National Forest System Land Management Planning, 1023-1061 [05-21]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1023-1061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 219

RIN 0596-AB86


National Forest System Land Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule describes the National Forest System land 
management planning framework; establishes requirements for 
sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems and 
developing, amending, revising, and monitoring land management plans; 
and clarifies that land management plans under this final rule, absent 
extraordinary circumstances, are strategic in nature and are one stage 
in an adaptive cycle of planning for management of National Forest 
System lands. The intended effects of the final rule are to streamline 
and improve the planning process by making plans more adaptable to 
changes in social, economic, and environmental conditions; to 
strengthen the role of science in planning; to strengthen collaborative 
relationships with the public and other governmental entities; and to 
reaffirm the principle of sustainable management consistent with the 
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and other authorities.
    Elsewhere in this part of today's Federal Register, the Department 
of Agriculture is simultaneously publishing another final rule to 
remove the planning regulations adopted on November 9, 2000.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 5, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The following information is posted on the World Wide Web/
Internet at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/: (1) This final rule; (2) 
supplemental responses to substantive public comments and a description 
of the changes, if any, made in response to those comments and the 
reasons for those changes to the 2002 proposed rule; (3) the Civil 
Rights Impact Analysis for this final rule; (4) the cost-benefit 
analysis for this final rule; (5) the business model cost study done to 
estimate predicted costs to implement the 2000 planning rule and the 
2002 proposed rule, and (6) the notice of proposed National 
Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures; request for comment. 
This information may also be obtained upon written request from the 
Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Forest Service, 
USDA, Mail Stop 1104, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20250-1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Barone, Acting Assistant Director 
for Planning; Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-1019, 
or Regis Terney, Planning Specialist, Ecosystem Management Coordination 
Staff (202) 205-1552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

1. Forest Service Directives
2. Events Since Publication of the 2002 Proposed Rule
3. Overview of the Final 2004 Rule

     Major themes and areas of public comment in the final 
rule.
     The strategic nature of land management plans.
     Role of science in planning.
     Public involvement.
     Sustainability.

[[Page 1024]]

     Environmental management systems and adaptive 
management.
     National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest 
Management Act planning.
     Summary.
4. Department Response to Comments on the 2002 Proposed Rule
     General Issues.
     Issues in Response to a Specific Section.

Section 219.1--Purpose and applicability
Section 219.2--Levels of planning and planning authority
Section 219.3--Nature of land management planning
Section 219.4--National Environmental Policy Act compliance
Section 219.5--Environmental management systems
Section 219.6--Evaluations and monitoring
Section 219.7--Developing, amending, or revising a plan
Section 219.8--Application of a new plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision
Section 219.9--Public participation, collaboration, and notification
Section 219.10--Sustainability
Section 219.11--Role of science in planning
Section 219.12--Suitable uses and provisions required by NFMA
Section 219.13--Objections to plans, plan amendments, or plan 
revisions
Section 219.14--Effective dates and transition
Section 219.15--Severability
Section 219.16--Definitions

5. Regulatory Certifications

     Regulatory Impact.
     Environmental Impacts.
     Energy Effects.
     Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public.
     Federalism.
     Civil Rights Impact Analysis.
     Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments.
     No Takings Implications.
     Civil Justice Reform.-1
     Unfunded Mandates.

1. Forest Service Directives

    The Forest Service is developing planning directives to set forth 
the legal authorities, objectives, policy, responsibilities, direction, 
and overall guidance needed by Forest Service line officers, agency 
employees, and others to use this planning rule. A request for public 
comment on the Forest Service directives will be published in the 
Federal Register as soon as possible after adoption of this final rule.

2. Events Since Publication of the 2002 Proposed Rule

    The 2002 proposed rule was released for public review and comment 
in Volume 67 of the Federal Register, page 72770, December 6, 2002. 
Between February 18-20, 2003, during the comment period, scientists, 
experts in public land management issues, resource professionals, 
Tribal officials, State officials, local government officials, and the 
public participated in a diversity options workshop. In addition, the 
public comment period on the 2002 proposed rule was extended from March 
6, 2003 to April 7, 2003 (68 FR 10420, Mar. 5, 2003). The agency 
received about 195,000 comments, of which approximately 7,000 were 
original letters. All of the substantive comments on the 2002 proposed 
rule were carefully considered and led to a number of changes in this 
final rule.
    Also, interim final rules extending the transition from the 1982 
planning rule to the 2000 planning rule were published in 2001 (66 FR 
27552, May 17, 2001) and 2002 (67 FR 35431, May 20, 2002), the latter 
rule allowing Forest Service managers to elect to continue preparing 
plan amendments and revisions under the 1982 planning rule until a new 
final rule is adopted. Finally, an interim rule was published in 2003 
(68 FR 53294, Sept. 10, 2003) extending the date by which site-specific 
project decisions must conform with provisions of the 2000 planning 
rule until replaced with a new rule. To date, Forest Service officials 
have elected to use the 1982 planning rule for all plan development, 
amendments, and revisions.

3. Overview of the Final 2004 Rule

    This final rule embodies a paradigm shift in land management 
planning based, in part, on the Forest Service's 25 years of experience 
developing plans under the 1982 planning rule. Having assessed the 
current system's flaws and benefits during this extended period, the 
Forest Service believes it is time to think differently about National 
Forest System (NFS) planning and management. Thus, based on the 
agency's expertise and experience, the Forest Service created this 
final rule to enable a better way to protect the environment and to 
facilitate working with the public. The final rule prioritizes agency 
resources to monitoring and, when necessary, provides a process to 
change plans to ensure that clean air, clean water, and abundant 
wildlife are available for future generations. This final rule allows 
the Forest Service to rapidly respond to changing conditions like 
hazardous fuels, new science, and many other dynamics that affect NFS 
management. Protection and management of the NFS should be based on 
sound science, which is fundamental to this final rule.
    This final rule assures the public an effective voice in the entire 
planning process from beginning to end. Finally, because this final 
rule provides for more efficient planning, more resources will be 
shifted to the public's expressed priorities, that is, improved 
conservation of the forests and grasslands and better responses to the 
real threats the forests and grasslands face, such as critical wildfire 
danger and invasive species which degrade ecological systems.
    To achieve these important goals, plans under this final rule will 
be more strategic and less prescriptive in nature than under the 1982 
planning rule. Emphasizing the strategic nature of plans under this 
rule is the most effective means of guiding NFS management in light of 
changing conditions, science and technology. Specifically, plans under 
this final rule will not contain final decisions that approve projects 
or activities except under extraordinary circumstances. Rather, as 
described further below, plans under this final rule will contain five 
components, which set forth broad policies to help guide future 
decisions on the ground: The plan components are desired conditions, 
objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special areas.

Major Themes and Areas of Public Comment in the Final Rule

    The major themes of the final rule discussed in this preamble 
reflect the public comments received on the 2002 proposed rule. This 
final rule sets forth the process for NFS land management planning, 
including the requirements for complying with the National Forest 
Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) during 
development, amendment, and revision of land management plans (plans) 
for NFS units, including the national forests, grasslands, prairie, or 
other comparable administrative units. The Forest Service has prepared 
and revised plans more than 150 times since enactment of NFMA and 
expects to complete more than 100 additional plans and revisions during 
the next decade. The Forest Service has also been amending plans during 
the last 25 years. Based on the experience gained and public comments 
on the 2002 proposed rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(Department) has concluded that this final rule should be based on the 
following principles and practical considerations:
     Plans should be strategic in nature.
    The purpose of plans should be to establish goals for forests, 
grasslands, and prairies and set forth the guidance to follow in 
pursuit of those goals. Such goals can be expressed by describing: 
desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability or areas, and

[[Page 1025]]

special areas. Typically, a plan does not include final decisions 
approving projects or activities.
     Plans must be adaptive and based on current information 
and science.
    During the 15-year life expectancy of a plan, information, science, 
and unforeseen circumstances evolve. It must be possible to adjust 
plans and the plan-monitoring program and to react to new information 
and science swiftly and efficiently. An environmental management system 
(EMS) approach will enhance adaptive planning and should be part of the 
land management framework.
     Land management planning must involve the public.
    Plans are prepared for public lands. Public participation and 
collaboration needs to be welcomed and encouraged as a part of 
planning. To the extent possible, Responsible Officials need to work 
collaboratively with the public to help balance conflicting needs, to 
evaluate management under the plans, and to consider the need to adjust 
plans.
     Plans must guide sustainable management of NFS lands.
    The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 
528-531) requires that NFS lands be managed to provide a continuous 
flow of goods and services to the nation. To meet this requirement, 
plans must focus on providing a sustainable framework--based on social, 
economic, and ecological systems--that guides on-the-ground management 
of projects and activities, which provide these goods and services.
     Planning must comply with all applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies.
    Planning must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and 
policies, although all these requirements do not need to be restated in 
a plan. For example, the Clean Water Act includes requirements for 
nonpoint source management programs, to be administered by the States. 
The States or the Forest Service then develops Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) for use in design of projects or activities on NFS 
lands. BMPs are designed to meet State water quality standards and are 
intended to result in prevention of adverse consequences. Specific BMPs 
do not have to be repeated in the plan to be in effect and applicable 
to National Forest System projects and activities.

The Strategic Nature of Land Management Plans

    Land management plans are strategic in nature. A plan establishes a 
long-term management framework for NFS units. Within that framework, 
specific projects and activities will be proposed, approved, and 
implemented depending on specific conditions and circumstances at the 
time of implementation. The U.S. Supreme Court described the nature of 
NFS plans in Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, (523 U.S. 726, 737 
(1998)) explaining that plans are ``tools for agency planning and 
management.'' The Court recognized that the provisions of such plans 
``do not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing 
anything; they do not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal 
license, power, or authority; they do not subject anyone to any civil 
or criminal liability; they create no legal rights or obligations'' 
(523 U.S. 733 (1998)).
    The Supreme Court also recently recognized the similar nature of 
land management plans for public lands under the jurisdiction of the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance, 124 S.Ct. 2373 (2004). The Supreme Court again observed that 
``land use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process of 
managing public lands--`designed to guide and control future management 
actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited 
scope plans for resources and uses.' '' In addition, ``a land use plan 
is not ordinarily the medium for affirmative decisions that implement 
the agency's `project[ion]s.' '' Like a NFS land management plan, a BLM 
plan typically`` `is not a final implementation decision on actions 
which require further specific plans, process steps, or decisions under 
specific provisions of law and regulations.' '' ``The BLM's * * * land 
use plans are normally not used to make site-specific implementation 
decisions.'' The Supreme Court acknowledged that plans are ``tools by 
which `present and future use is projected' [and] * * * generally a 
statement of priorities,'' 124 S.Ct. 2373 (2004).
    Under the Final Rule, plans will continue to be strategic in 
nature, as described by the Supreme Court in Ohio Forestry and SUWA. As 
described below, the five components of a plan under the Final Rule do 
not authorize project and activity decisions, but rather characterize 
general future conditions and guidance for such decisions. Only in 
extraordinary circumstances will project and activity decisions be 
implemented at the time of a plan development, revision, or amendment.
     Planning documentation.
    The final rule requires a Plan Document or Set of Documents to 
contain all information relevant to the planning and EMS processes. A 
Plan Document or Set of Documents includes: (1) Evaluation reports 
that, among other things, document the public involvement process in 
planning; (2) the plan, including applicable maps; (3) the plan 
approval document; (4) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
documents; (5) the monitoring program for the plan area; (6) documents 
relating to the environmental management system (EMS) established for 
the unit; and (7) documentation of how science was taken into account 
in the planning process.
     Plan components.
    The 2002 proposed rule used the term ``management direction'' to 
describe the parts of a plan. This final rule uses the term ``plan 
components'' to describe the elements of the plan pursuant to the final 
rule. How plans are characterized and plan components operate has 
evolved over the years. This evolution has occurred through an ongoing 
evaluation of the role plans play, how plans guide projects, how plans 
by themselves do or do not have impacts on the ground, how current 
plans enable or restrict decisions to respond to changing circumstances 
and science, and how more active and structured monitoring provides 
better information to amend or revise plans as needed. Proposals for 
action to accomplish plan goals and desired conditions, with effects 
that can be meaningfully evaluated and which may be significant, 
generally are made at the project and activity stage.
    Through this evaluation, the agency has concluded that plans are 
more effective if they include more detailed descriptions of desired 
conditions, rather than long lists of prohibitive standards or 
guidelines or absolute suitability determinations developed in an 
attempt to anticipate and address every possible future project or 
activity and the potential effects they could cause. Under this final 
rule, plans have five principal components (Sec.  219.7(a)(2)): desired 
conditions, objectives, guidelines, suitability of areas, and special 
areas.
     Desired Conditions.
    Desired conditions are the social, economic, and ecological 
attributes toward which management of the land and resources of the 
plan area is to be directed. Desired conditions are long-term in nature 
and aspirational, but are neither commitments nor final decisions 
approving projects and activities. Desired conditions may be achievable 
only over a period longer than the 15 years covered by the plan.
    The increased attention to fire regimes provides an example of the 
role of

[[Page 1026]]

``desired conditions.'' The Forest Service is challenged with unnatural 
fuel levels throughout the NFS. Much of the western United States is 
currently in a severe drought cycle, and fuel reduction is needed. To 
facilitate moving toward a healthier and more natural condition on the 
land, a plan could contain, for example, desired conditions that 
include a description of desired fuel loading, along with a description 
of desired tree species, structure, distribution, and density closer to 
what would have occurred under natural fire regimes.
    The agency, working with the public, also may seek to achieve or 
maintain desired conditions for attributes, such as quietness, or a 
sense of remoteness, or attributes of our cultural heritage. Desired 
conditions also have a key role to play for wildlife habitat 
management. During plan development, it is difficult to envision all 
the site-specific factors that can influence wildlife. For example, in 
the past plans might have included standards precluding vegetation 
treatment during certain months or for a buffer for activities near the 
nest sites of birds sensitive to disturbance during nesting. However, 
topography, vegetation density, or other factors may render such 
prohibitions inadequate or unduly restrictive in specific situations. A 
thorough desired condition description of what a species needs is often 
more useful than a long list of prohibitions. Thorough desired 
condition descriptions are more useful because they provide a better 
starting point for project or activity design, when the site-specific 
conditions are better understood and when species conservation measures 
can be most meaningfully evaluated and effectively applied. Again, a 
description of what the agency, working with the public, wants to 
achieve is key.
     Objectives.
    Objectives are concise projections of intended outcomes of projects 
and activities to contribute to maintenance or achievement of desired 
conditions. Objectives are measurable and time-specific and, like 
desired conditions, are aspirational, but are neither commitments nor 
final decisions approving projects and activities. Application of 
objectives is the same as applied under the 1982 planning rule.
     Guidelines.
    Guidelines provide information and guidance for the design of 
projects and activities to help achieve objectives and desired 
conditions. Guidelines are not commitments or final decisions approving 
projects and activities. Guidelines should provide the recommended 
technical and scientific specifications to be used in the design of 
projects and activities to contribute to the achievement of desired 
conditions and objectives. They are the guidance that a project or 
activity would normally apply unless there is a reason for deviation. 
If deviation from plan guidelines is appropriate in specific 
circumstances, the rationale for deviation should be based on project 
or activity analysis and explained fully in the project decision 
document. However, deviation does not require an amendment to the plan.
    In the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
1600 et seq.), the terms ``standards'' and ``guidelines'' are both 
used, with no apparent distinction between them with respect to their 
force and effect. In the 1982 planning rule and the first round of 
plans, the two terms were usually written together as ``standards and 
guidelines.'' Some plan revisions have designed mandatory provisions as 
``standards'' and general direction with latitude for implementation as 
``guidelines.'' The 2000 planning rule did not use the term 
``guidelines.'' In the 2000 planning rule, a provision that is labeled 
as a standard could be either mandatory or discretionary depending upon 
its wording and the scope of its requirements.
    The 2002 proposed rule, consistent with the approach in the 2000 
planning rule, continued to use only the term ``standards'' and did not 
use the term ``guidelines.'' However, in line with and to clarify the 
strategic nature of plans, this final rule instead adopts the term 
``guidelines'' and has removed the term ``standards'' as a plan 
component. The Department decided to employ the term ``guideline'' to 
reflect a more flexible menu of choices consistent with the nature of 
plans set forth in this rule.
    In this final rule, guidelines are described as ``information and 
guidance for project and activity decisionmaking.'' Guidelines will not 
contain final decisions approving activities and uses. A Responsible 
Official has the discretion to act within the range of guidelines, as 
well as the latitude to depart from guidelines when circumstances 
warrant it. In the latter case, the Responsible Official should 
document the rationale for taking such exception to guidelines.
     Suitability of areas.
    Suitability of areas is the identification of the general 
suitability of an area in an NFS unit for a variety of uses. Areas may 
be identified as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with 
desired conditions and objectives for that area. The identification of 
an area as generally suitable for a use or uses is neither a commitment 
nor a decision approving activities and uses. The suitability of an 
area for a specific use or activity is authorized through project and 
activity decisionmaking.
    Suitable use identification has evolved over time. Suitable use 
identification has often been characterized in plans prepared under the 
1982 planning rule as permanent restrictions on uses or permanent 
determinations that certain uses would be suitable in particular areas 
of the unit over the life of the plan. However, even under the 1982 
planning rule, these identifications were never truly permanent, unless 
they were statutory designations by Congress. It became apparent early 
in implementation of the 1982 planning rule that plan suitability 
identifications, like environmental analysis itself, always 
necessitated site-specific reviews when projects or activities were 
proposed.
    For example, on lands identified as generally suitable for timber 
production, site-specific analysis of a proposal could identify a 
portion of that area as having poor soil or unstable slopes. The 
project design would then exclude such portions of the project area 
from timber harvest. Thus, the final determination of suitability was 
never made until the project or activity analysis and decision process 
was completed. This final rule better characterizes the nature and 
purpose of suitability identification.
    An illustration of the effect of suitability identifications in the 
final rule may be helpful. Under this final rule, a plan may identify 
certain portions of an NFS unit as suitable for some uses. For example, 
some areas of an NFS unit may be suitable for transportation 
development or motorized use. Identification of an area in a plan as 
suitable for transportation development or motorized use does not mean 
that construction of a road is immediately approved or is even 
inevitable. Rather, the identification merely provides guidance for 
where road construction may be considered suitable. Proposed projects 
for construction of a road or roads would be approved after appropriate 
project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and 
public involvement.
    This final rule, as discussed next in this preamble, also includes 
specific provisions for identification of lands generally suitable for 
timber harvest and identification of lands not suitable for timber 
production as required by NFMA. However, under this final rule, other 
generally suitable uses may be identified in a variety of ways. A land

[[Page 1027]]

management plan may identify all uses that are generally suitable for a 
particular area, may identify the major or most prominent generally 
suitable uses, and/or may identify criteria to be used to determine 
whether a use is compatible with the desired condition of the area.
     Special areas.
    Special areas are areas within the NFS designated for their unique 
or special characteristics. These areas include wilderness, wild and 
scenic river corridors, and research natural areas. Some of these areas 
are statutorily designated. Other areas may be designated through plan 
development, amendment, revision, or through a separate administrative 
process with an appropriate NEPA process.
     Monitoring.
    The monitoring program is a central element of adaptive management 
planning in this final rule because monitoring is the key to 
discovering how to make project specific decisions consistent with 
objectives and to discovering what ultimately may need to be changed in 
a plan. Experience has shown that while some monitoring programs and 
specific monitoring techniques have been adequate to assess need for 
changes in plans of national forests, grasslands, prairie, or other 
comparable administrative units over time, some have not. New uses, 
such as mountain biking, were not contemplated 25 years ago. Noxious 
weeds can infest a previously pristine landscape. New methods of 
measuring water quality or wildlife habitat can be developed. 
Therefore, a unit's monitoring program must be readily adaptable too. 
Most plans revised under the 1982 planning rule, in fact, have removed 
most monitoring operational details from the plans themselves to allow 
for quicker changes to monitoring when needed.
    The final rule allows the plan's monitoring program to be changed 
with administrative corrections, instead of amendments, to more quickly 
reflect the best available science and account for unanticipated 
changes in conditions. Changes in monitoring programs will be reported 
annually, and the Responsible Official has flexibility to involve the 
public in a variety of ways to develop program changes.
     Streamlining the planning rule and use of the Forest 
Service Directive System.
    Part of the strategic and adaptive nature of planning is to make 
the planning rule itself more strategic and adaptive. Therefore, 
procedural and technical details are being moved to the Forest Service 
Directive System (Forest Service directives). Forest Service directives 
are the primary basis for the Forest Service's internal management of 
all its programs and the primary source of administrative direction to 
Forest Service employees. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) contains 
legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, 
instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest 
Service line officers and primary staff to plan and execute programs 
and activities. The Forest Service Handbook (FSH) is the principal 
source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out the 
policies, objectives, and responsibilities contained in the FSM.
    The public will have an opportunity to comment on both the FSM and 
FSH provisions to implement this final rule. The FSH and FSM provisions 
will be issued as soon as possible after release of this final rule. 
Thereafter, the agency will provide the public an opportunity to 
comment on future changes to the adopted provisions where there is 
substantial public interest or controversy concerning the future 
changes.

Role of Science in Planning

    The 2002 proposed rule would have required that Forest Service 
decisions be consistent with the best available science. The final rule 
requires that the Responsible Official take into account the best 
available science (Sec.  219.11). The actual process for taking into 
account science in planning has not changed from the 2002 proposed 
rule. Under the final rule, science, while only one aspect of 
decisionmaking, is a significant source of information for the 
Responsible Official. When making decisions, the Responsible Official 
also considers public input, competing use demands, budget projections, 
and many other factors as well as science.
    The final rule, like the 2002 proposed rule, states that the 
Responsible Official may use independent peer reviews, science advisory 
boards, or other appropriate review methods to evaluate the application 
of science used in the planning process. Specific procedures for 
conducting science reviews will be provided in the Forest Service 
directives.
    The Responsible Official must take into account the best available 
science, and document in the plan that science was considered, 
correctly interpreted, appropriately applied, and evaluate and disclose 
incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and 
risk. This evaluation and disclosure of uncertainty and risk provide a 
crosscheck for appropriate interpretation of science and helps clarify 
the limitations of the information base for the plan.

Public Involvement

    The final rule is similar to the 2002 proposed rule regarding 
public involvement requirements, but the final rule more clearly 
expresses the Department's emphasis on public involvement and 
collaboration. The final rule clarifies requirements regarding public 
involvement in the 2002 proposed rule by consolidating these 
requirements contained in several sections of the 2002 proposed rule 
into Sec.  219.9, which requires consultation with interested 
individuals and organizations, State and local governments, Federal 
agencies, and federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    The Department expects that, compared with prior planning rules, 
this final rule will allow more members of the public to be more 
effectively engaged because development of a plan, plan amendment, or 
plan revision will be simpler, more transparent, and faster. The public 
will have the opportunity to be engaged collaboratively in the 
development, amendment, or revision of a plan, in monitoring and in the 
unit's environmental management system (EMS). In addition, the public 
will have an opportunity to comment on a plan, plan amendment, or plan 
revision, and to object prior to approval if concerns remain.
    The final rule requires opportunities for public involvement in the 
unit's land management planning process (Sec.  219.9) and in monitoring 
(Sec.  219.6(b)(3)). In response to public comments on the 2002 
proposed rule, the final rule eliminates the prohibition on the use of 
duplicative materials, such as form letters, when filing an objection 
to a plan, thus removing a perceived barrier to wider public 
participation (Sec.  219.13).
    One of the more important changes in public involvement is how the 
Forest Service will work with the public to collaboratively develop, 
amend, or revise a plan. The Forest Service has found that the 
traditional way of developing plan alternatives under the 1982 planning 
rule was not very useful. The traditional approach of developing and 
choosing among discrete alternatives that were carried throughout the 
entire planning process often proved divisive, because it often 
maintained adversarial positions, rather than helping people seek 
common ground.
    To overcome this tendency, the final rule allows an iterative 
approach to planning. The Department recognizes

[[Page 1028]]

that people have many different ideas about how NFS lands should be 
managed. Furthermore, a plan could potentially include a variety of 
different desired conditions, objectives, identification of potential 
suitable uses, guidelines, and special area designations. The 
Department also recognizes that the public should be involved in 
determining what plan components should be. Therefore, the final rule 
provides for participation and collaboration with the public at all 
stages of plan development, plan amendment, or plan revision.
    The Responsible Official and the public will review the various 
options to respond to the need to change the plan, and together they 
will successively narrow potential options until a proposed plan is 
developed. However, the final rule also recognizes that it is not 
always possible or desirable to present only one proposed plan for 
public comment and, therefore, options to the proposed plan can be 
provided for public comment when appropriate.
    The process for plan development will be transparent to the public. 
Key steps in development of the proposed plan will be documented in the 
Plan Document or Set of Documents, which will be available to the 
public. While the final rule requires the Responsible Official to 
collaborate with the public and that a record of that collaboration be 
kept, it does not require in-depth social, economic, or ecological 
analysis of every potential option for a plan. In-depth analysis, 
documented in an evaluation report, is required only for the proposed 
plan and the options that remain after public collaboration.
    The plan approved by the Responsible Official will be a result of 
public participation and collaboration that will have included 
consideration of a variety of different ways to manage a national 
forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative unit. 
Although the Responsible Official will continue to have the 
responsibility and the authority to make the final decision, the 
proposed plans that the Forest Service will present for public comment 
will be plans jointly and collaboratively developed with the public. 
The Department hopes this approach to plan development will serve to 
encourage people to work together to understand each other and find 
common solutions to the important and critical planning issues the 
agency faces. In summary, the final rule emphasizes collaboration and 
provides for effective public involvement.

Sustainability

    This final rule retains the concept of the interdependent social, 
economic, and ecological elements of sustainability (Sec.  219.10) in 
the 2002 proposed rule. However, the final rule does not include many 
of the specific analytical processes and requirements set out in the 
2002 proposed rule. Appropriate processes will be included in the 
Forest Service directives. The Department believes it is more 
appropriate to put specific procedural analytical requirements in the 
Forest Service directives rather than in the rule itself so that the 
analytical procedures can be changed more rapidly if new and better 
techniques emerge. As for other portions of the Forest Service 
directives, public notice and comment is required where there is 
substantial public interest or controversy.
    As did the 2000 planning rule and the 2002 proposed rule, the final 
rule makes sustainability the overall goal for NFS planning. Managing 
NFS lands for sustainability of their renewable resources meets the 
MUSYA mandate that the Secretary develop and administer the renewable 
surface resources of the National Forests for multiple use and 
sustained yield (16 U.S.C. 529). Managing for sustainability will 
provide for management of the various renewable resources without 
impairment of the productivity of the land, as required by the MUSYA. 
Sustaining the productivity of the land and its renewable resources 
means meeting present needs without compromising the ability of those 
lands and resources to meet the needs of future generations. The final 
rule is similar to the 2002 proposed rule for social and economic 
sustainability requirements. However, as stated, there are changes from 
the 2002 proposed rule for ecological sustainability.
    NFMA requires guidelines for land management plans which provide 
for diversity of plant and animal communities (16 U.S.C. 1604 
(g)(3)(B)) based on the suitability and capability of the land area to 
meet overall multiple-use objectives. Almost 30 years after passage of 
the NFMA, the concepts of biological diversity at different spatial and 
temporal scales, including genetic diversity, species diversity, 
structural diversity, and functional diversity have been substantially 
refined and developed. Today, the agency has a vast array of methods 
available to provide for diversity. The complexity of biological 
diversity often results in a corresponding complicated array of 
concepts, measures, and values from several scientific disciplines.
    The Department developed the final rule based on the following 
concepts related to diversity. First, maintenance of the diversity of 
plant and animal communities starts with an ecosystem approach. In an 
ecosystem approach, the plan will provide a framework for maintaining 
and restoring ecosystem conditions necessary to conserve most species.
    Second, where the Responsible Official determines that the 
ecosystem approach does not provide an adequate framework for 
maintaining and restoring conditions to support specific federally 
listed threatened or endangered species, species-of-concern, and 
species-of-interest, then the plan must include additional provisions 
for these species. This final rule defines species-of-concern as those 
species for which the Responsible Official determine that continued 
existence is a concern and listing under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) may become necessary. This final rule defines species-of-interest 
as those species for which the Responsible Official determines that 
management actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological 
or other multiple-use objectives. Forest Service directives will 
identify lists of species developed by an objective and scientifically 
credible third party, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 
NatureServe (https://www.natureserve.org/).
    Third, agency managers should concentrate their efforts on 
contributing to the persistence of species where Forest Service 
management activities may affect species rather than on species 
management where the cause of species decline is outside the limits of 
agency authority or the capability of the plan area.
    Fourth, the presence of all native and desired non-native species 
in a plan area is important. However, the Responsible Official should 
have the flexibility to determine the degree of conservation to be 
provided for the species that are not in danger of ESA listing, to 
better balance the various multiple uses, including the often-competing 
needs of different species themselves.
    Fifth, the planning framework should provide measures for 
accounting for progress toward ecosystem and species diversity goals. 
The final rule and the Forest Service directives provide a framework 
within which efforts to maintain and restore species will be monitored. 
Progress toward desired conditions and objectives will be monitored and 
the results made available to the public. The adaptive monitoring and 
feedback process will help maintain and improve diversity.

[[Page 1029]]

    The 2002 proposed rule included two different approaches to the 
NFMA diversity requirement labeled ``Option 1'' and ``Option 2'' and 
asked for comments on both options. The agency also hosted a workshop 
to provide an opportunity for public discussion of these options and 
for identification of other ideas on how to best meet the statutory 
diversity requirement. An extremely wide range of opinions was 
expressed, both in public comments and during the workshop. The 
Department found these comments useful in developing a scientifically 
credible and realistic approach for this final rule and the Forest 
Service directives to meet legal requirements and the agency's 
stewardship responsibilities.
    The final rule incorporates features of both Options 1 and 2. In 
common with both options, the final rule approaches diversity at two 
levels of ecological organization: the ecosystem level and the species 
level. This concept has considerable support among scientists, has 
already been tested by a number of NFS administrative units developing 
or revising plans under the 1982 planning rule, and was included in the 
planning rule adopted in 2000.
    The final rule is less detailed than either Options 1 or 2 with 
respect to specific ecosystem analysis requirements. After reviewing 
public comments, and after consideration of the Forest Service's 
experience with planning over the past 25 years, the Department 
concluded that such detail regarding analysis is more properly included 
in the Forest Service directives. These directives can be more 
extensive and can be more easily changed as the agency learns how to 
improve its analytic processes and as new scientific concepts and new 
technological capabilities become available.
    In common with Options 1 and 2, the final rule focuses on ecosystem 
diversity as the primary means of providing for the diversity of plant 
and animal communities. The final rule differs from Option 2 in not 
explicitly requiring analysis of ecosystem diversity at multiple 
temporal and spatial scales, analysis of disturbance regimes, or 
analysis of the landscape context. Guidance on appropriate analysis 
will be included in the Forest Service directives. The agency will seek 
public comment on this guidance.
    Another point in common between this final rule and Options 1 and 2 
is the concept that the more effective the ecosystem management 
guidance is in sustaining species habitat, the less need there is for 
analysis and planning at the species level of ecological organization. 
Option 1, Option 2, and this final rule all recognize that some 
additional analysis and additional plan provisions may be needed for 
some species. However, the final rule differs from Option 1 in that it 
does not include a requirement to provide for viable populations of 
plant and animal species. Such a requirement had previously been 
included in both the 1982 planning rule and the 2000 planning rule.
    The species viability requirement was not adopted for several 
reasons. First, the experience of the Forest Service under the 1982 
planning rule has been that ensuring species viability is not always 
possible. For example, viability of some species on NFS lands may not 
be achievable because of species-specific distribution patterns (such 
as a species on the extreme and fluctuating edge of its natural range), 
or when the reasons for species decline are due to factors outside the 
control of the agency (such as habitat alteration in South America 
causing decline of some Neotropical birds), or when the land lacks the 
capability to support species (such as a drought affecting fish 
habitat).
    Second, the number of recognized species present on the units of 
the NFS is very large. It is clearly impractical to analyze all 
species, and previous attempts to analyze the full suite of species via 
groups, surrogates, and representatives have had mixed success in 
practice.
    Third, focus on the viability requirement has often diverted 
attention and resources away from an ecosystem approach to land 
management that, in the Department's view, is the most efficient and 
effective way to manage for the broadest range of species with the 
limited resources available for the task.
    Requirements for species population monitoring are not included in 
this final rule. Population data are difficult to obtain and evaluate 
because there are so many factors outside the control of the Forest 
Service that affect populations. The Department believes that it is 
best to focus the agency's monitoring program on habitat on NFS land 
where the agency can adjust management to meet the needs of certain 
species. Desired conditions are often a focus of the monitoring 
program. The agency will identify species-of-concern and species-of-
interest (Sec.  219.16). Where ecological conditions for these species 
are identified as desired conditions, the habitat could be monitored to 
assist in avoiding future listing of these species. However, the final 
rule does not preclude population monitoring. Plans may include 
population monitoring as appropriate.
    In summary, in compliance with NFMA, the ecological sustainability 
provisions in the final rule provide the foundation for the plan to 
provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. The final rule 
provides a complementary ecosystem and species diversity approach for 
ecological sustainability. The final rule at Sec.  219.7(a)(2) 
establishes requirements for developing plan components to guide 
projects and activities. All parts of the land management framework, 
including plan components, monitoring, and plan adjustment, are 
designed to work together to contribute to sustainability.

Environmental Management Systems and Adaptive Management

     Adaptive management and land management planning.
    Plans must adapt to ever-changing conditions. Agency policy may 
change, new laws may be enacted, or court decisions can change 
interpretation of existing laws. Fires, invasive species, or outbreaks 
of insects or disease can substantially change environmental 
conditions. Changes in market conditions or public values may shift the 
demand for specific goods and services. Scientific findings can change 
our understanding of the environment and of the effects of specific 
management activities. Better monitoring techniques or ways to achieve 
objectives may be found. Land management plans must reflect the fact 
that change and uncertainty are inevitable. Consequently, plans must 
allow for quick response to these ever-changing conditions.
    The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and 
Colleges and others commented on the 2002 proposed rule regarding the 
importance, from the scientific perspective, of using adaptive 
management when dealing with complex ecosystems. In 1999, the Committee 
of Scientists developed recommendations that strongly encouraged the 
use of adaptive management. The Committee of Scientists recommended 
setting a high priority on developing ongoing analyses that are based 
on monitoring to continually adjust or change land management planning 
decisions. In response to these comments and recommendations for a 
greater emphasis on and commitment to adaptive management, the 
Department has chosen to include environmental management systems (EMS) 
in the land management framework.
    The adaptive management approach includes land management plans 
along

[[Page 1030]]

with comprehensive evaluations, an environmental management system, 
monitoring, evaluation, and research. Adaptive management requires 
careful coordination of the work performed through these programs. It 
does not require equal emphases among these various programs, but 
rather requires organizational learning, an active pursuit of best 
available scientific information, evaluation and disclosure of 
uncertainties and risks about scientific information, and a response to 
change.
    A land management plan starts the adaptive management cycle. 
Managers then pursue ways to achieve desired conditions and objectives 
described in the plan. The comprehensive evaluation may describe the 
risks and uncertainties associated with implementing the plan. Managers 
prioritize risks and develop strategies to control them.
    Monitoring and evaluations check for status and change across the 
administrative unit. Monitoring results may show that the desired 
conditions are not being achieved through projects. This may trigger 
future project changes to reach desired conditions. Alternatively, 
monitoring results may lead to conclusions that the land management 
plan should be changed through a plan amendment.
    Research is an important part of adaptive management. Through 
experimentation, researchers investigate cause and effect relationships 
of management practices on the environment. Experiments test hypotheses 
and researchers develop reliable knowledge about effects of management 
practices. The new information may be used to amend plans, change 
project level work, or update an environmental management system.
     Land management plans, adaptive management, and 
environmental management systems.
    This final rule requires each national forest, grassland, prairie, 
or other comparable administrative unit to develop and implement an EMS 
based on the international consensus standard published by the 
International Organization for Standardization as ``ISO 14001: 
Environmental Management Systems--Specification With Guidance For Use'' 
(ISO 14001). Each unit's EMS should be designed and implemented to more 
efficiently meet legal obligations, including supporting the creation 
of effective land management plans, ensuring public participation in 
the process, and providing a framework for adaptive management.
    The administrative units' EMS will be a systematic approach to 
identify and manage environmental conditions and obligations to achieve 
improved performance and environmental protection. Each unit's EMS will 
identify and prioritize environmental conditions; set objectives in 
light of Congressional, agency, and public goals; document procedures 
and practices to achieve those objectives; and monitor and measure 
environmental conditions to track performance and verify that 
objectives are being met. Agency management personnel will regularly 
review performance, and information about environmental conditions will 
be regularly updated to continually improve land management and 
environmental performance.
    By systematically collecting and updating information about 
environmental conditions and practices (for example, through 
monitoring, measurement, research, and public input), the units' EMS 
will provide a foundation for effective adaptive management, plan 
amendments, or even changing specific project or work practices. The 
agency expects that, whenever possible, EMS and land management plan 
documentation will be coordinated and integrated to avoid unnecessary 
duplication.
    The units' EMS will more efficiently meet legal obligations, will 
improve public participation in the land management planning process, 
and enhance the agency's ability to identify and respond to public 
input. Creating a transparent and consistent framework that describes 
how units are managed will improve the public's ability to effectively 
participate in land management. The units' EMS will not replace any 
legal obligations that the agency has under NFMA, MUSYA, NEPA, or any 
other statute, nor will the EMS diminish the public's ability to 
participate in the land management process or its rights under any law. 
To the contrary, EMS will significantly improve the public's ability to 
effectively participate in the process.
    The agency chose ISO 14001 as the EMS model for several reasons. 
First, it is the most commonly used EMS model in the United States and 
around the world. This will make it easier to implement and understand 
(internally and externally) because there is a significant knowledge 
base about ISO 14001. Second, the National Technology and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use 
or adopt applicable national or international consensus standards 
wherever possible, in lieu of creating proprietary or unique standards. 
The NTAA's policy of encouraging Federal agencies to adopt tested and 
well-accepted standards, rather than reinventing-the-wheel, clearly 
applies to this situation where there is a ready-made international and 
national EMS consensus standard (through the American National 
Standards Institute) that has already been successfully implemented in 
the field for almost a decade. Third, it has been a long-standing 
policy that Federal agencies implement EMS to improve environmental 
performance (Executive Order 13148 issued April 21, 2000 (E.O. 13148), 
titled ``Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental 
Management'' and an April 1, 2002, Memorandum from the Chair of the 
Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget to the heads of all Federal agencies). Federal 
agencies that have been implementing EMS in response to the E.O. 13148 
have typically been using ISO 14001 as their model.
    The implementation of ISO 14001 in NFS administrative units will 
have to reflect the legal and public obligations of the agency, as well 
as the environmental conditions and issues relevant to land management, 
such as sustainability and long-term issues, including cumulative 
effects. For example, while ISO 14001 requires implementing 
organizations to identify their ``environmental aspects,'' 
administrative units implementing their EMS under this rule will 
include the concept of environmental conditions in land management 
planning in this step. Another example reflecting the legal and public 
obligations of the agency is that the units' EMS must include the 
public participation requirements of this rule, which are much stronger 
than the public communication provisions of ISO 14001. Therefore, the 
agency will interpret and implement ISO 14001 in a manner consistent 
with the agency's legal obligations, its duty to the public, and the 
unique circumstances of land management.

National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act 
Planning

    The application of NEPA to the planning process as identified in 
this final rule is the next iterative step in an evolution that began 
with the promulgation of the 1979 planning rule, revised in 1982. In 
developing the NEPA provisions of this final rule, the Department took 
into account the nature of the five plan components under this final 
rule, experience the agency has gained over the past 25 years from

[[Page 1031]]

developing, amending, and revising land management plans; the 
requirements of NEPA and NFMA, the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations, and the comments by the Supreme Court in Ohio 
Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance regarding the nature of plans themselves.
    The 1979 planning rule required an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) for development of plans, significant amendments, and revisions. 
This requirement continued in the revised rule adopted in 1982. At the 
time, the Forest Service believed that the NEPA document prepared for a 
plan would suffice for making most project-level decisions. However, 
the agency came to understand that this approach to complying with NEPA 
was impractical, inefficient, and sometimes inaccurate. Over the course 
of implementing NFMA during the past 25 years, the agency has learned 
that environmental effects of projects and activities cannot be 
meaningfully evaluated without knowledge of the specific timing and 
location of the projects and activities.
    At the time of plan approval, the Forest Service does not have 
detailed information about what projects and activities will be 
proposed over the 15-year life of a plan, how many projects will be 
approved, where they will be located, or how they will be designed. At 
the point of plan approval, the Forest Service can only speculate about 
the projects that may be proposed and budgeted and the natural events, 
such as fire, flood, insects, and disease that may occur that will make 
uncontemplated projects necessary or force changes in the projects and 
the effects of projects that were contemplated. Indeed, the Forest 
Service has learned that over the 15-year life of a plan it can only 
expect the unexpected.
    In the course of completing NEPA analysis on the first generation 
of NFMA plans, the Forest Service also became more aware of the 
difficulties of scale created by the size of the national forests and 
grasslands. The National Forest System includes 192 million acres, and 
individual planning units, such as the Tongass National Forest, may be 
as large as 17 million acres. These vast landscapes contain an enormous 
variety of different ecosystems, which will respond differently to the 
same management practices. As the Committee of Scientists said on page 
26 of the Committee of Scientists Report:

    Because of the wide variation in site-specific practices and 
local environmental conditions (e.g., vegetation type, topography, 
geology, and soils) across a given national forest or rangeland, the 
direct and indirect effects of management practices may not always 
be well understood or easily predicted. (Committee of Scientists 
Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
DC 193 p.)

    The result is that it is usually infeasible to do environmental 
analysis for a national forest as a whole that is sufficiently site-
specific to allow projects to be carried out without further detailed 
NEPA analysis after the plan has been approved.
    The agency has found itself preparing much more extensive NEPA 
documentation for projects than it had anticipated when it adopted the 
1979 and 1982 planning rules. Moreover, the extensive changes to 
conditions in the plan area that occurred during the 15-year life of 
each plan made it increasingly impractical to tier project-level NEPA 
documentation to the plan EIS. The requirements of the 1979 and 1982 
planning rules created an inefficient and ineffective system for 
complying with NEPA.
    The 2000 planning rule furthered the existing presumption of 
requiring an EIS for plan development or revision, notwithstanding 
concerns raised by the Committee of Scientists. Secretary Glickman 
named the Committee of Scientists (COS) on December 11, 1997. The 
charter for the COS stated that the Committee's purpose was to provide 
scientific and technical advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Chief of the Forest Service on improvements that can be made in the 
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Process.
    The Committee of Scientists said, on page 117 of the Committee of 
Scientists Report:

    Perhaps the most difficult problem is that the current EA/EIS 
process assumes a one-time decision. The very essence of small-
landscape planning is an adaptive management approach, based upon 
monitoring and learning. Although small-landscape planning can more 
readily do real-time cumulative effects analysis * * *, this kind of 
analysis is difficult to integrate with a one-time decision 
approach. Developing a decision disclosure and review process that 
is ongoing and uses monitoring information to adjust or change 
treatments and activities will need to be a high priority * * *. 
(Committee of Scientists Report, March 15, 1999, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, DC 193 p.)

    In addition to concern about timely and accurate disclosure of 
environmental effects, the agency's experience with planning has 
demonstrated the need to clarify what plans, in fact, actually do. 
Neither the 1982 nor the 2000 planning rule clearly described or 
contrasted the differences between the effects of plans and the effects 
of projects and activities. This has been confusing to the public and 
agency employees. As discussed previously in the guidelines and the 
suitability discussions, plan components have not been applied or 
interpreted consistently throughout the agency and often have been 
characterized as the functional equivalent of final project-level 
decisions or actions, rather than guidance for projects and activities 
over time.
    This final rule clarifies that plans will be strategic rather than 
prescriptive in nature absent extraordinary circumstances. Plans will 
describe the desired social, economic, and ecological conditions for a 
national forest, grassland, prairie, or other comparable administrative 
unit. Plan objectives, guidelines, suitable uses, and special area 
identifications will be designed to help achieve the desired 
conditions. While plans will identify the general suitability of lands 
for various uses, they typically will not approve projects or 
activities with accompanying environmental effects. Decisions approving 
projects or activities with environmental effects that can be 
meaningfully evaluated will typically be made subsequent to the plan. 
In essence, a plan simply is a description of a vision for the future 
that coupled, with evaluation, provides a starting point for project 
and activity NEPA analysis. Therefore, under this rule approval of a 
plan, plan amendment, or plan revision typically will not have 
environmental effects.
    The formulation of plans under the final rule as being merely 
strategic rather than prescriptive is further evident in the five 
components of plans under the final rule. As described above, none of 
the five components is intended to directly dictate on the ground 
decisions which have impacts on the environment. Rather, they state 
general guidance and goals to be considered in project and activity 
decisions. These five components thus do not have any significant 
effect on the environment.
    Notwithstanding their strategic nature, approval of a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan revision is a final action under the CEQ 
regulations. Further, such actions may have environmental effects in 
some extraordinary circumstances, such as when a plan amendment or 
revision includes final decisions approving projects or activities. For 
example, an amendment or revision including a decision approving a 
project to thin

[[Page 1032]]

certain trees to reduce fire hazards may have environmental affects 
that could be significant.
    NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine how to 
comply with NEPA during the course of NFMA planning. Section 106(g)(1) 
of NFMA directs the Secretary to specify in land management regulations 
procedures to insure that plans are prepared in accordance with NEPA, 
including direction on when and for what plans an EIS is required (16 
U.S.C. 1604(g)(1)). The CEQ regulations direct Federal agencies to 
adopt procedures that designate major decision points for the agency's 
principal programs likely to have a significant effect on the human 
environment and ensuring that the NEPA process corresponds with them 
(40 CFR 1505.1(b)).
    Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, an EIS is required for every 
report or recommendation on proposals for legislation and other major 
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment (16 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR 1502.3). CEQ regulations 
define ``major Federal action'' as including ``actions with effects 
that may be major.'' The regulations explain that ``Federal actions'' 
generally tend to fall within several categories. Although these 
categories include adoption of formal agency plans within the 
definition of ``federal action,'' not all federal actions are major 
federal actions. As applied to the final rule, land management plans 
under this final rule, as evidenced by their five components, are 
strategic and aspirational in nature and generally will not include 
decisions with on-the-ground effects that can be meaningfully evaluated 
and that may be major. During pla