EIN NLINE - Forest Service - USDA

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

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

National Forest System Land andResource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department ofAgriculture is issuing final regulations t(guide land and resource managementplanning in the National Forest System.These rules require an integration ofplanning for National Forests and -Grasslands, including the timber, range,fish and wildlife, water, wilderness, andrecreation resources; together withresource protection activities andcoordinated with fire management andthe use of other resburces, such asminerals. These rules will implementprovisions of the Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Planning Act of1974, as amended by the National ForesManagement Act of 1976.DATE: Effective October 17, 1979.ADDRESSES: A copy of these final rulesmay be obtained from: Chief, ForestService, USDA, P.O. Box 2417,Washington, D.C. 20013.FOR FURTHER -INFORMATION 6ONTACr.Charles R. Hartgraves, Director, LandManagement Planning, P.O. Box-2417,Washington, D.C. 20013, 202-447-6697.

1. Purpose

The Forest affd Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)(88 Stat. 476, et seq.), as amended by theNational Forest ManagementAct of 1971(NFMA) (90.Stat. 2949, et seq.) (16 U.S.C1601-1614), specifiet that aninterdisciplinary approach will be usedin land 'and resource managementplanning and that there will be aperiodic review of the planning process,followed by any necessary amendmentsto keep it current with statutory-requirements. These statutes alsoprovide for the establishment andrevision of national, regional and localresource goals and objectives which arebased on a periodic assessment of thefuture supply and demand of renewableresources from public and private forestand range lands. Achievement of thesegoals and objectives is the purpose ofthe planning process provided in theseregulations. These acts also requirepublic participation in the development,review and revision of land andresource management plans, and thecoordination of such plans'with State

and local units of government and otherFederal agencies.

These rules apply to all land andresources management plans developedhereafter for the National Forest-System.

These rules require an integration ofplanning for national forests andgrasslands, including the timber, range,fish and wildlife, water, wilderness, andrecreation resources, together withresource protection activities andcoordinated with fire management andthe use of other resources, such asminerals. By October 1985, plansrequired by these regulations should bedeveloped for all National ForestSystem lands.

2. Introduction' •Public participation was extensive

and' was a major factor in developingthe final regulations. The public wasinvited to comment on the first draft ofthe regulations which appeared in theFederal Register August 31, 1978 (Vol.43, No. 170). Two public hearings werealso conducted specifically to obtain

t views. From the initial inception of workto develop the regulations through to thepresent time, the Forest Service and theDepartment have maintained an open.door policy with the public ana interestgroups to obtain informati6n as well asto explain work and progress. Eighteen

- Committee of Scientists' meetings wereopen to the public, and a total of 737individual responses containing 5,373distinct references to various parts ofthe August 31, 1978 draft regulationswere received, a substantial number ofwhich were elaborate, detailed, and'explicit. Included were letters.frommembers of Congress, Federal, Stateand local governments, representativesof various interest groups, as well as thegeneral public. As a consequence it wasdecided to revise the first draft of theregulations (August 31, 1978) and torepublish them accompanied by a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement. Thisappeared in the Federal Register, Vol.44, No. 88, May 4,1979. Since thenanother 245 responses have beenreceived containing 1,581 distinctcomments which have been analyzedand considered during the preparationof the final regulations and FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement which.follows this Summary of PublicComment Analysis.. The Cofinmittee of Scientits has

prepared a Supplemental Final Report tothe Secretary of Agriculture as to thescientific and technical adequacy of theMay 4, 1979 draft of regulations. Thisreport was submitted to the Secretaryon August 17, 1979, and is printed asAppendix E of the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement.

3. Summary of Public CommentAnalysis

A total of 245 comments wassubmitted containing 1,581 specificcomments on the May 4 proposed rules.The specific comments break down intothe following categories: 350 indIvidualcitizens; 701 organizations; 157Government agencies; 367 Departmentand Forest Service. The majority ofcomments received were in letter form,Most comments were specific andsuccinct, and addressed only a fewconcerns, but several were, bycomparison lengthy, detailed, andcomplex. All suggestions have boon,reviewed, analyzed, and considered Inpreparation of these regulations andsupporting Final Environmental ImpactStatement.

Comments are available for review atthe Office of Land ManagementPlanning, Forest Service, USDA, 14thand Independence Ave., S.W.,Washington, D.C.

Section-by-Section Comments

Section 219.1-PurposeThis section received limited public

comment. Comments suggested addingto environmental impacts the words,"economic" and "social." "Economic"and "social" were added as well asreplacing the use of "preferences" with"changing, social, and economicdemands."

The Committee of Scientists andothers recommended that a statement beadded recognizing that the nationalforests are ecosystems and theirmanagement requires consideration ofthe interrelationships of the variousenvironmental factors. This concept hasbeen included under planning principles.

Comments also suggested thatconsideration of the relationship ofmineral resources to renewableresources and preservation andprotection of religious freedom's ofAmerican Indians be included under tilplanning principles. These have novbeen added to the final regulations.Section 219.2-Scope and Applicability

There were very few comments onthis section. There was a question onthe meaning of "special areaauthorities." This was not changed inthe regulations since examples of theseauthorities were listed in the section,The applicability of the regulations wasclarified, however, to explicitly includewaters as well as lands in the NationalForest System.

Section 219.3-DefinitionsMany comments requested changes in

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. TheDepartment reexamined the definitionssection and a number of changes weremade. Definitions were added for. "basetimber harvest schedule", "biologicalgrowth potential", "goods and services","management prescription", and"planning area."

The following terms were redefindbecause of comments received forclarity: "diversity", "managementdirection", and "management practice.""Environmental assessment" waschanged to "environmental analysis" tocoincide with the terminology used inthe Council on Environmental Qualityguidelines. "Environmental documents"was redefined to include a list ofdocuments required by 40 CFR 1508.10.

Minor changes in wording were madeto the following terms: "capability","Responsible Forest Service Official",and "standard." Some respondentswanted to change the definition of"multiple-use" and "sustained-yield ofthe several practices and services."These were not changed since they weredefined by the Multiple Use-SustainedYield Act of 1960. There were requestsfor definition of additional terms such as"wildlife", "recreation', "range","wilderness", "facilities", "mitigatingmeasures", "reasonable", "minimize",and others. Terms such as these, whichare to have the standard dictionarydefinition or were in common usage,were not redefined for purposes of theseregulations.

Section 219.4-Planning LevelsAs in the previous August 31, 1978

draft, public comment on the May 4,1979, proposed NFMA regulationscontinued to point out the need for aclearer description of the iterativenature of the three levels of planningand the process for developing andselecting the RPA Program and therelationships between the Program andthe various levels of planning.Therefore, the "national" level ofplanning was completely rewritten inthis section in response to the requestsfor clarification of the process fordeveloping and selecting the RPAAssessment and Program. Section 219.9,Regional Planning Procedure, wasstrengthened to explain how theregional plan will implement RPAProgram goals and objectives as well asprovide information for the NationalForest System portion of the assessmentcapability. In addition, language wasdeleted concerning transfer ofinformation among planning levels(219.4(c)(1) through (4)], because it wasconfusing and appeared conflicting withother provisions. The concepts in219A(c) are now covered under Sections

219.5, Regional and Forest PlanningProcess, and 219.9. Regional PlanningProcedure.

Section 219.5-Planning Process

This section was retitled "Regionaland Forest Planning Process" to morecorrectly portray its coverage. Some ofthe comments pointed out that there wassome confusion and misconception thatthis process applied to the formulationand establishment of RPA goals andobjectives.

With respect to economic analysispractices, many commentors pointed outthat the economic analysis criteriaincluding the discount rate of interestshould be established as soon aspossible. The Forest Service plans to beresponsive to this need through theissuance of manual and handbooksbefore December 1979.

Inventory data and informationcollection was of prime concern to theCommittee of Scientists and the generalpublic as well. These commentscentered around the determination ofadequacy of the data, data collectionprocedures, compatability requirementsto obtain uniformity among forests, andthe need to include criteria forcoordination and cooperation with otheragencies for data collection, storage,and evaluation. The Department isconcerned that too much emphasis hasbeen placed on the quantity of datagathered instead of what data areactually necessary to do planningeffectively. Therefore, in changing finalregulations, emphasis has been placedon the kinds and quality of datanecessary. Acquisition of new data andinformation will be scheduled andplanned so that it is appropriate for thedecision to be made.

The necessity for consistency in datacollection procedures between all levelsof planning was addressed by thepublic. The Department recognized theneed for common data definitions andstandards to assure uniformity ofinformation between the three levels ofplanning and added provisions for thisto the regulations. These datadefinitions and standards will beestablished by the Chief, Forest Service.In addition, these regulations requirethat information be developed fronicommon data definitions and standardsard will be used to prepare the 1990 andsubsequent Assessments and Programs.

The paragraph relative to theFormulation of Alternatives has beenrestructured upon recommendation ofthe Committee of Scientists. Aspreviously written, some of the criteriawas too stringent and unclear as tointent.

The public also expressed confusionwith the term "no-action" alternative.The "no action" alternative is requiredby CEQ regulations. The "no action!"alternative language was expanded tostate that it is the "most likely conditionexpected to exist in the future if currentmanagement direction would continueunchanged".

Concern was expressed over usingcost-effectiveness as a criterion offormulation of forest alternatives andthat "cost-effectiveness" was notdefined. The term cost-effectiveness hasbeen changed to "cost-efficient" todisplay the intent to maximize thepresent net worth of each alteriativesubject to meeting the objectives of thealternative. The criterion has beenmodified to include the expression "tothe extent practicable" to recognize thatjudgment must be used in the practicalapplication of the "efficiency" criterionto a management task as complex as aforest plan.

The Committee of Scientists suggestedthat the phrase "restore renewableresources" was unclear as used in thecriterion that "all alternatives willprovide the treatments needed to restorerenewable resources." This criterion hasbeen reworded to clarify that eachalternative will provide for the orderlyelimination of backlogs of neededtreatment for the restoration ofrenewable resources as necessary toachieve the multiple-use objectives ofthat alternative.

The Committee of Scientistsrecommended that language be addedunder Estimated Effects of Alternatives,which will require the interdisciplinaryteam to display how the regional andforest plans respond to the fange ofgoals and objectives assigned from theRPA Program. This language has beenadded to the final regulations.

Also in response to commentsreceived, two additional anticipatedeffects of implementation of eachalternative were added:

(1) The relationship of expectedoutputs to the forest production goals inthe current regional plan and

(2) The energy requirements andconsideration of potential effects ofvarious alternatives.

The Committee of Scientists pointedout that items (ii) arid (iv) of paragraph(g) in the May 4 draft were actually inconflict; therefore, item (iv) was deleted.

It was not clear if the term "planImplementation" was meant to identifyforest, regional, or national planning.The language was, therefore, rewrittento clarify reference only to regional andforest planning implementation.


53930 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Section 219.6-InterdisciplinaryApproach

Public comments emphasized the needto establish operating procedures for theinterdisciplinary team, as well asspecifically state the authority andfunction of the team. The finalregulations respond to this need byspecifying that the team will ensure"coordinated planning which addressesoutdoor recreation, range, timber,watershed, wildlife and fish, andwilderness opportunities." Further, thelanguage was added that the planning.team activitids must be consistent withthe principles of tie Multiple Use-.Sustained Yield Act and those principlesstated in § 219.1. The above is inkeeping with the concept and intentsuggested by the Committee ofScientists. Operating procedures foundthroughout the regulations will besupplemented by a work plan for eachteam.

Section 219.7-Public Participation

The direction given for publicparticipation was generally acceptableto the public, with the exception of theappeali provisions in § 219.7(o). Thepublic generally conmented that thelimitation on administrative appeals ofplanning decisions would place anufidesirable restriction on publicparticipation.

The forest plan appeals provision hasbeen completely rewritten and moved to§ 219.11 to allow forest plans to beappealed under § 21-1.19 of this Chapterif the potential appellant was involved-in the public participation phase andcommented on the draft environmentalstatement/forest plan with respect tothe specific issue being appealed. -Intermediate decisions made during thepldnning process up to the time the planis approved are not appealable.

Under the final regulations, regionalplans are not subjected to the appealsprocedure (CFR 211.19). However,within 45 days of the decision of theChief, Forest Service, to approve ordisapprove a regional plan, any personmay request the Chief to reconsider hisdecision. The Chief must respond within30 days to the request forrecorfsideration. The reconsiderationprovision relating to regional plans hasbeen placed in § 219.9.

Section 219.8-Coordination of lublicPlanning Efforts

The majority of comments expressedwere in agreement with this section asproposed in the May4 draft.

The Committee of Scientists suggestedthat a new subsection be added toinclude the requirement that a program

of monitoring and evaluation will beconducted that includes consideration ofthe effects of national forestmanagement onland, resources, andcommunities adjacefit to or near thenational forest being-planned. This hasbeen added in order-to further-coordinate Forest Service activities withthose on adjoining-lands.

Section 219.9-RegionalPlanningProcedure

In response to comments that the May4 proposal did not adequately deal withthe visual resodrce, the followingreferences to such have been madethroughout the regulations and are notedas follows: 219.3i), 219.5(g)(1), 219.5(h),219.6(a), 219.10(b)(13), 219.12(i)(1)(ii),219.12(i](4), 219.13(b)(6), 219.13(b)(7),219.13(c)(6), 219.13[d)(2)(i), 219.13(g).

Specifically, § 219.12(b)[6) now statesthat "The visual resource will beinventoried and evaluated as anintegrated part of the forest planningprocess, addressing both the landscape'svisual attractions and the public's visualexpectation."

The comments conicerningadministrative appeal of regional plansare addressed in'thisanalysis under§ 219.7.Section 219.10-Criteriafor.Regional

-Planning ActionsThe title was changed to "Regional

Planning Actions" at the suggestion ofthe Committee of Scientists. The sectiondeals both with decision criteria andprocess procedures; therefore, theCommittee felt the use of the term -"criteria" -to be inappropriate.

Public comments indicated that thelist of managdment concerns shouldinclude consideration of meeting theRPA Program:In response to thesecomments, implementation of goals andobjectives of the RPA Program (throughregional policies and goals) has beenclarified. Section 219.10(c) has beenrewritten to the effect that, consistentwith regional and forest resourcecapabilities, regional plans willimplement the goals and objectives ofthe regional polici es and goals, assigningresource production objectives to eachforest area as well as providinginformation for the national assessment.

Some coniments advocated theestablishment of a definite minimumbiological growth figure for timberharvesting (§ 219.10(d)(2)); a minimum of50 cubic feet/per acre/per year wassuggested. the 50 cubic feet/per acre/peryearstandard was rejected as it was feltthat this cutoff point might arbitrarilyeliminate viable timber production -

.possibilities prior to evaluation of theability of lands to meet specific forest

objectives. The historical standard fordefinition of commercial forest land, 20cubic feet/per acre/per year, will beused. The Department feels thisprovides a, useful screen which-eliminates land from furtherconsideration which definitely does notqualify for commercial timberproduction, while not arbitrarilyforeclosing on reasonable timbeiproduction possibilities.

Clarification of the need for, or lack ofthe need for, the gathering of new datawas an issue. This is discussed under§ 219.5 of this Analysis of PublicComment.

Comments indicated'there was someconfusion as to the order of planning-are regional or forest plans developedfirst? The regulations were not changedin this regard as it is the intent that aregional plan should be developedbefbre the forest plans. However, duringthe transitional period the regulationsallow for the development of forestplans prior to regional plans, but requirethat forest plans be reviewed uponcompletion of the regional plan andamended accordingly.

Section 219.11-Forest PlanningProcedure

Comments on documentationrequirements indicated a concern thatflexibility of line officers would beseriously and adversely affected byhaving to justify and document everyaction. The NFMA strengthens andrefines the plagning process by ensuringthat related activities arecomprehensive and fully open to thepublic. The comments made whichwould weaken this requirement couldnot be accepted since the legislationrequires public participation in theplanning process, and documentationrequired by the regulations will serve toshow how the responsible employeearrived at his/her decision.

Section 219.11(4) contains the newlanguage on appeals of forest plans,which is addressed in detail indiscussion of § 219.7 of this analysis.

There was some confusion whetherthe forest plan is a separate documentor the preferred alternative in the EIS.The plan is the selected alternative inthe final EIS. It will be expanded andpublished as a separate document withthe EIS. The clarified wording in§§ 219.9 and 219.11 of the regulationsshould help clarifythils section.Section 219.12-Criteria for ForestPlanning Actions

This section was changed to "ForestPlanning Actions".for the reasons citedin § 219.10 of this analysis.Approximately 20 percent of all


Fede.ral Re .ster I Vol. 44NI na S Rl a R t

comments were directed to this section,the majority of which concerned twoissues: (1) lands not suitable for timberprodq'ction and (2) departures fromnondeclining even flow.

It was suggested-thatmisinterpretation and confusion couldresult from the requirement to classifyas "unavailable" those lands which hadbeen "administratively withdrawn fromtimber production." Therefore, thislanguage was rewritten as follows: ".

legislatively withdrawn oradministratively withdrawn by theSecretary or the Chief, Forest Service,"indicating the inclusion only of thoselands which have gone through awithdrawal process approved by theSecretary or Chief. Thus, there shouldbe no misinterpretation that these landswould include marginal lands or specialcomponents in current forest plans.

There were considerable commentsconcerning the identification of landssuitable for timber production(§ 219.12(b)(2)]. The timber industrycontends that economic criteria used todetermine suitability should be appliedin a way which identifies as unsuitableonly those lands which are noteconomically viable timber productionopportunities in their own right (beforediscretionary environmental andmultiple-use constraints are applied).They feel it is important that criteria fordetermining suitability eliminate theeconomic burden for discretionaryenvironmental and multiple-usecontraints. It was felt that if this is notdone, the economic viability ofmanagement is distorted by the decisionto emphasize other objectives. Theindustry stated that this becomes a self-fulfilling cycle which plays into thehands of those who, on one hand.advocate maximum emphasis tonontimber objectives on the nationalforests and, on the other hand, complainthat timber management is not a viableeconomic proposition there.

The environmental commentorguardedly approved of the strengthenedeconomic criteria for determining landssuitable for timber production. However.it was pointed out that there was aserious danger in the ranking procedureproposed. The ranking procedurepresents a powerful tool for plannersthat may have a negative result. Theconcern is that it was possible-that oncelands suited for timber prodfiction areranked, planners would feel compelledto develop land allocation proposalsthat devote all of the higher rankinglands to timber production, even thoughsuch lands may be critical tomaximizing forest benefits other thantimber production or may be relatively

dangerous to log in light of soilsensitivity data. In other words, thepotential timber land rankings may endup dictating land allocation patterns forall of the resource uses, particularly inlight of the pressure to meet assignedtimber production goals with a limitedbudget. To avoid this return tofunctionalism In resource planning. itwas recommended that separaterankings of the relative suitability oflands for all other resources and usesshould be required. There were manyother suggestions on language changes,including recommendations by theCommittee of Scientists. Consideringthese comments and therecommendations of the Committee ofScientists, § 219.12(b](2) has beenrewritten using mostly therecommendations of the Committee ofScientists.

The difference between theDepartment procedure for identifyingunsuitable lands and the Committee ofScientists' recommendations concernsthe preliminary economic analysis oflands prior to formulation andevaluation of forest alternatives.Specifically, the Committee of Scientistshas recommended ranking the lands bybenefit-cost criteria to establish theirrelative economic efficiency in meetingtimber goals which have been assignedto the forest through the regional plan.Although there are some technicaldifficulties in carrying out theCommittee's proposal, the mainDepartment objection to the procedureis that, without knowledge of themultiple-use objectives of each specificforest alternative, the ranking will notgenerally correspond to the most cost-efficient method of meeting overallforest objectives. As only timberbenefits were to be included in thepreliminary efficiency analysis, a one-to-one correspondence between thepreliminary ranking and final landallocation for a forest alternative wouldbe achieved only in the absence ofmultiple-use objectives and harvest flowconstraints.

The Department feels that usefulinformation can be generated beforealternative formulation and evaluationwithout being prescriptive. The purposeof the preliminary analysis would be toprovide the background costs andbenefits of timber production for a rangeof management intensities to permitflexibility in meeting overall forestobjectives efficiently during alternativeevaluation.

The Department preliminary analysisproposes that the planning area bestratified into categories of similarmanagement costs and returns

considering the biological and physicalconditions of the site and transportation-Costs and returns for timber production-would be calculated for a range ofmanagement intensities for eachcategory. The management intensitywhich maximized the present net worthfor each category would be identified.but ordering of categories would not berequired. nor would the adoption of thetimber profit maximizing managementintensity.

The costs and returns for the range ofmanagement intensities for eachcategory would be considered, alongwith other resource information, informulating alternatives and indetermining the relative suitability oflands ,ithin the planning areas to meetthe multiple-use objectives for eachforest alternative in a cost-efficientmanner. Other wording changessuggested by the Committee in the May4 proposed regulations have beenmaterially adopted.

One common recommendation wasthat the regulations clearly state thatbenefits must exceed costs in order forlands to be classified "suitable fortimber production." Thisrecommendation was not adopted sincethe regulations require that. based uponconsideration of managementobjectives, lands will be tentativelyclassified not suited for timberproduction if they are not cost-efficientin meeting forest objectives.

Many asked for clarification of"assurance that lands can be restockedwithin 5 years." Some felt the time-frame too long: however, the NFMAspecifically allows for restocking within5 years after harvest. This requirementhas been referenced throughout theregulations.

It was recommended that the measureof direct benefits used in the preliminaryeconomic analysis be clarified. The term"expected future stumpage prices" hasbeen expanded to "expected grossreceipts to the government." Thefollowing language has been added forclarification: "Such receipts will bebased upon expected stumpage pricesfrom timber harvest considering futuresupply and demand situation for timber,timber production goals of the regionalplan. and guidelines to be developedthrough direction in § 219.5[c](6:*'

A high level of interest has beenexpressed concerning the use of "localeconomic stability" as a criterion forexamination of a departure alternative.Some public comment felt that this was"illegal" because the words "localeconomic stability" do not appeardirectly in NFMA. Other publiccomments refer to the legislative historyand suggest that considerations of "local

No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53931Fade.tel Re ister / Vol. 44.


531932 Federal Register I Vol. 44,No 11IMnaSpebr7,99IRusadRgltin

economic stability" is one objective ofmultiple use management. There is nolimitation in NFMA on the reasons fordepartures, but the act does provide thatthe Secretary's approval of a departuremust be to meet overall multiple-useobjectives, provided that any suchdeparture "must be consistent withmultiple-use management objectives ofthe land management plan." TheMultiple Use-Sustained Yield Actdefines multiple-use as "themanagement of all the various surfaceresources of the national forests so thatthey are utilized in the combination thatwill best meet the needs of theAmerican people. . .."The Departmentfeels the definition within the Multiple-Use Act supports the use of localeconomic stability" as one factor forexamination of a departure alternative.Therefore, the regulations continue touse "local economic stability" as'acriterion for examination of a dependentalternative.

It was further suggested, and adopted,that the word "overall" which appears'in the act, be used as a modifier to"multiple use objectives".

Under the wilderness provisions of§ 219.12(e), there was some confusionover the terminology "initial generationof forest plans." This paragraph wasrewritten for clarity and provides foruses other than wilderness for thoselands released for nonwildernessclassification pursuant to RARE IIdecisions.

The Committee of Scientistsexpressed satisfaction with respect tothe treatment of wilderness in theregulations.

Comments on the fish and wildlifeprovisions were directed mainly towardquestions regarding indicator species;some suggested that the language bechanged to include invertebrates asindicator species. This request was niet.

There was some criticism that the.,proposed rules did not adequatelyensure consideration in the decisionprocess 6f range, recreation, soil andwater, minerals, and the visual resource.However, the Committee of Scientistsfelt these sectibns were adequate andthe Department agrees. Only minorword changes have been made to these-sections.

Asnoted in § 219.9 of this analysis,the visual resource has been addressedin the regulations to a greater extent. It

,has been added to the list of

requirements wlich the forest plan mustspecifically address.' (§, 219.12(i)(6))

Section 219.13-Management Standardsand Guidelines

'Aiproximately 20 percent of allcomments addressed this section, in

particular the nmaximum size limitationof openings and protection of riparianareas.

Comments on the size of openingswere evenly divided between those whooppose the national limits proposed inthe May 4 draft regulation and thosewho favored these limits. These limitshave been retained and-a maximum sizelimit of 80 acres for yellow pine types incertain southern states has been addedto be responsive to special needs"identified in the Southern Region. (See§ 219.13(d)(2)).

The comments on the protection ofriparian areas were also equallydivided. Section 219.13(e) was rewrittento include that this special attentionarea will include at least the riparianecosystem. This was in response tocomments that the area protectionshould be variable and shouldcorrespond to the recognizable areadominated by riparian vegetation.Factors have been listed which will beconsidered in the determination of whatmanagement practices-may beundertaken in these areas.

Changes in the paragraphs ondiversity were made to reflect the intentof the National Forest Management Act;e.g., to deal with plant and animalcommunities and tree species as

- recommended by the Committee ofScientists and several commentors.

As was pointed out in the Committeeof Scientists' report, diversity is one ofthe most difficult issues with which theregulations deal. One environmentalgroup stated that the May 4 draft stilldid not meet the congressional mandatethat the regulations address "steps" tobe taken to provide fofdiversity.Management practices which enhancediversity should be described, and theinfluence of silvicultural systems onforest structure and diversity should bediscussed. They also stated that it wasparticularly important'that the impact ofrotation age on the development andstability of forest ecosystems beaddressed. This recommendation wasrejected by the Department as it wouldbe virtually impossible to describe eachmanagement practice and foreststructure for the variety of ecosystemsinvolved ihroughout the Nation. Thiswill be covered by each forest plan asdirected by the regulations in§ 219.13(g).

The timber industry comments statedthat direction in §§ 219.13(b](5) and219.13(g) goes far beyond the intent oflaw. In addition, they stated that the twosebtions-are in conflict; § 219.13(b)(5)directs that management practices'preserve diversity of "endemic anddesirable naturalized plant and animalspecies similar to those, existing -in the

planning area", and § 219,13(g) directsthat management practices "preserveand enhance species and communitiesdiversity similar to that which would beexpected in an unmanaged part of theplanning area." Industry stated that bothof these objectives cannot be achievedsimultaneously. Their comments furtherstated that section 6(g)(3)(B) wasconcerned primarily with typeconVersion-specifically conversion ofhardwoods to pine in the South. Theyfelt this was what should be focused on.

In the Committee of Scientists' report,which is printed with the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, theCommittee has pointed out that theyalso feel the Forest Service has createdproblems for itself in rewriting twosections relating to diversity and tosome extent, distorted the intent of theprovisions contained in theirrecommendations. It was theCommittee's opinion, that Congress usedthe term diversity to refer to biologicalvariety rather than any of thequantitative expressions now found inthe biological literature.

Upon the advice of the Committee ofScientists and the comments from theinterest groups, § 219.13(b)(5) wasrevised by eliminating the conflictinglahguage and referring to paragraph (g).Paragraph (g) was rewrittenincorporating the Committee'srecommendations, specifically providingthat "The selected alternatives willprovide for diversity of plant and animalcommunities and tree species to meetthe overall multiple-use objectives of theplanning area." The conceptsrecommended by the Committee havebeen incorporated except that the words"unmanaged forest" have been replacedwith "natural forest."

Section 219.14-Research

The language was revised to betterreflect suggestions of the Committee ofScientists to stress the importance ofresearch in meeting the needs of theNational Forest System, The annualreport required at the national level willbe prepared with assistance fromregions and forest and range experimentstations.

Section 219.15--Revlslon of Regulations

. It was'generally accepted that the 5-year interval review of the regulationswas appropriate.

Section 219.16--TransitIon Period

Comments were few, and this sectionwas generally acceptable to the publicas was written in the May 4 proposal.

,No., 161 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations. 3932 Federal Re ister t Vol. 44,



Dated: September 12. 1979.

Bob Bergland,

Secretary.

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Final Regulations for National ForestSystem Planning, 1920 LandAfanagement Planning, Forest Service.USDA

Lead Agency:. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Washington.D.C. 20013.

Responsible Official: Bob Bergland,Secretary of Agriculture, Washington.D.C. 20013.

For Further Information Contact:Charles R. Hartgraves, Director, LandManagement Planning, USDA ForestService, P.O. Box 2417, Washington. D.C.20013 f202-447-6697).

Abstract: This Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement (FEIS) analyzes andevaluates alternative sets of proposedregulations developed in response toSection 6 of the National ForestManagement Act and describes thepreferred alternative which appearsAppendix E. The regulations prescribethe process for preparation of all landand resource management plansdeveloped hereafter for eachadministrative unit of the NationalForest System. Also prescribed, andintegrated into the planning process, area number of technical standards whichgovern the conduct of managementpractices. The FEIS describes theconceptual basis for the planningprocess described in the proposedregulations, and the issues central totheir need.

The alternative regulations areprocedural. Although their promulgationwould have only indirect effects on thequality of the human environment, thereare important policy matters to considerin the use and application of a givenalternative. This is especially true in theapplication of technical standards(specified management.standards andguidelines) whose impacts are variabledepending upon where they are applied,The qualitative nature of effects isaddressed in this Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement. Specific impacts willbe discussed in detail and inquantitative terms in regional and forestlevel plans prepared under theseproposed regulations. An environmentalimpact statement will be prepared forsuch plans pursuant to Council onEnvironmental Quality and ForestService National Environmental PolicyAct regulations.

Summary-Final Environmental ImpactStatement

Proposed Regulations for NationalForest System Resource Planning, 1920Land Management Planning, ForestService, USDA

Responsible Federal Agency: UnitedStates Department of Agriculture,Washington, D.C. 20013.

Responsible Official: Bob Bergland.Secretary of Agriculture, Washington.D.C.

For Information Contact: Charles R.Hartgraves, Director, Land ManagementPlanning. USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box2417, Washington. D.C. 20013 (202/447-6697).

Date of Transmission to EPA and tothe Public: Draft May 7.1979. Final:September 17.1979.

SummaryI. The Department of Agriculture will

issue regulations to guide land andresource management planning for theNational Forest System. This FinalEnvironmental Impact Statementanalyzes and evaluates alternative setsof proposed regulations and identifiesthe Preferred Alternative (see AppendixF). The alternatives were developed inresponse to the Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Planning Act of1974 (RPA), as amended by the NationalForest Management Act of 1970RNEMA).

To be understood, the regulationshave to be read in their entirety. Theyare complex. Thus, many requirementscan be fully understood and appreciatedonly upon a complete reading of severalsections to ascertain relationshipsbetween requirements in one and thosein another.

The NFMA requires that regulationsbe issued which describe the process fordeveloping and revising landmanagement plans for administrativeunits of the 187-million-acre NationalForest System (NFS). The alternativeregulations explain the process andcontain management guidelines andstandards which relate to the national,regional, and local resource goalsestablished by the Forest ServiceRenewable Resources (RPA) Program.The process and guidelines describedinsure in various ways that economic,environmental, and ecological aspectsare consistent with the RPA, MultipleUse-Sustained Yield Act, and otherstatutes which affect Forest Serviceactivities. The regulations provide forintegrated planning throughout the NFSfor the management, protection, and useof timber, range, fish and wildlifehabitat, water, recreation, andwilderness resources. The integration is

accomplished with the aid ofinterdisciplinary teams, publicparticipation, and is coordinated withthe land management planningprocesses of States, local governments.and other Federal agencies.

The NFMA was enacted to resolvelong-standing issues about managingNational Forest resources. The centralor primary issues and concerns whichare discussed in this FEIS and which theproposed regulations address are:

-The conceptual framework for theintegrated planning process.

-The interdisciplinary approach toplanning.

-Diversity of tree species and plantand animal communities.

-The role of economic analysis.-The determination of lands not

suited for timber production.-Departures (limitations on timber

removal).-Size of openings created by harvest

cutting.-Public participation.-Management of wilderness areas,

and disposition of roadless areas.-Coordination in planning between

Federal State. and local governments.-Protection of riparian areas.H. Alternatives Considered In This

Final Environmental Impact Statement.There is an infinite variety of ways for

language to capture the intent of NFMAin process, management standards, andguidelines. Alternatives presented inthis FEIS cover language to address thecentral issues and concerns mentionedabove. Since NFMA mandatesdevelopment of regulations, a "noaction" alternative was not created forpresentation. discussion, and evaluationin the DEIS or in this FEIS. (For adescription of pre-NFMA planningpolicy and direction, the reader isreferred to Forest Service Manual 8200.]

Neither is a public commentalternative presented in this FEIS.Though the DEIS contains such analternative (Alternative No. 5). it wasconceptual, and consequently wasdifficult to analyze in terms of effects.Therefore, it was decided not to createand present a similar alternative in theFEIS. Instead, the public commentreceived was analyzed and used tocreate the FEIS Preferred Alternative. Asummary of this comment is presentedin section VII. It is further discussed insection IV, Alternatives Considered, interms of how the comment contributedto the Preferred Alternative.

Alternatives considered in the FEISare: 1. Forest Service Draft Regulationsas published in the Federal Register,Vol. 43, No. 170, August 31,1978, asfurther explained and evaluated in apublished Environmental Assessment



Report, and Supplement, dated August24, and, September 12, 1978, respectively.

2. Environmental Group's proposalsfor § 219.10(d), as published in theFederal Register, August 31# 1978.' 3. Timber Group's proposals for

§ 219.10(d), as published in the FederalRegister, August 31, 1978.

4. Committee of Scientists FinalReport, to the Secretary of Agriculture,dated February 22, 1979, andrecohmended regulations attachedthereto.

5. Public comment on the August 31,.1978 Draft Regulations; the summary orconsensus view. This Alternative wasonly used in the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement and was notevaluated in the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement. In the FEIS publiccomments fron the May 4, 1979 Draft'Environmental Impact Statement wereanalyzed and used to help develop thePreferred Alternative, Number 8.

6. -The DEIS Preferred Alternativepublighed May 4, 1979 in the FederalRegister,'Vol. 44, No. 88: Regulationswith provisions for nationally ' -established standards for protection ofriparian areas and harvest cut openings.

7. Regulations identical in all respects'to Alternative No. 6 EXCEPT thatstandards for protection of riparian-areas and harvest cut opening sizes will'be established through.the regional-,planning piocess.

8, Revised and Final Regulations, thePreferred Alternative, developed inresponse to comments received on the'DEIS.

Ill. NFMA reiluires an integrated plan.for each administrative unit of the NFS.The planning process prescribed.

,establishes an interdependency of landmanagement and resource planning.

It is virtually impossible to quantifythe specific effects of implementing anyof the alternative regulation proposals.The regulations direct the process ofpreparing and revising plans, and haveno direct effect on the humanenvironment, nor do they commit landor resources. The regulations establishprocedures for planning futurecommitments.

Effects on the production of goods andservices are conjectural and cannot beverified quantitatively until the jilanningis completed. Anticipated impacts willbe identified in plans prepared pursuantto the regulations and to the NEPAprocess.

Some general qualified effects orimpacts of the alternatives arepresented in table form by issues. Forexample, each alternative enhancesplant and animal diversity, protects soiland water values and the visualresource, and ensures long term

productivity. The relative contributiontoward enhaiicement of each alternativeis illustrated in the appropriate tables.The actual results, quantitatively, willnot be known until individual plans arecompleted.

IV. Consultation with others, includingthe public, was extensive and was amajor factor in developing thealternatives discussed in the DEIS andthe FEIS Preferred Alternative. Thepublic was invited to comment on thefirst draft of the regulations whichappeared in the Federal Register August31, 1978. Two public hearings were alsoconducted specifically to obtain views.From the initial 'inception of work todevelop the regulations through to thepresent time, the Forest Service and theDepartment have maintained an opendoor policy wit h the public and interestgroups to obtain information as well asto explain work and progress. EighteenCommittee of Scientists meetings wereopened to the public, and a total of 737individual responses containing 5,373distinct references to various parts ofthe August 31, 1978 draft regulations -

were received, a substantial number ofwhich were elaborate, detailed, andexplicit. Included were letters frommembers of Congress, Federal and StateAgencies, local governments,representatives of various interestgroups, as well as the general public. Asa consequence it was decided to revisethe first draft of the regulations (August31,1978) and to republish themaccompanied by a Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement. This appeared in theFederal Register, Vol. 40, No. 88, May 4,1979. Since then another 245 responseshave been received coritaining 1581distinct comments, all of which havebeen analyzed and considered duringthe preparation of this FEIS.

Appendix "A" contains a list ofFederal agencies, State governments,national-organizations and individualsfrom whom written comments werereceived following publication of thefirst-&aft regulations on August 31, 1978.The list also indicates by (*) those fromwhom written comments were receivedon the DEIS published May 4, 1979 in theFederal Register.

All those who commented on, or whootherwise requested copies of theAugust 31, 1978 draft regulations,received a 'copy of the DEIS aspublished in the Federal Register onMay 4, 1979. They also received acomplete copy of the Forest andRangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974 as amended by theNational Fore st Management Act of1976. The COinimttee-of ScientistsReport and their Recommended

Regulations, and the Forest ServicePerferred Alternative Regulations werealso printed in the May 4, 1979 FederalRegister to accompany the DEIS, andwere therefore available to reviewers,Consequently this material Is not printedagain in this FEIS but is made part of itby reference. Copies of the DEIS and thematerial which accompanied it areavailable to anyone upon writtenrequest.

All those groups or ipdividuals whohave commented on the DEIS will besent a copy of this FEIS.Table of Contents

1. IntroductionLegslative Development BackgroundManagement of the National Forest SystemEvaluation of tie National Forest System

Planning ProcessDescription of Central Issues and doncerns

Addressed by the Alternatives ConsideredList of Preparers of the DEIS and I'IISII. The Affected Environment1I1. Evaluation CriteriaIV, Alternatives ConsideredPlanning Process FrameworkLanguage to Address IssuesV. Implementation EffectsVi. Evaluation of AlternativesVII Consultation with OthersVIII. Appendices

1. Introduction

Legislative Development Background, The Forest and Rangeland Renewable

ResourcesPlanning Act of,1974 (RPA,as amended by the National ForestManagement Act of 1976 (NFMA), Is acomprehensive framework and primarysource of direction to the Forest Serviceto fulfill its mandate to manage theNational Forest System (NFS]. Thecentral element of the Act is theinstitution of land and resourcemanagment planning as a basicmeansto achieve effective use and protectionof renewable resources and a properbalance of the use of NFS lands,

Section 6 of the Act requires theSecretary of Agriculture to prescribeNFS land and resource managementplanning regulations. The standards andguidelines in these new regulations mustbe incorporated into NFS land andresource management plans and everyeffort is to be made to complete suchplans by September 30, 1985.

An initial draft of the proposedregulations was published in the FederalRegister, Vol. 43, No. 170, August 31,1978 (pp. 39046-39059) for public reviewand comment. An EnvironmentalAssessment Report and Supplementwere also prepared dated August 24,and September 13, 1078, respectively,These draft regulations had been underpreparation since the spring of 1977,when the Secretary of Agriculture


No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53935

appointed a Committee of Scientists toprovide advice and counsel on thedevelopment of the regulations requiredby Section 6 of NFMA. Publication ofthese first draft regulations promptedsubstantial comments, suggestions, andrecommendations from the generalpublic, and various resource andenvironmental groups. It was, therefore,decided to revise the August 31, 1978draft regulations and to submitalternative regulations to the public indraft form to be accompanied by a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS).These draft alternatives as influencedby the subsequent public comment, arethe basis for the Preferred Alternativepresented in this FEIS.

The regulations (the PreferredAlternative) may be implemented nosooner than 30 days following the datethe Notice of Availability of this FEIS ispublished in the Federal Register by theEnvironmental Protection Agency.Management of the National ForestSystem (NFS)

The Forest Service administers 187million acres of Federal land located in44 states, Puerto Rico, and the VirginIslands. The management of those landsalso affects all or portions of about 39million acres of intermingled State andprivately owned lands. Except wherespecial, restricted uses are prescribedby law, this Federal land is managedunder the concept of multiple use (asdefined by the Multiple Use-SustainedYield Act of 1960) for a variety ofproducts, services, and uses includingwood, water, wildlife and fish, forage.wilderness, and outdoor recreation. Theenduring resource of the National ForestSystem is its capability to meet a widevariety of public needs. Multiple-usemanagement provides the architecturefor harmoniously nurturing the balancebetweenproductive ecosystem longevityand socieTaI desires. Careful analysis ofuse relationships and availableopportunities within a context ofequitable distribution and justcompensation are required to meet thegoals embodied in the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960. So that thevarious uses are harmonized tominimize conflicts and adverse impactson the land, the relative values of thedifferent resources are considered indetermining forest and rangelandresource use patterns that will meet theneeds of the American people.Evolution of National Forest SystemPlanning

During the early 1900's, most NationalForest System lands were inaccessible,public demands for goods and serviceswere low, and conflicts among resource

uses were minor. Priority was given toprotecting these public lands from fires,damaging insects and diseases, andunauthorized use. Resource productionand use served local rather thanregional or national needs. Most ForestService planning in that era centered on.specific work plans for forest landrehabilitation, protection, andreforestation.

By the late 1930's, however, thereexisted a general public awareness thatmore intensive management of theNational Forests--and the utilization oftheir various renewable resources on asustained-yield basis-should also servethe national interest. This prevalentphilosophy, coupled with a need forvital timber during World War 11,spawned a dramatic expansion ofNational Forest resource managementand utilization in the 1940's and 1950's.

Although early laws governing theestablishment and administration of theNational Forests referred only to timberand water resources, the otherresources-wildlife, forage, and outdoorrecreation-have always been protectedand managed. By 1939, the ForestService had made clear its policy toadminister the National Forests onmultiple-use principles.

Following World War II, the agencycompleted an appraisal of the Nation'sforest situation and developed theconcept of composite resource planning.The various resources were inventoried,and a composite plan prepared thatdescribed types of vegetation. locationof streams and other bodies of water,areas requiring special management,planned recreation areas, primarytransportation routes, and otherpertinent factors.

Recognizing the lack of specificstatutory direction to manage all theresources of the National Forests undermultiple-use principles, the ForestService proposed a multiple-use act inthe late 1950's. Passage of the MultipleUse-Sustained Yield Act of 1960provided congressional endorsement ofthe Forest Service policy and practice ofequal consideration of all NationalForest renewable resources.

Land management planning wasformalized into a distinct process uponpassage of the Multiple Use-SustainedYield Act. Until shortly after passage ofthe National Environmental Policy Actof 1969, this process was commonlyreferred to as "multiple-use planning,"and the basic documents that describedhow the various resource uses would becoordinated were called "multiple-useplans." Separate plans were made foreach National Forest Ranger District.

These multiple-use plans usuallyzoned National Forest System land and

included specific coordinatingrequirements to ensure compatabiity ofresource uses. They did not set resource.development goals. Such goals wereestablished by separate resourcesdevelopment plans prepared for eachNational Forest. The Ranger Districtmultiple-use plans were used tocoordinate the actions taken to achievethe objectives of the National ForestSystem resource development plans.

District Rangers were also required toprepare a special impact analysis beforeundertaking any significance resourcedevelopment project. The analysiscontained a statement on the nature andscope of the project, the expectedimpact the project would have on eachresource, and how the project would becarried out to conform to the multiple-use plan requirements. The format ofthese reports was similar to that ofpresent-day environmental impactstatements.

In the early 1960"s. another factor hadalso entered the resource picture-intensified public concern forenvironmental policy. Suddenly, it.seemed; the Nation realized that cleanair. clean water, and natural beautywere just as important to its standard ofliving as industrial products. Increasedconcern for the Nation's forest landswas part of this awakeningenvironmental consciousness. ManyAmericans became aware of theNational Forest System and realizedthat although these public landscontained substantial amounts of theNation's remaining natural resources.there were limits to their uses.

The desire for a quality environment,however, did not lessen the need forforest products and services from theNational Forests. On the contrary, whileconcern for the environment reachednew heights, so did the demand forproducts and services. One result of thiswas the passage of the 1964 WildernessAcL Since the 1920's, the Forest Servicehas Identified and designated areas ofhigh wilderness value on the NationalForests. Development of these areaswas precluded by direction of theSecretary of Agriculture or the Chief.Forest Service. the Wilderness Actcreated the National WildernessPreservation System and provided forthe designation of Federal land to bepreserved in their natural state.

By the mid-1960's, the Forest Servicewas caught in a dilemma. On one hand.conflicting demands for forest resourceswere increasing rapidly; on the otherband, the renewable resource base wasperceived as shrinking with theImplementation of the Wilderness Act.Some critics claimed that managementof the National Forest System was out of

Federal Register / Vol. 44,



balance, that some uses were beingincreased at the expense of others, andthat the Forest Service was ignoring itsmandate to manage the National ForestSystem for multiple uses. And,seemingly, the public wasn't being givena chance to formally influence theForest Service decisionmaking process.The Forest Service land managementplanning process changed in three majoraspects in response to these publicconcerns and to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969.

The first change converted RangerDistrict multiple-use plans to landmanagement unit plans. Unit plans areconsiderably more detailed. They applyto geographic areas containing similar,social and physical resources and landcharacteristics rather than to RangerDistricts, and they are accompanied byenvironmental impact statements.

The second change incorporated morestrict interdisciplinary analyses into theplanning process. Before NEPA,multiple-use plans receivedmultidisciplinary review. After NEPA,review was accomplished throughinterdisciplinary interaction.

The third change formally involvedthe public in forming and reviewing unitplans.

In August 1974, Congress enacted theForest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act (RPA). Althoughit did not significantly change existingForest Service land managementplanning procedures, it made thedevelopment and maintenance ofNational Forest System land andresource management unit-plansstatutory requirements. It re-emphasizedthat an interdisciplinary approach beused in the development andmaintenance of land management plans.It required that periodic comprehensiveprograms be developed that wouldintegrate all Forest Service activities.And it more directly involved Congressin evaluating Forest Service programsand in assigning priorities. The RPA alsoprovided for an assessment of theNation's renewable resources, includingthose of the National Forest System.This Assessment provides the basicinformation for resource managementplanning at national, regional and locallevels.

The National Forest Management Actof 1976 amended RPA to provideadditional statutory direction on thepreparation and revision of NationalForest System land and resourcemanagement plans.

Major highlights of NFMA are landmanagement planning, timbermanagement actions, and publicparticipation in Forest Service

derisionmaking. Also featured arerequirements for coordination withplan ing processes of State and localgovernments and other Federalagencies,- and an interdisciplinaryapproach to plan development andmaintenance. It reaches beyond the 187million acres of the National ForestSystem to recognize the importance ofscientific research and cooperation withState and local governments and privatelandowners. So, in effect, it addressesall three major areas of Forest Serviceoperations in carrying outits nationalforestry leadership role-managementof.the National Forest System, naturalresources research, and cooperativeforestry assistance to State andprivatelandowners.

A major part otthe NFMA is devotedto strengthening the' Forest andRangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act (RPA). All but one of thefirst -12 sections are amendments to it,:nearly tripling the length of theResources Planning Act. Some of theseamendments include requirements forrecommendations in the RPA Programwhich evaluate major Forest Serviceprogram objectives; explainopportunities for all -forest andrangeland owners to improve their'lands; recognize the need to improveand protect soil, water and air; and statenational goals relating to all renewableresources. "

Land management planning directionis the core of the Act. Regulations-thePxefeired Alternativ*e piesentedin thisFEIS-will be promulgated whichprescribe the process for developmentand revision -of land management plans.Management guidelines -will deal with

.overall NFS land management andrequire that lands be identifiedaccording to their suitability forresource management.

These guidelines will relate to theRPA Program goals to ensure thateconomic, environmental, and ecologicalaspects are consistent with the Multiple-Use Siustained-Yield Act and RPA. Theywill providd for the diversity of treespecies and plant and animalcommunities, and for research,management evaluation, and monitoringto prevent impairment of the land'sproductivity.

Each administrative unit of theNational Forest System will prepare,through an interdisciplinary teamapproach and with the aid of publicparticipation, an integrated,comprehensive land management planto be revised at least every 10 years(NFMA permits revision on a 15 yearcycle). The land management plan andsupporting functional plans must beintegrated.

The NFMA contains direction onharvest scheduling practices followedby the Forest Service, The annualallowable sale quantity (harvest) fromeach National Forest will generally belimited to a quantity equal to or lessthan a quantity which can be removedannually on a sustained-yield basis. TheAct gives the flexibility to depart fromthis policy through land managementplanning, including public participation.Departures from the standard policymust be in harmony with multiple-usemanagement objectives developedduring the planning process anddescribed in the land management plan.

Land areas not suitable for timberproduction will be identified In landmanagement plans considering physical,economic and other factors. These landsare not to be harvested for 10 yearsexcept for salvage sales or sales toprotect other multiple-use values.

Such lands will be reviewed every 10years thereafter and may be returned toproduction if appropriate.

Silvicultural standards will Insurethat, generally, stands of trees shall beharvested when mature (culmination ofmean annual increment of growth).However; timber stand improvementmeasures, salvage operations andremoval of trees for multiple-usepurposes are not precluded. This meansthat stands of trees within the NationalForests in general shall be sawtimberrather than pulpwood size beforeharvesting. The Act also directs thatdiversity of plant and animalcommunities should be provided for andapproprlate tree species diversitymaintained. In brief, there should be nolarge-scale conversations of NationalForest lands to a single-tree species,

The Act incorporates into law thesubstance of the so-called "ChurchGuidelines." These guidelines includethe caution that clearcutting siould onlybe -used where it is the optimum method.

Public participation in developmentandrevision of land and resourcemanagement planning was a primeconsideration in congressional thinking.The phrases "public participation" or"public involvement" are used 11 timesin the Act and are clearly indicated inother sections.

Regulations must be written to carryout the public participation aspects ofthe law. Not only has Congress orderedfuller public participation in thedecisionmaking process, but it alsomade rules so the public can participatewith relative eas6.

A Committee of Scientists-composedof non-Forest Service personnel-wasestablished to help develop regulationsfor all land management'planningincluding timber and other resource


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53937

plans, by providing scientific advice ancounsel, and to insure that the plannirqprocess developed is interdisciplinary.

Ditectionfor Planning and Managemel

Planning for resource allocation andthe conduct of subsequent managemenpractices require (1) the best availableresource data and information, includiithe views of citizens and special interegroups, other Federal, State and localagencies, and (2) the synthesis andevaluation of such data and informatioutilizing professional and administrathijudgments as to how best to meetstatutory goals and objectives andachieve the interests and expectationsof the public. To accommodate theserequirements, all Forest Serviceactivities are grouped into 12 programelements comprised of eight resourceelements (recreation, wilderness,wildlife and fish, range, timber, water,minerals, and human and communitydevelopment) and four support elemen(protection, lands, soils, and facilities).

Resource program elements aredefined as major Forest Service missiooriented endeavors that fulfill statutoror executive requirements and indicatca collection of activities from thevarious operating programs required tcaccomplish the agency mission.

Support program elements areactivities and costs that do not primaribenefit a single resource element.However, these elements encompass tlactivities that are necessary to maintaiand facilitate outputs of several or allresource elements.

The mission elements that follow foreach program element provide overallnational direction for the activitieswithin that element.

Land management planning is theprincipal device for conveyingmanagement direction to and from thenational level to National Forestplanning areas.

Resource Program Elements

1. Recreation. The primary mission othis element is to provide outdoorrecreation opportunities for the Nation,This includes all activities necessary tcprotect, administer, and develop outdo'recreational opportunities within theNational Forest System so that theymeet their appropriate share of theNation's existing and anticipateddemand compatible with other resourcvalues; protect, manage, and providetrails and other acdtss to the scenic ancultural resources within the NationalForest System; conduct research toimprove the effectiveness of providingand managing outdoor recreationalopportunities; and provide technical

d assistance and advice to non-Federallandowners for dispersed recreation.

2. Wilderness. The primary mission ofthis element is to secure the benefits ofan enduring resource of wilderness byassuring that suitable, needed, and

t available National Forest System landswill be designated for preservation and

ng protection in their natural condition.st National Forest System wilderness

areas are administered for the use andenjoyment of the American people so as

n to leave the resource unimpaired forve future use and enjoyment, to preserve

their wilderness character, and toprovide for the gathering anddisseminating of information regardingtheir use.

The classification and study ofNational Forest System areas forpossible wilderness designation areincluded in the Lands support element.while the management of such areas isincluded in the Recreation resource

ts element. Wilderness research is relatedto recreation research to provideknowledge to manage and protect

n- wildernesses and unique ecologicalfeatures.3. Wildlife and Fish. The primary

mission of this element is to provideproductive wildlife and fish habitats,with special emphasis on threatenedand endangered species. Management ofwildlife and fish habitats Is closely

ly coordinated with the States, because• States have prime responsibility for

I management of wildlife and fishpopulations. This coordination includesmaintaining close working relationsamong National Forest System units andother Federal, State, and private landmanagers. The element includesactivities necessary to protect,administer and develop National ForestSystem wildlife and fish habitats; assistnon-Federal land managers throughcooperative forestry programs; anddevelop new knowledge throughresearch on the environmentalrequirements of wildlife and fish andattainable management alternatives

f under these requirements.4. Range. The primary mission of this

element is to provide for efficient waysof livestock grazing on forest and

or rangelands commensurate with othercommodity, environmental, social, andaesthetic needs. Ecological andmanagement information about rangeecosystems is provided for non-livestock

a purposes, such as endangered plantsand wild free-roaming horses and

d burros. This element includes all thoseactivities that bear directly uponmanagement, use, and protection ofNational Forest System range resources;cooperative activities for the use andimprovement of non-Federal forested

ranges; and research to provide a soundtechnical and ecological base for rangemanagement. use and protection.

5. Timber. The primary mission of thiselement is to enhance the growth,utilization, and utility of wood andwood products to help meet the Nation'sshort- and long-term needs. It includesmanagement activities in the NationalForest System and on non-Federallands, as well as research activities thatcontribute to the improvement, growth.and timely and efficient harvests oftimber from forest land, consistent withother resource values; the efficientprocessing and utilization of wood andwood-related products; and thedevelopment of better management-methods.

6. Water. The primary mission of thiselement Is to protect, conserve, andenhance water resources within theNational Forest System consistent withother resource values. This element alsoincludes watershed and river basinplanning and development, incooperation with States aid otheragencies, designed to increaseknowledge about the water resource.Included are research and cooperativeactivities to meet water quality andquantity standards onsite and offsite toreduce pollution and to improve waterresource features.

7. Minerals. The primary mission ofthis element is to integrate theexploration and development of mineralresources within the National ForestSystem with the use and protection ofother resource values. Research andcooperative activities related to the

-reclamation of mined lands are alsoincluded.

8. Human and CommunityDevelopment. The primary mission ofthis element is to help people andcommunities to help themselves. Theelement includes activities that provide:Youth development through resourceconservation work and learningexperiences; adult employment andtraining opportunities through variousFederal human resource programs; ruralcommunity planning developmentinformation and services; and technicalforestry assistance and research forurban areas in the establishment,management, and protection of openspace and the use of trees and woodyshrubs.

Support Progrom Elements1. Protection. The primary mission of

this element is to protect and maintainforest and rangelands. It includes insectand disease control, fire protection, lawenforcement development of knowledgethrough research, and the technicalassistance needed for National Forest



System and other public and privateforest and rangelands.

2. Lands. The primary mission of thiselement is to assist in land managementplanning and provide special land-useadministration, landownershipadjustment, multiresource studies, andnew knowledge through research whichprimarily benefits multiple resourceelement outputs,These.activities covertechnical assistance and cooperation onnon-Federal lands as well as within theNational Forest System.

3. Soils. The primary mission of this'element is to protect, conserve, andenhance the soil productivity of forestand rangelands. It includes thedevelopment of new knowledge throughresearch, surveys, protection,rehabilitation, and improvementabtivities directed toward non-Federallands as well as within the NationalForest System.

4. Facilities. The primary missionofthis element is to provide and maintaincapital improvements such as buildings,roads, fences, bridges, dams, andairfields.

Central Issues and Concerns Addressedby Alternative Regulations

The NFMA was enacted to resolvelong-standing issues concerning themanagement of National Forestresources. It clarified rules about the useof silvicultural practices and requiredthat certain land and resourcemanagement planning -practices bedeveloped and used. The alternativeregulations described in the DEIS andthis FEIS respond to the NFMA byprescribing a planning process andtechnical standards and guidhlines togovernplanning and managementactivities. The central or primaryissuesand concerns which the alternativeregulations attempt to address-aredescribed below. These issues arefurther discussed in two ways: First insection IV in terms of-how the variousalternative regulations address theissues; and second, in section Vin termsof relative effects (on issues of thealternatives -on certain factors.

1. The Conceptual Framework for TheIntegrated Planning Process. There aremany major proven conceptual modelsfor planning-decisionmaking policyformulation. Which model opcombination is best suited tocongressional direction that the ForestService define a unified planningprocess with supporting guidelines andstandards to implement on eachadministrative unit of the NationalForest System? Should emphasis be onprocess or on prescription? To whatextent and detail should therelationships among and between

planning levels and resourcemanagement functions be defined?Doesplanning proceed from the top down,from the bottom up, or through iterative,negotiated cycles between levels?

2. The Jnterdisciplinary Approach toPlanning. The primary concerns are thepurpose of the interdisciplinary team,who can be members, what disciplinesshould be represented, what should bethe professional and technicalqualifications of teams members, andthe responsibilities of team leaders?

3. Diversity of Tree Species and Plantand Animal Communities.Congressional intent concerning"diversity" seems clear: it will beconsidered in planning, and it is to beprovided and maintained bymanagement. The basic iisue is whetherthe regulations should be very specificor provide discretionary authority inproviding diversity through management

-practices and activities. Of furtherconcern-is whether to prescribe byregulation how to measure diversity,and should existing diversity bemaintained and reduced only to achievenecessary multiple-use objectives.

4. The Role of Economic Analysis.NFMA-requires economic analysis ofmanagement program alternatives todetermine economic consequences,.andthat economic analysis will beundertaken at all appropriate placesthroughout the planning process. Atissue is the nature of economic testswhich might be made, and whetherCongress intended that benefits mustexceed costs for each and every,proposed management practice.

5. Determination-of Lands Not Suitedfor Timber Production. A primary issueis the role that economics should exertin dete'rmining lands not suited for.

-timber production. Some critics arguethat NFMA prohibits managementpractices where costs exceed benefitsand that, as a consequence, timber ,harvesting mayinot occur where benefitsare less than costs. Anotherinterpretation is that a strict economictest is not required, but rather thateconomics be one of several criteriaused to determine suitability for harvest.

6. Departures (Limitations on TimberRemoval). The National ForestManagementAct limits the sale oftimber from each National Forest to aquantity which can be removedannually in perpetuity on a sustain'ed-yield basis with discretion to departfrom this policy in order to meet overallmultiple-use objectives. This provisionto depart is not in Section 6, but inSection 11 (or.Section 13 of the amendedRPA). This separation has raised theissue of whether the determination ofthe timber allowable sale quantity and

departures should be handled outside ofthe forest planning process or as aseparate and distinct step after theforest plan has been completed. Anotherconcern is the question of whatconditions should trigger the formulationof a departure alternative, as well ashow the approval process for such analternative might be determined.

7. Size of Openings Created byHarvest Cutting. Controversy overtimberliarvest methods on NationalForest lands sparked the NFMA-legislation. Congressdebated whether tomandate strict nondiscretionaryprescriptions for the management ofNational Forest lands and resources, orto require development of regulations toguide a planning process which wouldincorporate certain technical standardsand guidelines to govern managementactivities. The latter course was taken,but the issue of prescription vs. planningprocess continued during developmentof the proposed regulations. The crucialissue is bow specific should be thestandards and guidelines for planningand managing each of the resources. Forexample, should the regulationsprescribe the maximum size of openingscreated by harvest cuts, or insteadshould they describe the process bywhich the size of such openings wouldbe determined on the basis of more sitespecific information.

8. Public Participation. The minimalelements of adequate publicinvolvement are mentioned in theNFMA: The public must be adequatelyinformed throughout the planningprocess; plans must be available inconvient locations; documents forming aplan must be integrated and locatedtogether to facilitate public review; andprocedures for public participation mustbe identified in regulations covering theplanning process.

The issues.are the adequacy providedwithin the regulations for allowing thepublic.to influence the decision process.In the past, this has included the use ofthe administrative review process toalter the decisions. There is substantialdoubt as to whether the appeal process,as previously applied, is permitted underNFMA. Should the scope and level ofpublic involvement be described inregulations or be discretionary? Shouldregulations define the agency as anactive participant in representativedemocracy? In the past this role hasbeen reserved for elected officials.Should public participation be requiredin certain steps of the 15lanning process?

9. Management of Wilderness Areasand Disposition of Roadless Areas.NFMA provides little guidance aboutwilderness resource planning. Issues toresolve through the proposed regulations


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53939

are the need to identify and appraiseadditional candidate areas and whetherto establish maximum allowable levelsof use.

10. Coordination in Land Use Planningbetween Federal, State and LocalGovernments. Planning by differententities that does not consider mutualgoals and policies can frustrate NationalForest management. The issues are theneed to be aware of, evaluate, andconsider the plans and policies of otherplanning bodies, and to involveappropriate representatives from themin National Forest planning activities.

11. Protection of Riparian Areas. Atissue is the question of whetherregulations should prescriptivelydesignate a uniform protective striparound water bodies or provide criteriafor protection that allows for localmanagement variability.

List of Contributors to the preparationof this Fina! Enviromnental ImpactStatement

The FEIS was prepared by aninterdisciplinary team composed of thefollowing individuals:

Charles R. Hartgraves: Team leader Director,Land Management Planning, NationalForest System, USDA Forest Service,Washington, D.C.; B.S. Range Management,1962, New Mexico State University, LasCruces, New Mexico.

Lawrence W. Hill: Staff Assistant. LandManagement Planning, USDA ForestService, Washington, D.C.; B.S. Forestry,1958, University of Michigan; M.F.(Watershed Management) 1959, Universityof Michigan.

Walter L Stewart: Operations ResearchAnalyst. USDA Forest Service, SystemsApplication Unit for Land ManagementPlanning, Fbrt Collins. Colorado; B.S.Economics, 1969, Berea College. Kentucky;M.A. Economics, 1971, Ohio University,Athens, Ohio; Ph. D., Recreation Resources,"1976, Colorado State University. FortCollins, Colorado.

Gregory S. Alward. Operations ResearchAnalyst, USDA Forest Service. SystemsApplication Unit for Land ManagementPlanning, Fort Collins, Colorado; B.S.Environmental Sciences, 1973, GrandValley State College, Allendale, Michigan;M.S. Resource Planning. 1975, ColoradoState University. Fort Collings, Colorado.

John W. Russell Assistant Director. LandManagement Planning, Systems Branch.USDA Forest Service, Forf Collins,Colorado; B.S. Range Science 1958, NewMexico State University. Las Cruces. NewMexico; M.S. Range Science (SystemsEcology) 1971.

Donald A. Renton: Director, Land UsePlanning. USDA Forest Service, RegionalOffice, Albuquerque, New Mexico; B.S.Zoology (Wildlife Management) 1952,Michigan State University; Ph.D. SystemsEcology (Range Science] 1975. ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Donald L Funking: Group Leader. Programand Management Planning. TimberManagement StafE USDA Forest Service.Washington. D.C.; B.S. Forest management.University of Maine, 1956; GraduateStudies. 1968-69. Stanford University. PaloAlto, California.

Timothy Sale: Planning Systems Coordinator.USDA Forest Service. Systems ApplicationUnit for Land Management Planning.Washington Office. Ft. Collins. Colorado.

II. The Affected Environment

The affected environment is the entireNational Forest System, approximately187 million acres of Federal landadministered by the Forest Service. andabout 39 million acres of intermingledState and privately owned lands. Theformal System consists of 154 NationalForests totalling 183.4 million acres, 19National Grasslands with 3.8 millionacres, and about 0.5 million acres ofsmaller purchase units, land utilizationprojects, and research areas. Initialreservation of public domain landcontributed 160 million acres to theSystem with the remaining 28 millionacres acquired by purchase, exhange,transfer, or other forms of acquisition.

The majority of land, 163.8 millionacres, is located.in the western portionof the United States, including Alaska.Approximately 23.9 million acres arelocated in the East. Although the landbase is not evenly distributedthroughout the country, National Forestsand Grasslands provide an opportunityfor all people to enjoy the many goodsand services they offer. Lands within theNFS span a broad range of land formsand environment. For a discussion ofland surface divisions, the reader isreferred to work by Edwin H.Hammond.1

Vegetation. The vegetation of theNational Forest System is as diverse asthe plains', valleys, and mountains onwhich it grows.

For a thorough discussion about therelationship of vegetation to variousgeneralized ecosystems in this Nation.the reader is referred to work by RobertG. Bailey.2 Potentiql natural vegetationof the United States was mapped by A.W. Kuchler in 1966.3 This mappingrepresents vegetation that would occurnaturally in a given area if successionwere not interrupted.

Hammond. Edwin FL 1964. Analysis ofProperties in Land Form Geography: An applicationto Broad Scale Land Form Mapping. Annals of theAssociation of American GeograpberL Volume54:11-23.

.Bailey. Robert G. 1978. Ecoregions to the UnitedStates. U.S. Department of Agriculture. ForestService. Map and Discussion.

3 Kuchler. A. %V. 196. Potential NaturalVegetation Map. U.S. Department of Interior.Geological Survey. Map and Discussion.

Air. The Nation's air quality ismandated by the Clean Air Act (Pub. L.88-206) and its amendments. The 1977amendments (Pub. L 95-95 specified.among other things, certain Federalareas, such as national parks,wilderness, national monuments,national seashores, and other areas ofspecial national or regional values, bedesignated for air quality protection.

The amendment adopted a system bywhich the entire nation would bedesignated specific air quality classes.Three categories were established-Class I, Class IL and Class IIL Presently,each class represents a defined.allowable increase in particulate matterand sulfur dioxide. Class I allows thesmallest pollution increment.

Clean Air Act Amendments initiallyclassfied all lands. Mandatory Class Istatus was given to internationalparks,national wilderness areas over 5,000acres in size, national memorial parksthat exceed 5.000 acres, and nationalparks that exceed 6.000 acres and werein existence on the data of enactment ofthe 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. Allother areas (except those redesignatedClass I by regulation prior to August 7.1977), were designated Class EL

Section 164 of the Act gives State andfederally recognized Indian Tribesauthority to redesignate classificationsfor areas within their geographicboundaries. This authority wasconstrained to the extent thatmandatory Class I areas could not beredesignated and certain other areasmay be redesignated only as Class I orIL

Environmental Amenities. Perceptionof our environment is primarily a visualexperience, but our senses of smell.taste, touch, and hearing contribute tocomplete our perception ofenvironmental amenities. Mainenance ofair quality provides environmentspleasant to our senses of smell andenhances opportunities to enjoyexpanded views and vistas.

The landscape character of thisNation can be described in terms of landand rock forms (topography),waterbodies, and vegetative patterns.These are components of the visualresource that, when seen in varyingcombinations, can be used to evaluatethe visual quality of an area.Maintenance and protection of thevisual resource is an important factorfor the millions of people who viewNational Forests, and management ofthis resource is an important part oftotal land and resource managementwithin the National Forest System.

Noise. or more precisely the lack of it,is an amenity savored by the Americanpublic. Complete solitude may usually



be 6btajned within wilderness and more other permits were third. Twenty-five may be necessary to interpret theremote roadless areas. A quiet, relaxed percent of the receipts received were "intent" of the Act in order to make thisenvironment 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 thebustle.The management challenge fbr secondary roads. Additional receipts in proposed regulations relate to scientificthe National Forest System is to provide the form of deposits and vilue added and highly technical aspects of naturala ctoss-section of environments the' bring the total to more than $1 billion. resource management. While there maymany 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 existof 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 technicalof multiple-use benefits for the and use of National Forest and aspects of management. The scientificAmerican people, In contrast, Grassland resources accounts for more and technical aspects of variousmanagement emphasis for lands than 180,000 person-years of alternatives must be separated from theadministered by the National Park , employment. Indirect benefits from political controversies which surroundService 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 scientificscenic 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 beresource uses made of and planned for National Forest System. iesponsive to the specific concernson the National Forest System, the For many, the National Forest System identified during the legislative historyreader 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 from1980 Update of the Forest Service RPA - symbolic meaning for thoseliving within public participation. Acceptability willProgram. This document, released for its shadows or concern for management" continue to be evaluated as thepublic review onMarch27,1979, is. .of this Federal land,wh'ether they preferred alternative regulations areavailable from Forest Service Regional depend upon it, have:intimate. promulgated and put to use. PublicOffices and headguarters in knowledge of it, or only recognize it as feedbacl will be influential in theWashington, D.C. - "being there". development and use of supplementary

Cultural Resource. Development of Land use decisions can affect every' material essential to carrying out thethis 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 Programsites, an invaluable asset for study of affedted if areas are identified for Goals. The NFMA provides for awhat has preceded us. However, the wilderness use. Others with more of a 'planning process as part of the RPAcultural resource on National Forests preservation orientation may be " -Program development process, andand Grasslands is neither fully - - disturbed if a favbrite roadless area • requires standards and guidelines todiscovered nor totally understood. -becomes available for use of its - govern management activities. TheseHistorical sites are being discovered as commodity resources, and roads are management activities in turn affectwe continue to know-mori of-this land. - :built into the area.-Various uses of land commodity and amenity productionThough-the resource has not-been are complex in nature and at times goals and targets (outputs) establishedcompletely inventoried, it is pi'otected _.conflicting. What is ideal for one group ii the RPA Program. In addition toby law and is recognized as an integral of individuals may adversely affect " identifying outputs, the Program mustpart of the total Forest Service land-and others. Within this framework, the also specify the results anticipated andresource 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 inputsrelated to population and demand for III. Evaluation Criteria , - and anticipated costs with the totalgoods and services. Our,220 million - .related benefits, direct and indirectresidents rely upon the wealth of natural Criteria for evaluating alternative returns. The costs and benefits ofresources this country can-provide for regulations are based :primarily on the 'producing commodities is consideredfood, shelter, and employment. In ' specific guidelines and'btandards - within a franiework of environmentaladdition, many seek escape from normal identified in the National Forest protectiofi: Program provisions mustactivities 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, andin 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 evaluatedSystem 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 andenvironments that promote quality of " of evaluation required in proposing the ' .environmental protection. Forlife. regulations. The-following evaluation ; environmental protection, alternatives

Direct cash receipts from the National criteria will-be applied: will be judged on the extent to whichForest System in fiscal year 1977 totaled , 1. NFMA Requirementd, Alternatives they provide safeguards againsta little more than $691.5 million. Timber will be evtaluated on the basis of how • resource damage or abuse. This reflectsreceipts were by far the largest source, well they achieve the specific . howthe alternatives provide for orwith receipts from mineral leases and requirements of the National Forest - improve the non-commodity or amenityroyalties second. Fees from grazing and-' Management Act. In some instances it . values. For commodities, the


Federal Register / Vol 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53941

alternatives will be judged on the basisof their tendency to maintain or increasesupply goals (targetsl consistent withthe evolving RPA Program, using timberas the commodity affected. -

5. Compliance with Executive OrderNo. 12044. Alternatives will beevaulated against direction thatregulations be as simple and clear aspossible; that regulations shall achievelegislative goals effectively andefficiently; that regulations shall notimpose unnecessary burdens on theecofiomy, on individuals, on public orprivate organizations, or on State andlocal governments.

6. Accountability. Evaluation will bemade as to how visible accountability ismade through regulation in terms of whois responsible for actions and decisions.

7. Capability to Implement. ForestService programs and personnelrequirements are subject to constraintsset by Congress and the Executivebranch. Alternatives will be evaluatedin light of personnel and skillrequirements, and time required-toundertake and complete planningactions specified.

8. Flexibility. In the application ofresource management standards andguidelines, it must be recognized thatlocal resource conditions varyconsiderably, thus necessitating specialrequirements or exceptions. Alternativeswill be evaluated on the basis of theextent to which they permit localmanagement discretion. Proceduralstandards necessary to address specialneeds and exceptions must be judged onthe basis of their ability to maintainquality, conformity, and adequatereview of management actions while notburdening the entire managementsystems with trivial details.

IV: Alternatives Considered

Many requirements in the alternativeregulations cannot be understoodwithout reading several sections toascertain the relationships betweenrequirements in one and those ofanother. Therefore, the reader is urgedto read and study the regulations in theirentirety.

The purpose of this section is todescribe the substantive alternativeswhich have been considered during theprodess of developing both the draft andthe proposed final regulations for landmanagement planning for the NFS. Thissection concludes with a description ofthe Preferred Alternative for this FEIS,

.Alternative No- 8.Organization of tids Section. The

organization of this section is similar tothat of the DEIS (Federal Register, May4, 1979); however, some changes havebeen made in the presentation of

material for the purposes of clarity andreader understanding. Alternative No. 5in the DEIS dealt with public commentson the original draft regulations whichappeared in the Federal Register onAugust 31.1978. These public commentswere used.in the evaluation and revisionof the original draft regulations and arereflected in Alternative 6 (the preferredalternative) of the DEIS. Followingpublication and distribution of the DEIS.the Department received 1581 additionalspecific comments which dealt with theDEIS preferred alternative (Alternative6]. Since Alternative 5 dealt withcomments received on the original draftregulation only. This information isavailable in the May 4,1979. DEIS and,therefore, is not repeated in this FEIS.

This section is now organized asfollows:

A summary description of alternativesis provided for each of the alternatives(with the exception of Alternative 5)identified in the DEIS. Thesealternatives include the PlanningProcess Framework, Alternative 1.Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative4, Alternative 6 (DEIS preferredalternative], and Alternative 7.

A description of Alternatives 1,2,3,4,6,and 7 relative to the issues identified inSection I of this document

A table which identifies thesubstantive changes which theDepartment now proposes to make toAlternative 6 of the DEIS as a result ofinternal review and public review andcomment. This table shows the locationof changes and the reason and naturefor changes to Alternative 6. Thesechanges constitute Alternative 8, thepreferred alternative of this FEIS.

A summary description of Alternative8 (the preferred alternative of this FEIS).

A description of Alternative 8 as itrelates to the 11 issues identified inSection I of this document

Summary Description of DEISAlternatives

A variety of approaches could be usedto develop regulations in response toSection 6 of the NFMA. Variationswithin the actual planning process, thedefinitions of specific terms, andestablishment of various standardscould be developed in numerous ways.

There are at least two sets ofalternatives to develop and consider.One set concerns planning precess. Theother concerns regulatory language.style, and structure in terms ofdescribing the rules which are to beapplied through the planning process tomanagement of National Forest Systemlands and resources.

The Planning Process FrameworA-The Forest Service has been. involved

since its creation in the development ofa land management process (see SectionI). This process for allocating resources;determining outputs. and measuringimpacts and tradeoffs has evolved frompractical experience and applicationmostly at the forest level. Intense publicinterest in management of the NationalForests has produced modifications inthe evolving planning process. Thispublic interest culminated in passage ofthe NFMA which requires the ForestService to define, through rulemaking, aunified planning process with supportingguidelines and standards to beimplemented on every administrativeunit of the National Forest System.NFMA thus created the need to evaluatecurrent planning and decisionmaking indetail. It set the stage for developing thefunction and content of landmanagement plans. If the presentplanning system is to be improved, asNFMA strongly implies, then knowledgeis needed about general planning theory.This would provide a conceptual basisfor developing operational planningprocess alternatives.

The advantages and limitations ofvarious planning process concepts andapproach possibilities are described inmaterial appended to and made part ofthe minutes of the May 24-26,1977Committee of Scientists Meeting. A briefdescription of planning concepts andapproaches appears in Appendix "B" ofthis FELS.

The alternative regulations presentedin this FEIS are a composite structure ofmixed scanning and the systems theory.and the mutual causal approach. Thisselection best provides for theinterdisciplinary approach to integratedplanning mandated by NFNA.Altern ati'es for Regulation Language toAddress Central Issues

NFMA mandates development ofregulations to set forth a process for thedevelopment, maintenance, and revisionof National Forest System land andresource management plans. Theregulations are also to containstandards and guidelines to govern theconduct of management activities. As aconsequence of this mandate, a -noaction" alternative was not created forpresentation. discussion, and evaluationin the DEIS or this FEIS. The onlyrealistic "no action" alternative mighthave been planning as currentlypracticed according to direction inForest Service Manual 8200. Thecontinuation of this direction is clearlynot what Congress intended by enactingNTMA.

There are an infinite variety of waysfor language to capture the intent ofNFMA in management guidelines and


1 53942 Federal Register '/ Vol.-44; No. 181 / Monday, Septeniber'".', 1979 -/ Rules'and Regulatjins , - I

standards. The language is presented ina reasonable range of alternatives toaddress the central issues and concernspresented in Sbctioh I.

The various alternative language setsproposed are described below and arearranged by source (see the Summary,Part II) in the order corresponding to theeleven central issues identified in ' *Section 1. However, in the interest ofbrevity, and to facilitate analysis, some

,of the language presented isin summaryform. All of the original material,including public commentsis'availablefor, review in its original form at ForestService Headquarters, in Room 4021South Agriculture Building, Washington,D.C.

This information includes the'following: (1) Draft Regulations, August

'31, 1979 as published in the Federal-Register, Vol. 44, No. 170, includiiglanguage proposals by Environmentaland Timber groups.

(2) Committee of Scientists Report ofFebruary 22,1979 to the Secretary, and

'suggested regulations, published in theFederal Register, Vol. 44, No. 88, May 4,1979.

(3) Forest Service Revised'DraftRegulations, the Preferred Alternative(No. 6) of the DEIS, published'in the'' "

Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 88, May 4,"1979, as part of the DEIS.I (4) Public comment on item number

one (1) above. . I ,(5) Public comment on item number

three (3) above..Items-(1), (2), and (3) above-have

already been published with the DEISand made available to the public.iCons'equently, they are not printed againin this FEIS. Instead they areincorporated herein by reference. Copieswill be made available upon receipt ofwritten request.

A summary description of the DEISalternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and-7 isprovided below. Each alternative isbriefly described or characterized asfoll0os:

Alternative 1-Forest Service DraftRegulations (Federal Register August 31,1978). The original'draft regulations arelargely procedural in nature. Theprocess which is to be followed inmaking landmanagement decisions isoutlined with greatest emphasis uponplanning at the forest level. National,regional, and forest levels of planningare implied; however, the draft containsvery little detail for regional planning.For the most part, the resourcestandards and guidelines which appearin the draft can be characterized asbroad statements of concerns which

,must be addressed throughout theplanning process. For several issues, the-draft langua'ge is merely a restatement

of the NFMA requirements. Themanagement standards for determininglands not suitable for timber productionareamong the most detailed of all the,standards presented. The draft requiresboth biological-growth minimums andeconomic efficiency considerations. Thebiological growth minimums 'are not •specified nationally, but are required tobe stated in the regional'plans.-Protction standards for streams andlakes are not specified, but are' requiredto'be stated in the forest plans. -Standards-for selection of silviculturalsystems and for size limits for openingscreated by cutting are to be determinedby the regional planning process. Theadministrative appeals process wouldremain unchanged from the presentsituation. Departures would be handledat the forest planning level. Throughoutthe draft, the primary emphasis is uponprocedures to be followed and concernsto be addressed, all within a frameworkwhich would permit a great deal of local(forest level) management discretion. Itis functional in its approach-toformulating standards. and guidelines,and not specific that the determinationsof localized standards and guidelines ispart of, and as a consequence a result ofthe planning process.

Alternative-2-Envirohmental Groups'--Proposals for T219.10(d) (Federal

Register August 31, 1978). Thisalternative addresses only two issues;the determination of lands not suitablefor timber production, and procedures

- for'allowing departures from,nondeclining yield. This proposalspecifies a national minimum biologicalgrowth potential for timber production,Under the requirements of thisalternative, no timber harvesting wouldoccur for at least 10"years on NationalForest.System lands on whi6h thebiological growth potential is below 50cubic feet per acre per year growth ofindustrial wood in natural stands. Thereare several other factors to be used in

* the determination, including size and'location of isolated tracts,nonmarketable species, slope and soilstability. In addition to theseconstraints, an economic efficiency testis required for the determination. Landsare not to be harvested forat least 10years if direct benefits from growing andharvesting timber-are less than theanticipated direct costs to the "government, including interest oncapital investments. Direct costs anddirect benefits are defined. This.,alternative stipulates that departuresmay be considered only after the-forestplan has been approved. In other words,departure determinations would not bepermitted as part of-the Forest land and

resource management planning process,All proposed departures are submittedtothe Chief, Forest Service, via theRegional Forester. If approved, the Chiefwould then direct the forest supervlsorto prepare the proposals and a draft andfinal EIS. Final approval for alldepartures rests with the Secretary,

Alternative 3-Timber Groups'Proposals for Section 219.10(d) (FederalRegister August 31, 1978). Thisalternative addresses two issues:determination of lands not suitable fortimber production, and departures fromnondeclining yield. This proposalemphasizes the role of timberproduction targets assigned to the

,forests through the RPA Program.,Consequently, suitability determination(as opposed to nonsuitability] isstressed and is recognized as being-largely dependent upon the ability of the'forests to meet the assign6d targets. Aminimum biological growth potential isto be speicffied by the regional plan. andeconomic analysis is required todetermine if lands are efficient forproducing timber. Lands would not beused for timber production If those landswere not ne6ded to meet the assignedtargets and they were not efficient forproduicing timber. Departures would beconsidered and formulated if.no timberharvest alternatives could achieve theassigned goals, or if implementation ofthe alternatives would result in localeconomic instability or inadequatelymaintain local or national supply needs.Departures would not require approvalabove the forest planning level.

Alternative 4-Committee ofScientists Final Report to the Secretary(Febriiary 9, 1979), and RecommendedRegulations attached thereto. TheCommittee of Scientists reviewed theoriginal draft regulations andrecommended alternative language and,in some instances. completely newmaterial for inclusion in the regulations,Generally, the Committee's proposalsexpand and add specific detail to theoriginal draft (August 31, 1978)regulations. A number of organizationalchanges for regulation material are alsosugg6sted. The Committee's revisionsindlude the addition of considerablymore detail to the relationship emongplanning levels (national, regional, andforest), specifications for theinterdisciplinary planning approach,rationale and requirements for publicparticipation, more substintialrequirements for coordination; and morespecific requirements for resourcestandards and guidelines, indludingwilderness management, riparian zones,fish and wildlife, and diversity. Theadministrative appeals procedure wbuld


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 5Q943

remain unchanged from the present. TheConmittee has proposed a new anddetailed treatment of regional planningsimilar to forest planning. TheCommittee's recommendations for landsnot suited-for timber and for departure,similar to those of the August 31, 1978draft, are more specific and clear. Anadded requirement for departuresspecifies that each must be approved bythe Chief, Forest Service. Although theCommittee recommends a 30-meterprotection strip for riparian areas itagrees with the August 31,1978 draftthat the maximum size for openingscreated by timber cutting be set byregional plans or regional silviculturalguides, and not be set as a nationalstandard.

Alternative 5-Public Comment onthe August 31, 1978 Draft Regulations.Though the DEIS contained thisAlternative (No. 5) it was conceptualand did not lend itself to comparativeanalysis as did the other alternatives.Consequently, it was decided not toinclude a similar alternative in the FEIS.instead, public comment on the DEISwas analyzed and used to modify theDEIS Preferred Alternative. This hasbecome the FEIS Preferred Alternative.It is further described in this Section asAlternative 8, and again in Section VI.

Alternative 6-The PreferredAlternative Identified in the DEIS.These revised draft regulations containprovisions for nationally establishedstandards for protection of riparianareas and for the size -of harvest cutopenings. This alternative is the endresult of public involvement and workby the Committee of Scientists with theForest Service in the process ofdeveloping the regulations required byNFMA. A number of organizationalchanges, the incorporation of newmaterial, and more specific directionhave considerably changed thealternative compared to the originaldraft of August 31, 1978. Most of theCommittee of Scientists

recommendations are reflected in thisalternative. It is important to point outhere that these recommendations werealso strongly influenced by interactionsof interest groups with the Committee.Key substantive coverage by thisalternative includes the following: Moredetail concerning the relationshipsamong planning levels; detailedprovisions for the conduct of regionalplanning; more thorough treatment andclarity of purpose concerning publicparticipation and coordinationactivities; more specific concerningdeterminations of lands not suited fortimber production with the direction thatbiological growth potential minimums

be set in regional plans, and lands beranked for their economic efficiency forproducing timber;, requirements thatdepartures from non-declining yield beanalyzed through the NEPAenvironmental assessment process andbe approved by the Chief; setting ofmaximum size of harvest cut openings(40-, 60-, or 100-acre maximumsdepending on geographic location) withexceptions provided for through regionalplans where larger openings willproduce more desirable combinations ofbenefits; and special protection ofstreams and lakes by requiring specialattention to strips 100 feet along bothsides of perennial streams, lakes andother bodies of water. Theadministrative appeal procedure ismodified as a result of this alternative.Organizational changes include additionof material concerning regionalplanning, and separation of planningprocess criteria from resourcemanagement standards and guidelines.The planning process has been clarifiedand expanded explicitly to covernational and regional, as well as forestlevel planning.

Alternative 7-Revised DraftRegulations. These regulations areidentical in all respects to AlternativeNo. 6 except that riparian protectionareas and harvest cut opening sizes willbe established through the regionalplanning process.

Alternatives by Issues

Regulatory language sets follow forthe eleven selected issues discussed inSection I. Since Alternatives 6 and 7 areidentical except for issues 7 and 11,Alternative No. 7 is discussed only forthese two issues. Alternative 2 and 3address only issue 5 and 6 and areshown for these issues only. For adiscussion of Alternative 5, The readershould refer to the DEIS.

Issue No. 1-Conceptual Frameworkfor an Integrated Planning Process.Alternative 1: The August 31.1978 draftregulations are a mix of approacheswith emphasis given to a "process"oriented approach. Three levels ofplanning (forest, regional, and national)are described in terms of informationflows. However, the planning process isdescribed only in terms of forest levelplanning and is not related to the othertwo levels.

Alternative 4:!The Committee ofScientists endorses the "process"approach as opposed to a "prescriptiveapproach." It is recommended that theimportant interactive nature of the threelevels of planning.be conveyed in theregulations, and that the regulations alsospecify procedures for developing the

regional plan and its content similar torequirments specified for forest plans.

Alternative 6: The recommendationsof the Committee of Scientists havebeen adopted in the preferredalternative. In addition, a great dealmore detail has been added to planningcriteria and requirements throughout theentire planning process. Although therevised regulations contain many more"prescriptive" requirements than theearlier draft, the revised version is more"process" oriented than the originaldraft. A completely new section devotedentirely to a description of the "planningprocess" has been added. There is alsoan expanded. much more detailedtreatment of the role and function ofnational, regional, and forest levelplanning. The interrelationships amongthe planning levels have been outlined.There are two new separate sectionsdevoted to regional planning. Onedescribes in detail the regional planningprocedure and the other establishescriteria for regional planning actions.The requirements for forest planninghave been expanded and are detailed inthe same manner as those for regionalplanning. Provisions are made throughregional planning to provide a range ofobjectives which forest plans mustaddress though the planning process.

Issue No. 2-The InterdisciplinaryApproach to Planning. Alternative 1:The August 31,1978 draft states that aninterdisciplinary approach shall befollowed. With the exception of arequirement for two or more specialitiesto be represented, no specificrequirements for team make-up orqualifications are given. Completediscretion is given to the forestsupervisor for deciding bothcomposition and qualifications.

Alternative 4: The Committeerecommends more specific language ondescription of interdisciplinary process,actital philosophy that is to guide theteam; and requirements for compositionof team and for qualifications ofmembers.

Alternative 6: Most of the Committeeof Scientists' proposed language hasbeen adopted in the revised version. Therole and responsibilities of the teamhave been more clearly specified. Therevision includes requirements forcomposition of the team and forqualifications for team members.

Issue No. 3--Diversity. Alternative 1: -The August 31,1978 draft requires thatinventory information includequantitative data for determiningspecies and community diversity. Theforest planning section also specifies.that each management alternativeinclude provisions for diversity and thateffects of each alternative on diversity


No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

be estithat d.'There is'also a specificrequirement to estimate diversity effects.for fish and wildlife. Methods ormeasures of diversity are ungpeciied..

Alte~native 4: The Committeegenerallysupports tieatment-of diversityin the regulations..Recommendations forclarifying and strengthening the

-language in 'a number of places areincluded. The.Committee recommendsagainst requiring the use of quantitativediversity indices, In' addition, theCommittee adds-to the regulationsspecific language to ensure that plannedtype c6nversions mustibe justified bydetailed analysis showing biological,economic,'and social consequences.

Alternative 6; The Committee ofScientists' recommendatioris forclarifying language and establishingcriteria-have been adopted for thisalternative. Management standards and'guidelines for diversity have bednexpanded with more emphasis on typeconversions. Additional requirementshave been specified to ensure, .coordination with other Federal, State,and local agencies. Specificrequirements for designation andmanagement of special interest areasand research natural areas have'been -added.

Issue No. 4-The Role of EconomicAnalysis. Alternative 1: The August 31,1978 draft regulations suggest thatpopulation and employment data becollected, that demand projections beused, and required that expectedbenefits be included in this analysis.Specific requiiements for analysisinclude effects on distribution of goods,services and uses, changes in payments,to local governments, income,employment, and economic efficiency.Direct and- indirect benefits and costsare to be estifiated using standards andpractices to be established later by the. -Chief, Forest Service, Economic impactestimates of different range managementalternatives on local livestock industryare also required. It is required thatlands be classified as not suitable fortimber produciton if "an economicanalysis reveals that the lands are notefficient for producing timber."

Alternative 2: The'overall issue ofeconomic analysis is not addressed.Economic efficiency analysis for theclassification of lands suitable fortimber would be provided for in thisalternative as part of the regulationsrecommended under Issue No. 5. (SeeIssue No. 5, Alternative No. 2)

Alternative 3: The proposal does notaddress the general issue of economicanalysis. Some economic evaluationrequirements are included in "suitablelands" requirements.. (See Issue No. 5,Alternative No..3)

Alternative 4: The Committee -concludes, that language in the draftregulations dealing with economic ,analrsis is often: vague and mustbeimproved if direction is to be clear. The,Committee has proposed more specificdire6tion for ensuring that competenteconomic analysis occurs in allappropriate places in the planniigprocess and are displayed forconsideration of the econ6micconsequences of alternatives.

Alternative 6: Substantialrequirements relating to economicefficiency analysis, evalaution criteria,and guiding principles for nianagementhave been added in this alternative.Additional analysis requirements havebeen specified for regional and forestplanning including sutiply and demandassessments and economic impactevaluation for alternatives considered.The role of economic analysis in thedetermination of lands not suitable fortimber production and consideration of'community stability objectives havebeen clarified. Requirements have beenspecified for economic'evaluation ofvalues foregone by Wildernessdesignation.-

Issue Mo. 5.--Deternina tion of LandsNot Suited for Timber Production.Alternative 1: The August 31, 1978 draftregulations outline a process fordetermining lands not suited.

1. Lands are considered "not capable"if biological growth potential is below aminimum set-by the regional plan.

2. Lands are "not available" if theyhave already been designated for someother use.

3. Lands are "not suited" if timberproduction would result in adverge.impacts upon soils, productivity,watershed, threatened or endangeredspecies, or cannot be restocked in 5years.

4. Lands that have been classified as"capable, available, and suitable" are tobe further reviewed during theformulation of alternatives stage ofplanning and are classed as "notavailable" if'management objectives forthe area preclude timber production orlimit production to the point wheresilvicultural standards cannot be met.

5. Lands. that are classed as "capable,,available; and suitable" may be,classified as "not suited"ifan economicanalysis reveals'that these lands are notefficient for producing timber. I' -

6. No timber harvesting can occur forat least 10 years on lands "not suitable."

Alternative 2: This alternativeincludes the followinglimits foridentifying timber producing lands:

1. Lands are "not-capable" ifbiological growth potential is below 50'cubic feet.per a~re per year of industrial

wood in natural stands (higher standardmay be established by regional plan).

2."'Not available" If lands areadministratively or legislatively,withdrawn.

3. Land, are "not suited" if: A. Theyconsist of isolated tracts of commercialforest land (stringers] such thatorganizing and scheduling periodicharvest is impractical;

B. They contain non-marketabletimber species;

C. Slope is equal to or greater than theangle of repose of the soil, or the criticalangle for slope stability;

D. Lands have soil types for whicherosion rates during the first 10 yearsfollowing logging would cause loss -ofsoil greater than the amount that wouldbe generated naturally through periodicweathering during one period ofrotation; or

E. No technology has been developedor is expected to be developed in thenext 10 years, that is or will be availableand feasible for use In the forest during'such period, that will enable timburproduction from the land withoutsignificanf or long-lasting resourcedamage to soil,, productivity, orwatershed conditions; withoutsignificant adverse impact on threatenedor endangered species; and withassurance that such lands can be

,adequately restocked within 5 yearsafter final harvest.

4. Lands classified as "capable,.available, and suited" for timber',production are further identified as:

A. "Notavailable" for timberproduction if those lands will bemanaged to meet objectives of the forestplan that either preclude timber , "production or limit timber productori to'the point where silvicultural systemsand resources could not be employedwithin the standards andguidellne's forsilvicultural systems'and resoarceprotection contained in these regulationsand in the forest plan;

B. "Not suited" for timber productionif the anticipated direct benefits fromgrowing and harvesting timber are lessthan the anticipated direct costs to thegovernment, including interest oncapital investments required by timberproduction activities. Specific standurdsand practices for making the economicanalysis required by this section tre tobe established by the Chief, Forest ' 'Service in regulations which shall beeffective on the same date as theseregulations, and shall be applieduniformly and nationally, provided thatin determining net benefits from tfmber'production the following principles shallbe followed:

(1) Direct benefits include theanticipated revenue from harvesting

53944 Federal Register / Vol. 44,



timber crops, and any benefits that canbe reasonably attributed to increasedproduction of other services such asforage, water flows, and wildlife;

(2) Direct costs include the anticipatedinvestments, maintenance, andoperating management and planningcosts attributable to timber productionactivities, and any costs that can bereasonably attributed to decreasedproduction of other services and tomitigation measures necessitated by theimpacts of timber production. In thecase of roads, only the additionalinvestments in the road system requiredby timber growth and harvestingactivities are to be included in directcosts; and

( (3) The rate of interest used todiscount future benefits and costs shallbe equal to the rate expected foralternative uses of Federal funds, as setby the Office of Management'andBudget.

5. No timber harvesting shall occur on-lands classified as "not capable" or "notavailable," for timber harvesting and for10 years on lands "not suited,"excluding salvage sales and otherspecial circumstances.

Alternative 3: The'alternative makes akey factor upon which suitabilitydeterminations will be made on theproduction goals assigned to the forestthrough the regional plan from the RPAProgram. The proposal requires thattimber producing lands be identified inthe following manner:

1. "Not capable" if biological growthpotential is below minimum standarddefined by the regional plan.

2. "'Not available" if the land islegislatively or administrativelywithdrawn from timber production.

3. "Not suited" if technology is notnow available or none is expected to bedeveloped within the next 10 years thatwould permit harvesting which meetssilvicultural guidelines.

4. Lands classified as "capable,available, and suited" will be furtherreviewed and identified as "not suited"if those lands are not needed to meetproduction goals from the regional planand "lands are not efficient forproducing timber." Additional economicanalysis requireients for thisdetermination include: "Any economicanalysis will be based on theassumptions that the lands are managedprimarily for timber production and arein fully regulated condition; thattechnically feasible managementpractices are applied which have a neteconomic benefit given anticipatedfuture price levels and cost levelsreasonable and directly related toefficient and prudent timbermanagement; and that the cost of

administration, protection, and accessare borne proportionately by those otherresource values produced while the landis under primary management fortimber."

Alternative 4: The August 31, 1978draft provides for a 5-step process foridentifying lands not suited. TheCommittee does not consider thisadequate and recommends the followingprocedure:

1. Lands are screened to determine ifthey are "available" for (i.e., not alreadydesignated for offer use) timberproduction;

2. "Available" lands are thenscreened to identify areas that are "notsuitable" for timber production becauseof physical, technical, biological(including a minimum productivitystandard), or environmental factors;

3. Lands passing these tests are thensubjected to economic analysis andranked to determine their relativeeconomic efficiency for commercialtimber production; and

4. Alternative land management plansare formulated, lands are allocated totimber harvest on a cost-effective basis,and these allocations then may beadjusted and revised on the basis ofmultiple-use considerations.

Alternative 6: The treatment of thisissue in this alternative is based uponthe Committee of Scientists'recommended language andorganization. Minimum biologicalgrowth standards to be used in thedetermination of timber productioncapability wyill be established by theregional plan using the criteria specifiedin the regulations. Lands with potentialfor commercial timber production willbe evaluated using the assumptions andcriteria in the regulations to determinetheir relative economic efficiency forthis use. Lands which are more"efficient" (relative to other lands) willbe allocated for timber productionbefore less "efficient" lands are used.There is no minimum economic returnspecified in the regulations, nor Is therea firm requirement that net benefitsmust exceed costs for this use.

Issue No. 6-Departures.-Alternative1: The August 31, 1978 draft requires thatthe allowable sale quantity bedetermined on the principle of sustainedyield and only based on lands "capable.available and suitable." The followingrequirements are specified:

1. For the base harvest schedule theplanned sale and harvest for any futuredecade must be equal to or greater thanthe planned sale and harvest for thepreceding decade, providing that theplanned harvest is not greater than the.long-term sustained yield capacity (non-declining flow).

2. Long-term sustained-yield, basetimber harvest schedules, anddepartures are subject to the followingguidelines:

A. "For the long-term sustained-yieldcapacity and the base harvest degree oftimber utilization consistent with thegoals, assumptions and standardscontained in or used in preparation ofthe current Renewable ResourceProgram and regional plan. For the long-term sustained-yield capacity, themanagement and utilizationassumptions must reflect thoseprojected for the fourth decade of theregional plan. For the base harvestschedule, the management andutilization assumptions must reflect theprojected changes in practices for thefour decades of the regional plan.Beyond the fourth decade, theassumptions must reflect thoseprojected for the fourth decade of theregional plan."

B. "For departure alternatives to thebase harvest schedule which provideoutputs above the current regional plan,assume an appropriate managementintensity."

C. "In accordance with theestablished standards, assure that alleven-aged stands scheduled to beharvested during the planning periodshall generally have reached theculmination of mean annual incrementof growth. Mean annual increment mustbe based on management intensities andutilization standards expressed as unitsof measure consistent with the regionalplan. Exceptions to those standards arepermitted for the use of soundsilvicultural practices, such as thinningor other stand improvement measures;for salvage or sanitation harvesting oftimber stands which are substantiallydamaged by fire, windthrow, or othercatastrophe, or which are in imminentdanger from insect or disease attackr forthe improvement of age-classdistribution; or for the removal ofparticular species of trees afterconsideration has been given to themultiple uses of the area being plannedand after completion of the publicparticipation process applicable to thepreparation of a forest plan."

D. 'For all harvest schedules, achievea forest structure by the conclusion ofthe scheduling period that will enableperpetual timber harvest thereafter atthe long-term sustained-yield capacity.consistent with the long-range multiple-use objectives of the alternatives."

3. Departures should be consideredunder any of the following conditions:

A. "None of the timber harvestalternatives formulated has the capacityto produce the goods, services, or uses


53946 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 /, Rules and Regulations

to meet objectives specified for the areaby the regional plan."

B. "'Attainment of the multiple-useobjectives of the forest plan will beenhanced by more rapid and efficientachievement of the long-term sustained-yield capacity of the forest owing topresent forest structure or by reducinghigh mortality losses."

C. "Implementation of the baseharvest schedule would cause instabilityor dislocation in the economic area inwhich the forest is located."

4. The proposal also specifies how theharvest schedule is to be selected:

A. "Selection of a harvest schedulemust be made following a comparison ofmanagement alternatives. ... Thiscomparison must include an evaluationof the sustained-yield goals, silviculturalstandards and guidelines, and theeffects of timber removal on otherresources .... The selected harvestschedule provides the allowable salequantity, or the quantity of timber thatmay be sold from the area of landcovered by the forest plan for the planperiod. Within the planning peribd, thevolume of timber to be sold in any oneyear may exceed the average annualallowable sale quantity so long as thetotal amount sold for the planned perioddoes not exceed the allowable salequantity."

Alternative 2: The proposal would notpermit departures'within the regular,planning process, but specifies that aforest plan may be amended to increaseor decrease the allowable sale in thefollowing manner.

1. Regional Forester may ask the"Chief, Forest Seririce to "consider"dephrture if departure would,"enhance"multiple use objectives by "'improvingage-class distribution, reducing high.mortality losses, or reducing conflicts."

2; The Regional Forester must submita report giving iformation tosupportrecommended departure.

3. The Chief may agree to "consider".departures anddirect the ForestSupervisor to prepare proposals, anddraft and final EIS's are required forproposals.

4. In formulating proposed departures,the following is required: -

A. Each departure proposed shall,reflect management direction .established in the forestplan regardingconstraints on harvest, type of ,silvicultural systems to be used, andsilvicultural standards and guidelines.Lands that would be affected by theincrease or decrease in harvest level-shall be specifically identified;

B. Each departure shall assume adegree of timber utilization andmanagement intensities consistent withthose assumed in the preparatin of the

base timber harvest schedule anddemonstrate that forest structure by theend of the planning horizon wouldenable perpetual harvest thereafter atthe long-term sustained-yield capacity;and

C. Each departure shall be evaluated'in accordance with regulations covering-,estimated effects of alternatives andcompared with the forest plan. Suchcomparison shall include an evaluationof the consistency of the departure withthe multiple-use objectives of the forestplan.

5. The Secretary, after review of thefinal EIS, must approve all departureproposals.

Alternative 3: The proposedalternative altered the provisions set outin Alternative No. 1 in the followingwayA:

1. For base timber harvest schedule(s)"the planned sale and harvest for anyfuture decade rtlust be equal to or lessthan the long-term sustained-yieldcapacity" rather than the precedingdecade and "thetotal harvest must alsobe the maximuniuchievable from theforesl during the first rotation."

2. Add an.exception to the standardsfor assuring that all even-aged standsscheduled to be harvested generallyhave reached the culmination of meanannul increment of growth-"for theimprovement of age-class distribution."

3. "For all harvest schedules, otherthan the base harvest schedule, achievea forest structure by the conclusion ofthe forest rotation that will enablesustamied-yield capacity, consistent withthelong-range multiple-use objectives ofthe alternatives."

4. An additional condition fordeparture was added. "Implementationof analternative plan would providegreater public benefits, including, but -

not limited to a combined flow of publicand private timber that better meetslocal andurat6nal'demands or achievingto the extentpossible a betterbalancebetween expenditures for timbermanagement and the return to theFederal Government from the sale oftimber and the value of other relateduses." "

5. Additional factors were added inthe step for selecting the harvests c h e d u l e : . . . ..

A. "Selection of harvest schedule'mist be made following a comparison ofmanagement alternatives and the publicbenefit to be achieved from each."

B. "The responsible Forbst ServiceOfficial shall describe in writing thejustification for the selection made andthe standards used."' Alternative 4: The Committee

recommends adoption of the principles -

in the August 31,1978 draft with theaddition of:

1. Statement of basic policy withregard to 'timber harvest scheduling:..1 2. Language to make clear thatdepartures from the base harvestschedule and the planning required fordepartures is discretionary; and

3. Authority for approving anydeparture above the base timberschedule should lie with the Chief.

Alternative 6: The Committee ofScientists' proposals have been adopted,

,With the exception of specifying that theChief, Forest Service, must approvedepartures, this alternative for theregulationh is similar to the originaldraft requirement concerning this issue,Consideration of local economicdisruptions-has been maintained.

Issue Aro. 7-Size of Openings Createdby Harvest Cutting

Alternative 1,The August 31,1970daft requires that maximum size limitsfor clearcutting will be determinedthrough the regional planning process,

Alternative 4: The Committeealternative agrees with the August 31,1978 draft that maximum size limits beset regionally.

Alternative 6: This alternative for theregulations establishes the maximumsize for openings created by timbercutting. These maximum sizes are: 60acres for the Douglas fir forest type ofCalifornia, Oregon. and Washington; 100acres of the-hemlock-Sitka spruce foresttype of coastal Alaska; and 40 acres forall other forest types. There areprovisions for exceptiong to these sizelimits. These are:

1. Regional plans may specify smallermaximum sizes for geographic areas offorest types based upon the factorsdetailed in the revised regulationb,

2. Regional plans will includeprovisions for exceptions that willpermit larger size openings than thosespecified in the regulations. Theminimum set of factors to be consideredfor exceptions, is outlined in the revisedregulations. Forest plans must conformto the size limitations establlshed by theregional plan. Any exceptions (exceptcatastrophic losses) to exceed the 60-,100- or 40-acre maximum size limitsmust be approved by the Chief, ForestService. At least 30 days public noticemust be given before the size limits maybe exceeded.

Alternative 7: The revised draftregulations require that maximum sizelimit for harvest cut openings will bedetermined through the regionalplanning process. I

Issue No. 8--Public ParticipationAlternative 1: The August 31, 1978

draft regulations use a theme of criteriato achieve compliance dnd uniformity.


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 I Monday, September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations 53947Thii concept of rulemaking provideslatitude for adaptation to future socialchanges, but does not specifically statestandards on the role the public mayexercise in the decision process.Standards are established for theavailability of documents and theirrequired residence. Criteria for the typeof meetings to be held and where in theprocess they are to take place arediscretionary in this version of theregulations. The administrative appealsprocess is unchanged in this alternative.

Alternative 4: The Committee ofScientists' version of the regulationscontain more specific requirements inseveral areas. The Committee felt thatthe vague and broad discretion in theAugust 31,1978 draft regulations would"lead to discontent and an unhappy,uninformed public."

The more specific areas recommendedby the Committee of Scientists are:

1. A general policy statement andobjectives of public participation.

2. Provide for a mutual program ofinformation and educational exchange.

3. Provide explicitly for publicparticipation at the beginning of theprocess, after conclusion of inventoriesand assessment, and before a preferredalternative is chosen.

4. The responsible official shouldshow evidence that allpublic input tothe plan has been analyzed, evaluatedand considered.

5. More specific language on the kindof places 4o meet such as countycourthouses in affected counties.

6. The nature of public participation'be made more explicit-by:

A. Stressing that informal activitiesare to ba encouraged for information,exchange.

B. Stating that notifications shall bemade highly visible.

C. Officials responsible shall continueto meet all other obligations for carryingout public participation requirements.

7. The public should be made awareof the kinds of informational materialsthat will be available.

In summary, the Committee ofScientists' version of the regulations onpublic participation in the planningprocess proposes more prescriptive rulesthan the August 31. 1978 draftregulations. The administrative appealsprocess is unchanged in this alternative.

Alternative 6: Much of the languageand organization recommended by theCommittee of Scientists has beenadopted in the revised regulations. As aresult, the revised version issignificantly more detailed than theoriginal draft. The revision includesexplicit material on the purpose ofpublic participation, required publicnotices, and the manner in which public

input will be used in the planningprocess. In addition, the publicparticipation responsibilities of theinterdisciplinary team have beenclarified. One important change hasbeen made to the limitation for publiccomments. This alternative provides for90 days written responses for nationaland regional planning comments(original draft specified 60 days]. Theappeals process is modified in thisalternative. Objections to planningdecisions (to adopt plans) in thisalternative are excluded from reviewunder the current administrative appealprocedure.

IssueNo. 9--Management ofWilderness Areas and Disposition ofRoadless Areas

Alternative 1: The August 31,1978draft regulations require that:

1. Lands designated by Congress orthe Forest Service as suitable forwilderness will be studied for possibleinclusion in the Wilderness System;lands designated to be managed for non-wilderness will not be considered forpossible wilderness in the rustgeneration of forest plans.

2. During the 15th-year revision(second generation) of forest plans.other areas will be evaluated forpossible wilderness designation.

3. The "appropriateness" ofdesignating the lands under 2 above willbe considered.

4. Forest plans must provide directionfor management of designatedWilderness and Primitive Areas.

Alternative 4: Committee recommendsclarifying language to address twoissues: Identifying and appraisingadditional candidate areas, andestablishing maximum allowable levelsof use. Key provisions include:

1. Forest plans will include anevaluation of the wilderness resourcepresent and provide managementplanning for it.

2. All potentially eligible lands shouldbe considered at each revision of theforest plan.

3. Costs and benefits should beconsidered in the same way as are otherresources in considering wildernessstatus.

4. Criteria for designation should beevaluated continuously as experiencedictates; and"

5. Determination of "carryingcapacity" should be made for each area.

Alternative 6: The proposalsrecommended by the Committee ofScientists have been adopted in therevised regulations. In addition, thelanguage of the original draft has beenaltered in order to clarify the factors tobe considered in evaluating wildernesspotential and wilderness area

management. Minerals developmentconsiderations are not addressedspecifically in regard to wildernessissues: however, provisions for theseconcerns are included elsewhere in therevised regulations. Requirements arespecified to ensure that levels and kindsof wilderness use are evaluated andconsidered in wilderness management.Special attention is also required for off-site impacts and adjacent areamanagement.

Issue No. 10-CoordinationAlternative 1: The August 31,1978

draft requires coordination with -otheraffected public entities and Indiantribes." Notice of preparation or revisionof forest plans must be given to Stateagencies, Indian tribes, and heads ofcounty boards affected. Documentationof all consultation is required.

Alternative 4: Committee proposessubstitute language to assure that othergovernmental units understand howthey can be involved in Forest Serviceplanning, that the Forest Service makereal efforts at coordination, and thatForest Service planners will evaluateand consider the plans of othergovernmental units as they developplans. Specifically, recommendations-include requirements that:

1. The responsible Forest Serviceofficials be aware of the plans andpolicies of other units of government;

2. Appropriate State and localgovernment representatives be involvedand consulted;

3. A request be made of each State forappointment of a person to coordinateState involvement:

4. The forest plan documents thatplans, programs and policies of otherunits of government have beenanalyzed.

5. Coordination take place at crucialtimes in the planning process;

6. An attempt to be made to identifygoals and plans of owners ofintermingled private lands; and

7. That there be coordination withinthe Forest Service in the designation ofspecial purpose areas.

Alternative 6: With some minormodifications, the Committee ofScientists' detailed proposals have beenadopted.

Issue No. 11-Protection of RiparianAreas

Alternative 1: This version 'of theregulations speaks indirectly tomanagement of the riparian area in thewater and soil resources section. Theseregulations direct that existing orpotential watershed conditions that willinfluence soil productivity, water yield.water pollution or hazardous events willbe evaluated.



'53948 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Alternative 4: This alternativeprovides prescriptive regulatorylanguage as protection for riparianareas. It provides for special attention tobe given to a strip approximately 30meters wide along both sides of allperennial streams, lakes and otherbodies of water. Any activitiesconducted in this area would be carriedout so as not to result in detrimeqtal . -change and only carried out if multiple-use benefits exceed costs.

'Alternative 6: The.treatment of this.issue in the revised regulations is basedprimarily upon the.recommendations ofthe Committee of Scientists. Thisalternative proposes, that specialattention be given to lands andvegetation for approximately 100 feetalong both sides-of all perennialstreams; lakes, and other bodies of

K water. All management activities whichseriously and adveisely affect waterconditions or fish habitat will bepermitted only if conducted so as to

..protect these waters from detrimentalchange. Interdisciplinary teams willdetermine constraints to be placed onmanagement activities in the riparian,area to assure protection of waterquality and other multiple-use values.

Alternative 7: This alternativerequires that special attention be givento riparian areass-(perennial streams,lakes and other bodies of water). Theriparian area will be identified usingcriteria established in regional plans.

Alternative 8-The Preferred"Alternative

This alternative is a revision of theMay 4, 1979 DraftEnvironmental ImpactStatement Preferred Alternative(Alternativ~e 6). Alternative 8 wascreated as the result of review andanalysis of public comments on the May,

,.4,- 1979 Preferred Alternative version.The Committee of Scientists' views onthe May 4 version was included in thepublic comment analysis. While there'are some minor changes in all-majorprovisions of the Regulations, significant

..changes are displayed in the Tablepresented below. For. example, somechanges of interest are: (1) Planning,process descriptions are strengthbned toexhibit and describe the links betweenthe RPA Program and Assessment, andregional and forest planning; (2) The,process for determining lands not suitedfor timber productioa is clarified toshow how certain physical andeconomic factors are interpreted todetermine land suitability forproduction, and how this relates to,

i, formulating alternatives to meet multiple

use management objectives; (3) Theconsideration of departures from the,base harvest schedule is-o beunconstrained during planning and ismandatory under certain statedconditions. However, thb final selectionof a departure alternative is keyed to theprinciple that it must be consistent with,the multiple use objectives stated in theland management plan; (4) The approvalor disapproval of forest plans isappealable under 36 CFR 211.19, but no6tfor regional plans. For the latter, areconsideration process is established.The reconsideration and appeal process

Location and Description of Major Changes In DEIS Preferred Alternative No. 6 and Incorporated IntoFEIS Alternative No. 8, Preferred Alternative

Regulation section Regulation section * Natura of the changeDEIS FEIS

219.1(b)(b)...................... '." Additional text for clarircElon enr description of planningfundamentals.

219.3(c)-;- ........ ............. Definition added for base timber harvest schedule,Definition added for biolog!cal growth potential

219.3(h)..-'... 219.3) ...... ............. *Claafication.--defnition consstant with CEQ Regulatlong(environmental documents).

219.3(m)..............Definition added for goods and services.219.3"(o) and (p) 219.3 (r,(s). (t), (u). Expanded definitions fat manalembnt dirtction, Intensity,

L practico. prescriptions: to clarity the relation betweenpractices end prescriptions.

•')19,3(x).. .. .......... Previously overlooked detn ton f(o planning area added,.,219 4(b)(1) .... ,.219.4()(1) .... ................ Revises description of Natonal t6vel Assessment and Pro

* -_ gram ctvity and clarifies rektfonshp to regional andforest level planning.

Deleted as superfluous.219.5(c)(6)., 219.5(c)(6) ............................ Establishes rule for deternrumng d~scount rate to be used.219.5(d)....1.. .. -). 219.5 d .......................... Provides for variable data resonllon based on nature of

decisions to be made. that data needs are to ba ena.lyzed, planned, and acqusitbn scheduled; and providesfor adoption of common data datinitions and standards.

219.5(0.....- 219.5(0) ..... ........... ; .......... Formulation ofalternatives rewritten to reduce ambiguity,219.5(g)...--' 219.5(g) ........................ Estimated effects of alternatives expanded to Include mea.

surements of effects from meeting targets establishedthrough RPA Program.

219.5(g)(5)(iii and (iv) _ Deleted--tedundant.219.6(a) . 219.6(a) ......... ... .............. Paragraph expanded to provide more explicit direction and

philosophy concerning Intardscplinary approach to planning.

219.6(b).. .. 219.6(b) ................ .......... Adds areas of professional knowledge and makes donsUl.- tation obllgatory when specalized knowledge on learn Is

not available.219.7(d) and (e) ... 219.7(d) and (a) .............. Revised to provide more exp'cit drectlon about public par.

ticipatiod process and use of Information,•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.mentation on adjacent, private and other ownershiplands,

................. New text to exclude decis:ons to approve or disapprove toglonal plan from admiiattraise appeals procedure: pro.vides for reconsderat.on of such decisions: provides for

-__ _- stays of Implementation.0219.1"0(c)'.. .............. ..., Rewritten for clarification to show how plans must respond

to and reflect RPA program goals and objectives.219.11(c)(4) ......................... New text to replace DEIS text In 219.7(o): provides for ap.

peals of decisions to approve e forest',. •""" --- ,' _plan; specifies procdu.res for remand, revision and

amendment descdbqs process tot foeuesting stay o I.plementation, and prereuis,4a3 for potential appellantsto file for appeals.

219.11(9) . 219.11(g)(1) and (2) ............ Clarifies and augments consdeardtbons required In reglonal- management situation aralyses.

219.11(h) ..1.(h) ........................ To explicitly state that the Forest Plan is the selected alter.native from the FEIS. ,A

219.11()(3) 219.14(h)(3) ....... ........... .. Rewritten to make exp.ci t at forest plat will containstatement 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 notsuited.

219.12(19(d)(1)1i,(D) ................... Clarifies and simplifies tangiga,

is described under 219.9 and 219,11, ,respectively; (5) Provisions are made fordeveloping and adopting common datadefinitions and standards to be appliedbetween all planning levels. Dataacquisition is to be scheduled andplanned, and its nature is to beappropriate for the managementdecisions required; (6) An 80-acre size-of-harvest-cut opening is established forthe yellow pine types in certain southernstates; (?] The 100-foot "specialattention" zone around water bodies Isexpandecd to include recognition ofriparian ecosystems.



Location and Description of Major Changes In DfIlS Preferred Alternative No. 6 and Incorporated IntoFEIS Alternative No. 8, Preferred Alternative-Continued

Regulation section Regulation secton Nature of the chargeDEIS FEIS

219.12(d)(1)n'i 219.12(d)1Xi) Rewritten lor cat y eshablhes #W depm z vA be

219.12(e}t)() 219.12(e)(1)() Espqnrd1 wkure k Uagency cooperalion aind conu-

219.12(g)(2) 219.12(g)(2)-- - - Provides that inlcator speces may be vertebrate audfortinvertebrate.

219.13(d)(2) 219.13(d)(2) Adds yeow pine typ and sets 80-acr, W* foraniestcoponrgs in cortm southen states.

219.13(e) 219.13e) - - - Revised to mclude at least the am covered by the lwoLan ecosystem.

219.13(g) 219.13(g) Revised to reflect terms as used In the NFMA ("Cp dantisa cmoninities" and 'boo speces').

Issue No. 1-Panning ProcessFramework. This alternativeincorporates some new or amendedlanguage to generally strengthen theoverall planning process, including theaddition of some new definitions. Therelationship of forest and regionalplanning to the Assessment andProgram is clarified and strengthened interms of identifying informationtransfers and specifications that plansmust describe how they respond toprogram goals and objectives, as well asstate the multiple use managementobjectives for the planning area. Thedata and information acquisitionprocess is expanded to require analysisof these needs.

Issue No. 2-InterdisciplinaryApproach. This alternative amplifies thephilosophy underlying the approach toplanning.

Issue-No. 3--Diversity. Some editorialrevisions have been made to clarifyterms and intent o the regulations. Thetreatment of this issue remains inconcept basically unchanged from theDEIS preferred alternative. Thelegislative language "+diversity of plantand animal communities " and "diversityof tree species" is maintained in theproposed regulations.

Issue No. 4-The Role of EconomicAnalysis. A provision has been addedwhich specifies that the discount rate foranalysis is to be established by theChief and in the absence of such anestablished rate, the rate used in theRPA program may be used. Some minoreditorial changes have been madeincluding the deletion ofrepetitiousmaterial.

Issue No. 5-Determination of LandsNot Suited for Tmber Production. Theprovisions in regulations for determininglands not suited for timber managementhas been modified to clarify the processand to specifically portray that thesedeterminations will first be based uponeconomic and physical factors, thenintegrated to provide for evaluatingeffect and/or achievement on multiple

use objectives. The reason for thischange was the previous languageprovided only for the determination tobe based on effects and/orachievements of single functionalobjectives. The interdisciplinary team.with review of public comment, felt thisrevision of provision more closelyreflects the legislative intent.

Other provisions remain essentiallythe same as described in Alternative 6.

Issue No. 6-Departures. Theprovision for making departures in theDEIS Preferred Alternative appeared tomany reviewers to be more broad thanwhat NFMA seems to permiL Therefore.and substantially in response to publiccomment, the language was clarified toillustrate that the consideration ofdeparture alternatives will beunconstrained during planning and ismandatory under certain conditions.However, if any departure alternative isto be selected, it must be consistent withmultiple use objectives stated in the,land management plan.

Issue No. 7-Size of Openings Createdby Harvest Cutting. The treatment ofthis issuein Alternative 8 is identical tothat of Alternative 6, except that an 80-acre size limit is established for yellowpine types in certain southern states.

Issue No. 8-Public Participation.Public participation provisions areidentical to those in the DEIS PreferredAlternative (No. 6) except for the matterconcerning appeals. In the Preferredalternative, appeal is discussed under§ § 219.9 and 219.1L The approval ordisapproval of forest plans is appealableunder 36 CFR 211.19. Such appeal wasexcluded in the DEIS. The approval ordisapproval of regional plans is,however, excluded from review under 36CFR 211.19, but provisions are made forreconsiderations of decisions by theresponsible officer. In the case of forestplans, the appeals process is madeconsistent with intent of NFMAregarding the revisions of plans, publicparticipation in those revisions, and therole of the interdisciplinary team in theprocess.

Appeals of actions or decisionssubsequent to implementation of theregional plan are permitted in thePreferred Alternative. This alternativealso has an added requirement definingthe kind of information required tosupport requests for stays of decisionsto approve or disapprove forest orregional plans, or subsequent actions ordecisions.

Issue No. 9-W'ilderness. Thisalternative is the same as origin-areapresetnted in the DEIS PreferredAlternative.

Issue No. 10-Coordination. Thetreatment of this issue in Alternative 8 isidentical to that of Alternative 6 excepta provision is added which requiresmonitoring to consider the effects ofmanaging the NFS on adjacent andnearby lands managed or under thejursidiction of other governmentagencies or local.

Issue No. 1.1-Protection of RiparianAreas. Alternative 6 has been revised toprovide that special attention zone willat least include the riparian ecosystem.Also, factors are listed which will beconsidered in determining whatmanagement practices may beundertaken in these areas.

V. Effects of Implementation

A major effect of the alternativeregulations proposed-if adopted-willbe to integrate land managementplanning and functional (resource)planning. Planning of lands andresources of the National Forest Systemwill be conducted by interdisciplinaryteams rather than by individual resourceor functional staff units. In many casesthe same people and skills will beinvolved but in a different way. Someadditional personnel ceilings will berequired because of new skillrequirements such as analysts,economists, biologists and writers.

Although resource managementplanning has always been a majorresponsibility in the Forest Service, theemphasis has primarily been onfunctional planning rather than onintegrated resource planning (calledmultiple-use planning- unit planning.multi-disciplinary pLanning; etc.). Inmost instances functional planningremained a separate activity. Functionalplanning and land management planningoften were carried out relativelyindependently, and budgeting was stillalong functional lines; the outcome wasinevitable: land management planningbecame in itself a function, much likerange management, timber management,and engineering. NFMA requires anintegrated plan for each unit of theNational Forest System. The planningprocess prescribed in thi alternatives


53950 Federal Register / Vol. 44, .No. 181 I Monday, Septqmber 17, ,,1979 / Rules and Regulations

establishes an interdependency of landmanagement and resource planning.

The specific effects of implementing. any of the alternative regulation

proposals are virtually impossible toquantify. Regulations developed todirect the process of preparation andrevision of land management plans haveno direct effect on the humanenvironment. The regulations do notcommit land or resources. They onlyestablish procedures, and standards andguidelines for planning future t -commitments. Some general qualifiedeffects or impacts of alternatives arepresented below in table form by issues.

Actual effects on the production ofgoods and services will be determinedand verified when the planning iscompleted. Impacts will be identified inregional or in individual forest plans..These plans are subject to a completeenvironmental assessment withmaximum public participation. Effectsgenerated by the land and resourcemanagement alternatives will beanalyzed in the environmental impactstatement prepared during the actualplanning effort.. There are several provisions within'each alternative that affect the output of',goods and services, particularly timberproduction. The determination of theallowable sale quantity will directlyaffect the level of timber available fromthe National Forests. This is particularlytrue if departures from non-decliningflow are considered and selected. Theidentification bf lands not suited fortimber production may-reduce thecommercial forest land base,particularly where the minimumbiological growth potential standard isset above the current minimum of 20cubic feet per acre per year. Also, •establishment of the maximum size ofharvest cut opening and the protectionof riparian areas will affect the overallcost of timber production or the totallevel of supply.

Generally, some outputs Will declinetemporarily. However, the capacityexists to expand activities ith higherlevel investments so that most outputscould be increased in the long run.' The increased requirements imposedby the NFMA'and regulation willincrease costs through 1985 or until allplans are developed. This would beprimarily due to establishment of the,neW procedures, requisite trainingneeds, and the variations anticipatedbetween the various National Forestsand Grasslands in terms of planningalready accomplished or in progress. Asthe Forest Service becomes-morefamiliar with the new process, the costshould decline. There should be no

',significant difference between

alternatives in long-term costs-to the-Forest Service as any particularalternative regulation might bepromulgated. The integration of allplanning efforts into one process shouldeventually reduce the costs.

Land management planning in therecent past has cost about $14 millionannually. The anticipated annual costsand additional man years thro6gh 1984are shown in the following table. Thetable reflects plans as currentlyscheduled. Costs include planning at allthree levels, forest, regional andnational.

Increased CumulativeFiscal Number.of Total annual man years man-yearsyear forest costs for over ,1978

plans planning base yearfunclions

1979. ....1980 .........1981.3 .....1982 ..........

'1983....-1984 .........1985.

$19.860.00021.100.00022.500.00022,800.00023.200,00014,700.00012.000,000

6090

120120120600

These costs reflect an increase forwhat has beenland use or land - -management planning historically. Newskill requirements, the need foradditional personnel ceilings, and the.uncertaifity of the availability of theskills could require more contractingand resultant higher costs. Monitoringrequirements may also add significantlyto costs.

The effects of implementingalternative regulations on the physicaland biological environment are not 'measurable except qualitatively. Eachalternative set of regulations enhancesplant and animal diversity, protects soiland water values and the visualresource, and ensures long-termproductivity. The actual results will beknown after the individual forest orregibnal plans are completed.

The alternative regulations require,that a monitoring and evaluationprocess be identified and adhered to asa part of plan implementation. Thisprocess will, reveal how well theobjectives of the forest plan have beenmet: quantify the effects of managementactivities upon the physical andbiological environment; and develop adata base for plan updating.

There is no reliable way to estimatequantitatively the'effect 6n theeconomic environment of promulgatingany of the alternative regulations. It isassumed that better managementdecisions will result from improvedeconomic analysis, because those -decisions will be based on costeffectiveness data. Overall managementof the NFS should become more costeffective and efficient.

. Effects upon the social environmentare difficult to quantify. No significantimpacts or differences between "alternatives are anticipated: The socialenvironment is defined as the bompbslteof social variables likely to be affectedby planning for management of the NFS:population, dynamics, communityeconomy, educational quality, healthand environment, housing quality,leisure opportunities, communityidentity, minorities, and land use andtenure. Specific social effects will bedetermined and evaluated through theplanning process for the appropriatelevel of planning. Public participation Isrequired throughout the developmentand revision of all plans, resulting inmore public awareness andunderstanding of National ForebtSystem management.

This particular requirement is .responsive to the concerns expressedbefore the NFMA was passed and,specifically to Section 6(d) of the Act,

Relative Effects of Alternatives byIssues: To establish a basis formeasuring anticipated implempntation

- effects of each alternative, anindependent set of key variables wasidentified by the interdisciplinary teamfor each issue. These variables are thefactors affected by alternatives. Thetables show in relative terms how thealternatives impact the factors listed,Language for alternatives Z and 3 applyonly to issues 5 and 6. Therefore,impacts for these two alternatives areshown only for these two issues.,Language for Alternative Not, 6 and 7 Isthe same for all issues except 7 and 11,Therefore, impacts for Alternative 7 areshown only for these two issues.

Issue No. 1-The conceptualframework for an integrated planningprocess. As discovered earlier there area number of different conceptualfrimeworks for attempting both verticaland horizontal integration of theplanning process. Integration requires alink vertically between theorganizational hierarchy of national,regional and local levels, and a merging''functionally at ,the local level theplanning of range, wildlife and fish,recreation, timber, water, minerals, andother resources. Therefore, theconceptual method chosen has asignificant effect on further options forresolving other issues. For example theincre mental approach limits publicparticipation in long-range decisions,while mixed scanning framework tendsto enhance this option. (See appendix

The practical concerns-surroundingthis choice relate to such basic items aspublic participation, the decisionprocess, and agency responsiveness.


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53951

The alternative choice for how theregulations are to be promulgated undera given conceptual framework may havelong reaching effects on how theintegrated planning process will becarried out.Issue No. 1.-(Pnning Framework) Relative Effects

of Alternatves

Alteraive No.Inpact of alternative on 1 4 6 8

Publc perception of process' 2 3 4 5Agency responsiveness o

de with issues 2 L M+ M+ M+Planning and decisiornakkrg

process3 2 4 4' 5

'On a continuum of increasing understanding from I to S.writh 5high.

'Response to external stimuli as low. moderate or high.3 On a continuum of increasing complexity from I to.

withshigh.

Issue No. 2-InterdisciplinaryApproach. The major debates overregulations on the interdisciplinaryteams and approach have focused ontechnical more than behavioralcharacteristics. Team composition andleadership have been discussed fromdiffering viewpoints, as well asindividual qualifications necessary forlegitimate memberships. In additionthere has been continuing concern overthe roje the interdisciplinary team willplay in the decisonmaking process. Thekey effects evaluated for this issue areteam formation, duties andqualifications.

Issue No. 2.--(tntierscinaryApproach) RelativeEffect of Alternatives

Ateenative No.Wmpad of tema ve on 1 4 6 8

Team fomfation 1 3 4 4Team dufes__ _ 2 4 4 4Team menber quawicatins, 1 4 4 4

' Continuum from (1) dicretionary to (5) specficcompositiom

'Continuum from (1) weak to 15) strong direction given.'Continuum from (1) discretionary to (5) specific

requirements.

Issue No. 3-Diversity. Diversity isthe condition of being different. Theclassification, measurement and controlof the elements which make up diversityof forests and ranges are activitiesassociated with managing renewableresources. It is the proportionaldistribution of diverse situations, suchas different habitats, that determines theavailability of timber, wildlife, rangeproduction, recreation, streamflow,aesthetics and other benefits. Therefore,diversity determinations have importantimplications in terms of bpportunitiesfor resource planning and managementoptions.

Issue No. 3.--( Oi4w~ Reafve Efocts ofAtema6ves

Altenatve No.Impacts o altmatve on 1 4 6 8

Geneti VNW __ (1) (1) (1) V)Typeconvesion ' 2 A 4 4Pt vin process a- 4 2 2 3

' Relative to current situatlon. Genetic variability Inrcindefor this analysis habitat diversity.

2 Continuum from tl) to (S) toward increasing coml iety.' Relative ease to convert to another ly M ss cs) an

a scale from (1) to (5) toward increasing ,cuity.'No change.'Increase.Issue No. 4-Role of Economic

Analysis. Analysis for determination ofboth efficiency and impacts hasgenerated considerable debate. Much ofit centers on the "state of the art" andthe possibilities of a given techniquebeing universally practical fornationwide implementation. The natureof economic tests to be made andwhether Congress intended that benefitsmust exceed costs for proposedmanagement practices are the keyconsiderations for measuring effects ofalternatives in the issue.

Issue No. 6-Departures. The NationalForest Management Act requires as ageneral policy that the Secretary limitthe sale of timber from each NationalForest to a quantity which can beremoved annually in perpetuity on asustained-yield basis with the discretionto depart from this policy in order tomeet overall multiple-use objectives.This provision is found in a separatesection of the Act (Section 11, orprovisions (Section 6). This separationhas caused some interests to believethat the determination of the timber

Issue No. 4.-Roe coon*An s s ) RelatveEtlect of(Afemates

Akernatve No.krW dof afernesv on 1 4 6 8

Ptriig procema 1 2 4 3 3Naes of Wah reqred . 2 4 3 3Capab~ty df Fared Survice to

Wriptlergt &9clon. 4 2 3 3

incrasinsg complexity on a scale of tO) to(ts).'Coninuzzm from (1) none specifed p. oxesgs in terms of

complexity of rigor'Low to High cc a scale of p) to t()

Issue No. 5-Lands Not Suited forTimber Production. The issue in the"lands not suited for timber production"question appears to be a means, notends, question. There is littledisagreement over the desired resultsthat there should be identified in theland managementplanning processlands not suited for timber production.The debate focuses bn where in theprocess this identification should occurand how prescriptive the analysisscreens should be in the regulations.

allowable sale quantity should behandled either outside of the landmanagement planning process or as aseparate and distinct step after the landmanagement plan has been completed.

Provisions within Section 6 clearlyprovide that decisions on the level oftimber harvest be made within theintegrated land management planningprocess. It is also required by NFMAthat if a departure is selected, that itmust be consistent with the multiple usemanagement objectives stated in theland management plan.

Issue No. 6-(Depmr'e) Rolalive Effects ofAfernatives

Ahermative No.Impacts on ltemntves on 1 2 3 4 6 8

Inmninigprocoess 2 5 2 3 3 3Opportty tocharge imber SU"rf 4 1 5 3 3 3

'On a scale 0( (1) low lo (S) hNg Wowd Incrnaskig; dffity So make a depark.re'On a scale of (1) to (5) toward icresai agenicy Sex*tift to make ddtermination.

Issue No. 5-(Lands Not Suite) Relative Efects of Aflternatives

Alemasve No.Impact ofaltmstives on 1 2 3 4 6 8

Totai comercl tibr bsand s.pply 3 5 2 2 3 3YAd~fe habitat abxmnd4arceidv , eay 33 413 2/3 33 3/3 414Plannin process - 2 5 2 4 4 4Anenies 1 3 S 2 3 3 4

compared to cigrent *Atuaion on a Scale 0t (1) least t0 (5) most reduction oxicrilg ccon&iealin d f r.pl use cbiLec,

'In teems of ksxcoasks and-a." nd av~sit on a scale of (1) io (5). 5 NIq'Increasing compsty on a cl; o( (1) Ia (5).In terms of tedencpy to kripso"a oVra quahty of water and vWAwi resouces. scale (51 o(5). 5 tigt


53952 Federal Register/ Vol. 44, No. 181 7 Monday, 'September 17, 1979 / Rules und Regulations

allowed within a-Tivensflvicultural "system. Should size standards be statedprescri-ptively or should-sizebe'-4etermined through the planning processon a regional-or site speQific basis? -

Issue No. 7-(Sie of Openings) Relative Effects of Alternatives

.Alternative No,

I4 .678

Impacts of alternatives on - -Per acre harvest costs '_ _ _ Nochange -No change _.lncrese...___4o change - fIncrease.Water quality ......... No change -No change ..._Jncraae....No change- ' Increase.Timber supply '. No change -No change .__Decrease___No change:.-' Oocroase.

'Relative to-current stuationwhich Inthis analysis Is alternative No. 7.'Rel tiveIocurrent iatlon Increase harvestcostsameans some marginal sades'becon unavallabe ,-thus reducing har-

vest Insome areas. .

Issue No.,8-Public ParticiOation. Issue No. 10-:Coorination. At issuePublic:partidipationrin ForestService . is the amount andlevel of coordinationdecisionmakingihas been-an issue of that-nhouldbe requireddufingland-andexperimentation and debate since the- resource management planning-betweenpassage ofthe National Environmental the Forest-SeMce and other planning,'Policy Act in 1969. Central:to 'the issue is entities. Whe. ..er.pescriptivethe openness that -shall be maintained requirements or .process direction forby the'agency so that the public ,ma, achieving desired end resylts is the.become informed-about NationalFoiest matter to be evaluated. .matters and, if sufficiently interested, toparticipate through various forums, ---

including the administrative review -procedures, in the development, review Issue-No. -11.-Protectn Sfps-inAipe-and revision of land management plans.'Issue No. 8-(Publc Parfctpa on) Relative Effects Impacts of alternatives on

of Altematives

Alternative No.Impacts of alternatives on 1 4 6 8

Planning process'....... 2 4 4- 5Publics' awareness and -

understanding . 2 4 5 5Public access to the decision

process-.............. 4 4 3 5

Increasing complexy.onascaleof (1) to (5).2Increasinglmprovement on a scale of (1) to (5).

Issue No. -9-Management ofWildernessand Disposition of RoadiessAreas. How often and to what-extentshalwilderness valuesbe considered?At issue is ihe question of whetherundeveloped areas should be consideredforvwilderness during each major planrevision if they are, still-ifi Ban essentiallynatural state, and should maximumlevels of -use be deferred throughregulations?

Issue No. 9.-(WdemessManagement) RelativeEffects of Alternatives

Alternative No.Impacts of alternatives on 1 4 6 a

Disposition of RARE II area '. No Yes No NoUse of areas........ - 2 4 4 4

'To consider inland and resource management planbefore 1985.

'Prcea, for determining potentials of areas andlItatons to be placed on Iem is from (1) discretionary andunspecified t6 (5] required and specific.

Issue No. '7-Size of-Ojenings. Atdebate is the issue oT'the size of harvestcut openg io be allowed within agiv'ensilvicultural.syste m. Should size'standards be stated prescriptivelyiorshould size'be'harvest cut opening tobe

tan Areas Relative Effects of Alternative

Alternative No.I 4 a 17 '0,

Planning process ' 1 5 5 4 5Per acre harvest costs_ _ _ No Change-Ir. Increas-...ncrease ......... No chang Increase.Amenity values a _ ________ NoChange. Increasem ,Incease .. iNo Change.;Increae.Timber supply 4 .1 . 2 2 1 2Wildlife end Tlsherleshabitat ...... ;No Change - Increase..... Increase ......... No Change-.. Increase.

'Incteasing conmplexltylona-scelo o,(1)-to'(5).4qettive to current situation.'Water and scenic quality.'Retstive to current situation on a zale of (0) nq reduction to (3) most reducton.

"V.-Evaluation of1he Alternatives - almost continuously throughout the.Yarious approaches for planning, development of the proposed

numerous definitions-of terms, and a regulations. The following is an,variety of alternativd descriptions and evaluation of how the alternative sets oflanguage foramanagement standards and regulations meet the evaluation criteria

- guidelines were analyzed and evaluated described-in Section-111.,Between Alternative Evaluation,

Alternative No.

Selection criteria L.- 1 32 33 4 6 7 0Effectiveness of meeting, congressional ntent on I. NFMA 1 3 2 ,2 4, 4 3 4Basis in technical andsdentifc prmcIP1 3 2 3 5 4 5 4Acceptableto publk -. -1 2 1 4 9 4. 6RPA proram goals

Amenity values t . - - 2 3 2 4 5- 4 5irnber supply • 3 1 5 -2 -2 4 2

Confornty with executIve-order #12044 concern-Ing simplicity-carity of the'.requlations economicburden =.- 3/2 3/5 3/2 2/3 4/3 '4/2 6/3 4

Establishing accountability - . ; 2 4 2 '4 4 4 4Capability to Implementt .... • 5 4 5 3 3 3 3

vTeexb1ity provided 4 2- 5 4 3 4 - 3

S fRaigs-are-on-a scale-of (1)'low toj(5) high Itlerms -of how the alternative regulation ̂ Ste meet the critoda listed, SeeSection-Il-for-a-fuU.descipoWnof-eachcritera.

2Higher.numberindlcates-greaterturdon.'Altrnatives,2 and 3 concern only Lands Not Suited for Timber Production and Harvestsche~ UD& Fof evaluationpur-

poses those language sets were substituted for the corresponding Ian~uge in Alternative I thus providing a complete roguilationset to evaluate.

-Expressed in terms of the relative degree of erwvronmental protectionadequacy.'Effect on Supply from (I) potential reduction to (5) potential Increase.

Issue No. 1M.-(Cordnafron) Rletho Effects of: A r A lterative No

Impact of alternative on I 4 6

Planning process.t..... 2, 4 3 4Levels of ewareness and

understanding '_...... 2 4 0 3

'Increasing complexity on a scale of (1) to (5)2ncreasing Improvement on a scale of (1) to (5].Issue No. 11-Protection of Riparian

Areas. The riparian ecosystemTepresents one of -the richest areas inlerms of flora and fauna within'thoNational ForestiSystem. The.sclentificcommunity is divided on 'whether thisecosystem is. fragile orresilent. Thereare manydemandsin this zone; foraesthetics, water quality consideriatlon,recreation opportunities, roadconstruction opportunities, wood, foragoand wildlife opportunities. It's also hnice place toeat yourlunch., '

Conflicting demandi for uses inthqsdareas are escalated in the more aridparts of the West where ,this ecosystemis m6re scarce. The principle issue is thedegree to which the regulations Iprescribe standards for riparian -areas,



Rationale for Rating Alternatives andfor the Selection of the PreferredAlternative: The alternative planningprocesses and languages sets describedto address the central issues have beenanalyzed and evaluated in thisstatement. The NFMA establishedbounds within which to develop theregulations. It required that a Committeeof Scientists assist in the developmentof guidelines and procedurs. By utilizingthis prescribed method, includingprovisions for publicparticiaption, therange of alternatives for considerationnarrowed to the preferred alternativeproposed for adoption. This set ofregulations appears in the Appendix ofthis FEIS.

Meeting Congressional Intent onNFMA: NFMA presents congressionalpolicy concerning the balance betweenprotection of the environment and theneed to provide adequate supplies ofwood products. With this policydirection, Congress endorsed theconcept that silvicultural prescriptionshould be determined by theprofessional resource manager, not thelegislator. Congress expects, however,that the regulations called for in NFMAwill provide better controls onmanagement planning anddecisionmaking and that these controlswill be influenced by interdisciplinaryplanning, and substantial publicparticipation throughout the planningprocess.

The August 31, 1978 draft regulationsmet the intent of NFMA, but providedmore discretion in the selection and useof guidelines and standards governing

. management activities. The PreferredAlternative represents a sensiblecompromise between discretionarymanagement and management byinflexible rules. The alternative retainsthe option for more explicit managementcontrols and direction if futuremanagement under the proposedregulations fails to meet congressionalexpectations.

Basis in Technical and ScientificPrinciples: There are substantialdifferences of opinion on many of theissues for which direction is provided inthe alternative regulations. Congress,recognizing these differejces, directedthe Secretary to appoint a Committee ofScientists for advice in the preparationof these regulations. Theinterdisciplinary team that prepared thisstatement believes that the Committeeof Scientists' version of the regulationsrepresents the state of the art intechnical and scientific areas. In mostinstances, the Preferred Alternative isbased upon the Committee's technical

and scientific recommendations. TheAugust 31, 1978 draft, and theEnvironmental and Timber groups'proposals do not contain the same levelof prescribed precision as the other twoversions because they deal only withtwo specific issues. There was widevariation in the public comments on theAugust draft and the DEIS. Issues raisedby the public were also reviewed by theCommittee of Scientists.

It is possible, as the state of the artevolves in such areas as resourcevaluation, diversity measurements, etc.,that direction will have to be modifiedto accommodate new techniques andapproaches.

Acceptability to the Public: Inevaluating public reaction to alternativeregulations, more than 7,000 separatecomments, as well as the texts ofspecific proposals from the generalpublic, Environmental, Timber. andother Industrial groups, were reviewed(5323 on the first draft, 1581 on theDEIS). In addition, the Committee ofScientists' report proposals wereexamined in depth. All of the aboveinformation was used in alternativeevaluation. While none of thealternative regulation sets will beacceptable to all interested groups, theinterdisciplinary team concludes thatthe Preferred Alternative incorporatesthe most acceptable version to allpublics. This version describes in morespecific language the actions to be takenby the Forest Service during the landmanagement planning process. Thisfactor, coupled with the degree ofenvironmental protection it affords,weighed heavily in identifyingAlternative 8 as the PreferredAlternative.

Achievement of RPA Program GoalsAmenities: Public concern about

environmental protection helped securepassage of the National ForestManagement Act. The alternativesconsidered ranged from considerableflexibility at the national forest level inthe August 31,1978 version, to a moredetailed approach to environmentalprotection proposed by the Committeeof Scientists. Some of the key elementsbetween alternatives were size ofopenings, riparian area protection,determination of lands not suited fortimber management, diversity, publicparticipation, coordination with otherplanning units and interdisciplinaryteams.

The August 31,1978 regulationsprovided considerable discretion inriparian area protection, and provisionsfor diversity. Discretion is also provided

in the Preferred Alternative, thoughsome limits are set. The detail andclarity of requirements mandated in thePreferred Alternative should, however,result in more complete, balancedconsideration for environmentalprotection during the land managementplanning process, and therefore, moreadequately provide for the supply ofamenities than other alternatives.

Timber Supply and OtherCommodities: Many of the provisions ofNFMA may directly effect some RPAprogram goals such as timber supply;others such as diversity and riparianprovisions can indirectly effectprotection and/or production costs ofmost commodity goals.

Some issues assessed affect RPA.timber and other commodity goals indifferent ways. For example, theriparian issue can affect the land baseavailable for grazing domestic livestockand for producing timber. The lands notsuited issue can affect the land baseavailable for timber harvesting. Others,the size of openings for example, mayinfluence wildlife habitat, or theconversion of non-commercial forestlands to production of wildlife anddomestic livestock forage. Opening sizeaffects the cost of harvesting timberbecause marginal timber from smallerareas may be excluded from harvesting.Thus the supply could be reduced,incurring higher prices.

The August 31,1978, version providedmore discretion to the land manager inselection and use of guidelines andcriteria that affect the supply of goodsand services that flow from the NationalForest System lands. Most of the otheralternatives reduce that discretion andconsequently are expected to reducecommodity supply to varying degrees orincrease the cost of maintaining orincreasing the supply of these affectedresources. Overall RPA Programcommodity goals can be achieved withthe Preferred Alternative through moreintensive management of the NationalForest System.

Conformity with Executive Order No.12044: Executive Order No. 12044 directsthat regulations prepared be as simpleand as clear as possible. An evaluationof alternative language sets forregulations display a considerable rangefrom simple to complex descriptions ofdirection and intent. The August 31,1978version of the regulations reflects arather informal process-orientedapproach while other versions, such asthe Committee of Scientists and thePreferred Alternative are more explicit.

While the President's Executive Orderprescribes simplicity and a reduction irimplementation and economic burdr-s, .


53954 Federal 'Register / Vol. 44,No18 MndySetme17199.RusadReltis

it also requires the agency to beresponsive to public commenL TheInterdisciplinary. team found these twodirectives in conflict because the -public,through 'their comments, addressed theneed for regulations to provide morespecific and prescriptive language.

The interdisciplinary team carryingout this -evaluationfelt thfatthe need torespondto public commentwas animpprtant factor. As a result, ma1alternatives tend to be slightlyinflationary because of their overalltendency to increase costs to managethe National Forest System.

Accountability, The xegulations mustclearly state -who is responsible forcertain actions, the mature and-extent-ofresponsibilities delegated, and clearly.describethe appeal mechanisms interms of substance and procedures.

Relative to the :other alternatives, theAugust 31, 1978 draft regulations areconsidered to be weak in this respect.The principal reasons for this-lowranking are: 9

1. August 31, 97,draftimplies that agreat manydecisions will be madeduring the regional planning process, butdoes not specifywhat .the regional planis, or how it will bedone, or -who isresponsible for it.. 2. Draft does not clearly-define therole and responsibility-of theinterdisciplinary leam.

3. With the exception of the regionalplanning shortcoming, the -appealprocedures are adequate. ,

The Environmental Gioups' proposaladdresses accountability in thedepartures-issue. Both the Chief-arid'Secretary are ddentified as responsiblefor-approving-departures. There is,therefore, a high degree of accoutabilityforthis issue. The Timber Groups'alternative does not -alter the draft withrespect to this point. The Committee.ofScientists' proposals add specificationsand requirements for regional planning,interdisciplinary approach and.clarifyig~details to the appeals'process.This alternative is considered to possessa higher egreeof accountability thandoes the August 31, 197,8draft or theTimber.Groups' proposals. Thepubliccomments stressed -the need for moredetails on regional planning and-theinterdisciplinary approach. Suggestedrevisions were similar to those .of the,CommitteeofScientists' alternative. ThePreferred Alternatiye hasincorporatedthe concerns'voiced by fthe Committee -ofScientists and the .public comments.

Capabilityj.to mplement. Theevaluation of feasibility is related.,topersonnel and-skill reguirements, -andthe time required to undertake -andcomplete planning actions:specified.Neither the August 31, 1978 draft

regulatins nor the Timber Groups'proposal wouldsignificantly-affecteither of these factors. TheEnvironmental Groups' alternativewould-require more detailed economicevaluation for lands not suitable fortimber-harvest,.and ajmoredetailed,time-consuming procedure fordepartures. The Environmental Groups'alternative is, therefore, considered tobe somewhat more demanding than theAugust 31, 1978 draft and TimberGroups' -proposal. The .Committee ofScientists alternative is quite demandingas :a T-esilt of:suggested revisions to theinterdisciplinary teim approach,economic analysis requirements,diversity provisions, public paficipationrequirements, coordination, andrequired riparian areas.'Publiccomments indicate the -need for mbreexpanded interdisciplinarytteams,_greater public participation andcoordination,.more detailed:economicanalysis, and longer time limits forpublic Teview:of plans."The publiccomnients on'the firsldraft -and the bEISwere somewhat less demanding than theCommittee of Scientists' alternative, -butmore demanding than the August 31,1978 environmental lor-timber groups'proposals. 'Since the PreferredAlterative largely-reflects theCommittee of Scientist -proposals, 'the

'feasibility of;this ilternativelsconsicdered to'be the'same as for theCom-ittee ol Scientists alternative.

Fle xibility: Flexibility is related-to thedegree io which regdlaitions permit site-specific-management discretion andallowance for exceptional ..circumstances.'Both the August31, 1978draft and the Timber Groups'alternatives are considered to'be highlyflexible, especially with regard toopenings created by nutting, biologicalgrowth minimums for tiniber, andprote'tion standards for.streams and-lakes. The Environmental Groups'alternativeh lighly inflexible with.regard to.minimum biological growthstandards. The Committhe of Scientistsproposal would result in somewhat lessflexibility than he -draft, primarilyas-aresult of the .riparian area requirements.The Committee'sproposals to determinesize opening standardsat the xegionallevel-are identical to those-atf the August31, 1978 draft.Many.publiccommentswere-directed .toward site specificconcerns and were, therefore, highly-inflexible when considered from theviewpoint pf national regulaions. -Alternati=es B, 7, and8 are basedprimarily upon -the revisions ,suggestedby the.Committee of-Scientists and theconcerns voicea throughout the publiccomments. While the Preferred -

Alterntive does not Include a nationalbiological growth minimum for timberharvest, it-does include a number ofdetailed standards including maximumsize for openings created by cutting;riparian protectionarea more detailedrequirements for coordination, publicparticipation, diversity and forest typeconversionsz wilderness managementand roadless area evaluation. As aresult of-these requirements, thePreferred Alternative providescompromise flexibility.

Vii. Consultation with othersOpportunities for public involvement

in the development of the regulationohave been made available beginningwith the enactment of the NFMA in1976. The Work Plan Outline was madeavailable on March 5, 1977. It Identifiedthe tasks to be completed in thedevelopment of the regulations Includingthe opportunity forpublic participationin thd effort.

A Committee of Scientists (seeAppendix D) was appointed by theSecretary of Agriculture In response toSection 6(h) of the Act, which chargedthe Committee to "provide scientific andtechnical advice and counsel opproposed guidelines andprocedures toassure that an effective interdisciplinaryapproach is proposed and adopted."However, the Secretary broadened thischarter to include advice and counsel onall -parts of Section,6,of the Act. TheCommittee met many times in variouslocations !(see Appendix'C). ts workwas conducted in three phases. The firstw;as to work with Forest Servicepersonnel to consider and preparelanguage'for the regulations. This 'phaseterminated-upon publication of he draftregulations 'which appeared in theAugust 31, 1978 Federal 'Register.Thesecond phase of the'Committee's workwas to evaluate the draft regulationsand to-prepare-a reportto the Secratary.This phase was completed when'theCommittee submitted its repo't lortheSecretary on February 22, 1979.'Tho lastphase -was completed with hesubmission of the'Committee's arepot onthe DEIS Prefered AlternativeRegulations,'The first Teport, 'togatherwith -the Committee's proposedregulations, is the basis 'for-theCommittee-of Scientists Alternativediscussed in;theFEIS,'The second reportwas considered as-partof'the entirepublic comment record on the'DEIS.

The public, (State, local officials,interest group representatives -ndothers) was given the opportunity'toattend the Committee Of Scientistsmeetings, and frequently participated inthe'discussions. The complete minutesof all these meetings are available for

53954 Federal Register / Vol. 44, :No. "1,81 :/ M~onday, September 17, 1979 ./ Rules and Regulations


No. 181 1 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53955

review in the Forest ServiceHeadquarters, Land ManagementPlanning. Room A-021, South AgricultureBuilding, 12th ind Independence Ave.S.W., Washington, D.C., and in theLibrary of Congress, and in ForestService Regional Office headquarters.

The public was also given theopportunity to attend other meetingsconvened especially to obtain commentson the August31, 1978 draft regulations.The proceedings of those meetings werepublished and are also available forreview at Forest Service headquarters.The Forest Service received 737 letterscontaining 5,373 identifiable commentsconcerning the August 31, 1978 draftregulations. These letters and commentsare available for review in ForestService Headquarters along with thereport and its summary of the publiccomment analysis. As a consequence ofthis public involvement, it was decidedto revise the regulations and re-issuethem-accompaniid by a draftenvironmental impact statemenL Thecomments, along with the suggestionsreceived through meetings open to thepublic, the work of the Committee ofScientists. and the technical reportsprepared by the Forest Service staff,formed the basis of the alternativesdiscussed in the DEIS which was

published in the Federal Register, VoL40, No. 88. May 4.1979.

Since publication of the DEIS, another245 letters and responses have beenieceived containing 1581 distinctcomments. All have been analyzed andconsidered, including the Committee ofScientists' comments on the DEISPreferred Alternative, during the-preparation of the FETS and the finalregulations identified in the FEIS as theselected Alternative.

All commentors on the DEIS will befurnished a copy of the EIS.Summary of Public Comment Receivedon the DEIS Dated May 4,1979

Appendix "A" contains the list ofindividuals and organizations whosubmitted comments on the DEIS andrelated material which accompanied itin the Federal Register, May 4, 1979.There were 245 submissions whichcontained 1581 distinct comments. Ofthis total, about 1400 comments were*issue oriented, that is, were eitherspecific to the DEIS Draft Regulations orto the issues presented, discussed, andevaluated in the DEIS. The distributionof these comments by source, by sectionof the regulations [preferred alternativein the DEIS), and by other categories isshown in the following table:

Distributoniof Pub Commert on the DEIS and Related Material by Source and Comment Category

Type Of respondentCouentcategory To'

lad~idual Oman:3oa Gov n Foodagesc

Reguilaors219 Prpose. 4 13 8 312192 Scope and appoizc"ty_ 2 3 1 1 7219.3 .Deiions _ _9 36 7 33 85219.4 1>lanrrng . . . 6 26 6 29 67219.5 Regional and forest planning process. 24 e2 W 9 0 161219S interdsci8nary approach 9 16 4 11 40219,7 Ptft.parfipaon 58 45 11 11 125219.8 Coorrinaliof publc planni eftforts 4 12 7 7 302199 Regional pannigrpoaedu. . 5 14 7 29 56219.10 PRenal plarning act.on - 14 39 11 1 82219.11 Ferplar ,wprocedkre 1 5 26 2 33 78219.12 Foes;(axiN actons - 76 181 20 48 _VW219.13 Umgenent standards and uide-

kes 102 129 31 41 3M219.14 Research_ 1 I 2 0 4219.15 tevisoofesgu aDtons 1 4 3 0 a219.16 ?snWonpieod 0 4 0 4

Subtotal ,,,a. . 330 613 138 W85 1.448

Introductorsy natcia in FlEDMAL Raewrcaofayw4. 197 0

0 2 0' 0 2Ues- 8 89 14 0 orCo"ntte ef S a report 1 5 1 0 7Ceea.Jttee of Sanpstspoposed Teguations I 8 0 0 7No section_16 6 4 2 29

Subtotalovar _ 26 88 19 2 13:5Grandse.I 358 701 157 387 1.581

The majority of comments receivedwere in letter form. Most of thecomments were specific and succinct.and addressed only a few concerns, butseveral were, by comparison lengthy.

detailed, and complex. All werereviewed, analyzed, and considered inthe preparation of the FETS.

All comments received are availablefor review at Forest Service

Headquarters in Washington. D.C. Sincethe total submission is so voluminous, itis impractical tareproduce it in theFEIS. The substantive comment is.therefore, presented below in summaryform, organized by sectioncorresponding to the organizationof theproposed regulations. ie. 219.1.219.2.etc.

Summary of Comments by Section

219.1 Purpose

Comments relating to this section ofthe draft regulations concentrated on theneed to include cultural as well asnatural resources and for givingconsideration to renewable as well asnon-renewable resources. A number ofcommenters praised planningcoordination requirements in thissection.

219.2 Scope andApplicabilty

It was suggested that the term"special area authorities- be defined.

219.3 Defintions

Almost every term received comment;however, the majority of response dealtwith the differentiation between"guidelines" and "standards";clarification of "diversity"; and thedefinition of "capability". Severalrespondents questioned the definition or"Responsible Forest Service official".

219.4 Planning Levels

The majority of comments centered onthe process for developing and selectingthe RPA Program -and the relationshipsbetween the Program and the variouslevels of planning. The thrust of mostcomments was that the draft regulationsshould more clearly define theserelationships.

219.5 PJaning CritieraNumerous comments were received

concerning the relationship between theinterdisciplinary team and "theresponsible Forest Service official." Theneed to clarify the definition of"responsible official" was noted. Manycomments dealt with specific criterialisted in the draft regulations:

Economic analysis criteria-Manycommentors pointed out that theeconomic analysis criteria shoulibeestablished as soon as possible.

Data inventory-Most of thesecomments centered around thedetermination of adequacy of the data.data collection procedures,compatability requirements lo obtainuniformity among forests, and 1he needto include criteria for coordination andcooperation with other agencies for datacollection. storage, and evaluation.




Analysis of the managementsituation-it was suggested that theterm "society" be clarified. Numerouscommenters pointed out the problemsassociated with estimating "demand".

Formulation of alternatives. Therequired "No Change" alternative was.considered meaningless by mostcommenters. Concernabout using costeffectiveness asa criteria forformulating alternatives was alsoexpressed. , " - I .,

Estimated effects of alternatives-Most coiments were related toproblems inherent in estimating benefitsand coists. Suggestions were'made foradditional effects to be measured suchas the impact of the plar oh'theexploration and development of mineralresources. A number of commenterssuggested that unconstrained'singleresource outputs (resource outputsignoring other multiple-use ' ....consideration) and multiple-use outputsof each atlernative should be compared.219.6 Interdisciplinpiy'Approach

Responses on this section of theregulations emphasizbd the need-to.establish operating procedures; and tospell out more fully the authority andthe function of the Interdiciplinary ,Team, including'hcw involvement ofstate' and local agencies will beimcorporated. 'Oier comments dealtwith the 'need to Add other'disciplinesand private citizenstd the team. Somecommenters suggested that privatesector contract consulting should beemphasized in the regulations.219.7 Public participation.

The majority of comments on thissection of the draft regflations dealtwith the proposed changes in theappeals process. Almost all commentersdisagreed with these proposed changes. -Numerous suggestions were received onmethods of public involvement and'notification. The use of the'term "to 'theextent possible" was questioned. Mostcomments suggested that this w6 asinappropriate and should be eliminatedin this context. Many commenters feltthat '15 days public notice for publicparticipation activities for forest levelplanning activities was 'inadequate.

219.8 Coordination of Public PlanningEfforts

The majority of comments expressedagreement with thig section of the diaftregulations; however, some commenters"did point out that state and localcoordination in the easteinUriitedStates would be extremely'diffi6ult andtime consuming because of the greaternumber of state and local agencies.

219.j Regional Planning Proteduie

Several comnmenters suggested thatthe proposed regulations do notadequately deal with visual resources orunquantified environmental amienities.Other connents discussed potenlialproblems associated with record ofdecision, the transition period betweenforest plans developed prior to-regionalplans, and the standards for determining"signficiant deviation" between regionalplans and the national piogram fundingor implementation.

219.10 "Criteria for RegioialPlonningActions

Many commenters noted that the list -of managementconcerns'did not includewilderness considerations, meeting theRPA program, or visual 6r inieralresource.concerns. It was suggested thatthese be included. A number ofcommenters advocated the - ,"establishment of a definite minimum peracre growth figure for timber harvesting.A minimum of fifty cubic feet pOr'acreper year was mentioned most often.Response to the clearcut size issue wasmixed. In addition to pro and'con ,comnients regarding the level (nationalor regional) at which size limits shouldbe set, there were a number ofcomments regarding the actuil size

'limits themselves. Several'commentSstated that the draft regulations impliedthat little o no new data would be "gathered and asked for clarfidation ofthis point. There was some confusion asto whether or not regional-planningcame before forest planning.

219.11 -Forest Planning ProceduresSeveral commenters expressed the

opinion that the,"forest plan content"should require detailed.maps of theplanning area including existingresources and existing and plannedactivities. Comments on documentationrequirements indicated a concern thatflexibility of line officers would be'seriously and adversely effected byhav',ng to document and justify everyaction. The use of the term "significantchange" in the discussion of forest planamendments andrevisions was,questioned by several commenters. Itwas suggested that additional clarfiyinglanguage be included for this point.219.12 Criteria for Forest PlanningActions

Approximately 20 percent of all.comments receiyed dealt with thissection of the proposed regulations.Most of these were directed to two-issues:"lands not suitable for timber"and "departures." Many commentersrecommended that a national ininmuih'

biological growth standard be 'established to use in the determinationof lands suitable for timber. It wassuggested that 50 cubic feet per acre per,year might be an appropriate standard.Others were concerned that timberharvesting on steep slopes was notspecifically prohibited. Manycommenters objected to the provisionthat lands would be classified asunsuitable if, based on multiple-useobjectives, the land was suitable forresource uses that would precludetimber production. Numerouscommenters recommended that theregulations clearly state that benefitsmust exceed costs in order for lands tobe suitable for timber production,Several comments raised the question ofrestocking of timber lands. The,proposed regulations state that landsWill be considered suitable for timberproduction if there is "assurance thatsuch lands can be adequately restockedwithin 5 years." There was somespeculation as to the exact meaning ofthis provision. It was suggested that thislanuage be clarified, It wasreconmended that "direct benefits" not-be measured in terms of "futurestumpage prices", but rather, benefits

'should be net receipts on returns to thetreasury.

The treatment of the departures issuewas sharply criticized. It was suggested'repeatedly thatthe justifications shownfor departures were inappropriate andperhaps illegal. Most commentersasserted that departures may beconsidered only to the meet multiplo-useobjecties of a plan.

Some 6ommenters on the wildernessplanning provisions of this sectionsuggested that the exclusion of RARE IInon-wilderness lands from the firstforest plans was inappropriate. Somefelt that there was a need to specificallyconsider areas which were notinventoried during RARE II. There werea number of comments criticizing theabsence of mineral exploration anddevelopment considerations from this,section, A nuipber of commentersexpressed their agreement and supportof the proposed regulations. '

Comments on the fish and wildlifeprovisions of this section'were directedmainly toward questions regardingindicator species. Many commenterssuggested that the language he clarfiedto insure that invertebrates may be usedas indicator species. A number ofrespondents agreed with the provisionfor using state lists for threatened andendangered plants and animal speciesas a -basis for identifying indicatorspecies.

Most of the comments recqivedregarding mineral exploration and


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53957

development weire sharply critical of theproposed regulations. The Majorcriticism was that the proposed rules didnot adequately insure that theseconsiderations would be givenappropriate weighting in the actualdecision process. Similar criticisms weremade concerning the treatment ofrangeland -esources, recreation, soil andwater, and visual resources.

219.13 Man agementStandards andGuidelines

Approximately .20 percent of allcomments received dealt with thissection of the proposed regulations.Most of the comments on this sectionwere concerned with two issues:Maximum size limits for tree openingsand riparian protection strips. The largenumber of comments received on theseissues indicate that they continue to bethe most controversial issues raised bythe proposed regulations.

The comments on clearcut size areabout evenly divided between thosewho oppose the national limitsestablished in the proposed regulationsand those who are in favor of theselimits. The most frequent criticismraised by those who opposed thenational limits was that there was littleor no justification established for the100-, 60-, and 40-acre limits. This wasconsidered to be a major omission,especiallyin view of the Committee ofScientists' recommendation againstsetting national limits of any kind.Almost all of those apposed to thesenational size limits snggested that theCommittee of Scientists'recommendations be adopted in thefinal regulations. A number ofcommenters opposed the national limitson thegrounds that the maximum sizesallowed were too large. It wasfrequently suggested that maximum sizefor all areas be set as 40 acres orsmaller. Several commenters wereconcerned that if the size limits -were setnationally, then all clearcuts would tendto'be the maximum size allowed. Someasserted that the 40-acre size limit forthe east and south would result ingreatly xeduced future timber volumesavailable for sale. The 100-acre sizelimit for the Alaska region receivedsevere riticism. It was suggested thatthe limits should be at least 160 acres forAlaska. It should be reiterated thatpublic comment -on this issue was ratherevenly divided between those whoopposed the draft language and those.who Were in agreement. Generally.those who expressed agreement gavetheir unqualifimd support and frequentlypraised the treatment of this issue in theproposed regulations.

The types of comments receivedconcerning the riparian protection stripswere similar to those dealing with theclearcut size issue. That is, commentswere about equally divided pro and con,and most were either strongly in favoror strongly opposed. Severalcommenters expressed the opinion thatthe 100 foot strip could be interpreted asa maximum distance and-suggested thatthe language be clarified to clearlyindicate that it was not the maximum. Itwas suggested that the riparian buffersshould include seasonal as well asperennial streams.

Numerous commenters responded tothe diversity provisions of this section.While most commenters appeared toagree with the intent of this provision,some concern was expressed regardingthe use of the term 'desirable" plant andanimal species. The-meaning of theword "desirable" in this context wasquestioned. Several commenters whoappeared to agree with the diversityprovisions also warned that thelanguage used might result in asubstantial additional work burden forthe Forest Service as well as limitingmanagement flexibility. There -weremany comments suggesting that thediversity provisions should bestrengthened.

Other comments included suggestionsto require consideration of fuel andenergy requirements in the planningprocess, rangeland and range use, andtimber removal on steep slopes. The 10-year maximum time for re-establishingvegetative cover disturbed by temporaryroads was considered to be too lengthly.

219.14 ResearchThere were relatively fewcomments

on this section of the regulations.Several commenters expressed concernthe regulations do not specificallyidentify basic research as a valid andequal use of the NFS.219.15 Revision of Regulations

The recommendation was made thatall revisions to the regulations beaccompanied by an EnvironmentalImpact Statement. It was agreed that the5-year review interval of the regulationswas appropriate.

219.16 Transition Pe-riodThere were few comments on this

section of the regulations. Onecommenter suggested that clarifyinglanguage be added to further explain theprocess to be used during the transitionperiod.

VUL Appendix IndexAppendix A:Listof Commentors of the

August 31,1978-Draft Regulations

published in the Federal Register. VoL43, No. 170. and onthe DEIS andPreferred Alternative (Regulations)published in the Federal Register. Vol.44. No. 88, May 4,1979.

Appendix B: PlanningProcess SystemsConsidered.

Appendix C: Dates and locations ofCommittee Meetings, and other PublicMeetings.

Appendix D: Names and Affiliations ofthe Committee of Scientists appointedby the Secretary as requiredanderNFMA. Section 6(h).

Appendix E. Supplementary FinalReport of the Committee of Scientists.

Appendix F: Table of Contents andindex for final regulations. Forpurposes of the Federal Register theregulations follow the Appendix.

Appendix AEveryone who commented on the

August draft received a copy of'heiDEISand relate materiaL The attached listindicates those who commentedon theAugust 31,1978 draft and the DEIS andrelated material. The lattergroup. thosewho commented or otherwise requestedmaterial in the May 4,1979 FederalRegister, are indicated by an asteriskFederal/State/Local GovemmentFederal GovernmentAgriculture. U.S.Dept. of'Soil Conservation Soil. Box 2007

Albuquerque. NM 8103.'Soil Conservation Service. 3041L xthStreet,

Room 345. Boise. ID 13702.Commerce. U.S. Dept. ofNational Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm..

National Marine Fisheries Service, FT,Washington. D.C. 20235

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin..Northeast Region, Fisheries ManagementOperations Br. Gloucester, MA m930.

'Council on Environmental Quality,72zJackson Place NW.. Washington. D.C.20000.

Environmental Protection Agency. Office orFederal Activities (A-104), Washington,D.C. 20460.

Interior. U.S. Dept. of the*Ofice of the SecretaryBureau of Land Manaaement'Bureau of MinesBureau of ReclamationOffice of Environmental Project ReviewUS. Fish & Wildlife ServiceHCRS, Federal Lands PlanningHeritage Conservation &Recreation Service,

Washington. D.C. 20243*Bureau of Land Management 36 E. South

Temple, Salt Lake City. uT 84111.Transportation. US. Dept ofFederal Highway Administration.

Washington, D.C. 200.Honorable Dale Bumpers, UnltedStates

Senate. Washington. D.C. 20510.



Honorable Thomas S.Foley, House ofRepresentatives, Washington, D.C. 20515.

Honorable Jim Weaver, House ofRepresentatives, Washington, D.C. 20515.

The Library of Congress, Environment andNatural Resources, Congressional ResearchService, Washington, D.C. 20540.

Smithsonian Institute Bldg. Wilson Center(Samuel Hays), Washington, D.C. 20560.

State abd Local GovernmentAlaska, State of ,-

.Office of the Goverhor,.Division of PolicyDevelopment & Planning, Pouch AD,Juneau, AK 99811.

Arizona, State ofState Land Dept., Conservation Division, 1624

W. Adams, Phobnix, AZ 85007.Colorado, State ofDept. of Natural Resohrces, 1313 Sherman St.,

Rm 718, Denver, CO 80203.*Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of

Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO80216.

Florida, State ofFlorida Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm., 620

S. Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32304.Georgia, State of*Department of Natural Resources,-270

Washington St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30334.Idaho, State ofDept. of Fish and Game, 600 S. Walnut Street,

Boise, ID 83707.Louisiana, State ofWildlife and Fisheries Comm., 400 Royal

Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.Michigan, State ofChamber of Commerce, Natural Resources

Programs, 501 S. Capitol Ave., Suite 50R.Lansing, MI 48933.

Montana, State ofDept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Division,

Helena, MT 59601.Nevada, State ofGovernor's Office of Planning Cqordination,

Capitol Complex, Carson City, NV 89710.Dept. of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 10678,

Reno, NV 89510.New Mexico, State of*Dept. of Natural Resources. Santa Fe. NM

87503.Oregon, State ofDept. of Forestryi Office of State Forester,

2600 State Street, Salem, OR 97310.Utah, State of*Office -of the Governor, Salt Lake City, UT

84114. ,State Planning Coordinator, 118 State Capitol,

Salt Lake City, UT 84114.Washington, State of -Office of the Governor, Legislative Bldg.,

Olympia, WA 98504.Dept. of Game. Dept. of Natural Resources,

.600 North Capitol Way, Olympia, WA98504.

Buncombe County Soil & Water ConservationDistrict, P.O. Box 2836, Asheville, NC28802.

Council of State Governments, P.O. Box11910, Lexington. KY 40578.

Denver Water.Dept.,. 1600 W. 12th Avenue,Denver, CO 80254:

East Central Planning &'Dev. Region, Chief/Comprehensive Studies Div., P.O. Box 930,Siginaw, MI 48606. •

Elko County Manger; Elko CountyCourthouse, Elko, NV 89801.

Western States Legislator, Forestry TaskForce, 1107 9th St., Suite 614, Sacramento,CA 95814.

Barbara Tucker, State of Connecticut Senate,State Capitol, Hartford, CT 06615.

Senator Bbb Lessard, Senate District 3, StateCapitol, Rm 24H, St. Paul, MN 55155.

Senator Ivan M. Matheson, Utah StateSqnate, Salt Lake City, UT 84114.

OrganizationsA. C. Dutton Lumber Corp. (Arthur D.

Dutton), 12 Raymond Avenue,Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 '

Alaska Loggers Association (Donald A. Bell),111 Stedman, Suite 200, Ketchikan, AK99901.

Alaska Lumber & Pulp Co., Inc. (J. A.Rynearson), P.O. Box 1050, Sitka, AK 99835.

Alaska Women in Timber (Helen Finney), 111Stedman Street. Ketchikan, AK 99901.

Allied Timiber Company (Don Shalope], 2300Southwest 1st Ave., Portland, OR 97201.

Alpine Lakes Protection Society (DonaldParks], 3127 181st Avd., NE, Redmond, WA98052.

*AMAX (Stanley Dempsey), 13949 W. ColfaxAve., Bldg. #1, Golden, CO 80401.

American Forestry Association (RichardPardo), 1319 18th St., NW, Washington,D.C. 20036.

Americin Hardwood Industries, Inc. (CharlesJ. Hamlin), Sixth Avenue Union City, PA16438.

*American Indian Law Center, Inc. (VickySantana), 1117 Stanford, NE, Albuquerque,NM 87196.

American Petroleum Institute (C._T. Saw yer &Wilson M. Laird), 2101 L Street, NW,Washington, D.C. 20037.

American Plywood Association (M. J.Kfiehne), P.O; Box 2277, Tacoma, WA98401.

*Animal Protection Institute of America(Belton Mouras & Richard Spotts], 5894South Land Park Drive, P.O. Box 22505,Sacramento, CA 95822..

Appalachian Hardwood Manageient, Inc.(James L Grundy), P.O. B6x 427. HighPoint NC 27261.

Appalachian Mountain Club (Sara H.Surgenor), 5 Joy Street. Bostdn,MA 02108.

Arcata Redwood (Terence L. Ross), P.O. Box218, Arcata, CA 95521.

Arroyo Grande,Resource Conserv. Dist.(William L Denneen), P.O. Box 548, ArroyoGrande, CA 93420.

Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. (Jay M.Caudill), Box 902,5, Aspen, CO 81611.

*Atlantic Richfield Company (J. R. Mitchell &Clarie Mosley), 555 17th Street, Denver, CO81611.

Basin Electric'-Power Corp. (Clarence A.Bind), 1717 E. Interstate Ave., Bismark, ND58501.

Bell-Gates Lumber Corp. (Jerrol A. Gates),Jeffersonville, VT 05464.'

Boating Industry Association (Jeff W.Napier), I N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 1l160611.

Bohemia' Inc., P.O'. Box 202 , Grass Valley,CA 95045.

Booker Associates, Inc. (Peter F. Jackson), 343Waller Avenue, Lexington, KY 40504.

Boyd Lumber Corp. (Butch Koykka), P.O, Box112, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284,

Brady, Blackwell Associates, P.C. (LarryResentreter), 520 E. 18th, Cheyenne, WY82001.

Brookings Plywood Corporation (Robert L.Rogers), P.O. Box 820, Brooklngs, OR 07415.

Brown-Bledsoe Lumber Co. (John C,Baskerville, Jr.), P.O. Box 10090,Greensboro, NC 27404,

Brunswick Pulp Land Co. (C. H. Martin), P.O.Box 860, Brunswick, GA 31520.'

Burlington Northern (S, G. Merryman), 050Central Bldg., Seattle, WA 98104,

Burrill Lumber Co. (Daniel E. Goltz), P.O. Box220,MaMdford, OR 97501.

Buse Timber & Sales, Inc. (Ron Smith), 381228th Place, N.E., Marysville, WA 0270.

California Assoc. of 4WD Clubs, Inc. (EdDunkley), P.O. Box 609, Sacramento, CA95803.

California Trout (Herbert I. loseph), 1510Napa Street, Vallejo, CA 94590.

Canal Wood Corporation (N. V.Chamberlain), P.O. Box 308, Chester, SC29706.

*Cascade'Holistic Economic Consultants(Randal O'Toole), P.O. Box 3479, Eugene,OR 97403.

Central lbascades Conservation Council(Tony George], P.O. Box 731, Salam, OR97308.

Chaco Energy Co. (J. W. Delchmann), P.O.Box 1088, Albuquerque, NM 87103,

Champion International Corp. (GordonCrupper), P.O. Box 1208, Salmon, ID 03407.

Champion Timberlands (L Heist), ILandmark Square, Stanford, CT 00921.(Richard A. Sirken), 405 Norway Street,Norway, MI 49870. ,

Chemeketans (W. B. Eubanks), 3601/2 StateStreet, Salem, OR 97301.

Chevron, USA, Inc. (L C. Solleau Il], 675Market Street, San Francisco, CA 04105.

*Citles Service Company (Catherine Perman),Box 300, Tulsa, OK 74102.

Citizen's Committee to Save Our PublicLands (Ellen Drell), P.O. Box 1471, Willta,CA 95490.

Citizens for N. Idaho Wilderness (JohnAdams), Route 2, Culdesac, ID 83524,

Clearwater Forest Industries (Robert H.Krogh), P.O:Box 340, Kooskia, ID 83539,

Colorado Mining Association (David R. Cole),330 Denver Hilton Office Bldg., 1515Cleveland Place, Denver, CO 80202.

Columbia Audubon Society (Charles H.Eastman), 4805 Barber Street, Columbia, SC29203.

Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Dan Meyer), P.O.Box 50,'Wiscohsin Rapids, WI 64494.

ContinentalrForest Industries Ui. 0. Cantrell),P.O. Box 8969, Savannah, GA 31402.

Day Mines, Inc. (Warren A. Cohen), PO. Box1010, Wallace, ID 83873.

Defenders of Wildlife (Sara Polenick), 0101Griffin Lane, Medford, OR 97501.

*Pesigning With Nature R. L. Elkum), Box'527, Moose Lake, MN 55767.


No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53959

Diamond Internatonal Corp. (Roger A. Race).New York Woodlands Dept., Plattsburgh.NY 12901.

DuPage Audubon Society (Lisa Zebrowskij,27 W. 722 Elm Drive, West Chicago, IL60185.

'Eagle Valley Environmentalists (GilbertWalter). P.O. Box 155, Apple River, IL61001.

East Central Idaho Planning & DevelopmentAssn., P.O. Box 330; Rexburg, ID 83440.

*Ecology Action for Rhode Island (ElizabethSchiller). 286 Thayer Street. Providence. RI02906.

Edward Hines Lumber Co.(Gilbert W. Zieman & Jane E. Booth). 200

South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604.*(Paul F. Ehinger & William F. Berry), 1500

Valley River Dr., Suite 240, Eugene: OR97401.

'(Jack Heaston), P.O. Box 227, John Day, OR97845.

(John J. Mahon), P.O. Box 808, Saratoga, WY82331.

Ellingson Lumber Co. (John M. Brown, P.O.Box 866, Baker, OR 97814.

Elsa Wild Animal Appeal (Karen Johnston).P.O. Box 4572,-North Hollywood, CA 91607.

Environmental Action of Michigan, Inc. (Alex,Sagadz), 409 Seymour, Lansing, MI 48933.

-Environmental Defense Fund (KathleenZimmerman), 152518th Street NW,Washington, DC 20036.

Environmental Impact Services (MarkBrosseau}, 3815 East Bellevue, Tucson, AZ85716.

'Environmental Information Center (NoelRosetta), Box 12, Helena, MT 59601.

Evansville Veneer & Lumber Co. (John C.Ackerman), 100 South Kentucky Ave.,Evansville, IN 47714.

Exeter Exploration Company (Jean Enstrom).P.O. Box 17349, Denver, CO 80217

Exxon-USA (H. W. Hardy), P.O. Box 2180.Houston, TX 77001.

Far West Ski Association (Nancy J.Ingalsbee], 3325 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1340.Los Angeles, CA 99010.

Federal Timber Purchasers Assoc.(James R. Craine, 3900 S. Wadsworth Blvd.,

Suite 201, Denver, CO 80235.(Erwin Kulosa), P.O. Box 14429, Albuquerque.

NM 87191.*Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs (Dixie

Boade). P.O. Box 71, Petersburg, AK 99833.(Karen M. Fant), 5119 27th, NE, Seattle, WA

98105.Finch. Pruyn & Co., Inc. (Norwood W.

Olmsted), Glens Falls, NY 12801.Fly Fishermen for Conservation, Inc. (Karl

Klavon), 6628 N. Barton, Fresno, CA 93710.Forest Engineers, Inc. (S. A. Newman), P.O.

Box 156, Everett. WA 98208.Forest Land Services, Inc. (James S. Paxton).

P.O. Box 1211, Elkins, WV 26241.*Forest Service Timber Purchasers Council

(Everett Wells), c/o Georgia Pacific Corp..P.O. Box 407, Glenwood, AR 71943.

Fourply, Inc. (Dee W. Sanders), P.O. Box 890.Grants Pass, OR 97526.

Friday Harbor Laboratories (GeraldAudesirk, Friday Harbor, WA 98250.

Friends of the Earth

(Gordon Robinson], 124 Spear, San Francisco.CA 94105.

(Margie Ann Gibson] Northwest Office. 4512University Way, NE., Seattle. WA 98105.

Friends of Wildlife (Beula Edmiston). 14 W.Markland Dr.,'Monterey Park. CA 91754.

Greater Snake River Land Use Congress (BillRyan), P.O. Box 90,. Boise. ID 83701.

Group Against Smog and Pollution (PatriciaB. Pelkofer, P.O. Box 5165. Pittsburgh. PA15206.

Gulf Lumber Co.. Inc. (Billy Stimpson). P.O.Box 1663. Mobile. AL 36601.

"Hammermill Paper Co.. P.O. Box 1440. Erie.PA 16533.

Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. (John C. Hampton).Terminal Sales Bldg., Portland. OR 97205.

Herbert Lumber Company (Lynn Herbert),P.O. Box 7, Riddle, OR 97469.

Hines Lumber Co. (Julian H. Bucher). P.O.Box 484, Kremmling. CO 80459.

Hitchcock & Pinkstaff (John W. Hitchcock).P.O. Box 57, 419 East 6th Street.McMinnville. OR 97128.

Hocking Valley Rack Shop (Greg Vicker).4650 Columbus-Lancaster Rd. NTW. Carroll.OH 43112.

*Hood Canal Environmental Council (DonnaSimmons], P.O. Box 120. Hoodsport. WA98548.

Idaho Conservation League (Pat Ford). Box844, Boise, ID 83701.

Idaho Environmental Council (Gerald A.Jayne) P.O. Box 1708. Idaho Falls, ID 83401.

Idaho Mining Association (A. 1. Teske), P.O.Box 1738, Boise. ID 83701.

Idaho Pole Company

(J. R. McFarland). 227 S. First. Sandpoint. ID83864.

(Art Crane), Box 1129, Bozeman. MT 59715.Idaho Stud Mill (Gordon Wilson]. P.O. Box

167, St. Anthony. ID 83445.Idaho Study Group [Lee Miler). 215 4th

Street. Lewiston. ID 83501.Idaho Trails Council (Bernice E. Paige), Route

5. Box 59. Idaho Falls. ID 83401.Independent Petroleum Association (Jack M,

Allen]. P.O. Box 1046. Perryton. TX 78070.'Industrial Forestry Association (N. E.

Bjorklund}. 225 S. W. Broadway. Rm 400,Portland. OR 97205.

'Inquiring Systems. Inc. (David Kafton, 2532Durant Ave.. Suite 250, Berkeley, CA 94704.

'Institute for Forest Ecosystems Decisions(Richard Field & Peter Dress. ForestrySciences Laboratory, Carlton Street.Athens. GA 30602.

International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife (AnneErdman). 1412 16th Street NW.,Washington. DC 20030.

International Ecology Society (R. J. Kramer).1471 Barclay Street. SL Paul MN 55106.

International Paper Co.

(H. S. Winger). P.O. Box 2328. Mobile. AL36601.

(W. R. Richardson, Jr.). P.O. Box 549, PanamaCity, FL 32401.

(Charles W. Compton), P.O. Box 400.Richmond Hill, GA 31324.

*International Snowmobile Industry Assoc.(Derrick Crandall), Suite 850 South. 1800 MStreet NW., Washington. DC 20036.

Irrigation Association (Jean Roper. 13975Connecticut Avenue. Silver Spring, MD20906.

lzaak Walton League of America (LorenHughes & Bill Fleischman) (Union CountyChapter), LaGrande. OR 97850. -

J. Gibson Mcllvain Co. Route 7, WhiteMarsh, MD 2116z.

James W. Sewall Co. (Robert B. Fiske). Box433. Old Town. Maine 04468.

'John Muir Institute (Henry H. Carey), Box4551. Santa Fe. NM 87502.

Kern Plateau Association. Inc. (R. -L Doody),153 Mankins Circle. Porterville. CA 93257.

'Kentucky Rivers Coalition (Kevin Murphy),P.O. Box 1308. Lexington. KY 40590.

Kinzva Corporation (Allen R. Nistad). Route2 Box 2100. Heppner. OR 97836.

Kogap Lumber Industries (S. V. McQueen &Jerry S. Lausmanni. P.O. Box 1608.Medford. OR 97501.

L D. McFarland Co. (D. R. Netrol. P.O. Box670. Sandpoint. [D 83864.

Lake Pleasant Forest Products Corp. (DeanHum. P.O. Box 149. Beaver. WA 98305.

'Lane County Audubon Society (SydneyHerbiert). P.O. Box 506& Eugene. OR 97405.

League of Women Voters*(Ruth Hinefeld & Lee Carpenterl. 1730 M

Street NW, Washington. DC 20036.League of Women Voters of California (loan

Rich), 942 Market St. Suite 505. SanFrancisco. CA 94102

League of Women Voters of Florida (LoisHarrison), 1035-S South Florida Avenue.Lakeland. FL 3380.

League of Women Voters of lodiana (NancyDoemel], RR 8. Oak Hill Road.Crawfordsville. IN 47933.

League of Women Voters of'Pennsylvania(Margot Hunt]. 8th & Market Streets.Philadelphia, PA 29103.

League of Women Voters of Tennessee(Shirley C. Patterson). 1701 Zlst Avenue,South. Suite 404. Nashville. TLN 37212.

(Caroline Williams. 6903 Hickory View LanChattanooga. TN 37421.

(Carla M. Hansmannj. 1496 18th Avenue.Seattle, WA 98122.

*Louisiana-Pacific Corporation(Lloyd Jones & D. L Finney). P.O. Box 6600.

Ketchikan. AL 99901.(Philip V. Petersen & Lowell Ambrosini), P.O.

Box 120. Ukiah. CA 95482.(Theresa L Brass). P.O. Box 756. Escanaba.

M1 49829.(Kent Studebaker). 1300 SW Fifth Avenue.

Portland. OR 97201.M. A. Rigoni. Inc.. 215 Sunset Lane. Perry. FL

32347.M. L King Co. (Frederick %%. King). P.O. Box

456. Joplin, MO 64801.M. S. Hancock. Inc. (K. David Hancock).

Casco, Maine 04015.Massachusetts Audubon Society (Deborah N.

Howard). Lincoln. MA 01773.Mauk Forest Products. Inc. CF. L Young). P.O.

Box 430. Meridian. MS aw0Mead (Darrel F. Roberts). World

Headquarters. Courthouse Plaza N..Dayton. OH 45463.

'MECCA Wildlife Task Force (Bette Kent).5913 Ewing Ave. South. Minneapolis, NV55410.

*Mendocino Environment Center (TomWodetzkl). Box 557. Mendocino, CA 95460.

Merrill & Ring, Inc. (Glenn Wiggins). P.O. Box30, Port Angeles. WA 98382.

.Federal Register / Vol. 44,


53960 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September' 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Metropolitan Area Planning Council(Alexandra D-iDawson), 44 School Street,Boston, MA 02108.

*Michigan Forest Association (BarbaraClark), P.O. Box 1064, Traverse City, MI49684.

Michigan United Conservation Clubs (DennisFijalkowski), P.O. Box 30235, 1ansingM148909.

Minnesota Forest Industries (M. 1. Latimer,908 Pioneer Bldg.,'St. Paul,,MN 55101.

Montana'Pole & Treating Plant (William C.Dockins), P.O. Box 3506, Butte, MTr 59701.'

'Montana Wilderness Association (DorisMilner), Route 1, Box 1410, Hamilton, MT59840.

*Motorcycle Industry Council. Inc. (John F.Wetzel), 1 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite522, Washington, DC.20036.

National Audubon Society {Michael D.Zagata), 1511 K Street NW., Washington,DC 20005.

*National Audubon-Society (Pauline Plaza),9250 W. 5th Avenue, Lakewood. CO 80226.

National Catholic Rural Life Conference(Bishop Maurice J..Bingman], 3801 GrandAvenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50312.

*National Forest Products Association (JohnCrowell, Ralph D. Hodges and DougMacCleery), 1619 Massachusetts Ave., NW,Washington, DC20036.

National Governors' Association (Robert N:Wise), Hall of the States, 444 N, Capitol.Street, Washington, DC 20001.

National Lumber & Building Material DealersAssociation (Richard D. Snyder), 1990 MStreet, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC20036.

*National Wildlife Federation (Peter Kirby &Thomas Kimball),1412 16th Street, NW,Washington, DC-20036.

*Natural Resources'Defense Council, Inc.

(Tom Barlow,& Toni Stoel]. 917-15th Street;NW, Washington, DC 20005.

(Trent Orr), 2345 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA94306.

New England Power Service (Gordon E.Marquis), 20 Turnpike Road, Westborough,MA 01581.

New England Trail Rider Association (DavidSanderson), P.O. Box 66, West NewburyMA 01985.

New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee(Bob Langsenkamp], P.O. Box 81, SilverCity, NM 88061.

*Northwest Pine Association

(Charles Arment), 415 NE Burgess Place,'Bend, OR 97701.

(Scott Horngren), 238 Peyton Bldg., Spokane,WA'99201,'

'Northwest Timber Association (MartinDevere), 1355 Oak Street, P.O. Box 5554,Eugene, OR 97405.

Oregon Archeological Pres. Comm, (Irene H.Warner), 19790 S. Old River Drive, WestLinni, OR 97068.

Oregon Student Public Interest Research,Group (Kirk Roberts), 918 S. W. Yamhfll,Portland, OR 97205.

Oregon Wilderness Coalition (Andy Kerr,'P.O. Box 3006, Eugene, 'OR 97403.,

Outdoors Unlimited, Inc.(Roberta Andersen), Two Clocktower Square,

14221 E. 4th Ave., Suite 220, Aurora, CO80011. ,

(Rme Kohrt), P.O. Box 167, St. Anthony, ID83445.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. (J.-G. Barton), P.O. Box 1,Big Island, VA 24526. .

*Ozark-Mahoning Co. (M. L. Hahn),Rosiclare, IL 62982.

Pacific Management Group, Wells FargoBldg., 2140 Shatlack Avenue, Berkeley, CA94704.

*Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Assn. (BillLarldn), 3205 Butterfield Rd., Yakima, WA9890.1. I

*Packaging Corporation of America (RobertF. Davis), P.O. Box 316, Manistee, MI 49660.

Paul Bunyan Lumber Company (MiltonSchultz & R. H. Richards, Jr.), P.O. Drawer'487)Anderson, CA 96007.

Placer County Conservation Task Force(Gayle Russell), 460 Racetrack Street,Alibum, CA 95603.

Potlatch Corporation

(Richard V. Warner & C. R. McKinley], P.O.Box 390, Warren, AR 71671.

(R. M. Steele, 1'.O. Box 3591, San Franiisco,CA 94119.

*(Jay Gr~enfeld, Jim McNutt, James Morrisand Mary Lou Franzese, P,O. Box 1016,Lewiston, ID 83501.

(Thomas Smrekar),Box510, Cloquet, MN55720,

*Public Lands Institute (Todd Bacon), 1740High Street, Denver, CO 80218."

*Public Lands (Omer Humble), 330 DenverHilton Office Bldg., 1515 Cleveland Place,Denver, CO 80202.

Puget Sound Plywood, Inc. (G. C. Carver),P.O. Box 1378, Tacoma, WA 98401.

*Resources for the Future (John Krutilla), 1755Massachusetts Ave.. NW, Washington, DC

. 20036.Robert F. Knoth & Co., 134 F. Bay Street,

Charleston, SC 29401. # IRocky Mountain Energy Co. (Elizabeth H.

Richardson 4704 Harlan, Denver, CO80212.

*Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Asociation(Jack Swenson, 345 Petroleum Club Bldg.,Denver, CO 80202.

*Saint Joe Minerals Corp. (Harold Myers),P.O. Box 500, Viburnum. MO 65566.

St. Regis Lumber (William B. Ward),Klicldtat, WA 98628.

St. Regis Paper Co.

(John K. McBride), P.O. Box V-X, Libby, MT59923.

(H. D. Plillips, Deferiet, NY 13628.(R. A. Martin],P.O. Box1593, Tacoma, WA

98401.Schnabel Lumber Co. (John J. Schnabel), P.O.

Box 129, Haines, AK 99827.Scott Paper Co.(H. D. Fisher]; Scott Plaza, Philadelphia, PA

19113.(Kurt Munnich), Everett, WA 98201.Seaboard Lumber Co. CD, E. Dyson). PO. Box

3603, Seattle, WA 98124.*Sierra Club--Legal Defense Fund,'Inc.

(Julie E. McDonald), 311 California Street,Suite 311, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Bloomington Group (Paul Hughes), P.O. Box961, Bloomington, IN 47401,

*Florida Chapter (Doug Alderson, 2311Mavis Circle. Tallahassee, FL 32301.

Harvey Broome Group (Sharon Simpson) 144Fox Road, Knoxville, TN 37922.

*Ozark Chapter (Roy Hengerson, 707Clayton, Columbia, MO 65201.

*Rocky'Mountain Chapter (Connally Moarsand Mary E. Hays), 1627 Vine Street,Denver, CO 80200.

Santa Lucia Chapter (Jan Clucas), 1727Corralitos Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA93401.

Upper Missouri Group (Jack Schmidt, 1012Billings Avenue, Helena, MT 59601.

Utah Chapter (Brian Beard), 93 East 1stSouth, Logan, UT 84321.

Wyoming Chapter (Ken Morgan), Box 580,Kemmerer, WY 83101,

Shell Oil Company (D. E. Clark) P.O, Box 570,Houston, TX 77001.

Simpson Timber Company

(Max Schmidt, Jr. & Starr WReed). 900 4thAvenue, Seattle, WA 98164.

(George A. Adams), Shelton, WA 98584.*Society for Americarn Archeology (Fred

WerdorO, Southern Methodist University,Dept. of Anthropology, Dallas, TX 75275,

Society for the Protection of New HampshireForests (Paul 0. Bofinger), 5 South StateStreet, Concord, NH 03301.

*Society of American Foresters (W. S.Bromley & B. L. Orell], 5400 GrosvenorLane, Washington, D.C. 20014.

*Society for Range Management (LorenzBredemeir, 2760 W 5th Avenue, Denver,CO 80204.

South Carolina Environmental Coalition (BillFrye), P.O. Box 5761. Columbia, SC 29250.

South Fork Watershed Association (RobertA. Barnes], P.O. Box 749, Porterville, CA93258.

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc.(Leonard Steinberg), Box 2770, Juneau, AK99803.

Southeast Lumber Manufacturers Assoclation(Robert L. Davis), P.O. Box 87175, CollegePark, GA 30337.

Southern Idaho Forestry Association (RandyHarris), Box 1091. Boise, ID 83701.

Sun Studs, Inc. (Fred Sohn, P.O. Box 1127,Roseburg, OR 97470.

SWF Plywood Company (Stanley A. Vail,P.O. Box 68, Burnt Ranch, CA 95527.

Tahoe Research Group (Robert L. Leonard),P.O. Box 1125, Tahoe City, CA 05730.

Tahoma Audubon Society (Nancy N.Kroening), 3320 N. Puget Sound Avenue,Tacoma, WA 98407.

Tenneco, Inc. (Casey E. Westell, P.O. Box2511, Houston, TX 77001.

Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning(Kenneth S! Warren), 130 Tabor Road, OakRidge,-TN 37830.

Tennessee Forestry Association (DanSimmons, P.O. Box 12000, Nashville, TN37212.

Tennessee Native Plant Society (Robert E.Farmer, Jr.]. c/o Dept. of Botany, TheUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37916.

Tennessee River-Pulp & Paper Co. (W. W,Vickery), P.O. Box 33, Counce, TN 38320.'



Texaco. Inc. (William K. Tell, Jr.), 1050Seventeenth Street NW, Washington. DC20036.

-Texas Committee on Natural ResourcesfEdward C. Fritz), 4144 Cochran ChapelRoad, Dallas, TX 75209.

Texas-Eastern Transmission Corp. (Jay S.Christopher), P.O. Box 2521, Houston, TX77001.

The Anaconda Company (Holly D. Neel). 555Seventeenth Street. Denver, CO 80217.

The Anschutz Corporation (Peter B. Doty),2400 Anaconda Tower, 555 17th Street.Denver, CO 80202.

The Brazier Co. [William E. Heaton), P.O. Bo99945, Tacoma, WA 98499.

The Bunker Hill Company (Stephen V. Coss),P.O. Box 29, Kellogg, ID 83837.

The Conservation Foundation (William K.Reilly), 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW.Washington, DC 20036.

The Dawes Arboretum (M. C. Markham).Newark, OH 43055.

The Endangered Species Committee ofCalifornia (Mark J. Palmer), 2701 CollegeAvenue. Berkeley, CA 94705.

The Gila Wilderness Committee (JackBrennan). 314 W. 13th Street Silver City,NM 88061.

The Headwaters Association (Alan Winter),. Box 113, Williams, OR 97544."The McGinnis Lumber Co., Inc., P.O. Box

2049. Meridan, MS 39301.The Mountaineers (Jack S. Sanford), 719 Pike

Street. Seattle, WA 98101.The Native American Rights Fund (Walter R.

Echo-Hawk), 1506 Broadway. Boulder. CO80302.

The Nature Conservancy (Robert E. Jenkinsl.1800 N. Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209.

The New Mexico Natural History Institute(Roger S. Peterson), Box 369, St. JohnsCollege, Santa Fe, NM 87501.

The Northcoast Environmental Center (TimMcKa '), 1091 H Street Arcata, CA 95521.

The Ptarmigans (Russell M. Maynard), P.O.Box 1821, Vancouver, WA 99204.

* The Robert Dollar Co. (Keith Cloudas), P.O.Box 998. Klamath Falls, OR 97601.

- The Wilderness Society

(Charles H. Stoddard, William Turnage. JohnI-ooper & Peter Troast), 1901 PennsylvaniaAve., NW. Washington, DC 20006.

* Utah Chapter (Paul Shields). 2813 Village. Way. Ogden, UT 84403.

[Dick Carter). 523 Judge Building. Salt LakeCity. UT 84111.

The Wildlife Society (Harry Hodgon), 7101Wisconsin Ave., NW. Washington, DC20014.

Thomas Lumber Co. (Homer G. Faulkner).P.O. Box 1883, Klamath Falls, OR 97601.

Timber Products Co. (Dugan H. Pearl), P.O.Box 1669. Medford, OR 97501.

-Trout Unlimited

(Jim Belse ,}, 1740 High Street, Denver. CO.80218.

_(C. Dixon). Box 12, Rt 1, Fishersville, VAS -22939.

True Oil Company (Robert 0. Byron). P.O.,Drawer 2360, Casper, WY 82602.

U.S. Ski Association (Barry Segal), 1726* - Champa, Suite 300. Denver, CO 80202.

..Umpqua Wilderness Defenders (PhyllisZegers). P.O. Box 15. Roseburg, OR 97470.

'United Mobile Sportlishermen. Inc. (WilliamE. Miller), 7 Sussex Lane, Bethpage. NY11714.

University of Arizona (William A. Calder.Il). 326 BSE. Tucson. AZ 85721.

University. Bowling Green State (Jane LForsyth), Department of Geology, BowlingGreen, OH 43403.

University of California (William 1. Libby).145 Mulford Hall. Berkeley, CA 94720.

'University, East Carolina (Raymond LI Busbee), Greenville. NC 27834.University of Georgia (Ole Hendrickson. Jr.),

Institute of Ecology, Athens. GA 30602.University of Idaho (Ruthann Knudson), Dept.

of Sociology/Anthropology. Moscow, ID83843.

University. Idaho State (Ralph Maughan),Box 8264, Pocatello, ID 83209.University of Massachusetts (Dena F.

Dincauze), Dept. of Anthropology. Amherst.MA 01003.

University of Michigan (Kathryn Bricker),Biological Station. Pellston. MI 49709.

University of Montana

(Thomas M. Power), Dept. of Economics.Missoula, MT 59801.

(Arnold W. Bolle}. School of Forestry.Missoula, MIT 59812.

University of Nevada-Reno (John L Artz),1000 Valley Road. Reno. NV 89512.

University, New Mexico State (ferrySchickedanz). Box 3AE. Los Cruces. NM88003.

University. Oregon State (K D. McKimniny,Forest Products Dept., Corvallis, OR 97331.

'University of Tennessee (Aaron 1. Sharp).Dept. of Botany. Knoxville. TN 37916.

University. Utah State (Carl M. Johnson).College of Natural Resources. UMC52.Logan, UT 84322.

University of Washington (Donald K.Grayston). Dept. of Anthropology DH-05.Seattle. WA 98195.(Wesley K. Wallace), Dept. of Geological

Sciences, Seattle, WA 98195.*University of Wisconsin--Madison (Wayne

Tlusty), DepL of Landscape Architecture.25 Agricultural Hall Madison, WI 53706.

University, Yale (David M. Smith), 205Prospect St.. Sage Hall. New Haven. CT06511.

Veach-May-Wilson. Inc. (John B. Veach. Jr.),P.O. Box 5857, Asheville, NC 28803.

W. S. Van De Grift, Inc. (Leo 1. Hughes). P.O.Box 498, Hamilton WA 98255.

Washington Environmental Council (AmerliaHeilman), 107 S. Main. Seattle, WA 98104.

Wausau Papers (Jack Hamilton). Brokaw. WI54417.

Western Forestry & Conserv. Assoc. (SteeleBarnett), American Bank Building Portland.OR 97205.

*Western Regional Council (George Dibble).Wilderness Ad Hoc Committee, P.O. Box8144, Salt Lake City, UT 84108

*Western Timber Association (George A.Craig), 211 Sutter Street. San Francisco. CA94108.

*Western Wood Products Association (R. M.Fredsall), 1500 Yeon Building. Portland, OR97204.

"Westvaco {R. S. Wallinger & J.M. Crockett).P.O. Box WV. Summerville, SC 29483.

Weyerhauser Co. (James W. Wadsworth),*P.O. Box 127. New Freedom. PA 17349.

Wildlife Management Institute (Daniel A.Poole), 709 Wire Building. 1000 VermontAve., NW, Washington. DC 20005.

Willamette Industries. Inc.

(John W. Davis). P.O. Box 907. Albany. OR973Z1.

(Gene D. Knudson). First National BankTower. Portland. OR 97201.

Williams, Trine & Greenstein (David W.Griffith). 1435 Arap3hoe Avenue. Boulder.CO 80302.

Wyoming Mineral Corp. (W. A. Elsenbarth).3900 South Wadsworth Blvd.. Lakewood.CO 80235.

Wyoming Saw Mills. Inc. (Richard C.Newman & Stanley W. Stephens). P.O. Box608. Sheridan. WY 82881.

Employees

1. Lamar Beasley. Washington Office.Steven Calish. Forest Economist.Deschutes

National Forest. 211 NE Revere. Bend. OR97701.

Jack Crellin. Forest Supervisor. R-3. Carson.National Forest. P.O. Box 553. Taos. NM87572.

Roy Droege. US. Forest ServiceRichard Dryland. WO.Dr. Alan Fox, Economist. PP&B. Pacific NV.

U.S. Forest Service, Portland. OR 97304.Edward Gryczan. Forester. 3825 E. Mulberry

St.. Fort Collins. CO 80524.Adrian Haught. USDA--FS, P.O. Box 2417,

Washington. DC 20013.David E. Ketcham. Enivornmental

Coordinator. Forest Service. P.O. Box 2417.Washington. DC 20013. -

Bruce McMillan. Environmental Mgmt.Officer. Wallowa-Witman NF. P.O. Box907, Baker, OR 97814.

James O'Keefe. Management Analyst. USDA-FS, P.O. Box 2417. Washington. DC 20013.

Gerald Patchen. Willamette NF. P.O. Box10607. Eugene. OR 97440.

F. Carl Pence. Bridger-Teton NF. P.O. Box1888, Jackson. WY 83001.

Steve Plevel. Coronado NF, 301 W. Congress,Tucson. AZ 85o701.

Ann Puddicombe. Targhee %T, SL Anthony.ID 83445.

Robert Rehfeld. Superior NT. P.O. Box 338.Duluth, MN 55801.

Donald Renton. USDA-Forest Service. 517Gold Ave.. SW. Albuquerque. NTM 87102.

F. Dale Robertson. Forest Supervisor. Mt.Hood NF, 19559 SE Division St Gresham.OR 97O3O.

Einar L Roget, Acting Deputy Chief. USDA-FS, P.O. Box 2417. Washington. DC 20013.

Craig Rupp. R-2. 11177 West 8th Avenue. Box25127. Lakewood. CO 80225.

Zane Smith. Jr.. R-5. 630 Sansome Street. SanFrancisco. CA 94111.

Ed Stone. Washington Office.Ross S. Whaley. Director, Forest Resources,

Economics Research Staff. Forest Service-USDA. P.O. Box 2417. Washington. DC2003.

Lawrence Whitfield. R-8.1720 PeachtreeRoad, NW. Atlanta. GA 30309.

Peter Wingle. R-9. 633 West WisconsinAvenue. Milwaukee. Wi 53203.

Individuals

Edward L Adams. R.R. 4 Union HilLCarbondale. IL 62501.


536I eea eitr/Vl 4 o 81IMnaSpebr1,17 ue and Re Ion

Frances andFrank Adamson, 1301 RoseStreet, Berkeley, CA 94702.

Eleanor Y. Adelman, 2615 SE 22nd Avenue,Portland OR 97202.

Mark Aitken, c/o Reed College, Box 24,Portland, OR 97202.

*Jerry Akers, 2115 WillowBlvd., Pearland,TX 77581.

'Charles Adrich, 2525 South 2nd Street,Arlington, VA 22204.

*Charles Allen, 710 Catalina Avenue, SealBeach, CA 90740.

W. Dale Allen, 508 Oakland Avenue.Tallahassee, FL 32301.

Judith A. Anderson, 1319 Stanley #2,Glendale, CA 91206.

Mrs. Arden L. Andresen, 747 Hyslip Avenue,Westfield, NJ 07090.

Richard Andrews, East Hill Road, Andover,VT 05143.

Lynn Appleton & Jay Anderson. Route1, Box152, Halfway, OR 97834.

Sam Angove, North 1711 Flora Road,Greenacres, WA 99016.

*Charles Arment, 415 NE Burgess Place,Bend, OR 97701.

Dr. John H. M. Austin, 380 Riverside Drive,Apt. 4-H, New York, NY 10025.

*Dixie Baade, P.O. Box 71, Petersburg, AK99833.

Kristine & Terry Baber, 195 W. Boston MillsRoad, Peninsula, OH 44284.

Colin Bagwell, R.F./A.C.F, 1601 Sun ValleyRoad, Huntsville, AL 35801.

Scott Bailey, 26004 Crenshaw Blvd., Torrance,CA 90505.

*Dennis Baird, P.O. Box 8787. Moscow, ID83843.

Robert Bakker, 175 5th Avenue, SanFrancisco, CA 94118.

*C. Ballsun, 4840 Santa Montica, San Diego,CA 92107.

*Andy Bartson, P.O. Box 8864, Missoula, MT59807.

Bastasch, 695 Knight's Bridge Road,Canby,OR 97501.

*Dr. Rudolf Beckinfg, 1415 Virginia Way,Arcata, CA 95521;

Chuck Bell, P.O. Box 193, Lucerne Valley, CA92356.

Jonathan S. Benjamin, P.O. Box 200, Cheshire,OR 97419.

*William Berry, 680 N. 158th, Springfield, OR97477.

*T. Betsch, Box 292-Route 2, American Beach,FL 32034.

Janet & Michael Bieri, M.D., 1621Featherstone, St. Louis, Missouri 63131.

Mr. James E. Bigham, Route 2, Box 82,Huntsville, TX 77340. _

David Birkner, 2301 W. Raye St., Seattle, WA98199."

Richard E. Bissell, 2908 W- Poplar Street,Philadelphia, PA 19130.

Greg Blpmstrom, 2148 Western Ave., Arcata,CA 95521.

Lin Cook Boggs, P.O. Box 254, Lowell, OR97452.

Susan Boltansky, c/o Reed College, Box 96,Portland, OR 97202.

Marion Bond, 5733 Levertt Ct. No. 72,Alexandria, VA 22311.

Carey L. Booth, 4118 SE 29th No. 4, Portland,.OR 97202.

Thomas Bordon, State Forester, ColofadoState University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

John C.Borzia, 1306 Kimberly, Rock Springs,WY 82901

*Freeman Bovard, 670 A. College Ave.,Claremont, CA 91711.

Joseph Bower, Box 1055, Hayfork, CA 96041.Richard Bowling, 800 Foxwood Drive, Clifton

Park, NY-12065.Mike Braden, 613 E. Axton, Bellingham, WA

98225.*Richard E. Bradley, 101 Russell Street,

Warren, PA 16365..Mr. Larry Brandon 6915 Lakeside Hills,

Florissant, MO 63033.Mamie L. and Melvin J. Branson, Route 1.

Colbran, CO 81624.Patricia Breshears, 1305 Millbrook Road,

Raleigh, NC 27609.*George A. Bridges, 3124 Brophy Drive

Sacramento, CA 95821.Morton R. Brigham, 3519 13th St., Lindston, ID

83501.Mr. & Mrs. Richard Bridgman, 108 Strathmoor

Drive, Berkeley, CA 94705.*John P. Brown, 2948 Fairview'Drive,

Medford, OR 97501. "J. Wilcox Brown, North Bow Road,

Dunbarton, NH 03301."Marlin Bnmer, 294 Pendleton Road, Clemson,

SC 29631.Ronald Buentmeir, P.O. Box 490, Columbia

Falls, MT 59912.*Joyce Burk, 1129 Elizabeth St., Barstow, CA

9231f. IDavid Bums, 1901 SW 44th, Pendleton, OR

97801L. ,Eric Burr, Box 175, Kirkwood, CA 95646.Mrs. M. E. Burton. 85 Cherry Lane,Teaneck,

NJ 07666.*Andrew Butler, 112 Malvern Road, Oak

Ridge, TN 37830.Victoria Byre, 848 W. Washington, Oak Park,

IL 60302.'Robert J. Cacchione, 1826 Solano Drive, NE,

Albu.querque, NM 87110.David Campbell, 2434 E. Marie, Simi Valley,- CA 93065.S. J. Carbone, 525 Paige Street, Schenectady,

'NY 12307. . I*Paula Carrell,.96 Tamalpais Road, Berkeley,

CA 94708.Mr. J. Chris Carter, 45 East Loucks, Suite 207,.

Sheridan, WY 82801.Mr. J.H. Carter, III, P.O. Box 891, Southern

Pines, NC 28387.Richard L. Casperson, P.O. Box 643, Idaho

Springs, CO 80452.Kay Cenideros, 27310 Rosemont Way, Hemet,

CA 92343.Louis A. Cherbeneau, P.O. Box 1964, Estes

Park, CO 80517.Bill Chestnutt, Regional Forester, P.O. Box

326, Montgomery, AL 36101.*Marguerite Christoph, 4435 Brindisti Street,

San Diego, CA 92107.*Josephine E. Ciak, 405-G Ridge Road, North

Arlington,' NJ 07032.Hal Clark, Box 2775, Aspen, CO 81611.*James Clark, P.O. Box 1211, Juneau, AK

99802.*James W. Clarke, 402 Burgundy Drive,

Rockville, MD 20850.Jan Clucas, 1727 Corralitos Ave., San Luis

Obispo, CA 93401.Dr. Robert N. Coats, 1042 Ventura Ave.,

Albany, CA 94706.*Francis Anthony CoCo, 446 E. Main St., Apt.

D, New Iberis, LA 70560.

Nancy Collin, 124 E. Michigan, Fresno, CA93704.

*Anthony Colter, 1008 SW 37th, Pendleton,OR 97801,

Marylyn Conley, 114 Elliot Upper, Ketchikan,AK 99901.

Laura H. Connolly, 520 Sweet Ave., LagCruces, NM 88001.

Ms. Lin Cook, P.O. Box 254, Lowell, OR 97452,Richard Cooper, Route 2, Box 44-A,

Caledonis, OH 43314.Don Copp.ock, 3931 SE Liebe. Portland, OR

97202.Margaret Core, E. King Road, Blue River, OR97413.

L. F. Cottam-USFS Retired, P.O, Box 215,Taos, NM 87571.

Dennis Coules, 522 Oeste Drive, Davis, CA95616.'

Daren Coulter, 3818 SE 31st Street, Portland,OR 97202.

*Don Crawford, 825 Camas, Moscow, ID83843.

James L. Crawley, California StateUniversity, 6000J Street, Sacramento, CA95819.

Charles J. Cremeen, Olio Route, Waldron, AR72958.

*Daniel Cristol, 412 W. Price Street,Philadelphia, PA 19144:

LauraCrosslin, c/o Reed College, Box 372,Portland, OR 97202.

D. Elizabeth Cuarda, P.O. Box 1211, 200National Bank of Alaska Building, Juneau,AK 99802.,

Cal Cummings, Denver Service Center. P.O.Box 287, Denver, CO 80225.

Kirkwood M, Cunningham, 12145 W. NevadaDrive. #201, Lakewood, CO 80228.

*Calvin Dahm, 235 Exeter Place, Apt. 104, St.Paul, MN 55104.

David Dalquist, 1260 17th Ave. NW.,Rochester, MN 55901.

Bette Lou Daramanes, 1146 SW ChestnutDrive, Portland, OR 97219.

Margaret W. Davis, P.O. Box 1674. Sedadna,AZ 86336.

Robert Davis, P.O. Box 1674, Sedona, AZ86336.

William Dennison, 584 Woodlle Drive, RedBluff, CA 96080.

*Drs. Deirdre & Randy Rand, 606 GlenwoodAve., Mill Valley, CA 94941.

Jack Desmond, 5423/2 E 12th Street, Eugene,OR 97941.

Bob Dick, 135 Nisqually Cut Off Road SE.,Olympia, WA 98503.

Graydon Dill, 810 Waynoka St., Hastings, NE68901.

Jon DritleyBox 104, C/o Coe College, CedarRapids, IA 52402.

*John Duffield, Route 2, Box 481-A, Shelton,WA 98594.

*Wiley Dupea, St. Route 1, Box 128,Lilliwaup, WA 98555.

Glenn Eades. 16109 NE 571h, Redmond, WA98052.

R. R. Edgar, Director of Woodlands, Bowater,Calhoun, TN 37309. ,

R. L. Eikum, Box 527, Moose Lake, MN 55707.*Mr. & Mrs: Douglas Elledge, Route 1, Box

95E, Valley, WA 99818.*Phyllis Ellis, 6212 Rosedale St. NW., Gig

Harbor, WA 98335.*James Elshernd, 4905 Race Road, Cincinnati,

OH 45211.

*653962 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / M~onday, September 17, 1979 -'Rules and Regulations


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 [ Monday, September 17,. 1979 / Rules and Regulationi 53963

Mrs. R. L Elton, Jr., Box 307, Wimberley, TX87676.

Ronda Engman, 571 South Danby Road,Spencer, NY 14883.

*Robert Evans, I.. Box 154, Rio Grande, Of.45674.R. A. Evans, 826 N. 14th SL.--4--7,Milwaukee. WI 53233.

J. Paul Everett. Route, Box 309, Shelton, WA98584.

Edwin R. Eyster, 47412 School Street,Oakridge, OR 97463.

Anne Fege, 2422 Ross Road; Silver Spring,MD 20910.

Leland Ferguson, Dept. of Anthropology, U. ofS. Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.

Warren Fetter 1541 California St., 47, SanFrancisco, CA 94109.

*Virlis L Fischer, 3508 Victory Ave.. LasVegas, NV 89121.

Mr. & Mrs. H. K. Fisher, Route-1, Box 104,Haines, OR 97833.

Marion Fisk. Route 1, Box 6, Tfeton, WA98947.

Eugene Fobes, Forest Products ConsultantRoute 5, Box 140, Madison, WI 53704.

ElmerForbath, 1905 Longfellow St.,Badiwht,-NY 11510.

Jacques Forest, 423( 60th NE., Salem, OR97303.

L Powell Foster, 919 Scenic Court, CngsportTN 37663.

*Barbara Francisco, 122 S. State, Ann Arbor,MI 48401.

*NeIson Frew, 387 Turtlebeach Road,Marstons Mills, ME 02648.

Philip Friedman. P.O. Box 612, LaPorte. CQ80535.

*Joel Frykman. Consulting Forester. 1067Henderson Drive, Ogden, UT 84404

Jim Fulcher. M.D., Scotia and Venning,McCtellanville, SC29458.

Rutk Gabey, P.O. Box 2131, S.Hackensack,NJ 07606.

Sylvia Gagnon. 4660 W. Hillside Drive,Eugene. OR 97405'.

*Tim Gammell, 709 SW 13th, Pendleton, OR97801.

John Gardner. c/o Reect College,Box 309,Portland OR 97202.

Michael and Ruth Gardner, 2218 York Road.Helena, MT 59601.

Ms- Terni Gardner. 1077 Holmes Ave.,Campbe, CA 95008.

William Gardner,.808,Merrie Road, Raleigh.,NC 27606.

Ella Gay. 29.Tyler Drive. Route 1, Part Richey.FL 33568.

Muriel Geach, 239.W. Garnder Street, LongBeach, CA 90805.

I-L M. Geary, 2545 S. Birmingham Place,Tulsa. OK 74114.

Eric Gebler 609 NW 11th.St, Pendleton. OR97801

Thelma, Gentry. 322 East.Arch St., Madison.KY 42431. '

Daniel George, DMD,.Box 8678, Aspen. CO81611.

Mrs. R. Gershfield, 22 West St. Sharon, MA02067.

Eric Gerstung, 1132 MCIaren Drive.Carmichael, GA 95608.

*John Gerry, Jr. 711 Wesley. Evanston. IL6020&±

Jeffrey Gibson. 3292 Donley Street. SanDiego, CA 92117.

Kay Gibson.1140-South 48th Terrace, KansasCity. KA 66100.

*Betsy Glassmam c/a SEACC. BoxlOGJuneau. AK 99801.

Charles Coodmacher, ca Reed College. Box363. Portland. OR 97202.

*Janet Gordon, Nelson. NEL04355.*S. Paul Gordon, Box 2376, Ruldoso. N'M

88345.'Gregory Govan. Route 1. Box4Z C. Faber.

VA 22938.Mr. & Mrs. Edward Graves. 908 Beech Drive,

Walnut Creek. CA 94596.Michael Gregory. Route 1.Box 25A. McNeaL. AZ 85617.

David Grimes, 1514 St. Christopher.Columbia, Missouri. 65

Robert Groves, Box 688, Eastham. MA 02042.'Ronald Guenther' 2900 Highway 20, Fort

Bragg, CA 93437.Vern Gurnsey. Timber&WXbod Products

Group, P.O. Box 50, Boise. ID 837Z&8Dr. Elizaheth Haaand, 170 Wynnewood

Professional Building; Dallas,.TX 75224.'Frederick Hackett, 19 Hawkins RoadStony

Brook NY II9TO.*Jerry Haggard. 363 1st Ave, Phoenix, A.

85003.Deborah Han. Box 2894. Globe, AR 85501.George Halekam Box 1324, Wauconda-. WA

98859.Edward WalL 642 Caino Lefo, Sant Fe, N.W

87501LGene Harty, 3117 C Lori Place, NE.

Albuquerque. NU a11.*Bruce Harvey, P.O. B1ax89;.Cornella. CA

30531.Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hastings. 2525 Kansas

Ave., Apt. 5. Santa Monica. CA 90404.Clayton Heath, Jr., P.O. Box 56, Epsom.n N

03o.;Betty Heckel, 290 Dolphin Way, Laguna,

Beach, CA 281.C. X. Heffner, 73 0Applegate Road,

Jacksonville, OR 97530.Lewis Helot, 3057 Naples Drive. Toledo. OH

43615.Dennis Heldt, 3657 Naples Drive. Toledo OH

43615.Jim Heleniak. 4106 5th Ave. #1. San Diego.

CA 92108.Lisa Heller. James Conley and Donaid

Kvavlei 385 Forest Hills Way. NW, Salem.OR 97304.

Mr. Carl Hemmgsen. 5082AAscot Court.Alexandria, VA22311.

Roy Hengrsom Forestry Chairman 707Clayton, Columbia. MO 651

Kurt Herzog..144(INR loth Street GrantsPass, OR 97526.

J. P. Hess, 20"E, 3rd Ave., #= Selah; WA98941.

Jim Hester, 1522 K SL NW., Room 530.Washington, DC 20060.

lJearr Hill. 214Kim Drlve. Lafayette; LA 70503'*Valerie HillarcLOI. Scott Street,

Crangeville. ID -8830.'Mike Hogan. 4 Avis Court. Odnde. CA

94563.Carl Holcomb, Route- 2.Box 385. Blacksburg

VA 24060.David Holden. Route- 4.Bra 68 Brookings, SD

57&06.Glen: Holstein M9 Poleline Ruad.5

Davis, CA 96M1G..David Hough. p.o. Bosc3B'LWilsonville OR

97070.

'Dave Howard. P.O. Box 11, Olympia, WA

M. C. Howard. 948 Spanish Drive S..LongheatKey FL3354&

David HowellsAndrew Honig. 131 Pastiempo Drive

Bakersfield. CA 9330.Robert Ifadnut, 10-Elm Street Winetka, IL

60093.Fred Huff. Country Slore. Route Z Box 787.

Las Cruces, N, 88001.Bennett Hughes. BOx 47M St. Leonard. MD

2085.Stephen Irving Ph.D.. Suite 519, DuPont Plaza

Center. Miami. FL 3313T'Jay lselin, RFD, Marlborough. NH 03455.Cordon Iverson. 708 Highland Drhe

Bellinghani, WA 98225.Mary Jackson. 240 Ayer Road. Willi'amsville,

NY 14221.Eliot Jenkins, 2223 Grant Tower. 2221 SW-ist

Ave- Portland OR 9720LSteven Jeske, 3205 SE 52nd Ave.- Portland,

OR 97206.'Elizabeth Johnson. 84, University Ave- Apt

1104. Honolulu. HI 9682.Russ Jolay. 7710 K jersey. PortlaiuL OR

97203.F. N. Jones, Jr P.. Box 816. Carthagm MO

64830.*Stephe- rones. RI) #L Walto Y 13&6.Tom Jopson. Route 'LBox 59.CoveaoC&

95428.A. W. Judson. P.O. Box 672, Corvallis. OR

97330.Dennis Jurkovich 8 ProntoDrve; San jose,

CA 95123.T. . Kaczynskf . 403 N. Ridge Aye. Lombard.

IL 60148.Linda Kastl. 86-4257 Road. ElmhursL NY

11373.David Keiser, 2570-Springbroo. Medford OR

97502.Duane Kent. P.O. Box 540 Eagle CO 863.Jerry Ker. State Capitol Building. Room 1U4.

Salt Lake City. UrT 8-114.Delyn Kies. 4903 NE 32nd Place. Portland OR

97211.Manford Kilmer. 1515 Riemer Roa&.

Wadsworth. OH 4428LHildy Kipphut. 930 Johnson. msouta- MT

59601.J. A. Kittrick. NW45 OrioaDrive.Pullman.

WA 99163.H. M. Klaiber. 64 Viorette Ave., Watervlle.

ME 04901.L M. Kocher, 99 Sycamoz.MitRVa-ey.CA

94941.Bart Koehler Box 870, Laramie.WY 82070.Emmy Koponen, 491t Rlncoa NW.

Albuquerque, NM 87106.'Lowel K'assne :4-acoe St_

Burlington, VT 05401..Mrs. Jeanne Kronman. Pari sh Drim.Bo 237.

Locust Valley. NY 11560.Nancy laKruse. cta Reed Collegm Bc ws.

Portland, OR 97202.Erwin Xulosag950 Lagrima de Om NIL

Albuquerque. NM 87111.'Cynthia Kuttner.124Poat Road, Scarsdale,

NY 10583.CamerntIaFolettee; PD. Box 306 Egene

OR 97403.Jim Lamb. 4007 Coodfellaw Drive, Danlas Tx

75229.



Richard Lancia, School of Forest Resources,Department of Forestry; North CarolinaState University, Raleigh.. NC 27650..

Mary Ridgely Lang, 303 Kennard Ave.,Edgewood, MD 21040,

Joe Langston, 3717 South Pinal'Drive,Flagstaff, AZ 86001.

N. B. Langworthy, The Btuckaroost, McLeod,MT 59052.,

Robert Laniak, 495 Waltham Street,Lexington, MA 01273;. ' ......

Clifford Lansd"on,J., P.O. Box 250, Glendale,.OR 97442.

Dr. Charles Larson, Dean, School ofEnvironmental & Resokur6e Mgmt., SUNYCollege 6'f Envirbomiental Science andForestry, Syracuse, NY 13i10.'

W. M. Larson, Box G, Austin, TX 78712."""Thomas Lee, No. 409 W.Main St., Urbana,

IL 61801.Alfred Leech, 482B Barton Run Blvd.,

Marlton, NJ 08053.Christopher Lenian, Assistajit Piofessor,

Brandeis University, Department ofPolitics, Waltham, MA 02154..

Sherman Lewis, 2787 Hillcrest Ave.&,Hayward, CA 94542.

Steven Lindland, 5253 Timber Trail NE,- Silverton, OR 97381.Dean Littlepage, 37875 Jasper-,Lovell Road,

Jasper, OR 97401.William Livingston, P.O. Box38-7 University

Br., Las Cruces, NM 88003.Daniel Lowgel, 113 Devon, Parchment, l4I

49004. , -: , ,

Jan Loelner, Box 4931, Adpen, CO 81611.Rebecca Long, 1314 Arcadia,-Colorado

Springs, CO 80906. ,Alan Lott, 3506 Wild Cherry Road, Baltimore,

MD 21207.Christopher Lowe, c/o Reed College, Box 649,

Portland, OR 97202. - ,Douglas Lucius, c/o Reed College, Box 754,

Portland, OR 97202.Andy Lukes, Route 4, Missoula, MT 59801.*George Lundy, N 72 W 18480 Good Hope

Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051.*Donald MacKenzie, Route i, Box 145,

Kooskia, ID 83539.Arthur Mackwell, 2220 20th NW, Washington,

DC 20006.Elayne Maki, Route 1-Box 242,.Deer River,

MN 56636.*Brandt Mannchen, 4055 S. Braeswood No.

303, Houston, TX 7702 .Susan-Marks, 1353 E 50th. St., Chicago, IL

60615.John Marsh, Jr., 217 GoddingAve.', NW., New

Philadelphia, OH 44663. ,Bruce Mason, c/o Reed College, Box 677,

Portland, OR 97202.Fred Mass, W214-6th No. 201, Spokane, WA

99024.Laurie Matthews, P.O. Box 4791, Arcata, CA

95221.Jackie Maughen, Box 8264, Pocatello, ID

83209.*W. B McCallum, 304 NW Johns. Lane,

Pendleton, OR 97801 .,J. D. & H..P. McClymonds, P.O. Box 539,

Oakhurst, Ca 93644,Drew C. M. McCormick, c/o Reed College,

Box 719, Portland, OR 97202.Carrcpero McCredie, 3395 SE 9th; Portland, OR

97202. 1 .Arthur McDade, Jr., Apt. D6, 404 Tunnel

Blvd., Chattanooga, TN 37411.

C. L McGowan, 1901 Plyinoujth Rock,Richardson, TX 75081. ,

*Jerry McKague, Box 301, Pilot Rock, OR97868.

Ladd McQueen, 1611 Myers Lane, Medford,OR 97501.

Mark-McQueen, 1626 Myers Lane, Medford,OR 97501. -

'Tim McNulty- Ohode, P.O. Box 42Z PortTownsend, WA 98368. ,

Betty McNutt, 1122 West OregodAve.,Klamath Falls, OR 97601.. .

Harry Mersmanm Box 794, c/aRepd College,.Portland, OR 97202

Howard Millin, 2410 Berr Lane E, Tacoma,I WA 98424.

Rebecca Millard, 1419 Ashland Ave.,Evanston, IL 60201.

David Millikin, c/o Reed College, Portland,• OR 97202.Barriss Mills, 915 N. Chauncey Ave., W.

Lafayette, IN 47906,Leon, Minclder, Ph.D., 623 Bogie Lane, Route

1, Country Club Estates, Blacksburg, VA24060.

Walter & Vicki Mintkeski, 6815 SE 31st St.,Portland, OR 97202.

Harold Miossi, P.O. Box 606, San LuisObispo, CA 93401; -'

Cathryn Miotoret, 845 NW Colorado, Bend,OR, 97701.

Vina Mongeon, Box 152, Wales, MA 01081.Blair Moody, 480 Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff,

AZ 86001.Jerome Moore;1820 Plymouth Rock,

Richardson, TX 75081.*Donell Moreland, P.O. Box 157, Carencro,

LA 70520.Joe Marsillo, c/o Reed College, Box 792,

Portland, OR 97202.John Morris, 105 Caspar Place, Novato, CA" 94947.

James Mueller, Pine Grove, Star Route 2, Box13, Iron Mountain,.Ml 49801.

Robert Mueller, Route 1, Box 250, Stounton,VA 24401.

Kurt Munnich, 4704 W. Glenhaven Drive,Everett, WA 98203. .

*Richard Myren, R.R. No. 5, Box 567Q juneau,AK 99803.

Daniel Napier, 210 Coolidge Ave., Niagara,WI54151.-

Mrs. Richard Nebel, 2 East Third Street, NewCastle, Delaware 19720.

.Arthur Win. Nelson, Jr., P.O. Box 3426,Meridian, Mississippi 39301.

Dennis Nelson, 435 Simms Ave.; Council. Bluffs, IA 51501.*Kathy Nemec, 3211 E. Rosier No. 8, Bismark,

ND 58501.*Aldn Nessman, 5425 Blockstone Ave..

Chicago, IL 60615.Mrs. Geri Netherton, Box 153, Seeley Lake,

MI 59868.*Donald Nettleton, Burlington Northern, 700 S

Ave. West, Missoula, MT 59801.*Leonard Netzorg, Suite 216, Mohawk

Building, 222 SW Morrison St., Portland,OR 97204.

D. R.iNeuzil, 9110 NE 21st Place, Bellevue,WA 98004.

*Caroline Newhall, 67 Sea Oak Lane,.IiltonHead, SC 29928.

Beth Newman, 522 Oeste Drive, Davis. CA95616

Mark Nielson, 2325 Roosevelt Ave., Berkeley,CA 94703.

Woody Nishitani, 7830 N. Edison, Portland,. OR 97203.*Frank Norris, 2124 Broadway, San Diego,

CA 92102.John Norris, 105 Caspar Place, Novato, CA

94947,Elanne Nusich, 3301 1st Street South,Virginia, MN 55792. 4Dita Obler, Box 378, c/o Reed College,

Portland, OR 97202.Faye Ogilvie, 5529 27th Ave. NE., Seattle, WA

98105.Marion O'Gorman, 733 Mar Vista Drive,

Vista, CA 92083.R. Marriner Orum, 2389 Floral Hill Drive,

Eugene, OR 97403.*R.-F. Ostergaard, 166 Hermosa Drive,

Durango, CO 81301.Annette Parsons, 1776 Beverly Drive, Arcata,

CA 95521.Sue Patten, Pershing Blvd., Cheyenne, WY.

82001,Dave Pavechek, 4761 21st Ave, NE., Seuttlo,

WA 9815, I

*Hale Pearce, 71 Edison Ct., Coldwbter, MI490364 I

*Ed Pearson, 501 Mercury Lane, Prineville,OR 97754.

*John and Linda Peck, Rural Route 4, St.Cloud, MN 56301.

Barbara Peckarsky, 126 Sunnymede, Apt. 7,Madison, WI 53713.

*Maryann Pella, Route 5, Box 90C, Thico, CA95926.

W. R. Penny, 231 Fountain Ave., Paducah, KY-42001.I

Robert Peters, 19 Edgefield Rd. Waban, MA02168.

Mr, Elin Peterson, Research Assistant,Thayer School of Engineering, DartmouthCollege, Hanover, NH 03755

Henry Phibbs II, Murie Cabin, Box 1002,Jackson, WY 83001

*R. A. Piper, 2147 E. Hamlin St., Seattle, WA98112.

*Phillip Plaza, Route 2, Box 429, Clehon, WA98816.

William M. G. Popper, 529 Alameda,Berkeley, CA 94707.

*Bob Posey, 4754 Kings Highway, Jackson,,MS 39206.

Richard Pratt, 1131 Shady Ave., Pittsburgh,'PA 15232.

Marilyn Price, 45 ML Tiburon, Tiburon, CA94920.

Charles Putnam, Route 4. Columbia, MO65201.

Charles W. Quaintance, 735 SW St. Clair,Portland, OR 97205,

Dr. Deirdre Conway Rand, 606 GlenwoodAve., Mill Valley, CA 94941.

Bob Randolph, 1028 W. 22nd St., Merced, CA95340.

*John Reed, 101 Penn Ave., LeGrande, OR97850.

Richard Reid, 300 Palmcrest Drive, Apt. 75,Daly City, CA 94015.

Sally Reid, 13500 Wingo St., Pacolma, CA91331.

*Rexford Resler, 1319 loth St., NW,Washington, DC 20036.

Robin Resnick, c/o Reed College, Box 947,Portland, OR 97202.

Walter Revers, 227 Monte Vista, Larkspur,CA 94939.

Mr. Brad Reynolds, 421 16th Ave. E., Seattle,,WA 98112.


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 1 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53965

Amy Ballard Rich. 1350 Chimelton No. 9.Eugene, OR.97401. :

Clarence Richen, 2822 NE32nd Place,Portland. OR 97212..

Jennifer Riefler, 60W Confer Way, Ashland,OR 97520.

Professor Robert Rienov.. Hollyhock HollowFarm, RD.. Selkirk, NY 12158.

Eleanor Robbins, 7901 Brooklyn Bridge Road,Lauren. MD. 20810.

Eugene Robbins. 1548,Tennyson Drive,Temperence, MI 48182.

Thomas Roberts, Sherman Ave., Route 4, Box393. Bemidji. MN' 56801.

Gordo Robinson Forestry Consultant. 16Apollo Road, Tiburon, CA 94920.

Laurence Rockefeller 57 East 73 St. NewYork. NY 10021.

William Rockie; 26601 Stafford,Wilsonvlle,OR 97070.

*Gordon Rodda, 713 NW 25th Ave.,Ganesville, FL 32601.

Richard-Robl, 22769 I-Sghway 36, Cheshire.OR 97419.

*Leonard Rolph. Route 2, Box 9, Glenwood.WA 98619.

Noel Rosetta.1100 Missoula, Helena, MT59601.

Ryan Ross, 1812 Birch Lane, Davis, CA 95616-*Harold Rowe, P.O. Box 711, Lakeview, OR

9763..Brian Royer, Box 144. Curlew, WA 9911&*Lawrence Rozas, Route 3-Box 343K. New

Iberia. LA.70560.Mel Ruder, P.O. Box 13B9; Columbia Falls,

MT 59912.CharlesRunyar 115 Flower Lakewood, CO-

80221.Lynn Rupe, The University of Vermont, 340

Waterman Bldg. Burlington, VT 05401.Thomas.Ryan. Sr..P.O. Box403, Lee Street

Staatsburg. NY 12580;Charles Sanders, 700 Salisbury St, Holden.

ME 01520.Ed SargenL MD.. 29724 Maine-Peoria. Shedd.

OR 97377.A. Sartorfo, General Delivery, Fish Camp, CA,

93623. .Mr. & Mrs. William Sattler 4050 Poplar Ave.,

Concord, CA 94521.D. R. Saunders, Box 882, Eagle, CO 81631.*Fred Sawyer. 191Z.SE.4lst Portland, OR

97214.Ted Schaefer, 3312 West Cooper Drive,

Flagstaff. AZ 86001.-*Carleton Schaller, Jr., 16 School St., Littleton.

NH 03W6Elizabeth Schiller; 76. Sunset Ave., Nortr

Providence RI 02906.Anne Schmidt, #1008, co:Reed College;

Portland. OR 97202.Mary and Conrad Schmidt. 3272 Gleneagles4 Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20906.

Jason Schoener, 74 Ross Circle, Oakland, CA94618.

Fred Schomber. 31460 13th Ave. SW. FederalWay, WA 98003.

J. E. Schroeder, State Forester, 2600 StateStreet. Salem, OR 97310.

A. W. Schuette, 1191 Polaris Circle, Pittsburg,PA 15241.

Denise Carol Schwartz, 1o Royal Park Drive,Apt. 1-H, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.

Tinothy Schveers, Box 248, 241 East BeauSL., Washington, PA 15301.

Bill Sefler. Route 1. Box 409, Forest Grove. OR9711.

H. Richard Seibert. Jr., Director, NaturalResources, 1776 F St. NW , Washington. DC20006.

Roseta & Robert Sepich. 15213-14 Ave. CLSouth.'Spanaway,,WA 98187.

Donald Shaeffr, Box 313, Milligan College. TN-37682.

George Shaffer. 0130 SE47th. Portland. OR97206.

William Shealy. 3624 Royal Palm Arch.Virginia Beach, VA 23452.

Bo Shelby. 1876 SW Brooklane, Corvallis, OR97330.

David Shiah. 3459 Macomb.St.. NW,Washington. DC20018.

Howard Shaken. 128A Almont Drive. BeverlyHills, CA 9z11.

*Danny Simom 3123 Mentor, Wichita. KS-67213.

John Sisk. 181 Orchard Ave., Boulder, CO8030Z

William Skelton; 452z Alta Vista Way,Knoxville, TN 37919,

Mr. & Mrs. Steven Slap. 371 7th, Ave.. Apt. 19-1. New York. NY 10001.

Ann Smith, c/o Reed College. Box l,Portland. OR 972o

'ArIo Smith, Emeritus Professor of Biology;SW at Memphis. 3724 Oakley Av.Memphis, TN 38111.

*Blanche Smith, 119-CfDumbarton RoacLBaltimore, MI 21212.

H. Don Smith. 228 17hAve-., Lewistom ID8350L

*James.T. Smith. R1:Irls.St., ApL 20. LosAlamos, NM 87544. '

James Smith4 Box 2554,Campus Station.Socorro, NM 87801.

*Kenneth Smolinsky. 1880 NW42ndTerr. B-105, Lauderhill. FL 33313.

"Randy Snodgrass; 3110 Maple Drive NE.,Atlanta, GA 30305.

Sally Snyder, c/o Reed College. Box 102$,Pbrtland, OR 97202.

*A. G. Soderlunc&4001 ML Barnard Ave. SanDiego, CA 92111.

Gail Solomon. 2506 Eight Ave., Oakland. CA9460C.

*Richard Spotts, 0330 Havenside Drive 5,Sacramento, CA 95831.

Bob & Ira Spring, 18819 Olympic View Drive,Edmonds, WA 9802o.

Mark Srere; Box 107 c/o Reed College.Portland, OR 9,20=

Dr. Geoffrey Stanford, Director, GreenhillsCenter and Experimental Station, Route 1.Box 801, CedarHilLkTX 75104L

Brat Stafford. 425-25th, Hood River. OR97031.

Alan Stein.Box:535.Petersburg, AK 99833.Dr. & Mrs. D. Steinberg. 4174 Pomona Way,

Livermore, CA 94550.Leonard Steinberg. Acting Executive Director,

P.O. Box 2778, Juneau. AK 99803.Michael W. Steinburg, 326 South 19th St. -5-

B. Philadelphia, PA 19103.Jillian Stevenson. 3130 SW Gale Avenue.

Portland. OR 97201.Roger G. Stewart. R.D. 3, Ski Drive, Neshanic

Station. NJ 08853.Charles H. Stoddard. Wolf Springs Forest.

Minong, WI 54859.Charles W. Stout, Star Route 1, Box l-F.

DeRidder, LA 70034.Mrs. Carol Strand, 1 S. 445 School, Lombard,

IL 60148.

Jim Stratton. P.O. Box 3982. Eugene OR87403.

Dwight Stringfellow. Box 53=Arcata. CA93521.

Susan Subak. 152 N. Sco ,ile- Oak Par% IL60302.

'Bruce E. Sundquist. 20 College Park Drive,Monroeville. PA 1514&.

Robert Sutherland. Etersburg Star Route.Whitehorn. CA 95489.

*John R. Swanson. P.. Box 922.Berkeley.CA 94701.

Mack Taylor. Box 2--70. Siver City. NNf88061.

Mr. Reggie Thackston. 9W Cyn hia StApt. 8,Wilburton. OK 74578.

*Toby Thaler Skokomsh Indian Tribe, Route5. Box 432 Sheltom WA 98584.

Dale Thomas. Box 40. Redway, CA 96560.Kirk & Lisa Thompson, 315 N. Gold Stree L

Silver City. NM 8806.Lym Thompson. 119a4 LakeJun Mesquie.

TX 75160.*Ms. Ethel W. Thorniley. 1883 Schoenterr.

Detroit M' 4a2.johnTillman. Box 135 Athena. ORs7s a.Kent L Tanks. cio Mar e Ieny. Victo-. Im

83455-.John E. Tonnesen. 1946fllsdale Di

Sonora. CA 95320.Douglas Toothman. Route 1. Box M

Montrose. West Virginfa 2603Jeanne W. Torasian. 1251 Country club

Drive.EstesPa&k CO 801.WalterTrial. P.O. Box 983 Coeur dAkn ID

83814.Bruce Tripp; 44 WalkerSt- Saliaoutk ME

02540.Rebecca A. Ullrich, Box 1073. Reed College.

Portland, OR 97202.Jefry Van Valkenbur*g. 222 West t The -

Dalles. OR 97058.Karla Vanderzandem 4isN. 8t. Aspen. cO

81611.*Nicholas Van Pelt. P.O. Box 9096 Reno,. NV

89507.Mr. Nicholas Van Pelt, General Delivery-

Nicasio. CA 94941.Ferrell and Tina Varner 425 Hudson.

Oakland CA 94616.Steve Veatch. 62-4 N. Cascade. -25,Cororado.

Springs;, CO 80903.Mark Veblen. c/o Reed College. BoxIl3.

Portland. OR 97=02.Bernard Venograde. 120aMichigan Avenue.

Ames, IA 50010.Mr. Bernard 1. Verdegan. Route 2.Box 1&

Hillsboro, OR 97123.Mary Vieregg,.D.t Box. 14.F. Clark's

Summit. PA 18411.Jennifer Wagner. 2324 Culver Avenue,

Kettering. OH 45420.Mr. Peter C. Wagstaff, Attorney at Law. 105

North Fourth Street. Coeur d7AIene. ID83814.

Peter C. Wagstaff. P.O. Box 117, Coeurd'Alene. ID 83814.

Myron Wall, P.O. Box 60527. Sacramento, CA9586.

Stephen G. Waller. 9010 Fairhaven Avenue.Upper Marlboro, MD 20870.

Stephen J. Walsh. M.D. 337 Spruce Street.San Francisco, CA 94118.

Stan Walthall. c/o NPRB-EIS. Room 221Power Block. Helena. NIT 59601.


53966 Federal Register / Vol. '44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Audrey Ward, National Academy ofScientists, 2101 Constitution Ave.,Washington, DC 20418,

Glen Ward, P.O.' Box i64, Heppner, OR 97836.William B. Ward, Box 266, Klickitat, WA

98628.Kenneth S. Warren, 105 Evans Lane, Oak"

Ridge, TN 37830.Mrs. Robert S. Watson, 36 Ardor-Drive,

Orinda, CA 94563. 'Susan Watson,'36 Ardor Drive, Orinda, CA'

94563.Kenneth J. Webb, 11521 8 N., Seattle, WA

98125. "William Webb, Environmental Consultant,

The Eyrie, 220 South'winds Drive. Sanibel.FL 33957.

W. L. Webb, 'The Cliff Hanger', BlueMountain Lake, NY.12812.

Mr. Martin Weeks, Bogue, Weeks & Rusch

P.O. Box 435, Vermillion, SD 57069.Charles A. Wellner, USFS Retired, 439 Styner

Ave., Moscow,.ID 83843.Fred Wendorf£ Dept. of Anthropology, S.

Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75221.Holly R. Thau& Hank Werner, 572 Fanny

Way NE, Salem, OR 97301.Mrs. Pauline E. Wessels, 400 South 12th

Street, Quincy, IL 62301.John Wpstrope. 9354 Mellenbrook, Columbia,

MD 21045.Charles B. White, 334 Monroe Street, Denver,

CO 80206.*Charles White, Yegge, Hall & Evans, 2900

Energy Center One, 717 17th Street, Denver,CO 80202.

Lora White, 101-19 Ascan Aienue, ForestHills, NY 113Z5. "

David D. Whitesitt, Box 322, Seeley Lake, MT59868,

Edward Williams, 98 Maddox Drive, NE,Atlanta, GA 30309.

*Finis, William S., No address given.Lee Wilson,'P.O. Box 160, Arroyo Grande,

CA 93420.Richard Wilson, 2111 Nimitz Drive, Des-

Plaines, IL 60018.Alan Winter, Headwaters, P.O. Box 113,

Williams, OR'97544.Mr. Harold Wisdom, Dept. of Forestry, VPI,

Blacksburg, VA 24061.Jerome Witler, 29625 SW Serenity Way,.

Wilsonville, OR 97070.Tom Wodetzki, Box 187, Albion, CA 95410.Harold W. Wood Jr., 3409 88th St. S., #4,.

Tacoma, WA 98409.Lea Wood,'1745 Cox Road, Aptos, CA 95003.*Bob Wunner, 5825 Jacoby Cr Rd-,Bayside,

CA 95524.,Virginia"Wyatt, 2119 WE21st Ct.. Renton,

WA 08055.

*Edward Yardeau, Box 155, Eastham, ME02642.

William Yoke, 3030 Kingman Blvd.,'DesMoines, IA 50311.

James Young, 90Lami St., St. L!uis, MO63104.

Beatrice M. Zimmer, 5373 Balama Terrace,Apt. #5, Cincinnati, O 45223.

Appendix B

Planning process or systemalternatives which are considered aredescribed below. For a more completediscussion, the reader is referred to themfnutds ofthe May 24-26, 1977Committee of Scientists meeting.,

.,Incrementalism: policy ofdecisionmaking as variations on thepast. The landmanager views publicpolicy and decisionmaking as acontinuation of the'past governmentactivities with only incrementalmodifications. This process is based onthe successive comparison of a limitedarray of policies or decision alternative.

2. Rationalism: policy ordecisionmaking as efficient goal.achievement. A rational policy ordecision is one thatis correctly designedto maximize or minimize net valueachievement. Policy and decisionmakingis approachdd through means-endsanalysis. First, the desired ends aredetermined, then the alternative metansto achitive them are designed.

3. Mixed Scanning: policy anddecisionmaking as variations, on thepast in line with modified efficient goalachievement. This process is a mixtureof Incrementalism and Rationalism. Itattempts to limit the details andexplores longer run alternatives.

4. System Theory: policy and 'decisions as rational system'output. Thistheory is an extension of the scientificmethod. The problem is defined,

objective set, alternatives developedand evaluated, and a decision made asto the preferred course of action. Amechanism of monitoring and updating-is needed.

5. Group Theory: policy anddecisionmaking as a group equilibrium.

'This is based on the belief thatinteraction among groups is the central'fact-of political decisiomaking. Groups'

struggle: policy and decisions resultwhen equilibrium -between groups Iqtreached.

6. Game theory: policy as rationalchoice in competitive situations, This Isthe making of rational decisions in.situations where participants havechoices to make and the outcomedepends on the choices made by each ofthem. There is no independently bestchoice. This theory provides a way ofthinking clearly about policy ordecisions choices in conflict situations.

7. Institutionalism Theory: policy anddecisionmaking as inherant Institutionalactivity. The activities of individualsand groups are generally directedtoward governmental institutions. Publicpolicy and decisions are authoritativelydetermined, implemented, and enforcedby governmental institutions,

8. Elite Theory! policy or decision as'the preference of an elite. Elite shapemass opinion on policy or decisionquestions more than do the massesbecause the latter are apethetic and ill-informed. In other words, policies flowfrom elites to the masses: they do notarise from the masses,

9. Anti-Planning: policy anddecisionmaking as output of anindividualistic decisionmaking. This Is acommon form of planning. A system orproblem exists which needs to bemanaged. The manager studies aspects-of the problem he deems important,utilizes data from staff, and decideswhat todo.

Major problems outside the planningrealm itself greatly constrain the type ofplanning procedure which can be used,Two concepts of considerableimportance are "paradigm" and"people". A "paradigm" is a got ofconceptual constructs which govern theviewpoints of people involved in aplanning process. The people arereferred to as "hierarchists,""individualists," and "mutualists," whouse different paradigms, respective "oneway casual," "random process," and"mutual casual." These notions werealso considered and used as part of tho'conceptual basis for designing theplanning process.


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17. 1979 / Rules ~nd Regulations 53967

Appendix C

Committee of Scientists and otherMeeting Dates and Locations:May 24-26,1977-Washington, D.C.June 19-21,1977-Boise, IdahoJuly 27-28, 1977-Juneau, AlaskaAugust 29-30,1977-Denver, ColoradoSeptember 21-23,1977-Minneapolis.

MinnesotaOctober 27-28,1977-San Francisco.

CaliforniaDecember 1-2, 1977-Atlanta, GeorgiaJanuary 16-18,1978--Phoenix. ArizonaFebruary 23-24,1978-Biloxi, MississippiMarch 29-30,1978-Dallas. TexasApril 17-18,1978-Washington, D.C.July 14,1978-Washington, D.C.September 28-29,1978-Denver, ColoradoNovember 1-2,1978-Seattle, WashingtonDecember 7-8,1978--Sacramento, CaliforniaJanuary 8-9,1979-Houston. TexasJanuary 26,1979-Washington, D.C.June 20-21,197-9--Asheville, North Carolina.

Public Meetings on the NationalForest Management Act Regulations:September 15,1978-Washington, D.C.November 27,1978-Washington, D.C.

Appendix DMembers of the Committee of

Scientists appointed by the Secretary ofAgricultdre, pursuant to Section 6(h) ofNFMA:Dr. Arthur W. Cooper, Committee Chairman.

Botanist and Professor, School of NaturalResources, North Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina.

Dr. Thadis W. Box, Dean, College of NaturalResources and Professor of Range Science.Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Dr. R. Rodney Foil, Mississippi Agriculturaland Forestry Experiment Station,Mississippi State, Mississippi, andspecialist in forest resource management.

Dr. Ronald W. Stark, Forest Entomologist ancCoordinator of Research, University ofidaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Dr. Earl L Stone, Jr., Soil Scientist andProfessor, Department of Agronomy.Cornell University, Ithaca. New York.

Dr. Dennis E. Teeguarden, Professor of-Forestry Economics, College of NaturalResources, University of California,Berkeley, California, and specialist inapplying operations research to forestresource allocation problems.

Dr. William Webb, Wildlife Biologist.formerly Professor In WildlifeManagement. State University of NewYork, Syracuse, New York. now retired.

Appendix E--Supplementary FinalReport of the Committee of Scientists,August 17,1979

Introduction

This report contains the views of theCommittee of Scientists, establishedpursuant to section 6(h) of the NationalForest Management Act of 1976(NFMA), as to the scientific andtechnical adequacy of theNMay 4. 1979.draft of regulations prepared by theForest Service to implement the landand resource management planningprovisions of NFMA. In our earlierreport (Federal Register 44(88): 26599-26657) we commented at length onvarious aspects of the scientific.technical, and legal adequacy of the firstdraft of the regulations publishedAugust 31, 1978 (Federal Register43(170: 39046-39059). We also phrasedour recommendations in specificregulatory language (Federal Register44(88]: 2643-26657).

In the present report, our finalstatement, we comment on how well therevised second draft (Federal Register44(88): 26583-26599) speaks to issuesraised in our earlier report and upon themany improvements and additions thathave been made to the August 31,1978,draft. In addition, we recommendchanges in language where such seemneeded. .

A word about the Committee ofScientists and its work is in order. TheCommittee is composed of 7 personsappointed by the Secretary ofAgriculture. It began its work In May.1977. and essentially completed itsduties in January 1979. Section 6(h) ofNFMA charges the Committee toprovide the Secretary with scientific andtechnical advice and counsel on theproposed guidelines and procedures toassure that an effective interdisciplinaryapproach for implementing section 6 ofNFMA is adopted. Although the actual

charge pertained only to subsection 6(g)of NFMA. the complexinterrelationships among the varioussections of the Act required that, inorder to do its job effectively, theCommittee had to consider allprovisions of NFMA that relate to landmanagement planniug and timbermanagement.

The Committee met 18 times atvarious locations throughout thecountry. Its meetings were entirely openand provided an excellent opportunityfor members of interest groups to haveaccess to the drafting of the regulations.Although we suspect that Congressenvisioned a more reactive role for us, itproved most efficient for us toparticipate at times in the actualdrafting process. Therefore. the finalwording of the regulations does containsome material that originated in theCommittee.

This final report was prepared by theCommittee after a meeting in Asheville,N.C., on June 20-21. attended by fourmembers (Cooper. Foil. Stone.Teeguarden). Box. Stark and Webb haveread and approved the report.

Our earlier report stated that the firstdraft of the regulations, despite someimportant deficiencies, represented amajor step forward in Forest Servicepolicy. Furthermore. we considered itgenerally responsive to NTMA eventhough a number of important issueswere not adequately handled. Thesecond draft is a major improvementupon the first. It not only contains theneeded specificity in important areasbut also shows evidence of substantialcreative thinking by the Forest Servicein revising the original draft. It showsclear evidence that the Forest Sercehas considered both the publiccomments on the first draft and thespecific recommendations of theCommittee of Scientists.

Despite this praise. there ae stillsome problems involved with the seconddraft. Some problems are associatedwith organization: others are associatedwith inadequacies or omissions. Weidentify these and suggest correctivelanguage. Other problems arise from the

No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53967Federal Register / Vol. 44,


53968 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

fact that the precise methodologiesnecessary to execute some of the-criticalplanning steps simply have not beendeveloped. We cannot develop suchtechnology; we -simply identify wherethese problems occur, point out theirsignificance, and express our-confidencethat they can be solved if NFMA issupported-as Congress intended.

After a brief general-comment, ourviews are presented in th& order thatsubjects appear in the Mayo4,1979,second draft. When we refer to sectionnumbers in the second draft we identifythem as sections from the "seconddraft." Materials coming from our earlierreport are identified by section numberof the "COS report." 'there we do notcomment on a section or on arequirement it can be assumed that wesupport the text proposed by the ForestService in its second draft.General Comment

The second draft of the regulations isa very careful exposition of a planning"process. As we stated in ourseport onthe first draft, we consider suchemphasis on-process entirely proper,because we interpret NFMA asinstructing the Forest Service to developa process for planning use of lands inthe National Forest System.

The planning process of the seconddraft is developed from the first. We feltthat the process described in the firstdraft could be made to work. Theimprovements in the planning processembodied in the second draft, togetherwith the greater specificity of that draft,makes a competent blueprint for futureplanning. On the whole, we approve ofthe changes in the second draft. In ouranalysis we point out some concernsand propose language to cope -withthem.

We also repeat here the admonition ofour earlier report: that the regulationshave to be read in their entirety to beunderstood. The regulations are acomplex, finely-tuned, document. Manyrequirements cannot be understood'without reading several sections andobserving the relationships betweenrequirements in the several sections. -

Finally, our report points out that thefirst draft regulations were not specificenough in prescribing actions andprocedures to meet the requirementsand intent of NFMA. This matter wasthe subject of intense debate in ourmeetings and the debate continues. Ourreport presented the view that theregulations should be specific inestablishing the principles of landmanagement planning and establishingthe process to be used in applying thoseprinciples. We further'itated that theregulations should not be specific in

regard to prescriptions for the solution revisions. We propose that it beof on-the-ground management problems. reworded as follows: "(3) ProposedMuch of our report was. directed to Program alternatives. The Program isproviding what we, considered to'be formulated from the Assessmentappropriate specificity in key areas. The analysis of resource supply and demandsecond draft-of the regulations contains relationships and from alternativea very high percentage of the program objectives prepared at therecommendations made in our report national level and reviewed andand adds some specificity deemed evaluated at the regional and forestnecessary by Forest Service officials. levels for feasibility and compatibilityThe aggregate effect of these with regional and forest capabilities asrecommendations is a very detailed set expressed in regional and forest plans."of regulations. The degree of detail has, Section 219.4(b)(3) should cite sectionin some cases, led to the charge that the 13 of NFMA in addition to section 0 assecond draft is "over-specific." It is our the authority for development of landview that this charge is invalid. We and resource management plans.consider that, in virtually all cases, the Section 219.5 Planning Process,degree of specificity in the second draft Organizationally this sectionis required in order to meetis reurdi re ome represents the largest differencecongressional intent as specified ,in between the first draft and our report,NFMA and its legislative history. It is on the one hand, and the second draftsimply not possible to cdrry out the on the one A andersecnd dtplanning requirements of NFMA in on the other. As we understand it thisaccordance with a set of regulations that sectionis designed to show that certasscontain nothing but generalities, general features of the planning processAnswers to vital management issues can pertain to the development of bothbe discovered by professionals, but regional hnd forest plans. It is followedCongress intended, and the public by two sections (219.9 and 219.11)desires, that the p~roc~ss used be fully dealing with the specifics of regionaldesiresd thats ptanen procedures eflldescribed in regulations. Although some and forest planmng proceduresmay wish differently, the degree of respectively. We have no quarrel withspecificity represented by the second this organization per se, although it Isdraft-and the recommendations of our not what we recommended in our report.t s w t Our view is that if the Forest Servicerepors. wplanners.feel comfortable with therequires. organization of the second draft, then It

Section-by-Section Analysis should be adopted. We do recommend,Section 219.21 Purpose. however, that section 219.5 be retitled

No:comment. "Regional and Forest Planning Process"Section 219.2 Scope and applicability. to more accurately portray its intent.

No comment. Our concerns stem from what hasSection 219.3 Definitions. been left out in generalizing to create

No comment. ? : - this new general section and forSection 219.4 Planning levels requirements that are now not stated in

In our earlier report, we criticized the clear enough terms,section on "Planning-levels" in the first Our first concern i's that all refrencodraft as failing to make clear the to the discount rate that will be used initerative nature ofthe exchanges among economiccalculations, such as thethe various planning levels, and for , determination of suitable lands forinadequate description of development timber-harvest, has been removed fromof the regional plan and its content. We the second draft. The discount rate is anpointed out the RPA/NFMA planning important factor in calculations and theprocess must begin with on-the-ground public is entitled to know where theassessments of the capabilities of each Forest Service will obtain this datum,National Forest to supply goods and Accordingly, we recommended thatservices at various budgetary levels, and § 219.5(c)(6) be reworded as follows: "(0)of local demands Such information Guidelines for economic analysisshould then be aggregated at the practices established by the Chief,regional and national levels into Forest Service, that will becomeregional plans and the RPA Assessment effective within one year after finaland Program. Regional-and forest goals publication of these planning rules In theare then formulated by disaggregation of Federal Register,!including a discountthese data. The key is'continuous rate of analyses either equal to the rateiteration and interchange of information . used in the RPA Program or otherwisebetween the various planning levels. justified; and"

We consideg that § 219.4 of the second - We are concerned also aboutdraft adequately captures the sense of treatment of inventory data andthis concept. The language of one information collection in § 219.5(d).section (219.4(c)(3)) however needs Because the requirements in this area


Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 181 / Monday. September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53969

were specific in § 219.9[c) of the firstdraft and even more specific in§ 219.10(c) of our report, the change tobrief general requirements.in § 219.5(d)of the second draft could be interpretedas indicating that the Forest Servicedoes not consider availability of data tobe a major problem in planning. Westressed in our report, and we nowstress again, that unless adequate dataare available, the entire planningprocess will be a meaningless game. Noplan can be any better than the datathat underlie it. Consequently, attentionto data collection, storage, andtreatment is a very important feature ofthe planning regulations.

We do not believe that the wording of§ 219.5(d) is intended to downplay theimportance of inventory data acquisitionand management. Statements made inour meetings indicate that none of theNational Forests now has adequateinventory data-to support planning.Initial planning efforts by certain leadforests, however, apparently have givenundue attention to data gatheringwithout a clear relationship to thedecision process. The altered languageattempts to correct this misemphasis.We believe such correction can beachieved without downplaying thecardinal importance of a soundinventory process and suggest that thematter be resolved in the following way:

1. The wording in § 219.5(d) should beretained but augmented by cleardirection that each regional and forestplan should outline a program forgathering and managing data related tothe specific needs of that region orforest. A review of this problem by theSociety of American Foresters proposescertain criteria for this information plan.We commend them to the Forest Serviceas being sound and useful for what wethink is needed.

2. Material describing the nature ofinventory data that will be needed insupport of the respective plans shouldbe inserted in the sections on criteria forregional plans (§ 219.10 and forest plans(§ 219.12). The insertion in criteria forregional plans need not be long, butsubstantially more detail, in line with§ 219.10(c) of our report, should beincluded in the section pertaining toforest planning.

In § 219.5[e)(2) the word "demand" isused in two senses. We suggest that forclarity the words -level of demand"used in the sixth line of the section bechanged to "level of goods andservices."

Section 219.5(f) dealing with theformulation of alternatives is ratherdifferent from that which werecommended in § 219.10(f) of ourreport. Our concern is not with this but

with the omission of some importantideas and the unworkability of severalprovisions. We suggest that:

1. Section (f)f1)(iii) should bereworded. The section Is so stringentlyworded as to be unreasonable in itsrequirements. For example, it could beinterpreted as requiring the restorationof an animal species that had beenextirpated from the region of the forestprior to the time It became a NationalForest. Section [e)(1)(li) of our 219.10could serve as a guide for moremoderate language.

2. Section (f0f1)(iv) is operationallydifficult. We suggest that the wordingused be: "(iv) Each identified majorpublic issue and management concernwill be addressed in one or more

" alternatives: and"3. The word "cost-effective" be

changed to "efficient" in I 219.5(f0(1)(v)and § 219.12(b)[4)(lUd where it alsooccurs. The intent of the use of the term"cost-effective" is to maximize thepresent net worth of each alternativesubject to meeting the objectives of thealternative. Therefore, the followingsentence should be added to§ 219.5(I)(1)(v): "Efficient refers to theset of practices which maximize the sumof anticipated distounted direct benefitsless anticipated discounted directcosts."

4. A new subsection [iv) should beinserted in § 219.5(f)(2), to show the roleof RPA goals and objectives informulating alternatives, as follows:•"(iv) the extent to which it fulfills thegoals and objectives assigned in theregional or forest plan, as appropriate."

Section 219.5(g) dealing withestimation of the effects of alternativesexemplifies the loss of specificity whichoccurred as the planning requirementswere generalized to relate to both theregional and forest plan. A comparisonof this section with its counterpart in ourreport, § 219.10[f) shows that the versionin the second draft consists primarily ofvery general statements similar to thosecontained in (1) through (4) of our report.plus an outline of the economic analysesthat are to be made in determining thebenefits and costs associated with eachalternative. Nowhere is there any realdirection with respect to estimatingenvironmental or social effects. Ourdirection that the impact of eachalternative on diversity be assessed(§ 219.10(f](1) (vi) and (vii) (in ourreport)) is also lacking. Accordingly, wesuggest that:

1. The entire section be rewritten toreflect a better balance among theeffects that are to be assessed and toshow that environmental and socialeffects and effects on diversity, in

addition to economic implications, areto be assessed.

2. The economic requirements of§ 219.5(g)(5) be rewritten. Specifically.!ii) and (iv) should be restructured,inasmuch as they now appear to conflictwith one another. The proceduredescribed in (ii) for assignment of dollarvalues to nonmarket goods and servicesis, in our opinion, suspect and should beeliminated. Subsection (iv) hints that thepreferred alternative will be the one thatmaximizes net worth and this inferenceshould be eliminated. We suggest thatour § 219.10[f)(4). or its sense, besubstituted for (iv). The words "real-dollar" in (iii) might better be replacedby the term "constant-dollar."

3. A subsection be added to tie theeffects of the alternative to the regionalplan such as: "(8) Display therelationship of expected outputs to theforest production goals given in theregional plan."

4. A special crbss-reference be addedat the end of 219.5[g) to indicate thateach alternative will be evaluated interms of the management standardsspecified in § 219.13 (b and fg),

We recommend that a reference to thestandards in § 219.13 (b) and (g) also beadded to § 219.5(h) to indicate that theywill play an important role in theevaluatibn of alternatives.

Finally, does the term "planimplementation" (§ 19.551)) apply toforest planning. regional planning, ornational planning? Although ForestService officials have control overprogram proposals and planimplementation, to what extent do alllevels in the agency have control overbudget allocations? If the intent of thesection is to define appropriate actionsto be undertaken if budget allocationsare not sufficient, then (il(21 and (1(3)should be combined.

Section 219.6 InterdisciplinaryApproach.

This section is improved over the firstdraft. Requirements relating to theappointment of the team. its modusoperandi, and the philosophy that is toguide it are all more explicitly stated.

However, we continue to beconcerned with this section because ofNFMA's special charge to theCommittee that is ". . . assure that aneffective interdisciplinary approach isproposed and adopted." Our report setout three issues critical in assuring aneffective interdisciplinary approach:These are 1) composition of the teamand the qualifications of its members; 2)the philosophy that guides the team: and3) the actual planning process that theteam uses. Some minor additions,patterned after suggestions in our report,


53970 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, Septenber 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

will better assure that the sectionprovides an effective interdisciplinaryapproach. ,,

The requirements of the secpnd draftwith regard to item 1) above arevirtually identical to those of our reportwith one important exception. Werecommended in our § 219.6(b) that,when Forest Service employees withappropriate expertise or qualificationsare not available, the team shall(emphasis added) consult persons otherthan Forest Service employees. Thesecond draft states only that the teami"may" consult such persons. We suggesthat "shall" as in our original languageis better direction in the event therequired expertise is lacking.

Our report also emphasized that itwould be highly desirable for qualified-employees of state agencies to be abl&to serve as members of planning teams.We think that this is the most direct wa:to meet Congress' expectation that "...the expertise of affected'state agencieswilt be obtained and used..."Furthermore, this procedure seemed tous to have the added value ofsubstantially increasing the credibilityof Forest Service planning, particularlyat the state level. It now appears,however, that this is legally not possibleIt is a fact, however, that carefulcoordination among Forest Serviie andstate planners is critical to the successof plans, particularly in areas of sharedresponsibilities, such' as wildlifemanagement. It is not clear to us that thifull desires of Congress for co'ordinationwith the states can be realized throughthe coordination process alone.Therefore, we iecommend that theForest Service explore other ways inwhich it can make judicious use of non-Forest Service employees asIparticipants in the interdisciplinaryplanning process.

The material in the second draftrelating to the qualifications of teammembers is similar to what is in ourreport. We consider the spelling out ofadditional attributes of team members ii§ 219.6(c) of the second draft to be agood addition. We suggest only twominor additions in this area.

1. insert the word "higher" after "or"in line 10 of-§ 219.6(c), and

2. add the last two sentences of219.5(c) from ourreport to the end-of,§ 219.6(c) of the second draft.

We consider that the policy directionto the team in the second draft § 219.6(a]is still weak. It specifies reasonably wellwhat the team is supposed to do butdoes not specify the philosophy that-willguide it. We suggest that the'sense of thefollowing two paragraphs, an amaflgamfrom the introduction and (a) of our

§ 219.5, be added as the introduction to219.65of the second draft:Section 219.6 InterdisciplinaryApproach.

The Forest Service shall use aninterdisciplinary approach at each levelof tI3anning in the National ForestSystem to assure that plans provide formultiple use and sustained yield of theproducts and services to be obtainedfrom the National Forests in accordancewith the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield •Act 6f 1960. This approach should insurecoordinated planning for outdoor

t recreation, range, timber, watershed,wildlife and fish, .and wilderness. Landmanagement systems, harvest levels,and procedures must be determinedwith due consideration for (1) theireffects on all resources, (2J the definitionof "multiple use" and "sustained yield"as provided in the Multiple Use- .

y Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and (3) theavailability of lands and theirsuitabilities for resource management.

An interdisciplinary team, appointedby the responsible Forest Serviceofficial, shall be used at each level ofplanning. Through essentiallycontinuous interactions, the team shallinsure that planning achieves the goalsof multiple use and sustained yieldmanagement, by giving consideration toall resources and to the effects ofmanagement of one resource upon otherresources. The interdisciplinary teamshall be guided by the fact that theforests and rangelands of the NationalForest System are ecosystems and,hence, that management for goods andservices requires an awareness of theinterdependencies among plantsanimals, soil and other environmentalfactois that occur within such ,ecosystems. Proposed management

-programs must be both consistent withthe nature of these interactions andbased upon the results of economic andsocial aiialysis. '

Section 219.7 Public Participation.The guidance provided in this section

is generally adequate. Sufficientdirection is provided for the publicparticipation effort so that ForestService planners can be clear as to whatis expected of them. Perhaps moreimportant, sufficient guidance isprovided so thatThe public canunderstand Forest Service obligationsand procedures relating to publicparticipation.

I Although the section is somewhatdifferent from that proposed in ourreport, it speaks to many of oursuggested additions to thexequirementscontained in the first draft. The seconddraft, however, fails-to specify thatpublic participation is required at a

certain-minimum number of key steps inthe planning process, and that theresponsible official must document thhthe has analyzed and evaluated publicinput. Our proposed admonitions toencourage informal activities,discourage obscure notification, andencourage clarity in writing have beenomitted. Finally, a very controversiallimitation on the right of appeal hasbeen inserted as a new § 219.7(o) in thesecond draft.

If the sense of the following minoradditions are made to § 219.7 of thesecond draft, then the requirements forpublic participation activities (excludingthe appeal provision) will be moreuseful and acceptable,

1. The order of the statements ofintent in§ 219.7(a) should be altered. Aspresently ordered, they suggest thatinforming the public of Forest Serviceactivities is more important thaninsuring that the Forest Serviceunderstands the needs and concerns ofthe public. We recommend that (a)(3) beplaced first, as the concept was in ourreport, and the others numberedaccordingly. We also suggest that (a)(5)be reworded as follows: "(5)Demonstrate that public concerns andinput are evaluated and considered inreaching planning decisions." Theinclusion of the concept in (a)(4) Isexcellent. In reality, however, it is astatement of the basic goal of publicparticipation,,and the other statementsare goals subordinate to it. Therefore,we suggest that the concept embodied In(a)(4) be moved up to the lead languageof (a) where it can serve as part of theintroduction to the various subgoals ofpublic participation. If this is done, thenthe first sentence of § 219.7(f) should bedeleted.

2. The requirements from line 10 to theend of § 219:6(c) in our report, which areomitted from 219.7(d) of the seconddraft, should be teinserted. This willprovide minimal assurance thatactivities will stress informality and thatmaterials are written in such a way asto be of maximum value to the public.

3. The notice requirements at the endof § 219.6(d) of our report should beinserted at the end of I 219.7(c) of thesecond draft.

4. A sentence should be added at theend'of § 219.7(e) of the second draftcontaining the sense of the last sentenceof our §219.6(j). We suggest. "Inaddition, the plan shall contain writtenmaterial demonstrating that thesignificant issues raised during publicparticipation have been analyzed andevaluated,'?

5. The sense of our § 219.6(g) shouldbe inserted at an appropriate place in§ 219.7 of the second draft. This will



insure that public participation activitiesoccur at certain key steps during theplanning process' We feel that thepublic should know where these stepsare (where in the process it can expectto be involved) and that the ForestService officials need to have thesespelled out so as to assist in planningpublic participation programs.

6. Section 219.7a1) of the second draftshould be reworded as follows: "Alldocuments considered in developmentof plans will be available at the officewhere the plan was developed."

Solution of the problem presented bythe limitation on administrative appealsembodied in § 219.7[o) of the seconddraft is a much more difficult problem.We understand why the Forest Serviceinserted this provision. It fears thatendless appeals of planning decisionsmay prevent for years the finalimplementation of a plan. Theadministrative morass that such asituation would create is clearlyundesirable. On the other hand, weunderstand why so many readers of thesecond draft, object to the ForestService 'Proposal. No one willinglywishes to surrender the xight ofadministrative appeal and have hissource of redress for planning decisionslie only in the courts. It appears to usthat §219.7{o) will be undesirable andunacceptable to many. We recommendthat the Forest Service develop adifferent solution, even though this maymean changes in its administrativeappeal procedures.

Section2l9.8 Coordination of PublicPlanning Efforts.

This section is vastly improved overthe treatment in the first draft. It is nowa workable blueprint for coordination ofForest Service planning with that ofother State and Federal agencies.

Because this section so closelyfollows the recommendation of ourreport, we have no substantive changesto suggest. One important matter is theprocedure outlined in § 219.8(d) of thesecond draft to facilitate coordinationwith State governments. This involves arequirement that regional foresters seekagreements with Governors or theirdesignated representatives on certaincrucial procedural measures. We hadsuggested that the Forest Servicerequest each-Governor to designate aperson to act as contactperson withrespect to all planning activities.Although the Forest Service proposal isdifferent from ours, it appears equallylikely to work and equally capable ofproducing the desired results, that is, acloser liaison with each state during alllevels of planning.

We suggest that state and localgrowth plans be added to the inventoryrequirement of § 219.8(0). Growth plans.where such exist, can be powerfulexpressions of political and social desirewith regard to the location of industryand public services. To ignore them isunwise as we point out in our report.

We further suggest that the final draftinclude § 219.7[) of our report or itssense. It seems important to make clearthat the mutual effects of landmanagement practices on NationalForests and adjacent lands is a propersubject of the monitoring program. Ifsuch a requirement is not specified, wethink it likely that monitoring will beconfined to more obvious subjects suchas water quality, soil changes, and bioticeffects.

We also suggest the deletion of thewords "and on which management isbeing practiced similar in character tothat being practiced on adjacentnational forest lands" which appear atthe end of the first line of § 219.8(g) ofthe second draft. Although this phraseoriginated in our discussions ofcoordination with the Forest Service andwere included in our report. they nowappear toplace an inappropriatelimitation on the intent of the section.

Finally, we find that most of the cross-referencing additions we haverecommended at the end of our sectionon coordination have been omitted fromthe second draft. Although such cross-referencing adds redundancy and lengthto the regulations, we consider it usefulin understanding the relationships of thevarious requirements to each other, andrecommend that it be restored.Section 219.9 Regional PlanningProcedure.

Our report stated that the proposedthree-tiered planning process, involvingnational, regional, and forest planningwas sound. We are pleased to see thisconcept substantially improved in thesecond draft. The requirementsgoverning the regional planningprocedure have been greatly expandedand clarified. Furthermore, a sectiondealing with the content of the regionalplan and the planning criteria to beincluded in it has been added. Takentogether, these sections provide anadequate framework for developing theregional plan. Although regional plansare not called for in NFM. wethoroughly agree with the Forest Serviceview that they are critical to the wholeRPA planning process. Nevertheless,some changes in §§ 219.9 and 219.10 ofthe second draft are desirable, in orderthat the regional plans can play the vitalrole envisioned by the Forest Service.,

Section 219.9 is straight-forward andwe find few problems in it. Werecommend small changes as follows:

1. In § 219.9(a) we suggest, that forclarity, the phrase "forest planningareas" in the first sentence be changedto "National Forests or forest planningareas:

2. In § 219.9(d). the role of the Stateand Private Forestry and ExperimentStation elements of the Forest Service isnot clearly specified. We suggest thatthis could be done in the third sentenceof § 219.9(d).

3. Section 219.9(11(6) should read"National Forest System programs."

4. Section 219.2(i) on monitoring seemsforced, and put in more for symnnetrythan for real effect. The items to bemonitored seem very broad and verydifficult to quantify. The sectioncertainly does no harm but if it is to beleft. we suggest that it be reworked so asto be somewhat more substantive andclearer in its objectives. The sectionshould make clear that regional goalsand objectives are to be the subjects ofmonitoring and that specific on-the-ground management practices will bemonitored in conjunction with theindividual forest plans.Section 219.10 Criteria for RegionalPlanning Actions.

We find more substantive problems inthis section dealing with regionalplanning criteria. The title is misleadinginasmuch as the section includes criteriaof two sorts: criteria for planning anddecision criteria. How the term is usedis not entirely clear. Perhaps it would bebetter simply to title the section"Regional Plan Content" and structure itaround the outline in § 219.9(h).Uncertainty as to the meaning of theword "criteria" crops up again inconjunction with the long list ofconcerns in § 21910(b). Most of theseare not expressed as criteria and mightbetter be phrased simply as concerns tobe considered in regional planning.

Section 219.10(c) is weak because itdoes not make clear the relationshipbetween the regional plan and the RPAAssessment and Program. The words"contribute and respond to" are hardlyoperational. We suggest the initialwording of the section be changed to:"Cc) To the extent consistent withregional and forest resource capabilities,regional plans will meet RPA goals andobjectives by providing long-rangepolicies, goals, and objectives;"

Section 219.10(d) creates problems onseveral counts. First. the section clearlyspecifies material that relates to thecontent of the regional plan. Thestandards and criteria enumerated areitems that must be developed in each


53972 Federal Register I Vol. 44, N6. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations

regional plan and which then set"dimensions on the individual- forestplans in a given region. We suggesteither that § 219.9(h) be moved into§ 219.10 to form the basis for the section,or that § 219.10(d) be moved to219.9(h)(5). Either move-would resolvethe inconsistency.

The content of 219.10(d) also posesproblems. The section is similar to219.8(e) of our report except that it-omitsour sections (1) silvicultural systems, (5)management intensity and utilizationstandards, (6) regeneration criteria, and(7) cost standards for determination ofland suitable for timber harvest. Section219.10(d) of the second draft also omitsimportant language at the end of our§ 219.8(e) relating to the use of RegionalSilvicultural Guides and to consistencyamong regions. We recommend that:

1. Our § 219.8(e)(1) and (5) be insertedas written in § 219.10(d) of the seconddraft.

2. Our § 219.8(e)(6) be inserted in§ 219.10(d) of the second draft but thatsubsequent wording relating to thedevelopment of Regional SilviculturalGuides'be revised so as to'make clearthat this section need not be subject tothe same public participationconstraints as are the other sections. Weconsider this to be apk'ropriate becauseof the technical complexity of the issue.

3. A section relating to determinationof cost standards be inserted in§ 219.10(d) of the second draft asfollows: "(9) Establishment of the'pricestandard(s) to be used in determiningthe potential economic suitability ofland for commercial timber productionas required in § 219.12(b)."

4. All of the material at the end of our§ 219.8(e) beginning with thq words"These prescriptions, size limits, andstandards.. ." and ending with the-words ", . . justify such differences." beadded at the end of § 219.10(d) of thesecond draft.'

The statement in § 219.10(f) of thesecond draft that "Very little new datawill be gathered through land andresource inventories" concerns us. Werecognize the practical need to developregional plans,. or at least the firstgeneration of them, without a massiveeffortto gather new data.-The tone andimplication of (f), however, is that dataare not important to the regional planand that it can bb fabricated entirelyfrom existing data. We think thisimplication is wrong and that it fails toconvey the problem that the ForestService faces. We suggest that§ 219.10(f) be rewritten soas to providesome more substantive standards fordata gathering in conjunction with theregional plan. Such guidance is sorelyneeded both by Forest Service planners

and by the public that may seek tointeract with the Forest Service in thedevelopment of regional plans.Section 219.11 Forest-PlanningProcedure.

This section closely parallels theconstruction of the first draft and that of§ 219.9 of our report. The principaldifferences are in (a) the greaterspecificity of the second draft, (b)inclusion of several sections (plancontent, monitoring and evaluation) thatwere previously included with thesection describing the forest planningprocess, and Cc) addition of some newmaterial [planning records).

Our report stated that the proceduresproposed for forest planning weresatisfactory and that they laid out themajor responsibilities and requirementsto be met. The proposed changes in thissection strengthen it, and we thereforesupport its adoption.Section 219.12 Criteria for ForestPlanning Actions.

The second draft creates two sections(Criteria for forest planning actions(§ 219.12) and Management standardsand guidelines (§ 219.13)) from materialpreviously included in a single section ofthe first draft and in our report. We feltmorecomfortable having the materialrelated to the management of a givenresource included in a section treatingthat resource. As our report noted,however, placing all guidance forplanning and managing each resource inan individual subsection dealing withthat resource, might imply continuationof functional resource planning. Thismay-be sufficient reason for the ForestService to espouse-the treatment 'contained in the second draft despitewhatever awkwardness results.Whatever the reason, our opinion is thatif the Forest Service understands thisstructure, and can operate comfortablyunder it, there is no technical reasonwhy it should not be adopted.

The content of §§ 219.12 and 219.13 ofthe second draft, taken collectively, isclose to that recommended in our report.We had criticized the section onmanagement standards and guidelinesin the first draft as being too limited inspecificity and failing to deal with anumnber of critical issues. We arepleased at the adoption of the basicframework together with nearly all ofthe specific planning criteria andmanagement standards of our report.We have a number of specificsuggestions, however, for change Whichwe ,think will substantially strengthenthe section and render it moresatisfactory.

As nbted above in our comments on§ 219.5, the second draft is deficient

with respect to criteria for inventories,particularly those basic to the forestplan. We suggest that the sense of§ 219.10(c) from our report could bemade a new § 219.12(b) In the final draft,We agree that a "shopping list" such asthis does not assure competentinventory but it does indicate that theagency is indeed serious aboutaccumulating an adequate data base tosupport its planning and managementprograms.

The very difficult problem ofdetermining lands available, capable,and suitable for timber production andharvesting is treated in § 219.12(b) of thesecond draft. Our report analyzed thisissue at length and proposed analternative procedure to that containedin the first draft. The second draftgenerally follows our proposal.Nevertheless the procedure outlined inthe second draft contains someproblems that need to'be resolvedbefore it will be entirely satisfactory.These problems and our proposedresolutions are as follows:

1. Section 219.12(b)(1)(1) requires thatany land that has been ". .legislatively or administrativelywithdrawn from timber production".bodesignated as not suited for timberproduction. We agree that such a screenshould be used first in determining thesuitability of lands for timber harvest,Because there is some ambiguity as towhat is meant by the term"administratively withdrawn", however,we recommend that the term be definedby reference to the authority used tomake the withdrawal.

2. Some of the criteria used in makingthe economic tests for suitability havebeen moved to § 219.5, and the wordingof others has been altered in the seconddraft. These changes are substantiveand appear to imply policies with whichwe disagree. The Forest Service haschosen not to use our proposal thatdirect benefits be expressed in terms ofan "alternative cost standard." Werecognize that the concept is untried andthat its implementation might bedifficult, but the concept has merit andshould be retained as an alternativeapproach. However, the use of"expected future stumpage prices" asthe measure of direct benefits In thesecond draft needs further developmentbefore it can be accepted as a validmeasure of public benefit. Ourreservations about using stumpage priceas a mqasure of public benefit werediscussed in our previous report (see ourdiscussion of § 219.10(d) of the firstdraft). What is and what is not Includedin the term "stumpage" needs to bedefined. For example, does it include

No0. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations53972 Federal Register / Vol. 44,


Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53973

roads and other aspects of the sale oftimber? Furthermore, because thebenefit/cost criterion will be used,either formally or informally, as adecision criterion, "stumpage price"becomes a policy matter.

Accordingly, we recommend that aschedule of prices, whether expressedas stumpage price or alternative coststandard, be determined as a part of theregional plan. We have includedrecommended language for suchdetermination in conjunction with ourcomments on § 219.10 of the seconddraft (See discussion of § 219.10(d), Item3). Because of the geographic variationin Forest Service Regions, this schedulewill have to be broken down bysubregions in the regional plan.

3. A statement concerning the"interest rate used to discount futurebenefits and costs of timber production"has been eliminated entirely from thesecond draft. We understand that thisdetermination may well be made by anauthority other than the Forest Service.such as OMB or the Secretary ofAgricillture. Despite ibis, we think thatspecification of the ultimate source ofthe interest rate used would help publicunderstanding. As stated earlier, wesuggest that it be added among theeconomic criteria outlinedin§ 219.5(c)[6), and cross-referenced into§ 219.12[b).

4. Because specification of thepractices associated with a particularintensity of management is critical to theeconomic test for suitability, werecommend that the following qualifierbe inserted after the first sentence of§ 219.12(b)2)/iii) in the second draft:"However, the practices associated witha particular intensity of managementmust be economically efficient."

5. Section 219.12(b)(4) is unclear.Paragraph (4)(i) seems to relegate timberproduction to a residual use. The shift inorder of the three paragraphs, (i), (ii),and IBM) from that in our report changesthe emphasis of the section. Werecommend that the order and wordingembodied in (A), (B), and (C) of our§ 219.(e)(1)(iiH) be used instead of thetreatment now in the second draft.

6. Section 219.11(e)(1)(iv) in our reporthas been omitted from the second draftAlthough the basic concept embodied inthis paragraph seems to be treated in theevaluation ofulternatives requirements,we consider the sense of the paragraphimportant to a thorough understandingof the determination of lands suitablefor timber harvest. We recommend thatthis paragraph be reinserted as§ 219.12(b)(5) of the final draft, -with thecurrent (5) becoming (6).

The provisions governingdetermination of timber harvest

schedule (§ 219.12(d) of the seconddraft) are essentially those of the firstdraft which, in turn, derived fromlanguage we recommended. We supportthe proposed language, we consider thatthe provisions for determiningdepartures from the base schedule areboth appropriate and consistent withNFMA, and we concur with the changethat requires a plan containing adeparture to be approved by the Chief ofthe Forest Service. Several minorproblems in this section have beenbrought to our attention and we suggestthey be dealt with as follows:

1. It was pointed out to us in our June,1979, meeting that the present wordingof § 219.12(d(1)(ii)(1D) seems redundantand unnecessary in light of the specifiedrequirement for "long term sustainedyield" elsewhere in § 219.12(d](1)(i).Furthermore, this paragraph couldrequire unnecessarily expensiveanalyses when extremely irregularinitial conditions combine with short-run objectives so as to make itimpossible to, achieve the long-termsustained-yield structure except after aconsiderable period of time. Weconsider this paragraph as necessary,however, because it spells out a designstandard for the determination ofdepartures. Therefore, we recommendthat the initial wording of (D) be alteredas follows: "[D) For all harvestschedules, demonstrate that each isconsistent with achievement of a foreststructure that will enable perpetualtimberharvest . .

2. Section 219.12(d)[1)[iii) has nowbeen worded in such a way that onlyone alternative is required inconjunction with the calculation of adeparture. Furthermore, the wordingrequires that the alternative be"considered and formulated." Werecommend the following substitutewording: "(iii) One or more alternativesproviding for departures from the baseharvest schedules will be formulated,considered and subjected tocomparative analysis when any of thefollowing conditions occur."

Finally, it has been pointed out to usthat the timber harvest schedulingprovisions relate primarily to even-agedmanagement and harvesting. This maycreate problems if the provisions are tobe applied to other harvest andmanagement systems.

Provisions of the second draft relatingto identification and management ofwilderness (§ 219.12 (e) and (1)) agreewith our report (§ 219.11(g)) in allrespects, except to specify that landsdesignated for non-wilderness purposesin the recent RARE I classification neednot be again assessed as wilderness asthe first generation of new forest plans

is prepared. We concur with thisexception and consider the revised draftwholly satisfactory with respect to thewilderness resource.

The second draft includes virtually allof the language that we recommendedfor special guidelines to govern theplanning for wildlife and fish(§ 219.12(g)), range (§ 219.12(h)),recreation (§ 219.12(i]), and soil andwater resources (§ 219.12[k)). We haveno further recommendations in regard tothese sections.

We are pleased to see that a sectiondealing with mineral resources(§ 219.12j)). is contained in the seconddraft. We also commend the ForestService for including provisions relatingto cultural resources and for researchnatural areas. All three of these newprovisions add an important dimensionto the regulations.Section 219.13 Management Standardsand Guidelines.

As mentioned, the content of § 219.13is similar to material in parts of§ 219.11of our draft. The section dealing withstandards that all management practiceswill meet (§ 219.13(b]) is an expansionofour § 219.11(a). Likewise, therequirements of most other sections canbe tracked back to our I 219.11(a)which, in part, can be tracked to thereport of the Forest Service SilvicultureTask Force presented to our meeting inthe fal of 1978. Generally speaking wefind the language in § 219.13 of thesecond draft acceptable. Certain issuesdeserve further comment, however, andin some cases minor changes of wordingseem called for.

The silvicultural provisions of thesecond draft (§ 219.13 Cc) and (d)) differfrom our recommendation in only onemajor respect, that is, control of the sizeof openings created by harvest cutting.

The second draft establishes three

categories of maximum size according toforest regions and type, with a blanket40 acres maximum applying to all typesof the contiguous U.S. other than theDouglas-fir type where the limit is 60acres (§ 219.13(d)). Larger openings maybe permitted as exceptions in regionalplans. These provisions are in contrastto our rationale and suggestedregulation language (§ 219.11(a)(3))which assigned setting of appropriatemaximums to the regional plans in theinterests of greater precision andflexibility.

Otherwise the provisions of the draftunder Vegetation Management(§ 219.12(c)) and Management Standardsand Guidelines § 219.13(c) are in closeagreement with our suggested language(§ 219.10(a)(2) and § 219.11(a)(3)). Thefactors to be considered in establishing


No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

size limits for openings in the-regionalplan, under our proposal (§ 219.11(a)(3)),however, now appear as considerationswhen establishing exceptions tonationally prescribed maximums in theregional plan.

We recognize that setting nationalmaximum size limits has taken on asymbolic importance for someenvironmental groups. The provisions ofAlternative No. 6 of the DEIS in thisrespect are an evident concession tosuch feelings, and do not have anyfactual basis in forest-ecology and land -management. We recognize also thatpresent practices on National Forestscommonly are within the indicatedmaximums so that delays, added costsor lower returns, and reducedmanagement options may occur inrelatively few locations if the provisionsfor exceptions are indeed used-effectively. In our judgment, however,the imposition of nationally prescribedmaximums lacks any technical orscientific foundation, and will in no wayimprove the quality of resourcemanagement. Rather it is simply an-unnecessary constraint or source of,delay in interdisciplinary planning at theForest and Regional levels .

We again call attention to thediscussion of this issue in our-report:"There simply is no scientificjustification for establishing any singlemaximum (or minimum) area limit forthe entire nation, nor yet for any regionas a whole. In our view, the soletechnical purpose of maximum sizelimits is as an outside safeguard againstthe unpredictability of natural eventsand on-the-ground misjudgments orexcesses of zeal. That purpose is servedonly when the limits are made,appropriate to particular sets of terrain,soil, climatic probabilities, andvegetation. A single arbitrary value,selected as a compromise, must-necessarily prevent or needlesslyhamper planning operations at somelocations while providing whollyinadequate safeguards to more difficultor hazard-prone situations at others.

The present draft regulations requirethat each regional plan establishmaximum limits for the area to be cut inone harvest operation, according togeographical area and forest type(§ 219.10(d)(3)(vi]). These provisions'spell out no less than ten factors thatmust be considered in setting theselimits. Furthermore, the regional-plan issubject to the environmentalimpactstatement process."

Accordingly, we reiterate our originalrecommendation that each regional planestablish a series of maximums -appropriate to particular forest typesand physical situations.

We also call attention to the term -"tree openings" in the lead sentence of§ 219.13(d) of the seco0nd draft.'This termis ambiguous and should be replacedwith language such as "When openingsare created in the forest by theapplication .

In our report we pointed out that thefirst draft of the regulations containednumerous provisions intended tosafeguard soil stability, soil productivityand water resources, and recommendedtwo additional provisions: an emphasison official technical handbooksconsolidating site specific instructions,and a special planning requirement forstreamside and-lakeside margins.

The present draft in {§§ 219.12(k) and219.13 (b), (c), (e) and (f)) includesessentially all of the previous andrecommended provisions contained in'our proposed language (§ 219.11(a) (4),(5) and 219.11(f)) but with improvedphrasing. There are two consequentialdifferences, however. -

Section 219.13(e) of the second draft,establishing the spedial planning strips,states that, "no management practiceswill be permitted (in these) that 'seriously or adversely affect waterconditions or fish habitat." Thiscompares with our proposed language,"all management activities, such as...,will be conducted in such a way'as toprotect these waters from detrimental'changes... (in compliance with othercited regulations) and to the extent thattotal multiple use benefits exceedcosts." We regard the latter language asmore realistic and flexible in practice,with an emphasis on finding solutions,where these exist, rather thanencouraging blanket prohibitions..

Section 219.13(f) of the second draft,which includes provision for officialtechnical handbooks, omits ourrequirement that these containperformance stanqards and tolerancelimits. We recognize that an objectivebasis for setting definitive standards "and limits is lacking in many instancesat present, and hence our proposal maybe too stringent. Nevertheless-we regardthe establishment of such standards andlimits as preferable to use of unspecified,qualitative terms.

The second draft also contains animportant new provision § 219.13(b)(12)regarding establishment of vegetation onthe total area disturbed-by roads.Among other benefits the resultingstabilization of disturbed surfacs "would reduce likelihood of sedimehtentering streams in some situatiohs.. Accordingly, we consider he revised'draft as highly satisfactory in re'pect'tosoil and Water protection, butrecommend that the provision din specialplanning strips be changed to more "

nearly accord with the sense of ouroriginal proposal.

'We wish to emphasize also that therequirement for special planning ofstrips bordering permanent streams andlakes is'by no means an automaticprovision for "buffer strips", Therequired planning may indeed call for"buffer strips" to trap sediment, toprevent equipment, animal, or human'activity along water margins, or tocontrol water temperature where thoseare appropriate. But elsewhere thephysical circumstances and the outcomeof interdisciplinary planning may resultin quite other treatments, provided thatwatei quality is not impaired.Accordingly we consider the use of theterm "buffer strip" as a synonym forspecial planning strips unfortunate, notin accord with the specific language ofthe regulations, and likely to mislead thecasual reader. We recommend that it bereplaced in the DEIS, Moreover werecommend that the ratiqnale fortreatment of such strips, as contained Inour report, be made explicit in the finalEIS to avoid possible misunderstanding.

Diversity continues to be one of themost difficult issues with which theseregulations must deal. We analyzed theissue in our report and stressed that, inour opinion, Congress used the termdiversity to refer to biological varietyrather than any of the quantitativeexpressions now found in the biologicalliterature. Accordingly, we supported astraightforward definition of the term,such as that found in the second draft(§219.3(e)) and helped develop atreatment of diversity that Insured itwould be considered throughout theplanning process rather than as oneisolated step in the process.

The treatment of diversity In thesecond draft is generally consistent withour report. However, there are someimportant differences to bq resolved inthe final draft. Our § 219.10, describingthe forest planning process, required(§219.10(c(2)(vii)) that quantitativedata useful for determining diversity becollected. No such requirement appearsin the second draft; it will be restoredhowever,, if our recommendationsrelating to inventory requirements arefollowed.:

'urthermore, our sections on theformulation of alternatives(§219.10(e)(2)(iv)) and estimation of thoeeffects of alternatives (§219.10(f)(1) (vi)and (vii)) both required that diversity beconsidered in structuring and evaluatingalternatives. Both of these requirementshave been lost in the process ofgeneralizing the planning process topertain both to regional and forest plans.Because both of these requirements artcritical to an appropriate evaluation of

- -I A

53974 Federal Register / Vol. 44,


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No.. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53975

diversity, we recommend that they bereinserted. Our proposed changes in§219.5 of the second draft would resolvethis problem.

In rewriting two key sections relatingto diversity, the Forest Service seems tohave created problems for itself and, tosome extent, distorted the intent of theprovisions contained in our report. Thetwo sections involved are§ 219.11(a](1)(v) from our report which isequivalent to § 219.13(b)(5) of thesecond draft, and § 219.11(a)(6) from ourreport, which is equivalent to § 219.13(g)of the second draft. We recommendthese be rewritten as follows:

"[5) Provide for and maintain diversity inplant and animal communities to meet overallmultiple-use objectives, including, whereappropriate and to the degree practicable,preservation of the variety of endemic anddesirable naturalized plant and animalspecies currently found in the area coveredby the forest plan;"

"(g] Diversity of plant and animalcommunities and tree species will beconsidered throughout the planning process.Inventories will include quantitative datamaking possible the evaluation of diversity interms of its prior and present condition. Foreach planning alternative, theinterdisciplinary team will consider howdiversity will be affected by various mixes ofresource outputs and uses. includingproposed management practices. Theselected alternative will provide for diversityof plant and animal communities and treespecies to meet the overall multiple-useobjectives of the planning area. To the extentconsistent with the requirement to provide fordiversity, management practices, whereappropriate and to the extent practicable,will preserve and'enhance the diversity ofplant and animal communities and treespecies so that it is at-least as great as thatwhich would be expected in an unmanagedpart of the planning area. Reductions inexisting diversity of plant and animalcommunities and tree species will be madeonly where needed to meet overall multiple-use management objectives. Planned typeconversions will be justified by an analysisshowing biological, economic, and socialconsequences, and the relation of suchconversions to the process of naturalchange.""We also recommend that the word

"natural" in the fifth line of thedefinition of diversity in § 219.3(e) beremoved. The wording that werecommend for § 219.13(b](5] makesclear that preservation of the variety ofendemic and desirable naturalized plantand animal species is a goal of diversityconsiderations. Therefore, the word"natural" is not necessary in thedefinition.

Finally, many comments have beenraised indicating that no referenceshould be made to "species" or "speciesabundance" in the definition of diversitythat appears in the final draft. Such

references appear in the definition in thesecond draft (219.3(e)). The argumentagainst including references to speciesand abundance in the treatment ofdiversity is that no references to thesedimensions of the diversity problemappear in NFMA or its legislativehistory. If this were as far as the matterwent, it could be resolved by omittingthem from the definition. However, inassessing the diversity of plant andanimal communities the Forest Servicemust deal with both numbers and kindsof species. It is simply not possible toassess diversity without knowing whatkinds of species compose the differentcommunities in a region and thenumbers of each that are present for thesimple reason that kinds and numbersare the biological ways that diversity ismeasured. On the other hand,controlling the maximum numbers andgeneral distribution of say, deer andbear, may be absolutely necessary inmultiple use management. The problemis a true administrative "Catch-22", andit seen's to us the Forest Service ran dolittle other than it has done in phrasingits regulatory response to Congress'direction.Section 219.14 Research.

The requirements for incorporatingresearch into the planning process seemto.have been simplified over those In ourreport. We have concluded that theessential points are in the second draftand that additional wording would notbe particularly useful.

A recommendation that emerged fromour discussions, however, is that therequired annual report, which is todescribe the status of major researchprograms and relate this to NationalForest management (219.14(c) of thesecond draft), be developed at theregional, rather than national, level. Wefeel that research can best becoordinated at the regional level andthat the report will be more useful ifprepared there.

We call attention again to the need forbetter coordination between researchand forest management. Coordination offorest planning and-Forest Serviceresearch is an administrative matter,however, and it is unlikely to bemeasurably improved by requirementsin regulation form.Section 219.15 Revision of Regulations.

We are pleased that a provision forperiodic revision of the regulations isincluded. Although we understand thatthe Secretary of Agriculture can appointwhatever advisory committees he mightdesire, we still feel that there is greatbenefit to be derived from continuedinvolvement of a Committee of

Scientists, such as ours, in the process offurther revision of these regulations.

Therefore, we recommend that such aprovision be included.Section 219.16 Transition Period.

No commenL

Closing CommentsIn closing, we would emphasize

several points. Some relate to ourreview of the second draft of the-regulations; the remainder concern theactions required during the next fewyears to successfully implement theseregulations.

We must stipulate that, of necessity.our review of the second draft has beenlimited. Each of us has read the draftthoroughly and four of us discussed it atour last meeting. Because of thecomplexity of the regulations and therather sweeping reorganizationalchanges made in the draft, however,there is a possibility that we have notcaught or evaluated all changes ofconsequence.

The planning process described bythese regulations is a complex one. Itwill be costly, in terms of personnel andresources, to implement. Our reportcomments on the need for adequatenumbers and a balanced mix ofinterdisciplinary team members in theForest Service if the planning envisionedby these regulations is to becomereality. We continue to be concernedabout this matter, and problemsencountered by the Forest Service itstrails of these regulations on certain"lead Forests" suggest that such concernis justified. Originally, The ForestService hoped to be able to developinterdisciplinary planning teams forgiven forests by assigning specialists totemporary duty at a succession ofNational Forests. In this way the samespecialists could deal with similar issueson several forests progressively, thusholding down personnel costs. For avariety of reasons that appear to be welljustified, it now appears desirable totrain local planners to deal with theirown issues, in order that there be localleadership in the development of theplan and, more importantly, localcommitment to its implementation. Keyspecialists assigned from the Region canprovide some leadership and qualitycontrol, but the urgent need is forplanning competence on each forestsupervisor's staff. This requires morepersonnel skilled in planning, especiallyin such areas as economics, datamanagement and recreation, than arenow available. This need must be metsomehow if planning is to succeed. s

It seems clear to us, therefore, that ourreport was correct in stating that Forest


53976 Federal.Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Service estimates of the cost of planningwere grossly conservative. Our reportcited Department of Agriculture data;contained in the House Report onNFMA, indicating planning costs of $20,million per year for the five fiscal yearsfrom 1977-1981. Revised figures (p.26576) in the draft EIS accompanying thesecond draft indicate the costs will be.nearly $1.40 million for the seven fiscalyears from 1979-1985. This averagesslightly less than $1 miilliqn per plan. Anincreased manpower need ofi.9 manyears pek plan is ais6 estimated.'Although these figures are higher thaliearlier estimates, we still regard them asconservative. The total added effort andcosts required by inventory, economicanalysis, and monitoring requirementsalone pose new dimensions, farbeyondanything now under way in the ForestService.

Thus we again emphasize ourearlierstatement that, if the Congressionalintention of NFMAis to be realizedc,adequate funding for increased'personnel and data acquisition must bemade available by eachadministrationand by Congress. If this is not done, theprocess will not work.

The regulations provide guidelines forplanning, and the standards orprocedures for developing 6tandards, forcritical management actions on theNational Forests. We think that sound.wise answers to local and regionalproblems, such as timber harvestscheduling, harvest methods, andwilderness allocation, can be generatedthrough the RPA/NFMA planningprocess. The task now is to make that..process work. We trust thatboth --,Congress, and the-various groupswith,interests in management of the NationalForests; will allow-the planning prdcessto be implemented and allow it to deal -with critical management problems.

We close this report and ourparticipation on a positive note The:Forest Service has been through, sometrying times, recently. RARE:II, NFMA.and reorganization have been, difficultissues with which to deal. The agencyhas come through all of these with itsprofessional stature intact. The qualityof the regulations developed forimplementing the. planning provisions ofNFMA indicates that the Forest Servicecan respond to public concerns in a ,professional,.yet sympathetic, way. Aswe said in our report, if the agency can-bring the same dedication toimplementing .the regulations. that it.brought to writing them, then certainly,the outcome-will be positive.

IFinally, a word of thanks andcongratulations to Chief~ohn R.McGuire and his staff. The assistancethey provided us made a difficult task

far easier. Although we disagreed many-times, we were able to resolve'viruallyall of our substantive differences. Weparticularly wish Chief McGuire'wel" 6nthe occasion of his retire'ment. We trust'that new Chief Max Peterson will havethe support and forbearance of all, boihinside and outside the Forest Service, ashe turns to the difficult task ofimplementing these sweepingregulations.

Title-36 of the Code ofFederalRegulations, is amended by adding anew Part 219, consisting ofSubpart A asset out below.

PART 219-PLANNINGSubpart A-Natfonar Forest System Landand Resource Management Planning.Sec,219.1 Purpose_-219.2" Scope and Applicability.219.3 Definitions.219•A PlanningLevels.219.5 Regional and Forest Planning Process,219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach.219.7 Public Participation.219.8 Coordination of Publin Planning',

Efforts.219.9 Regional Planning Procedure.219.10 Regional Planning Actions.'219.11 Forest Planning Procedure..219.12 Forest Planning Actions.219.13 Management Standards and

Guidelines.219.14 Research.219.15 Revision ofiRegulations•219.10, Transition Period.

Authority.-Secs. 6,and 15, 90 Stat. 2949,2952. 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613); and 5 U•S.C.301.

Subpart A-Nattonar Forest SystemLand and Resource ManagementPlanning

§ 2191 Purpose.(a] The regulations in this subpart setforth a process. for developing,-adopting-

and revising land and resourcemanagement plans for the NationalForest System. The purpose of the.planning process is to-meet therequirements of the Forest andRangeland Renewable ResourcesPlanning Act of 1974, as amended(hereafter RPA) including procedures.under the National EnvironmentalPolfcy"Act of 1969 (hereafter NEPA) forassessing economic, social, andenvironmental impacts. Theseregulations prescribe how land andresource management planning is to bb"conducted on NationalForest System ;lands. The resulting plans will'prov-idfor multiple use and sustained yield oftgoods and services from the. Nati6nalForest System.

(b) Plans guide all natural resouce"management activities and establishi.management standards and'guidelifes',

for the National Forest System. Theydetermine resource managementpractices, harvesting levels andprocedures under the principles ofmultiple use and sustained yield and' theavailability and-suitability of lands forresource management, All levels ofplanning will be based on the followingprinciples:

(1) That the National Forests areecosystems and their management forgoods and services requires anawareneis of the interrelationshipsamong plants, animals, soil, water, air,and other environmental factors withinsuch ecosystems. Proposed managementwill consider these interrelationships:,

(2) Consideration of the relative-values of'all renewable resources,including the relatiolnship of mineralresources to these renewable resources:

(3y' Establishment of goals andobjectives for the sustained yield ofproducts and getvices resulting rronimultiple-use management withoutimpairment of the productivity of theland:

(4) Protection and, where appropriate,improvement or the quality of renewableresources;

(5) Preservation of important historic,cultural and natural aspects of ournational heritage;

(6] Protect and preserve for AmericanIndians'their inherent right of freedom tobelieve, express and exercise theirtraditional religions:

(7) Provision for the safe use andenjoyment of the forest resources by thepublic:(8) Protection of all forest and

rangeland resources froni depredationsby the forest pests, using ecologicallycompatible means

(91 Coordination with the land andresource planning efforts of otherFederal agenctes, State and locqigovernments. Indian tribes, andadjacent private landowners:

(10) A systematic. Interdisciplinaryapproach t6 ensure coordination andintegration of planning activities formultiple-use management:.

(11) Early and frequent publicparticipation;

(121 Establishment of quantitative andqualitative standards and guidelines forland and resource planning andmanagemeWt-

(13) Management of National ForestSystem lands in a manner that issensitive to economic efficiency; and

(14) Responsiveness to changingconditions in the land and changingsocial and ecopomic demands of theAmerican people.


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 I Monday. September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations 53977§ 219.2 Scope and applicability.

The regulations in this subpart applyto the lands and waters in the NationalForest System. Planning requirementsfor managing special areas, such aswilderness, wild and scenic rivers,national recreation areas, and nationaltrails, will be included in land andresource management planning pursuantto the-e regulations. Whenever thespecial area authorities requireadditional planning, those authoritieswill control in implementing theplanning process under this subpart.

§ 219.3 Definitions. 'For purposes of this subpart the

following words shall have thesemeanings:

(a) "Allowable sale quantity": Thequantity of timber that may be sold fromthe area of land covered by the forestplan for a time period specified by theplan. This quantity is usually expressedon an annual basis as the average

- annual allowable sale quantity.(b) "Assessment": The Renewable

Resource Assessment required by theRPA.

(c) "Base timber harvest schedule":The Timber Harvest Schedule in whichthe planned sale and harvest for anyfuture decade is equal to or greater thanthe planned sale and harvest for thepreceding decade of the planning periodand this planned sale and harvest forany decade is not greater than long-termsustained yield capacity.

(d) "Biological growth potential": Theaverage net growth attainable in a fullystocked natural area of forest land.(e) "Capability": The potential of an

area of land to produce resources,supply goods and services, and allow.resource uses under an assumed set ofmanagement practices and at a givenlevel of management intensity.Capability depends upon currentconditions and site conditions such asclimate, slope, landform, soils andgeology, as well as the application ofmanagement practices, such assilviculture or protection from fire,insects, and disease.

(f) "Corridor": A linear strip of landwhich has ecological, technical,economic, social, or similar advantagesover other areas for the present or futurelocation of transportation or utilityrights-of-way within ifs boundaries.

(g] "Diversity": The distribution andabundance of different plant and animalcommunities and species within the areacovered by a land and resourcemanagement plan.

(h) "Economic efficiency analysis": Acomparison of the values of resource

- inputs (costs) required for a-possiblecourse of action with the values of

resource outputs (benefits) resultingfrom such action. In this analysis,incremental market and nonmarketbenefits are compared with investmentand physical resource inputs.

(i) "Environmental analysis": Ananalysis of alternative actions and theirpredictable short- and long-termenvironmental effects, which includephysical, biological, economic, social.and environmental design factors andtheir interactions. Environmentalassessment is the concise publicdocument required by the regulations forimplementing the proceduralrequirements of NEPA, (40 CFR 1508.9).

)j] "Environmental documents": A setof concise documents to include, asapplicable, the environmentalassessment, environmental impactstatement, finding of no significantimpact, or notice of intent.

(k) "Even-aged silviculture": Thecombination of actions that results inthe creation of stands in which trees ofessentially the same age grow together.Managed even-aged forests arecharacterized by a distribution of standsof varying ages (and therefore tree sizes)thioughout the forest area. Regenerationin a particular stand is obtained during ashort period at or near the time that thestand has reached the desired age orsize and is harvested. Clearcutting,shelterwood cutting, seed tree cutting,and their many variations are thecutting methods used to harvest theexisting stand and regenerate a newone. In even-aged stands, thinnings,weedings, cleanings, and other culturaltreatments between regeneration cutsare often beneficial. Cutting is normallyregulated by scheduling the area ofharvest cutting to provide for a forestthat contains stands having a planneddistribution of age classes.

(1) "Goal": A concise statement of thestate or condition that a land andresource management plan is designedto achieve. A goal is usually notquantifiable and may not have a specificdate for completion.

(in) "Goods and services": Thevarious outputs produced by forest andrangeland renewable resources. Thetangible and intangible values of whichare expressed in market and nonmarketterms.

(n) "Guideline": An indication oroutline of policy or conduct.(o) "Integrated pest management": A

process in which all aspects of a pest-host system are studied and weighed toprovide the resource manager withinformation for decisionmaking.Integrated pest management is,therefore, a part of forest or resourcemanagement. The information providedincludes the impact of the unregulated

pest population on various resourcesvalues, alternative regulatory tacticsand strategies, and benefit/costestimates for these alternativestrategies. Regulatory strategies arebased on sound silvicultural practicesand ecology of the pest-host system.Strategies consist of a combination oftactics such as stand improvement plusselected use of pesticides. Theoverriding principle in the choice ofstrategy is that it is ecologicallycompatible or acceptable.

(p) "Long-term sustained yieldcapacity": The highest uniform woodyield from lands being managed fortimber production that may be sustainedunder a specified intensity ofmanagement consistent with multiple-use objectives.

(q) '"Management concern": An issueor problem requiring resolution, orcondition constraining managementpractices identified by theinterdisciplinary team.

(r) 'Management direction": Astatement of multiple-use and othergoals and objectives, the managementprescriptions, and the associatedstandards and guidelines for attainingthem.

(s) "Management intensity": Therelative cost of a possible managementdirection and/or management practice.

(t) "Management practice": A specificaction, measure, or treatment.

(u) "Management prescription":Management practices selected andscheduled for application on a specificarea to attain multiple-use and othergoals and objectives.

(v) "Multiple use": "The managementof all the various renewable surfaceresources of the national forests so thatthey are utilized in the combination thatwill best meet the needs of theAmerican people; making the mostjudicious use of the land for some or allof these resources or related servicesover areas large enough to providesufficient latitude for periodicadjustments in use to conform tochanging needs and conditions; thatsome lands will be used for less than allof the resources; and harmonious andcoordinated management of the variousresources, each with the other, withoutimpairment of the productivity of theland, with consideration being given tothe relative values of the variousresources, and not necessarily thecombination of uses that will give thegreatest dollar return or the greatest unitoutput." (16 U.S.C. 531(a))

(w) "Objective": A specific statement-of measurable results to be achievedwithin a stated time period. Objectivesreflect alternative mixes of all outputs or

Federal Register / Vol 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53977


No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 [ Rules and Revulations

achievements which can be attained ata given budget level. Objectives maybeexpressed as a range of outputs.(x) "Planning area": The area covered

by a Regional or ForestPlan.(y) "Policy": A guiding principle upon

which is based a specific decision or setof decisions.

(z) "Program": The RenewableResource Program required by the RPA.

(aa) "Public issue": A subject orquestion of widespread public interestrelating to mdnagement of NationalForest Systemlands identified throughpublic participation.

(bb) "Public participation activities":Meetings, conferences. seminars.workshops, tours, written comments,response to survey questionnaires,' andsimilar activities designed. and held toobtain comments from the generalpublic and specific publics aboutNational Forest System land.management planning.

(cc) "Real dollar value"-Avalue fromwhich the effect of change in thepurchasing power of the dollar has beenremoved.

(dd) "Responsible official": The ForestService employee who has bieendelegated the authority to carry out aspecific planning action.

(ee) "Silvicultural system": Acombination of interrelated actionswhereby forests. are tended, harvested,and replaced. The combination. ofmanagement practices used fo-manipulate the vegetation results inforests of distinctive form and character,and this determines the combination ofmultiple resource benefits that can beobtained. Systems are classified as,even-aged and uneven-aged..

(ff) "Standard": A principle requiringa specific level of attainment, a rule tomeasure against.

(gg) "Suitability": The appropriatenessof applying certain resourcemanagement practices to a particulararea of land, as determined by ananalysis of the economic andevironmental consequences and thealternative uses foregone. A-unit of landmay be suitable for a variety ofindividual or combined managementpractices.

(hh) "Sustained-yield of the severalproducts and services": "Theachievement and maintenance inperpetuity of a high-level annual orregular periodic output of the variousrenewable resources of the nationalforest without impairment of theproductivity of the land." (16 U.S.C.531(b))

(ii) "Timber harvest schedule": The'quantity of timber planned for sale and.harvest, by time-period, from the area ofland covered by the forest plan. The firstperiod, usually a decade, of the selected

harvest schedule provides the allowablesale quantity. Future-periods are shownto establish that sustained yield will beachieved and maintained.

(jj) "Timber production". The irowing,tending, harvesting and regeneration ofregulated crops of industrial wood.Industrial wood includes logs; bolts orother round sections cut from trees forindustrial or consumer use, exceptfuelwood.

(kk] "Uneven-aged silviculture": Thecombination of actions that result in thecreation of forests in which trees ofseveral or many ages may growtogether. Managed uneven-aged forestsmay take several forms depending uponthe particular cutting methods used. Insome cases, the forest is essentiallysimilar throughout, with individual treesof many ages and sizes growing in closeassociation. In other cases, small groupsof trees of similar age may beintermingled with similar groups ofdifferent ages; although the groups areeven aged, they amnot recordedseparately. Finally, an uneven-agedforestmay contain two or three distinctage classes on the same area, creating astoried forest. Under uneven-agedsilviculture, regeneration is obtainedseveral or many times during the periodrequired to grow an individual tree tomaturity. Single-tree selection cutting,group selection cutting, and other formsof partial cutting are used. to harvesttrees, obtain regeneration, and provideappropriate intermediate culture.Cutting is usually regulated byspecifying the number or proportion oftrees of particular sizes to retain withineach area, thereby maintaining aplanned distribution of size classes.Scheduling by area harvest is often usedas well

§ 219.4 Planning levels.(a) The planning process requires a

continuous flow of information andmanagement direction among the threeForest Service administrative levels:nationhl, regional, and designated forestplanning area Management directionwill be based principally upon locallyderived information about production.capabilities,-reflect conditions and.circumstances observed at ail levels;and become increasingly specific as.planning progresses from the hiational toregional level, and from the regional todesignated forest planning area. In thisstructure, regional planning is thepriocipal process for conveyingmanagement direction from the nationallevel to designated forest planning areasand for conveying information from. sucl?areas to, the national level.(b) Planning levels and relationships

are sef forth in paragraphs, (b) (1)-through (3) of this section.

(1) National. The Chief, Forest

Service, will develop the Assessmentwhich will include an analysis ofpresent and anticipated uses, demandfor, and supply of the ltenewabloresources of forest, range, and otherassociated lands with consideration,and an emphasis on, pertinent supply.and demand and price relationshiptrends; an inventory of present andpotential renewable resources and anevaluation of dpportunities forimprovingtheir yield of tangible andintangible goods and services, togetherwith estimates of investment costs anddirect and indirect returns to the FederalGovernment; a description of ForestService programs and responsibilities inresearch, cooperative programs, andmanagement of the National.ForestSystem; and analysis of important policyissues and consideration of laws,regulations, and other factors expectedto influence and affect significantly theuse, ownership, and management offorest, range, and oilier associatedlands. This assessment will be based onthe future capabilities for each forestand regional planning area. Based onthe Assessment which will includeinformation generated during theregional and forest planning process, theChief will-develop alternative Programs.In formulating those alternatives thecosts 6f supply and the relative valuesof both market and nonmarket outputswill'be considered. The alternatives willinclude national renewable resourcegoals, quantified objectives, resourceoutputs and represent ' range ofexpenditure levels sufficient todemonstrate full opportunities formanagement. A portion of each nationalgoal and objective, expressed in theselected Program as a range of outputs.will b.e assigned to each region and beincorporated into each regional plan.The objectives assigned to,each regionwill be based on local supplycapabilities and market conditions.Economic efficiency and potentialenvironm6ntal effects will be consideredin these assignments,

(2) Regional. Each regional foresterwill develop a regional plan inaccordance with the procedures,standards,land guidelines specified inthis subpart. The required planningprocess is established in § 219.5.Procedural requirements for regionalplans are established in §§ 219.9 and219.10, and resource managementstandards and guidelines are set forth In§ 219.13. The-regional planning processwill respond to and incorporate theProgram direction established by theChief. Forest Service, under paragraph(b)(1) of this section. Regional objectiveswill be assigned to designated forestplanning areas. These assignments willbe based upon: supply capabilities,

|i53978 Federal Register -/ Vol. 44,


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and. Regulations 53979

socio-economic assessments, potentialenvironmental effects, economicefficiency criteria, community stabilityobjectives, and resource managementstandards and guidelines which havebeen established by the planningprocess. The regional forester mayrequest adjustment of assigned regionalobjectives prior to their incorporationinto the plan. Any adjustment willrequire the approval of the Chief, ForestService.

(3) Forest Forest plans will bedeveloped for all lands in the NationalForest System in accordance with theprocedures, standards, and guidelinesspecified in this subpart. The planningprocess is established in § 219.5, and -procedures are setfor.th-in §§ 219.11 and219.12. Resource management standardsand guidelines are established in§ 219.13. One forest plan may beprepared for all lands forwhich a forestsupervisor has responsibility, orseparate forest plans may be preparedfor each national forest, or combinationof national forests, within thejurisdiction of a single forest supervisor.These forest plans will constitute theland and resource management plansdeveloped in accordance with § § 6 and13 of the RPA, as amended, and willinclude all management planning forresources. Forest plans will address thegoals and objectives established by theregional plan. The objectives assigned toeach forest will be evaluated in order toassure that they are compatible withlocal supply and demand, economicefficiency, community stability, andpotential environmental effects. Based.upon this evaluation, the forestsupervisor may request adjustment ofassigned objectives prior to theirincorporation into the forest plan. Anysuch adjustment requires the approvalof the regional forester.

§ 219.5 Regional and Forest PlanningProcess. -

(a) General planning approach. TheNEPA environmental analysis processwill be included in the process fordevelopment of a regional or forest plan.Except where the planning processrequires additional action, a singleprocess will be used to meet theplanning requirements and the NEPAprocess. The planning process adapts tochanging conditions by identifyingpublic issues, management concerns,and use and development opportunities.It consists of a systematic. set ofinterrelated actions which include atleast those set forth in paragraphs (b)through (k), of this- sectiorr that lead tomanagement direction. Planning actions,in addition to those in thissection maybe necessary in particular situations.Some actions may occur simultaneously-and it may be-necessary to repeat an .

action as additional informationbecomes available.

(b) Identification of issues, concerns.andcopportunities. The interdisciplinaryteam will identify and evaluate publicissues, management concerns, andresource use and- developmentopportunities, including those identifiedthrough publiaparticipation activitiesand coordination with other Federalagencies, State and local governments,and Indian tribes throughout theplanning process. All public issues andmanagement concerns are investigatedand evaluated in order of their apparentimportance. The responsible official willdetermine the major public issues,management concerns, and use anddevelopment opportunities. to beaddressed in the planning process.

(c) Planning criteria. Criteria will beprepared to guide the planning processand management directiom Processcriteria may apply to collection anduseof inventory data and information,analysis of the management situation.and the design and formulation ofalternatives. Decision criteria will bedeveloped and used to evaluatealternatives and to select onealternative to serve as the proposedplan. All criteria, including anyrevisions, will be developed by theinterdisciplinary team and approved bythe responsible official. Generally,criteria will be based on:

(1] Laws, executive orders.regulations, and Forest Service Manualpolicy;

(2) Goals ancobjectives in theProgram and regional plans;

(3) Recommendations andassumptions developed from publicissues, management concerns, andresource use and developmentopportunities;

(4) The plans and programs of otherFederal agencies., State and localgovernments and Indian tribes;

(5) Ecological, technical and economicfactors;

(6) Guidelines for economic analysispractices, including standards forbenefits and costs, and the discount rateof interest will be established by theChief, Forest Service, andbecomeeffective within one year after finalpublication of these planning rules in theFederal Register, and

(7) The resource managementstandards and guidelines in § 219.13.

(d) Inventory data and informationcollection. Each responsible official willobtain and keep current inventory. dataappropriate for planning and managingthe resources- under his or heradministrative'responsibility. and willassure that the interdisciplinary teamhas access to the best available data,which may require that specialinventories or studies be prepared. The

interdisciplinary team will collect,assemble, and use data, maps. graphicmaterial, and explanatory aids, of akind. character, and quality, and to thedetail appropriate for themanagementdecisions to be made. Existing data willbe used in planning unless such data isinadequate-Data and information needsmay vary as planning problems developfrom identification of public issues.management concerns, and resource useand development opportunities.Acquisitions of new data andinformation will be scheduled andplanned as needed. Methods used togather data will be consistent with thoseused to monitor consequences ofactivities resulting from planning andmanagement. Data will be stored forready retrieval and comparison andperiodically will be evaluated foraccuracy and effectiveness. Commondata definitions and standards to assureuniformity of information between allplanning levels will be established bythe Chief, Forest Service. As informationis recorded using common datadefinitions and standards, it will beapplied in any subsequent planningprocess.Information developed fromcommon data definitions and standardswill be used in the preparation of the1990, and subsequent Assessments andPrograms.

(e) Analysis of the managementsituation. The analysis of themanagement situation is adetermination of the ability of theplanning area covered by the Regionalor Forest Plan to supply goods andservices in response to society's demandfor those goods and services. Theanalysis will display the capability tosupply outputs and uses, and projecteddemands for the outputs or uses overtime. It will identify any specialconditions or situations which involvehazards to the resources of the planningarea and their relationship to proposedand possible actions being considered.The analysis will determine:

(1] Ranges of various goods, servicesand uses that are feasible under existingconditions at various levels ofmanagement intensity;,

(2] Projections of demand. using bestavailable techniques, with both priceand non-price information which, inconjunction with supply costinformation, will be used to evaluate thelevel of goods and services thatmaximizes net public benefits; t theextent possible, demand will be assesedas a price-quantity relationship;

(3) Potential to resolve public issuesand management concerns;

(4) Technical, economic, andenvironmental feasibility of providingthe levels of goods, services, and uses



resulting from assigned goals andobjectives; and

(5) The need, as a result of thisanalysis, to establish or changemanagement direction.

(f) Formulation of alternatives. Areasonable range of alternatives asprovided for in paragraphs (1) and-(2) ofthis paragraph, will be formulated bythe interdisciplinary team to providedifferent ways to address and respondto the major public issues, managementconcerns, and resource opportunitiesidentified during thi§ planning process.Alternatives will be described in draftand final environmental impactstatements.

(1) Alternatives will reflect a range ofresource outputs and expenditure levels.In formulating these alternatives; thefollowing criteria will be met:

(i) Each alternative will be capable ofbeing achieved;

(ii) A no-action alternative will beformulated, that is the most likelycondition expected to exist in the futureif current management direction wouldcontinue unchanged;

(iii) Each alternative will provide forthe orderly elimination of backlogs ofneeded treatment for the restoration ofrenewable resources as necessary toachieve the multiple-use objectives ofthat alternative.

(iv) Each identified major public issueand management concern will beaddressed in one or more alternatives;and

(v) Each alternative will represent tothe extent practicable the most costefficient combination of managementpractices examined that can meet theobjectives established in the alternative;

(2) Each alternative will state at least:(i) The condition and uses that will

result from long-term application of thealternative,

(ii) The goods and services to beproduced, and the timing and flow-ofthese resource outputs;

(iii) Resource management standardsand guidelines; and

(iv) The purposes of the managmentdirection proposed.

(g) Estimated effects of alternatives.The interdisciplinary team will estimateand display the physical, biological,economic, and social effects ofimplemehting each alternative includinghow the plan responds to the range ofgoals and objectives assigned-to it fromthe RPA Program. These effects willinclude at least the following:

(1) The expected outputs for theplanning periods, including appropriatemarketable goods and services, as wellas non-market items, such as protectionand enhancement of soil, water and air,

and preservation of aesthetic andcultural resource values:

(2) The relationship between local,shbrt-term uses of the renewableresources and the maintenance andenhancement of long-term productivity;

(3) The adverse environmental effectswhich cannot be avoided;

(4) Resource commitments that areirreversible and irretrievable;

(5) Effects on minority groups andcivil rights;* (6) Effects on prime farmlands,wetlands and flood plains;

(7) The relationship of expectedoutputs to the forest goals given in thecurrent regional plan;.

(8) The energy requirements andconsideration of potential effects ofvarious alternatives; and

(9) Direct and indirect benefits andcosts, estimated in accordance withparagraph (c)(6) of this section, analyzedinsufficient detail to:

(i) Determine the expected real-dollarinvestment, administrative andoperating costs of the plan;

(ii) Estimate the real-dollar value ofall outputs attributable to each planalternative to the extent that'dollarvalues can be assigned to nonmarketgoods and services using physicaloutputs or relative indices of value whensuch values may not be reasonablyassigned and;

(iII) Evaluate the'economic effects ofalternatives, including the distribution ofgoods and services, the payment oftaxes and charges, receipt shares,payments to local government, andincome and employment in affectedcommunities.(h) Evaluation of alternatives. The

interdisciplinary team will evaluate thesignificant physical, biological, social,economic and environmental designeffects of each management alternativeaccording to the planning decisioncriteria. The evaluation will include acomparative analysis of themanagement alternatives and willcompare economic efficiency anddistrbutional aspects, outputs of goodsand services, and protection andenhancement of environmentalresources. The responsible official will,review the interdisciplinary team'sealuation and will recommend apreferred alternative or alternatives tobe identified in the draft environmentalimpact statement.

(i) Selection of alternative. Afterpublication of the draft environmentalimpact statement, the interdisciplinaryteam will evaluate public commentsand, as necessary, revise the ,appropriate alternative. The responsibleofficial will recommend a selectedalternative for the final environmentalimpact statement using the decision

criteria developed pursuant toparagraph (c) of this section, The officialwill document the selection with adescription of the benefits, relative toother alternatives as described Inparagraph (h) of this section.

(j) Plan implementation. During theimplementation of each plan thefollowing requirements, as a minimum,will be met:

(1) The responsible official will assurethat annual program proposals andimplemented projects are in compliancewith the plan;- (2) Program budget allocations meet

the objectives and are consistent withall applicable standards and guidelinesspecified in the plan: and

(3) Plan implementation Is Incompliance with § § 219.9(d) and,219.11(d).

(k) Monitoring and evaluation, Atintervals established In the plan,management practices will be evaluatedon a sample basis to determine howwell objectives have been met and howclosely management standards andguidelines have been applied. Theresults of monitoring and evaluationmay be used to analyze the managementsituation during revision of the plan asprovided in paragraphs (k) (1), (2) and(3) of this section.

- (1) The plan will describe thefollowing monitoring activities:

(i) The actions, effects, or resources to'be measured, and the frequency ofmeasurements;

(ii) Expected precision and reliabilityof the monitoring process- and

(iii) The time when evaluation will bereported.

(2) Evaluation reports will contain foreach monitored management practice atleast a quantitative estimate ofperformance comparing outputs andservices and their costs with thosoprojected by the plan anddocumentation of evaluated measuredeffects.

(3) Based upon the evaluation reports,the responsible official will makechanges in management direction, orrevise or amend the plan as necessary tomeet the goals and objectives.

§219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach.(a) A team representing several

disciplines will be used at each level ofplanning to insure coordinated planningwhich addresses outdoor recreation,range, timber, watershed, wildlife andfish, and wilderness opportunities. Theteam is to coordinate and integrateplanning activities consistent with theprinciples of the Multiple-UseSustained-Yield Act of 1960 and § 219.1of this subpart. Through interactionsamong its members, the team willintegrate knowledge of the physical,



biological, economic and socialsciences, and environmental design artsin the planning process. Team functionsinclude, but are not limited to:

(1) Assessing the problems andresource use and developmentopportunities associated with providingof goods and services;

(2) Obtaining the public's views aboutpossible decisions;

(3) Coordinating planning activitieswithin the Forest Service and with local,State and other Federal agencies;

(4) Developing the land and resourcemanagement plan and associatedenvironmental impact statementpursuant to the planning process;

(5) Giving the responsible official anintegrated perspective on land andresource management planningr and

(6J Establishing monitoring andevaluation standards and requirementsfor planning and management activities.

(b] The team will be composed ofForest Service personnel whocollectively represent.diversespecialized areas of professional andtechnical knowledge about naturalresource management applicable to thearea being planned. The team willconsider problems collectively, ratherthan separating them along disciplinarylines. The team is encouraged to consultpersons other thanForest Serviceemployees when required specializedknowledge does not exist within theteam itself

(c) The responsible official, inappointing team members, willdetermine and consider thequalifications of each team member onthe basis of the complexity of the issuesand concerns to be resolved through thepla. Each team member will, as aminimum, either have successfullycompleted a course of study in a collegeor university leading to a bachelor's orhigher degree in one or more specializedareas of assignment or have recognizedexpertise and experience in professionalinvestigative; scientific, or other -responsible work in specialities whichmembers represent. In addition totechnical knowledge in one.or moreresource specialities, members shouldpossess other attributes which enhancethe interdisciplinary process that, as aminimum, should include:

(1] An ability ta solve complexproblems;

(2 Skills in communication and groupinteraction;

(3) Basic understandingof land andnatural resource planning concepts,processes, and analysis techniques; and

(4) The ability tr conceptualizeplanningproblems and feasiblesolutions.

(d) The responsible official willappoint a leader of the interdisciplinaryteam. Team leadership should beassigned to individuals possessing botha working knowledge of the planningprocess and the ability to communicateeffectively with team members. Theteam leader will coordinate thespecialists, focusing their attention onteam goals.

§ 219.7 Public Participation.(a) Because the land and resource

management planning processdetermines how the lands of theNational Forest System are to bemanaged, the public is encouraged toparticipate throughout the planningprocess. The intent of publicparticipation is to:

(1) Ensure that the Forest Serviceunderstands the needs and concerns ofthe public:

(2) Inform the public of Forest Serviceland and resource planning activities;

(3] Provide the public with anunderstanding of Forest Serviceprograms and proposed actions;

(4) Broaden the information base uponwhich land and resource managementplanning decisions are made; and

(5) Demonstrate. that public issuesand inputs are considered and evaluatedin reaching planning decisions.

(b) Public participation In thepreparation of draft environmentalimpact statements for planning beginswith the publication of a notice of intentin the FederalRegister. After thispublication, all public participation forland and resource management planningwill be coordinated with that requiredby the NEPA and its implementingregulations.

(c) Public participation, as deemedappropriate by the responsible official.will be used early and often throughoutthe development, revision, andsignificant amendment ofplans. Publicparticipation activities will begin with anotice to the news media, whichincludes as appropriate the followinginformation:

(1) The description of the proposedplanning action;

(2 The description and map of thegeographic area affected:

(3) The issues expected to bediscussed;

(4) The kind, extent, and method(s) ofpublic participation to be used.

(5) The times, dates, and locationsscheduled or anticipated, for publicmeetings;

(6) The name, title, address, andtelephone number of the Forest Serviceofficial who may be contacted forfurther information; and

(7) The location and availability ofdocuments relevant to the planningprocess.

(d) Public participation activitiesshould be appropriate to the area andpeople involved. Means of notificationshould be appropriate to the level ofplanning. Public participation activitiesmay include, but are not limited to.requests for written comments,meetings, conferences, seminars,workshops, tours, and similar eventsdesigned to foster public review andcomment. To ensure effective publicparticipation, the objectives ofparticipation activities will be definedbeforehand by the interdisciplinaryteam. The Forest Service will state theobjectives of each participation activityto assure that the publicunderstandswhat type of information is needed andhow this information relates to theplanning process. The responsibleofficial and interdisciplinary teams willconsult and be guided by Forest ServiceHandbook 1626.

(e) Public comments will be analyzedindividually, and by type of group andorganization to determine commonareas of concern and geographicdistribution. The results of this analysiswill be evaluated to determine thevariety and intensity of viewpointsabout ongoing and proposed planningand management standards andguidelines. Conclusions about commentswill be used to the extent practicable indecisions that are made.

(1) The primary purpose of publicparticipation is to broaden theinformation base upon which planningdecisions are made. Publicparicipationactivities also will help in monitoringand evaluation of implemented plans.Suitable public participation formats,requirements, and activities will bedetermined by the responsible official.

(g) All scheduled public participationactivities will be documented by asummary of the principalissuesdiscussed, comments made, and aregister of participants.

(h) At least 30 days' public notice willbe given for public participationactivities associated with thedevelopment of national or regionalplans. At least 15 days' public noticewill be given for activities associatedwith forest plans. Any notice requestingwritten comments on national andregional planning will allow at least 90calendar days for responses. A similarrequest about forest planning will allowat least 30 calendar days for responses.

(i] A list of individuals and groupsknown to be interested in or affected bythe plan will be maintained. They willbe notified of public participationactivities.


53982 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 I Rules and Regulations

(j) The responsible official, or hisrepresentative, will attend or provide foradequate representation at publicparticipation activities.

(k) Copies of approved plans will beavailable for public review, as follows:

(1) The Assessment and the Programwill be available at nationalheadquarters, each regional office, eachforest supervisor's office, and eachdistrict ranger's office;

(2) The regional plan will be availableat national headquarters, that regionaloffice and regional offices of contiguousregions, each forest supervisor's officeof forests within and contiguous to thatregion, and each district ranger's officein that region:

(3) The forest plan will be available atthe regional office for that forest, thatforest supervisor's office and forestsupervisors' offices contiguous to thatforest, each district ranger's office inthat forest, those district rangers' officesin other forests that are contiguous tothat forest, and at least one additionallocation determined by the forest "supervisor, which will offer convenientaccess to the public; and . -

(4) The above plans may be madeavailable at other locations convenientto the public.

(1) Documents considered in thedevelopment of plans will be availableat the office where the plans weredeveloped.

(in) Upon issuance of a draftenvironmental impact statement on aplan, revision, or significant amendment,and-'concurrent with the publicparticipation activities of this section,the public will have a 3-month period toreview the statement for the proposedplan, revision, or significant imendment.During that time, additional public 'participation activities will take place toreview the actions proposed in the draftenvironmental impact statement.

(n) Fees for reproducing requesteddocuments will be charged according tothe Secretary's Fee Schedule (7 CFR Part1, Subpart A, Appendix A).

§ 219.8 Coodination of Public PlanningEfforts.

(a) Efficient management of theresources of the National Forest Systemresults from planning that is coordinatedamong all levels of government,including other Federal agencies, Stateand local governments, and Indiantribes. Such coordination ensures thatgovernment objectives, policies, andprograms for resource management are,,compatible to the extent possible. .-.Therefore, the Forest Service willcoordinate its national, regional, andforest planning with the equivalent andrelated planning efforts of other Federal

agencies, State and local governments,and Indian tribes.

(b) The responsible official, throughthe interdisciplinary team, will

coordinate Forest Service planning withland and resource management planningof other affected government entitiesand Indian tribes to ensure that planningincludes:

(1) Recognition of the objectives ofother Federal, State and localgovernments, and owners ofintermingled and adjacent private lands,as -expressed in their plans and policies;

(2] An assessment of the interrelatedimpacts of these plans and policies;

(3) A determination-of how-eachForest Service plan should deal with theimpacts identified; and

(4) Where conflicts are identified,consideration of alternatives for their •resolution.

(c) The responsible official will givenotice of the preparation, revision, orsignificant amendment of a land andresource management plan, along with ageneral schedule of anticipated planningactions, to the Stath Clearinghouse(OMB Circular A-95] for circulationamong State agencies. The same noticewill be mailed to all Tribal or AlaskaNative leaders whose tribal lands maybe impacted, and to the heads of countyboards for the counties that areinvolved. These notices will be issued-simultaneously with the-public noticerequired in § 219.7(b).

(d) To facilitate coordination withState governments, regional foresterswill seek agreements with Governors ortheir designated representatives onprocedural measures such asexchanging information, providingadvice and participation, and timeframes for receiving State go1ernmentinput and review. If an agreement is hotreached, the regional forester willprovide an opportunity for Governorand State agency review, advice, andsuggestion on guidance that the regionalforester believes could affect Orinfluence State governient programs.

(e) The responsible official indeveloping land and resource plans, willmeet with the designated State official(or designee), representatives of otherFederal agencies and Indian tribal-governments at the beginning of theplanning process to develop proceduresfor coordination. As a minimum, such.conferences will also be held afterpublic issues and management concernshave been identified and prior to,,,recommending the selected alternative.Such conferences may be held in'conjunction with other public ..participation activities, provided thatthe opportunity for.government-officials

to participate in the planning process Isnot thereby reduced.

(f1 The responsible official will reviewthe planning and land use policies ofother Federal agencies, State and localgovernments and Indian tribes, Theintensity of the review will beappropriate to the planning level andrequirements of the envisioned plan.This rev4iew will include, but not belimited to, plans affecting renewablenatural resources, minerals, communityand economic development, land use,transportation, water and air pollutioncontrol, cultural resources, and energy,The planning records will document thisreview.

(g) The responsible official, in thedevelopment of forest plans and to theextent feasible, will notify the owners oflands that are intermingled with, ordependent for access upon, nationalforest lands. Planning activities shouldthen be coordinated to the extentfeasible 'vith these owners. The resultsof this coordination will be included Inthe plan as part of the review requiredin paragraph (f) of this section.

(h) The responsible official, indeveloping the forest plan, will seekinput from other Federal, State and localgovernments and universities, to helpresolve management concerns In theplanning process and toidentify areas-where additional research is needed,This input should be included in thediscussion of the research needs of thedesignated forest planning area.

(i) A program of monitoring andevaluation will be conducted thatincludes consideration of the effects ofnational forest management on land,resources, and communities adjacent toor near the national forest being plannedand the effects upon national forestmanagement of activities on nearbylands managed by other Federal orgovernment agencies or under thejurisdiction of local governments.

§ 219.9 Regional Planning Procedure.(a) Regi nalplan. Regional planning

will provide national forests (forestplanning areas) with goals andobjectives, regional Issue resolution, andprogram coordination for NationalForest System, State and PrivateForestry, and Research, A plan will bedeveloped for each administrativelydesignated region in the National ForestSystem. The preparation of a, regionalplan, revision, or significant amendmentwill comply with the requirements of theplanning'process established in §§ 219,5and 219.10 and this section,

(b) Responsibilities. The Chief, ForestService, will establish agency-widepolicy for regional planning and approveall regional plans, revisions, or

53982 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No.- 181 -/ Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations



significant amendments. The regionalforester will be responsible for thepreparation of the regional plan, andrevisions or significant amendments tothe regional plan. The regionalinterdisciplinary team will develop aregional plan using the processestablished in § 219.5 which shallinclude the steps in paragraphs (b) (1)and (2) of this section.

(1) A draft environmental impactstatement will be prepared, describingthe proposed plan, revision, orsignificant amendment. A notice ofintent to prepare this statement will beissued in the Federal Register. The draftstatement will identify a preferredalternative. Beginning at the time ofnotification of availability of the draftenvironmental impact statement in theFederal Register, the statement will beavailable for public comment for at least90 days at convenient locations in thevicinity of the lands covered by the plan,revision, or significant amendment.During this period, and in accordancewith the provisions in § 219.7, theresponsible official will publicize andhold public participation activities asdeemed appropriate for adequate publicinput.

(2) A final environmental impactstatement will be prepared, and afterthe regional forester has reviewed andconcurred in the statement, the regionalforester will recommend to the Chief,Forest Service that it be filed with theEnvironmental Protection Agency. Atleast 30 days are required between thedate of notice of filing of the finalenvironmental impact statement and thedecision to implement actions specifiedin the plan, revision, or significantamendment. The plan, revision, orsignificant amendment will be based onthe selected alternative.

(c) Plan approval. The Chief, ForestService, will review the proposed plan,revision, or significant amendment andthe final environmental impactstatement and take either of the actionsin paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of thissection.

(1] Approve the plan. If approved, theplan will not become effective until atleast 30 days after publication of thenotice of the filing of the finalenvironmental impact statement TheChief, Forest Service, will attach to thefinal environmental impact statement aconcise public record of decision whichdocunents the approval. The record ofdecision will accomplish the following:

(i) State the decision;(ii) Identify all alternatives considered

in making the decision on the plan,revision, or significant amendment;

(iii) Specify the selected alternative;

(iv) Identify and discuss all factorsconsidered by the Forest Service inmaking the planning decision, includinghow such factors entered into itsdecision; and

(v) State whether all practicablemeans to avoid or minimizeenvironmental harm from the alternativeselected have been adapted, and, if not,why they were not.

(2) Disapprove the plan, and return itto the regional forester with a writtenstatement of the reasons fordisapproval. The Chief, Forest Servicemay also specify a course of action to beundertaken by the regional forester inorder to remedy the deficiencies, errors,or omissions of the plan orenvironmental impact statement.

(3)(i) The approval or disapproval of aregional plan, revision, or significantamendment, or reconsideration underparagraph (ii) of this paragraph. is notsubject to review under § 211.19 of thischapter or any other administrativeappeal procedure. This exclusion doesnot apply to appeals or decisions to betaken under the regional plan on thegrounds of nonconformity or to appealsof decisions taken under the plan whichare appealable grievances under§ 211.19 of this chapter.

(ii) Any person may request the Chief,Forest Service, to reconsider thedecision to approve or disaprove aregional plan, revision, or significantamendment. A written request forreconsideration must be filed within 45days of the time of the Chiers decisionand must be accompanied by a writtenstatement giving the reasons why thedecision to approve or disapprove iserroneous and any factual informationnecessary to support these reasons. Awritten decision on the request forreconsideration will be made within 30days of the receipt of the request andwill state the reasons for the decisionreached on the request.

(iii) Any person, either at the time ofrequesting reconsiderdtion or prior tofiling such a request, may request theChief, Forest Service, to stay thedecision approving or disapproving theregional plan. revision, or significantamendment providing a showing ismade that, without a stay,implementation will result inirreversible harm or will have animmediate direct and adverse effect onthe requesting party.

(d) Conformity. The regional foresterwill manage the national forest landsunder his or her jurisdiction inaccordance with the regional plan. Theregional forester or area director willassure that all State and PrivateForestry programs planned with theStates or other governmental agencies

are coordinated with the regional plan.The research station director will usethe regional plan to help identifyresearch needs for National ForestSystem lands. Differences betweenannual budget proposals and actualfunding allocations may require theregional forester to make changes inscheduling. When each regional plan isapproved, each forest plan in that regionwill be revised or amended to bring itinto conformity as soon as practicable.When each regional plan is revised oramended the affected forest plans willbe revised or amended to conform assoon as practicable.

(e) Amendment. The regional forestermay amend the regional plan through anenvironmental analysis which will beused to determine the significance ofproposed amendments. If the analysisindicates the preparation of anenvironmental impact statement isnecessary, the amending process willfollow the same procedure as used inthe preparation of the plan. If theamendment is determined not to besignificant, it may be implemented bythe responsible official after publicnotice. The regional plan will bereviewed for possible amendment inconjunction with the development of theAssessment and Program or wheneverthe funded and implemented programdeviates significantly from the 5-yearlevels specified in the regional plan.

(0) Revision. The regional forester willdetermine by an analysis of themanagement situation whether arevision is necessary because conditionsor the demands of the public in theregion have changed significantly.Revision will not become effective untilconsidered and approved in accordancewith the requirements for thedevelopment and approval of a regionalplan.

(g) Planning records. The regionalforester and the interdisciplinary teamwill develop and maintain a system thatrecords decisions and activities thatresult from the process of developing aregional plan, revision or significantamendment. This system will contain allplanning records including a work planto guide and manage planning, theprecedures which were used incompleting each planning action and theresults of those actions. These recordsdocument the accomplishment of legaland administrative planningrequirements. They include at least thedraft environmental impact statement,final environmental impact statement,regional plan, and record of decision.The adequacy of the record system willbe approved by the regional forester.

(h) Regional plan content. Thefollowing general format and content


53984 Federal Register' I Vol.' 44, No. 181 I Monday, Septerhber 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

outline is required for all regional plans.In addition, the regional forester mayspecify formats and require furthercontent within the following outlineappropriate to the planning needs of thalregion:

(1) A brief description'of the majorpublic issues and management concernswhich are pertinent to the region,indicating the disposition of each issueor concern;

(2) A summary of the analysis of the,regional management situation;including a brief description of theexisting management situation, demandand supply projections for resourcecommodities and services, productionpotentials, and xesource use anddevelopment opportunities;

(3) Description of managementdirection including programs, goals andobjectives;

(4) A distribution of regionalobjectives to each of the forest planningareas, and additiona' objectives addedto reflect specific regionalneeds;

(5) Management standards andguidelines and those specific standardsand guidelines listed in § 219.10(d);

(6) Description of the monitoring andevaluation necessary to determine andreport achievements and effects;

(7) Appropriate 'references toinformation usedin development of theregional plan; and

(8) The names of.interdisciplinaryplanning team members, together with asummary of each member's.qualifications and areas of expertise;

(i) Monitoring and evaluation.Monitoring and evaluation of plannedactions and effects will be carried out incompliance with § 219.5(k). Monitoringand evaluation will include, but-is notlimited to:, (1) Management practices relating toregional or subregional programs;

(2) State and Private Forestry'programs carried out in conjunction withstates or other governmental agencies;

(3) Economic and social.impact onregional publici

(4) Resohrce outputs orenvironmentalimpacts which relate to areas morewidespread than national forests orStates;

(5) Research.programs which arerelated to other research activities orongoing management practices on aregional scale; and

(6) National Forest Systerm programs.

§ 219.10 Regional Planning Actions.(a) The regional interdisciplinary*

team, as directed by' the regional' ' 'forester, will follow the process andprocedures established in §§ 219.5through 219.9 in preparing the regionalplan. revision, or'signiflcitnt amendment.

The appropriate planning actions of theregional planning process will be guidedby at least the criteria provided inparagraphs (b) through (g) of thissection. Additional planning criteriamay be found in the guidelines formanaging specific renewable resourcesset forth in the Forest Service Manualand Handbooks.

(b) In addition to public issues andmanagement concerns identified throughpublic participation and coordination,'-each regional plan will address issuesand concerns referred from national orforest planning. Some managementconcerns that should be considered inregional and in forest planning are theneeds to:

(1) Provide goods and servicesefficiently;

(2) Produce timber and wood fiber;(3) Manage and utilize range resources

and i-nprove-range grazing;(4) Manage fire to improve and protect

resources;(5) Protect resources from disease,

pests and similar threats;(6) Enhance water quality and

quantity, soil productivity, and restorewatershed conditions;

(7) Adjust landownership as neededto support resource management goals;

(8) Provide various recreation options;(9) Maintain or improve fish and

wildlife habitats;(10) Improve critical and essential

habitats of threatened or endangered-plant and animal .species;

(11) Assess probabilities of mineralexploration and development forimmediate and future needs, andconsider non-renewable resources in themangement of renewablenaturalresources;,

(12) Construct. operate, and Maintaintransportation facilities; -.

(13) Identify, protect, and enhance the.visual quality;

(14) Require corridors to the extentpracticable, to minimize adverseenvironmental impacts caused by theproliferation of.separate rights-of-way;',

( (15) Discover, manage, protect, andinterpret cultural resource values whichare qualified or may qualify forinclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places;

( (16) Identify typical examples ofimportant botanic, aquatic, and geologictypes, and protect them throughestablishmhent of research natural areas;and

(17J Provide forvarious wildernessmanagement options.

(c) Consistent withxegional andforest"resource capabilities, regional plans willimplement the goals and objectives ofthe RPA Program by establishingregional.p6licies and goals, assigning

resource production objectives to each,forest area to be covered by a Forest

-plan, and issuing needed guidelines forresolving the major public issues and,management concerns which areidentified through public participationand coordination activities. Informationdeveloped in regional plans will bemade available to the National levelAssessment and Program activity.

(d) Each regional plan will establishstandards and guidelines for:

(1) Prescribing according togeographic areas, forest types, or othersuitable classifications, appropriatesystems of silviculture to be used withinthe region;

(2) The maximum size, dispraral, andsize variation of tree openings createdby the application of even-agedmanagment and the state of vegetationthat will be reached before a cutoverarea is no longer considered an opening,using factors enumerated in § 219.13(d);

(3) The biological growth potential tobe used in determining the capability ofland for timber production as required In§ 219.12(b)(1)(ii);

(4) Defining the management intensityand'utilization standards to be used indetermining harvest levels for theregion:

(5) Recommended transportationcorridors and associated standards forforest planning, such as standards forcorridors,'for transmission lines,pipelines, and water canals. Thedesignation of corridors is not topreclude the granting of separate rights.of-way over, upon, under, or through thepublic-lands where the authorizedofficial determines that confinement to acorridor is not appropriate;

(6) Identification of potential uses ofavailable air quality increments (42U.S.C. 7473(b)) and protection of theportion of the increment needed toimplement forest plans: and

(7] Provision of a unit of measure forexpressing mean annual increment asrequired in § 219.12(d)(1](ii)(C).

(e) Public participation andcoordination activities will be adaptedto the circumstances of regionalplanning. Particular efforts will be madeto involve regional and nationalrepresentatives of interest groups.Coordination will stress involvementwith appropriate Federal agencies, Stateand local governments, and Indiantribes. Regional foresters will seek ,agreements with Governors, or their

,'designated representatives, onprocedures for coordination inaccordance with § 219.8(d),

(f) Data for regional planningwill bebased principally on information fromforest planning, with other dataprovided by the States, other Federal

53984 Federal Register, / V ol.* 44, No. 181 / Monday, Septeritber 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations


I Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53985

agencies, and private sources. Very littlenew data will be gathered through landand resource inventories. Data andinformation standards and guidelinesestablished nationally will be followedin structuring and maintaining requireddata.

(g) The regional analysis of themanagement situation will, asappropriate, consider results of eachforest's analysis of the managementsituation for that region.

§ 219.11 Forest Planning Procedure.(a) Forest Plan. The preparation of a

forest plan, revision, or significantamendment wilt comply with therequirements of the planning processestablished in § § 219.5 and 219.12 andthis section.

(b) Responsibilities. The forestsupervisor and the interdisciplinaryteam are responsible for the activitiesset forth in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) ofthis section.

(1) Forest supervisor. The forestsupervisor has overall responsibility forthe preparation and implementation'ofthe forest plan and appoints andsupervises the interdisciplinary team.

(2) Interdisciplinary team. The teamWill implement the public participationand coordination activities. The teamwill continue to function even th6hghmembership may change, and willmonitor and evaluate planning resultsand recommended revisions andamendments. The interdisciplinary teamwill develop a forest plan, revision, orsignificant amendment using theplanning process established in § 219.5,including the steps in paragraphs(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section-

(i) A draft environmental impactstatement will be prepared, describingthe proposed plan, revision, orsignificant amendment. A notice ofintent to prepare this statement will beissued in the Federal Register. The draftstatement will identify a preferredalternative. Begining at the time of thepublication of the notice of availabilitynotification in the Federal Register, thestatement will be available for publiccomment for at least 3 months, atconvenient locations in the vicinity ofthe lands covered by the plan, revision,or significant amendment. During thisperiod, and in accordance with theprovisions in § 219.7, the responsibleofficial will publicize and hold publicparticipation activities as deemedappropriate for adequate public input.

(ii) A final environmental impactstatement will be prepared, and afterthe forest supervisor has reviewed andconcurred in the statement, the forestsupervisor will recommend to theregional forester that it be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency. Atleast 30 days are required between thedate of notice of filing of the finalenvironmental impact statement and thedecision to implement actions specifiedin the plan, revision, or significantamendment. The plan, revision, orsignificant amendment will be based onthe selected alternative.

(c) Approval process. The regionalforester will review the proposed plan.revision, or significant amendment andthe final environmental impactstatement and take one of the actions inparagraphs (c)(1) through (3) of thissection.

(1) Approve the plan. If approved, theplan will not become effective until atleast 30 days after publication of thenotice of the filing of the finalenvironmental impact statement. At thetime of filing the FEIS with theEnvironmental Protection Agency, theregional forester will attach to the FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement aconcise public record of decision whichdocuments the approval. The record ofdecision will accomplish the following:

(i).State the decision;(ii) Identify all alternatives considered

in making the decision on the plan,revision, or significant amendment;

(iii) Specify the selected alternative;(iv) Identify and discuss relevant

factors considered by the Forest Servicein making the planning decision,including how such factors entered intoits decisions; and

(v) State whether all practicablemeans to avoid or minimizeenvironmental harm from the alternativeselected have been adopted, and, if not,why they were not.

(2) Disapprove the plan which will bereturned to the forest supervisor with awritten statement of the reasons fordisapproval. The regional forester mayalso specify a course of action to beundertaken by the forest supervisor inorder to remedy the deficiencies, errors.or omissions of the plan orEnvironmental Impact Statement.

(3) Transmit to the Chief, ForestService, for approval or disapproval, ifthe selected-harvest schedule is not thebase timber harvest schedule for thedesignated forest planning area asrequired in § 219.12(d)(2).

(4)(i) Persons who participated in theplanning process, or who can show goodreason why there were unable toparticipate, and who have an interestwhich is, or may be adversely affectedby a decision to approve or disapprovea forest plan, revision, or significant,amendment, may request a review ofthat decision. Intermediate decisionsmade during the planning process andprior to the approval or disapprovaldecision are not reviewable. If the party

requesting review participated in theplanning process, administrative reviewis limited to those issues which therequesting party raised duringparticipation in the planning process.Participation in the planning processmeans direct and documentedinvolvement with the responsibleofficial or the interdisciplinary team inthe planning process described in§ 219.5 of this subpart. Except asprovided in this paragraph, theprovisions and procedures which applyto administrative review under § 211.19of this chapter apply to the review ofdecisions approving or disapproving a;orest plan, revision, or significantamendment.

(ii) The reviewing officer willdetermine whether the deficiencies,errors, or omissions, found in the plan,revision, or significant amendment, areof such a nature as to requirereconsideration. If reconsideration isnecessary, the Chief, Forest Service, willremand the plan. revision, or significantamendment, to the Regional Foresterwith instructions as to how to proceedin the reconsideration.

(iii) Any person, either at the time offiling a request for review, or prior tofiling such a request, may request thereviewing officer to stay a decisionapproving or disapproving the forestplan, revision, or significant amendment,providing a showing is made that,without a stay, implementation willresult in irreversible action orirreparable harm or will have animmediate, direct and adverse effect onthe requesting party.

(d) Conformity. As soon aspracticable after approval of the plan,revision, or significant amendment, theforest supervisor will ensure that,subject to valid existing rights, alloutstanding and future permits,contracts, cooperative agreements, andother instruments for occupancy and useof affected lands are in conformity withthe plan. All subsequent administrativeactivities affecting such lands, includingbudget proposals, will be in compliancewith the plan. The forest supervisor maychange proposed scheduling to respondto minor differences between plannedannual budgets and appropriated funds.Such scheduled changes will beconsidered an amendment to the forestplan, but will not require preparation ofan environmental impact statementunless the changes significantly alter therelationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services projected underplanned budget proposals as comparedto those levels projected with actualappropriations. An environmentalimpact statement will be prepared if the


538 eea eite o.4,N.18 ody em be 7 99/Rue n euIon

scheduling changes will result insignificant adverse environmentalimpacts -not takerinto account in anexisting environmental impactstatement;

(e) Amendment. T e responsibleofficial may amend a plan through anenvironmental analysis or through theprocedures established for thepreparation and approval of the forestplan. Such an amendment will bedeemed significant if the analysisindicates the need to prepare anervironmental impact statement. If sucha need is indicated, the amendingprocess will follow the same procedureas in the preparation of the plan. If,based on the environmental analysis,the amendment is determined not to besignificant, it may be implemente'd bythe forest supervisor followingappropriate public'notification.

(f) Revision. A forest plan will berevised at least every 10 years, or morefrequently whenever the forestsupervisor determines that conditions orthe demands of the public in the areacovered by the plan have changed.significantly. The interdisciplinary teammay, through the mdnitoring and.evaluation process, recommend arevision of the forest plan at any time.Revisions are not effective untilconsidered and approved in accordancewith the requirements for the -development and apprval of a forestplan. The forest supervisor will reviewthe conditions on the land covered bythe plan at least every 5 years todetermine whether conditions ordemands of the public have changedsignificantly.

(g) Planning records. The forestsupervisor and interdisciplinary teamwill develop and maintain a system thatrecords decisions and activities thatresult from the process of developing aforest plan, reiision, or significantamendment. Records will be maintainedthat support analytical conclusions andalternative plans made by the team andapproved by the forest supervisorthroughout the planningprocess. Suchsupporting records provide the basis forthe development of, revision, orsignificant amendment to the forest planand associated environmentaldocuments.

(h) Forestplan content. The forestplan is the selected alternativedescribed in the Final'EnvironmentalImpact Statement. The plan will containthe following:

(1) A brief description of the majorpublic issues and management concernswhich are pertinent to the forest,indicating the disposition of each issueor concern;

(2] A summary of the analysis of themanagement situation, including a briefdescription of existing managementsituations, demand and supplyconditions for resource commodities andservices, production potentials, and useand development opportunities;

(3) Long-range policies, goals, andobjectives, and the specifidcmanagementprescriptions planned; to meet thepolicies and to achieve the multiple-usegoals'and objectives;-(4) Proposed vicinity, timing,

standards and guidelines for proposedand probable management pra6tices;

(5) Monitoring and 9valuationrequirements which are pertinent at theforest level;.

(6) Appropriate references toinformation used in development of theforest plan; and

(7) Names of the interdisciplinaryplanning team members, together with asumnimary of each member'squalifications and primaryresponsibilities or contributions to theforet planning effort.(i) Monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring and evaluation of plannedactions and effects will be'carried out incompliance with § 219.5(k) andparagraphs (i) (1) through [3) of thissection. In addition, managementpractices associated with each of theresources planned will be -evaluatedwith reference to the standards andguidelines contained in the forest planthrough monitoring on an appropriatesample basis. Methods used to monitorconsequences of activities resulting fromplanning and management practices willbe consistent with those used to gatherdata 'and information.

(1) Monitoring requirements in theforest plan will include descriptions of:

-(i) Activities, practices and effectsthat will be measured and the frequencyof measurements;

(ii) Expected precision and reliabilityof the monitoring process; and

(iii) The time at which evaluationreports will be prepared.

(2) An evaluation report will beprepared for management practicesmonitored and will contain at least thefollowing.

(i) A quantitative estimate ofperformance comparing outputs andservices with those projected by theforest plan;

(it) Documentation of measuredeffects, including any change inproductivity of the land;

(iii) Recommendations for changes"(ivI A list of needs for continuing

evaluation of management systems andfor alternative methods of management;and

(v) Unit costs associated with carryingout the planned activities as comparedwith unit costs estimated in the forestplan.

(3) Based upon the evaluation reports,the interdisciplinary team willrecommend to the Torest supervisor suchchanges in management direction,revisions, or amendments to the forestplan as deemed necessary.

§ 219.12 Forest Planning Actions.(a) In the preparation of the proposed

forest plan, revision, or significantamendment, the interdisciplinary team,as directed by the forest supervisor, willfollow the planning process establishedin §§ 219.5 through 219.8. 219.11, and Inthis section. The criteria in paragraphs(b) through (in) of this section providethe minimum requirements to beconsidered if appropriate for the forestbeing planned. Additional planningcriteria may be found in the guidelinesfor managing specific renewableresources set forth in the Forest ServiceManual and Handbooks.

(b) Each forest plan will identify landsavailable, capable, and suitable fortimber production and harvesting duringthe planning process in accordance withthe planning criteria In paragraphs (1)throught(4) of this paragraph.

(1] During the analysis of themanagement situation, data on allNational Forest System lands will bereviewed and those lands meeting all ofthe requirements- of paragraphs (b)(1) (1]through (iv) of this section will betentatively identified as available,capable and suitable for timberproduction. Those lands that fail to meetany of these requirements will bedesignated as not suited for timberproduction.

(i) The land hag not been legislativelywithdrawn or administrativelywithdrawn by the Secretary or theChief. Forest Service, from timberproduction.

(ii) The biological growth potential fortheland is equal to or exceeds theminimum standard for timber productiondefined in the regional plan.

(iii) Technology is available that willensure timber production from the landwithout irreversible resource damage tosoils, productivity, or watershedconditions.

(iv) There is reasonable assurancethat such lands can be adequatelyrestocked as provided in § 219.13(h)(3).

(2) Lands that have been tentativelyidentified as available, capable, andsuitable for timber production inparagraph (1) above will be furtherreviewed and assessed prior toformulation of alternatives to determinethe'costs and benefits for a range of

.53986 Federa!1 Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations



management intensities for timberproduction. For the purpose of analysis.the Forest will be stratified intocategories of land with similarmanagement costs and returns. The6tratification should considerappropriate factors that influence thecosts and returns such-as physical andbiological conditions of the site andtransportation. This analysis willcompare the direct costs of growing andharvesting trees to the anticipatedreceipts to the government, includingcapital expenditures required by timberproduction, in accordance with § 219.5and paragraphs [i) through (iii) belowand will identify the managementintensity for timber production for eachcategory of land, which results in thelargest excess of discounted benefitsless discounted costs.

(i) Direct benefits are expressed byexpected gross receipts to thegovernment. Such receipts will be basedupon expected stumpage prices fromtimber harvest considering future supplyand demand situation for timber, timberproduction goals of the Regional plan.and § 219.5(c)(6).

(ii) Direct costs include theanticipated investments, maintenance,operating, and management andplanning costs attributable to timberproduction activities, includingmitigation measures necessitated by theimpacts of timber production.

(iii) Economic analysis must considercosts and returns of managing theexisting timber inventory in addition tolong-term potential yield.

(3) During formulation and evaluationof each alternative as required under§ 219.5(f) and (g), combinations ofresource management practices will bedefined to meet management objectivesfor the various multiple uses includingoutdoor recreation, timber, watershed,range, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.The formulation and evaluation willconsider the costs and benefits ofalternative management intensities fortimber production from paragraph (2) inaccordance with § 219.5(fJ(v). Lands willbe tentatively identified as not suited fortimber production if:

(i) Based upon a consideration ofmultiple-use objectives for thealternative, the land is proposed forresource uses that preclude timberproduction, such as wilderness;

(ii) Other management objectives forthe alternative limit timber productionactivities to the point where silviculturestandards and guidelines set forth in§ 219.13 cannot be met; or

(iii) The lands are not cost-efficient inmeeting Forest objectives includingtimber production for the alternative

under consideration over the time periodof the program.

(4) Selection among alternatives willbe done in accordance with § 219.5(i).Lands identified as tentatively notsuited in paragraph (b)(3) of this sectionwill be designated as not suited fo,timber production in the selectedalternative.

(c) When vegetation is altered bymanagement, the methods, timing, andintensity of the practices determine thelevel of benefits that can be obtainedfrom the affected resources. Thevegetation management practiceschosen for each vegetation type andcircumstance will be defined in theforest plan with applicable standardsand guidelines and the reasons for thechoices. Where more than onevegetation management practice will beused in a vegetation type, the conditionsunder which each will be used will bebased upon thorough reviews oftechnical and scientific literature andpractical experience, with appropriateevaluation of this knowledge forrelevance to the specific vegetation andsite conditions. On National ForestSystem land, the vegetationmanagement practice chosen willcomply with the management standardsand guidelines specified in § 219.13(c).

(d) The selected forest managementalternative includes the timber harvestschedule which provides the allowablesale quantity. The harvest schedule ofeach alternative, including those whichdepart from base harvest schedules, willbe formulated in compliance with§ 219.5(c) and the criteria in paragraphs(1) and (2) of this paragraph.

(1) Alternatives will be formulatedthat include determinations of thequantity of the timber that may be soldduring the planning period. Thesequantity determinations will be basedon the principle of sustained yield andwill meet the constraints set out in§ 219.13. For each managementalternative, the deteralination willinclude a calculation of the long-termsustained-yield capacity and the baseharvept schedule and when appropriate,a calculation of timber harvestalternatives that may depart from thebase harvest schedule as provided inparagraphs (i) through (iii) of thisparagraph.

(i) For the base harvest schedules theplanned sale and harvest for any futuredecade will be equal to or greater thanthe planned sale and harvest for thepreceding decade of the planningperiods provided that the planned.harvest is not greater than the long-termsustained-yield capacity consistent withthe management objectives of thealternative.

(ii) The determinations of theappropriate long-term sustained-yieldcapabilities, base harvest schedules,and departure alternatives to the baseharvest schedule will be made on thebasis of the guidelines which follows:

(A) For the long-term sustained-yieldcapacities and the base harvestschedules, assume an intensity ofmanagement and degree of timberutilization consistent with the goals,assumptions, and standards containedin, or used in the preparation of thecurrent Program and rbgional plan. Forthe base harvest schedule, themanagement and utilizationassumptions will reflect theprojectedchanges in practices for the fourdecades contained in. or used in thepreparation oF the current Program andregional plan. Beyond the fourth decade.the assumptions will reflect thoseprojected for the fourth decade of theregional plan; -

(B) For alternatives with harvestschedules which depart from thecorresponding base harvest schedule.assume an appropriate managementintensity;

(C] In accordance with the establishedstandards, assure that all even-agedstands scheduled to be harvested duringthe planning period will generally havereached the culmination of mean annualincrement of growth. Mean annualincrement will be based on managementintensities and utilization standardsassumed in paragraphs (ii) (A] and (B)above and expressed as units ofmeasure consistent with the regionalplan. Exceptions to these standards arepermitted for the use of soundsilvicultural practices, such as thinningor other stand improvement measures:for salvage or sanitation harvesting oftimber stands which are substantiallydamaged by fire. windthrow or othercatastrophe. or which are in imminentdanger from insect or disease attack: orfor the removal of particular species oftrees after consideration has been givento the multiple uses of the area beingplanned and after completion of thepublic participation process applicableto the preparation of a forest plan: and

(D) Each harvest schedule willprovide for a forest structure that willenable perpetual timber harvest at the jlong-term sustained-yield capacity, andmultiple-use objectives of thealternative.

(iii) Alternatives with harvestschedules which depart from theprinciples of paragraph (i) above andwill lead to better attaining the overallobjectives of multiple-use managementwill be considered and formulated whenany of the following conditions areindicated:


53988 ' Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

(A) High mortality losses from anycause can be significantly reduced orprevented or forest age-classdistribution can be improved, facilitatingfuture sustained yfeld management;

(B) Implementation of thecorresponding base harvest schedulewould cause a substantial adverseimpact upon a community in theeconomic area in which the forest islocated;

(C] None of the alternatives alreadyconsidered provides a timber harvestschedule that achieves the.goals of theProgram as provided in § 219.4(b).

(2) The harvest schedule of themanagement alternative selected inaccordance with § 219.5(i) provides theallowable sale quantity (the quantity oftimber that may'be sold from the area ofland covered by the forest plan) for theplan period. If the selected harvestschedule is not the base timber harvestschedule for the designated forestplanning area, the forest plan will betransmitted to the.Chief, Forest Service,for approval. The decision of the Chiefmay be appealed to the Secretary.pursuant to the procedures in § 211.19 ofthis chap'er.,

(e] Lands reviewed for Wildernessdesignation under the review andevaluation' of roadless areas conductedby the Secretary of Agriculture but notdesignated as wilderness oi designatedfor further planning'and lands whosedesignation as primitive areas has beenterminated will be managed for usesother than wilderne'ss in accordance .with this subpart. No such area will beconsidered for designation aswilderness until a revision of the forestplan under § 219.11(f). When revisingthe forest plan, roadless areas of publiclandi within and adjacent to the forest,will be evaluated and considered forrecommendation as potential wildernessareas, as provided in paragraphs (e) (1)and (2) of this paragraph.,

(1) During analysis of the managementsituation the following areas will-bedesignated for evaluation:

(i) All previously inventoriedwilderness resources not yet designated;

(ii) Areas contiguous to existingwilderness, primitive areas, or,administratively proposed wildernesses,regardless of Which agency hasjurisdiction for the wilderness orproposed w iliderness.

(iII) Areas, regardless of size, that arecontiguous to roadless and undevelopedareas in other Federal ownership thathave identified wilderness potential;and

(iv) Areas designated by Congfess forwilderness. study, administrativeproposals pending before Congress, andother legislative proposals pending

which have been endorsed-by theadministration.

(2) Each area designated forevaluation under paragraph (1) abovewill be evaluated in terms of currentnational guidelines or, in their absence,by criteria developed by theinterdisciplinary team with publicparticipation. In the latter case, thecriteria will include a's a minimum:

(i) The values of the area aswilderness;. (ii) The values foregone and effects onmanagement of adjacent lands as aconsequence of wilderness desighation;

(iii) Feasibility of management aswilderness, in respect to size, non-conforming use, land ownershippatterns, andexisting contractualagreements-or statutory rights;

(iv) Proximity to other designatedwilderness, and relative contribution tothe National Wilderness PreservationSystem; and

(v) The anticipated long-term changesin plant and animial-species diversity,including the diversity of natural plantand animal communities of the forestplanning area and the effects of suchchanges on the values for whichwilderness areas~were created.(f) The forest plan will provide

direction for the management ofdesignated wilderness and primitive-areas in accordance with the provisions-of Part 293. In particular, it will:

(1) Provide for'limiting anddistributing visitor use of specificportions in accord with periodic-estimates of the maximum levels of usethat allow natural processes to operatefreely and that do not impair the valuesfor which wilderness areas werecreated; and

(2) Evaluate the extent to whichwildfire, insect, and disease controlmeasures may be desirable forprotection of either the wilderness oradjacent areas and provide for suchmeasures when appropriate. -

(g) Fish and wildlife habitats will bemanaged to maintain viable populationsof all existing native vertebrate speciesin the planning area and to maintain andimprove habitat of managementindicator species. To meet this goal,management planning for the fish andwildlife resource will meet therequirements set forth in paragraphs (1)through (7) of this paragraph and beguided by Chapter 2620, Forest ServiceManual:

(1) The desired future condition of fishand wildlife, where technically possible,will be stated in terms both of animalpopulation trends and of amount andquality of habitat.

(2) Management indicator species,vertebrate and/or invertebrate, will be

identified for planning, and the reasonsfor their selection will be given. Thespecies considered will include at least:Endangered and threatened plant andanimal species identified on State andFederal lists for the planning area:species with special habitat needs thatmay be influenced significantly byplanned management programs, speciescommonly hunted, fished, or trapped'and additional plant or animal speciesselected because their populationchanges are believed to indicate effectsof management activities on otherspecies of a major biological communityor on water quality. On the basis ofavailable scientific information, theeffects of changes in vegetation type,timber age classes, communitycomposition, rotation age, and year-longsuitability of habitat related to mobilityof management indicator species will beestimated. Where appropriate, measuresto mitigate adverse effects will beprescribed.

(3) Biologists from State fish andwildlife agencies and other Federalagencies will be consulted in order tocoordinate planning with State plans forfish and wildlife.

(4) Access and dispersal p'roblema ofhunting, fishing, and other visitor useswill be considered.

(5) The effects of pest andfiremanagement on fish and wildlifepopulations will be considered.

(6) Population trends of themanagement indicator species will bemonitored and relationships to habitatchanges determined. This monitoringwill be done in cooperation with Statefish and Wildlife agencies, to the extantpracticable.

(7) Critical habitat for threatened andendangered species will be determined,and measures will be prescribed toprevent the destruction or adverseffodification of such habitat. Objectiveswill be determined for threatened andendangered species that will' provide for,where possible, their removal fromlisting as threatened and endangeredspecies through appropriateconservation measures, including thedesignation of special areas to meet theprotection and management needs ofsuch species.

(h) Identify lands suitable for'grazingand browsing in accordance withcriteria in paragraphs (1) through (3),ofthis paragraph and as guided by Chapter2210, Forest Service Manual.

(1) The procedures used will include,but not be limited to, the following:

(i) Range condition and trend studies:(ii) Records of estimated actual use by

domestic livestock, feral animals andmanagement indicator species of


Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53989

wildlife, and estimated percentageutilization of key forage species;

(iII) An estimate of the capability ofthe rangelands to produce suitable foodand cover for the management indicatorspecies of wildlife: and

(iv) An estimate of the present andpotential supply of forage for sheep,cattle, and feral animals.

(2) In the analysis of managementsituation, assess the capability of theplanning area to produce forage withoutpermanent impairment of the resources.considering the 2ondition of thevegetation, statutory, and administrativewithdrawals, characteristics of soil andslope, and accessibility to grazing andbrowsing animals.

(3) Alternative range management.practices will consider.

(i) Grazing management systems;(ii) Methods of altering successional

stages for range management objectives.including vegetation manipulation asdescribed in § 219.13(c);

(iii) Evaluation of pest problems. andavailability of integrated pestmanagement systems;

(iv) Possible conflicts or beneficialinteractions among domestic, feral, andwild animal populations, and methodsof regulating these;

(v) Physical facilities such as fences.water development, and corrals.necessary for efficient management:

(vi) Existing permits, cooperativeagreements, and related obligations; and

(vii) Measures to protect, manage, andcontrol wild free-roaming horses andburros as provided in Part 222, SubpartB of this chapter.

(i) A broad spectrum of dispersed anddeveloped recreation opportunities inaccord with identified needs anddemands will be provided. Planning toachieve this will be governed by thegoals of the regional plan, therequirements of paragraphs (1) through(8) of this section, and be guided byChapter 2310, Forest Service Manual.

(1) Forest planning will identify:(i) The physical and biological

characteristics that make land suitablefor recreation opportunities;

(ii) The recreational preferences ofuser groups; and the settings needed toprpvide quality recreation opportunities:

(iii) Recreation opportunities on theNational Forest System lands.

(2) The supply of developedrecreational facilities in the area ofnational forest influence will beappraised for adequacy to meet presentand future demands.

(3) Alternatives will includeconsideration of establishment ofphysical facilities, regulation of use. andrecreation opportunities responsive tocurrent and anticipated user demands.

(4) In formulation and analysis ofalternatives as specified in § 219.5 (f)and (g). interactions among recreationopportunities and other multiple useswill be examined. This examination willconsider the impacts of the proposedrecreation activities on other uses andvalues and the impacts-of other uses andactivities associated with them onrecreation opportunities, activities, andquality of experience.

(5) Formulation and evaluation ofalternatives under paragraphs (3) and(4) above will be coordinated to theextent feasible with present andproposed recreation activities of localand State land use or outdoor recreationplans, particularly the StateComprehensive Outdoor RecreationPlan and recreation opportunitiesalready present and available on otherpublic and private lands, with the aim ofreducing duplication in meetingrecreation demands.

(6) The visual resource will beinventoried and evaluated as anintegrated part of the forest planningprocess, addressing both the landscapesvisual attractiveness and the publicsvisual expectation. As guided by chapter2380, Forest Service Manual. definitiveland areas of the forest will have avisual quality objective assigned as apart of the management prescription todirect management practices and themanagement of the visual resource.

(7) Off-road vehicle use will beplanned and implemented to minimizeadverse effects on the land andresources, promote public safety, andminimize conflicts with other uses of theNational Forest System lands. Forestplanning will evaluate the potentialeffects of vehicle use off-roads and. onthe basis of the requirements of Part 295.of this chapter and be guided by inChapter 2355, Forest Service Manual.classify areas and trails of NationalForest System lands as to whether ornot off-road vehicle use may bepermitted.

(j) The effects of mineral explorationand development in the planning areawill be considered in the management ofrenewable resources. When available,the following will be recognized in theforest plan:

(1) Active mines within the area ofland covered by the forest plan;

(2) Outstanding or reserved mineralrights,

(3) The probable occurrence ofvarious minerals, including locatable.leasable, and common variety;

(4) The potential for future mineraldevelopment and potential forwithdrawal from development and

(5) The probable effect of renewableresource allocations and management

on mineral resources and activities.including exploration and development.

(k) Planning the management of thewater and soil resources will be inaccordance with paragraphs (1) through(6) of this paragraph, and be guided byChapter 2510, Forest Service Manual.

(1) Current water uses, bothconsumptive and non-consumptive.within the area of land covered by theforest plan. including instream flowrequirements. will be determined, incooperation with appropriategovernment entities.

(2) Existing impoundments.transmission facilities, wells, and otherman-made developments on the area ofland covered by the forest plan will beidentified.

(3) The probable occurrence ofvarious levels of water volumes.including extreme events which wouldhave a major impact on the planningarea. will be estimated.

(4) Plans must comply with therequirements of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act as amended bythe Clean Water of 1977. the SafeDrinking Water Act and all substantiveand procedural requirements of Federal.State, and local governmental bodieswith respect to the provision ofpublicwater systems and the disposal of wastewater.

(5) Existing or potential watershedconditions that will influence soilproductivity, wateryield waterpollution, or hazardous events, will beevaluated.

(6) Measures, as directed in applicableExecutive Orders, to minimize risk offlood loss and to restore and preservefloodplain values, and to protectwetlands, will be adopted.

(1) Forest planning will provide for theindentification. protection,interpretation and management ofcultural resources on National ForestSystem lands- Planning for the resourcewill be governed by the requirements ofFederal laws pertaining to historicpreservation, and be guided by Chapter2360. Forest Service Manual. and thecriteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) ofthis paragraph.

(1) Forest planning will:(i) Provide an overview of known data

relevant to history. ethnography, andprehistory of the area underconsideration, including known culturalresource sites;

(ii) Identify areas requiring moreintensive inventory;

(iii) Provide for evaluation andIdentification of sites for the NationalRegister of Historic Places

(iv) Provide for establishing measuresfor the protection of cultural resources



from vandalism and other humandepredation, and natural destruction;

(v) Identify the need for maintenanceof historic sites on, or eligible forinclusion in, the National Register ofHistoric Places; and

(vi) Identify opportunities forinterpretation of cultural resources forthe education and enjoyment of theAmerican public.

(2) In the formulation and analysis ofalternatives, interactions'among culturalresources and other multiple uses willbe examined. This examination willconsider impacts of the management ofcultural resources on other uses and-activities and impacts of other uses andactivities on cultural resourcemanagement.

(3) Formulation and evaluation of planalternatives will be coordinated to theextent feasible with the State culturalresource plan and planning activities ofthe State Historic Preservation Officeand State Archaeologist and with otherStat6 and Fedeial agencies.

(in) Forest planning will provide forthe establishment of Research NaturalAreas (RNAs). Planning will makeprovision for the identification ofexamples of important forest, shrubland,grassland, alpine, aquatic,.and geologictypes that have special or uniquecharacteristics of scientific interest andimportance and that are needed tocomplete the national network of RNAs.Biotic, aquatic, and geologic typesneeded for thenetwork will.beidentified using a list provided by theChief, Forest Service. Authority to -

establish RNA's is delegated to theChief in § 2.60(a) of TItle 7 CFR and in§ 251.23 of this chapter.Recommendations for establishment ofareas will be made through the planningprocess and according to the guidancefoj the selection of areas for RNAs andfor the preparation of establishmentreports as provided in section 4063,Forest Service Manual.

§ 219.13 Management standards andguidelines.

(a) Management of National ForestSystem lands requires adherence to theplanning principles stated in § 219.1;specific management requirements to bemet in accomplishing goals andobjectives include, as a minimuin, thosein paragraphs (b) through (i) of this'section.

(b) All management practices will:(1) Conserve soil and water resources,

and not allow significant or permanentimpairment of thd productivity of theland;

(2] Minimize serious or long-lastinghazards from flood, wind, wildfire,erosion, or other natural physical forces

unless these are specifically accepted,as in Wilderness;

(3] Prevent or'reduce serious, long-lasting hazards from pest organismsunder the principles of integrated pestmanagement;

(4] Protect'streams, streambanks,shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and otherbodies of water as provided underparagraphs (e) and (f) of this section;

(5] Provide for and maintain diversityof plant and animal communities tomeet overall multiple-use objectives, asprovided in paragraph (g) of this section;

(6) Be monitored and evaluated asrequired in § 219.5(k) to assure thatpractices protect soil, watershed, fish,wildlife, recreation, and aestheticyalues; maintain vegetative productivity;and reduce hazards from insects,disease, weed species,'and fire;

(7) Be assessed prior to projectimplementation for potential physical,biological, aesthetic, cultural,engineering, and economic impacts andfor consistency with multiple usesplanned for the general area;

(8) Ensure that fish and Wildlifehabitats are managed to maintain viablepopulations of all existing nativevertebrate species and to improvehabitat of selected species, coordinatedwith appropriate State fish and wildlifeagencies and monitored in cooperationwith these agencies, to the extentpracticable;

(9] Include measures for preventingthe destruction or adverse modificatiorof critical habitat for threatened andendangered species;

(10) Provide that any existingtransportation and utility corridor, andany right-of-way that is capable ofa'ccommodating the facility or use froman additional compatible right-of-way,be designated as a right-of-way corridor.Subsequent right-of-way grants will, tothe extent practicable, and asdetermined by the responsible official,be confined to designated corridors;

(11) Ensure that any roads constructedthrough contracts, permits, or leases aredesigned according to standardsappropriate to the planned uses,considering safety, cost oftransportation, and effects upon landsand resources;

(12] Provide that all roads are plannedand designed to re-establish vegetativecover on the total disturbed area withina reasonable period of time, not toexceed 10 years after the termination ofa contract, lease or permit, unless theroad is determined necessary as apermanent addition to the NationalForest Transportation System; and"

(13) Maintain air quality at a level thatis adequate for the protection and use of,National Forest Syitem resources and

that meets or exceeds applicableFederal, State and/or local standards orregulations, and as further guided byChapter 2120, Forest Service Manual,

(c) Management prescriptions thatinvolve vegetation manipulation of treecover for any purpose will:

(1] Be best suited to the multiple-usegoals established for the area with allpotential environmental, biological,cultural resource, aesthetic, engineering,and econminic impacts, as stated in theregional and forest plans, beingconsidered in thjs deterthination;

(2) Assure that lands can beadequately restocked as provided Inparagraph (h](3) of this section, exceptwhere permanent openings are createdfor wildlife habitat improvement, vistas,recreation uses and, similar practices

,(3) Not be chosen primarily becausethey will give the greatest dollar returnor the greatest output of timber,although these factors.will beconsidered.

(4) Be chosen after consideringpotential effects on residual trees andadjacent stands;

(5) Avoid permanent impairment of,site productivity and ensureconservation of soil and waterresources;

(6) Provide the desired effects onwater quantity and quality, wildlife andfishhabitat, regeneration of desired treespecies, recreation uses, aestheticvalues, and resouice yields; and

(7] Be practical in terms oftransportation and harvestingrequirements, and total costs ofpreparation, logging, and administration,

(d) When openings are created in theforest by the application of even-agedsilviculture, the provisions ofparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraphapply.

(1) The blocks or strips cut will beshaped and blended with the naturalterrain to achive aesthetic and wildlifehabitat objectives to the extentpracticable. Openings will be located toachieve the desired combination ofmultiple objectives. Regional plans willprovide guidance on the dispersion ofopenings, and size variations ofopenings, in relation to topography,climate, geography, local land usepatterns, forest type and other factors.'The regional plan will specify the stateof vegetation to be reached before acutover is no longer considered anopening.

(2) Individual cut blocks, patches, orstrips will conform to the maximum sizelimits for areas to be cut in one harvestoperation established by the regionalplan according to geographic areas andforest types. This limit may be less than,but will not exceed, 60 acres for the


No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 539911

Douglas-fir forest type of California,Oregon, and Washington; 80 acres forthe southern yellow pine types ofAlabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida,Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina.South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas;100 acres for the hemlock-sitka spruceforest type of coastal Alaska; and 40acres for all other forest types except asprovided in paragraphs [i) through (iii)of this paragraph:

(i) Cut openings larger than thosespecified may be permitted where largerunits will produce a more desirablecombination of benefits. Suchexceptions will be provided for inregional plans. The following factorswill be considered in determining sizelimits by geographic areas and foresttypes: Topography; relationship of unitsto other natural or artificial openingsand proximity of units; coordination andconsistency with adjacent forests andregions; effect on water quality andquantity; visual absorption capability;effect on wildlife and fish habitat;regeneration requirements for desirabletree species based upon the latestresearch findings; transportation andharvesting system requirements; naturaland biological hazards to survival ofresidual trees and surrounding stands;and relative total costs of preparatibn,logging, and administration of harvestcuts of various sizes. Specifications forexceptions will include the particularconditions under which the larger size ispermitted and set a new maximum sizepermitted under those conditidns.

(ii) The size limits may be exceededon an individual timber sale basis after60 days public notice and review by theregional forester.

(iII) The established limit will notapply to the size of areas harvested as aresult of natural catastrophic conditionsuch as fire, insect and disease attack,or windstorm.

(e) Special attention will be given toland and vegetation for approximately100 feet from the edges of all perennialstreams, lakes, and other bodies ofwater and will correspond to at least therecognizable area dominated by theriparian vegetation. No managementpractices causing detrimental changes inwater temperature or chemical,composition, blockages of watercourses, and deposits of sediment willbe permitted within these areas yhichseriously and adversely affect waterconditions or fish habitat. Topography,vegetation type, soil, climatic conditions,management objectives, and otherfactors will be considered-indetermining what management practicesmay be performed within these areas orthe constraints to be placed upon theirperformance.

[f) Conservation of soil and waterresources involves the analysis,protection, enhancement, treatment, andevaluation of soil and water resources,and their responses under managementand will be guided by instructions inofficial technical handbooks. Thesehandbooks must show specific ways toavoid or mitigate damage, and maintainor enhance productivity on specificsites. These handbooks may be regionalin scope or. where feasible, specific tophysiographic or climatic provinces.

(g) The selected alternative willprovide for diversity of plant and animalcommunities and tree species to meetthe overall multiple-use objectives of theplanning area. Diversity of plant andanimal communities and tree specieswill be considered throughout theplanning process. Inventories willinclude quantitative data makingpossible the evaluation of diversity interms of its prior and present condition.For each planning alternative, theinterdisciplinary team will consider howdiversity will be affected by variousmixes of resource outputs and uses,including proposed managementpractices. To the extent consistent withthe requirement to provide for diversity,management prescription, whereappropriate and to the extentpracticable, will preserve and enhancethe diversity of plant and animalcommunities, including endemic anddesirable naturalized plant and animalspecies, so that it is at least as great asthat which would be expected in anatural forest and the diversity of treespecies similar to that existing in theplanning area. Reductions in existingdiversity of plant and animalcommunities and tree species will beprescribed only where needed to meetoverall multiple-use objectives. Plannedtype conversion will be justified by ananalysis showing biological, economic,social, and environmental designconsequences, and the relation of suchconversions to the process of naturalchange.

(h) The management requirements inparagraphs (1) through (7) of thisparagraph apply to timber harvest andcultural treatments.

(1) No timber harvesting will occurduring the planning period on landsclassified as not suited for timberproduction pursuant to § 219.12(b) (1)through (5) except as necessary toprotect other multiple-use values oractivities that meet other objectives onsuch lands if the forest plan establishesthat such actions are appropriate.

(2) The selected harvest scheduleprovides the allowable sale quantity, thequantity of timber that may be sold fromthe capable, available, and suitable land

covered by the forest plan during theplanning period. Within the planningperiod. the volume of timber to be soldin any one year may exceed the averageannual allowable sale quantity so longas the total amount sold for the planningperiod does not exceed the allowablesale quantity. Nothing in this paragraphprohibits salvage or sanitationharvesting of timber stands which aresubstantially damaged by fire.windthrow, or other catastrophe, orwhich are in imminent danger of insector disease attack and where consistentwith silvicultural and environmentalstandards. Such timber may eithersubstitute for timber that wouldotherwise be sold under the plan or, ifnot feasible, be sold over and above theplanned volume.

(3] When trees are cut to achievetimber production objectives, thecuttings will be made in such a way asto assure that lands can be adequatelyrestocked within 5 years after finalharvesL Research and experience willindicate that the harvest andregeneration practices planned can tieexpected to result in adequaterestocking. Adequate restocking meansthat the cut area will contain theminimum number, size distribution, andspecies composition of regeneration asspecified in regional silvicultural guidesattached to the forest plan for eachforest type. Five years after final harvestmeans 5 years after clearcutting, 5 yearsafter final overstory removal inshelterwood cutting. 5 years after theseed tree removal cut in seed treecutting. or 5 years after selection cutting.

(4) Cultural treatments such asthinning. weeding. and other partialcutting may be included in the forestplan where they are intended toincrease the rate of growth of remainingtrees, favor commercially valuable treespecies, favor species or age classeswhich are most valuable for wildlife, orachieve other multiple-use objectives.

(5) Harvest levels based on intensifiedmanagement practices will be decreasedno later than the end of each planningperiod if such practices cannot becompleted substantially as planned.

(6) Timber harvest cuts designed toregenerate an even-aged stand of timberwill be carried out in a mannerconsistent with the protection of soil.watershed, fish and wildlife, recreation,and aesthetic resources, and theregeneration of the timber resource.

(7) Timber will not be harvestedwhere such treatment would favor anabnormal increase in injurious insectsand disease organisms.

(i) Monitoring will ensure as aminimum that:



53992 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No., 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Lands are adequately restocked asspecified in the Forest Plan;

(2) Lands identified asnot suited fortimber production will be examined atleast every 10 years to determine if theyhave become suitable; if determinedsuited such lands will be returned totimber production.

(3) Maximum size limits for harvestareas are evaluated to determinewhether such size limits should becontinued; and

(4) Destructive insects and diseaseorganisms do not increase followingmanagement activities.

§ 219.14 Research.(a) Research needs for management of

the National Forest System will beidentified during-planning andcontinually reviewed during evaluationof implemented plans. Particularattention will be given to research heedsidentified during the monitoring andevaluation described in § 219.5(k). Theseidentified needs will be included informulating overall research programsand plans which involve private as wellas public forest and rangelands.

(b) Research needed to support or-improve management of the NationalForest System will be established andbudgeted at the research station andnational levels. Priorities for this portionof the Forest Service Research Programwill be based upon the informationgathered at all plahninglevels of theNational Forest System.

(c) An annual report will be preparedat the national level with assistancefrom Regions and Stations which willinclude; but not be limited to, adescription of the status of major'research programs which addressNational Forest System needs forResearch, significant findings, and how'this information is to be, orhas recentlybeen applied.

§ 219.15 Revision of regulations..The regulations in this subpart will be

regularly reviewed and, whenappropriate, revised. The first suchreview will be completed no later than 6years after the approval date of theseregulations. Additional reviews willoccur at least every 5 years thereafter.

§ 219.16 Transition period.,(a) Until a forest planning area of the

National Forest System land is managedunder a forest plan developed pursuantto these regulations and' approved bythe regional forester, the land maycontinue to be managed under existingland use and resource-plans. As soonxapracticable, existing plans will beamended or revised to incorporatestandards and guidelines in this subpart.

Pending approval of a forest plan,existing plans may be amended orrevised to include managementrequirements not inconsistent with theprovisions of the Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Planning Act, asamended, and these regulations.

(b) A forest plan may becomeeffeative prior to the development andapproval of its related regional plan,.provided that the forest plan will bereviewed upon regional plan approval,and if necessary, amended to complywith regional management direction. Ifsuch an aiendment is significant, it Willbe made pursuant to the requirementsfor the development of a forest.plan.

Appendix F-Regulation Outline andIndex

Outline of Rules for Land ManagementPlanning, in the National Forest System

Subject

Sec.219.1 Purpose.219.2 Scope and Applicability.219.3 Definitions.219.4 Planning Levels.219.5 Regional and Forest PlanningProcess.219.08 Interdisciplinary Approach.219.7 Public Participation,219.8 Coordination of Public Planning

Efforts.219.9 Regional Planning Procedure.219.I0 Regional PlanningAotions.219.11 Forest PlanningProcedure.219.12 Forest PlanningActions.219.13 Management Standards and

Guidelines.219.14 Research.219.15, Revision of Regulations.219.16 Transition Period.219.1 Purpose.

a. Conformance with NEPA and RPA.b. Principles of Planning:,1. Ecosystem concept.2. Relative values. -3. Goals and objectives.4. Protection.5. Preservationm6. Religious freedom, American Indians.7..Safe use.8. Forest pests.9. Coordination.10. Interdisciplinary approach.11. Publicparticipation.12. Standards and guidelines.13. Economic efficiency.14. Responsiveness to changing conditfons

and public participation.219.2 Scope and Applicability.219.3 Definitions.

a. Allowable Sale Quantity.b. Assessment.c. Base Timber Harvest Schedule.d. Biological Growth Potential.e. Capability.f. Corridor.g. Diversity.h. Economic Efficiency Analysis.i. Environmental Analysis.j. Environmental Documents.k. Even-Aged Silviculture.,

1. Goal.in. Goods and Services.n. Guideline.o. Integrated Pest Management.p. Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity.q. Management Concern,r. Management Direction.s. Management Intensity.L Management Practice,u. Management Prescription.v. Multiple Use.w. Objective.x. Planning Area.y. Policy.z. Program.aa. Public Issue.bb. Public Participation Activities.cc. Real Dollar Value.dd. Responsible Official.ee. Silvicultural System.ff. Standard.gg. Suitability.hh. Sustained Yield of the Several Products

and Services.ii. Timber Harvest Schedule.jj. Timber Production.kk. Uneven-Aged Silviculture.

219.4 Planning Levels.a. Introduction.b. Planning Levels and Relationships:1. National.2. Regional.3. Forest.

219.5 Regional and Forest Planning Process.a. General Planning approach.b. Identification of issues, concerns and

opportunities.c. Planning Criteria:1. Laws.2. Goals and objectives.3. Recommendations and assiunptions,4. Other agencies plans and programs,5. Ecological, technical and economic

factors.6. Economic analysis guidelines.7. Standards and guidelines.d. Inventory Data and Collection,e. Analysis of the Management Situation,1. Ranges of goods and services,2. Projections of demand.3. Potential to resolve Issues and concerns.4. Technical and economic feasibility.5. Management direction.f. Formulation of Alternatives.1. Range of outputs and expenditure levels.-i. Each alternative will be capable of being

achieved.it. No action alternative to be Included.iii. Each alternative to provide for

elimination of backlog for restoration.iv. Issues and concerns to be addressed in

one or more alternatives.v. Cost effectiveness.2. Content of alternative.i. Long-term results and conditions,ii. Goods and services to be produced.iii. Resource management standards and

guidelines.ivPurposes of management direction

proposed. ,g. Estimated Effects of Alternatives:1. Expected outputs for the planning

periods.2. Relationship between short-term uses

and long-term productivity.3. Adverse environmental effects.


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

4. Irreversible and irretrievable resourcecommitments.

5. Effects on minority group and civil rights.i. Expected real-dollar costs.ii. Estimate real dollar value of all outputs.iii. Evaluate local economic effect.6. Effects on prime farmlands, wetlands

and flood plains.7. Output relationships to production goals.8. Energy requirements and effects.9. Direct and indirect benefits-and costs.h. Evaluation of Alternatives.i. Selection of Alternative.j. Plan Implementation:1. Compliance with annual program

propos ls.2. Budget allocations.3. In compliance with 219.9(c) and

219.11(d).k. Monitoring and Evaluation:1. Monitoring activities.i. Actions, effects or resources to be

measured and frequency.ii Expected precision and reliability.iii. Time when evaluation is to be reported.2. Evaluation reports.3. Changes in management direction.

219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach.a. Introduction and team functions:1. Assesses problems.2. Obtain public views.3. Coordinate with other agencies.4. Develop the land and resource

management plan and environmental impactstatement.

5. Provide an integrated perspective for theresponsible official.

6. Establish monitoring and evaluationstandards.

b. Interdisciplinary Team Composition.c. Interdisciplinary Team Member

Qualifications:1. Solve complex problems.2. Communication skills.3. Planning concepts, processes and

techniques.4. Conceptualize planning problems and

situations.d. Interdisciplinary Team Leadership.

219.7 Public Participation.a. Introduction:1. Understand needs and concerns of

public.2. Inform public of proposed actions.3. Provide public with an understanding of

proposed actions.4. Broaden the information base upon

which decisions are made.5. Demonstrate the use of public input.b. Public Participation in the Preparation of

the Draft Environmental Statement andNotice of Intent.

c. Public Participation in the Devel6pment.Revision, and Jignificant Amendment ofPlans; Media notice:

1. Description of proposed action.2. Description of geographic area affected.3. Issues expected to be discussed.4. Kind, extent. and methods.5. Times, dates and locations.6. Forest Service official to be contacted.7. Location and availability of documents.d. Means to Effective Public Participation.e. Public Input Analysis.L Public Participation in Monitoring and

Evaluation.g. Summaries of Public Participation

Activities.h. Public Notice of Public Participation

Activities.i. Notifying Interested or Affected Parties.j. Duties of Responsible Forest Service

Official.k Copies of Plans to be Available:1. Assessment and Program.2. Regional plan.3. Forest plan.4. Convenient locations for public review.1. Supporting Documents to be Available.in. Three Month Review Period.n. Fees for Reproducing Materials.

219.8 Coordination of Public Planning Efforts.a. Introduction & Principlesb. Coordination of Forest Service Planning:1. Recognition of other agencies' objectives.2. Assessment of interrelated impacts.3. Determination of how to deal with these

impacts.4. Conflicts and alternatives for resolution.c. Notice of Proposed Action and Schedule.d. Agreements on Procedural Measures

with Governors.e. Meetings and Conferences.f. Review of Land Use Policies of Other

Agencies.g. Coordination with Adjacent Property

Owners.h. Resolving Management Concerns and

Identifying Research Needs.i. Monitoring Effects on Adjacent Lands.

219.9 Regional Planning Procedure.a. Regional Plan.b. Responsibilities:1. DEIS2. FEISc. Plan Review by Chief:-1. Approve proposal and the environmental

impact statement: Issue Report of Decisioni. State the decision.ii. Identify alternatives considered.iii. Specify preferred alternative.iv. Identify and discuss all factors

considered.v. Means to Avoid Environmental Harm.2. Disapprove proposal or the EIS.3. Exclusion from appeal under 30 CFR

211.19; provisions for requests forreconsideration; requests for stays ofimplementation.

d. Conformity.e. Amendment.L Revision.g. Planning Records.h. Regional Plan Content-1. Major public issues and management

concerns.2. Management situation summary.3. Management direction-programs, goals

and objectives.4. Distriubtion of regional activities.5. Management standards and guidelines.6. Monitoring and evaluation.7. Appropriate references.8. Interdisciplinary team members and

qualifications.i. Monitoring and Evaluation:1. Management practices to be measured

and frequency.2. State and Private Forestry programs.3. Economic and social Impacts.4. Resource outputs and environmental

Impacts on areas larger than national forestsor states.

5. Research programs.6. NFS programs.

219.10 Regional Planning Actions.a. Introduction.b. Concerns and Issues to be Considered:1. Efficiency.2. Timber and Wood fiber.3. Range resources.4. Fire management.5. Disease and pests.6. Water quality, quantity and soil

productity.7. Landownership.8. Recreation.9. Fish and wildlife habitats.10. Threatened and endangered species.11. Mineral exploration and developmenL12. Transportation facilities.13. Visual quality.14. Rights of way.15. Cultural resources.1. Research natural areas.Wilderness Management Options.c. Regional Plans Contribute and Respond

to the Assessment and Program.d. Each Regional Plan will Establish

Standards and Guidelines for1. Tree openings created by even-aged

management.2. Biological growth potential used in

determining timber capability.3. Transportation corridors.4. Air quality.5. Unit of measure for expressing mean

annual increment.e. Public Participation and Coordination

Activities.L Data for Regional Planning.g. Regional Analysis of the Management

Situation.219.11 Forest Planning Procedure.

a. Forest Plan.b. Responsibilities:1. Forest Supervisor.2. Interdisciplinary Team.1. DEIS.IL FEIS.c. Approval Process. Plan Review by

Regional Forester.1. Approve proposal and environmental

impact statement: Issue Record of Decision.L State the decision.If. Identify alternative considered.Ill. Specify preferred alternative.Iv. Identify and discuss all factors

considered.v. Means to Avoid Environmental Harm.2. Disapprove the proposal or the EIS.3. Transmit base timber harvest schedule

departure request to ChieL4. Appeal of Decision to approve or

disapprove forest plan; requests for stay ofImplementation.

d. Conformity.e. Amendment.f. Revision.g. Planning Records.h. Forest Plan Content:1. Major public issues and management

concerns.2. Management situation summary.3. Long-range policies, goals and

objectives, with management prescription.4. Vicinity. timing. standards and

guidelines for practices.

53993



5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements.6. Appropriate references to information.7. Interdisciplinary team members and

qualifications.i. Monitoring and Evaluation.1. Requirements.i. Management practices to be measured

and frequency.ii. Expected precision and reliability.iii. Evaluation reports.2. Evaluation reports will contain at least:i. Quantitative estimates of performance.ii. Documentation of measured effects.iii. Recommendations for change.iv. Continuing evaluation.v. Costs.3. Interdisciplinary team recommendations.

219.12 Forest Planning Actions.a. Introduction.b. Each Plan will Identify Lands Available,

Capable, and Suitable for Timber Production.1. Requirements of timber producing lands.1. Not legislatively or administratively

withdrawn.i!. Biological growth potefitiaLiii. Technology available to insure timber

production without irreversible resourcedamage. I

iv. Assurance for adequate restocking.2. Determine potential economic efficiency

In commercial timber production.i. Direct benefits.ii. Direct costs,iii. Economic analysis.3,Each alternative consider-costs and

benefits of alternative timber managementregimes and lands tentatively identified asnot suited for timber production if:

i. Land is suitable for uses that precludetimber production.

ii. Silvicultural standards and guidelinescannot be met.

ill. Lands are not cost efficient.c. Choice of Vegetation Management

Practice.d. Formulation of Harvest Schedule

Alternatives.1. Determinations of the quantity of timber

sold during the planning period anddepartures from the base harvest schedule.

i. Planned sales and future harvests.Ii. Guidelines:A. Long term sustained yield capacity and

base harvest schedule.B. Departure-alternatives to the base

harvest schedule.C. Even-aged stands scheduled to be

harvested.D. Perpetual timber harvest at the long

term sustained yield capacity.iii. Alternatives providing for departures.2. Selectedharvest schedule provides the-

allowable, sale quantity.-e. Non-Wilderness (RARE II) Lands-1. During analysis of the management

situation evaluate the following areas:i. Inventoried wilderness not yet

designated.,ii. Areas contiguous to wilderness.

primitive, or administratively proposed,wilderness. .

iii. Areas contiguous to roadless areas withwilderness potential. I

iv. Legislatively or administrativelyproposed areas.

2. Criteria for wilderness evaluation ifnototherwise stated:

i. Wilderness iialues.ii. Values foregone.iii. Feasibility of management as

wilderness.iv. Proximity to other 3vilclerness areas.v. Long term changes in species, plant and

animal diversity community.f. Direction for the Management of

Designated Wilderness and:Primitive Areas:1. Limiting and distributing visitor use.

- 2. Control Measures.g. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management:1. Desired future conditions.2. Management indicator species.3. Consulting other agendes' fish and

wildlife Biologists.4. Access and dispersal problems.5. Pest and fire management effects.6. Population trends. of management

indicator species.7. Critical habitat for threatened and

endangered species.-h. Grazing and Browsing Lands.1. Procedures used and data obtained.i. Range condition and'trend studies.it. Records of actual use.iii. Management indica.tor species of

wildlife.iv. Present andpotential supply estimates.2. Analysis of the management situation.3. Alternative range management practices.i. Grazing management systems.ii. Methods.iii. Evaluation of pest problems.iv. Conflicts and beneficial interactions.v. Phtysical facilities.vi.'Existing permits.vii. Free roaming horses and burros.i. Dispersed and Developed Recreation:1. Forest planning will identify. *i. Physical and-biological characterstics.if. Recreational preferences.iii. Recreation opportunities.2. Supply of recreational facilities.3. Recreation alternatives.

- 4. Formulation and analysis of atlernatives.5. Evaluation of alternatives.6. Land ownership patterns.7. Off-road vehicle use.j. Mineral Exploration and Development

Consideration and Information Needs:1. Active mines.2. Mineral rights.3. Probable occurrences.4. Development potential.5. Probable effect of renewable resource

allocation on mineral activities.k. Water and Soil Management:1. Current wateruses.-2. Existing impoundments, transmission

facilities, etc:3. Water volumes.4. Legal requirements.5. Watershed conditions.

6. Protective measures.I. Cultural Resources:1. Forest plan will.i. Provide an overview.ii. Identify areas requiring more intensive

inventory.iii. Evaluation of sites for the National

Register of Historic Places.iv. Provide protective measures.v. Maintenance of historic sites,vi. Identify opportunities for interpretation,2. Analysis of alternatives.3. Evaluation of alternatives.m. Research Natural Areas:

219.13' Management Standards andGuidelines.

a. Introduction.b. Management Practices will:1. Conserve soil and water resources.2. Minimize physical hazards.3. Prevent pest hazards.4. Protect water bodies.5. Provide for and maintain plant and

animal diversity.6. Be monitored and evaluated.7. Be assessed for NEPA considerations,8. Maintain fish and wildlife populations.9. Prevent adverse modification of critical

habitat for threatened and endangeredspecies.

10. Provide right of ways andtransportaton corridors.

11. Ensure appropriate road constructiondesign according to use.

12.Provide that all roads are designed tore-establish vegetative cover.

13. Maintain air quality.c. Management Prescriptions involving

vegetation manipulation of tree cover willh1.Be best suited for multiple use,2. Assure adequate restocking within 5

years.3. Not be chosen primarily because of

greatest dollar return.4. Consider potential effects of residual

trees.5. Avoid permanent impairment of site

productivity.6. Provide desired effects.7. Be practical in terms of transportation

and harvesting requirements.d. Openings Created by Even-Aged,

Management:1. Must be shaped and blended.2. Maximum size limits.1. Factors to be considered in determining

size limits.ii. Size limits may be exceeded after 0

days public notice.iii. Natural catastrophic conditions

excluded.e. Special Attention to Land' and

Vegetation Near perennial streams, lakes andother bodies of water'.

f. Conservation of Soil and WaterResources., g. Diversity of Plant and AnimalCommunities and Tree Species.

h. Timber Harvest and Cultural


Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53995

Treatments:1. No timber harvesting on lands classified

as not suited for timber production.2. Allowable sale quantity.3. Five year restocking requirement.4. Cultural treatments included in the forest

plan.5. Decreasing harvest levels.6. Requirements for even-aged

management7. No harvest where such treatment would

favor an abnormal increase in injuriousinsects and disease organisms. -

i. Monitoring=1. Lands adequately restocked.2. Reexamine lands:not suited for timber

production every 10 years.3. Maximum size limit evaluation.4. Pests and disease don't increase

following management activities.219.14 Researcl.

a. Identification. of Research Needs.Through Planning.

b. Establish Researcl to SupportManagement.

c. Annual Reports of MajorResearch.219.15 Revision of Regulations.219.16 Transition Period,

a. Lands continued to be managed underexisting land use and resource plans.

b. Forest Plan Implementatiom

Index to Regulations--Part 219 Planning,,Subpart A

Adjacent Lands

219.8(g) Coordination With AdjacentProperty Owriers;

219.8(i) Monitoring Effects on AdjacentLands.

Allowable Sale Quanjity

219.3(a) Definition.

Alternatives

219.5(f) Formulation of Alternatives.(1) Range of Outputs and'Expendlture

Levels.(i) Each Alternative will be Capable of

Being Achieved.(ii) No Action Alternative ToBe Included.(iii) All AlternativesTo Provide For

Elimination of Backlogs forRestoratiom(iv) Issues and Concerns To Be

Addressed In An Alternative(v) Cost Effectiveness.[2) Alternative Content-(i) Long-Term Results and Conditions.(ilT Goods and Services To Be Produced.(iii) Resource Management Standards and

Guidelines.(iv) Purposes of Management Direction

Proposed.219.5(g) Estimated Effects of Alternative:,

(1) Expected Outputs for PlanningPeriods.

(2) Relationship Between Short-TermUses and-Long-Term Productivity.

(3) Adverse Environmental Effects.(4) Irreversible Resource Commitments.

(5) Effects on Minority Groups and CivilRights..

(6) Effects on Prime Farmlands, Wetlandsand Flood Plains.

(7) Relationship to Production Coals.(8) Energy Requirements.(9) Direct and Indirect Benefits and Costs.(i) Expected Real-Dollar Costs.(ii) Estimated Real-Dollar Value or All

Outputs.(iii) Evaluate Local Economic EffecL

219.51h) Evaluation, of Alternatives.219.5(1] Alternative Selection-219.12(b)(3) Forest ManagemenrAlternative.

Amendment

219.9[e). 219.11(c) Amendment

Animals See Diversity and Fish and Z$7AfY7f

Annual Ifeports219.14(c) Annual Reports

Applicability See Scope

Appeals See Process

219.9[b](3) Of Decisions Concerning RegionalPlans

219.11(C)(4) Of Decisions Concerning ForestPlans

Approval See Proces

Assessment

219.3(b) Definition

Base Harvest

219.3(c) Definition219.4(b](1) National

Biological219.3(d) Biological Growth Potential

Definition

Bro wsing Lands See Crazing

Capability

219.2(e) DefinitionConcerns See Issues

Conformance

219.1(a) Conformance with NEPA and RPA

Conformity

219.9[d) Conformity219.11(d)

Coordination See Forest. Regionalo M'ecntgs,Planning. Public

219.8

Corridor

219.3(f) Definition219.10(b)(4) Require Corridors to extent'

practicable219.10(d)(5) Recommended corridors

Cultural Resources219.12(1) Consideratioa in Forest Planning[1) Forest Plan Will(i) Provide an Overview

(iH) Identify Areas Requiring More IntensiveInventory-

(iMi) Evaluation of Sites for the NationalRegister of Historic Places

(iv) Provide Protective Measures(v) Maintenance of HIstoric Sites.(vii Identify Opportunities for Interpretation(2 Formulation and Analysis of Alternatives(3) Evaluation of Alternatives

Definitions

219.3 Terms Used in Regulations

Diversity

219.3[g) Definition219.13(g) Diversity of Plant and Animal

Communities and Tree Spedes

Documents

219.7(k) Copies of Prans To Be Available(1) Assessment and Program(2) Regional Plan(3) Forest Plan(4) Convenient Locations for Public Review219.7(1) Supporting Documents To Be

Available219.7(n) Fees ro Reproducing"dateriars219.9(b) Environmental Impact Statements219.llb

Economics

219.311 Economic Efficiency A aysfsDefinition

219.5 ci. (e). (1) Practices; Economic Analysof (g)](k)

219.9(i)g19.10(b)

219.12(b)

Environmental

2193(i) Environmental Analysis Definition19.3(j) Environmental Documents Definition

219.91b) Environmental Impact Statement19.119(c)

EnviranmentatDesigtrAits

219.1(b)(13)219.3(i)219.5(g](11219.51h)219.61a)219.12(i)(1] ii)219.12(i)(419.13[b]16l19.13([1161

219.13(d)[2]i]219.13([sEven-Aged Silviculture

219.3(k) Even-Aged S'dvicultur_. DefinitionL219.13(d) Openings Created byEven-AgeL

Management(1) Must Be Shaped and Blended(2) Maximum Size Limits.(i) Factors To Be Considered in Determining

Size Limits(it) Size Limits May Be Exceeded(iii) Natural Catastrophic Conditions

Excluded


53996 Federal Register / Vol. 44i No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Evaluation See Monitoring

Final Evaluation Impact Statement (FEIS)See Responsibilities.

Fish and Wildlife

219.12(g) Fish and Wildlife HabitatRequirements

(1) Desired Future Conditions(2) Management Indicator Species(3) Consulting Other Agencies' Fish and

Wildlife Biologists(4) Access and Dispersal Problems(5) Pest and FireManagement Effects(6) Population Trends of Management

Indicator Species(7) Critical Habitat for Threatened and

Endangered Species

Forest Planning and Plans

219.5 Forest Planning Process219.11 Forest Planning Procedure219.11(a) Plan219.11(h) Forest Plan Content(1) Major.Public Issues and Management

Concerns(2) Management Situation Summary(3) Policies, Goals. and Multiple-Use

Management Objectives, with ManagemePrescription

(4) Vicinity, Timing, Standards afhdGuidelines for'Practices

(5) Monitoring and Evaluation Requirement(6) Appropriate References to Information(7) Interdisciplinary Team Members and. Qualifications

219.12 Forest Planning Actions

Forest Service Plapning See Planning, Fore.Service Planning

Goal219,3(l) Definition

Goods and Services -

'219.3(m) Definition

Governors See Procedure and Coordination

Grazing Lands

219.12(h) Grazing and Browsing Lands(1) Procedures Used and Data Obtained(i) Range Condition and Trend Studies(ii) Records of Actual Use(Ift) Management Indicator Species of

Wildlife(iv) Present and Potential Study Estimates(2) Analysis of the Management Situation(3) Alternative Range Management Practice

'(i) Grazihg Management Systems(It) Methods(fii) Evaluation of Pest Problems(iv) Conflicts and Beneficial Interactions(v) Physical Facilities(vi) Existing Permits(vii) Free Rohming Hearses and Burros

Growth See Biological

Guideline See Management Standard9219.3(n) Definition

Implementation See Plan

Information Levels See Documents

Input See Public

Integrated See Pest Management

Interdisciplinary219.6 Interdisciplinary Approach219.6(b) Interdisciplinary Team Composition(c) Interdisciplinai-y Team Member

Qualifications(1) Solve Complex Problems(2) Communication Skills(4) Conceptualize Planning Problems and

Situations(3) Planning Concepts, Processes and

Techniques(d) Interdisciplinary Team Leadership

Inventory219.5(d) Inventory Data and Collection.'219.13(g)

Issuesnt 219.5(b) Identification of Issues, Concerns

and Opportunities.219.10(b) Concerns and Issues To Be

Considered.(1) Efficiency(2) Timber and Wood Fiber(3) Range Resources(4) Fire Management(5) Disease and Pests

t (6) Water Quality, Quantity ind SoilProductivity

(7) Landownership(8) Recreation(9) Fish and Wildlife Habitats(10) Threatened -and Endangered Species(11) Mineral Exploration and Development(12) Transportation Facilities(13) Visual Quality(14) Rights of Way(15) Cultural Resources(16) Research Natural Areas

Land Use219.8(1) Appraisal of Land Use Policies of

Other Agencies219.16(a) Lands Continued To Be Managed

Ufider Existing Land Use and ResourcePlans

Management219.3(q) -Concern, Ddfmition of.219.3(r) Direction(s) Intensity .(ti Practice,(u) Prescription219.5(6) Analysis of the Situation,(1)'Range of Goods and Services(2) Projections of Deiniand

(3) Potential to Resolve Issues and Concerns(4) Technical and Economic Feasibility(5) Management Direction219.8(h) Resolving Management Concerns

and Identifying Research Needs219.13(c) Management Prescriptions Involving

-Vegetation Manipulation of Tree CoverWill: ,

(1) Be Best Suited for Multiple Uso(2) Assure Adequate Restocking Within 5

Years(3) Not Be Chosen Primarily Because of

Greatest Dollar Return ,(3) Not Be Chosen Primarily Because of

Greatest Dollar Return(4) Consider Potential Effects of Residual

Trees(5) Avoid Permanent Impairment of Sito

Productivity(6) Provide Desired Effects(7) Be Practical in Ternis of Transportation

and Harvesting Requirements(b) Management Practices Will:(1) Conserve Soil and Water Resources(2) Minimize Physical Hazards(3) Prevent Pest Hazards,(4) Protect Water Bodies(5) Maintain Plant and Animal Diversity(6) Monitored and Evaluated(7) Environmental Assessments(8) Maintain Fish and Wildlife Populations(9) Prevent Adverse Modification of Critical

Habitat for Threatened and EndangeredSpecies

(10) Provide Right of Way and TransportationCorridors

(11) Ensure Appropriate Road ConstructionDesign According to Use , ,

(12) Provide That All Roads Are Designed toRe-Establish Vegetative Cover

(13) Maintain Air Quality

Management Standards and Guidelines

219.13

Meeting, Coordination

219.8(e) Coordination of Meetings

Minerals

219.120) Mineral Exploration dndDevelopment Consideration and.Information Needs

. (1) Active Mines(2) Mineral Rights(3) Probable Occurrences(4) Development Potential(5) Probable Effect of Renewable Resource

Allocation on Mineral Activities

Monitoring and Evaluation

219.5(k)(1) MonitoringActivities(i) Actions, Effects or Resources To o

Measured and Frequency(ii) Expected Precision and Reliability(iii) Time When Evaluation is to bo Reported(2) Evaluatlpn Reports


Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 181 / Monday. September 17. 1979 / Rules and Regulations;

(3) Changes in Management Direction219.9(i)(1) Management Practices to be Measured

and Frequency(2] State and Private Forestry Programs(3] Economic and Social Impacts(4] Resource Outputs and Environmental

Impacts on Areas Larger Than National-Forests or States

(5) Research Programs(6) NFS Programs219.11(i)(1) Monitoring Requirements in the Forest

Plan(i) Management Practices to be Measured and

Frequency(ii) Expected Precision and Reliability(iii} Evaluation Reports(2] Evaluation Reports Will Contain at Least.fi) Quantitative Estimates of Performance(ii) Document of Measured Effects(iii Recommendations for Change(iv] Continuing Evaluation(v] Costs(3] Interdisciplinary Team Recommendations219.13(i)(1) Lands Adequately Restocked(2] Re-Examine Lands Not Suited for Timber

Production Every 10 years(3] Maximum Size Limit Evaluation(4) Insects and Disease Monitored Following

Management Activities

Multiple Use

219.3[v) Definition

Natural Areas See Research Natural Areas

NEPA See Conformance

No Action Alternative

219.5[f) Defined

Notice

219.8(c) Public Notice of Proposed Action andSchedule

219.13(d) 60 Days Public Notice WhenExceeding Harvest Cut Opening Sizes

Non- Wilderness

219.12(e) Non-Wilderness Lands(1) During Analysis of the Management

Situation Evaluate the Following Areas:(i} Inventoried Wilderness Not Yet

Designated(ii) Areas Contiguous to Wilderness.

Primitive, or Administratively ProposedWilderness

(iii} Areas.Contiguous to-Roadless AreasWith Wilderness Potential

(iv] Legislatively or AdministrativelyProposed Areas

(2) Criteria for Wilderness Evaluation if NotOtherwige Stated

(i) Wilderness Values(ill Values Forgone(iii) Feasibility of Management As

Wilderness(iv] Proximity to Other Wilderness Areas(v) Long Term Changes in Species, Plant and

Animal Diversity Community

Objective.19.3[w) Definition

Pest Management

219.3(o) Integrated Past Manigement.Definition

Planning

219.3(x) Planning Area DefinitionZ19A Planning Levels(b) Planning Levels and Relationships(1) National(2) Regional(3] Forest219.5[a) GenerarPlhnning Approach(c) Planning Criteria(1] Laws(2) Goals(3) Recommendations:and Assumptions(4) Other Agencies(5) Ecological. Technical and Economic,

Factor;(6) Economic Analysis Guidelines[7] Standards and Guideline;(j) Plan Implementatiorr(1) Annual Program Proposals(2) Budget Allocations(3) In Compliance With 219.9[d) andZ19l(d)219.9[g] PlanningRecords219.11(g) Planning ReocrdK

Plan fleview See Review

Planni Forest Service

219.8(b) Coordination of Forest ServicePlanning

(1) Recognition orOther Agencies' Objectives(2) Assessment of Interrelated Impacts(3) Determination of How to Deal With These

Impacts[4] Conflicts and Alternatives For Resolution

Plonnintq Principles

219a(b) Principles of Planning(1] Interrelationships(2] Relative Values -(3] Goals and Objectives(4] Protection(5] Preservation(6] Preserve American Indian Rights,(7) Safe Use(8) Forest Pests(9) Coordination(10] Interdisciplinary Approach(11) Public Participation(12) Standards and Guidelines-(13) Economic Efficiency(14) Responsiveness to Changing Conditions

polio219.3[y) Definition

Practikes See JkannkerzcnL

Prescription See IMangoement

Procedure

219.8[d) Agreements on Procedural MeasuresWith Governors

219.9 Regional Planning Procedures219.11 Forest Planning Procedures

53MS7


120rk Fedrl Reaister / Vol. 44. No. 181 IMonday, September 17, 1979 / Rules .and Regulations

Primitive See Wilderness

Process, Approval219.9(c) Regional Plan-Review by the Chief219.11(c) Forest Plan Review by Regional

Forester

Program219.3(z) Definition

Public input219.7(e) Public Input Analysis

Public Issue See Issues219.3(aa) Definition

Public Participation219.3.bb) Definition219.7(a) Purpose219.7(b) Public Participation in the

Preparation of the Draft EnvironmentalStatement and Notice of Intent

219.7(c) Public Participation in theDevelopment, Revision, and SignificantAmendment of Plans; Media Notice

(1) Description of Proposed Action(2) Description of Georgraphic Area Affected13) Issues Expected to be Discussed(4) Kind, Extent, and Methods(5) Times, Dates and Locations(6) Forest Service Official to be Contacted(7) Location andAvailability of Documents(d) Means to Effective Public Participation(g) Summaries of Public Participation

Activitiei219.10(e) Public Participation and

Coordi ation Activities

Public Planning219.8 Coordination of Public Planning Efforts

Public Notice See Notice219.7(h) Public Notice of Public Participation

Activities'i) Notifying Interested or Affecteia Parties

Real Dollar Value219.3(cc) Definition

Recreation219.12(i) Dispersed and Developed Recreation(1) Forest Planning(i) Physical and Biological Characteristics(ii) Recreational Preferences(iii) Recreation Opportunities(2) .Supply of'Recreational Facilities(3) Recreation Alternatives(4) Formulation of Analysis of Alternatives(5) Evaluation of Alternatives(6) Land Ownership Patterns(7) Off-Road Vehicle Use

ReglonalAnalysis219,10(g) Regional Analysis of the

Management SituationRegional Planning219.5Regional and Forest Planning Process

.219.9(a) Regional Plan219.9(h) Regional Plan Content(1) Major Public Issues and Management

Concerns

(2) Management Situation Summary(3) Management Direction-Program, Goals

and Objectives'(4) Distribution of Regional Activities

'(5) Management Standards and Guidelines(6) Monitoring and Evaluation(7) Appropriate References(8) Interdisciplinary Team Members and

Qualifications "219.10(c) Regional Plans and the Assessment

and Program

Regional Plqnning Actions

219.10219.10(f' Data for Regional Planning

Regional Planning Procedure

219.9219.10(d) Establish Standards and Gitidelinesforn.

(1) Appropriate Systems of Silviculture(2) Tree Openings Created by Even-Aged7

Manageffent(3) Biological Growth Potential Used in

Determining Timber Capability(4) Defining Management Intensity(5) Transportation Corridors(6) Air Quality(7) Unit of Measure for Expregsing Mean

Annual Increment

Responsibilities

219.9(b) Regional Level(1) Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)(2) Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)219.11(b) Forest Level(1) Forest Superyisor(2] Interdisciplinary Team.(i) DEIS(i) FEIS -"

Responsible Official

219.3(dd) Definition219.5(b)[d)(h) Duties of

(i)(j)[k) .219.6(c)(d)219.7(c)(d)(f){j)219.8(b)(c)(e)(f)

(g)(h)

Resea-ch

219.14(a) Research Needs219.14(b) Research Priorities219.14(c) Reports

Research Natural Areas

219.12(m) Establishment through ForestPlanning

Review See Procbss, Approval'

219.7(m) 3TMonth Review Period for DEIS

Revision

219.9(of Regional Plans219.11(f) Forest Plans219.15 Revision of Regulations

No. 181 ) Monday, Seotember 17, 1979 / Rules .and RegulationsgqQQR Fadp.ral Re ;ster / Vol. 44.



Scope

219.2 Scope and Applicability

Services See Goods

Silvicultural See Even and Uneven-Aged

219.3(ee) Definition

Soil and Water

219.12(k) Water and Soil Management(1) Current Water Uses(2) Existing Impoundments. Transmission

Facilities, etc.(3) Water Volumes(4) Legal Requirements(5) Watershed Conditions(6) Protective Measures219.13(f) Conservation of Soil and Water

Resources

Standards See Management Standards andGuidelines

219.3(ff) Definition

Suitability

219.3(gg) Definition

Sustained Yield

219.3(p) Definition (long-term capacity)(hh) Definition (Sustained Yield of the

Several Products and Services)

Timber Harvest

219.3(ii) Definition (Timber Harvest Schedule)219.12(d) Harvest Schedule and Departures(1] Determinations of the Quantity of Timber

Sold During the Planning Period andDepartures From the Base HarvestSchedule

{i) Planned Sales and Future Harvests(ii) Guidelines(A) Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity and

Base Harvest Schedule(B) Departure Alternatives to the Base

Harvest Schedule(C) Even-Aged Stands Scheduled to be

Harvested(D) Perpetual Timber Harvest at the Long

Term Sustained Yield Capacity(iii) Alternatives Providing for Departures

Will be Considered Only When Departureis Consistent With Stated Multiple UseManagement Objectives

(2) Selected Harvest Schedule Provides theAllowable Sale Quantity

219.13(h) Timber Harvest and CulturalTreatments

(1) No Timber Harvesting on Lands Classifiedas 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 InjuriousInsects and Disease Organisms

Timber Production

219.301) Definition219.12(b) Identify Lands Available, Capable,

and Suitable for Timber Production(1) Requirements of Timber Producing Lands(i) Not Legislatively or Administratively

Withdrawn

(ii) Biological Growth Potential(iii) Technology Available to Insure Timber

Production Without Irreversible Resource -Damage

(2) Determine Potential Economic Efficiencyin Commercial Timber Production

(i) Direct Benefits(ii) Direct Costs(iii) Economic Efficiency Analysis(3) Each Alternative Consider Relative

Economic Efficiency(4) Lands Tentatively Identified as Not Suited

for Timber Production ifi(i) Land is Suitable for Uses That Preclude

Timber Production(ii) Silvicultural Standards and Guidelines

Cannot Be Met(iii) Lands are Not Cost Effective(5) Considerations for the Allocation of Lands

Transition Period219.16 Use of Existing Plans

Tree Species See Diversity

Uneven-Aged219.3(kk) Uneven-Aged Silviculture Definition

Vegetation See Monogeazent219.12(c) Choice of Vegetation Management

Practice219.13(e) Special Attention to Land and

Vegetation Near Perennial Streams. Lakesand Other Bodies of Water (approximately100 feet)

Water See Soil and Water

Wilderness219.12(e) Criteria for Evaluation219.12(o) Direction for the Management of

Designated Wilderness and PrimitiveAreas

(1) Limiting and Distributing Visitor Use(2) Control Measures

Wildlfe See Fish and See Diversity

[FR Dn. 7D98713 Filed 9-14 -9:0A3 am)]BILUNG CODE 3410-11-M


EIN NLINE - Forest Service - USDA

Documents

Transcript of EIN NLINE - Forest Service - USDA