clean Water of 1977. the Safe (iv) Possible conflicts or beneficial visual attractiveness and the publics Drinking visual expectation. As guided by chapter Water Act and all substantive interactions among domestic, feral, and and procedural requirements of Federal. wild animal populations, and methods 2380, Forest Service Manual. definitive land areas of the forest will have a State, and local governmental bodies of regulating these; with respect to the provision ofpublic (v) Physical facilities such as fences. visual quality objective assigned as a part of the management prescription to water systems and the disposal of waste water development, and corrals. water. necessary for efficient management: direct management practices and the management of the visual resource. (5) Existing or potential watershed (vi) Existing permits, cooperative conditions that will influence soil agreements, and related obligations; and (7) Off-road vehicle use will be (vii) planned and implemented to minimize productivity, wateryield water Measures to protect, manage, and pollution, or hazardous events, will be control wild free-roaming horses and adverse effects on the land and resources, promote public safety, and evaluated. burros as provided in Part 222, Subpart (6) Measures, as directed in applicable B of this chapter. minimize conflicts with other uses of the (i) A broad spectrum of dispersed and National Forest System lands. Forest Executive Orders, to minimize risk of developed recreation opportunities in planning will evaluate the potential flood loss and to restore and preserve accord with identified needs and effects of vehicle use off-roads and. on floodplain values, and to protect demands will be provided. Planning to the basis of the requirements of Part 295. wetlands, will be adopted. of this chapter and be guided by in (1)Forest planning will provide for the achieve this will be governed by the indentification. protection, goals of the regional plan, the Chapter 2355, Forest Service Manual. classify areas and trails of National interpretation and management of requirements of paragraphs (1) through cultural resources on National Forest (8) of this section, and be guided by Forest System lands as to whether or Chapter 2310, Forest Service Manual. not off-road vehicle use may be System lands- Planning for the resource (1) Forest planning will identify: permitted. will be governed by the requirements of (i) The physical and biological (j) The effects of mineral exploration Federal laws pertaining to historic characteristics that make land suitable and development in the planning area preservation, and be guided by Chapter for recreation opportunities; will be considered in the management of 2360. Forest Service Manual. and the (ii) The recreational preferences of renewable resources. When available, criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) of user groups; and the settings needed to the following will be recognized in the this paragraph. prpvide quality recreation opportunities: forest plan: (1) Forest planning will: (iii) Recreation opportunities on the (1) Active mines within the area of (i) Provide an overview of known data National Forest System lands. land covered by the forest plan; relevant to history. ethnography, and (2) The supply of developed (2) Outstanding or reserved mineral prehistory of the area under recreational facilities in the area of rights, consideration, including known cultural national forest influence will be (3) The probable occurrence of resource sites; appraised for adequacy to meet present various minerals, including locatable. (ii) Identify areas requiring more and future demands. leasable, and common variety; intensive inventory; (3) Alternatives will include (4) The potential for future mineral (iii) Provide for evaluation and consideration of establishment of development and potential for Identification of sites for the National physical facilities, regulation of use. and withdrawal from development and Register of Historic Places recreation opportunities responsive to (5) The probable effect of renewable (iv) Provide for establishing measures current and anticipated user demands. resource allocations and management for the protection of cultural resources

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53989 1979 53990 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

from vandalism and other human unless these are specifically accepted, that meets or exceeds applicable depredation, and natural destruction; as in Wilderness; Federal, State and/or local standards or (v) Identify the need for maintenance (3] Prevent or'reduce serious, long- regulations, and as further guided by of historic sites on, or eligible for lasting hazards from pest organisms Chapter 2120, Forest Service Manual, inclusion in, the National Register of under the principles of integrated pest (c) Management prescriptions that Historic Places; and management; involve vegetation manipulation of tree (vi) Identify opportunities for (4] Protect'streams, streambanks, cover for any purpose will: interpretation of cultural resources for shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other (1] Be best suited to the multiple-use the education and enjoyment of the bodies of water as provided under goals established for the area with all American public. paragraphs (e)and (f) of this section; potential environmental, biological, (2) In the formulation and analysis of (5] Provide for and maintain diversity cultural resource, aesthetic, engineering, alternatives, interactions'among cultural of plant and animal communities to and econminic impacts, as stated in the resources and other multiple uses will meet overall multiple-use objectives, as regional and forest plans, being be examined. This examination will provided in paragraph (g) of this section; considered in thjs deterthination; consider impacts of the management of (6) Be monitored and evaluated as (2) Assure that lands can be cultural resources on other uses and- required in § 219.5(k) to assure that adequately restocked as provided In activities and impacts of other uses and practices protect soil, watershed, fish, paragraph (h](3) of this section, except activities on cultural resource wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic where permanent openings are created management. yalues; maintain vegetative productivity; for wildlife habitat improvement, vistas, (3) Formulation and evaluation of plan and reduce hazards from insects, recreation uses and, similar practices alternatives will be coordinated to the disease, weed species,'and fire; ,(3) Not be chosen primarily because extent feasible with the State cultural (7) Be assessed prior to project they will give the greatest dollar return resource plan and planning activities of implementation for potential physical, or the greatest output of timber, the State Historic Preservation Office biological, aesthetic, cultural, although these factors.will be and State Archaeologist and with other engineering, and economic impacts and considered. Stat6 and Fedeial agencies. for consistency with multiple uses (4) Be chosen after considering (in) Forest planning will provide for planned for the general area; potential effects on residual trees and the establishment of Research Natural (8) Ensure that fish and Wildlife adjacent stands; Areas (RNAs). Planning will make habitats are managed to maintain viable (5) Avoid permanent impairment of, provision for the identification of populations of all existing native site productivity and ensure examples of important forest, shrubland, vertebrate species and to improve conservation of soil and water grassland, alpine, aquatic,.and geologic habitat of selected species, coordinated resources; types that have special or unique with appropriate State fish and wildlife (6) Provide the desired effects on characteristics of scientific interest and agencies and monitored in cooperation water quantity and quality, wildlife and importance and that are needed to with these agencies, to the extent fishhabitat, regeneration of desired tree complete the national network of RNAs. practicable; species, recreation uses, aesthetic Biotic, aquatic, and geologic types (9] Include measures for preventing values, and resouice yields; and needed for thenetwork will.be the destruction or adverse modificatior (7] Be practical in terms of identified using a list provided by the of critical habitat for threatened and transportation and harvesting endangered species; requirements, and total costs of Chief, Forest Service. Authority to - establish RNA's is delegated to the (10) Provide that any existing preparation, logging, and administration, Chief in § 2.60(a) of TItle 7 CFR and in transportation and utility corridor, and (d) When openings are created in the any right-of-way that is capable of forest by the application of even-aged § 251.23 of this chapter. a'ccommodating the facility or use from silviculture, the provisions of Recommendations for establishment of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph areas will be made through the planning an additional compatible right-of-way, be designated as a right-of-way corridor. apply. process and according to the guidance Subsequent right-of-way grants will, to (1) The blocks or strips cut will be foj the selection of areas for RNAs and the extent practicable, and as shaped and blended with the natural for the preparation of establishment determined by the responsible official, terrain to achive aesthetic and wildlife reports as provided in section 4063, be confined to designated corridors; habitat objectives to the extent Forest Service Manual. (11) Ensure that any roads constructed practicable. Openings will be located to § 219.13 Management standards and through contracts, permits, or leases are achieve the desired combination of guidelines. designed according to standards multiple objectives. Regional plans will (a) Management of National Forest appropriate to the planned uses, provide guidance on the dispersion of System lands requires adherence to the considering safety, cost of openings, and size variations of planning principles stated in § 219.1; transportation, and effects upon lands openings, in relation to topography, specific management requirements to be and resources; climate, geography, local land use met in accomplishing goals and (12] Provide that all roads are planned patterns, forest type and other factors.' objectives include, as a minimuin, those and designed to re-establish vegetative The regional plan will specify the state in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this cover on the total disturbed area within of vegetation to be reached before a 'section. a reasonable period of time, not to cutover is no longer considered an (b) All management practices will: exceed 10 years after the termination of opening. (1) Conserve soil and water resources, a contract, lease or permit, unless the (2) Individual cut blocks, patches, or and not allow significant or permanent road is determined necessary as a strips will conform to the maximum size impairment of thd productivity of the permanent addition to the National limits for areas to be cut in one harvest land; Forest Transportation System; and" operation established by the regional (2] Minimize serious or long-lasting (13) Maintain air quality at a level that plan according to geographic areas and hazards from flood, wind, wildfire, is adequate for the protection and use of, forest types. This limit may be less than, erosion, or other natural physical forces National Forest Syitem resources and but will not exceed, 60 acres for the

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53990 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 539911

Douglas-fir forest type of California, [f) Conservation of soil and water covered by the forest plan during the Oregon, and Washington; 80 acres for resources involves the analysis, planning period. Within the planning the southern yellow pine types of protection, enhancement, treatment, and period. the volume of timber to be sold Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, evaluation of soil and water resources, in any one year may exceed the average Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina. and their responses under management annual allowable sale quantity so long South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas; and will be guided by instructions in as the total amount sold for the planning 100 acres for the hemlock-sitka spruce official technical handbooks. These period does not exceed the allowable forest type of coastal Alaska; and 40 handbooks must show specific ways to sale quantity. Nothing in this paragraph acres for all other forest types except as avoid or mitigate damage, and maintain prohibits salvage or sanitation provided in paragraphs [i) through (iii) or enhance productivity on specific harvesting of timber stands which are of this paragraph: sites. These handbooks may be regional substantially damaged by fire. (i) Cut openings larger than those in scope or. where feasible, specific to windthrow, or other catastrophe, or specified may be permitted where larger physiographic or climatic provinces. which are in imminent danger of insect units will produce a more desirable (g)The selected alternative will or disease attack and where consistent combination of benefits. Such provide for diversity of plant and animal with silvicultural and environmental exceptions will be provided for in communities and tree species to meet standards. Such timber may either regional plans. The following factors the overall multiple-use objectives of the substitute for timber that would will be considered in determining size planning area. Diversity of plant and otherwise be sold under the plan or, if limits by geographic areas and forest animal communities and tree species not feasible, be sold over and above the types: Topography; relationship of units will be considered throughout the planned volume. to other natural or artificial openings planning process. Inventories will (3] When trees are cut to achieve and proximity of units; coordination and include quantitative data making timber production objectives, the consistency with adjacent forests and possible the evaluation of diversity in cuttings will be made in such a way as regions; effect on water quality and terms of its prior and present condition. to assure that lands can be adequately quantity; visual absorption capability; For each planning alternative, the restocked within 5 years after final effect on wildlife and fish habitat; interdisciplinary team will consider how harvesL Research and experience will regeneration requirements for desirable diversity will be affected by various indicate that the harvest and tree species based upon the latest mixes of resource outputs and uses, regeneration practices planned can tie research findings; transportation and including proposed management expected to result in adequate harvesting system requirements; natural practices. To the extent consistent with restocking. Adequate restocking means and biological hazards to survival of the requirement to provide for diversity, that the cut area will contain the residual trees and surrounding stands; management prescription, where minimum number, size distribution, and and relative total costs of preparatibn, appropriate and to the extent species composition of regeneration as logging, and administration of harvest practicable, will preserve and enhance specified in regional silvicultural guides cuts of various sizes. Specifications for the diversity of plant and animal attached to the forest plan for each exceptions will include the particular communities, including endemic and forest type. Five years after final harvest conditions under which the larger size is desirable naturalized plant and animal means 5 years after clearcutting, 5 years permitted and set a new maximum size species, so that it is at least as great as after final overstory removal in permitted under those conditidns. that which would be expected in a shelterwood cutting. 5 years after the (ii) The size limits may be exceeded natural forest and the diversity of tree seed tree removal cut in seed tree on an individual timber sale basis after species similar to that existing in the cutting. or 5 years after selection cutting. 60 days public notice and review by the planning area. Reductions in existing (4) Cultural treatments such as regional forester. diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species will be thinning. weeding. and other partial (iII) The established limit will not cutting may be included in the forest apply to the size of areas harvested as a prescribed only where needed to meet plan where they are intended to result of natural catastrophic condition overall multiple-use objectives. Planned increase the rate of growth of remaining such as fire, insect and disease attack, type conversion will be justified by an analysis showing biological, economic, trees, favor commercially valuable tree or windstorm. species, favor species or age classes (e) Special attention will be given to social, and environmental design consequences, and the relation of such which are most valuable for wildlife, or land and vegetation for approximately achieve other multiple-use objectives. 100 feet from the edges of all perennial conversions to the process of natural change. (5) Harvest levels based on intensified streams, lakes, and other bodies of management practices will be decreased water and will correspond to at least the (h) The management requirements in paragraphs (1) through (7) of this no later than the end of each planning recognizable area dominated by the period if such practices cannot be riparian vegetation. No management paragraph apply to timber harvest and cultural treatments. completed substantially as planned. practices causing detrimental changes in (6) Timber harvest cuts designed to water temperature or chemical, (1) No timber harvesting will occur during the planning period on lands regenerate an even-aged stand of timber composition, blockages of water will be carried out in a manner courses, and deposits of sediment will classified as not suited for timber production pursuant to § 219.12(b) (1) consistent with the protection of soil. be permitted within these areas yhich watershed, fish and wildlife, recreation, seriously and adversely affect water through (5) except as necessary to protect other multiple-use values or and aesthetic resources, and the conditions or fish habitat. Topography, regeneration of the timber resource. vegetation type, soil, climatic conditions, activities that meet other objectives on management objectives, and other such lands if the forest plan establishes (7) Timber will not be harvested that such actions are appropriate. where such treatment would favor an factors will be considered-in abnormal increase in injurious insects determining what management practices (2) The selected harvest schedule may be performed within these areas or provides the allowable sale quantity, the and disease organisms. the constraints to be placed upon their quantity of timber that may be sold from (i) Monitoring will ensure as a performance. the capable, available, and suitable land minimum that:

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53991 1979 53992 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No., 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Lands are adequately restocked as Pending approval of a forest plan, 1. Goal. specified in the Forest Plan; existing plans may be amended or in. Goods and Services. (2) Lands identified asnot suited for revised to include management n. Guideline. timber production will be examined at requirements not inconsistent with the o. Integrated Pest Management. least p. Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity. every 10 years to determine if they provisions of the Forest and Rangeland q. Management Concern, have become suitable; if determined Renewable Resources Planning Act, as r. Management Direction. suited such lands will be returned to amended, and these regulations. s. Management Intensity. timber production. (b) A forest plan may become L Management Practice, (3) Maximum size limits for harvest effeative prior to the development and u. Management Prescription. areas are evaluated to determine approval of its related regional plan,. v. Multiple Use. whether such size limits should be provided that the forest plan will be w. Objective. continued; and reviewed upon regional plan approval, x. Planning Area. (4) Destructive insects and disease and if necessary, amended to comply y. Policy. organisms do not z. Program. increase following with regional management direction. If aa. Public Issue. management activities. such an aiendment is significant, it Will bb. Public Participation Activities. be § 219.14 Research. made pursuant to the requirements cc. Real Dollar Value. for the development of a forest.plan. dd. Responsible Official. (a) Research needs for management of ee. Silvicultural System. the National Forest System will be Appendix F-Regulation Outline and ff. Standard. identified during-planning and Index gg. Suitability. continually reviewed during evaluation Outline of Rules for Land Management hh. Sustained Yield of the Several Products of implemented plans. Particular Planning, in the National Forest System and Services. attention will be given to research heeds ii. Timber Harvest Schedule. identified during the monitoring and Subject jj. Timber Production. evaluation described in § 219.5(k). These Sec. kk. Uneven-Aged Silviculture. 219.1 Purpose. 219.4 Planning Levels. identified needs will be included in a. Introduction. formulating overall research programs 219.2 Scope and Applicability. 219.3 Definitions. b. Planning Levels and Relationships: and plans which involve private as well 1. National. as public forest and rangelands. 219.4 Planning Levels. 219.5 Regional and Forest PlanningProcess. 2. Regional. (b) Research needed to support or 219.08 Interdisciplinary Approach. 3. Forest. -improve management of the National 219.7 Public Participation, 219.5 Regional and Forest Planning Process. Forest System will be established and 219.8 Coordination of Public Planning a. General Planning approach. budgeted at the research station and Efforts. b. Identification of issues, concerns and national levels. Priorities for this portion 219.9 Regional Planning Procedure. opportunities. of the Forest Service Research Program 219.I0 Regional PlanningAotions. c. Planning Criteria: 219.11 Forest PlanningProcedure. 1. Laws. will be based upon the information 2. Goals and objectives. gathered 219.12 Forest PlanningActions. at all plahninglevels of the 219.13 Management Standards and 3. Recommendations and assiunptions, National Forest System. Guidelines. 4. Other agencies plans and programs, (c) An annual report will be prepared 219.14 Research. 5. Ecological, technical and economic at the national level with assistance 219.15, Revision of Regulations. factors. from Regions and Stations which will 219.16 Transition Period. 6. Economic analysis guidelines. include; but not be limited to, a 219.1 Purpose. 7. Standards and guidelines. description of the status of major' a. Conformance with NEPA and RPA. d. Inventory Data and Collection, research programs b. Principles of Planning:, e. Analysis of the Management Situation, which address 1. Ecosystem concept. 1. Ranges of goods and services, National Forest System needs for 2. Relative values. - 2. Projections of demand. Research, significant findings, and how' 3. Goals and objectives. 3. Potential to resolve Issues and concerns. this information is to be, orhas recently 4. Protection. 4. Technical and economic feasibility. been applied. 5. Preservationm 5. Management direction. 6. Religious freedom, American Indians. f. Formulation of Alternatives. § 219.15 Revision of regulations.. 7..Safe use. 1. Range of outputs and expenditure levels. The regulations in this subpart will be 8. Forest pests. -i. Each alternative will be capable of being regularly reviewed and, when 9. Coordination. achieved. appropriate, revised. The first such 10. Interdisciplinary approach. it. No action alternative to be Included. review will be completed no later than 6 11. Publicparticipation. iii. Each alternative to provide for years after the approval date of these 12. Standards and guidelines. elimination of backlog for restoration. 13. Economic efficiency. iv. Issues and concerns to be addressed in regulations. Additional reviews will 14. Responsiveness to changing conditfons one or more alternatives. occur at least every 5 years thereafter. and public participation. v. Cost effectiveness. 219.2 Scope § 219.16 Transition period., and Applicability. 2. Content of alternative. 219.3 Definitions. i. Long-term results and conditions, (a) Until a forest planning area of the a. Allowable Sale Quantity. ii. Goods and services to be produced. National Forest System land is managed b. Assessment. iii. Resource management standards and under a forest plan developed pursuant c. Base Timber Harvest Schedule. guidelines. d. Biological Growth ivPurposes of management direction to these regulations and' approved by e. Capability. Potential. the regional forester, the land may proposed. , continue to be managed under existing f. Corridor. g. Estimated Effects of Alternatives: land g. Diversity. 1. Expected outputs for the planning use and resource-plans. As soonxa h. Economic Efficiency Analysis. periods. practicable, existing plans will be i. Environmental Analysis. 2. Relationship between short-term uses amended or revised to incorporate j. Environmental Documents. and long-term productivity. standards and guidelines in this subpart. k. Even-Aged Silviculture., 3. Adverse environmental effects.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53992 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53993

4. Irreversible and irretrievable resource Evaluation. Impacts on areas larger than national forests commitments. g. Summaries of Public Participation or states. 5. Effects on minority group and civil rights. Activities. 5. Research programs. i. Expected real-dollar costs. h. Public Notice of Public Participation 6. NFS programs. ii. Estimate real dollar value of all outputs. Activities. 219.10 Regional Planning Actions. iii. Evaluate local economic effect. i. Notifying Interested or Affected Parties. a. Introduction. 6. Effects on prime farmlands, wetlands j. Duties of Responsible Forest Service b. Concerns and Issues to be Considered: and flood plains. Official. 1. Efficiency. 7. Output relationships to production goals. k Copies of Plans to be Available: 2. Timber and Wood fiber. 8. Energy requirements and effects. 1. Assessment and Program. 3. Range resources. 9. Direct and indirect benefits-and costs. 2. Regional plan. 4. Fire management. h. Evaluation of Alternatives. 3. Forest plan. 5. Disease and pests. i. Selection of Alternative. 4. Convenient locations for public review. 6. Water quality, quantity and soil j. Plan Implementation: 1. Supporting Documents to be Available. productity. 1. Compliance with annual program in. Three Month Review Period. 7. Landownership. propos ls. n. Fees for Reproducing Materials. 8. Recreation. 2. Budget allocations. 219.8 Coordination of Public Planning Efforts. 9. Fish and wildlife habitats. 3. In compliance with 219.9(c) and a. Introduction &Principles 10. Threatened and endangered species. 219.11(d). b. Coordination of Forest Service Planning: 11. Mineral exploration and developmenL k. Monitoring and Evaluation: 1. Recognition of other agencies' objectives. 12. Transportation facilities. 1. Monitoring activities. 2. Assessment of interrelated impacts. 13. Visual quality. i. Actions, effects or resources to be 3. Determination of how to deal with these 14. Rights of way. measured and frequency. impacts. 15. Cultural resources. ii Expected precision and reliability. 4. Conflicts and alternatives for resolution. 1. Research natural areas. evaluation is to be reported. c. Notice of Proposed Action and Schedule. Wilderness Management Options. iii. Time when d. Agreements on Procedural Measures 2. Evaluation reports. c. Regional Plans Contribute and Respond 3. Changes in management direction. with Governors. to the Assessment and Program. Approach. e. Meetings and Conferences. d. Each Regional Plan will Establish 219.6 Interdisciplinary Land Use Policies of Other a. Introduction and team functions: f. Review of Standards and Guidelines for Agencies. 1. Tree openings created by even-aged 1. Assesses problems. with Adjacent Property 2. Obtain public views. g. Coordination management. 3. Coordinate with other agencies. Owners. 2. Biological growth potential used in 4. Develop the land and resource h. Resolving Management Concerns and determining timber capability. environmental impact Identifying Research Needs. 3. Transportation corridors. management plan and Lands. statement. i. Monitoring Effects on Adjacent 4. Air quality. 5. Provide an integrated perspective for the 219.9 Regional Planning Procedure. 5. Unit of measure for expressing mean responsible official. a. Regional Plan. annual increment. 6. Establish monitoring and evaluation b. Responsibilities: e. Public Participation and Coordination standards. 1. DEIS Activities. b. Interdisciplinary Team Composition. 2. FEIS L Data for Regional Planning. c. Interdisciplinary Team Member c. Plan Review by Chief: g. Regional Analysis of the Management Qualifications: -1.Approve proposal and the environmental Situation. statement: Issue Report of Decision 1. Solve complex problems. impact 219.11 Forest Planning Procedure. 2. Communication skills. i. State the decision. a. Forest Plan. 3. Planning concepts, processes and ii. Identify alternatives considered. b. Responsibilities: techniques. iii. Specify preferred alternative. 1. Forest Supervisor. 4. Conceptualize planning problems and iv. Identify and discuss all factors 2. Interdisciplinary Team. situations. considered. 1. DEIS. d. Interdisciplinary Team Leadership. v. Means to Avoid Environmental Harm. ILFEIS. 219.7 Public Participation. 2. Disapprove proposal or the EIS. c. Approval Process. Plan Review by a. Introduction: 3. Exclusion from appeal under 30 CFR Regional Forester. 1. Understand needs and concerns of 211.19; provisions for requests for 1. Approve proposal and environmental public. reconsideration; requests for stays of impact statement: Issue Record of Decision. 2. Inform public of proposed actions. implementation. L State the decision. 3. Provide public with an understanding of d. Conformity. If. Identify alternative considered. proposed actions. e. Amendment. Ill. Specify preferred alternative. 4. Broaden the information base upon L Revision. Iv. Identify and discuss all factors which decisions are made. g. Planning Records. considered. 5. Demonstrate the use of public input. h. Regional Plan Content- v. Means to Avoid Environmental Harm. b. Public Participation in the Preparation of 1. Major public issues and management 2. Disapprove the proposal or the EIS. the Draft Environmental Statement and concerns. 3. Transmit base timber harvest schedule Notice of Intent. 2. Management situation summary. departure request to ChieL c. Public Participation in the Devel6pment. 3. Management direction-programs, goals 4. Appeal of Decision to approve or Revision, and Jignificant Amendment of and objectives. disapprove forest plan; requests for stay of Plans; Media notice: 4. Distriubtion of regional activities. Implementation. 1. Description of proposed action. 5. Management standards and guidelines. d. Conformity. 2. Description of geographic area affected. 6. Monitoring and evaluation. e. Amendment. 3. Issues expected to be discussed. 7. Appropriate references. f. Revision. 4. Kind, extent. and methods. 8. Interdisciplinary team members and g. Planning Records. 5. Times, dates and locations. qualifications. h. Forest Plan Content: 6. Forest Service official to be contacted. i. Monitoring and Evaluation: 1. Major public issues and management 7. Location and availability of documents. 1. Management practices to be measured concerns. d. Means to Effective Public Participation. and frequency. 2. Management situation summary. e. Public Input Analysis. 2. State and Private Forestry programs. 3. Long-range policies, goals and L Public Participation in Monitoring and 3. Economic and social Impacts. objectives, with management prescription. 4. Resource outputs and environmental 4. Vicinity. timing. standards and guidelines for practices.

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53993 1979 53994 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements. iii. Areas contiguous to roadless areas with 6. Protective measures. 6. Appropriate references to information. wilderness potential. I I. Cultural Resources: 7. Interdisciplinary team members and iv. Legislatively or administratively 1. Forest plan will. qualifications. proposed areas. i. Provide an overview. i. Monitoring and Evaluation. 2. Criteria for wilderness evaluation ifnot ii. Identify areas requiring more intensive 1. Requirements. otherwise stated: inventory. i. Management practices to be measured i. Wilderness iialues. iii. Evaluation of sites for the National and frequency. ii. Values foregone. Register of Historic Places. ii. Expected precision and reliability. iii. Feasibility of management as iv. Provide protective measures. iii. Evaluation reports. wilderness. v. Maintenance of historic sites, 2. Evaluation reports will contain at least: iv. Proximity to other 3vilclerness areas. vi. Identify opportunities for interpretation, i. Quantitative estimates of performance. v. Long term changes in species, plant and 2. Analysis of alternatives. ii. Documentation of measured effects. animal diversity community. 3. Evaluation of alternatives. iii. Recommendations for change. f. Direction for the Management of m. Research Natural Areas: iv. Continuing evaluation. Designated Wilderness and:Primitive Areas: 219.13' Management Standards and v. Costs. 1. Limiting and distributing visitor use. Guidelines. 3. Interdisciplinary team recommendations. - 2. Control Measures. a. Introduction. 219.12 Forest Planning Actions. g. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management: b. Management Practices will: a. Introduction. 1. Desired future conditions. 1. Conserve soil and water resources. b. Each Plan will Identify Lands Available, 2. Management indicator species. 2. Minimize physical hazards. Capable, and Suitable for Timber Production. 3. Consulting other agendes' fish and 3. Prevent pest hazards. 1. Requirements of timber producing lands. wildlife Biologists. 4. Protect water bodies. 1. Not legislatively or administratively 4. Access and dispersal problems. 5. Provide for and maintain plant and withdrawn. 5. Pest and fire management effects. animal diversity. i!. Biological growth potefitiaL 6. Population trends. of management 6. Be monitored and evaluated. iii. Technology available to insure timber indicator species. 7. Be assessed for NEPA considerations, production without irreversible resource 7. Critical habitat for threatened and 8. Maintain fish and wildlife populations. damage. I endangered species. iv. Assurance for adequate restocking. 9. Prevent adverse modification of critical -h. Grazing and Browsing Lands. habitat for threatened and endangered 2. Determine potential economic efficiency 1. Procedures used and data obtained. In commercial species. timber production. i. Range condition and'trend studies. i. Direct benefits. 10. Provide right of ways and it. Records of actual use. transportaton corridors. ii. Direct costs, iii. Management indica.tor species of iii. Economic analysis. 11. Ensure appropriate road construction wildlife. design according to use. 3,Each alternative consider-costs and iv. Present andpotential supply estimates. benefits of alternative timber management 12.Provide that all roads are designed to 2. Analysis of the management situation. re-establish vegetative cover. regimes and lands tentatively identified as 3. Alternative range management practices. not suited 13. Maintain air quality. for timber production if: i. Grazing management systems. i. Land is suitable for uses that preclude c. Management Prescriptions involving ii. Methods. vegetation manipulation of tree cover willh timber production. iii. Evaluation of pest problems. ii. Silvicultural 1.Be best suited for multiple use, standards and guidelines iv. Conflicts and beneficial interactions. cannot be met. 2. Assure adequate restocking within 5 v. Phtysical facilities. years. ill. Lands are not cost efficient. vi.'Existing permits. c. Choice of Vegetation Management 3. Not be chosen primarily because of vii. Free roaming horses and burros. greatest dollar return. Practice. i. Dispersed and Developed Recreation: d. Formulation of Harvest Schedule 4. Consider potential effects of residual 1. Forest planning will identify. * trees. Alternatives. i. Physical and-biological characterstics. 1. Determinations of the quantity of timber 5. Avoid permanent impairment of site if. Recreational preferences. productivity. sold during the planning period and iii. Recreation opportunities. departures from the base harvest schedule. 6. Provide desired effects. 2. Supply of recreational facilities. 7. Be practical in terms of transportation i. Planned sales and future harvests. 3. Recreation alternatives. and harvesting Ii. Guidelines: requirements. - 4. Formulation and analysis of atlernatives. d. Openings A. Long term sustained yield Created by Even-Aged, capacity and 5. Evaluation of alternatives. Management: base harvest schedule. 6. Land ownership patterns. 1. Must be shaped and blended. B. Departure-alternatives to the base 7. Off-road vehicle use. 2. Maximum size limits. harvest schedule. j. Mineral Exploration and Development 1. Factors to be considered in determining C. Even-aged stands scheduled to be Consideration and Information Needs: size limits. harvested. 1. Active mines. ii. Size limits may be exceeded after 0 D. Perpetual timber harvest at the long 2. Mineral rights. days public notice. term sustained yield capacity. 3. Probable occurrences. iii. Natural catastrophic conditions iii. Alternatives providing for departures. 4. Development potential. excluded. 2. Selectedharvest schedule provides the- 5. Probable effect of renewable resource e. Special Attention to Land' and allowable, sale quantity. allocation on mineral activities. Vegetation Near perennial streams, lakes and -e. Non-Wilderness (RARE II) Lands- k. Water and Soil Management: other bodies of water'. 1. During analysis of the management 1. Current wateruses.- f. Conservation of Soil and Water situation evaluate the following areas: 2. Existing impoundments, transmission Resources. i. Inventoried wilderness not yet facilities, etc: , g. Diversity of Plant and Animal designated., 3. Water volumes. Communities and Tree Species. ii. Areas contiguous to wilderness. 4. Legal requirements. h. Timber Harvest and Cultural primitive, or administratively proposed, 5. Watershed conditions. wilderness. .

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53994 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53995

Treatments: (5) Effects on Minority Groups and Civil (iH)Identify Areas Requiring More Intensive 1. No timber harvesting on lands classified Rights.. Inventory- as not suited for timber production. (6) Effects on Prime Farmlands, Wetlands (iMi)Evaluation of Sites for the National 2. Allowable sale quantity. and Flood Plains. Register of Historic Places 3. Five year restocking requirement. (7) Relationship to Production Coals. (iv) Provide Protective Measures 4. Cultural treatments included in the forest (8) Energy Requirements. (v) Maintenance of HIstoric Sites. plan. (9) Direct and Indirect Benefits and Costs. (vii Identify Opportunities for Interpretation 5. Decreasing harvest levels. (i) Expected Real-Dollar Costs. (2 Formulation and Analysis of Alternatives 6. Requirements for even-aged (ii) Estimated Real-Dollar Value or All (3) Evaluation of Alternatives management Outputs. 7. No harvest where such treatment would (iii) Evaluate Local Economic EffecL Definitions favor an abnormal increase in injurious 219.51h) Evaluation, of Alternatives. 219.3 Terms Used in Regulations insects and disease organisms. - 219.5(1] Alternative Selection- i. Monitoring= 219.12(b)(3) Forest ManagemenrAlternative. Diversity 1. Lands adequately restocked. Amendment 219.3[g) Definition 2. Reexamine lands:not suited for timber 219.13(g) Diversity of Plant and Animal production every 10 years. 219.9[e). 219.11(c) Amendment Communities and Tree Spedes 3. Maximum size limit evaluation. Animals See Diversity and Fish and Z$7AfY7f 4. Pests and disease don't increase Documents following management activities. Annual Ifeports 219.7(k) Copies of Prans To Be Available 219.14 Researcl. 219.14(c) Annual Reports (1) Assessment and Program a. Identification. of Research Needs. (2) Regional Plan Through Planning. Applicability See Scope (3) Forest Plan b. Establish Researcl to Support Appeals See Process (4) Convenient Locations for Public Review Management. 219.7(1) Supporting Documents To Be c. Annual Reports of MajorResearch. 219.9[b](3) Of Decisions Concerning Regional Plans Available 219.15 Revision of Regulations. 219.7(n) Fees ro Reproducing"dateriars 219.16 Transition Period, 219.11(C)(4) Of Decisions Concerning Forest Plans 219.9(b) Environmental Impact Statements a. Lands continued to be managed under 219.llb existing land use and resource plans. Approval See Proces b. Forest Plan Implementatiom Economics Assessment 219.311 Economic Efficiency A aysfs Index to Regulations--Part 219 Planning,, 219.3(b) Definition Definition Subpart A Base Harvest 219.5 ci. (e). (1) Practices; Economic Analys AdjacentLands of (g)](k) 219.3(c) Definition 219.9(i) 219.8(g) Coordination With Adjacent 219.4(b](1) National Property Owriers; g19.10(b) 219.8(i) Monitoring Effects on Adjacent Biological 219.12(b) Lands. 219.3(d) Biological Growth Potential Environmental Allowable Sale Quanjity Definition 2193(i) Environmental Analysis Definition 219.3(a) Definition. Bro wsing Lands See Crazing 19.3(j) Environmental Documents Definition 219.91b) Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Capability 19.119(c) 219.2(e) Definition 219.5(f) Formulation of Alternatives. EnviranmentatDesigtrAits (1) Range of Outputs and'Expendlture ConcernsSee Issues Levels. 219.1(b)(13) (i) Each Alternative will be Capable of Conformance 219.3(i) Being Achieved. 219.1(a) Conformance with NEPA and RPA 219.5(g](11 (ii) No Action Alternative ToBe Included. 219.51h) (iii) All AlternativesTo Provide For Conformity 219.61a) Elimination of Backlogs forRestoratiom 219.9[d) Conformity 219.12(i)(1] ii) (iv) Issues and Concerns To Be 219.11(d) 219.12(i)(4 Addressed In An Alternative 19.13[b]16l CoordinationSee Forest. Regionalo (v) Cost Effectiveness. M'ecntgs, 19.13([1161 Planning. Public [2) Alternative Content- 219.13(d)[2]i] (i) Long-Term Results and Conditions. 219.8 219.13([s (ilT Goods and Services To Be Produced. (iii) Resource Management Standards and Corridor Even-Aged Silviculture Guidelines. 219.3(f) Definition 219.3(k) Even-Aged S'dvicultur_. DefinitionL (iv) Purposes of Management Direction 219.10(b)(4) Require Corridors to extent' 219.13(d) Openings Created byEven-AgeL Proposed. practicable Management 219.5(g) Estimated Effects of Alternative:, 219.10(d)(5) Recommended corridors (1) Must Be Shaped and Blended (1) Expected Outputs for Planning (2) Maximum Size Limits. Periods. CulturalResources (i) Factors To Be Considered in Determining (2) Relationship Between Short-Term 219.12(1) Consideratioa in Forest Planning Size Limits Uses and-Long-Term Productivity. [1) Forest Plan Will (it) Size Limits May Be Exceeded (3) Adverse Environmental Effects. (i) Provide an Overview (iii) Natural Catastrophic Conditions (4) Irreversible Resource Commitments. Excluded

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53995 1979 53996 Federal Register / Vol. 44i No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Evaluation See Monitoring Guideline See Management Standard9 (3) Potential to Resolve Issues and Concerns 219.3(n) Definition (4) Technical and Economic Feasibility FinalEvaluation Impact Statement (FEIS) (5) Management Direction See Responsibilities. Implementation See Plan 219.8(h) Resolving Management Concerns Fish and Wildlife Information Levels See Documents and Identifying Research Needs 219.13(c) Management Prescriptions Involving 219.12(g) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Input See Public -Vegetation Manipulation of Tree Cover Requirements Will: , Future Conditions (1) Desired IntegratedSee Pest Management (1) Be Best Suited for Multiple Uso Indicator Species (2) Management (2) Assure Adequate Restocking Within 5 (3) Consulting Other Agencies' Fish and Interdisciplinary Years Wildlife Biologists 219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach (4) Access and Dispersal Problems 219.6(b) Interdisciplinary Team Composition (3) Not Be Chosen Primarily Because of , (5) Pest and FireManagement Effects (c) Interdisciplinai-y Team Member Greatest Dollar Return (6) Population Trends of Management Qualifications (3) Not Be Chosen Primarily Because of Indicator Species (1) Solve Complex Problems Greatest Dollar Return (7) Critical Habitat for Threatened and (2) Communication Skills (4) Consider Potential Effects of Residual Endangered Species (4) Conceptualize Planning Problems and Trees (5) Avoid Permanent Impairment of Sito ForestPlanning and Plans Situations (3)Planning Concepts, Processes and Productivity 219.5 Forest Planning Process Techniques (6) Provide Desired Effects 219.11 Forest Planning Procedure (d) Interdisciplinary Team Leadership (7) Be Practical in Ternis of Transportation 219.11(a) Plan and Harvesting Requirements 219.11(h) Forest Plan Content Inventory (b) Management Practices Will: (1) Major.Public Issues and Management 219.5(d) Inventory Data and Collection.' (1) Conserve Soil and Water Resources Concerns 219.13(g) (2) Minimize Physical Hazards (2) Management Situation Summary (3) Prevent Pest Hazards, (3) Policies, Goals. and Multiple-Use Issues (4) Protect Water Bodies Management Objectives, with Manageme nt 219.5(b) Identification of Issues, Concerns (5) Maintain Plant and Animal Diversity Prescription and Opportunities. (6) Monitored and Evaluated (4) Vicinity, Timing, Standards afhd 219.10(b) Concerns and Issues To Be (7) Environmental Assessments Guidelines for'Practices Considered. (8) Maintain Fish and Wildlife Populations (5) Monitoring and Evaluation Requirement (1) Efficiency (9) Prevent Adverse Modification of Critical (6) Appropriate References to Information (2) Timber and Wood Fiber Habitat for Threatened and Endangered (7) Interdisciplinary Team Members and Species Qualifications (3) Range Resources . (4) Fire Management (10) Provide Right of Way and Transportation 219.12 Forest Planning Actions (5) Disease and Pests Corridors ForestService PlapningSee Planning,Fore. t (6) Water Quality, Quantity ind Soil (11) Ensure Appropriate Road Construction , , Service Planning Productivity Design According to Use (7) Landownership (12) Provide That All Roads Are Designed to Goal (8) Recreation Re-Establish Vegetative Cover 219,3(l) Definition (9) Fish and Wildlife Habitats (13) Maintain Air Quality (10) Threatened -and Endangered Species ManagementStandards and Guidelines Goods and Services - (11) Mineral Exploration and Development '219.3(m) Definition (12) Transportation Facilities 219.13 Governors See Procedureand Coordination (13) Visual Quality Meeting, Coordination (14) Rights of Way 219.8(e) Coordination of Meetings Grazing Lands (15) Cultural Resources 219.12(h) Grazing and Browsing Lands (16) Research Natural Areas Minerals (1) Procedures Used and Data Obtained Land Use 219.120) Mineral Exploration dnd (i) Range Condition and Trend Studies Development Consideration and. (ii) Records of Actual Use 219.8(1) Appraisal of Land Use Policies of Information Needs (Ift) Management Indicator Species of Other Agencies . (1) Active Mines Wildlife 219.16(a) Lands Continued To Be Managed (2) Mineral Rights (iv) Present and Potential Study Estimates Ufider Existing Land Use and Resource (3) Probable Occurrences (2) Analysis of the Management Situation Plans (4) Development Potential (3) Alternative Range Management Practice Management (5) Probable Effect of Renewable Resource '(i) Grazihg Management Systems Allocation on Mineral Activities (It) Methods 219.3(q) -Concern,Ddfmition of. (fii) Evaluation of Pest Problems 219.3(r) Direction Monitoring and Evaluation (iv) Conflicts and Beneficial Interactions (s) Intensity . 219.5(k) (v) Physical Facilities (ti Practice, (1) MonitoringActivities (vi) Existing Permits (u) Prescription (i) Actions, Effects or Resources To o (vii) Free Rohming Hearses and Burros 219.5(6) Analysis of the Situation, Measured and Frequency (1)'Range of Goods and Services and Growth See Biological (ii) Expected Precision Reliability (2) Projections of Deiniand (iii) Time When Evaluation is to bo Reported (2) Evaluatlpn Reports

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53996 1979 Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations; 53MS7

(3) Changes in Management Direction Objective 219.9(i) .19.3[w) Definition (1) Management Practices to be Measured and Frequency Pest Management (2] State and Private Forestry Programs 219.3(o) Integrated Past Manigement. (3] Economic and Social Impacts Definition (4] Resource Outputs and Environmental Planning Impacts on Areas Larger Than National- Forests or States 219.3(x) Planning Area Definition (5) Research Programs Z19A Planning Levels (6) NFS Programs (b) Planning Levels and Relationships 219.11(i) (1) National (1) Monitoring Requirements in the Forest (2) Regional Plan (3] Forest (i) Management Practices to be Measured and 219.5[a) GenerarPlhnning Approach Frequency (c) Planning Criteria (ii) Expected Precision and Reliability (1] Laws (iii} Evaluation Reports (2) Goals (2] Evaluation Reports Will Contain at Least. (3) Recommendations:and Assumptions fi) Quantitative Estimates of Performance (4) Other Agencies (ii) Document of Measured Effects (5) Ecological. Technical and Economic, (iii Recommendations for Change Factor; (iv] Continuing Evaluation (6) Economic Analysis Guidelines (v] Costs [7] Standards and Guideline; (3] Interdisciplinary Team Recommendations (j) Plan Implementatiorr 219.13(i) (1) Annual Program Proposals (1) Lands Adequately Restocked (2) Budget Allocations (2] Re-Examine Lands Not Suited for Timber (3) In Compliance With 219.9[d) andZ19l(d) Production Every 10 years 219.9[g] PlanningRecords (3] Maximum Size Limit Evaluation 219.11(g) Planning ReocrdK (4) Insects and Disease Monitored Following See Review Management Activities Plan fleview Multiple Use Planni ForestService 219.3[v) Definition 219.8(b) Coordination of Forest Service Planning NaturalAreas See Research NaturalAreas (1) Recognition orOther Agencies' Objectives (2) Assessment of Interrelated Impacts NEPA See Conformance (3) Determination of How to Deal With These No Action Alternative Impacts For Resolution 219.5[f) Defined [4] Conflicts and Alternatives Principles Notice Plonnintq of Planning 219.8(c) Public Notice of Proposed Action and 219a(b) Principles Schedule (1] Interrelationships 219.13(d) 60 Days Public Notice When (2] Relative Values - Exceeding Harvest Cut Opening Sizes (3] Goals and Objectives (4] Protection Non- Wilderness (5] Preservation 219.12(e) Non-Wilderness Lands (6] Preserve American Indian Rights, (1) During Analysis of the Management (7) Safe Use Situation Evaluate the Following Areas: (8) Forest Pests (i} Inventoried Wilderness Not Yet (9) Coordination Designated (10] Interdisciplinary Approach (ii) Areas Contiguous to Wilderness. (11) Public Participation Primitive, or Administratively Proposed (12) Standards and Guidelines- Wilderness (13) Economic Efficiency (iii} Areas.Contiguous to-Roadless Areas (14) Responsiveness to Changing Conditions With Wilderness Potential polio (iv] Legislatively or Administratively Proposed Areas 219.3[y) Definition (2) Criteria for Wilderness Evaluation if Not PractikesSee JkannkerzcnL Otherwige Stated (i) Wilderness Values PrescriptionSee IMangoement (ill Values Forgone Procedure (iii) Feasibility of Management As Wilderness 219.8[d) Agreements on Procedural Measures (iv] Proximity to Other Wilderness Areas With Governors (v) Long Term Changes in Species, Plant and 219.9 Regional Planning Procedures Animal Diversity Community 219.11 Forest Planning Procedures

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53997 1979 gqQQR Fadp.ral Re ;ster / Vol. 44. No. 181 ) Monday, Seotember 17, 1979 / Rules .and Regulations 120rk Fedrl Reaister / Vol. 44. No. 181 IMonday, September 17, 1979 / Rules .and Regulations

Primitive See Wilderness (2) Management Situation Summary (3) Management Direction-Program, Goals Process,Approval and Objectives' 219.9(c) Regional Plan-Review by the Chief (4) Distribution of Regional Activities 219.11(c) Forest Plan Review by Regional '(5) Management Standards and Guidelines Forester (6) Monitoring and Evaluation (7) Appropriate References Program (8) Interdisciplinary Team Members and 219.3(z) Definition Qualifications " 219.10(c) Regional Plans and the Assessment Publicinput and Program 219.7(e) Public Input Analysis Regional PlqnningActions Public Issue See Issues 219.10 219.3(aa) Definition 219.10(f' Data for Regional Planning Public Participation Regional PlanningProcedure 219.3.bb) Definition 219.9 219.7(a) Purpose 219.10(d) Establish Standards and Gitidelines 219.7(b) Public Participation in the forn. Preparation of the Draft Environmental (1) Appropriate Systems of Silviculture Statement and Notice of Intent (2) Tree Openings Created by Even-Aged7 219.7(c) Public Participation in the Manageffent Development, Revision, and Significant (3) Biological Growth Potential Used in Amendment of Plans; Media Notice Determining Timber Capability (1) Description of Proposed Action (4) Defining Management Intensity (2) Description of Georgraphic Area Affected (5) Transportation Corridors 13) Issues Expected to be Discussed (6) Air Quality (4) Kind, Extent, and Methods (7) Unit of Measure for Expregsing Mean (5) Times, Dates and Locations Annual Increment (6)Forest Service Official to be Contacted Responsibilities (7) Location andAvailability of Documents (d) Means to Effective Public Participation 219.9(b) Regional Level (g) Summaries of Public Participation (1) Draft Environmental Impact Statement Activitiei (DEIS) 219.10(e) Public Participation and (2) Final Environmental Impact Statement Coordi ation Activities (FEIS) Planning 219.11(b) Forest Level Public (1) Forest Superyisor 219.8 Coordination of Public Planning Efforts (2] Interdisciplinary Team. PublicNotice See Notice (i) DEIS (i) FEIS -" 219.7(h) Public Notice of Public Participation Activities Responsible Official 'i) Notifying Interested or Affecteia Parties 219.3(dd) Definition Real Dollar Value 219.5(b)[d)(h) Duties of (i)(j)[k) . 219.3(cc) Definition 219.6(c)(d) Recreation 219.7(c)(d)(f){j) 219.8(b)(c)(e)(f) 219.12(i) Dispersed and Developed Recreation (g)(h) (1) Forest Planning (i) Physical and Biological Characteristics Resea-ch (ii) Recreational Preferences (iii) Recreation Opportunities 219.14(a) Research Needs (2).Supply of'Recreational Facilities 219.14(b) Research Priorities (3) Recreation Alternatives 219.14(c) Reports (4) Formulation of Analysis of Alternatives Research NaturalAreas (5) Evaluation of Alternatives (6) Land Ownership Patterns 219.12(m) Establishment through Forest (7) Off-Road Vehicle Use Planning ReglonalAnalysis Review See Procbss,Approval' 219,10(g) Regional Analysis of the 219.7(m) 3TMonth Review Period for DEIS Management Situation Revision RegionalPlanning 219.9(of Regional Plans 219.5Regional and Forest Planning Process 219.11(f) Forest Plans .219.9(a) Regional Plan 219.15 Revision of Regulations 219.9(h) Regional Plan Content (1)Major Public Issues and Management Concerns

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53998 1979 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53999

Scope (ii) Biological Growth Potential Timber Scope and Applicability (iii) Technology Available to Insure 219.2 Production Without Irreversible Resource - Services See Goods Damage (2) Determine Potential Economic Efficiency SilviculturalSee Even and Uneven-Aged in Commercial Timber Production 219.3(ee) Definition (i) Direct Benefits (ii) Direct Costs Soil and Water (iii) Economic Efficiency Analysis 219.12(k) Water and Soil Management (3) Each Alternative Consider Relative (1) Current Water Uses Economic Efficiency (2) Existing Impoundments. Transmission (4)Lands Tentatively Identified as Not Suited Facilities, etc. for Timber Production ifi (3) Water Volumes (i) Land is Suitable for Uses That Preclude (4) Legal Requirements Timber Production (5) Watershed Conditions (ii) Silvicultural Standards and Guidelines (6) Protective Measures Cannot Be Met 219.13(f) Conservation of Soil and Water (iii) Lands are Not Cost Effective Resources (5) Considerations for the Allocation of Lands Standards See Management Standards and Transition Period Guidelines 219.16 Use of Existing Plans 219.3(ff) Definition Tree Species See Diversity Suitability Uneven-Aged 219.3(gg) Definition 219.3(kk) Uneven-Aged Silviculture Definition Sustained Yield Vegetation See Monogeazent 219.3(p) Definition (long-term capacity) 219.12(c) Choice of Vegetation Management (hh) Definition (Sustained Yield of the Practice Several Products and Services) 219.13(e) Special Attention to Land and TimberHarvest Vegetation Near Perennial Streams. Lakes and Other Bodies of Water (approximately 219.3(ii) Definition (Timber Harvest Schedule) 100 feet) 219.12(d) Harvest Schedule and Departures (1] Determinations of the Quantity of Timber Water See Soil and Water Sold During the Planning Period and Wilderness Departures From the Base Harvest Schedule 219.12(e) Criteria for Evaluation {i) Planned Sales and Future Harvests 219.12(o) Direction for the Management of (ii) Guidelines Designated Wilderness and Primitive (A) Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity and Areas Base Harvest Schedule (1) Limiting and Distributing Visitor Use (B) Departure Alternatives to the Base (2) Control Measures Harvest Schedule Wildlfe See Fish and See Diversity (C) Even-Aged Stands Scheduled to be Harvested [FR Dn. 7D98713 Filed 9-14-9:0A3 am)] (D) Perpetual Timber Harvest at the Long BILUNG CODE 3410-11-M Term Sustained Yield Capacity (iii) Alternatives Providing for Departures Will be Considered Only When Departure is Consistent With Stated Multiple Use Management Objectives (2) Selected Harvest Schedule Provides the Allowable Sale Quantity 219.13(h) Timber Harvest and Cultural Treatments (1) No Timber Harvesting on Lands Classified as Not Suited for Timber Production (2) Allowable Sale Quantity (3) 5 Year Restocking Requirment (4) Cultural Treatments Included in the Forest Plan (5) Decreasing Harvest Levels (6) Requirements for Even-Aged Management (7) No Harvest Where Such Treatment Would Favor an Abnormal Increase in Injurious Insects and Disease Organisms TimberProduction 219.301) Definition 219.12(b) Identify Lands Available, Capable, and Suitable for Timber Production (1) Requirements of Timber Producing Lands (i) Not Legislatively or Administratively Withdrawn

HeinOnline -- 44 Fed. Reg. 53999 1979