21162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 219 

RIN 0596–AD02 

National Forest System Land 

Management Planning 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule and record of 

decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture is adopting a new National 

Forest System land management 

planning rule (planning rule). The new 

planning rule guides the development, 

amendment, and revision of land 

management plans for all units of the 

National Forest System (NFS), 

consisting of 155 national forests, 20 

grasslands, and 1 prairie. 

This planning rule sets forth process 

and content requirements to guide the 

development, amendment, and revision 

of land management plans to maintain 

and restore NFS land and water 

ecosystems while providing for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses. 

The planning rule is designed to ensure 

that plans provide for the sustainability 

of ecosystems and resources; meet the 

need for forest restoration and 

conservation, watershed protection, and 

species diversity and conservation; and 

assist the Agency in providing a 

sustainable flow of benefits, services, 

and uses of NFS lands that provide jobs 

and contribute to the economic and 

social sustainability of communities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective May 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For more information, 

including a copy of the final PEIS, refer 

to the World Wide Web/Internet at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. 

More information may be obtained on 

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: 

Ecosystem Management Coordination 

staff’s Assistant Director for Planning 

Ric Rine at (202) 205–1022 or Planning 

Specialist Regis Terney at (202) 205– 

0895. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Decision 

This document records the decision 

that the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) reached in determining the 

alternative that best meets the purpose 

and need for a new planning rule. The 

USDA based this decision on the 

analyses presented in the Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement, National Forest System Land 

Management Planning (USDA, Forest 

Service, 2011) (PEIS). The PEIS was 

prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). 

For the reasons set out in the 

discussion that follows, the Department 

hereby promulgates a regulation 

establishing a National Forest System 

land management planning rule as 

described in Modified Alternative A of 

the National Forest System Land 

Management Planning Rule Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDA Forest Service, 2011) 

with clarifications, and the supporting 

record. The planning rule describes the 

process the Forest Service will use for 

development, amendment, and revision 

of national forest and grassland plans. It 

also sets out requirements for the 

structure of those plans and includes 

requirements for their content. 

This planning rule replaces the final 

2000 land management planning rule 

(2000 rule) as reinstated in the Code of 

Federal Regulations on December 18, 

2009 (74 FR 67062). 

Outline 

The following outline shows the 

contents of the preamble which states 

the basis and purpose of the rule, 

includes responses to comments 

received on the proposed rule, and 

serves as the record of decision for this 

rulemaking. 

Introduction and Background 

Purpose and Need for the New Rule 

Public Involvement 

Summary of Alternatives Considered by the 

Agency 

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Decision and Rationale 

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as Amended 

Response to Comments 

Regulatory Certifications 

• Regulatory Planning and Review 

• Agency Cost Impacts 

• Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness 

Impacts 

• Distributional Impacts 

• Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

• Energy Effects 

• Environmental Impacts 

• Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

• Federalism 

• Consultation with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

• Takings of Private Property 

• Civil Justice Reform 

• Unfunded Mandates 

• Environmental Justice 

Introduction and Background 

The mission of the Forest Service is 

to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the Nation’s forests and 

grasslands to meet the needs of present 

and future generations. Responsible 

officials for each national forest, 

grassland, and prairie will follow the 

direction of the planning rule to 

develop, amend, or revise their land 

management plans. 

The new planning rule provides a 

process for planning that is adaptive 

and science-based, engages the public, 

and is designed to be efficient, effective, 

and within the Agency’s ability to 

implement. It meets the requirements 

under the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA), the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), and the 

Endangered Species Act, as well as all 

other legal requirements. It was also 

developed to ensure that plans are 

consistent with and complement 

existing, related Agency policies that 

guide management of resources on the 

National Forest System (NFS), such as 

the Climate Change Scorecard, the 

Watershed Condition Framework, and 

the Sustainable Recreation Framework. 

The planning rule framework 

includes three phases: Assessment, plan 

development/amendment/revision, and 

monitoring. The framework supports an 

integrated approach to the management 

of resources and uses, incorporates the 

landscape-scale context for 

management, and will help the Agency 

to adapt to changing conditions and 

improve management based on new 

information and monitoring. It is 

intended to provide the flexibility to 

respond to the various social, economic, 

and ecologic needs across a very diverse 

system, while including a consistent set 

of process and content requirements for 

NFS land management plans. The 

Department anticipates that the Agency 

will use the framework to keep plans 

current and respond to changing 

conditions and new information over 

time. 

The planning rule requires the use of 

best available scientific information to 

inform planning and plan decisions. It 

also emphasizes providing meaningful 

opportunities for public participation 

early and throughout the planning 

process, increases the transparency of 

decision-making, and provides a 

platform for the Agency to work with 

the public and across boundaries with 

other land managers to identify and 

share information and inform planning. 

The final planning rule reflects key 

themes expressed by members of the 

public, as well as experience gained 

through the Agency’s 30-year history 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21163 

with land management planning. It is 

intended to create a more efficient and 

effective planning process and provide 

an adaptive framework for planning. 

This final planning rule requires that 

land management plans provide for 

ecological sustainability and contribute 

to social and economic sustainability, 

using public input and the best 

available scientific information to 

inform plan decisions. The rule contains 

a strong emphasis on protecting and 

enhancing water resources, restoring 

land and water ecosystems, and 

providing ecological conditions to 

support the diversity of plant and 

animal communities, while providing 

for ecosystem services and multiple 

uses. 

The 1982 planning rule procedures 

have guided the development, 

amendment, and revision of all existing 

Forest Service land management plans. 

However, since 1982 much has changed 

in our understanding of land 

management planning. The body of 

science that informs land management 

planning in areas such as conservation 

biology and ecology has advanced 

considerably, along with our 

understanding of the values and benefits 

of NFS lands, and the challenges and 

stressors that may impact them. 

Because planning under the 

procedures of the 1982 rule is often time 

consuming and cumbersome, it has been 

a challenge for responsible officials to 

keep plans current. Instead of amending 

plans as conditions on the ground 

change, responsible officials often wait 

and make changes all at once during the 

required revision process. The result 

can be a drawn-out, difficult, and costly 

revision process. Much of the planning 

under the 1982 rule procedures focused 

on writing plans that would mitigate 

negative environmental impacts. The 

protective measures in the 1982 rule 

were important, but the focus of land 

management has changed since then 

and the Agency needs plans that do 

more than mitigate harm. The Agency 

needs a planning process that leads to 

plans that contribute to ecological, 

social, and economic sustainability to 

protect resources on the unit and 

maintain the flow of goods and services 

from NFS lands on the unit over time. 

The NFMA requires the Agency to 

develop a planning rule ‘‘under the 

principles of the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, that set[s] 

out the process for the development and 

revision of the land management plans, 

and the guidelines and standards’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1604(g)). The Forest Service 

fulfills this requirement by codifying a 

planning rule at Title 36, Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 219 (36 CFR 

part 219), which sets requirements for 

land management planning and content 

of plans. 

In 1979, the Department issued the 

first regulations to comply with this 

statutory requirement. The 1979 

regulations were superseded by the 

1982 planning rule, which has formed 

the basis for all existing Forest Service 

land management plans. 

In 1989, the Agency initiated a 

comprehensive Critique of Land 

Management Planning, which identified 

a number of adjustments that were 

needed to the 1982 planning rule. The 

Critique found that the 1982 planning 

rule process was complex, costly, 

lengthy, and cumbersome for the public 

to provide input. The recommendations 

in the Critique and the Agency’s own 

experiences with planning led to the 

Agency issuing an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking for a new 

planning rule in 1991 and proposing a 

new, revised rule initially in 1995 and 

again in 1999. 

The Department worked with a 

committee of scientists to develop a 

final rule, which was issued in 2000. 

The 2000 revision of the planning rule 

described a new agenda for NFS 

planning; made sustainability the 

foundation for NFS planning and 

management; required the consideration 

of the best available scientific 

information during the planning and 

implementation process; and set forth 

requirements for implementation, 

monitoring, evaluation, amendment, 

and revision of land management plans. 

However, a review in the spring of 2001 

found that the 2000 rule was costly, 

complex, and procedurally burdensome. 

The results of the review led the 

Department to issue a new planning rule 

in 2005 and a revised version again in 

2008; however, the U.S. District Court 

for Northern District of California 

invalidated each of those rules on 

procedural grounds (Citizens for Better 

Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp.2d 1059 

(N.D. Cal. 2007) (2005 rule); Citizens for 

Better Forestry v. USDA, 632 F. Supp.2d 

968 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (2008 rule)). 

This final rule replaces the 2000 rule. 

Because the 2000 rule was the last 

promulgated planning rule to take effect 

and not be set aside by a court, the 2000 

rule is the rule currently in effect. While 

the 2000 planning rule replaced the 

1982 rule in the Code of Federal 

Regulations, the transition section of the 

2000 rule allowed units to use the 1982 

planning rule procedures for plan 

amendments and revisions until a new 

planning rule was issued. After the 2008 

rule was invalidated, on December 18, 

2009, the Department reinstated the 

2000 rule in the Code of Federal 

Regulations and made technical 

amendments to update transition 

provisions as an interim measure to be 

in effect until a new planning rule was 

issued (74 FR 67062). 

The instability created by these past 

planning rule efforts has caused delays 

in planning and confused the public. At 

the same time, the vastly different 

context for management and improved 

understanding of science and 

sustainability that have evolved over the 

past three decades have created a need 

for an updated planning rule that will 

help the Agency respond to new 

challenges in meeting management 

objectives for NFS lands. 

This final rule is intended to ensure 

that plans respond to the requirements 

of land management that the Agency 

faces today, including the need to 

provide sustainable benefits, services, 

and uses, including recreation; the need 

for forest restoration and conservation, 

watershed protection, and wildlife 

conservation; and the need for sound 

resource management under changing 

conditions. The new rule sets forth a 

process that is adaptive, science-based, 

collaborative, and within the Agency’s 

capability to carry out on all NFS units. 

Finally, the new rule is designed to 

make planning more efficient and 

effective. 

Purpose and Need for the New Rule 

The NFMA requires regulations 

consistent with the principles of the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 

1960, that set out the process for the 

development and revision of the land 

management plans and the guidelines 

and standards the Act prescribes (16 

U.S.C. 1604(g)). The Forest Service’s 

experience, evolving scientific 

understanding of approaches to land 

management, changing social demands, 

and new challenges such as changing 

climate have made clear the need for a 

revised rule to more effectively fulfill 

NFMA’s mandate. 

On August 14, 2009, Agriculture 

Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined his 

vision for the future of our nation’s 

forests, setting forth a direction for 

conservation, management, and 

restoration of NFS lands. Secretary 

Vilsack stated that: ‘‘It is time for a 

change in the way we view and manage 

America’s forestlands with an eye 

towards the future. This will require a 

new approach that engages the 

American people and stakeholders in 

conserving and restoring both our 

National Forests and our privatelyowned forests.’’ The Secretary 

emphasized that the Forest Service 

planning process provides an important 

means for integrating forest restoration, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

climate resilience, watershed protection, 

wildlife conservation, opportunities to 

contribute to vibrant local economies, 

and the collaboration necessary to 

manage our national forests. ‘‘Our best 

opportunity to accomplish this is in the 

developing of a new forest planning rule 

for our national forests.’’ 

The NFS currently consists of 127 

land management plans, 68 of which are 

past due for revision. Most plans were 

developed between 1983 and 1993 and 

should have been revised between 1998 

and 2008, based on NFMA direction to 

revise plans at least once every 15 years. 

The efforts to produce a new planning 

rule over the past decade have 

contributed to the delay in plan 

revisions. With clarity and stability in 

planning regulations, land management 

planning can regain momentum and 

units will be able to complete revisions 

more efficiently. 

As explained in the Introduction and 

Background section of this document, 

the present planning rule is the 2000 

planning rule. Under the transition 

provisions of that rule, the Agency can 

choose to use either the procedures of 

the 2000 rule or the planning 

procedures of the 1982 rule to develop, 

amend, or revise land management 

plans. Based on the concerns about 

implementing the 2000 rule procedures, 

the Forest Service has been relying upon 

the 2000 rule’s transition provision to 

develop, amend, and revise land 

management plans under the 1982 

procedures until a new planning rule is 

in place. 

The Forest Service and the 

Department conclude that the 

procedures of neither the 2000 rule nor 

the 1982 rule meet the needs of the 

Agency today or fulfill the Secretary’s 

vision. Moreover, the Department and 

the Forest Service have determined that 

the 2000 rule is beyond the Agency’s 

capability to implement. Even though 

the Agency has had the option to use 

the procedures in the 2000 rule, no line 

officer has chosen to use the 2000 rule 

to revise or amend a land management 

plan because the 2000 rule is too costly, 

complex, and procedurally burdensome. 

At the same time, the 1982 rule 

procedures are not current with regard 

to science, knowledge of the 

environment, practices for planning and 

adaptive management, or social values, 

and are also too complex, costly, 

lengthy, and cumbersome. 

The purpose of, and the need for, a 

new planning rule is to provide the 

direction for National Forests and 

Grasslands to develop, amend, and 

revise land management plans that will 

enable land managers to consistently 

and efficiently respond to social, 

economic, and ecological conditions. 

The Secretary of Agriculture is vested 

with broad authority to make rules ‘‘to 

regulate occupancy and use and to 

preserve [the forests] from destruction’’ 

(16 U.S.C. 551). The MUSYA authorizes 

and directs that the national forests be 

managed under the principles of 

multiple use and to produce sustained 

yield of products and services. NFMA 

directs the Secretary to promulgate 

regulations for the development and 

revision of land management plans and 

prescribes a number of provisions that 

the regulations shall include, but not be 

limited to (16 U.S.C. 1600(g)). Based on 

the principles of the MUSYA, the 

requirements of NFMA, the Secretary’s 

direction and nearly three decades of 

land management planning experience, 

the Department and the Forest Service 

find that a planning rule must address 

the following eight purposes and needs: 

1. Emphasize restoration of natural 

resources to make our NFS lands more 

resilient to climate change, protect 

water resources, and improve forest 

health. 

2. Contribute to ecological, social, and 

economic sustainability by ensuring that 

all plans will be responsive and can 

adapt to issues such as the challenges of 

climate change; the need for forest 

restoration and conservation, watershed 

protection, and species conservation; 

and the sustainable use of public lands 

to support vibrant communities. 

3. Be consistent with NFMA and 

MUSYA. 

4. Be consistent with Federal policy 

on the use of scientific information and 

the Agency’s expertise and experience 

gained in over thirty years of land 

management planning. 

5. Provide for a transparent, 

collaborative process that allows 

effective public participation. 

6. Ensure planning takes place in the 

context of the larger landscape by taking 

an ‘‘all-lands approach.’’ 

7. Be within the Agency’s capability 

to implement on all NFS units; be clear; 

provide an efficient framework for 

planning; and be able to be 

implemented within the financial 

capacity of the Agency. 

8. Be effective by requiring a 

consistent approach to ensure that all 

plans address the issues outlined by the 

Secretary and yet allow for land 

management plans to be developed and 

implemented to address social, 

economic, and ecological needs across 

the diverse and highly variable systems 

of the National Forest System. 

Public Involvement 

Public Involvement in the Development 

of the Proposed Rule and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

The Department and the Agency 

engaged in an extensive public outreach 

and participation process 

unprecedented for the development of a 

planning rule. A Notice of Intent (NOI) 

to prepare a new planning rule and an 

accompanying draft environmental 

impact statement (DEIS) was published 

in the Federal Register on December 18, 

2009 (74 FR 67165). The NOI solicited 

public comments on the proposal until 

February 16, 2010. The notice presented 

a series of substantive and procedural 

principles to guide development of a 

new planning rule. Under each 

principle, the notice posed several 

questions to stimulate thoughts and 

encourage responses. The Forest Service 

received over 26,000 comments in 

response to the notice. 

The Agency held a science forum on 

March 29 and 30, 2010, in Washington, 

DC to ground development of a new 

planning rule in science and to foster a 

collaborative dialogue with the 

scientific community. Panels made up 

of 21 scientists drawn from academia, 

research organizations, non-government 

organizations, industry, and the Federal 

Government presented the latest science 

on topics relevant to the development of 

a new rule for developing land 

management plans. The format was 

designed to encourage scientists and 

practitioners to share the current state of 

knowledge in key areas and to 

encourage open dialogue with interested 

stakeholders. 

The Forest Service convened a series 

of four national roundtables held in 

Washington, DC during the course of 

developing the proposed planning rule. 

The intent was to have a national-level 

dialogue around the concepts for 

development of the Forest Service 

proposed planning rule, to get public 

input prior to developing the proposed 

rule. The Forest Service also held 33 

regional roundtables during April and 

May 2010 in the following States: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South 

Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Additionally, the Forest Service 

Webcast many of the national and 

regional roundtables, posted materials 

and summaries of the roundtables 

online, and hosted a blog to further 

encourage participation. In all, more 

than 3,000 members of the public 

participated in these opportunities to 

provide their input. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21165 

Public Involvement in the Development 

of the Final Rule and Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) 

The Department and the Agency used 

the input provided by the public in 

response to the NOI and during the 

roundtables to inform the development 

of the proposed rule and DEIS. The 

proposed planning rule and draft 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement (PEIS) were published for 

comment on February 14, 2011 (76 FR 

8480). The comment period ran for 90 

days through May 16, 2011. The 

Department received nearly 300,000 

comments during the comment period. 

Early in the comment period, the 

Agency held a series of public meetings 

that provided opportunities for 

interested persons to ask questions 

about the proposed rule. The intent of 

the meetings was to explain the 

proposed rule and provide information 

to the public as they developed their 

comments on the proposed rule. 

Between March 10, 2011, and April 7, 

2001, the Agency held 1 national and 28 

regional forums, which reached 72 

satellite locations across the country. 

The national meeting was held in 

Washington, DC. Regional and satellite 

meetings were held in the following 

States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, 

Wisconsin and Wyoming. 

Tribal Involvement 

To ensure Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations were heard in a way that 

gave recognition to their special and 

unique relationship with the Federal 

Government, the Agency provided 

opportunities for participation and 

consultation throughout the process. 

To get input early in the process, the 

Agency hosted two national Tribal 

roundtables conducted via conference 

call in May and August, 2010. 

Additionally, six Tribal roundtables 

were held in California, Arizona, and 

New Mexico. Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations also participated in many 

of the national and regional roundtables 

prior to development of the proposed 

rule. 

On September 23, 2010, the Deputy 

Chief for the National Forest System 

sent a letter inviting 564 federally 

recognized Tribes and 29 Alaska Native 

Corporations to begin government-togovernment consultation on the 

proposed planning rule. The Agency 

held 16 consultation meetings across the 

country with designated Tribal officials 

in November and December, 2010, prior 

to the publication of the proposed rule 

in February, 2011. Tribal consultation 

continued following the release of the 

proposed rule, with additional 

opportunities for Tribal consultation 

provided in 2011. 

During the public comment period on 

the proposed rule the Forest Service 

held a Tribal teleconference to discuss 

with Tribes how their previous 

comments were addressed in the 

proposed rule. Sixteen Tribes 

participated in the discussion and had 

the opportunity to have their questions 

answered by members of the rule 

writing team, the Ecosystem 

Management Coordination Director, and 

the Associate Chief of the Forest 

Service. Additionally consultation with 

Tribes continued at the local level. 

Summaries of public involvement 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. 

Issues Identified in the Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 

Based on public comments, an 

interdisciplinary team identified a list of 

issues to analyze: 

• Ecosystem Restoration. 

• Watershed Protection. 

• Diversity of Plant and Animal 

Communities. 

• Climate Change. 

• Multiple Uses. 

• Efficiency and Effectiveness. 

• Transparency and Collaboration. 

• Coordination and Cooperation 

beyond NFS Boundaries. 

The PEIS analyzes six fully developed 

alternatives (A, Modified A, and B 

through E), and considered nine 

additional alternatives that were 

eliminated from detailed study (40 CFR 

1502.14(a)). The six fully developed 

alternatives, with the exception of 

Alternative B (No Action), meet all 

aspects of the purpose and need to 

varying degrees and are described 

below. The additional alternatives 

(Alternatives F through N) were 

considered but eliminated from detailed 

study because they did not meet some 

of the aspects of the purpose and need. 

Chapter 2 of the PEIS provides a more 

complete discussion of the disposition 

of these alternatives. 

Summary of Alternatives Considered by 

the Agency 

The following summaries describe 

each alternative. A comparison of the 

alternatives is available in Chapter 2 of 

the PEIS. 

Alternative A (Proposed Action and 

Proposed Planning Rule) 

Alternative A uses an adaptive 

framework. The framework consists of a 

three-part learning and planning 

framework to assess conditions and 

stressors; develop, amend, or revise land 

management plans based on the need 

for change; and monitor to test 

assumptions, detect changes, and 

evaluate whether progress is being made 

toward desired outcomes. 

Alternative A would make the 

supervisor of the national forest, 

grassland, prairie, or other comparable 

administrative unit the responsible 

official for approving new plans, plan 

amendments, and plan revisions. 

This alternative would require the 

responsible official to take science into 

account in the planning process and 

would require documentation as to how 

science was considered. 

This alternative would require the 

responsible official to provide 

opportunities for public participation 

throughout all stages of the planning 

process, and includes requirements for 

outreach, Tribal consultation, and 

coordination with other planning 

efforts. This alternative would require 

responsible officials to provide formal 

public notification at various points in 

the process and to post all notifications 

online. This alternative requires the 

responsible official to encourage 

participation by youth, low-income, and 

minority populations. Alternative A 

would explicitly require the responsible 

official to provide the opportunity to 

undertake consultation with federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations and require the 

responsible official to encourage 

participation by interested or affected 

federally recognized Indian Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations. As part of 

Tribal participation and consultation, 

the responsible official would invite 

Tribes to share native knowledge during 

the planning process. Alternative A 

would require that the responsible 

official coordinate planning with the 

equivalent and related planning efforts 

of other Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, and Indian Tribes. 

Alternative A would require 

assessments to identify and evaluate 

information needed to understand and 

assess existing and potential future 

conditions on NFS lands in the context 

of the broader landscape. These 

assessments would include a review of 

relevant information from other 

governmental or non-governmental 

assessments, plans, reports, and studies. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Alternative A would require plans to 

include five plan components—desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, 

guidelines, and suitability of areas for 

resource management. Plans could also 

include goals as option plan 

components. Alternative A includes 

direction for other content required in 

the plan, including the monitoring 

program. 

Alternative A would require plan 

components to provide for the 

maintenance or restoration of the 

structure, function, composition, and 

connectivity of healthy and resilient 

aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in 

the plan area. In addition, Alternative A 

would include plan components to 

guide the unit’s contribution to social 

and economic sustainability. 

Under Alternative A, plan 

components for ecological sustainability 

would be required to take into account 

air quality, landscape-scale integration 

of ecosystems, system drivers and 

stressors including climate change, and 

opportunities to restore fire adapted 

ecosystems. Plan components would 

also be designed to maintain, protect 

and restore various ecosystem elements 

including soil, water, and riparian areas. 

Alternative A would require plan 

components for the conservation of all 

native aquatic and terrestrial species 

with the aim of providing the ecological 

conditions to contribute to the recovery 

of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, conserve candidate 

species, and maintain viable 

populations of species of conservation 

concern. Alternative A would also 

require monitoring of select ecological 

and watershed conditions and focal 

species to assess progress towards 

meeting diversity and ecological 

sustainability requirements. 

Alternative A would require that 

plans provide for multiple uses and 

ecosystem services, considering a full 

range of resources, uses, and benefits 

relevant to the unit, as well as stressors, 

and other important factors. 

Alternative A would require plan 

components for sustainable recreation, 

considering opportunities and access for 

a range of uses. Recreational 

opportunities could include nonmotorized, motorized, developed, and 

dispersed recreation on land, water, and 

air. In addition, plans should identify 

recreational settings and desired 

conditions for scenic landscape 

character. 

Alternative A includes requirements 

for plan components for timber, 

consistent with the requirements of 

NFMA. 

Alternative A provides an efficient 

process for amendments, required for 

any substantive change to plan 

components, and for administrative 

changes to make corrections or changes 

to parts of the plan other than the plan 

components. 

Alternative A requires plan-level and 

broader-scale monitoring, to inform 

adaptive management. 

Alternative A would require an 

environmental impact statement for new 

plans and plan revisions. Plan 

amendments would require either an 

environmental impact statement or an 

environmental assessment, or could be 

categorically excluded from 

documentation, based on the 

significance of effects pursuant to 

Agency NEPA procedures. 

Alternative A would require that the 

decision document for the plan include 

the rationale for approval, an 

explanation of how the plan 

components meet the requirements for 

sustainability and diversity, best 

available scientific information 

documentation, and direction for project 

application. 

Alternative A requires that projects 

and activities must be consistent with 

the plan components, and provides 

direction for determining consistency. It 

also requires that other resource plans 

that apply to the plan area be consistent 

with the plan components. 

The responsible official initiating a 

plan revision or development of a new 

plan before Alternative A went into 

effect would have the option to 

complete the plan revision or 

development of the new plan under the 

prior rule or conform to the 

requirements of the final rule after 

providing notice to the public. All plan 

revisions or new plans initiated after the 

effective date of the final rule would 

have to conform to the new planning 

requirements. 

Alternative A includes a severability 

provision, stating if parts of Alternative 

A are separately found invalid in 

litigation, individual provisions of the 

rule could be severed and the other 

parts of the rule could continue to be 

implemented. 

Alternative A provides a predecisional administrative review 

(objection) process for proposed plans, 

plan amendments, and plan revisions. 

The objection process is based on the 

objection regulations for certain 

proposed hazardous fuel reduction 

projects, found at 36 CFR part 218, and 

is intended to foster continued 

collaboration in the administrative 

review process. 

The complete text of Alternative A is 

provided in Appendix A of the PEIS. 

Reason for non-selection: Alternative 

A meets the purpose and need and 

responds to the significant issues 

displayed in the PEIS in a manner very 

similar to Modified Alternative A. The 

Department received a large number of 

public comments on Alternative A 

including suggestions about how to 

change Alternative A, improve clarity, 

and better align the text of the 

alternative with the Department’s intent 

as described in the preamble for the 

proposed rule. The Department 

developed Modified Alternative A after 

considering public comments. Modified 

Alternative A is described below. 

Alternative A was not selected because 

the Agency developed Modified 

Alternative A in response to public 

comment. For this reason, Alternative A 

was not selected as the final rule. 

Modified Alternative A (Final Rule) 

Modified Alternative A, with 

clarifications, was selected as the final 

rule, (see the Decision and Rationale 

section of this document). 

Modified Alternative A includes the 

same concepts and underlying 

principles as Alternative A, and retains 

much of the same content. However, a 

number of changes to the rule text and 

organization have been made, based on 

public comment on the proposed rule 

(Alternative A) and the DEIS. The Forest 

Service considered the available option 

of replacing the text of Alternative A 

with the text of Modified Alternative A 

in the PEIS. However, because Modified 

Alternative A looks different than 

Alternative A, the Agency included it as 

a new alternative for transparency and 

for the ease of the reviewer in 

comparing the proposed rule with the 

final preferred alternative. 

Modified Alternative A uses an 

adaptive framework for planning. The 

framework consists of a three-part 

learning and planning framework to 

assess information relevant to the plan 

area, develop, amend, or revise land 

management plans based on the need 

for change, and monitor to test 

assumptions, detect changes, and 

evaluate whether progress is being made 

toward desired outcomes. 

Modified Alternative A would make 

the supervisor of the national forest, 

grassland, prairie, or other comparable 

administrative unit the responsible 

official for approving new plans, plan 

amendments, and plan revisions. The 

Chief would be required to establish a 

national oversight process for 

consistency and accountability. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

the responsible official to use the best 

available scientific information to 

inform the planning process, plan 

components, and other plan content 

including the monitoring program, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21167 

includes requirements for 

documentation of how the best available 

scientific information was used to 

inform the plan decision. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

the responsible official to provide 

opportunities for public participation 

throughout all stages of the planning 

process, and includes requirements for 

outreach, Tribal consultation, and 

coordination with other planning 

efforts. Modified Alternative A requires 

the responsible official to encourage 

participation by youth, low-income, and 

minority populations. Modified 

Alternative A would explicitly require 

the responsible official to provide the 

opportunity to undertake consultation 

with federally recognized Indian Tribes 

and Alaska Native Corporations and 

require the responsible official to 

encourage participation by interested or 

affected federally recognized Indian 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. 

As part of Tribal participation and 

consultation, the responsible official 

would invite Tribes to share native 

knowledge during the planning process. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

that the responsible official coordinate 

planning with the equivalent and 

related planning efforts of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, 

and Indian Tribes. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

assessments to rapidly identify and 

evaluate existing information relevant to 

the plan area to understand and assess 

existing and potential future conditions 

on NFS lands in the context of the 

broader landscape, focused on a set of 

topics that relate to the requirements for 

plan components and other plan 

content. These assessments would 

include a review of relevant information 

from other governmental or nongovernmental assessments, plans, 

reports, and studies. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

plans to include five plan components— 

desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, and suitability of 

areas for resource management. Plans 

could also include goals as option plan 

components. Modified Alternative A 

includes direction for other content 

required in the plan, including the 

monitoring program. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

plan components to provide for the 

maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in 

the plan area. In addition, Modified 

Alternative A would include plan 

components to guide the unit’s 

contribution to social and economic 

sustainability. 

Under Modified Alternative A, plan 

components for ecological integrity 

would be required to take into account 

the interdependence of ecosystems, 

impacts from and to the broader 

landscape, system drivers and stressors 

including climate change, and 

opportunities to restore fire adapted 

ecosystems and for landscape scale 

restoration. Plan components would be 

also be required to maintain or restore 

air, soil and water resources, and to 

maintain or restore the ecological 

integrity of riparian areas. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

that plans use a complementary 

ecosystem and species-specific 

approach to provide for the diversity of 

plant and animal communities and 

maintain the persistence of native 

species in the plan area. Ecosystem plan 

components would be required for 

ecosystem integrity and diversity, along 

with additional, species-specific plan 

components where necessary to provide 

the ecological conditions to contribute 

to the recovery of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species, 

conserve proposed and candidate 

species, and maintain viable 

populations of species of conservation 

concern. Modified Alternative A would 

also require monitoring of select 

ecological and watershed conditions 

and focal species to assess progress 

towards meeting diversity and 

ecological sustainability requirements. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

that plans provide for ecosystem 

services and multiple uses, considering 

a full range of resources, uses, and 

benefits relevant to the unit, as well as 

stressors and other important factors. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

plan components for sustainable 

recreation, including recreation settings, 

opportunities, access; and scenic 

character. Recreational opportunities 

could include non-motorized, 

motorized, developed, and dispersed 

recreation on land, water, and air. 

Modified Alternative A includes 

requirements for plan components for 

timber management, consistent with the 

requirements of NFMA. 

Modified Alternative A provides an 

efficient process for amendments, 

required for any substantive change to 

plan components, and for 

administrative changes to make 

corrections or changes to parts of the 

plan other than the plan components. 

Modified Alternative A requires planlevel and broader-scale monitoring to 

inform adaptive management. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

an environmental impact statement for 

new plans and plan revisions. Plan 

amendments would require either an 

environmental impact statement or an 

environmental assessment, or could be 

categorically excluded from 

documentation, based on the 

significance of effects pursuant to 

Agency NEPA procedures. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

that the decision document for the plan 

include the rationale for approval; an 

explanation of how the plan 

components meet the requirements for 

sustainability, diversity, multiple use 

and timber; best available scientific 

information documentation; and 

direction for project application. 

Modified Alternative A requires that 

projects and activities must be 

consistent with the plan components, 

and provides direction for determining 

consistency. It also requires that other 

resource plans that apply to the plan 

area be consistent with the plan 

components. 

Modified Alternative A would require 

responsible officials to provide formal 

public notification at various points in 

the process and to post all notifications 

online. 

The responsible official initiating a 

plan revision or development of a new 

plan before Modified Alternative A 

went into effect would have the option 

to complete the plan revision or 

development of the new plan under the 

prior rule or conform to the 

requirements of the final rule after 

providing notice to the public. All plan 

revisions or new plans initiated after the 

effective date of the final rule would 

have to conform to the new planning 

requirements. 

Modified Alternative A includes a 

severability provision, stating if parts of 

Alternative A are separately found 

invalid in litigation, individual 

provisions of the rule could be severed 

and the other parts of the rule could 

continue to be implemented. 

Modified Alternative A provides a 

pre-decisional administrative review 

(objection) process for proposed plans, 

plan amendments, and plan revisions. 

The objection process is based on the 

objection regulations for certain 

proposed hazardous fuel reduction 

projects, found at 36 CFR part 218, and 

is intended to foster continued 

collaboration in the administrative 

review process. 

As is clear from this summary, 

Modified Alternative A includes the 

same concepts and underlying 

principles as Alternative A, and retains 

much of the same content. However, a 

number of changes to the rule text and 

organization were made based on public 

comment on the proposed rule 

(Alternative A) and the DEIS. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21168 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Many people commented that the 

proposed rule lacked clarity and was 

ambiguous in places. Others felt that the 

intent stated in the preamble of the 

proposed rule was at times not reflected 

in the actual text of the proposed rule 

itself. They were concerned that this 

ambiguity would lead to inconsistent 

implementation of the rule and that the 

intent as expressed in the preamble 

would not be realized. Modified 

Alternative A rewords the text in a 

number of places to improve clarity and 

better reflect the Department’s intent as 

stated in the preamble to the proposed 

rule. 

There are also a number of changes to 

the process and content requirements of 

Alternative A, to address certain 

concerns raised by the public, reduce 

process, and make other modifications 

in response to public comments. A 

complete description of these changes is 

provided in the Response to Comments 

section of this document. 

A detailed analysis was conducted to 

determine if there were any difference 

in programmatic effects between 

Alternative A and Modified Alternative 

A. Because Modified Alternative A was 

developed to reflect the intent of 

Alternative A, there were very few 

differences in programmatic effects 

between the two alternatives. The few 

differences in programmatic effects 

between Alternative A and Modified 

Alternative A were to plan content and 

the planning process (requirements for 

assessments, documentation, 

notification, plan components) or to the 

costs of implementation. Any 

differences in effects to resources cannot 

be determined at this programmatic 

level. However, the Department 

concludes the added clarity in Modified 

Alternative A will lead to more 

consistent implementation of the rule. 

The full text of Modified Alternative 

A can be found in Appendix I of the 

PEIS and is set out as the final rule 

below. A detailed description of 

changes to Alternative A that led to 

Modified Alternative A can be found in 

the Response to Comments section of 

this document and in Appendix O of the 

PEIS. An analysis of the effects of 

Modified Alternative A has been 

included in Chapter 3 of the PEIS. 

Alternative B (No Action) 

The ‘‘No Action’’ alternative, as stated 

by the Council on Environmental 

Quality, ‘‘may be thought of in terms of 

continuing with the present course of 

action until that action is changed’’ 

(Council on Environmental Quality, 

Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026, 18027 

(March 23, 1981)). The ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative is the 2000 planning rule, 

which, since the 2008 rule was set aside 

by court order, is the current rule (see 

74 FR 67059 (December 18, 2009)). If the 

Department chooses to take no action, 

the 2000 rule would remain in effect. 

However, the ‘‘present course of action’’ 

under the 2000 rule is not to use the 

2000 rule in its entirety but to use its 

transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.35, 

which allow use of the 1982 rule 

procedures to develop, amend, and 

revise land management plans until a 

new planning rule is in place. Since 

identifying a set of issues with the 2000 

rule provisions, as explained in the PEIS 

at Chapter 1 and in the discussion 

section of Alternative F, the Forest 

Service has been relying upon the 2000 

rule’s transition wording at § 219.35 to 

use the 1982 rule procedures to develop, 

amend, and revise land management 

plans. 

The 1982 rule, as amended, is in 

Appendix B of the PEIS. However, only 

the provisions of that rule applicable to 

the development, amendment, and 

revision of land management plans are 

available for use pursuant to 36 CFR 

219.35 of the current (2000) rule. The 

1982 rule procedures require integration 

of natural resource planning for national 

forests and grasslands, by including 

requirements for integrated management 

of timber, range, fish and wildlife, 

water, wilderness, and recreation 

resources, with resource protection 

activities such as fire management, and 

the use of other resources such as 

minerals. 

An appeal process has been used 

throughout the life of the 1982 planning 

rule. Under § 219.35 of the current 

(2000) rule, responsible officials have 

the option of using either a postdecisional appeal process or a predecisional objection process for 

challenging plan approval decisions. 

The 1982 rule procedures require 

regional foresters to be the responsible 

official for approval of new plans and 

plan revisions. 

Alternative B would continue to 

require an environmental impact 

statement for new plans and plan 

revisions. Documentation for plan 

amendments would continue to be 

determined by the significance of effects 

pursuant to Agency NEPA procedures 

and could, therefore, range from 

categorical exclusions to environmental 

impact statements. 

Rule text for this alternative is 

provided in Appendices B, C, and D of 

the PEIS, which contain planning 

provisions, transition provisions, and 

administrative review provisions 

respectively. 

Reason for non-selection: Alternative 

B is the no action alternative. The 1982 

rule procedures are not current with 

regard to science, knowledge of the 

environment, practices for planning and 

adaptive management, or social values, 

and are unduly complex, costly, 

lengthy, and cumbersome. For those 

reasons, the Agency has actively been 

trying to promulgate a new planning 

rule to replace the 1982 planning 

procedures for over a decade (see 

Introduction and Background section 

above). 

Many plans recently revised under 

the 1982 planning procedures reflect 

elements of the purpose and need such 

as emphasizing restoration, addressing 

climate change, using a coarse-filter/ 

fine-filter approach for maintaining 

species diversity, and using a 

collaborative approach to planning. 

However, the 1982 planning procedures 

do not require consideration of these 

and other important elements in 

planning that reflect current science, 

Agency expertise, and best practices in 

planning. This has resulted in 

inconsistent incorporation of the 

elements of the purpose and need in 

plans. 

Alternative B reflects an approach to 

land management planning that focused 

on producing outputs (for example, 

board feet of timber, recreation visitor 

days, and animal months of grazing) and 

mitigating the effects of management 

activities on other resources. The 

Agency recognizes and supports the 

importance, value, and legal 

responsibility of providing for multiple 

use purposes. Timber, grazing, 

recreation, and other multiple uses 

supported on NFS lands provide jobs 

and income to local communities, and 

products used by all Americans. 

However, land management planning 

today focuses on managing toward 

desired conditions, or outcomes, rather 

than focusing simply on outputs. 

Outcome-based planning shifts the 

focus from how to get something done 

to why it is done. In contemporary 

planning, outputs are services that are 

generated as projects and activities are 

carried out that lead to desired 

outcomes on the ground. Outcome 

based planning is well supported by the 

Agency’s experience in land 

management planning. This approach to 

planning is also well supported by other 

land and urban planning agencies at all 

scales—from urban planning for small 

cities to international level planning 

efforts. It is also extensively used in the 

fields of education, health care, 

economics, and others. Outcome based 

planning can and does occur under 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21169 

Alternative B. However, this approach is 

not required under this alternative. 

Alternative B does not meet several 

elements of the purpose and need. 

Alternative B does not: 

• Emphasize restoration of natural 

resources to make our NFS lands more 

resilient to climate change, protect 

water resources, and improve forest 

health. 

• Ensure all plans will be responsive 

to issues such as the challenges of 

climate change; the need for forest 

restoration and conservation, and 

watershed protection. 

• Be consistent with Federal policy 

on the use of scientific information and 

the Agency’s expertise and experience 

gained in more than 30 years of land 

management planning. 

• Ensure planning takes place in the 

context of the larger landscape by taking 

an ‘‘all-lands approach.’’ 

Alternative B has also proven costly 

to implement. The 1982 planning 

procedures require complex analysis 

processes, such as benchmark analysis, 

resulting in plan revisions that have, on 

average, taken 5 to 7 years to complete. 

In 1989, the Forest Service, with the 

assistance of the Conservation 

Foundation, conducted a 

comprehensive review of the planning 

process and published the results in a 

summary report, ‘‘Synthesis of the 

Critique of Land Management Planning’’ 

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/ 

FSE_DOCUMENTS/ 

stelprdb5127602.pdf). The Critique 

found that the planning process of the 

1982 rule was very complex, had 

significant costs, took too long, and was 

too cumbersome. 

Finally, Alternative B includes 

planning procedures that do not reflect 

current science or result in unrealistic 

or unattainable expectations because of 

circumstances outside of the Agency’s 

control, particularly for maintaining the 

diversity of plant and animal species. 

The 1982 rule at 36 CFR 219.19 requires 

that fish and wildlife habitat shall be 

managed to maintain viable populations 

of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in the planning 

area. For planning purposes, a viable 

population shall be regarded as one 

which has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals 

to insure its continued existence is well 

distributed in the planning area. In 

order to insure that viable populations 

will be maintained, habitat must be 

provided to support, at least, a 

minimum number of reproductive 

individuals and that habitat must be 

well distributed so that those 

individuals can interact with others in 

the planning area. These requirements 

do not recognize that there are 

limitations on the Agency’s authority 

and the inherent capability of the land. 

In addition, these requirements do not 

reflect the most current science. For 

example: 

(1) At times, circumstances that are 

not within the authority of the Agency 

limit the Agency’s ability to manage fish 

and wildlife habitat to insure the 

maintenance of a viable population of a 

species within the plan area, such as: 

• Forest clearing in South America— 

South American forests provide 

important wintering areas for many 

Neotropical birds that nest in North 

America. The clearing of these forests 

for agricultural purposes poses a serious 

threat to the long-term viability of the 

Cerulean warbler and the ability of 

national forests in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains to maintain 

populations of this species. 

• Hydropower facilities in the Pacific 

Northwest and off-shore fishing harvest 

practices—These facilities and practices 

are primary downstream threats to 

Chinook salmon populations whose 

spawning beds may occur on stream 

reaches within national forests in the 

Intermountain West, thus affecting the 

ability of national forests within this 

salmon’s range to maintain viable 

populations of this species on their 

respective units. 

• Land use patterns on private lands 

within and adjacent to NFS units, such 

as the continuing agricultural uses and 

urbanization that is occurring east of the 

Rocky Mountains—habitat 

fragmentation as a result of these 

changes reduces available habitat and 

further isolates existing swift fox 

populations. This affects the ability of 

national grasslands in eastern Colorado 

to maintain viable populations of this 

species. 

(2) At times, it may be beyond the 

Agency’s authority to manage habitat to 

insure the maintenance of a viable 

population of a species within the plan 

area, given that the Agency must 

comply with all applicable laws and 

regulations. An example would be when 

efforts to maintain the habitat 

conditions necessary for a viable 

population of one species would 

jeopardize an endangered or threatened 

species, in violation of the Agency’s 

statutory obligations under the ESA. 

Another example would be when 

maintaining the habitat conditions 

necessary for a viable population of one 

species would consume the resources 

available to a unit to the point of 

precluding other activities from 

occurring on the unit that are necessary 

to comply with independent statutory or 

regulatory requirements. 

(3) Examples of circumstances that are 

not consistent with the inherent 

capability of the plan area that limit the 

Agency’s ability to manage fish and 

wildlife habitat to insure the 

maintenance of a viable population of a 

species within the plan area include: 

• Where a species is inherently rare 

because its members occur at low 

numbers and are wide ranging 

individuals. For such a species the 

number of breeding individuals that 

may occur on an individual national 

forest may be too small to be considered 

a viable population. The wolverine of 

the northern Rocky Mountains is such a 

species. 

• Plan areas that lack sufficient land 

area with the ecological capacity to 

produce enough habitat to maintain a 

viable population within the plan area. 

An example is the Kisatchie National 

Forest’s inability to maintain a viable 

population of swallow-tailed kite on the 

Forest due to very limited amounts of 

land area ecologically capable of 

producing broad bottomland hardwood 

and cypress swamp habitats. 

• Water quality conditions in 

Appalachian Mountain streams that 

provide habitat for eastern brook trout 

have been altered through acid 

deposition, due to past and current acid 

rain, rendering many of them unsuitable 

for brook trout and compromising the 

ability of some Appalachian national 

forests to maintain viable populations of 

this species. 

(4) Sometimes a combination of a lack 

of authority and the inherent capability 

of the land limit the Agency’s ability to 

manage fish and wildlife habitat to 

‘‘insure [a vertebrate species’] continued 

existence is well distributed in the 

planning area,’’ for example, a federally 

listed threatened or endangered species 

may face a combination of stressors 

such that a population may no longer be 

viable and whose recovery, in most 

cases, cannot be achieved within the 

boundaries of a single unit. 

(5) An example of an approach 

included in the 1982 requirements that 

is no longer supported by the best 

available scientific information is the 

concept of management indicator 

species (MIS). The 1982 rule is largely 

reliant on the ability of selected MIS 

and their associated habitat conditions 

to adequately represent all other 

vertebrates in the plan area for assessing 

vertebrate species viability. Even though 

the process of assessing and selecting 

MIS has evolved, the ability of a species 

or species group, on its own, to 

adequately represent all associated 

species that rely on similar habitat 

conditions is now largely unsupported 

in the scientific literature. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21170 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

For these reasons Alternative B was 

not selected as the final rule. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed to meet 

the minimum requirements of NFMA, 

with additional provisions narrowly 

designed to meet the purpose and need 

for this rule-making effort. 

Provisions to meet the purpose and 

need, but not otherwise required by 

NFMA, were included in this alternative 

to ensure that plans would be 

responsive to the challenges of climate 

change, the need for forest restoration, 

and to ensure the sustainable use of NFS 

lands to support vibrant communities. 

The full text of Alternative C is 

displayed in Appendix E of the PEIS. 

Specifically, the multiple uses provision 

in this alternative at § 219.10 requires 

plan components to include guidance to 

identify and consider climate change, 

forest restoration and conservation, and 

social and economic elements of 

sustainability to support vibrant rural 

communities. Provisions were also 

added to ensure that plans would be 

developed in a collaborative manner. 

The public participation provision in 

this alternative at § 219.4 requires the 

responsible official to use a 

collaborative and participatory 

approach to land management planning. 

The same provisions for pre-decisional 

objections found in Alternative A are 

also included in this alternative. 

Unlike the other alternatives 

considered in detail, this alternative 

would not explicitly require preparation 

of an environmental impact statement 

for development of a new plan or for a 

plan revision. Instead, this alternative 

would rely on Agency NEPA 

implementing procedures at 36 CFR part 

220 to determine the level of 

environmental analysis and 

documentation. Similar to other 

alternatives considered in detail, 

documentation for plan amendments 

would be determined by the 

significance of effects pursuant to 

Agency NEPA procedures and could, 

therefore, range from categorical 

exclusions to environmental impact 

statements. 

Reason for non-selection: Alternative 

C imposes the fewest specific 

requirements for the planning process 

and plan content of all alternatives 

analyzed in detail. This alternative 

reflects the opposite end of the 

spectrum from Alternative E (the most 

prescriptive of the alternatives). Under 

Alternative C the process of plan 

development, amendment, and revision 

would be largely guided by the Forest 

Service Directives System. The result of 

having few requirements in a rule is 

greater uncertainty as to what the effects 

on plan content and the planning 

process would be and as a result, greater 

uncertainty as to potential effects to 

resources over time. 

Under Alternative C, the Agency 

would expect a range of results: The 

range might vary from an expedited 

planning process producing very 

streamlined plans on some units to a 

planning process and plans that are 

similar to those plans that have been 

recently revised using the 1982 

planning procedures on other units. 

There would be no certainty with regard 

to the inclusion of any plan components 

beyond the minimum required by this 

Alternative, and a potential lack of 

consistency across the National Forest 

System. 

A similar approach of developing a 

streamlined planning rule and relying 

on the Forest Service directives for 

details of implementation was used for 

the 2008 planning rule. The uncertainty 

of this approach generated a great deal 

of distrust by many members of the 

public who felt the full intent of 

management direction related to 

planning should be reflected in the rule. 

Alternative C does not expressly 

include an adaptive management 

framework. The Department concludes 

that the adaptive management 

framework of assessing, revising, 

amending, and monitoring provides a 

scientifically supported foundation for 

addressing uncertainty, understanding 

changes in conditions that are either the 

result of management actions or others 

factors, and keeping plans current and 

relevant. 

This is the least costly of all of the 

alternatives and that is an important 

consideration. However, there are other 

alternatives that would reduce the 

current costs of planning, have broader 

based public support, and that, in the 

Department’s view, provide for a more 

appropriate balance between 

prescriptive and non-prescriptive 

approaches to planning. 

Even though Agency costs are lower 

under Alternative C compared to other 

alternatives, the Department is 

uncertain whether plans will be 

developed, amended, or revised to the 

high standards of excellence the 

Department expects. All units would 

comply with the requirements of this 

alternative. However, there is higher 

uncertainty associated with selecting an 

alternative with few requirements as the 

final rule. The level of uncertainty 

results in a higher risk that the level of 

compliance with such important 

elements as monitoring, public 

participation, species conservation, or 

watershed protection may not lead to 

plans that meet the Department’s full 

objectives. 

For these reasons, Alternative C was 

not selected as the final rule. 

Alternative D 

The full text of Alternative D is 

displayed in Appendix F of the PEIS. 

This alternative consists of Alternative 

A with additional and substitute 

direction focused on coordination 

requirements at § 219.4, assessment 

requirements at § 219.6, sustainability 

requirements at § 219.8, species 

requirements at § 219.9, monitoring 

requirements at § 219.12, and some 

additional and alternative definitions at 

§ 219.19. 

This alternative was designed to 

evaluate additional protections for 

watersheds and an alternative approach 

to addressing the diversity of plant and 

animal communities. These approaches 

were addressed together because they 

both involve requirements for 

substantive plan content for resource 

protection, as opposed to other issues 

that are concerned with procedural 

requirements. 

Unlike Alternative A, this alternative 

requires establishment of riparian 

conservation areas and key watersheds, 

prescribes a 100-foot width for riparian 

conservation areas, and places the 

highest restoration priority on road 

removal in watersheds. Watershed 

assessments would be required to 

provide information for defining 

riparian conservation area boundaries 

and developing watershed monitoring 

programs. The alternative would require 

the identification of key watersheds to 

serve as anchor points for the 

protection, maintenance, and restoration 

of habitat for species dependent on 

aquatic habitat. It would also require 

plans to provide spatial connectivity 

among aquatic and upland habitats. 

This alternative would take a 

somewhat different approach than 

Alternative A for maintaining viable 

populations within the plan area. It 

would require an assessment prior to 

plan development or revision that 

identifies: current and historic 

ecological conditions and trends, 

including the effects of global climate 

change; ecological conditions required 

to support viable populations of native 

species and desired non-native species 

within the planning area; and current 

expected future viability of focal species 

within the planning area. It would also 

require that the unit monitoring 

program establish critical values for 

ecological conditions and focal species 

that trigger reviews of planning and 

management decisions to achieve 

compliance with the provision for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21171 

maintaining viable populations within 

the plan area. 

See Appendix F of the PEIS for 

Alternative D text in a side-by-side 

comparison with Alternative A. 

Reason for non-selection: Alternative 

D meets the purpose and need in a 

manner similar to Alternative A. 

Alternative D includes additional 

requirements for watershed and species 

protection and collaboration that 

provide among the highest levels of 

watershed and species conservation of 

all alternatives. However, Alternative D 

has the second highest planning and 

monitoring costs of all alternatives, and 

there are several requirements of 

Alternative D that would be difficult to 

implement or not appropriate across all 

NFS units. 

This alternative capitalizes on 

approaches for watershed management 

that have been demonstrated to be 

effective in some areas of the country— 

largely the Pacific Northwest. However, 

a single, prescriptive approach may not 

be effective for improving watershed 

conditions across the highly diverse 

watersheds of the NFS. 

For example, it is unlikely that the 

requirements of this Alternative that all 

plans establish watershed networks that 

can serve as anchor points for the 

protection, maintenance, and restoration 

of broad-scale processes and recovery of 

broadly distributed species and to 

maintain spatial connectivity within or 

between watersheds would be an 

effective management strategy for 

improving watershed conditions on 

certain units, for example, where the 

percentage of NFS land ownership in a 

given watershed is very low. Such 

requirements also may not be the most 

effective means of maintaining or 

restoring watershed health on these or 

other units, and attempting to meet this 

requirement may preclude other more 

effective management options. 

Alternative D includes a national 

standard for a minimum 100 foot default 

width for riparian conservation areas. 

Based on the analysis in the PEIS, a 

national standard setting a minimum 

default width applicable to all types of 

waterbodies and in all geomorphic 

settings is not consistent with the 

preponderance of scientific literature 

which largely argues for scalable 

widths, widths tailored to geomorphic 

settings or an adaptable approach 

matched to resource characteristics. The 

national standard does provide certainty 

or assurance that all riparian areas of 

100 feet or less would be fully 

incorporated within the riparian 

conservation area, even where narrower 

widths would be more appropriate 

based on geomorphic features, 

conditions, or type of water bodies. 

However, to expand the default width 

beyond 100 feet will require a ‘‘burden 

of proof’’ during the planning process 

that some units may not be willing or 

able to accomplish, which could lead to 

the width being under inclusive for 

riparian areas in the plan area. 

Alternative D requires standards to 

restore sediment regimes to within a 

natural range of variability. While an 

understanding of the natural range of 

variability in sediment regime could 

provide important context for sediment 

reduction activities, standards to restore 

sediment regimes to a natural range of 

variability might be impractical as they 

require information on historical flow 

regimes that might not be applicable to 

future conditions. Historical ranges of 

variation as standards or guidelines for 

restoration may be inappropriate in the 

face of changing hydrologic conditions 

brought about by climate change. The 

added requirements are likely not 

appropriate for all NFS units, will be 

data intensive, and might constrain or 

delay other management actions that 

could address known sediment 

problems. 

This alternative requires that road 

removal or remediation in riparian 

conservation areas and key watersheds 

be considered a top restoration priority. 

Setting one primary national restoration 

priority for all units does not take into 

account the high variability of 

conditions and stressors across NFS 

lands. Also, it does not take into 

account changing conditions. While 

road remediation in riparian areas will 

likely be the highest priority in some 

places or at some times, it might not be 

for all units and across the entire life of 

a plan. For example, it might be more 

important to shift restoration focus to 

control a new occurrence of invasive 

species before it becomes pervasive in a 

watershed, or to reduce hazardous fuels 

to reduce the risk of negative effects to 

soil and water of uncharacteristic or 

extreme wildfire events. 

Finally, Alternative D requires that, 

with limited exceptions, only 

management activities for restoration 

would be allowed in riparian areas. The 

Department understands the importance 

and supports the protection of healthy 

functioning riparian areas for water 

quality, water quantity, and aquatic and 

terrestrial habitat. The Department also 

understands the potential negative 

effects that management activities or 

uses such as dispersed or developed 

recreation, grazing, and water level 

management can have on riparian areas. 

However, the Department concludes 

that decisions regarding management 

activities in riparian areas are better 

made at the individual plan and project 

levels where the effects to the resources, 

to the users, and to communities can be 

better determined within the context of 

overall watershed restoration and the 

maintenance and restoration of the 

ecological integrity of riparian areas in 

the plan area. 

None of the individual elements of 

Alternative D is inconsistent with the 

final planning rule and they could be 

incorporated at the plan level into plan 

direction where they are determined to 

be applicable and effective for those 

units. In fact, many current plans 

already incorporate elements of this 

alternative. However, requiring 

incorporation of all elements of 

Alternative D does not provide enough 

flexibility for effective and efficient 

resource management on all units of the 

NFS. 

For these reasons Alternative D was 

not selected as the final rule. 

Alternative E 

The full text of Alternative E is 

displayed in Appendix G of the PEIS. 

This alternative consists of the proposed 

rule (Alternative A) with additional and 

substitute direction focused on 

prescriptive requirements for public 

notification at § 219.4, assessment 

requirements at § 219.6, and monitoring 

requirements at § 219.12. 

This alternative prescribes an 

extensive list of monitoring and 

assessment questions and requires plan 

monitoring programs to identify signals 

for action for each question and its 

associated indicator. 

This alternative specifies performance 

accountability for line officers’ 

management of unit monitoring and 

adds responsibility for the Chief to 

conduct periodic evaluations of unit 

monitoring programs and the regional 

monitoring strategies. 

Alternative E adds more prescriptive 

requirements for public participation in 

the planning process. To help connect 

people to the outdoors, this alternative 

also includes requirements for plans to 

provide for conservation education and 

volunteer programs. 

See Appendix G of the PEIS for 

Alternative E text in a side-by-side 

comparison with Alternative A. 

Reason for non-selection: Alternative 

E requires more evaluation of ecological 

conditions and possible scenarios 

during assessment for plan revisions 

and more monitoring of specific 

conditions and responses to restoration. 

The use of signal points could 

potentially make land managers more 

aware and responsive when monitoring 

results are outside of expected levels. 

However, the difficulty of establishing 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

statistically and temporally significant 

signal points related to restoration, 

especially where there is insufficient 

data and where conditions are changing, 

will increase the complexity of 

planning. The prescriptive nature of the 

monitoring requirements could increase 

the ability to aggregate and compare 

data between units or at higher scales 

but could also result in the costly 

collection of data that is not necessarily 

relevant to the management of particular 

individual units or ecological 

conditions. 

Requirements to identify possible 

scenarios in assessments would have 

short-term cost increases with possible 

long-term gains in efficiency. Additional 

requirements regarding coordination in 

the assessment and monitoring process 

would increase initial costs, but 

consistent coordination might also 

result in more cost-effective long-term 

planning efforts to meet viability 

objectives. However, while additional 

requirements for standardized 

collaboration methods might work well 

for some units, other units might find 

that some required steps are not relevant 

to their local public involvement needs. 

Based on the analysis in the PEIS, 

collaboration strategies tailored to a 

unit’s particular needs are often more 

effective than very prescriptive 

approaches to collaboration. 

The PEIS points out potential benefits 

of more prescriptive requirements for 

assessment, monitoring, and 

collaboration. But, the PEIS also points 

out the drawbacks, particularly in trying 

to efficiently apply a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ 

approach to such things as monitoring 

or collaboration across highly diverse 

resources conditions and communities 

associated with NFS Units. This 

Alternative also has the highest 

implementation costs of all alternatives. 

The Department does not believe that 

the potential gains in effectiveness 

warrant the increased costs. 

None of the individual elements of 

Alternative E are inconsistent with the 

final planning rule and any of them can 

be incorporated into plan direction 

where they are determined to be 

applicable and effective for those units. 

However, requiring incorporation of all 

elements of Alternative E does not 

provide enough flexibility for effective 

and efficient resource management on 

all units of the NFS. For these reasons 

Alternative E was not selected as the 

final rule. 

The Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative 

Under the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulation, the 

Department is required to identify the 

environmentally preferred alternative 

(40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted 

to mean the alternative that will 

promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in NEPA’s section 

101 and that would cause the least 

damage to the biological and physical 

components of the environment. The 

environmentally preferred alternative 

best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historic, cultural, and natural resources 

(Council on Environmental Quality, 

Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations (46 FR 18026, 18028 

(March 23, 1981)). 

The two alternatives that best meet 

these criteria are Alternative D (if it 

could be fully implemented) and 

Modified Alternative A. Alternative D 

provides the highest level of resource 

protection, particularly for water and 

riparian resources. Some requirements 

of this alternative would be difficult to 

implement across the entire NFS, add 

increased cost and complexity to the 

planning process for little benefit, and 

may not always represent the best 

approach for the resource. The 

additional funds spent on the planning 

process would not be available for other 

management activities including 

restoration and habitat improvement. 

Modified Alternative A also provides 

high levels of resource protection and 

can be effectively implemented across 

all units. It does not preclude 

incorporation of elements of Alternative 

D into plans where they are most suited 

to meet resource conditions. 

The approval of a planning rule to 

guide development, revision, and 

amendment of land management plans 

is a broad policy decision. Accordingly, 

impacts described in the PEIS reflect 

issues concerning effects over a broad 

geographic and time horizon. The depth 

and detail of impact analysis is 

necessarily broad and general because a 

planning rule is two steps removed from 

site-specific projects and activities. 

Quantitative, site-specific effects can 

only be predicted with any certainty 

when site-specific actions are proposed. 

Decision and Rationale 

Decision 

Modified Alternative A, with 

clarifications, is selected as the final 

planning rule. A few clarifications were 

made to better represent the 

Department’s intent, and do not 

substantively change Modified 

Alternative A. They include: 

(1) Changes made to § 219.7(e)(1)(iv) 

and § 219.15(d)(3) to clarify that 

compliance with both standards and 

guidelines is mandatory, with standards 

requiring strict adherence to their terms, 

while guidelines allow for flexibility so 

long as the purpose for the guideline is 

achieved. 

(2) Changes made to § 219.9(b)(1) to 

clarify that the responsible official must 

determine whether the plan components 

of paragraph (a) provide the necessary 

ecological conditions, or whether 

additional, species-specific plan 

components must be included in the 

plan. 

(3) Changes made to the definition of 

designated areas in § 219.19 to clarify 

that the examples of designated areas 

included in Modified Alternative A 

were not intended to be exclusive. 

(4) Changes throughout Subpart B to 

clarify that organizations, States and 

Tribes are among the entities that may 

object, pursuant to the other 

requirements in Subpart B. 

This decision is based on the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement—National Forest System 

Land Management Planning, USDA 

Forest Service, 2011, and its supporting 

record. This decision is not subject to 

Forest Service appeal regulations. 

Nearly 300,000 comments were 

received on the DEIS and the proposed 

rule. The Agency also consulted with 

Indian Tribes, the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. The Department has 

reviewed and considered these 

comments, the results of the 

consultations, and worked with Agency 

managers in concluding that the 

proposed rule would be improved by 

clarifying the proposed wording and 

incorporating the changes reflected in 

Modified Alternative A into the final 

rule. 

This decision does not authorize any 

projects or activities. The planning rule 

describes the process the Forest Service 

will use for development, amendment, 

and revision of land management plans 

for national forests and grasslands, and 

includes requirements for the structure 

and content of those plans. Any 

commitment of resources takes place 

only after (1) a land management plan 

is approved under the provisions of the 

final rule (including the completion of 

the appropriate NEPA process), and (2) 

the Forest Service proposes projects or 

activities, analyzes their effects in the 

appropriate NEPA process, determines 

consistency with the applicable land 

management plan, and authorizes the 

final projects or activities. 

Sometimes projects or activities may 

be authorized at the same time and in 

the same decision document when 

approving a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision. One example might be 

opening or closing trails to the use of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21173 

off-highway vehicles. In these cases, the 

part of the decision associated with the 

project or activity would represent a 

commitment of resources. 

Rationale for the Decision 

The following paragraphs outline the 

rationale for the decision, including 

how Modified Alternative A meets the 

purpose and need and addresses the 

significant issues described in the final 

PEIS. 

The Department determined Modified 

Alternative A best meets the purpose 

and need for a new planning rule. 

Modified Alternative A provides a 

process for planning that is adaptive 

and science-based, engages the public, 

and is designed to be efficient, effective, 

and within the Agency’s ability to 

implement. It is designed to ensure that 

plans provide for the sustainability of 

ecosystems and resources; meet the 

need for forest restoration and 

conservation, watershed protection, and 

species diversity and conservation; and 

assist the Agency in providing a 

sustainable flow of benefits, services, 

and uses of NFS lands that contribute to 

the economic and social sustainability 

of communities. 

The paragraphs below describe how 

Modified Alternative A meets the 

purpose and need for a new planning 

rule. Many of the requirements 

described for each element can be found 

in one or more of the alternatives 

analyzed in the PEIS. However, the 

Department concludes that the 

combination of requirements provided 

in Modified Alternative A provide the 

best approach for developing, 

amending, and revising plans. Modified 

Alternative A is clearer than Alternative 

A, better reflects the Department’s intent 

as described in the preamble for the 

proposed rule, and reflects public 

comments and suggestions for 

improving the proposed rule. Unlike 

Alternative B, it meets the purpose and 

need for a new planning rule. It is also 

more implementable and less costly 

than Alternatives D and E, and allows 

greater flexibility to develop plans that 

best meet the ecological, social, and 

economic needs of units across the very 

diverse National Forest System. The 

Department concludes that the 

combination of provisions in Modified 

Alternative A best meets the purpose 

and need for a new planning rule and 

provides assurance that the 

Department’s objectives will be met. 

For those reasons, Modified 

Alternative A provides the best balance 

among the alternatives to meet the 

purpose and need for a new planning 

rule. 

Response to Purpose and Need 

All of the alternatives analyzed in 

detail, with the exception of Alternative 

B, meet the purpose and need to varying 

degrees. No single alternative can 

maximize all of the elements of the 

purpose and need. The Department 

finds that Modified Alternative A 

provides the best planning framework 

for meeting the various elements of the 

purpose and need by creating a rule 

that: 

1. Emphasizes restoration of natural 

resources to make NFS lands more 

resilient to climate change, protect 

water resources, and improve forest 

health. The Department concludes that 

Modified Alternative A will result in 

plans that are adaptive and therefore 

more likely to remain relevant and 

implementable, including by providing 

an adaptive framework that will help 

responsible officials to respond to 

changing conditions and new 

information. 

2. Contributes to ecological, social, 

and economic sustainability by ensuring 

that all plans will be responsive to 

issues such as the challenges of climate 

change; the need for forest restoration 

and conservation, watershed protection, 

and species conservation; and the 

sustainable use of public lands to 

support vibrant communities. 

3. Is consistent with NFMA and 

MUSYA. The Department intends that 

the requirements of Modified 

Alternative A will be integrated into the 

development or revision of a plan in a 

manner that provides for the long-term 

ecological sustainability of the plan area 

while sustaining ecosystem services and 

providing for multiple uses. 

4. Is consistent with Federal policy on 

the use of scientific information and the 

Agency’s expertise and experience 

gained in more than 30 years of land 

management planning. Responsible 

officials will use the best available 

scientific information to inform the plan 

components and the monitoring 

program. The Department concludes 

that Modified Alternative A requires a 

planning process that is science-based 

and additionally recognizes the value of 

local knowledge, the Agency 

experience, knowledge, and information 

of other land managers, and indigenous 

knowledge. 

5. Provides for a transparent, 

collaborative process that allows 

effective public participation. Modified 

Alternative A includes requirements to 

engage the public, Tribes, other 

government agencies, and groups and 

communities that have been at times 

under-represented in planning, such as 

youth and minorities, throughout the 

planning process. The Department 

concludes that the collaborative 

approach required by Modified 

Alternative A will result in improved 

relationships and plans that better meet 

the needs of diverse communities, 

which in turn will translate into more 

successful projects and activities 

developed under the plans. 

6. Ensures planning takes place in the 

context of the larger landscape by taking 

an ‘‘all-lands approach.’’ Modified 

Alternative A uses an ‘‘all-lands 

approach’’ to consider conditions 

beyond the plan area and how they 

might influences resources within the 

plan area as well as how actions on the 

NFS might affect resources and 

communities outside of the plan area. It 

also requires that responsible officials 

coordinate with entities with equivalent 

and related planning efforts. 

7. Is within the Agency’s capability to 

implement on all NFS units. It is clear 

and provides an efficient framework for 

planning, and is able to be implemented 

within the financial capacity of the 

Agency. 

The Department concludes that 

Modified Alternative A provides an 

appropriate balance between the 

flexibility needed to address issues 

unique to the plan area and the need for 

consistent requirements and a 

consistent approach. Modified 

Alternative A reduces planning costs 

and the time needed for a plan revision 

from current levels. 

Response to the Issue of Ecosystem 

Restoration 

As many respondents correctly noted, 

not all NFS lands are in need of 

restoration and, in fact, NFS lands often 

provide among the highest quality 

habitat and the cleanest water of all 

lands in the country. The final rule 

provides for the maintenance of those 

lands. There is also widespread 

consensus that some NFS lands are 

degraded or are at risk of becoming 

degraded. From large scale pine beetle 

outbreaks in the Intermountain West to 

watersheds across NFS lands with 

poorly sited or maintained roads that 

cause sedimentation or block the 

movement of fish and aquatic 

organisms, there are many restoration 

needs on NFS lands. Modified 

Alternative A addresses the need for 

ecosystem maintenance and restoration. 

Modified Alternative A incorporates 

the concept of ecological integrity. This 

concept is defined in the scientific 

literature as a means of evaluating 

ecological conditions in terms of their 

sustainability. The concept of ecological 

integrity is also used by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s National 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Park Service and Bureau of Land 

Management. Aligning approaches 

across the broader landscape will 

facilitate an all-lands approach to 

ecological sustainability. 

Under Modified Alternative A, 

information relevant for ecosystem 

maintenance and restoration will be 

identified and evaluated during the 

assessment phase. Plan components are 

required for the maintenance and 

restoration of the ecological integrity of 

riparian areas and air, soil, and water 

resources. Responsible officials will 

consider opportunities to restore fire 

adapted ecosystems and for landscape 

scale restoration. The monitoring 

program will track ecological and 

watershed conditions and measure 

progress towards meeting desired 

conditions and objectives. 

Modified Alternative A captures 

many of the concepts of ‘‘best practices’’ 

in restoration that are already occurring 

on NFS lands. Examples of such best 

practice efforts include the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program established under 

section 4003(a) of Title IV of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act 

of 2009, (http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

restoration/CFLR/index.shtml), which 

promotes healthier, safer, and more 

productive public lands through 

partnership efforts, and the Four Forest 

Restoration Initiative to accomplish 

landscape scale restoration of ponderosa 

pine ecosystems in the Southwest. 

These restoration efforts bring people 

together to work across ownerships, 

restore ecosystems, increase 

organizational capacity, and in the 

process create jobs and economic 

opportunities that contribute to 

sustainable economies. Modified 

Alternative A provides a platform for 

working with the public and other land 

managers to identify restoration needs 

across the landscape and manage NFS 

lands to support meeting shared 

restoration objectives. 

Response to the Issue of Watershed 

Protection 

Watersheds and water resources on 

NFS lands are important for many 

reasons: For example, they are the 

source of drinking water for one in five 

Americans, provide important species 

habitat for terrestrial and aquatic 

species, and support recreation 

opportunities in the plan area. 

Modified Alternative A includes a 

strong set of requirements associated 

with maintaining and restoring 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, 

water resources, and riparian areas in 

the plan area. It incorporates the 

protection or mitigation requirements of 

the 1982 rule, but goes beyond the 1982 

rule in requiring a proactive approach 

for maintaining or restoring terrestrial 

and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds 

in the plan area. 

Under Modified Alternative A, 

information relevant to watersheds, 

aquatic ecosystems, and water resources 

will be identified and evaluated during 

the assessment phase. Plans will be 

required to identify priority watersheds 

for maintenance or restoration. Plan 

components are required for the 

maintenance and restoration of the 

ecological integrity of aquatic 

ecosystems and watersheds, water 

quality, and water resources in the plan 

area, including lakes, streams, wetlands, 

and sources of drinking water. 

Plan components are also required for 

the maintenance and restoration of the 

ecological integrity of riparian areas, 

including structure, function, 

composition, and connectivity; taking 

into account a number of factors; and 

plan components must establish widths 

for riparian management zones. Because 

riparian resources across NFS units are 

very diverse, Modified Alternative A 

retains the 1982 rule requirements to 

give special attention to land and 

vegetation within approximately 100 

feet of all perennial streams and lakes 

and prevent management practices that 

have serious or adverse impacts, but 

does not require a single national width 

for riparian management zones. 

Riparian areas may be forested or open, 

they are connected with all types of 

streams, lakes and wetlands, and they 

vary widely in existing condition and 

types of use. Modified Alternative A 

allows for the requirements to be 

tailored to specific conditions on the 

plan area. The set of requirements 

included in Modified Alternative A for 

riparian areas is more implementable 

and less costly than the requirements in 

Alternative D, and will lead to a more 

effective and appropriate set of plan 

components across a diverse system. 

Under Modified Alternative A, 

responsible officials must ensure that 

projects and activities in riparian areas 

are consistent with plan requirements 

for maintaining or restoring riparian 

areas, do not seriously or adversely 

affect water resources, are suitable uses, 

and are compatible with desired 

conditions for those lands. The 

consistency requirement places the 

decision about what types of projects or 

activities may or may not be allowed 

and what management direction will 

guide these activities at the plan level. 

The Department concludes that this is 

the appropriate level at which to make 

these decisions. 

NFS lands provide some of the 

highest quality water in the country and 

are important sources of drinking water, 

but there are streams that do not meet 

State water quality standards. Modified 

Alternative A requires that the Chief of 

the Forest Service establish 

requirements for best management 

practices for water quality, and that 

plans ensure implementation of those 

practices. 

The Department concludes that 

Modified Alternative A appropriately 

elevates the emphasis on the 

conservation of water and riparian 

resources, can be implemented on all 

NFS units, and is soundly supported by 

recent advances in conservation biology 

and ecology. 

Response to the Issue of Diversity of 

Plant and Animal Communities 

Perhaps no other aspect of the 

proposed planning rule has sparked as 

much interest or generated as much 

debate as the requirement to provide for 

plant and animal diversity. In 

particular, there is disagreement 

between those who believe that without 

strong, specific requirements in the rule 

for maintaining species diversity and 

viability, the persistence of many 

species will be at increased risk, and 

those who believe that putting specific 

requirements in the rule will result in 

endless litigation that will keep the 

Agency from moving forward with 

planning and with projects and 

activities. 

The Department’s intent is to provide 

for the diversity of plant and animal 

communities, and keep common native 

species common, contribute to the 

recovery of threatened and endangered 

species, conserve proposed and 

candidate species, and maintain species 

of conservation concern within the plan 

area, within Agency authority and the 

inherent capability of the land. 

Modified Alternative A requires that 

future plans be based on a 

complementary ecosystem and speciesspecific approach to provide for the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities in the plan area and the 

long-term persistence of native species 

in the plan area. This approach is often 

referred to as the coarse-filter/fine-filter 

approach. 

The ecosystem integrity and diversity 

requirements in Modified Alternative A 

are meant to provide a coarse-filter 

designed to maintain biological 

diversity. By working toward diverse, 

connected ecosystems with ecological 

integrity, the Agency expects that over 

time, management will create ecological 

conditions which support the 

abundance, distribution, and long-term 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21175 

persistence of most native species 

within a plan area, as well as provide 

for diversity of plant and animal 

communities. The fine-filter provisions 

are intended to provide a safety net for 

those species whose specific habitat 

needs or other influences on their life 

requirements may not be fully met 

under the coarse-filter provisions. 

The coarse-filter/fine-filter approach 

is a well-developed concept in the 

scientific literature and has broad 

support from the scientific community 

and many stakeholders. It incorporates 

the considerable advances of the past 

three decades in understanding of 

biological and conservation science. The 

coarse-filter/fine-filter approach is 

already incorporated into many recently 

revised plans and is yielding positive 

results. For example, restoration of 

longleaf pine in the South is resulting in 

increases in red-cockaded woodpecker 

populations, and restoration of 

watersheds and instream habitat in the 

Pacific Northwest is yielding benefits 

for salmon. 

The provisions in Modified 

Alternative A recognize the importance 

of maintaining biological diversity of 

native species on each national forest 

and grassland, and the compositional, 

structural, and functional components 

that comprise the biological diversity on 

each NFS unit, and recognize the 

importance of native species and their 

contributions to maintaining the 

ecological integrity of ecosystems. 

Considering habitat needs for nonvertebrates is not new to the Forest 

Service. Non-vertebrate species can be 

federally recognized as threatened or 

endangered. In addition, the Agency has 

developed and maintained a list of 

regional forester sensitive species 

(RFSS) for over two decades. An RFSS 

list can include any native plant or 

animal species. RFSS are those plant 

and animal species identified by a 

regional forester for which population 

viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 

significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population 

numbers or density or significant 

current or predicted downward trends 

in habitat capability that would reduce 

a species’ existing distribution. RFSS 

are thus similar to species of 

conservation concern. The conservation 

and management of many RFSS has 

been a part of many land management 

plans and projects and activities for 

decades. 

The Department intends to provide 

for the persistence of all native species 

by the use of the coarse-filter/fine-filter 

approach, within Forest Service 

authority and the inherent capability of 

the plan area. Modified Alternative A 

provides a three-fold treatment of all 

native species. 

First, Modified Alternative A requires 

coarse-filter plan components for the 

maintenance and restoration of the 

ecological integrity and diversity of 

ecosystems in the plan area. Plan 

components will support the long-term 

persistence of most native species in the 

plan area, including providing for 

species that are common or secure. 

Second, species that are federally 

recognized species under ESA 

(threatened, endangered, proposed, and 

candidate species) may not have viable 

populations on NFS lands and whose 

recovery, in most cases, cannot be 

achieved on a single NFS plan area. 

Modified Alternative A requires the 

responsible official to develop coarsefilter plan components, and fine-filter 

plan components where necessary, to 

contribute to the recovery of listed 

species and conserve proposed and 

candidate species. 

Third, Modified Alternative A 

requires the responsible official to 

develop coarse-filter plan components, 

and fine-filter plan components where 

necessary, to provide the desired 

ecological conditions necessary to 

maintain viable populations of species 

of conservation concern within the plan 

area, or to contribute to maintaining a 

viable population of a species of 

conservation concern across its range 

where it is not within the Agency’s 

authority or is beyond the inherent 

capability of the plan area to provide the 

ecological conditions to maintain a 

viable population of that species within 

the plan area. 

Species of conservation concern are 

those plant and animal species whose 

long-term persistence within the plan 

area is of known conservation concern. 

The rule requires that species of 

conservation concern must be ‘‘known 

to occur in the plan area’’ and that the 

regional forester identify the species of 

conservation concern for which ‘‘the 

best available scientific information 

indicates substantial concern about the 

species’ capability to persist over the 

long term in the plan area.’’ 

The Department has considered the 

concerns raised by many that the 

requirement for maintaining viable 

populations of species of conservation 

concern on the plan area is an 

impossible task and that attempting to 

meet this requirement will come at the 

cost of all other management of the NFS 

lands. The Department concludes that 

Modified Alternative A provides a more 

holistic, consistent, realistic, and 

effective approach to maintaining native 

fish, wildlife, and plant species on 

national forests and grasslands than 

provided under the 1982 rule, while 

meeting restoration goals and the 

mandate of multiple use. 

Modified Alternative A recognizes 

that there are limits to the Agency’s 

authority and the inherent capability of 

the land, whereas the 1982 rule required 

management prescriptions to ‘‘[p]rovide 

for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to 

maintain viable populations of [all] 

existing native vertebrate species,’’ (See 

1982 rule at § 219.27 (a)(6)) regardless of 

whether there are circumstances outside 

of the authority or the control of the 

Agency. Examples of circumstances that 

may be outside of the Agency’s 

authority or the inherent capability of 

the plan area are provided above in the 

rationale for non-selection of 

Alternative B. 

The Department concludes the 

management emphasis on species of 

conservation concern is more focused 

than the viability provisions under the 

1982 rule, which included all vertebrate 

species whether there was concern 

about their persistence in the plan area 

or not. Since these species may be wide 

ranging or may occur on multiple units, 

the regional forester, in coordination 

with the responsible official, will 

identify species of conservation 

concern. Requiring that the regional 

forester identify species of conservation 

concern will increase consistency across 

units and build efficiency into the 

Agency’s collective efforts to maintain 

the diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

The Department also considered the 

challenges the Forest Service has faced 

in monitoring management indicator 

species (MIS) under the 1982 rule. MIS 

monitoring has been the subject of much 

of the legal debate around the species 

provisions of the 1982 rule. Modified 

Alternative A does not include 

requirements to designate MIS or 

monitor their population trends. The 

concept of MIS as a surrogate for the 

status of other species is not supported 

by current science, and population 

trends are difficult and sometimes 

impossible to determine within the 

lifespan of a plan. 

In the final rule, MIS monitoring has 

been replaced with monitoring of focal 

species. The concept of focal species is 

well supported in the scientific 

literature and community. Focal species 

are not surrogates for the status of other 

species. Focal species monitoring 

provides information regarding the 

effectiveness of the plan in providing 

the ecological conditions necessary to 

maintain the diversity of plant and 

animal communities and the persistence 

of native species in the plan area. 

Modified Alternative A does not require 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21176 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

or prohibit monitoring of population 

trends of focal species. Instead, it allows 

the use of any existing or emerging 

approaches for monitoring the status of 

focal species that are supported by 

current science. Monitoring methods for 

evaluating the status of focal species 

may include measures of abundance, 

distribution, reproduction, presence/ 

absence, area occupied, survival rates, 

or others. 

The Department expects that 

monitoring key ecosystem and 

watershed conditions along with 

monitoring the status of a set of wellchosen focal species will provide timely 

information regarding the effectiveness 

of plan components related to plant and 

animal diversity. 

The requirements in Modified 

Alternative A regarding sustainability 

and diversity of plant and animal 

communities are part of the planning 

framework cycle that requires public 

participation, assessments, and 

monitoring. Additionally, provisions in 

these sections require the responsible 

official to coordinate with other land 

owners. These requirements support 

cooperation and an all-lands approach 

to ecosystem and species diversity and 

conservation. 

Under plans developed under 

Modified Alternative A, the Department 

expects NFS lands to more consistently 

provide the ecological conditions 

necessary to maintain the diversity of 

plant and animal communities and the 

persistence of native species. Over time, 

the Department expects habitat quantity 

to increase and habitat quality to 

improve for most native species across 

the NFS including aquatic and riparian 

species. The Department also expects 

ecological conditions for many federally 

listed species, species proposed, and 

candidates for listing and species of 

conservation concern to improve within 

and among plan areas because Modified 

Alternative A gives emphasis to 

maintaining and restoring ecological 

conditions needed by these species. The 

final rule provides for collaborative 

approaches to addressing the rangewide concerns of species whose range 

and long term viability is associated 

with lands beyond the plan area. 

The Department concludes that the 

combination of requirements in 

Modified Alternative A reflects a strong, 

implementable approach to providing 

for the diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the persistence of 

native species in the plan area, and is 

supported by the scientific literature 

and community. This approach meets 

the requirements of NFMA and 

MUSYA, and provides a holistic, 

consistent, realistic, and effective 

approach to providing for diversity of 

plant and animal communities on 

national forests and grasslands, while 

meeting restoration goals and the 

mandate of multiple use and sustained 

yield. 

Response to the Issue of Climate Change 

Consideration of changing conditions 

including climate in planning is not 

new to the Forest Service. The Climate 

Change Resource Center has been 

developed as a reference for Forest 

Service resource managers and decision 

makers who need information and tools 

to address climate change in planning 

and project implementation on NFS 

lands. For more than 20 years, Forest 

Service scientists have been studying 

and assessing climate change effects on 

forests and rangelands. Forest Service 

Research and Development provides 

long term research, scientific 

information, and tools that can be used 

by managers and policymakers to 

address climate change impacts to 

forests and rangelands. Climate changerelated activities are carried out within 

research stations covering the whole 

country. In 2009, the Agency issued 

guidance for climate change 

considerations to provide the Agency 

with the support needed to incorporate 

climate change into land management 

planning and project-level NEPA 

documentation. Recent plan revisions 

include consideration of climate change. 

Modified Alternative A incorporates a 

strategic framework for adaptive 

management: assess conditions on the 

ground using readily available 

information, build plan components 

recognizing that conditions may be 

changing, and monitor to determine if 

there are measurable changes related to 

climate change and other stressors on 

the plan area. 

Under Modified Alternative A, 

responsible officials will identify and 

evaluate information relevant to 

understanding ecological conditions 

and trends and to forming a baseline 

assessment of carbon stocks. Plans will 

include plan components to maintain or 

restore ecological integrity, so that 

ecosystems can resist change, are 

resilient under changing conditions, and 

are able to recover from disturbance. 

Modified Alternative A also requires 

monitoring measurable changes on the 

plan area related to climate change and 

other stressors that may be affecting the 

plan area. Taken together, the planning 

framework and these requirements will 

ensure that information related to 

climate change will be addressed in a 

consistent and strategic fashion. 

Modified Alternative A is consistent 

with and complements the Agency’s 

climate change National Roadmap and 

Performance Scorecard, the Watershed 

Condition Framework and ecological 

restoration and sustainability policies. 

The climate change roadmap directs 

national forests and grasslands to 

develop climate change vulnerability 

assessments and identifies monitoring 

strategies. Elements in the scorecard 

will help the Agency to determine 

whether assessments and monitoring are 

being developed in a way that will help 

inform decisionmaking at the unit level. 

The scorecard includes requirements 

that complement or are complemented 

by requirements in Modified Alternative 

A. The climate change roadmap and 

scorecard are available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/ 

advisor/. 

The national watershed condition 

framework (WCF) approach uses an 

annual outcome-based performance 

system to measure progress toward 

improving watershed condition on NFS 

lands. The WCF improves the way the 

Forest Service approaches watershed 

restoration by targeting the 

implementation of integrated suites of 

activities in those watersheds that have 

been identified as priorities for 

restoration. A short description of the 

framework is discussed in Chapter 3 of 

the final PEIS under watershed 

protection and a Forest Service 

publication is available at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/ 

Watershed_Condition_Framework.pdf. 

Modified Alternative A capitalizes on 

existing Agency work such as the 

baseline carbon assessments conducted 

under the Climate Change Scorecard, 

the assessment and monitoring 

conducted under the Watershed 

Condition Framework, and the 

monitoring of climate change indicators 

occurring in the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program, by ensuring 

integration of these activities into the 

land management planning process. 

In selecting Modified Alternative A, 

the Department considered the present 

capability of the Agency to address 

climate change in planning. The 

Department also considered existing 

Agency policy on climate change and 

the ways in which the different 

alternatives could be integrated 

effectively with those policies. The 

Department concludes that the 

requirements for addressing climate 

change in the final rule can be carried 

out on all NFS units. 

Response to the Issue of Multiple Uses 

Modified Alternative A embraces the 

multiple use mandate of the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act and recognizes 

the importance of multiple uses in many 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21177 

sections of the alternative. Recreation, 

timber, grazing, and other multiple uses 

provide jobs and income to local 

communities, help to maintain social 

cultures and long standing traditions, 

connect people to the land, and 

contribute to the quality of life for many 

Americans. 

The Agency has reported that 

spending by recreation visitors in areas 

within 50 miles of national forests and 

grasslands amounts to nearly $13 billion 

each year. Those dollars sustain more 

than 224,000 full and part-time jobs. 

Recreation accounts for more than half 

of all job and income effects attributable 

to Forest Service programs. Harvest of 

timber and other forest products from 

NFS lands contributed to more than 

44,000 full- and part-time jobs with 

labor income totaling more than $2 

billion in 2009. Livestock grazing on 

NFS lands contributes to an estimated 

3,695 jobs and labor income totaling 

$91.9 million per year. 

Timber harvest on NFS lands has 

declined from over 12 billion board feet 

in 1985 to approximately 2 billion board 

feet in 2009. In 1985, there were over 8 

million cattle, sheep, and other 

domestic animals grazing on NFS lands. 

In 2009, this number dropped to 

approximately 6 million. In contrast, 

recreation visits to NFS lands have 

increased over this same period. There 

are many factors that influence the 

levels of timber harvest, grazing, and 

recreation, as well as other individual 

multiple uses of the NFS. These factors 

include increasing population, changing 

cultural and social values, greater access 

to NFS lands, changing rural and global 

economies, NFS budgets, and competing 

resource concerns. It is difficult to 

predict at this programmatic level the 

extent to which a new planning rule is 

likely to affect specific multiple uses in 

the future. As a result, the Department 

considered how each of the alternatives 

in the PEIS provides a framework for 

supporting the continued delivery of 

ecosystem services and multiple uses 

from the NFS. 

Modified Alternative A considers 

ecological, economic, and social 

sustainability as equal and 

interdependent factors. Modified 

Alternative A emphasizes restoration of 

ecosystems so that they are capable of 

sustaining multiple uses over time. 

Restoration activities will produce jobs 

and income; at the same time; restored, 

functioning ecosystems can support 

species diversity while allowing 

multiple uses to continue. Under 

Modified Alternative A, timber 

production and grazing will continue to 

provide jobs, income, and ways of life 

for many Americans. Modified 

Alternative A emphasizes the 

importance of the continued delivery of 

sustainable recreation. Providing high 

quality recreation opportunities and a 

range of access to NFS lands creates jobs 

and income and connects people to the 

land. 

Under Modified Alternative A, plans 

must contribute to economic and social 

sustainability and must provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses in 

the plan area. Responsible officials will 

use an integrated resource management 

approach to provide for multiple uses 

and ecosystem services in the plan area, 

considering a full range of resources, 

uses, and benefits relevant to the unit, 

as well as stressors and other important 

factors. As part of the multiple use 

requirements, Modified Alternative A 

will require plan components for 

sustainable recreation, including 

recreation settings, opportunities, 

access, and scenic character. Modified 

Alternative A also includes 

requirements for plan components for 

timber management, consistent with the 

requirements of NFMA. 

Information relevant to multiple uses 

and their contributions to local, 

regional, and national economies, along 

with information about the benefits 

(ecosystem services) people obtain from 

the plan area, will be identified and 

evaluated in the assessment phase. 

Monitoring will track progress 

towards meeting desired conditions and 

objectives for recreation and other 

multiple uses. Broad and unit scale 

monitoring may provide information on 

resource and social concerns and 

conflicts before they result in 

insurmountable challenges. Most 

importantly, the Department concludes 

that the requirements in Modified 

Alternative A for encouraging public 

participation, working across 

boundaries, and engaging other Federal 

agencies, State, local, and Tribal 

governments, will help identify 

multiple uses in the plan area, resolve 

conflicts, and facilitate the forward 

movement of effective land management 

activities. 

The Department concludes that 

Modified Alternative A meets the 

Agency’s multiple-use and sustainedyield obligations under MUSYA and 

provides an effective framework for 

sustaining the flow of goods and 

services from NFS lands over time. 

Response to the Issue of Efficiency and 

Effectiveness 

Under Modified Alternative A, the 

Department expects that individual plan 

revisions will cost less money and 

consume less time than they do under 

the 1982 rule procedures. The 1982 rule 

procedures are considered the baseline 

for comparing changes in cost and time 

for plan revisions because, until a new 

planning rule is in place, the 1982 rule 

procedures are being used as permitted 

by the transition provision of the 2000 

rule to develop, revise, and amend all 

plans. 

According to the Agency’s regulatory 

impact analysis and cost-benefit 

analysis under Modified Alternative A, 

the Agency estimates that land 

management planning will cost an 

estimated $97.7 million per year, which 

is $6.3 million per year less than it 

currently costs to conduct planning 

under the 1982 procedures. More 

significantly, under Modified 

Alternative A, the Agency estimates that 

plan revisions will take, on average, 3 to 

4 years as compared to 5 to 7 years 

under Alternative B, and will cost, on 

average, $3 to $4 million as compared 

to $5 to $7 million. As a result of these 

savings and efficiencies, the Forest 

Service will be able to revise 

significantly more plans during the 15- 

year revision cycle, than under the 

current planning structure. 

Beyond cost and time savings, there 

are important ancillary benefits to 

increasing the efficiency of the planning 

revision process. Under shorter time 

frames it will be easier for the public to 

remain engaged throughout the revision 

process. One of the common concerns 

expressed by members of the public is 

that there is a significant amount of 

turnover in key Agency staff during the 

long timeframes required for plan 

revision under the current planning 

process. This can cause disruption and 

confusion as established relationships 

are severed and time and effort is 

needed to develop new relationships. 

The new rule’s requirements for 

increased collaboration and monitoring 

will lead to higher costs than are 

projected under Alternative B, but are 

expected to increase the effectiveness 

and relevance of land management 

plans. Increased collaboration provides 

benefits throughout the planning 

process and well into implementation. 

Analysis time may be shortened, 

administrative objections and the time 

needed to resolve them may be reduced, 

and projects developed under the 

resulting plans may be better 

understood and supported. Monitoring 

is important for adaptive management, 

and can help the Agency to test 

assumptions, track changing conditions, 

and measure management effectiveness 

over time. However, the Agency has 

long recognized that monitoring efforts 

when viewed across the Agency as a 

whole have often lacked consistency 

and, at times, credibility. The 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21178 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

monitoring requirements of Modified 

Alternative A complement broader 

Agency efforts to increase the efficiency 

and effectiveness of its inventory, 

monitoring and assessment programs, 

and make better use of the money 

currently spent on monitoring. 

While the cost of each requirement is 

included in the total cost estimate of 

Modified Alternative A, many of the 

requirements involve work that is 

already occurring and that will continue 

to occur regardless of whether this, or 

another alternative is selected as the 

final rule. Modified Alternative A was 

developed as part of an integrated 

Agency framework to manage the NFS 

lands more efficiently. Other initiatives 

and Agency priorities that will 

complement and support the 

implementation of the new land 

management planning process and 

address critical NFS resource issues 

include the Watershed Condition 

Framework, Climate Change Scorecard, 

landscape scale restoration, an all lands 

approach, and a new system for 

inventory, monitoring, and assessment 

work that addresses core resource 

information and data needs at all levels 

of the Agency. 

Modified Alternative A is neither the 

least nor the most costly of the 

alternatives the Department considered. 

Modified Alternative A reduces the 

costs and time required for plan 

development, amendment, and revision. 

However, the Department does not 

believe that selecting the least costly 

alternative should be the overriding 

criterion. Planning is an important 

investment. The requirements in 

Modified Alternative A are designed to 

lead to more effective plans, to yield 

greater efficiencies over time by 

ensuring a consistent approach to 

planning, to build on existing 

information, to facilitate adaptive 

management, and to allow the use of 

amendments and administrative 

changes to keep plans current so that 

future revisions are less costly. 

The Department recognizes that some 

of the definitions, concepts, and terms 

used in Modified Alternative A are new 

or broadly worded. This Alternative sets 

forth process and content requirements 

to guide the development, amendment, 

and revision of land management plans 

across very diverse national forests and 

grasslands and over a long period of 

time. By setting out substantive and 

procedural requirements, the rule 

establishes the decision space within 

which the planning process is to be 

carried out and within which plan 

content must fit. The Forest Service will 

develop directives (the Forest Service 

Manual and Handbook) that will 

provide additional guidance and more 

detailed interpretation to ensure 

consistent and effective implementation 

of the rule. These directives will be 

available for public review and 

comment before they are finalized. 

Plans developed, revised and amended 

under the rule will be consistent with 

the rule and the directives. 

Response to the Issue of Transparency 

and Collaboration 

Modified Alternative A supports a 

transparent and collaborative approach 

to planning. As described in the PEIS, 

best practices in public involvement 

and collaboration emphasize the 

importance of engaging a broad 

spectrum of participants. Participants 

might live close to a plan area or not. 

What matters is they care about that area 

for some reason, can contribute to an 

understanding of relevant issues, can 

help get planning or project work done, 

and can help increase organizational 

and community capacity. A plan 

revision or amendment process that 

offers a broad spectrum of participation 

opportunities is much more likely to 

produce a meaningful, shared 

understanding of the social, economic, 

or ecological factors of importance in 

the plan area. Forests and grasslands 

that already engage a broad spectrum of 

public interests early and often report 

that their proposed projects and plans 

more accurately incorporate public 

vision and interests. They further report 

that upfront public involvement builds 

more understanding of proposed 

actions, and that people typically 

respond more positively to these 

proposals. 

Under Modified Alternative A, 

responsible official will be required to 

provide meaningful opportunities for 

public participation in each phase of the 

planning framework. Modified 

Alternative A includes requirements for 

outreach, Tribal consultation, and 

coordination with other planning 

efforts. Responsible officials will 

continue to engage State and local 

governments, Tribes, private 

landowners, other Federal agencies, and 

the public at large, but additionally will 

encourage participation by youth, lowincome and minority populations, who 

have traditionally been 

underrepresented in the planning 

process. Having the forest or grassland 

supervisor as the responsible official 

provides greater opportunity for people 

to interact directly with the decision 

maker than under current rule 

procedures. Use of a pre-decisional 

review (objection) process is also 

consistent with a more collaborative 

approach. 

Modified Alternative A allows 

flexibility at the local level to determine 

the most appropriate method and scale 

of the public involvement. Much of the 

literature on building effective 

collaboration discusses the need for 

flexibility to select public involvement 

methods appropriate for the unique 

needs of specific situations and 

participants. 

Modified Alternative A is consistent 

with current practice on effective public 

engagement and incorporates 

approaches that have proven successful 

and implementable on NFS units. 

The requirements for public 

participation, notification, and 

documentation required in Modified 

Alternative A support transparency in 

planning. This alternative’s 

requirements to consider the 

accessibility of the process and of 

information, to use contemporary tools 

to engage the public and to post all 

notifications online further increase 

transparency. 

Response to the Issue of Coordination 

and Cooperation Beyond NFS 

Boundaries 

Ecological and social systems are not 

confined within NFS unit boundaries. 

Ecosystem services produced by 

national forests and grasslands affect 

and are affected by land management 

activities on adjacent private, State, 

local, and other Federal Government 

lands. 

Under Modified Alternative A, the 

responsible official will consider the 

landscape-scale context for management 

and will look across boundaries 

throughout the assessment, plan 

development/revision, and monitoring 

phases of the planning process. The 

assessment phase will provide 

information about conditions and trends 

relevant to management of the plan area 

in the context of the broader landscape. 

Responsible officials will take an alllands approach into account when 

developing plan components for 

ecological sustainability and multiple 

uses and ecosystem services. Plan and 

broader-scale monitoring, along with 

direction to engage the public and other 

land managers in each phase, will also 

support an all-lands approach. 

Responsible officials will leverage their 

resources and knowledge with those of 

other agencies to increase effectiveness 

and gain efficiency in planning and 

future implementation of their plans. 

The PEIS includes several examples 

of landscape scale planning, projects, 

and assessments that are currently using 

an all-lands approach in planning, 

assessment and monitoring. They have 

resulted from an increased recognition 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21179 

that NFS land management must be 

considered in the broader landscape and 

that only this kind of approach can 

address problems such as maintaining 

watershed conditions, conserving wideranging species, and providing for 

effective transportation and 

infrastructure on and off NFS lands. The 

Department concludes that Modified 

Alternative A incorporates these best 

practices and provides a framework for 

continuing and expanding them. 

Compliance With the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as Amended 

Beginning in September, 2010 and 

continuing through the development of 

the final rule and its accompanying final 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement (PEIS), representatives from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries (the reviewing agencies) met 

regularly with members of the Forest 

Service to discuss Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 issues related to the final 

rule. During that time, the three 

agencies worked closely together to 

identify the relevant issues and 

appropriate level of analysis associated 

with this rule and the environmental 

analysis for it. They collaborated on a 

consultation process and on the 

biological assessment (BA). The Agency 

requested consultation under section 

7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 with the reviewing 

agencies in July, 2011. Additionally, the 

Agency requested conferencing on the 

potential effects of the rule on all 

species that are proposed for Federal 

listing and currently occur on NFS 

lands, and those that are candidates for 

Federal listing that occur on or are 

suspected to occur on NFS lands. A 

summary of the consultation meetings 

between the Forest Service, NOAA 

Fisheries, and the USFWS can be found 

in Appendix E of the final PEIS. 

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS have 

each prepared a biological opinion 

pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act including a 

conservation review pursuant to section 

7(a)(l) Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2)). 

Each agency issued a biological opinion 

that adoption of the final planning rule 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the endangered or 

threatened species under its jurisdiction 

and is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify any of those species’ critical 

habitat. Each agency’s biological 

opinion also concluded that the 

planning rule would set forth a system 

for land use plans that would further the 

conservation purposes of the 

Endangered Species Act under section 

7(a)(1). 

Copies of the biological assessment, 

its addendum, and the biological 

opinions are in the project record and 

can be viewed online at: http://www.fs.

usda.gov/planningrule. 

Response to Comments 

The following is a description of 

specific comments received on the 

proposed rule, responses to comments, 

and changes made in response to 

comments. Each comment received 

consideration in the development of the 

final rule. In addition, following the 

publication of the PEIS, the Department 

received comments on the PEIS and the 

preferred alternative. These comments 

were also considered by the Department 

in the development of the final rule, and 

any changes made in response to those 

comments are described below. A 

response to comments on the draft EIS 

and the proposed rule may be found in 

the response to comments appendix of 

the EIS located online (see ADDRESSES). 

General Comments 

The Department received the 

following comments not specifically 

tied to a particular section of the 2011 

proposed rule. 

General Comments on Rulemaking 

Effort 

Comment: Use of public forums for 

rule development and meeting 

locations. A respondent was critical of 

the public forums, as the forum they 

attended was full of private sector 

representatives and not members of the 

public. Another respondent felt there 

were not enough public meetings held 

on the East Coast. A respondent felt 

after scoping, the proposed rule was 

developed ‘‘behind closed doors.’’ The 

respondent felt the meetings on the 

proposed rule were not opportunities to 

discuss specific rule wording. 

Response: The public engagement 

effort prior to development of the 

proposed rule was the most extensive, 

transparent and participatory process 

ever used to develop a proposed 

planning rule. The Department began by 

using the Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

solicit initial public input, rather than 

going out with an already developed 

proposal. This decision was made in 

recognition of the level of public 

interest in this rule-making effort, and 

in a desire to build a proposed rule 

based on public input. The Department 

received 26,000 comments on the NOI. 

Following the NOI, the Department 

hosted a science forum, 4 national 

roundtables, and 9 regional roundtables 

which reached 35 locations around the 

country, using an independent 

facilitator to run the roundtables and 

capture public feedback. 

The purpose of the public forums 

before publication of the proposed rule 

was to openly and transparently discuss 

possible content of the proposed rule. 

Participants in the meetings were 

invited to suggest specific topics and 

specific wording during the sessions. 

Materials and summaries from the 

roundtables were posted online. Many 

roundtables used video teleconferencing 

or Webcasts to provide for participation 

by members of the public unable to 

attend in person. This use of technology 

also provided opportunities for the 

public to participate from their local 

Forest Service office. The Agency also 

hosted a blog site for people to engage 

in dialogue and provide feedback, as 

well as participate remotely in the 

national roundtables. More than 3,000 

members of the public participated in 

these sessions and provided important 

feedback that the Agency used in 

developing the proposed rule. 

After the proposed rule was 

published, the Agency hosted 28 

regional public forums and one national 

public forum to answer questions and 

help the public understand what was in 

the proposed rule. These sessions were 

attended by more than 1,350 people and 

reached 72 satellite locations across the 

country. These forums were intended to 

help the public submit informed 

comments during the comment period 

for the proposed rule, but the Agency 

did not accept public comments directly 

at the forums because of the need to 

have a consistent way of accepting and 

recording comments. 

After the public comment period 

closed, the Agency used the more than 

300,000 comments received to inform 

development of this final rule. 

Comment: Proposed rule commenting 

process. A respondent felt there was no 

convenient way for the everyday person 

to provide comments on the proposed 

rule. 

Response: Multiple avenues for the 

public to submit comments on the 

proposed rule were provided, including 

submitting comments electronically via 

the respondent’s choice of two Web 

sites, or submitting comments using 

mail or fax. Information on how to 

submit comments was posted on the 

Forest Service Web site, distributed at 

public meetings, and published in the 

Federal Register notice. Additionally, 

interested parties could sign up for a 

listserv that provided updates via email. 

Comment: Lack of responses. A 

respondent felt the 26,000 comments 

received during the comment period for 

the notice of intent (NOI) to develop a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21180 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

new planning rule meant the 

Department must undertake further 

efforts to ensure the public is 

sufficiently involved in the planning 

process and further ensure that actions 

taken as a result of the rule are 

supported and understood by the 

public. 

Response: In addition to the 26,000 

comments received in response to the 

NOI, the Department engaged more than 

3,000 people around the country in 

public forums to receive input between 

the NOI and the proposed rule, and 

received more than 300,000 public 

comments during the 90-day comment 

period for the proposed rule. After 

publication of the final rule, public 

participation in planning at the unit 

level is mandated by § 219.4, which 

requires the responsible official to offer 

meaningful opportunities for public 

involvement and participation early and 

throughout the development of a land 

management plan or plan revision. The 

Agency is also exploring ways to engage 

more broadly with the public to 

implement this final rule. 

Comment: Cooperating status for 

rulemaking. Some respondents 

expressed concern that their requests for 

cooperating agency status were not 

granted by the Department. 

Response: The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

allows for cooperating agency status for 

States, local governments, and Tribes 

with jurisdiction or special expertise for 

the development of an environmental 

document. Several States or local 

governments requested cooperating 

agency status. However, a national rule 

requires a broader look beyond an 

individual State’s or local government’s 

expertise. The Agency also took a 

unique and unprecedented collaborative 

and open approach in reaching out to 

the public, governments, and Tribal 

entities in developing the rule. 

Therefore, requests for cooperating 

agency status during development of the 

planning rule were not granted. The 

Department recognizes the valuable role 

of local and State governments and 

Tribes in the planning process and 

provided multiple opportunities for 

their involvement throughout the 

country during the collaboration efforts 

for the planning rule, in addition to the 

formal public comment periods. 

Comment: Oral comments. Several 

respondents felt oral comments during 

the public forums on the proposed rule 

should have been allowed. 

Response: When applicable, the 

Administrative Procedures Act directs 

that agencies provide an opportunity for 

written comment, but allows agencies 

the discretion whether or not to allow 

oral presentation of data or views. The 

Forest Service hosted open public 

forums in Washington, DC, and across 

the country to answer questions about 

the proposed rule during the public 

comment period. The Forest Service 

held these forums to help the public 

understand the content of the proposed 

rule. The Forest Service did not, 

however, accept written formal public 

comments at the forums or provide an 

opportunity to record oral comments, 

due to the anticipated volume of public 

comments, to ensure proper 

documentation and consideration of all 

comments, and in the interest of 

efficiency and accuracy in accepting 

and reviewing comments. All comments 

on the proposed rule and DEIS had to 

be submitted in writing during the 90- 

day comment period by postal system, 

fax, or one of two Web sites. 

Comment: Personal comments. A 

respondent expressed concern that their 

scoping comments were not 

incorporated into the proposed rule. 

Response: No rule can satisfy the 

entire spectrum of opinion. The final 

rule seeks to balance different, and often 

competing, public needs and 

perspectives on planning into a process 

that is practical, workable, based on 

science, and reflective of overall public 

and Agency values and input. 

Comment: Incorrect or missing 

address for submission of comments, 

phone contact, and Web site utility. 

Some respondents expressed confusion 

on why the Department did not provide 

an email address for comments to be 

sent to. Others expressed frustration that 

the contact phone number was 

published incorrectly in the DEIS, and 

expressed a desire to submit comments 

or ask questions by phone. Some 

wanted a better sitemap on the Forest 

Service planning Web site to help 

navigation through the site. 

Response: Instead of an email address, 

the Department provided the addresses 

of two Web sites the public could 

choose from to submit comments, in 

addition to mail or fax options. Because 

of the volume of anticipated comments, 

the Department concluded that 

comments submitted via a Web site 

would be more efficient to manage than 

an electronic mail in-box, and would 

reduce costs and the risk of human 

error. In addition, comments are more 

efficiently and rapidly placed in the 

record and made available for public 

inspection when submitted via a Web 

site rather than email. 

After being made aware of the 

incorrect phone number published in 

the DEIS, the Department corrected the 

contact information immediately. The 

Administrative Procedure Act requires 

agencies to ‘‘give interested persons an 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments with 

or without opportunity for oral 

presentation’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(c)). Due to 

the anticipated volume of public 

comments, and in the interest of 

efficiency and accuracy in accepting 

and reviewing comments, the 

Department did not accept comments 

over the telephone. It is not standard 

practice to accept telephone comments. 

Opportunities to provide comment were 

amply provided through the 

respondent’s choice of two Web sites, 

mail or fax. 

The planning rule Web site does 

contain a site map link on the left-hand 

menu on the main page. The 

Department appreciates feedback on our 

Web design and seeks to continuously 

improve our Web presence. 

Comment: Verification comments 

received. Some respondents wanted to 

verify that their comments on the 

planning rule were received. 

Response: Respondents are able to 

verify that their comments were 

received by reviewing the public 

reading room for the planning rule at 

http://contentanalysisgroup.com/fsrd/. 

To ensure transparency, comments 

submitted during the comment period 

were posted to the reading room for 

public review. 

Comment: List serv. A respondent felt 

the Department should use a listserv to 

keep the public apprised of the status of 

the planning rule. 

Response: A planning rule listserv 

was announced in June 2010, and has 

been used since then to communicate 

with the public. Members of the public 

may request to be added to the planning 

rule listserv on the planning rule Web 

site, or directly at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

news/pr-listserv-subscribe.html. 

Comment: Requests for extension of 

the comment period. Some respondents 

requested an extension of the comment 

period because some members of the 

public were not able to participate in 

Agency meetings addressing the 

proposed rule. Other respondents 

requested an extension of the comment 

deadline because of the late release of a 

scientific review. Some respondents 

said that the public did not have enough 

time to comment on the science review 

before the comment period closed. 

Response: The Department went 

through extraordinary lengths to 

facilitate the ability of the public to 

understand and comment on the 

proposed rule and proposed 

environmental impact statement. In fact, 

the Administration identified this rule 

as a flagship for open government 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21181 

within the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. The Department published 

in the Federal Register a notice of intent 

to propose a new rule and prepare its 

accompanying environmental impact 

statement on December 18, 2009, and 

took public comment on that notice for 

60 days. The proposed rule was 

informed by approximately 26,000 

comments to the notice of intent, a 

science forum, regional and national 

roundtables held in 35 locations with 

over 3,000 people in attendance, 

national and regional Tribal 

roundtables, 16 Tribal consultation 

meetings, Forest Service employee 

feedback, and over 300 comments 

posted to the planning rule blog. 

Throughout that process, the Agency 

shared a clear timeline with the public, 

including our intent to publish the final 

rule by the end of 2011. 

The Department considered all the 

public input, science, and the Agency’s 

expertise to develop the proposed rule 

and draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS). The proposed rule and 

notice of availability for the DEIS were 

published in the Federal Register and 

included a 90-day comment period 

ending on May 16, 2011. A 90-day 

comment period was used because of 

the importance of the proposed 

planning rule. This was 30 days more 

than the Agency’s customary comment 

period for rulemaking and is 45 days 

more than the review and comment 

period for draft environmental impact 

statements required by National 

Environmental Policy Act regulations. 

The Department reached well beyond 

its normal practices to provide the 

public with information to assist in the 

public comment phase of this 

rulemaking. During March and April, 

2011, after the notices were published 

in the Federal Register, the Forest 

Service hosted 29 national and regional 

public forums to provide stakeholders 

with information about the proposed 

rule and respond to questions. The 

forums were attended by almost 1,350 

members of the public and reached 74 

locations across the country through 

video and teleconferencing. The 

National Forum was held within 3 

weeks of the opening of the comment 

period and a video of the forum and 

forum materials were posted on the 

planning rule Web site. The regional 

forums were also held early in the 

comment period. While the forums were 

designed to assist the public in 

understanding the proposed rule and 

foster informed comments, it was not 

necessary for any member of the public 

to attend a forum to develop and submit 

comments. The Forest Service ensured 

that the planning rule Web site 

contained background information on 

the proposed rule as well as summaries 

of the various collaboration and public 

involvement activities held during the 

preparation of the proposed rule. Also, 

the DEIS was posted on that Web site, 

as published in the Federal Register 

notification. In order to proactively 

facilitate commenting, the Forest 

Service provided multiple options for 

members of the public to submit 

comments: two Web sites, by hard copy 

mail, and by facsimile. 

In addition, the Department 

contracted with a neutral third party to 

arrange an independent review of the 

DEIS by respected and well known 

scientists outside of the Forest Service 

to ensure that the science behind the 

proposed rule and environmental 

analysis is current, relevant, accurate, 

and appropriately applied. In order to 

ensure the integrity and independence 

of the review process, the identity of the 

reviewers and the content of their 

individual analysis were kept 

confidential by the third party, until the 

review was completed. In keeping with 

our open and transparent process, the 

Agency committed to make the reviews 

in their entirety public and did so 

within 3 business days of receiving 

them. The Agency posted the reviews 

on the Internet on April 26, 2011. The 

summary of the reviews and each 

independent review can be found on the 

Internet at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ 

planningrule. Neither requesting the 

review nor sharing the result of the 

review was legally required. The Forest 

Service considered the science reviews, 

along with public comments, in 

preparing the final programmatic 

environmental impact statement (PEIS) 

and final rule. 

The Department believes the public 

had sufficient time to review these 

materials and consider them when 

commenting on the proposed planning 

rule. The Department decided not to 

extend the 90-day comment period 

because extra time had been provided 

for comments beyond the customary 

practices and an unprecedented amount 

of information and access to the Agency 

employees to assist the public in 

understanding that information was 

provided to the public via Web site and 

public meetings. 

Comment: External science review 

and Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Some respondents were concerned that 

the external science review of the DEIS 

violated the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) because they 

believed the Agency set up an advisory 

committee but did not follow the FACA 

requirements. Some respondents were 

concerned that the Agency did not 

follow the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) requirements in setting up 

a committee of scientists. 

Response: The external science 

review of the DEIS did not violate 

FACA. FACA applies when a Federal 

agency establishes, controls, or manages 

a group that provides the Agency with 

consensus advice or recommendations. 

The external science review of the DEIS 

was conducted by seven non-Federal 

scientists, each of whom separately 

conducted an independent evaluation of 

whether appropriate scientific 

information, content, and rigor had been 

considered, analyzed, and synthesized 

in the DEIS. These scientists did not 

operate as a group; they were not 

established, controlled or managed as a 

group by the Agency; and they did not 

provide the Agency with consensus 

advice or recommendations. 

Accordingly, the external science 

review was not subject to FACA’s 

requirements. 

A committee of scientists was not 

required for this rulemaking effort under 

the NFMA: a committee of scientists 

was required only for the 1979 planning 

rule, and that committee terminated 

upon promulgation of that regulation. 

The NFMA states that the Secretary 

may, from time to time, appoint similar 

committees when considering revisions 

of the regulations, but the Secretary 

need not do so (16 U.S.C. 1604(h)(1)). 

Comment: External science review 

and public comment. Some respondents 

were concerned that science review 

meetings of the external reviewers were 

not open to the public, and that the 

documents considered and produced 

were not available to the public. Some 

respondents were concerned that the 

Agency did not make the reviews public 

when the proposed rule was published 

for comment on February 14, 2011. 

Response: There were no ‘‘science 

review’’ meetings held by the external 

reviewers. The Agency did not provide 

the external reviewers with any 

documents that were not available to the 

public. Neither the public nor the 

Department knew the identities of the 

reviewers, nor was there interaction 

between Department personnel and the 

reviewers during the review phase. It 

was only after the reviews were 

completed, during the public comment 

phase, that the Department learned the 

identities of the reviewers and the 

substance of their reviews. Within 3 

business days of the Department’s 

receipt of that information, each of the 

reviews (unedited), the contractor’s 

summary of the reviews, and the 

identities of the reviewers were made 

public. The reviews were not available 

in February because the reviewers 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21182 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

received the DEIS for review at the same 

time as the rest of the public. 

Comment: External science review 

and the rule. Some respondents were 

concerned that the scientists reviewed 

the rule and not the DEIS, as appeared 

evident from their reviews. 

Response: The basic charge to the 

science reviewers was to evaluate how 

well the proposed planning rule’s draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

considered the best available science. 

The contractor gave each science 

reviewer three key questions to address, 

regarding scientific caliber, treatment of 

uncertainty, and comprehensiveness of 

the DEIS. The reviewers were not asked 

to review the proposed planning rule or 

to comment on the alternatives. 

However, the text of the proposed 

planning rule and alternatives was 

included in the appendices of the DEIS 

that was posted online and made 

available to the public as well as the 

science reviewers. Some of the 

reviewers chose to provide feedback on 

the proposed rule and alternatives, 

although they were not asked to 

comment on those parts. 

Comment: External science reviewers. 

Some respondents were concerned that 

the background of the reviewers did not 

include expertise that they felt was 

important to include, including mining, 

timber, or recreation. Some suggested 

that the reviewers were biased in their 

reviews. 

Response: The Department contracted 

with RESOLVE to administer the 

science reviews to ensure the 

independence of the reviews. RESOLVE 

is a non-partisan organization that 

serves as a neutral, third-party in policy 

decisionmaking. One of RESOLVE’s 

specialties is helping to incorporate 

technical and scientific expertise into 

policy decisions. The Agency provided 

the contractor with a draft of the DEIS 

and required it to select the reviewers 

and provide their responses to the 

Agency. 

Comment: External science review 

and CEQ documents. Some respondents 

commented that the CEQ report from 

1982 should not be used because it is 

too old. Also, some respondents 

suggested that other references used in 

the DEIS were too old to use. 

Response: The references to which the 

comment referred were the ‘‘Forty Most 

Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulations,’’ which was published in 

the Federal Register in 1981 (46 FR 

18026 (March 23, 1981)) and the April 

30, 1981 memorandum from the 

Executive Office of the President on 

scoping. Both are current and still 

relevant; see the CEQ Web site on NEPA 

guidance at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ 

nepa/regs/guidance.html. Furthermore, 

scientific literature from decades ago 

may still be relevant and even 

considered the best science that is 

available on some topics. Some classic 

literature from well known scientists 

still is used frequently (for example, 

Pickett et al. 1978) and was used in the 

DEIS. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that a concerted effort be 

made to address the issues raised by the 

science reviewers. 

Response: The planning rule team 

considered and responded to the 

comments made by the science 

reviewers, along with other comments 

submitted by the public. The issues 

raised in the reviews informed the final 

PEIS, along with the other feedback 

received during the public comment 

period. 

Comment: Some respondents were 

concerned that only the Science Review 

summary was posted online. 

Response: The Science Review report 

included a summary of the science 

review and the full and unedited 

reviews of each of the science reviewers. 

The report was prepared by RESOLVE 

and was posted on the Forest Service 

Web site without any changes or 

omissions. 

General Proposed Rule Comments 

Comment: Degree of compliance or 

restriction. Some respondents said the 

rule should provide more discretion and 

flexibility to develop a forest plan by 

reducing the use of ‘‘shalls’’ and 

‘‘musts.’’ Other respondents felt phases 

‘‘take into account’’ and ‘‘consider’’ 

should be removed and replaced with 

more prescriptive terminology as these 

terms left implementation largely to the 

discretion of the responsible official. 

Response: The wording in the final 

rule was chosen to reflect the degree of 

structure the Department decided as 

appropriate for various aspects of the 

rule. The Department’s goal in creating 

the final rule was to create an 

implementable framework for planning 

along with a structure and set of 

requirements for plan components and 

other plan content that would support 

the purpose of the final rule. In 

addition, the Department allows 

flexibility for plans to reflect the 

different unique circumstances across 

the National Forest System (NFS), 

including in response to best available 

scientific information, public input, and 

information about changing conditions 

at the unit level. The Department 

believes that the final rule strikes a good 

balance. 

The Department recognizes that there 

may be significant differences in 

circumstances across the NFS that make 

specific national standards unworkable 

or not reflective of the best available 

scientific information for a given plan 

area. The final rule balances the need 

for national consistency with the need 

for local flexibility to reflect conditions 

and information on each unit. 

Additional direction will be included in 

the Forest Service Directives System, 

and a new requirement was added to 

§ 219.2 that requires the Chief to 

establish a national oversight process for 

accountability and consistency of 

planning under this part. 

Comment: Advocacy for a particular 

outcome or regulatory wording. Some 

respondents expressed general support 

for or opposition to the proposed rule. 

Among the items respondents 

supporting the proposed rule listed are 

the following: the use of larger 

ecological regions to provide context for 

forest, grassland and prairie units; 

cooperation between the Agency and 

adjacent governmental entities in 

planning and plan revision processes; 

public participation opportunities in the 

decision making process; the approach 

on ecological sustainability, watershed 

restoration and protection, and 

recognition of ecosystem services. 

Supportive respondents also were in 

favor of the emphasis on recreational 

uses and users; the streamlining and 

simplifying of the planning process the 

use of active management techniques; 

the continued emphasis on multiple use 

purposes including economic impacts 

and benefits; the use of best available 

science; and the appropriate use of 

regulations and management strategies 

to mitigate climate change effects. Those 

respondents expressing a general 

opposition to the proposed rule felt the 

way it was written and the requirements 

it contained were vague, complex, 

unrealistic, and needed clarification. 

They felt it would invite litigation; 

would not provide adequate protection 

for wildlife and resources; or would 

limit public access, use, rights, and 

participation. Some felt the proposed 

rule was inappropriate because they felt 

it allowed for continued timber, 

livestock, mining, and special interest 

groups’ use; wasted tax dollars; would 

harm economic benefits for rural 

communities; failed to incorporate the 

multiple use mandate; failed to include 

sound science in planning and 

measurable tools for management; failed 

to incorporate and analyze Tribal 

interests and activities; allowed too 

much discretion to the responsible 

official; failed to give recreational uses 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21183 

a greater priority; or failed to address 

cumulative effects these regulations 

would cause. Additionally, they 

expressed concerns over inclusion of 

climate change requirements. Some 

respondents expressed endorsement of 

comments submitted by other 

organizations or individuals, or referred 

to attachments submitted in support of 

their comments. 

Response: The Department has 

reviewed all of these comments and 

enclosures, and appreciates the degree 

of public interest in the proposed rule. 

Where changes have been made in the 

final rule, these discussions can be 

found in the following section-bysection discussions. Responses to these 

comments and their relationship with 

the supporting final programmatic 

environmental impact statement (PEIS) 

can be found in Appendix M of the final 

PEIS. 

Comment: Preservation of the 

national forests for future generations. 

Some respondents stated a desire for the 

rule to mandate stronger standards to 

ensure wildlife and wildlife habitats are 

healthy and resilient; for greater forests 

protections, and better integration of 

environmental, economic, and/or social 

sustainability into future plans and 

future generations. Some wanted 

inclusion of guidelines for responsible/ 

sustainable recreation, more restrictions 

on mining and logging activities, and 

provisions to limit access to preserve 

land. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

the preservation of our national forests 

and grasslands is vital to meet the needs 

of present and future generations. These 

comments were reviewed and changes 

are discussed in the section-by-section 

responses below. The final rule sets the 

stage for a planning process that can be 

responsive to the desires and needs of 

present and future generations of 

Americans for the multiple uses of NFS 

lands. The final rule does not make 

choices between the multiple uses of a 

plan area. The unit plans developed 

under the final rule will provide 

guidance for future projects and 

activities. 

Comment: General action to protect 

national forests and grasslands. Some 

respondents expressed the need for the 

Forest Service to protect and not destroy 

the national forests. They expressed the 

importance of protection for wildlife, 

diverse ecosystems, riparian areas, 

priority watersheds, aquatic resources, 

clean drinking water, endangered 

species, climate change and air 

pollution, access for socioeconomic 

purposes, cultural and traditional 

resource use, and the natural beauty of 

the land. They suggested strengthening 

the wording of the proposed rule for 

forest protection, compliance, and 

consistency; inclusion of protection of 

access to land for recreation; and 

allowing natural processes to occur. 

They felt an effective planning rule will 

reflect the aspirations of diverse 

communities. 

Response: The Department has 

revised the proposed wording on 

sustainability, diversity of plant and 

animal communities, multiple uses, and 

timber requirements as well as wording 

in other sections of the final rule to 

reflect public comments and better 

ensure the needs of present and future 

generations. See discussions under the 

section-by-section response to 

comments. 

Comment: References to individual 

forests, projects, and individuals. Some 

respondents commented on issues 

important to them, but not related to 

this rulemaking effort. Examples of such 

concerns include the use of DDT, 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 

issues with rental housing, sustainable 

living, a tornado in southeast 

Tennessee, a vital wildlife crossing in 

Montana, Willamette National Forest 

timber harvest levels, and a suggested 

wolf/gorilla/elephant/chimpanzee/lion/ 

giraffe sanctuary. 

Response: These and other similar 

comments have been determined to be 

outside the scope of the development of 

a planning rule, because they discuss 

aspects unique to specific forests, 

grasslands, or municipalities. Many of 

the concerns raised would be more 

properly addressed in specific forest 

and grassland plans themselves, or in 

the subsequent decisions regarding 

projects and activities on a particular 

national forest, grassland, prairie, or 

other administrative unit, or may be 

outside the scope of NFS planning. 

Comment: Wilderness evaluation 

procedures. Several respondents felt 

‘‘sights and sound’’ should be removed 

Forest Service directives as a criterion 

for wilderness inventories. 

Response: Criteria for the evaluation 

of areas for wilderness 

recommendations are in Forest Service 

directives, which are in the process of 

being revised. There will be an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

directives before they are finalized. The 

Department encourages members of the 

public to provide comment on issues 

specific to the directives during their 

revision. 

Comment: Changes to other Forest 

Service regulations. Some respondents 

commented about which resource uses 

or activities should be supported or not 

supported by the Department on NFS 

lands. They requested requiring, 

changing, or eliminating regulations for 

specific activities. These activities 

included, but are not limited to, NEPA 

implementation, grazing, mining, 

logging, road construction and 

maintenance, special use permits, 

hunting, certain recreational activities, 

trail use conflicts, wildland fire 

suppression, fuels management, 

educational opportunities, cultural and 

historic resources, as well as protections 

for wild horses and burros. 

Response: The Department agrees the 

issues raised are important. However, 

these comments have been determined 

to be outside the scope of development 

of a planning rule. The final rule is 

intended to provide overall direction for 

how plans are developed, revised, and 

amended and for required plan 

components and other plan content. The 

final rule and alternatives found in the 

supporting final PEIS do not provide 

regulatory direction for the management 

of any specific resource, except for the 

NFMA timber requirements. Agency 

regulations for specific uses can be 

found in other sections of 36 CFR parts 

200–299, which govern management of 

the national forests, grasslands, and 

prairie. For example, part 212 regulates 

administration of the forest 

transportations system (roads and 

trails), part 222 regulates range 

management, including wild horses and 

burros, and part 223 regulates the sale 

and disposal of NFS timber. Additional 

direction may be found in individual 

plans or in project or activity decision 

documents. Those communities, groups, 

or persons interested in these important 

issues can influence plan components, 

plan monitoring programs, or 

subsequent projects or activities by 

becoming involved in unit planning 

efforts throughout the process, and by 

submitting comments on the Forest 

Service Directives System during 

opportunities for public comment. 

Comment: Funding and staffing 

levels. Some respondents suggested 

increased funding and staffing for the 

enforcement of protection and 

mitigation standards; the collection of 

fees from and licensing requirements for 

users; bonding to ensure restoration 

activities; sustainable funding for fuel 

reduction activities; and the retention or 

creation of specific Agency positions. 

Response: These comments have been 

determined to be outside the scope of 

the development of a planning rule. The 

U. S. Congress determines Agency 

funding levels under its budgetary 

process. Staffing issues are more 

properly addressed by specific forest 

and grasslands, or regional and national 

offices. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21184 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: Transparency and 

collaboration. Some respondents 

wanted the public process of land 

management planning to be kept clear 

and transparent. Others commented that 

in addition to transparency, the specific 

science being used should be shared. 

Some respondents were concerned that 

collaboration would result in too much 

input from local interests and groups. A 

respondent stated there is no clear 

definition of collaboration in the DEIS. 

Another respondent felt the public 

participation requirements will not 

result in collaboration and the Forest 

Service staff would still be doing all of 

the planning work. 

Response: The Department agrees the 

public process for land management 

planning must be clear and transparent. 

Section 219.3 of the final rule requires 

the responsible official to document 

how the best available scientific 

information was used to inform the 

assessment, plan decision, and design of 

the monitoring program. Such 

documentation must: identify what 

information was determined to be the 

best available scientific information, 

explain the basis for that determination, 

and explain how the information was 

applied to the issues considered. This 

requirement will provide transparency 

and an explanation to the public as to 

how the best available scientific 

information was used to inform how the 

responsible official arrived at important 

decisions. Section 219.14 includes 

additional requirements for the plan 

decision document to increase 

transparency and explain the rationale 

for decisionmaking. 

Section 219.4 of the final rule lists the 

minimum specific points during the 

planning process when opportunities 

for public participation will be 

provided, and includes direction to 

provide meaningful opportunities for 

public engagement and share 

information with the public in an open 

way. To meet these requirements, the 

responsible official must be proactive in 

considering who may be interested in 

the plan, those who might be affected by 

a plan or a change to a plan, and how 

to encourage various constituents and 

entities to engage, including those 

interested at the local, regional, and 

national levels. All members of the 

public will be provided opportunities to 

participate in the planning process. 

Section 219.16 provides requirements 

for public notification to ensure that 

information about the planning process 

reaches the public in a timely and 

accessible manner. 

Section 219.19 of the final rule 

includes definitions for participation 

and collaboration. Because the make-up 

and dynamics of the communities 

surrounding each planning area differ, 

and because the level of interest in 

decisionmaking may vary, the final rule 

provides the responsible official with 

the flexibility to select the public 

participation methods that best fit 

specific planning needs. 

Land management planning for NFS 

lands falls under Forest Service 

authority and is a responsibility of the 

Agency. As such, Agency employees are 

responsible for the preparation of the 

actual planning documents. Section 

219.5(b) states that interdisciplinary 

teams will be established to prepare 

assessments; new plans, plan 

amendments, plan revisions, and unit 

monitoring programs. However, under 

§ 219.4, the public will have numerous 

opportunities to participate in the 

process and contribute to the content of 

those documents. 

Comment: Tribal activities. Some 

respondents felt the rule should support 

Tribal activities on NFS land because of 

important Tribal historical, cultural, 

sacred areas located there; should 

facilitate the Tribes’ exercise of treaty 

hunting, fishing and gathering rights; 

and should require partnering with 

Tribal entities in the planning process. 

Response: The final rule recognizes 

and does not change the unique 

government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and Indian 

Tribes. The final rule recognizes and 

does not modify prior existing Tribal 

rights, including those involving 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

protecting cultural and spiritual sites. 

The rule requires the Agency to work 

with federally recognized Indian Tribes, 

government-to-government, as provided 

in treaties and laws, and consistent with 

Executive orders when developing, 

amending, or revising plans. The final 

rule encourages Tribal participation in 

NFS planning. Further, the rule 

recognizes the responsibility of Forest 

Service officials to consult early with 

Tribal governments and to work 

cooperatively with them where 

planning issues affect Tribal interests. 

Nothing in the final rule should be 

construed as eliminating public input or 

Tribal consultation requirements for 

future projects. The final rule requires 

consideration of cultural and historic 

resources, ecosystem services including 

cultural services, areas of Tribal 

importance, and habitat conditions 

needed for public uses such as hunting, 

fishing and subsistence, in addition to 

input from Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations. 

Comment: Compliance with Federal 

laws and regulations. Some respondents 

raised concerns over compliance with 

Federal laws governing the management 

of the national forests. Some examples 

cited include the National Heritage 

Preservation Act, the Organic Act, the 

General Mining Act of 1872, the 

Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA), the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA), and the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act (TTRA). Some were 

concerned with the influence of court 

decisions on the scope of the rule. 

Response: All alternatives in the final 

PEIS are faithful to and require 

compliance with all laws governing the 

Forest Service, including ANILCA, 

TTRA, and the other laws identified by 

respondents. This is reaffirmed in the 

final rule, § 219.1(f), which states that 

plans must comply with all applicable 

laws and regulations—some, but not all, 

of which are mentioned as examples. 

The Secretary has clear authority to 

promulgate the final rule, and the final 

rule does not conflict with existing law 

and policy. The foundation for any 

exercise of power by the Federal 

Government is the U.S. Constitution. 

The Constitutional provision that 

provides authority for management of 

public lands is the Property Clause 

(Article IV, Section 3). The Property 

Clause states that Congress has the 

power to dispose of and make all 

needful rules and regulations respecting 

land or other property belonging to the 

United States. Using this authority, 

Congress entrusted the Secretary of 

Agriculture with broad powers to 

protect and administer the National 

Forest System by passing laws, such as 

the Organic Administration Act of 1897 

(the Organic Act), the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), 

and the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (NFMA). 

The duties that Congress assigned to 

the Secretary include regulating the 

occupancy and use of National Forest 

System lands and preserving the forests 

from destruction (16 U.S.C. 551). 

Through the MUSYA, Congress directed 

the Secretary to administer the National 

Forest System for multiple use and 

sustained yield of renewable resources 

without impairment of the productivity 

of the land (16 U.S.C. 528–531), thus 

establishing multiple-use as the 

foundation for management of national 

forests and grasslands. The statute 

defines ‘‘multiple use’’ broadly, calling 

for management of the various uses in 

the combination that will best meet the 

needs of the American people (16 U.S.C. 

531). Under this framework, courts have 

recognized that the MUSYA does not 

envision that every acre of National 

Forest System land be managed for 

every multiple use, and does envision 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21185 

some lands being used for less than all 

of the resources. As a consequence, the 

Agency has wide discretion to weigh 

and decide the proper uses within any 

area. (Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d, 

1209, 1267–1268 (10th Cir. 2011); 

Perkins v. Bergland, 608 F.2d 803, 806– 

807 (9th Cir. 1979); and City & Cnty. of 

Denver v. Bergland, 695 F.2d 465, 476 

(10th Cir. 1982)). In passing the 

MUSYA, which directs the Forest 

Service to administer the national 

forests for ‘‘sustained yield of the 

several products and services obtained 

therefrom.’’ Congress also affirmed the 

application of sustainability to the broad 

range of resources the Forest Service 

manages, and did so without limiting 

the Agency’s broad discretion in 

determining the appropriate resource 

emphasis and mix of uses. 

The NFMA reaffirmed multiple use 

and sustained yield as the guiding 

principles for land management 

planning of National Forest System 

lands (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1604). Together 

with other applicable laws, the NFMA 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to promulgate regulations governing the 

administration and management of the 

National Forest Transportation System 

(16 U.S.C. 1608) and other such 

regulations as the Secretary determines 

necessary and desirable to carry out the 

provisions of the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 

1613). These laws complement the 

longstanding authority of the Secretary 

to regulate the occupancy and use of the 

National Forest System (16 U.S.C. 551). 

Forest Service regulations governing 

subsistence management regulations for 

public lands in Alaska under the 

ANILCA are found at 36 CFR part 242, 

and changes to those regulations are 

outside the scope of the development of 

a planning rule. 

Some of the Agency’s past decisions 

have been challenged in court, leading 

to judicial decisions interpreting the 

extent of Forest Service discretion, or 

judgment, in managing National Forest 

System lands. Courts have routinely 

held that the Forest Service has wide 

discretion in deciding the proper mix of 

uses within any area of National Forest 

System lands. In the words of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, the Agency’s 

authority pursuant to the MUSYA 

‘‘breathes discretion at every pore.’’ 

(Perkins v. Bergland, 608 F.2d 803, 806 

(9th Cir. 1979)). 

Comment: Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) compliance. A respondent 

questioned whether this rulemaking is 

in compliance with the RFA and the 

rule’s capacity to respond to the needs 

of small governments. 

Response: The rule has been 

considered in light of the RFA, as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1986 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as 

documented in the ‘‘Forest Service 

Planning—Proposed Rule: 

Opportunities for Small Entities Report’’ 

(09/22/2010). The Department has 

determined that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities as defined by the RFA. 

Therefore, a full regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. The 

Department recognizes a large number 

of small businesses use, extract, or 

otherwise benefit from access to forest 

resources. The background information 

provided in the ‘‘affected environment’’ 

in the ‘‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’’ 

section of Chapter 3 in the PEIS 

describes contributions of NFS lands to 

small rural and wildland dependent 

communities, including contributions to 

jobs and income. 

The rule imposes no requirements on 

small or large entities, nor does it 

impose requirements or costs on 

specific types of industries or 

communities. Rather, the proposed rule 

sets out a planning process that is 

designed to provide more opportunities 

for all affected parties to collaborate in 

all phases of planning. These 

opportunities will increase capacity to 

consider the needs and desires of small 

entities and reduce the potential for 

adverse economic impacts. For example, 

under the final rule, requirements for 

considering ecosystem sustainability 

and contributing to social and economic 

sustainability should facilitate 

restoration activities and help sustain 

economic opportunities linked to local 

or rural communities. Further 

discussion of compliance with RFA is 

found in this document under the 

heading Proper consideration of small 

entities. 

Comment: Cooperation beyond NFS 

boundaries. Some respondents were 

concerned that the ‘‘all lands’’ approach 

is not within the Forest Service’s 

authority. 

Response: The final rule provides the 

framework for the development, 

amendment, or revision of land 

management plans for national forests, 

grasslands, prairies, or other 

administrative units of the NFS. It does 

not provide the Forest Service with 

authority to make management 

decisions for lands that are not NFS 

lands or activities that are not occurring 

on NFS units. The Department 

recognizes that conditions, resources 

and the management of NFS lands can 

influence, or be influenced by, the 

ecological, social and economic 

conditions and management of non-NFS 

lands. In recognition of this interaction, 

the final rule requires the responsible 

official to look beyond the unit 

boundary and develop an understanding 

of management issues on the plan area 

within the context of the broader 

landscape, and coordinate with and 

encourage participation of other 

relevant land or resource managers. 

These requirements are found in § 219.4 

(public participation), § 219.6 

(assessment), § 219.8 (sustainability), 

§ 219.9 (diversity), and § 219.10 

(multiple use) of the final rule. 

Specific requirements that were 

brought up by respondents, such as 

consultation or coordination with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 

species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 or with State Air 

Quality Boards for air quality 

management under the Air Quality Act, 

are addressed elsewhere in Agency 

regulation and policy. The final rule 

does not include or reiterate existing 

direction provided elsewhere. 

Comment: Public input on subsequent 

planning directives. Some respondents 

felt the development of the planning 

directives should be open to public 

comment. 

Response: It is the intent of the 

Department that the Agency continue to 

move forward with the open and 

collaborative approach taken to 

developing the proposed and final rules. 

The Agency will provide a public 

comment period for the planning 

directives. 

Efficiency and Effectiveness Comments 

on the Proposed Rule 

Comment: Process. A respondent said 

there are too many mandates in the rule 

for the responsible official to follow, 

thus making the proposed rule 

burdensome and difficult to implement. 

Another respondent felt the amount of 

process requirements and paperwork in 

the proposed rule would slow down the 

planning process. 

Response: The final rule uses an 

adaptive management framework that 

will facilitate an efficient and 

implementable planning process. 

Overall, there are fewer procedural 

requirements in this final rule than were 

required by the 1982 planning 

procedures, and the Agency expects that 

individual plans will take less time and 

cost less money to complete. There are 

a number of analysis and procedural 

requirements under the 1982 Planning 

Rule that will no longer be required 

under the final rule, which will save 

considerable time, effort, and money. 

The 1982 planning rule places a great 

deal of emphasis on using economic 

analyses to find the solution to planning 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21186 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

problems and challenges. However, the 

final rule emphasizes public 

participation and science. Examples of 

requirements from the 1982 rule not 

included in the final are: planning 

criteria, required benchmark 

alternatives as part of the analysis of the 

management situation, the projections 

of demand using both price and nonprice information, alternative criteria 

including Resources Planning Act 

Program alternative, present net value 

analysis, comparison of final plan to 

maximizing present net value 

alternative, identification of the 

management intensity for timber 

production for each category of land 

which results in the largest excess of 

discounted benefits less discounted 

costs, vegetation management practices 

chosen for each vegetation type and 

circumstances, and projections of 

changes in practices for at least four 

decades. 

The framework will facilitate more 

collaboration with the public and an 

efficient amendment process. The rule 

allows administrative changes to plan 

content other than plan components to 

help the responsible official adapt to 

changing conditions, while requiring 

the responsible official to notify the 

public. 

Comment: Significance of the rule. 

Some respondents felt that the Forest 

Service fails to address the rule as 

‘‘significant’’ under E.O. 12866; 

Response: The proposed rule was 

designated as significant by the Office of 

Management and Budget and, therefore 

subject to the Office of Management and 

Budget review. The Agency reviewed 

this proposed rule under the 

Department procedures and Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866 issued September 30, 

1993, as amended by E.O. 13563 on 

Regulatory Planning and Review (76 FR 

3821 (Jan. 21, 2011)). The Agency 

prepared two Cost Benefit Analysis 

reports (Jan. 25, 2011 for the proposed 

rule, Nov. 17, 2011 for the final rule). 

The reports discuss the regulatory 

impact analysis requirements associated 

with E.O. 12866 and 13563 and OMB 

circulars. In comparison to the ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative, which would 

continue to use the 1982 procedures 

currently allowed under the transition 

provisions of the 2000 rule, the final 

rule is not considered an economically 

significant rule. 

Comment: Cost-benefit analysis. Some 

respondents felt that the Forest Service 

did not account for a sufficient range of 

costs and benefits, including the costs, 

benefits, and economic impacts 

resulting from implementation of 

revised or new plans. 

Response: The analysis in the 

‘‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’’ section 

of the DEIS and final PEIS focused 

primarily on evaluations of 

programmatic planning efficiency. 

Additional details about the potential 

for specific planning costs and cost 

effectiveness to change under the final 

rule is provided in the final PEIS and 

Appendix A of the Cost Benefit Analysis 

Report (Nov. 17, 2011) for the final rule. 

Although overall planning costs for the 

Agency under the new rule are not 

projected to be substantially different 

from the 1982 rule, the projected cost 

per plan is expected to be lower than 

under the 1982 rule, the time it takes to 

revise a plan is projected to be shorter, 

and it is expected that more plans will 

be revised in a 15-year period. In 

addition, it is anticipated that units will 

have greater capacity to maintain the 

currency and reliability of plans to meet 

the objectives of the MUSYA, the 

NFMA, and the planning rule 

(§ 219.1(b)/(c)), thereby improving the 

quality of plans and therefore the 

efficiency of the planning process. 

Comment: Economic impacts such as 

minerals. Some respondents felt that the 

Forest Service failed to assess economic 

impacts that reflect renewable and nonrenewable resource sectors (for example, 

minerals) as well as other sector-specific 

impacts. 

Response: Economic impacts in terms 

of numbers of jobs and labor income 

supported by NFS lands, by program, 

are provided for 2009 in Appendix M of 

the final PEIS, accounting for direct, 

indirect, and induced effects. Though 

economic impacts are not estimated, 

Appendix C in the Cost Benefit Analysis 

report for the final rule (2011) provides 

a limited qualitative discussion of 

potential indirect effects related to 

timber, rangeland, and recreation 

opportunities under baseline 

conditions. Jobs and income for 

minerals activity have been included in 

baseline impact analysis, recognizing 

that minerals management is 

administered jointly between the 

Department of the Interior and the 

Forest Service. Impacts of the final rule 

to jobs within specific industry sectors 

as compared to the other alternatives in 

the PEIS have not been evaluated as 

these impacts cannot be determined in 

the absence of on-the-ground project 

activity at the unit level. 

Comment: Economic benefits of 

monitoring and ecosystem services. 

Some respondents felt that the Forest 

Service should identify benefits from 

comprehensive monitoring and 

provision of ecosystem services. 

Response: The programmatic benefits 

of planning tasks or requirements such 

as comprehensive monitoring 

(§ 219.12(b)), development of plans to 

sustain multiple uses (§§ 219.1(b) and 

219.10), and accounting for ecosystem 

services when guiding unit 

contributions to sustainability 

(§ 219.8(b)) are accounted for in the 

discussion of contributions to overall 

planning efficiency in the ‘‘Efficiency’’ 

section of Chapter 3 of the final PEIS as 

well as the ‘‘Cost Benefit Analysis’’ for 

the final rule (2011). 

As identified by the definition of 

ecosystem services in § 219.19 of the 

final rule, benefits from provision of 

ecosystem services are from 

provisioning services (for example, 

timber, forage, clean water, and so 

forth), regulating services (for example, 

water filtration, soil stabilization, 

carbon storage, and so forth), supporting 

services (for example, nutrient cycling, 

pollination and so forth), and cultural 

services (for example, spiritual, heritage, 

recreational experience, and so forth). 

As noted in the Cost Benefit Analysis 

for the final rule in the ‘‘Efficiency and 

Effectiveness Impacts’’ section, the 

programmatic benefits of 

comprehensive monitoring include 

improved capacity to gather information 

and reduce uncertainty for a number of 

integrated and broader-scale conditions, 

trends, drivers, and stressors—including 

capacity to detect effects of management 

within unit boundaries as well as 

stressors beyond unit boundaries that 

affect (or are affected by) unit conditions 

and action. Emphasis on coordination 

between unit and broader-scale 

monitoring is expected to help reduce 

redundancy and ensure information is 

complementary and consistent. 

Comment: Collaboration costs. Some 

respondents felt that the Forest Service 

did not properly identify that 

collaboration is not always efficient or 

cost-effective, may not result in 

planning efficiency, and that its use 

should be based on risk assessments. 

Response: Collaboration and public 

participation costs are projected to 

increase from approximately $1 million 

annually under the 1982 rule 

provisions, to $11 million annually 

under this final rule. This increase 

reflects the requirements in the final 

rule for public participation 

opportunities at various stages of 

planning. The final rule also states that 

outreach and collaborative processes 

should be used where feasible and 

appropriate (§ 219.4(a)). The Department 

recognizes that gains in effectiveness 

and planning efficiency from 

collaboration may vary across units and 

be reflective of existing collaborative 

capacity. The Agency realizes 

collaboration cannot guarantee a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21187 

successful planning process; however, 

the Department and the Agency believe 

that the increased investment in public 

participation will likely result in a more 

effective and ultimately more efficient 

planning process, by building support 

early in the process. Details on 

assumptions relevant to the 

consideration of the costs of 

collaboration can be found in the final 

PEIS section on Efficiency in Chapter 3. 

Comment: Cost of collaboration, 

diversity, and litigation. Some 

respondents felt that the Forest Service 

omitted costs associated with 

amendments, litigation, involvement by 

non-Federal participants, and 

requirements related to viability and 

diversity so that these are not accurately 

reflected or underestimated. Some 

respondents also felt that the Forest 

Service projections about planning 

efficiency and cost effectiveness gains 

are incorrect, particularly when 

considering viability requirements, 

litigation, and use of collaborative 

processes. 

Response: As noted in § 219.13 of the 

final rule, the requirements for 

amendments are simpler than 

requirements for plan development or 

revision. The final rule allows 

amendments to be proposed without 

completing an assessment. As a 

consequence, the amount of resources 

associated with amendments is 

expected to be substantially less than 

that required for plan development or 

revision in many cases. Amendments 

allow for plans to be changed more 

quickly to respond to changing 

conditions on the ground than plan 

revisions. 

The Department expects that the 

adoption of new approaches under the 

final rule for addressing species 

viability and diversity within plan 

components, while recognizing local 

land and unit capabilities and limits, 

will increase the feasibility as well as 

the effectiveness of responding to 

species and ecosystem diversity, 

sustainability and recovery needs. 

Further it is expected the final rule will 

increase overall planning efficiency for 

both plan management planning and 

project-level analysis. 

Estimates of the Agency’s costs do not 

account for litigation costs. The costs of 

litigation are not included in the 

estimates of annual average Agency 

costs in the ‘‘Efficiency and 

Effectiveness’’ section in Chapter 3 of 

the final PEIS. The sources of 

information used to estimate planning 

costs, including past cost benefit 

analyses completed for previous 

planning rules, did not include 

litigation costs. Much of the litigation 

related to planning occurs at the project 

level, and it is difficult to separate out 

litigation costs for land management 

planning from other Agency expenses. 

Though litigation costs are not included 

in the efficiency analysis, it is expected 

that the pre-decisional objection process 

contained in subpart B of the final rule 

and the investments in public 

participation will lower litigation costs 

compared to the former post-decisional 

appeal process and fewer opportunities 

for public input under the 1982 rule 

procedures. 

Comment: Efficiency analysis during 

plan revision. Some respondents felt it 

important that shifts in resources in the 

planning process should not adversely 

affect or preclude analysis of impacts 

and effects. They further emphasized 

that analysis of effects including 

efficiency analysis are still needed to 

evaluate plan alternatives. Some 

respondents felt the rule should outline 

a planning process that reduces costs of 

planning and should require that plan 

alternatives be economically efficient. A 

respondent suggested that the Agency 

keep the goal of ‘‘maximizing net public 

benefits’’ from the 1982 planning 

procedures because the respondent 

believes that goal is necessary to insure 

consideration of economic and 

environmental aspects of renewable 

resource management. The respondent 

suggested the planning rule require 

evaluation of economic efficiency by a 

full accounting of all costs and benefits 

(especially non-market) using dollars 

and present net value. 

Response: The Department believes 

that the framework for adaptive 

management provided in the final rule 

is efficient, effective, and will reduce 

the cost and time needed for 

development, revision, and amendment 

of individual plans. The final rule 

provides direction that the planning 

process and plan components and other 

plan content should be within the 

Agency’s authority and the fiscal 

capability of the unit (§ 219.1(g)). 

Analyses will focus on outcomes and 

analysis of impacts and effects. 

Analyses will in no way be eliminated 

or discouraged during the planning 

process under this new rule. Under the 

NEPA process during plan revisions and 

plan amendments, responsible officials 

will evaluate potential tradeoffs among 

alternatives as they relate to ecological, 

social, and economic sustainability and 

environmental effects. 

The Department has chosen to 

emphasize a rule that supports 

ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability as the primary goal for 

management of NFS lands. The final 

rule does not include requirements to 

demonstrate that plans will maximize 

net public benefits or require valuation 

of economic efficiency or require 

present net value analysis as the 1982 

rule did. The Department believes the 

focus should be on collaboration, 

science, and sustainability, rather than 

the extensive analysis that was done 

under the 1982 rule procedures. The 

Department decided the purpose and 

applicability of the final rule (§ 219.1) is 

to produce plans under which the 

Forest Service will manage NFS lands to 

sustain multiple uses in perpetuity 

while maintaining long-term health and 

productivity of the land. Plans are 

intended to guide management of NFS 

lands so they are ecologically 

sustainable and contribute to social and 

economic sustainability while providing 

people and communities with a range of 

benefits, consistent with MUSYA and 

NFMA. Under the final rule, responsible 

officials have the discretion to decide 

what analysis is useful to inform the 

public about the effects of plans, plan 

amendments, and plan revisions. 

Comment: Diverting of funds from 

projects. Some respondents felt that the 

rule must weigh the resources devoted 

to planning against the need to provide 

a foundation for management. In other 

words, excessive planning costs divert 

funds away from land management and 

projects. 

Response: Overall, the cost and time 

of completing an individual plan, 

revision, or amendment is expected to 

be less than that needed using the 1982 

rule procedures. Under the final rule the 

Department: (1) Applies flexibility 

within a clearly defined national-level 

framework, and (2) requires plans to be 

developed in a more cooperative context 

with both community and scientific 

involvement, thereby building 

stakeholder trust. In addition, as 

compared to the 1982 rule, the final rule 

changes the planning process and 

reallocates resources to improve the 

currency, reliability, and legitimacy of 

plans. This attention to building support 

early and throughout the process is 

intended to improve the effectiveness of 

plans and the Agency’s ability to 

implement projects developed under 

plans. 

Comment: Non-market values. Some 

respondents felt that the rule should 

require the need to determine nonmarket values to comply with NFMA 

requirements to consider economic 

aspects of various systems of renewable 

resources. 

Response: The NFMA requires a 

planning rule to insure consideration of 

the economic and environmental 

aspects of the various systems of 

renewable resource management (16 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21188 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)A). The rule requires 

consideration of economic aspects in 

the requirements for an assessment and 

when developing plan components. 

However, the NFMA does not require 

the responsible official to determine 

non-market values or to quantify nonmarket benefits. Because of the difficult 

nature of quantifying and valuing nonmarket goods and services, the 

Department has decided not to require 

those calculations as a part of planning 

under the final rule. The rule requires 

plan components to contribute to 

economic sustainability, which includes 

consideration of market and non-market 

benefits. Additionally, in a number of 

sections, the rule requires consideration 

of ecosystem services and multiple uses, 

including provisioning, regulating, and 

cultural services, all of which involve 

numerous non-market goods and 

services (for example, Assessment— 

§ 219.6(b); Social and economical 

sustainability—§ 219.8(b); and Multiple 

use—§ 219.10(a)). These requirements, 

in combination with public 

participation early and throughout the 

planning process (§ 219.4), are expected 

to improve Agency capacity to 

acknowledge the relative values of both 

market and non-market goods and 

services. Under NEPA requirements, the 

responsible official will carry out effects 

analyses for significant issues and the 

environmental documents will discuss 

the comparative benefits and tradeoffs 

associated with non-market ecosystem 

services. 

Comment: Pilot testing. One 

respondent noted that the rule should 

be pilot tested on a sample of units. 

Response: The Agency intends on 

phasing in the implementation of the 

new rule by starting several plan 

revisions in 2012. This initial phase of 

implementation will provide 

opportunities for the Agency to adapt to 

and refine directives and technical 

advice for planning under the new rule. 

Units selected for the initial phase of 

implementation of the final rule 

represent a broad spectrum of 

conditions and are geographically 

representative. The final rule is 

intended to provide a flexible planning 

framework that allows for continuous 

learning and improvement in 

implementation. 

Comment: Budget shortfalls. Some 

respondents felt that the rule should 

contain guidance for planning in the 

event of budget shortfalls. 

Response: Uncertainties at all levels 

of decisionmaking, due to changing 

conditions outside the Agency’s control 

as well as budget allocations, will affect 

implementation. These uncertainties 

also influence anticipated outcomes of 

the rule (see Chapter 3 of the final PEIS, 

‘‘Staged Decisionmaking and 

Environmental Analysis’’). It is not 

appropriate to give guidance about what 

planning activities may be reduced in 

the event of budget shortfalls in the 

national planning rule, since budgets, 

staffing, program emphasis, and 

planning needs differ among the units. 

However, the final rule does provide 

direction that the planning process and 

plan components and other plan content 

should be within the Agency’s authority 

and the fiscal capability of the unit 

(§ 219.1(g)). 

Comment: Budget expectations. Some 

respondents felt that the rule should 

require estimates of budget expectations 

in analysis of efficiency and 

effectiveness, and plan alternatives. 

Response: The final rule recognizes 

potential financial constraints by 

requiring the responsible official to 

ensure that the planning process, plan 

components, and other plan content be 

within the fiscal capability of the unit 

(§ 219.1(g)). In the context of developing 

alternative plan components, 

§ 219.7(e)(1)(ii) of the rule states that 

‘‘Objectives should be based on 

reasonably foreseeable budgets.’’ Also 

the final rule sets out the requirements 

for developing plan monitoring program 

within the financial and technical 

capabilities of the Agency 

(§ 219.12(a)(4)(ii)). The effects of plan 

alternatives such as budgetary effects 

will be disclosed when preparing an 

environmental impact statement for 

each new plan or plan revision. 

Comment: Secured appropriations. 

Some respondents felt that a lack of 

secured appropriations for planning 

rendered the rule ineffective. Some 

respondents felt that future budgets are 

unlikely to provide full funding for 

planning. 

Response: If severe reductions or 

elimination of funding for land 

management planning were to occur, it 

would delay or reduce the Agency’s 

ability to amend and revise plans. It is 

important to note that the estimated 

costs for the new rule (Table 6 in the 

final PEIS) are within the historic range 

of aggregate planning, inventory, and 

monitoring annual budgets (1995–2010). 

Comment: Economic analysis for plan 

revisions. Some respondents felt that the 

rule should require the NEPA analysis 

for the plan to include a fiscal analysis 

of each alternative’s implementation 

and mitigation costs and require that the 

cost of inspections, enforcement, and 

monitoring be included in the plan 

NEPA analysis. Several respondents felt 

that the planning rule should include a 

requirement for explicit disclosure of a 

variety of costs and benefits of Agency 

actions to more accurately compare plan 

alternatives and plan components. Some 

respondents felt that the planning rule 

must require the estimates of present net 

value (PNV) for plan alternatives and 

projects and include all costs and 

benefits. Some respondents felt that the 

planning rule must require that the 

dollar cost of impacts on non-timber 

industries be estimated and included in 

estimates of PNV. 

Response: Section 219.5(a)(2)(i) of the 

final rule states that a new plan or plan 

revision requires preparation of an 

environmental impact statement. The 

NFMA gives considerable discretion to 

the Agency when considering physical, 

economic, and other pertinent factors. 

The Department does not want the 

planning rule to prescribe specific 

processes for assessing and evaluating 

economic efficiency. Cost-benefit 

analyses, or net present value 

estimation, are not required when 

evaluating plan alternatives; however, 

such an analysis (quantitative and/or 

qualitative) may be useful in some cases 

to satisfy the NEPA objectives (42 U.S.C. 

Sec 4331, 101 and 102(2)) and to 

demonstrate fulfillment of MUSYA 

goals (for example, ‘‘management of all 

the various renewable surface resources 

of the national forests so that they are 

utilized in the combination that will 

best meet the needs of the American 

people;’’ (16 U.S.C. 531(a))). The Forest 

Service handbook for NEPA (FSH 

1909.15, chapter 20, section 22.32) 

states that if a cost benefit analysis is 

being considered for a proposed action 

(for example, proposed plan revision), it 

must be incorporated by reference or 

appended to the environmental impact 

statement as an aid in evaluating the 

environmental consequences. The 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH 

1909.15.section 22.32) as well as NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR 1502.23) state that 

for purposes of complying with the 

[NEPA], the weighing of the merits and 

drawbacks of the various alternatives 

need not be displayed in a monetary 

cost-benefit analysis and should not be 

when there are important qualitative 

considerations. The Handbook and 

NEPA regulations also state that an 

environmental impact statement should 

at least indicate those considerations, 

including factors not related to 

environmental quality, that are likely to 

be relevant and important to a decision. 

Those considerations and factors may 

include a variety of quantified or 

qualitative descriptions of costs and 

benefits that are linked to significant 

issue determinations for a particular 

forest plan. The Department requires 

that land management plans will be 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21189 

within the fiscal capability of the unit 

(§ 219.1(g)). The rule requires that 

objectives be based on reasonably 

foreseeable budgets (§ 219.7(e)(1)(ii)) 

and that the monitoring program be 

within the financial and technical 

capabilities of the Agency 

(§ 219.12(a)(4)(ii)). Clarifications about 

disclosure of costs and benefits, as well 

as use of cost-benefit (or PNV) analysis 

are more appropriately included in the 

Agency directives. 

Comments: Collaboration costs. Many 

respondents supported public 

participation opportunities in the 

decisionmaking process. Some 

respondents felt collaboration will not 

be cost effective. Some felt that 

coordination, as mandated by law, is 

effective and will save time and expense 

in planning, implementation, and 

management. They said increased costs 

for collaboration are foreseeable. Some 

respondents felt the assumptions that 

collaboration will reduce monitoring 

costs and bring broader support and 

resolution of issues with their critics 

were faulty. They felt the final PEIS 

should explain how collaboration will 

lead to cost savings and document 

savings expected from each alternative. 

Response: The Department believes 

that involving the public early on 

through a participatory, open, and 

meaningful process is the best way to 

approach planning. The final rule sets 

out a planning process that is designed 

to provide more opportunities for the 

public to collaborate with the Agency 

and to become more involved in all 

phases of planning, including 

monitoring, assessment, and 

development of alternatives for land 

management plan revisions or 

amendments. Section 219.4 of the final 

rule requires the responsible official to 

engage the public in early and 

meaningful opportunities for 

participation during the planning 

process and to coordinate with other 

public planning efforts, including State 

and local governments. However, the 

final rule gives the responsible official 

discretion to tailor the scope, scale, and 

types of participation opportunities to 

be congruent with the need and level of 

interest, subject to the requirements of 

section 219.4. Collaborative processes 

would be used where feasible and 

appropriate. 

The final PEIS does not demonstrate 

that collaboration will lead to Forest 

Service cost savings in planning. 

Because of the public participation and 

collaboration throughout the planning 

process, the Department expects that the 

cost for collaboration and engaging the 

public during the planning process 

would be higher than that under the 

1982 procedures. However, it is 

anticipated that overall planning 

efficiency will be improved as other 

planning activities such as analyzing 

and revising plan components are 

anticipated to be streamlined. It is also 

expected that increased participation 

and collaboration throughout the 

planning process will increase support 

for eventual plan implementation. 

Comment: Jobs and income. Some 

respondents felt that the proposed rule 

could have a significant effect on jobs, 

labor income, production, and 

competition of a particular resource 

during plan revision and plan 

amendment. 

Response: The Department recognizes 

that plans developed, revised, or 

amended under the final rule will guide 

projects that could in turn affect 

distribution of employment, income, 

and payments to local governments. 

Impacts to jobs within specific industry 

sectors due to the final rule compared 

to the other alternatives have not been 

evaluated in detail as these impacts 

cannot be determined in the absence of 

on-the-ground project activity at the 

unit level. Direct effects on the levels of 

goods, services, and uses to which NFS 

lands contribute are the end-results of 

on-the-ground projects or activities. 

The effects of plan proposals as well 

as proposed projects will continue to be 

evaluated in accordance with NEPA; 

impacts to employment, income, and 

payments will likewise continue to be 

evaluated as appropriate to the need to 

address plan or project-specific 

significant issues. The Department does 

not want the planning rule to prescribe 

specific processes for assessing and 

evaluating economic effects. Such 

direction, guidance, advice, or 

approaches for effects analysis in 

general are found in the Agency 

directives (for example FSM 1970 and 

FSH1909.17). 

Comment: Site-specific project costs. 

Some respondents felt that the Agency 

incorrectly assumes that the site-specific 

project costs are not affected by the 

proposed rule. 

Response: The Agency did not assume 

that the site-specific project costs are 

not affected by the proposed rule. 

However, the proposed rule cost and 

benefit analysis did not estimate the 

effects of the rule on site-specific 

projects developed under land 

management plans, because site-specific 

project costs are a function of unknown 

future site-specific plan or project 

proposals occurring under new, revised, 

or amended plans under the final rule; 

it is, therefore, not possible to estimate 

or characterize changes in projectspecific costs. 

Comment: Least burden to society. 

Some respondents felt the Forest 

Service should develop the rule in a 

way that imposes the least burden on 

society, businesses, and communities. 

Response: The Department believes 

that the final rule supports management 

of the NFS to contribute to social and 

economic sustainability. The rule does 

not directly regulate individuals, 

individual businesses, or other entities 

such as local or State governments. 

Impacts to small entities are addressed 

in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(as summarized in the Regulatory 

Certifications section of the preamble 

for the final rule). 

Comment: Costs of cumulative 

regulations. Some respondents felt the 

Forest Service should consider the costs 

of cumulative regulations. 

Response: The potential effects of the 

rule in combination with other broad 

Agency actions and strategies (for 

example, roadless rules, strategic plans 

and other Agency goals, NEPA 

procedures, transition to implementing 

the final rule, management planning 

direction by other agencies, and 

collaboration) are presented in the 

‘‘Cumulative Effects’’ section of the final 

PEIS. 

Comment: Costs to States 

(Federalism). Some respondents felt the 

Forest Service incorrectly concludes 

that the rule will not impose direct or 

compliance costs on States (that is, 

Federalism). 

Response: Executive Order 13132 

(that is, Federalism) establishes 

requirements the Federal Government 

must follow as it develops and carries 

out policy actions that affect State or 

local governments. The Department 

concludes that the rule would not 

impose compliance costs on the States 

(or local governments) and would not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States. 

Section-By-Section Explanation of the 

Final Rule 

The following section-by-section 

descriptions are provided to explain the 

approach taken in the final rule to NFS 

land management planning. 

Subpart A—National Forest System 

Land Management Planning 

Section 219.1—Purpose and 

Applicability 

This section of the final rule describes 

the purpose of the rule and its 

applicability to units of the NFS. This 

section affirms the multiple-use, 

sustained-yield mandate of the Forest 

Service, and states that the purpose of 

this part is to guide the collaborative 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21190 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

and science-based development, 

amendment, and revision of land 

management plans that promote the 

ecological integrity of national forests 

and grasslands and other administrative 

units of the NFS. The NFMA requires 

the Agency to have a planning rule 

developed under the principles of the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 

1960 (MUSYA). The planning rule sets 

requirements for land management 

planning and content of plans and 

applies to all units in the NFS. 

The requirements in the final rule 

should increase Agency and plan area 

capacity for adapting management plans 

to new and evolving information about 

stressors, changing conditions, and 

management effectiveness. The 

Department’s intent is for responsible 

officials to use the planning framework 

to keep plans and management activity 

current, relevant, and effective. 

Section 219.1—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on consistency with MUSYA, 

compliance with or applicability of 

valid existing rights, treaties, and 

applicable laws, and the cost of the 

process for implementing the rule. The 

Department modified the wording of the 

proposed rule to move a reference to 

‘‘ecosystem services’’ from paragraph (a) 

of this section to paragraph (c); add at 

paragraph (c) ‘‘clean air’’ as a benefit 

provided by ecosystem services and 

replace the term ‘‘healthy and resilient’’ 

with ‘‘ecological integrity;’’ move 

direction about the Forest Service 

Directives System previously in 

paragraph (d) of this section in the 

proposed rule to § 219.2(b)(5); and make 

other clarifications for readability. 

These changes are not changes in 

requirements; they are just clarifications 

and reorganizations. 

The Department added direction at 

paragraph (g) of this section to ensure 

that the planning process, plan 

components and other plan content are 

within Forest Service authority, the 

inherent capability of the plan area, and 

the fiscal capability of the unit. In the 

proposed rule we had similar wording 

in §§ 219.8 through 219.11. Adding this 

requirement in paragraph (g) is a change 

because the requirement now applies 

more broadly to the process and content 

requirements of the final rule. 

Comment: Ecosystem services. Some 

respondents objected to the use of 

‘‘ecosystem services’’ in § 219.1(b) and 

throughout the rule. One respondent felt 

the term diluted the congressionally 

honored and sanctioned ‘‘multiple use’’ 

mission of the national forests. 

Response: The use of the term 

‘‘ecosystem services’’ has been removed 

from § 219.1(b), added to § 219.1(c), and 

revised throughout the final rule; 

however, the final rule retains reference 

to ‘‘ecosystem services.’’ The final rule 

states that plans must ‘‘provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses’’ 

instead of ‘‘provide for multiple uses, 

including ecosystem services’’ as it was 

stated in the proposed rule. The 

Department believes this revised 

wording is consistent with the MUSYA, 

which recognizes both resources and 

services. The MUSYA requires the 

Forest Service is to ‘‘administer the 

renewable surface resources of the 

national forests for multiple use and 

sustained yield of the several products 

and services obtained therefrom.’’ (16 

U.S.C. 529). The Act defines ‘‘multiple 

use’’ as ‘‘the management of all the 

various renewable surface resources of 

the national forests so that they are 

utilized in the combination that will 

best meet the needs of the American 

people; making the most judicious use 

of the land for some or all of these 

resources or related services’’ (16 U.S.C. 

531(a)). The Department believes 

MUSYA anticipated changing 

conditions and needs, and the meaning 

of ‘‘several products and services 

obtained’’ from the national forests and 

grasslands incorporates all values, 

benefits, products, and services 

Americans know and expect the NFS to 

provide. Resources like clean air and 

water are among the many ecosystem 

services these lands provide. 

Comment: Objective of planning. 

Some respondents felt the MUSYA 

refers expressly to five tangible 

objectives for forest management 

(recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

wildlife and fish, and wilderness), and 

does not include intangibles such as 

‘‘spiritual sustenance.’’ They felt 

intangibles should be removed from 

objectives. 

Response: The Department believes 

the mandate under the NFMA and 

MUSYA is not exclusive to a single 

resource or use, and that sustained yield 

applies to all multiple use purposes, 

including outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, 

and wilderness. Development of 

balanced plans for national forests and 

grasslands is a complex undertaking, 

and often there are diverse opinions on 

the desired conditions and objectives set 

in these plans. The rule sets up a 

process so individual forests and 

grasslands are managed with a balanced 

approach to best meet the needs of 

present and future generations of 

Americans. The Department recognizes 

Americans expect a range of benefits 

and services from the National Forest 

System, which can include both 

tangible objectives and intangible 

benefits. Under § 219.4, the final rule 

sets forth an open process for public 

collaboration, participation, and 

coordination to inform desired 

conditions and objectives for NFS lands. 

The words ‘‘spiritual sustenance’’ in 

§ 219.1(c) of the proposed rule have 

been changed to ‘‘spiritual...benefits’’ in 

this final rule because the word 

‘‘sustenance’’ was confusing. 

Comment: Valid existing rights. A 

respondent felt the rule should require 

plans to expressly state that their 

provisions cannot affect valid existing 

rights established by statute or legal 

instrument. 

Response: Whether the plan expressly 

states it or not, a land management plan 

cannot affect treaty rights or valid 

existing rights established by statute or 

legal instruments. For clarity, the final 

rule acknowledges this fact in 

§ 219.1(d). 

Comments: Inclusion of other laws. 

Some respondents requested that the list 

of laws at § 219.1 include the ANILCA, 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act, the FLPMA of 1976, the General 

Mining Law of 1872, the National 

Heritage Preservation Act, the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act, amongst others. 

Response: The list of laws in § 219.1 

is not intended to be a complete list of 

laws and regulations requiring Agency 

compliance. The Department did not 

choose to include an exhaustive list of 

applicable laws and regulations, as the 

Agency is obligated to comply with all 

applicable laws and regulations 

regardless of whether it is referenced in 

the text of the final rule. All plans and 

planning decisions must comply with 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Comment: Use of fiscal capability. 

Some respondents felt the MUSYA does 

not allow the fiscal capability or 

economic analysis to limit management 

as discussed in §§ 219.10 and 219.11 of 

the proposed rule, while others felt 

these concepts should be applied to all 

requirements. 

Response: Congress determines the 

annual fiscal allocation to the Agency. 

The Department concludes that 

responsible officials must constrain the 

development of management direction 

within the plan and planning process 

within a unit’s expected fiscal 

capability. The Department came to this 

conclusion because if a responsible 

official develops a plan beyond a unit’s 

fiscal capability, then management 

towards the plan objectives and thus 

plan desired conditions will not be 

realistic or possible. The Department 

removed the phrase ‘‘and the fiscal 

capability of the unit’’ from § 219.10 and 

§ 219.11, and added at § 219.1(g) that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21191 

the responsible official shall ensure that 

the planning process, plan components 

and other plan content are within Forest 

Service authority, the inherent 

capability of the plan area, and the fiscal 

capability of the unit. This requirement 

at § 219.1(g) applies to all sections of the 

rule, including sections 219.8, 219.9, 

219.10, and 219.11. 

Section 219.2—Levels of Planning and 

Responsible Official 

Planning occurs at three levels— 

national strategic planning, NFS unit 

planning, and project or activity 

planning. Section 219.2 of the final rule 

describes these levels of Agency 

planning, identifies the responsible 

official, and describes specific attributes 

and requirements for unit-level 

planning. This section also provides the 

basic authorities and direction for 

developing, amending, or revising a 

plan. In addition, it identifies the 

responsibilities of the Chief for 

oversight, leadership, and direction. 

Some people wanted to see very 

detailed requirements in the rule, such 

as monitoring methods and protocols, 

while others emphasized the need to 

keep the rule simple, so it would endure 

and could be implemented across 

different landscapes within the NFS. 

This section ensures that the Agency 

will establish additional needed details 

in the Directives for effective 

implementation of the planning rule, 

while allowing rule wording to remain 

relevant even as conditions change. 

Section 219.2—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on the level of the responsible 

official, the appropriate scale for 

planning, and consistency of plans 

across the NFS. The Department 

modified the wording from the 

proposed rule to address concerns 

raised by the public and other 

regulatory agencies that more specific 

requirements were needed to ensure 

consistent implementation of the rule. 

The Department moved wording 

formally in section 219.1 of the 

proposed rule to this section and added 

paragraph (b)(5) that requires the Chief: 

(i) To establish direction for NFS land 

management planning under this part in 

the Forest Service Directives System 

(what was formerly § 219.1(d) in the 

proposed rule); 

(ii) To establish and administer a 

national performance oversight and 

accountability process to review NFS 

land management planning under this 

part; and 

(iii) To establish procedures in the 

Forest Service Directives System 

(Directives) to guide how data on 

various renewable resources, as well as 

soil and water will be obtained to 

respond to 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(2)(B). 

The addition of the oversight 

requirement in (ii) is a minor change in 

requirements in response to the 

comments received. The other changes 

are not changes in requirements, they 

are just clarifications. 

Comment: Level of responsible official 

and consistency with regional or 

national programs. Some respondents 

felt the proposed change from regional 

forester to forest supervisor for the level 

of responsible official would make the 

plan more responsive to local situations. 

Others felt this change would result in 

inconsistencies across unit boundaries, 

limit collaborators, and reduce the 

accountability provided by a higher 

level responsible official. Several 

respondents felt the discretion given to 

local responsible officials in the 

proposed rule could lead to individual 

forest and grassland level plans that are 

inconsistent with neighboring unit 

plans and with regional or national 

programs. 

Response: The responsible official 

will usually be the forest or grassland 

supervisor, who is most familiar with 

the resources, issues, and the people 

relevant to and interested in the unit. 

However, § 219.2(b)(3) provides the 

option for higher-level officials to act as 

the responsible official for a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision across a 

number of plan areas. Regardless of 

what level they are, the responsible 

official must develop, amend, or revise 

plans within the framework set out by 

this final rule and is accountable for 

compliance with the rule and the 

multitude of relevant laws and policies. 

To ensure compliance, the final rule 

wording identifies in § 219.2(b) the 

Chief as responsible for leadership in 

carrying out the NFS land management 

planning program, establishment of 

planning direction, and administration 

of a national oversight process for 

accountability and consistency. 

There are also a number of places in 

the final rule that call for coordination 

with other staff in the Agency, including 

the appropriate research station 

director. The Department anticipates 

that the regional forester and regional 

office planning and resource specialists 

will continue to be involved and 

provide an additional level of oversight, 

including reviewing draft and final 

products developed during the planning 

process and participating in the 

development of those products. 

Regional office engagement will help to 

provide consistency in interpretation 

and implementation of the planning 

rule and other Agency planning 

requirements on units within the region. 

The final rule includes other 

requirements at § 219.4 for public 

participation and coordination with 

other planning efforts. The final rule 

also requires in § 219.15 that other 

resource plans be consistent with the 

plan components. The Department 

anticipates that the final rule will be 

implemented in the context of a mosaic 

of other Agency programs, for example, 

the Climate Change Roadmap and 

Scorecard, the Watershed Condition 

Framework, and the Sustainable 

Recreation Framework. The Department 

expects that these programs and 

requirements will be mutually 

supportive and will contribute to good 

land management. 

Comment: Scale of planning. Some 

respondents expressed different 

opinions about the scale of planning. 

Some suggested larger or smaller scales 

than the proposed administrative unit 

level. One respondent felt the rule 

should consider a level of planning by 

resource. Some respondents felt the rule 

should require use of the U.S. Geologic 

Survey 5th field hydrologic unit as the 

minimum size needed to conduct 

ecological coarse-filter assessments. 

Response: The final rule allows 

planning at the most appropriate scale 

to address issues and resource concerns 

specific to that unit. The final rule does 

set forth requirements to consider other 

scales while developing plans. Section 

219.7(f)(1)(ii) requires the responsible 

official to describe the distinctive roles 

and contributions of the plan area 

within the context of a broader 

landscape. Section 219.7(f)(1)(i), 

specifically discusses priority 

watersheds. Section 219.7(d) requires 

the use of management or geographic 

areas for a smaller scale geographic 

context and identification of 

management requirements that may be 

needed at the smaller scale. The final 

rule also provides that two or more 

responsible officials may undertake 

joint planning for their units. 

Planning at the resource level would 

not comply with the NFMA 

requirements for interdisciplinary 

approach to achieve integration of all 

resources to achieve integrated 

consideration of physical, biological, 

economic, and other sciences to develop 

one integrated plan. 

Requirements for broader-scale 

assessments and assessments for each 

individual watershed are not included 

in the final rule. Adding these 

requirements would add more 

preliminary steps to planning that may 

further delay completion of plan 

revisions or amendments and may not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21192 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

be necessary for the planning process. 

The assessments envisioned in the 

planning rule are focused on gathering 

and evaluating existing information 

relevant to the plan or the specific plan 

area. 

The 1982 rule required the 

preparation of a regional guide and a 

planning process for the development of 

that guide. The final rule does not 

include a requirement for regional 

planning. After several years of 

developing and using regional guides, 

the Agency found that they added an 

additional and time-consuming layer of 

planning that often delayed progress of 

unit planning. Regional plans also 

tended to remain static and did not 

change as new information or science 

became available. 

Comment: Relationship of plan 

decisions to project-level plans and 

decisions. Several respondents felt the 

relationship between plan decisions and 

subsequent project-level decisions was 

unclear. A respondent felt the rule 

should explicitly state a programmatic 

decision is being made for the planning 

unit. 

Response: The final rule sets the 

framework for the development, 

amendment, and revision of unit plans: 

The requirements set forth in the final 

rule are for plans, not for projects or 

activities that are developed under the 

plan. Section 219.15 requires projects 

and activities carried out under the 

plans developed under the final rule to 

be consistent with the plans. Unit plans 

may establish constraints on projects 

and identify possible activities; 

however, plans do not authorize 

activities or projects. Forest Service 

NEPA procedures must be followed 

when developing, revising, or amending 

plans. In addition, the Forest Service 

NEPA procedures must be followed for 

proposed site-specific projects or 

activities developed under the 

requirements of the unit plan. Section 

219.15(d) of the final rule identifies how 

project and activities must be consistent 

with plan components. 

Comment: Repeating of laws and 

regulations. Several respondents felt 

proposed § 219.2(b)(2) should clearly 

state plans ‘‘may reference, but should 

not repeat’’ laws, regulations, and so 

forth. 

Response: The final rule does not 

prohibit referencing laws, regulations, 

or Forest Service directives if the 

responsible official feels that doing so 

will add clarity. 

Section 219.3—Role of Science in 

Planning 

This section requires that the 

responsible official use the best 

available scientific information to 

inform the planning process and plan 

decisions, and provides requirements 

for documenting the use of the best 

available scientific information (BASI). 

The intent of this requirement is to 

ensure that the responsible official uses 

BASI to inform planning, plan 

components, and other plan content, 

that decisions are based on an 

understanding of the BASI and that the 

rationale for decisions is transparent to 

the public. The Department also expects 

that this requirement will increase the 

responsible official’s understanding of 

risks and uncertainties and improve 

assumptions made in the course of 

decisionmaking. 

Section 219.3—Response to Comments 

Many people provided comments on 

this section of the proposed rule. Most 

comments focused on whether or not to 

include a requirement for use of the 

BASI, discretion about how science 

should be used, and the potential 

procedural burdens created by this 

requirement. The Department modified 

the wording of the proposed rule as 

follows: (1) To clarify how scientific 

information is to be used in the 

planning process; (2) to clarify the level 

of discretion the responsible official has 

in using scientific information; and (3) 

to manage the potentially burdensome 

requirements for documentation. 

The Department clarified how BASI 

will be used in the planning process; 

changing the wording from ‘‘the 

responsible official shall take into 

account the best available scientific 

information,’’ to ‘‘the responsible 

official shall use the best available 

scientific information to inform the 

planning process.’’ This clarification is 

consistent with the Department’s intent 

as described in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. This clarification is in 

response to public comments expressing 

concern that the proposed rule wording 

would allow the responsible official to 

ignore best available scientific 

information. This wording makes clear 

that the responsible official must use the 

BASI to inform the process and 

decisions made during the planning 

process. 

The Department also modified the 

requirement that the responsible official 

‘‘determine what information is the 

most accurate, reliable, and relevant to 

a particular decision or action’’ to a 

requirement that the responsible official 

‘‘determine what information is the 

most accurate, reliable, and relevant to 

the issues being considered.’’ This 

change focuses the requirement on the 

issues being considered, because the 

underlying issues form the basis for 

decisionmaking, and are the appropriate 

focus for the requirement to ensure that 

the responsible official uses scientific 

information to inform plan-related 

decisions. 

The Department eliminated 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of § 219.3 of 

the proposed rule. The remaining 

paragraph was modified to require the 

responsible official to document how 

the best available scientific information 

was used to inform the assessment, the 

plan decision, and the monitoring 

program. Changing these requirements 

is responsive to public comments about 

the process associated with meeting the 

requirements of this section. 

Comment: Best available scientific 

information. A respondent felt the term 

‘‘best available scientific information’’ 

used in the proposed rule is value laden 

and implies judgment that cited 

scientific information is potentially 

superior to other scientific information 

on the topic. This respondent felt using 

the term would put responsible officials 

in the position of choosing one scientist 

over another. Additionally, the concern 

was expressed that the lack of a clear 

definition of ‘‘best available scientific 

information’’ in the rule could allow a 

responsible official to use poorly 

constructed or subjective information to 

inform planning decisions. Still other 

respondents felt the proposed rule was 

unclear on who should determine what 

the best available scientific information 

is. 

Response: The Department decided to 

retain the term ‘‘best available scientific 

information’’ (BASI) from the proposed 

rule, and to require that such 

information be used to inform the 

assessment, the planning process, and 

plan components and other plan 

content, including the monitoring 

program. The responsible official must 

determine what information is the most 

accurate, reliable, and relevant with 

regard to the issues being considered. In 

some circumstances, the BASI would be 

that which is developed using the 

scientific method, which includes 

clearly stated questions, well designed 

investigations, and logically analyzed 

results, documented clearly and 

subjected to peer review. However, in 

other circumstances the BASI for the 

matter under consideration may be 

information from analyses of data 

obtained from a local area, or studies to 

address a specific question in one area. 

In other circumstances, the BASI could 

be the result of expert opinion, panel 

consensus, or observations, as long as 

the responsible official has a reasonable 

basis for relying on that information. 

The Department recognizes often 

there is uncertainty in science, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21193 

there may be differing or inconclusive 

scientific information. Different 

disciplines, including the social and 

economic sciences as well as ecologic 

science, may provide scientific 

information that is the best available for 

the issues being considered. Gathering a 

range of scientific information and 

acknowledging potential uncertainties is 

critical to adequately inform the 

responsible official as well as the public 

during the planning process. 

The Agency already has a 

fundamental legal requirement to 

consider relevant factors, including the 

relevant scientific information, and 

explain the basis for its decisions. The 

Department included this section in the 

rule, with its explicit requirements for 

determining and documenting the use of 

the best available scientific information, 

to inform the planning process and to 

help to ensure a consistent approach 

across the National Forest System. 

To respond to comments about the 

level of documentation for individual 

units, the requirements for 

documentation were changed from the 

proposed rule. The Department 

eliminated paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 

§ 219.3 of the proposed rule, and 

replaced them with the requirement that 

the responsible official document how 

the best available scientific information 

was used to inform the assessment, the 

plan decision, and the monitoring 

program. Section 219.14(a)(4) requires 

that the plan decision document must 

document how the best available 

scientific information was used to 

inform planning, plan components, and 

other plan content, including the 

monitoring program. The remaining 

paragraph was modified to require the 

responsible official to document how 

the best available scientific information 

was used to inform the design of the 

monitoring program, rather than in 

every monitoring report, because the 

monitoring results are scientific 

information. In addition, the new 

documentation requirements call for the 

responsible official to explain the basis 

for the determination, and explain how 

the information was applied to the 

issues considered. 

The Forest Service Directives System 

will contain further detail on how to 

document the use of the best available 

scientific information, including 

identifying the sources of data such as 

peer reviewed articles, scientific 

assessments, or other scientific 

information. In addition, the Forest 

Service Directives System will contain 

further detail on the Forest Services’ 

information quality guidelines. 

Direction about science reviews may be 

found in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12—Land Management Planning, 

Chapter 40—Science and Sustainability. 

The final rule is consistent with 

USDA policy that requires agencies to 

meet science quality standards when 

developing and reviewing scientific 

research information and disseminating 

it to the public. Also, the final rule is 

consistent with the recent Executive 

Order 13563 (2011) that states ‘‘when 

scientific or technological information is 

considered in policy decisions, the 

information should be subject to wellestablished scientific processes, 

including peer review where 

appropriate.’’ Responsible officials will 

rely upon the USDA Office of the Chief 

Information Officer guidance to 

determine when the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Information Quality Bulletin on Peer 

Review applies. USDA guidelines are 

found at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/ 

qi_guide/index.html. 

Comment: Weight of scientific 

information. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule allowed science to be 

weighed more heavily than other 

relevant information. Some respondents 

felt the proposed rule allows decisions 

to be made based on politics or special 

interests rather than science. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule 

requirement for the best available 

science to be taken into account was not 

strong enough, and suggested the rule 

require decisions to conform to the best 

science. Other respondents felt the 

proposed rule made use of science 

mandatory rather than discretionary. 

Response: The Department never 

intended that the responsible official 

could have the discretion to disregard 

best available scientific information 

(BASI) in making a decision. To clarify 

the Department’s intent, the final rule 

requires the responsible official to use 

the BASI to inform the planning process 

rather than take BASI into account. 

While the BASI must inform the 

planning process and plan components, 

it does not dictate what the decision 

must be: BASI may lead a responsible 

official to a range of possible options. 

There also may be competing scientific 

perspectives and uncertainty in the 

science. Furthermore, scientific 

information is one of the factors relevant 

to decisionmaking. Other factors 

include budget, legal authority, local 

and indigenous knowledge, Agency 

policies, public input, and the 

experience of land managers. 

Comment: Funding for BASI. Some 

respondents felt the requirements to use 

the best available scientific information 

were going to be too financially 

burdensome. Other respondents suggest 

the term should be removed from the 

rule as it would only create delays and 

legal challenges. 

Response: The Agency is already 

required to take relevant scientific 

information into account in 

decisionmaking. The Agency already 

has a fundamental legal requirement to 

consider relevant factors, including 

relevant scientific information, and 

explain the basis for its decisions. 

This section is not intended to impose 

a higher standard for judicial review 

than the existing ‘‘arbitrary and 

capricious’’ standard. The requirements 

of this final rule section are also 

separate from those of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

regulations, (40 CFR 1502.22(b)), which 

in some circumstances require the 

responsible official to seek out missing 

or incomplete scientific information 

needed for an environmental impact 

statement, unless the costs of doing so 

are prohibitive. This final rule section 

does not change that requirement. The 

requirements in section 219.3 are 

focused on ensuring the responsible 

official uses the BASI that is already 

available to inform the planning 

process. Thus, while an assessment 

report or monitoring evaluation report 

may identify gaps or inconsistencies in 

data or scientific knowledge, the final 

rule does not impose the affirmative 

duty that the CEQ regulation applies to 

EISs—that is, to engage in new studies 

or develop new information, or to 

document that the costs of seeking new 

information are prohibitive. 

Including this section in the rule, 

with its explicit requirements, for 

determining and documenting the use of 

the BASI to inform planning the 

planning process, will help to ensure a 

consistent approach across the National 

Forest System that will lead to more 

credible and supportable plan decisions. 

Comment: Transparency of science 

used. Some respondents felt an addition 

of a requirement for the disclosure of 

what science was being used would 

enhance transparency. 

Response: Section 219.3 of the final 

rule requires the responsible official to 

document how the BASI was used to 

inform the assessment, plan decision, 

and design of the monitoring program. 

Such documentation must: identify 

what information was determined to be 

the BASI, explain the basis for that 

determination, and explain how the 

information was applied to the issues 

considered. This requirement will 

provide both transparency and an 

explanation to the public as to how 

BASI was used by responsible officials 

to arrive at their decisions. 

Comment: Risk, uncertainty, and the 

precautionary principle. A respondent 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21194 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

stated the words ‘‘risk’’ and 

‘‘uncertainty’’ found throughout the 

preamble and DEIS are missing from the 

rule itself. The respondent felt the rule 

should include wording about risks and 

uncertainties and require techniques for 

assisting responsible officials in 

evaluating risks and uncertainties. Some 

respondents felt the rule should adopt 

the ‘‘precautionary principle’’ in 

planning on the NFS to account for 

uncertainty. One respondent also felt 

the wording ‘‘lack of full scientific 

certainty shall not be used as a reason 

for postponing a cost-effective measure 

to prevent environmental degradation’’ 

should be added. 

Response: The Department concludes 

that the adaptive management 

framework of assessment, revision or 

amendment, and monitoring in this 

final rule provides a scientifically 

supported process for decisionmaking 

in the face of uncertainty and 

particularly under changing conditions. 

The intent of this framework is to create 

a responsive planning process and 

allows the Forest Service to adapt to 

changing conditions and improve 

management based on new information. 

Monitoring provides the feedback for 

the planning cycle by testing 

assumptions, tracking relevant 

conditions over time, and measuring 

management effectiveness. 

The assessment report will document 

information needs relevant to the topics 

of the assessment and the best available 

scientific information that will be used 

to inform the planning process. 

The science of risk management is 

rapidly evolving. To require specific 

techniques or methodologies would risk 

codifying approaches that may soon be 

outdated. The responsible official will 

inform the public about the risks and 

uncertainties in the environmental 

impact statements and environmental 

assessments for plans, plan revisions, 

and plan amendments. 

Comment: Climate change and 

climate science. Some respondents felt 

the rule should require use of climate 

change science in decisionmaking. 

Others felt the rule should address and 

implement regulations for mitigation of 

climate change while others felt the rule 

should not address climate change. 

Response: The rule sets forth an 

adaptive land management planning 

process informed by both a 

comprehensive assessment and the best 

available scientific information. Section 

219.6(b)(3)–(4) requires responsible 

officials to identify and evaluate 

information on climate change and 

other stressors relevant to the plan area, 

along with a baseline assessment of 

carbon stocks, as a part of the 

assessment phase. Section 

219.8(a)(1)(iv) requires climate change 

be taken into account when the 

responsible official is developing plan 

components for ecological 

sustainability. When providing for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses, 

the responsible official is required by 

§ 219.10(a)(8) to consider climate 

change. Measureable changes to the 

plan area related to climate change and 

other stressors affecting the plan area 

are to be monitored under 

§ 219.12(a)(5)(vi). Combined with the 

requirements of the Forest Service 

Climate Change Roadmap and 

Scorecard, these requirements will 

ensure that Forest Service land 

management planning addresses climate 

change and supports adaptive 

management to respond to new 

information and changing conditions. 

Section 219.4—Requirements for Public 

Participation 

This section of the final rule requires 

the responsible official to provide 

meaningful opportunities for public 

participation throughout the planning 

process. It gives direction for providing 

such opportunities, including for 

outreach, Tribal consultation, and 

coordination with other public planning 

efforts. The intent of this section is to 

emphasize the importance of active 

public engagement in planning and to 

provide direction for the responsible 

official to take an active, modern 

approach to getting public input, 

including recognition of the need for 

accessibility of the process and 

engagement of all publics, the 

responsibility for Tribal consultation, 

and engagement with other land 

managers as part of an all lands 

approach. The outcomes of public 

participation can include a greater 

understanding of interests underlying 

the issues, a shared understanding of 

the conditions on the plan area and in 

the broader landscape that provide the 

context for planning, the development 

of alternatives that can accommodate a 

wide range of interests, and the 

potential development of a shared 

vision for the plan area, as well as an 

understanding of how and why 

planning decisions are made. Engaging 

the public early and throughout the 

process is expected to lead to better 

decisionmaking and plans that have 

broader support and relevance. 

Section 219.4—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on the requirements for the 

kinds and level of participation 

opportunities and outreach, 

coordination with local and State 

governments and planning efforts, and 

Tribal consultation. This section was 

reorganized and new paragraph 

headings were assigned to increase 

clarity. Wording affirming that the 

Forest Service retains decisionmaking 

authority and responsibility for all 

decisions was moved from the 

definition of collaboration of the 

proposed rule to paragraph (a) of this 

section. The Department also listed 

State fish and wildlife agencies, and 

State foresters in paragraph 

§ 219.4(a)(1)(iv) as illustrative examples 

of relevant State agencies. 

The Department modified the 

wording about trust responsibilities in 

§ 219.4(a)(2) that was designated at 

§ 219.4(a)(5) of the proposed rule. The 

proposed rule said: the Department 

recognizes the Federal Government’s 

trust responsibility for federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. The final rule 

says: the Department recognizes the 

Federal Government has certain trust 

responsibilities and a unique legal 

relationship with federally recognized 

Indian Tribes. This change was made to 

ensure accurate recognition of the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and federally recognized 

Tribes. 

The Department deleted the phrase, 

‘‘to the extent practicable and 

appropriate,’’ from the end of paragraph 

§ 219.4(b) for coordination with other 

public planning efforts, in response to 

public comment. The change is 

intended to make clear that the 

requirements for coordination with 

other public planning efforts have not 

been reduced from previous rules. 

However, this change is not intended to 

require the Agency’s planning efforts to 

tier to, or match the timing of other 

public planning efforts. These changes 

are not changes in requirements, they 

are clarifications. 

Comment: Specific requirements for 

public engagement. Some respondents 

felt that the rule should allow 

responsible officials to have the 

discretion to determine public outreach 

methods, while others felt the rule 

should contain specific method and 

process requirements for public 

engagement because vague requirements 

could result in courts second-guessing 

whether the public participation was 

sufficient. Others felt the public 

participation opportunities held during 

planning need to be flexible and 

accommodate the people living and 

working in the area. Others requested 

specific recreation clubs and 

organizations be added to proposed 

§ 219.4(a)(2). A respondent felt the 

responsible official should be required 

to identify other non-traditional means 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21195 

of engagement and to identify in 

advance the participation of specific 

populations in each area with historical 

and traditional connections to the land, 

including forestry workers, their 

associations, and specific communities 

who retain or wish to retain historic 

connections to the land. Some 

respondents felt individuals and 

organizations engaged in forest planning 

should be limited to either economic 

stakeholders or those with an existing 

interest in forest management as the 

Forest Service cannot make individuals 

or groups with no interest or economic 

stake in national forests participate in 

forest planning, regardless of the effort 

the Agency puts into targeted scoping. 

Response: The rule requires the 

responsible official to engage and 

encourage participation by a diverse 

array of people and communities 

throughout the planning process. This 

includes those interested at the local, 

regional, and national levels and covers 

all groups and organizations that are 

interested in the land management 

planning process. The Department 

recognizes the need to engage a full 

range of interests and individuals in the 

planning process. The national forests 

and grasslands belong to all Americans 

and not just those who have economic 

or previously expressed interest. The 

Department concluded it was important 

for the final rule to recognize that 

opportunities for public participation in 

the planning process must be fair and 

accessible, while recognizing and taking 

into account the diverse interests, 

responsibilities, and jurisdictions of 

interested and affected parties. The final 

rule does not require participation from 

any specific group. The rule also allows 

flexibility in the methods of offering 

opportunities for engagement, 

recognizing that the best way to engage 

will vary at different times and in 

different places. The responsible official 

has the discretion to determine the 

scope, timing, and methods for 

participation opportunities necessary to 

address local, regional, and national 

needs, while meeting the requirements 

of § 219.4. 

The planning procedures established 

for land management planning in the 

Forest Service Directives System will 

also provide further direction to ensure 

consistent implementation of the 

requirements of the final rule. 

Comment: Clarification on 

collaborative process. Some 

respondents felt the rule should clarify 

when a collaborative process would or 

would not be ‘‘feasible and 

appropriate.’’ A respondent felt the rule 

should ensure public participation 

occurs when forest plans are revised 

and amended. Some respondents felt 

their local Forest Service office is 

already collaborating with the public 

and that the proposed rule would 

discourage the unit from continuing 

with methods already working locally. 

Response: This final rule contains a 

balanced approach that requires the 

responsible official to engage a diverse 

array of people and communities 

throughout the planning process. 

Participation opportunities must be 

provided throughout all stages of the 

land management planning process, 

including during plan revision and 

amendment. 

The CEQ publication Collaboration in 

NEPA—A Handbook for NEPA 

Practitioners at: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/

ntf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.

pdf, describes a spectrum of 

engagement, including the categories of 

inform, consult, involve, and 

collaborate. Each of these categories is 

associated with a set of tools, from 

traditional activities such as notice and 

comment on the inform end of the 

spectrum, to consensus building, or a 

Federal advisory committee on the 

collaborative end of the spectrum. 

Because the term ‘‘collaboration’’ is 

often associated with only those 

activities on one end of the public 

engagement spectrum, the Department 

chose to retain the term ‘‘public 

participation’’ in the final rule to make 

clear that the full spectrum of tools for 

public engagement can be used in the 

planning process. Every planning 

process will involve traditional scoping 

and public comment; in addition, the 

responsible official will determine the 

combination of additional public 

participation strategies that would best 

engage a diverse set of people and 

communities in the planning process. 

The final rule absolutely provides the 

flexibility to support the use of already 

working processes, including existing 

collaborative processes. Because the 

make-up and dynamics of the 

communities surrounding each 

planning area differ, and because the 

level of interest in decisionmaking may 

vary, based on the scope and potential 

impact of the decision being 

contemplated, the responsible official 

needs the flexibility to select the public 

participation methods that would best 

meet the needs of interested people and 

communities. The wording ‘‘feasible 

and appropriate’’ provides the 

responsible official the flexibility 

needed to develop effective 

participation opportunities, including 

using existing opportunities for 

collaboration. 

Planning procedures established in 

the Forest Service Directives System 

will provide further guidance and 

clarification for how the public 

participation requirements of the final 

rule will be implemented. 

Comment: Time and cost of public 

involvement. Some respondents felt the 

proposed public participation 

requirements are cumbersome and 

unrealistic in regards to time and cost 

and the ability for individuals to fully 

participate. Others felt the public 

participation requirements would not 

result in a more efficient planning 

process. 

Response: The final rule directs the 

responsible official to take the 

accessibility of the process, 

opportunities, and information into 

account when designing opportunities 

for public participation, precisely 

because individuals may vary in their 

ability to engage, including in how 

much time and money they have to 

spend on participating in the process. 

Likewise, the final rule directs the 

responsible official to consider the cost, 

time, and available staffing when 

developing opportunities for public 

participation that meet needs and 

constraints specific to the plan area. 

This is to ensure that the process is 

feasible and efficient. In addition, 

§ 219.1(g) requires that the planning 

process be within the authority of the 

Forest Service and the fiscal capability 

of the unit. 

However, the rule does place a strong 

emphasis on developing opportunities 

early and throughout the planning 

process, with costs of planning 

projected to be redirected toward 

collaboration, assessment, and 

monitoring activities and away from 

development and analysis of 

alternatives, as compared to the 1982 

procedures. The public participation 

requirements are expected to improve 

plans and increase planning efficiency 

in a variety of ways. Collaborative 

efforts during the early phases of 

planning are expected to result in 

improved analysis and decisionmaking 

efficiency during the latter stages of 

planning; lead to improved capacity to 

reduce uncertainty by gathering, 

verifying, and integrating information 

from a variety of sources; reduce the 

need for large numbers of plan 

alternatives and time needed for plan 

revisions; potentially offset or reduce 

monitoring costs as a result of 

collaboration during monitoring; 

improve perceptions regarding 

legitimacy of plans and the planning 

process; increase trust in the Agency, 

and potentially reduce the costs of 

litigation as a result of receiving public 

input before developing and finalizing 

decisions. Overall, it is the Department’s 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21196 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

view that investment in providing 

opportunities for public engagement 

will lead to stronger and more effective 

and relevant plans. 

Comment: Undocumented knowledge. 

A respondent felt the planning process 

should take into account other forms of 

knowledge besides written 

documentation, and this knowledge 

should be shared with all interests and 

individuals throughout the planning 

process. 

Response: The Department recognizes 

that other forms of information besides 

written documentation, such as local 

and indigenous knowledge and public 

experiences, should also be taken into 

account. Opportunities for the public to 

provide information during the 

assessment phase will help the 

responsible official to capture other 

forms of knowledge, and to reflect that 

information in the assessment report 

that will be available to the public. This 

section of the final rule requires the 

responsible official to encourage public 

participation, thus sharing knowledge, 

ideas, and resources. In addition, 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section requires 

the responsible official to request 

information about native knowledge, 

land ethics, cultural issues, and sacred 

and culturally significant sites. 

Comment: Participation requirements 

accountability. Some respondents felt 

the rule should contain measures 

ensuring the responsible officials meet 

the public participation requirements. 

Response: To ensure accountability in 

implementation for all of the 

requirements in the final rule, the 

Department added § 219.2(b)(5) 

requiring the Chief to administer a 

national oversight process for 

accountability and consistency of NFS 

land management planning. In addition, 

the planning procedures established in 

the Forest Service Directives System 

will provide further guidance and 

clarification for how the public 

participation requirements of the final 

rule will be implemented. 

Comment: Decisionmaking authority. 

Some respondents felt the rule must 

disclose the Forest Service retains full 

decisionmaking authority. 

Response: While § 219.4 of the rule 

commits the Agency to public 

participation requirements and 

encourages collaboration, by law the 

Forest Service must retain final 

decisionmaking authority and 

responsibility throughout the planning 

process. Paragraph (a) of this section has 

been modified to include the sentence 

‘‘The Forest Service retains 

decisionmaking authority and 

responsibility for all decisions 

throughout the process,’’ which was 

previously in the definition for 

collaboration in the proposed rule. 

Comment: Specific requirements for 

youth, low-income, and minority 

populations. Some respondents 

supported requirements to engage 

youth, low-income and minority 

populations, and advocated including 

additional requirements. One 

respondent felt that references to youth, 

low-income, and minority populations 

should be removed. A respondent felt 

the rule should integrate elements 

related to equitable recreation access for 

youth, low-income, and minority 

populations into the assessment, 

planning, and monitoring elements of 

the rule. 

Response: Many people discussed the 

need for the Forest Service to make a 

stronger effort to engage groups and 

communities that traditionally have 

been underrepresented in land 

management planning. This is reflected 

in the requirement that responsible 

officials encourage the participation of 

youth, low-income populations, and 

minority populations in the planning 

process and in the requirements to be 

proactive and use contemporary tools to 

reach out to the public and consider the 

accessibility of the process to interested 

groups and individuals. The Department 

recognizes the need to engage a full 

range of interests and individuals in the 

planning process and the responsibility 

to promote environmental justice. To 

encourage wide-ranging participation, 

the final rule retains the requirement for 

the responsible official to seek 

participation opportunities for 

traditionally underrepresented groups 

like youth, low-income populations, 

and minority populations. 

The Department added requirements 

in §§ 219.8 and 10 to take into account 

opportunities to connect people with 

nature when developing plan 

components to contribute to social and 

economic sustainability and for 

multiple uses, including recreation, in 

addition to the requirements for 

outreach to youth, low-income, and 

minority populations included in this 

section. Specific issues regarding 

recreation access on a unit will be 

addressed at the local level during the 

planning process. 

Comment: Predominance of local or 

national input. Some respondents felt 

the proposed § 219.4 did not place 

enough emphasis on input from the 

local community, while others felt the 

proposed collaboration process would 

result in too much input from local 

interests and groups. Other respondents 

felt the public participation process 

needs to be all-inclusive, including at 

the local, State, and national levels and 

should be directed at the general public 

and not focus on participation from 

specific segments of the population. 

Other respondents felt the proposed rule 

only provides participation 

opportunities for State and local 

governments. A respondent felt 

comments or recommendations by a 

local Board of Supervisors should be 

given equal consideration as to those 

comments received from State and 

Federal agencies. 

Response: Section 219.4(a)(1)(iv) of 

the final rule clarifies the responsible 

official’s duty for outreach to other 

government agencies to participate in 

planning for NFS lands, including State 

fish and wildlife agencies, State 

foresters, and other relevant State 

agencies, local governments including 

counties, and other Federal agencies. 

However, a successful planning process 

must be inclusive in order to adequately 

reflect the range of values, needs, and 

preferences of society. All members of 

the public would be provided 

opportunities to participate in the 

planning process. Section 219.4(a) of the 

final rule lists specific points during the 

planning process when opportunities 

for public participation would be 

provided. To meet these requirements, 

the responsible official must be 

proactive in considering who may be 

interested in the plan, those who might 

be affected by the plan or a change to 

the plan, and how to encourage various 

constituents and entities to engage. 

Responsible officials will encourage 

participation by interested individuals 

and entities, including those interested 

at the local, regional, and national 

levels. 

Comment: Coordination with State 

and local governments. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule 

downplayed requirements to coordinate 

with State and local governments and 

that public participation is elevated over 

coordination. Other respondents felt 

State wildlife agencies should 

specifically be coordinated with when 

designing and implementing plans, onthe-ground management activities, 

monitoring, and survey design. Some 

respondents felt the rule should use the 

wording from § 219.7 of the 1982 

planning rule regarding coordination 

with State and local governments. 

Others felt wording from Alternative D 

of the DEIS should be included. Some 

respondents felt forest plans should be 

written in partnership with the States in 

which the national forest or grassland is 

located. A respondent supported the 

review of county planning and land use 

policies and documentation of the 

review in the draft EIS as stated in 

proposed § 219.4(b)(3). Several 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21197 

respondents noted the 1982 planning 

rule at § 219.7(b) requires county 

governments to be given direct notice of 

forest plan revisions and oppose the 

proposed elimination of the requirement 

in the proposed rule. A respondent 

stated input from local governments is 

required by NFMA’s mandate for 

coordination with local agencies that 

acknowledges the contributions and 

responsibilities unique to local agencies, 

including planning responsibilities for 

the private lands that fall under the ‘‘all 

lands’’ umbrella. 

Response: Many of the coordination 

requirements of the 1982 planning rule 

have been carried forward into 

§ 219.4(b)(1) and (2) of the final rule. 

Section 219.4(b)(3) clarifies 

requirements for coordination efforts. 

Under § 219.4(a), the final rule 

requires the responsible official to 

encourage participation by other Federal 

agencies, Tribes, States, counties, and 

local governments, including State fish 

and wildlife agencies, State foresters 

and other relevant State agencies. The 

final rule also requires the responsible 

official to encourage federally 

recognized Tribes, States, counties, and 

other local governments to seek 

cooperating agency status in the NEPA 

process for planning, where appropriate, 

and makes clear that the responsible 

official may participate in their 

planning efforts. 

Under § 219.4(b) of the final rule, the 

responsible official must coordinate 

planning efforts with the equivalent and 

related planning efforts of federally 

recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native 

Corporations, other Federal agencies, 

and State and local governments. The 

Department deleted the phrase, ‘‘to the 

extent practicable and appropriate,’’ 

from the end of paragraph § 219.4(b), in 

response to public comment. This 

change is not intended to require the 

Agency’s planning efforts to tier to, or 

match the timing of other public 

planning efforts. It was made to make 

clear that the requirements for 

coordination with other public planning 

efforts have not been reduced from 

previous rules. 

The requirement for coordination 

from the 1982 rule to identify and 

consider other information is found in 

§ 219.6(a) of the final rule. Section 

219.6(a) of the final rule requires 

consideration of relevant information in 

assessments of other governmental or 

non-governmental assessments, plans, 

monitoring evaluation reports, and 

studies. The final rule does not adopt 

the coordination requirements of 

Alternative D of the DEIS because the 

coordination requirements are part of 

the species viability requirements of 

Alternative D. The final rule does 

require the responsible official to 

coordinate to the extent practicable with 

other Federal, State, Tribal, and private 

land managers having management 

authority over lands relevant to a 

population of species of conservation 

concern (§ 219.9(b)(2)(ii)). To discuss 

the role of the Forest Service unit in the 

broader landscape, final rule 

§§ 219.4(a)(1), 219.6(a), 219.7(c)(1), and 

219.12(a) require coordination with 

other levels and deputy areas within the 

Agency as well as the public, 

appropriate Federal agencies, States, 

local governments, and other entities 

throughout the planning process. The 

final rule recognizes that participants 

have different roles, responsibilities, 

and jurisdictions, which the responsible 

official will take into account in 

designing opportunities for 

participation. The final rule does not 

adopt the requirement of the 1982 rule 

to meet with a designated State official 

and representatives of Federal agencies 

and local governments because people 

can often collaborate together without a 

face-to-face conference. The Department 

expects responsible officials to 

effectively engage States, Tribes, and 

local officials and other representatives 

in collaborative planning processes. 

Comment: Commitments to and 

consistency with local plans. Some 

respondents felt the rule needs a 

stronger commitment to local 

government plans, including statewide 

forest assessments and resource 

strategies. Some respondents felt 

proposed § 219.4(b)(3) wording ‘‘nor 

will the responsible official conform 

management to meet non-Forest Service 

objectives or policies’’ should be 

removed because it may contradict with 

the purpose of coordinating with local 

government. Others felt the primary goal 

of coordination should be achieving 

consistency between Federal and local 

plans within the legal mandates 

applicable to all entities. Some 

respondents felt the analysis must 

document there is no superior 

alternative to a proposed plan or action 

as required by NEPA. 

Response: When revising plans or 

developing new plans, under § 219.4(b) 

the responsible official must review the 

existing planning and land use policies 

of State and local governments, other 

Federal agencies, and federally 

recognized Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations, where relevant to the plan 

area, and document the results of the 

review in the draft EIS. Section 219.4(b) 

requires that review to consider a 

number of things, including 

opportunities for the unit plan to 

contribute to joint objectives and 

opportunities to resolve or reduce 

conflicts where they exist. The review 

would consider the objectives of 

federally recognized Indian Tribes, and 

other Federal, State, and local 

governments, as expressed in their plans 

and policies, and would assess the 

compatibility and interrelated impacts 

of these plans and policies. In addition, 

responsible officials in the assessment 

phase are required to identify and 

consider relevant existing information, 

which may include relevant neighboring 

land management plans and local 

knowledge. This information may 

include State forest assessments and 

strategies, ecoregional assessments, 

nongovernmental reports, State 

comprehensive outdoor recreation 

plans, community wildfire protection 

plans, public transportation plans, and 

State wildlife action plans, among 

others. 

However, plans are not required to be 

consistent with State forest assessments 

or strategies or plans of State and local 

governments under the final rule. The 

Forest Service must develop its own 

assessment and plans related to the 

conditions of the specific planning unit 

and make decisions based on Federal 

laws and considerations that may be 

broader than the State or local plans. 

Requiring land management plans to be 

consistent with local government plans 

would not allow the flexibility needed 

to address the diverse management 

needs on NFS lands and could hamper 

the Agency’s ability to address regional 

and national interests on Federal lands. 

In the event of conflict with Agency 

planning objectives, consideration of 

alternatives for resolution within the 

context of achieving NFS goals or 

objectives for the unit would be 

explored. The final rule does not repeat 

legal requirements found in public law, 

such as NEPA and NFMA, but § 219.1(f) 

would require plans to comply with all 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Comment: Cooperating agencies for 

unit plan development. A respondent 

felt the rule should identify State, 

Tribal, and local governments as 

cooperating agencies. Other respondents 

asked why a Tribe would request 

cooperating agency status and what the 

benefit would be. Another respondent 

felt the role of State and local 

governments is compromised, because 

the propose rule allows a responsible 

official to decide when cooperating 

agency status would be allowed. A 

respondent noted the Forest Service 

should be willing to share information 

and not impose cost-prohibitive barriers 

to such information, and the proposed 

rule does not allow cooperating agency 

status for State and local governments, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

because the process folds them into the 

public at large. Several organizations 

commented on the preferred alternative 

that the final rule should require 

responsible officials to grant cooperating 

agency status under NEPA to entities if 

federally recognized Tribes, States, 

counties, or local governments 

appropriately apply for such status. 

Response: The responsible official 

will encourage federally recognized 

Tribes, States, counties, and other local 

governments to seek cooperating agency 

status where appropriate. The final rule 

does not preclude any eligible party 

from seeking cooperating agency status; 

rather, it provides direction to Forest 

Service responsible officials to 

encourage such engagement where 

appropriate. Cooperating agency status 

under NEPA is determined under the 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

requirements for cooperating status (40 

CFR 1501.6). Further guidance may be 

found at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/

nepa/index.htm. The final rule does not 

affect that process. For federally 

recognized Tribes, cooperating agency 

status does not replace or supersede the 

trust responsibilities and requirements 

for consultation also recognized and 

included in the final rule. Any request 

for cooperating agency status will be 

considered pursuant to the CEQ 

requirements and Agency policy. 

Comment: Tribal consultation. Some 

respondents felt that Alaska Native 

Corporations should not be given the 

same status as federally recognized 

Indian Tribes, while another respondent 

felt that the final rule should recognize 

and provide for consultation with 

affected Alaska Native Corporations and 

Tribal organizations. Several Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations are 

concerned about keeping information 

confidential to protect sites from 

vandalism. 

Response: The final rule 

acknowledges the Federal Government’s 

unique obligations and responsibilities 

to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations in the planning process. 

The statute, 25 U.S.C. 450 note, requires 

that Federal agencies consult with 

Alaska Native Corporations on the same 

basis as Indian Tribes under Executive 

Order 13175. While the final rule 

requires consultation and participation 

opportunities for Alaska Native 

Corporations, the Department engages in 

a government-to-government 

relationship only with federally 

recognized Indian Tribes, consistent 

with Executive Order 13175. 

Responsible officials will protect 

confidentiality regarding information 

given by Tribes in the planning process 

and may enter into agreements to do so. 

Comment: Coordination with Tribal 

land management programs. Some 

respondents felt the responsible official 

should actively engage in coordination 

with Tribal land management programs 

and that the proposed rule weakens 

requirements to coordinate planning 

with Tribes. One respondent requested 

that the Tribal coordination provisions 

from the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1712(b)) be included in the final rule. 

Response: The final rule provides 

participation, consultation, and 

coordination opportunities for Tribes 

during the land management planning 

process, under § 219.4. This section also 

states at § 219.4(b) that the responsible 

official shall coordinate land 

management planning with the 

equivalent and related planning efforts 

of federally recognized Indian Tribes 

and Alaska Native Corporations. A 

citation for 43 U.S.C. 1712(b) has been 

added to the final rule at § 219.4(b)(2). 

Participation in a collaborative process 

would be voluntary and would 

supplement, not replace consultation. 

Comment: Government-to-government 

relationship. One respondent felt the 

proposed rule does not go far enough in 

identifying the unique government-togovernment relationship between Tribes 

and the Forest Service. 

Response: The Department recognizes 

the unique government-to-government 

relationship that the Federal 

Government has with Tribes, and has 

engaged Tribes throughout the 

rulemaking process. The final rule 

includes requirements for engaging 

Tribes during the land management 

planning process. At § 219.4(a)(2) the 

final rule states that the responsible 

official shall honor the government-togovernment relationship between 

federally recognized Indian Tribes and 

the Federal Government, in accordance 

with Executive Order 13175. 

Additionally, § 219.4 requires that the 

responsible official provide 

opportunities for participation and 

consultation for federally recognized 

Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations. 

Section 219.5—Planning Framework 

This section provides an overview of 

the framework for land management 

planning, and identifies what occurs 

during each phase. It also includes the 

requirement for the establishment of an 

interdisciplinary team for planning. 

This framework reflects key themes 

heard from the public, as well as 

experience gained through the Agency’s 

30-year history with land management 

planning. 

The framework requires a three-part 

learning and planning cycle: (1) 

Assessment; (2) plan development, plan 

revision, or plan amendment; and (3) 

monitoring. This framework is sciencebased (§ 219.3), and provides a blueprint 

for an open and participatory land 

management process (§§ 219.4 and 

219.16). It is intended to create a better 

understanding of the landscape-scale 

context for management and support an 

integrated and holistic approach to 

management that recognizes the 

interdependence of ecological resources 

and processes, and of social, ecological, 

and economic systems. The framework 

creates a structure within which land 

managers and partners will work 

together to understand what is 

happening on the land. It is intended to 

establish a responsive process that 

would allow the Agency to adapt 

management to changing conditions and 

improve management based on new 

information and monitoring, using 

narrower, more frequent amendments to 

keep plans current between revisions. 

Section 219.5—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on the need for more clarity in 

the framework. The Department made 

changes to § 219.5(a)(1) to describe the 

assessment and emphasize that the 

assessment process is intended to be 

rapid, and use existing information 

related to the land management plan 

within the context of the broader 

landscape. The Department removed the 

discussion about the preliminary need 

to change the plan from paragraph (a)(1) 

because the discussion has been 

removed from the assessment (§ 219.6) 

and discussed in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section and in § 219.7. The Department 

removed the introductory text of 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section because 

it was redundant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

this section and to § 219.7(b). Section 

219.5(a)(2)(ii) was slightly modified to 

clarify that the first step to amend a plan 

is to identify a preliminary need to 

change the plan. Additional edits were 

made for clarity. The changes to this 

section are not changes in requirements, 

they are just clarifications. 

Comment: Planning framework. Some 

respondents felt more clarity was 

needed on the three phases of the 

framework (assessment, development, 

and monitoring). Further clarity was 

sought on how the phases are 

interrelated. 

Response: This section was included 

to provide clarity with regard to each 

phase of the framework and how they 

are interrelated. Detailed requirements 

and relationships for each phase are 

provided in other sections of the rule. In 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21199 

addition to the descriptions of what 

occurs during each phase provided in 

this section, changes were made to 

§§ 219.6, 219.7 and 219.12 to make clear 

that information from each phase 

should be used to inform each of the 

other phases. In § 219.6, assessments are 

required for new plan development and 

plan revision, and a new list of topics 

for the assessment was included to more 

closely link the assessment 

requirements to the requirements for 

plan components and other plan 

content. The responsible official must 

identify and consider relevant 

information contained in monitoring 

reports during the assessment phase. 

These monitoring evaluation reports are 

developed in the monitoring phase as 

required in § 219.12(d), which requires 

that they be used to inform adaptive 

management. Section 219.7 requires the 

responsible official to review relevant 

information from the assessment and 

monitoring to identify a preliminary 

need for change and to inform the 

development of plan components and 

other plan content, including the 

monitoring program. In this way, the 

framework builds on information 

gathered and developed during each 

phase of the planning process and 

supports adaptive management for 

informed and efficient planning. 

Comment: Resource exclusion. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule 

allows too much discretion to the 

responsible official to exclude resources 

or uses of interest under the three 

phases of the planning framework. 

Response: There are numerous 

opportunities throughout the process for 

the public to identify resources and uses 

that are of interest to them, along with 

information about those resources or 

uses relevant to the plan area. If a 

resource or use is identified as of 

interest, it will be considered during of 

the planning process. The responsible 

official must meet all the requirements 

contained in the final rule, including 

the requirement to identify resources 

present in the plan area and consider 

them when developing plan 

components for §§ 219.8 through 

219.11, including for ecological 

sustainability, diversity, and multiple 

use. 

Comment: Composition of planning 

interdisciplinary teams. Several 

respondents felt the rule should specify 

the composition of the interdisciplinary 

teams required under proposed 

§ 219.5(b). 

Response: The Department concluded 

that the responsible official should have 

the discretion to determine the 

disciplines, or areas of expertise, to be 

represented on the Agency 

interdisciplinary team for preparation of 

assessments; new plans, plan 

amendments, or plan revisions; and 

plan monitoring programs. Because 

planning efforts are based on an 

identified need for change, it would not 

be appropriate to require the same 

disciplines to be represented on every 

interdisciplinary team. Also, individual 

team members often have broad areas of 

expertise and may represent multiple 

disciplines. 

Section 219.6—Assessments 

This section sets out both process and 

content requirements for assessments. In 

the assessment phase, responsible 

officials will rapidly identify and 

evaluate relevant and existing 

information to provide a solid base of 

information and context for plan 

decisionmaking, within the context of 

the broader landscape. The final rule 

identifies and provides examples of 

sources of information to which the 

responsible official should refer, 

requires coordination and participation 

opportunities, and requires 

documentation of the assessment in a 

report to be made available to the 

public. This phase is intended to be 

rapid, and changes were made to the 

final rule to improve the efficiency of 

the assessment process. The Department 

expects the assessment required by the 

final rule will take about 6 months to 

complete. 

The content of assessments will be 

used to inform the development of plan 

components and other plan content, 

including the monitoring questions, and 

to provide a feedback loop. The final 

rule narrows and clarifies the 

requirements for the content of plan 

assessments, to increase efficiency and 

provide a clearer link to the 

requirements for plan components and 

other plan content in the other sections 

of the final rule. During the assessment 

phase, the public will have the 

opportunity to bring forward relevant 

information. Gathering and evaluating 

existing, relevant information will help 

both the responsible official and the 

public form a clear base of information 

related to management issues and 

decisions that will be made later in the 

planning process. 

Section 219.6—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on concerns about the 

assessment phase in the proposed rule 

being too open ended, lengthy and 

costly, and/or not closely enough linked 

to the requirements for plan 

components and monitoring in the other 

phases of the framework. The 

Department determined that these 

concerns were valid, and made a 

number of changes to this section in 

response. The Department reorganized 

the section to clarify the process and 

direction for assessments. 

In the introductory paragraph, the 

Department removed the description of 

what an assessment is, and provided a 

cross-reference to description of the 

assessment in § 219.5(a)(1). This change 

was made to avoid redundancy, and is 

not a change in requirements. Changes 

to the description of the assessment in 

§ 219.5(a)(1) were made to focus on the 

use of existing information in a rapid 

process. This change reflects the intent 

for this phase as stated in the preamble 

to the proposed rule, and makes that 

intent clear in the final rule. Additional 

changes to reflect this focus were made 

throughout this section. These changes 

reflect the preamble discussion of the 

proposed rule about rapid assessments; 

therefore, these changes are 

clarifications based on public comments 

to make the assessment more efficient. 

In paragraph (a) of the final rule the 

Department made several changes, 

including: 

(1) Removed specific requirements for 

formal notification and encouragement 

of various parties to participate in the 

assessment (designated at § 219.6(a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of the proposed rule); these 

specific requirements were removed in 

response to public comments. 

Requirements for public participation 

and notification during this phase are 

still present in §§ 219.4 and 219.16. This 

is a change in requirements that is based 

on public comments to make the 

assessment more efficient. 

(2) Moved the type of information to 

identify and consider from paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section of the proposed 

rule to paragraph (a)(1) in this section. 

The Department added public 

transportation plans and State wildlife 

data to the list of example documents to 

consider contained in paragraph (a)(1). 

The Department further clarified in this 

paragraph that relevant local knowledge 

will be considered if publicly available 

or voluntarily provided. These additions 

are not changes in requirements as they 

clarify the Department’s intent. 

(3) Changed the description of the 

report at paragraph (a)(3) from a set of 

reports to a single assessment report; 

changed discussion of additional 

information needs to clarify that they 

should be noted in the assessment 

report, but that new information need 

not be developed during the assessment 

phase; and changed the requirement 

from documenting how science was 

‘‘taken into account’’ to how the best 

available scientific information was 

‘‘used to inform’’ the assessment for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

consistency with § 219.3. These changes 

reflect public comments on making the 

assessment phase more efficient, as well 

as public comments on § 219.3. 

(4) Removed the requirement for the 

assessment to identify the need to 

change the plan from this section and 

added that requirement as an early step 

in the planning process in § 219.7. The 

Department moved the requirement to 

§ 219.7 because after reading the public 

comments it was decided that 

identifying a need to change the plan in 

the assessment phase may cause 

confusion with the NEPA process. The 

planning rule continues to emphasize a 

‘‘need for change’’ approach to planning 

but this now begins with a preliminary 

identification of the need to change the 

plan identified in the beginning of plan 

development (§ 219.7) within the formal 

NEPA process. 

Paragraph (b) describes the content of 

assessments for plan development or 

plan revision. The Department added a 

specific listing of 15 topics that would 

be identified and evaluated relevant to 

the plan area, and removed the 

requirement in the proposed rule that 

the assessment report identify and 

evaluate information related to the 

substantive sections of the plan 

(§§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, 219.10, and 

219.11). This change was made in 

response to comments that the 

assessment phase needed to be both 

more efficient and more narrowly and 

specifically focused on the information 

needed to form a basis for developing 

plan components and other plan 

content. These changes represent a 

change in requirements. Changes made 

to § 219.7 provide additional clarity to 

link the two phases. 

One term in the list of 15 items may 

be unfamiliar to the reader: baseline 

assessment of carbon stocks. The final 

rule requires that the responsible official 

use existing information to do a baseline 

assessment of carbon stocks. Carbon 

stocks are the amount of carbon stored 

in the ecosystem, in living biomass, soil, 

dead wood, and litter. This requirement 

was included in response to public 

comments to ensure that information 

about baseline carbon stocks is 

identified and evaluated before plan 

revision or development, and to link 

this phase to the requirements of the 

Forest Service Climate Change Roadmap 

and Scorecard. The Department’s 

expectation is that this information 

would be generated via implementation 

of the Roadmap and Scorecard prior to 

planning efforts on a unit, and that the 

assessment phase would use that 

information to meet the direction in 

§ 219.6(b)(4). The Forest Service has 

developed a National Roadmap and 

Performance Scorecard for measuring 

progress to achieve USDA strategic goals 

(USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2010j). 

The roadmap describes the Agency’s 

strategy to address climate change and 

the scorecard is an annual reporting 

mechanism to check the progress of 

each NFS unit. 

The requirements for the assessment 

to identify distinctive roles and 

contributions and potential monitoring 

questions previously included in 

paragraph (b) were removed from this 

section of the rule because they implied 

there would be decisions in the 

assessment phase that should be made 

as part of the plan decision. Both 

requirements are still present in other 

sections of the final rule; therefore, the 

removal of these requirements from this 

section of the rule is a minor change. 

At § 219.6(c) the Department removed 

requirements for plan amendments that 

were consolidated with requirements for 

plan amendments in § 219.13(b)(1) for 

clarity and to avoid duplication. In 

addition, the Department changed the 

word ‘‘issue’’ to ‘‘topic’’ to avoid 

confusion with the term ‘‘issues’’ as 

used in the NEPA process. These 

changes are not changes in 

requirements, they are just 

clarifications. 

Comment: Assessment process. Some 

respondents felt the proposed 

assessment process should be removed 

from the rule as it is an added and 

potentially costly step to the planning 

process. They felt it would be more 

efficient and effective if assessments 

used to justify an amendment or plan 

revision were combined into one 

document for the proposed amendment 

or revision. They also felt the rule 

should provide more guidance and 

parameters for the decisionmaking 

occurring along with assessment 

reports. Other respondents felt the 

proposed rule requirements were vague 

on the nature of assessments and more 

standards or guidelines for determining 

proper time frames, content, and need 

for assessment is necessary. Others were 

concerned that the assessments should 

be more comprehensive, that too much 

discretion was given to the responsible 

official to determine what to include in 

the assessment, and the responsible 

official should be required to use, not 

just consider, the information. 

Response: Section 219.6 of the final 

rule changes the requirements for 

assessments. A single document 

identifying and evaluating key 

information for a plan revision or 

amendment will serve as an important 

source to set the stage for planning in 

both the development of the plan and in 

the evaluation of environmental effects 

through an environmental impact 

statement. 

The final rule stresses the assessment 

as an information gathering and 

evaluation process specifically linked to 

the development of plan components 

and other plan content, in the context of 

the broader landscape. The final rule 

requires information about the list of 

topics in § 219.6(b) to be identified and 

evaluated in the assessment. The 

inclusion of this list as opposed to the 

broader direction included in the 

proposed rule is intended to make the 

process both more efficient, and more 

clearly focused on the specific 

information needed to inform the 

development of plan components and 

other plan content as required by other 

sections of the final rule. 

The requirement of the proposed rule 

to find a ‘‘need to change’’ during the 

assessment phase of planning has been 

removed to clarify that the assessment is 

not a decisionmaking process and does 

not require a NEPA document to be 

prepared. Changes to § 219.7 clarify that 

the responsible official must review 

material gathered during the assessment 

to identify a preliminary need to change 

the existing plan and to inform the 

development of the plan components 

and other plan content. The information 

may be used and referenced in the 

planning process, including 

environmental documentation under 

NEPA. However, the assessment report 

is not a decision document. 

The responsible official is required to 

provide public participation 

opportunities to all interested parties 

during the assessment process, and 

must provide notice of such 

opportunities, as well as the availability 

of the assessment report. The public 

will have a formal opportunity to 

comment on information derived from 

the assessment later in the NEPA 

process of the plan development, 

amendment, or revision. 

The Department decided to retain the 

flexibility provided in the proposed rule 

for the responsible official to determine 

when an assessment prior to plan 

amendment is needed, along with the 

scope, scale, process, and content for 

plan amendments, in order to keep the 

amendment process flexible. 

Amendments can be broad or they can 

be narrow and focused only on a subset, 

or even on a single one, of the topics 

identified in the list of 15 in the final 

rule, or on something not on the list. Or 

the amendment could take place while 

the information in the assessment done 

for the plan revision or initial 

development is still up-to-date, such 

that a new assessment would not be 

needed. The circumstances and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21201 

considerations for when a plan 

amendment assessment should occur 

are too variable to specify in the final 

rule. 

Comment: Use of existing 

information. Some respondents felt the 

rule should clarify that the responsible 

official need only consider existing 

information during the assessment 

phase. The concern raised was that if a 

responsible official had to develop new 

information such as new scientific 

studies to fill gaps in the existing 

science, the planning process would be 

further delayed. Others expressed that 

limiting the assessment to rapid 

evaluation of existing information may 

result in lack of input from the public 

or actually be of little use when the 

Forest Service has very little 

information. 

Response: The Department agrees the 

assessment phase needs to be efficient 

and effective. The Department focused 

the final rule on rapidly gathering and 

evaluating existing information on the 

topics identified in paragraph (b) of the 

final rule. The intent is for the 

responsible official to develop in the 

assessment phase a clear understanding 

of what is known about the plan area, 

in the context of the broader landscape, 

in order to provide a solid context for 

decision-making required during the 

planning phase. The Forest Service will 

use relevant existing information from a 

variety of sources, both internal to the 

Agency and from external sources. The 

responsible official is required to 

provide public participation 

opportunities to all interested parties 

during the assessment process. The 

Department concludes that engaging the 

public to inform the assessment report 

will help the responsible official and the 

interested public to develop a common 

base of information to use in the 

planning phase, increasing the 

legitimacy and integrity of future 

decisions. 

Comment: Additional assessment 

considerations. Some respondents noted 

reasonably foreseeable conditions, 

stressors, and opportunities (for 

example forecasts for continued 

urbanization and ecological changes 

resulting from climate change) need to 

be considered when measuring present 

conditions, stressors, and opportunities. 

The respondents implied this 

information should be calculated and 

considered during the assessment phase 

of land management planning. Still 

others indicated there should be 

requirements for water quality, 

minerals, historic, social, economic, and 

other resources. Others mentioned the 

responsible official should be required 

to accept material submitted by 

universities, and should consider best 

available science. 

Response: The list in § 219.6(b) 

includes the topics identified in these 

comments. The Department accepts that 

the list included in the final rule 

represents a focused set of topics 

relevant to the development of plan 

components and other plan content 

required in other sections of the final 

rule. The final rule requires that the best 

available scientific information be used 

to inform all phases of the planning 

process. Documents submitted by 

universities would be accepted by the 

Agency and considered as part of the 

assessment. 

Comment: Annual regional 

evaluations. Some respondents 

indicated the proposed assessment 

process needs to provide for regular 

over-arching investigations of potential 

need to change issues above the 

individual forest level. Some suggested 

the final rule should provide for annual 

evaluations by each Forest Service 

region for developing information 

affecting broader-scale factors and how 

the information may indicate a need to 

initiate forest plan revisions or 

amendments. 

Response: The final rule does not 

require annual evaluations of 

monitoring results by each region or for 

the broader-scale monitoring strategy. 

The three-part planning cycle of 

assessments, planning, and monitoring 

will provide a framework to identify 

changing conditions and respond with 

adaptive management. Broader-scale 

monitoring will help to identify and 

track changing conditions beyond the 

individual forest level. The final rule 

requires consideration of information 

from both the broader and plan scales of 

monitoring. This information would be 

described in the biennial plan 

monitoring report for each unit if 

applicable to plan area. Annual 

investigations and review, in addition to 

what is provided for in the rule, would 

be procedurally difficult and was 

deemed not necessary. 

Comment: Assessments versus 

monitoring. Some respondents 

remarked that the rule needs to state the 

Agency cannot rely on one-time 

assessments in lieu of monitoring data. 

Response: The Department does not 

intend for assessments to replace 

monitoring. The final rule requires 

monitoring and biennial monitoring 

reports. Results from monitoring will be 

considered when developing an 

assessment and during the planning 

phase, just as the information gathered 

during the assessment phase will inform 

the planning phase, including 

development of the monitoring program. 

Comment: Assessments and 

performance. Some respondents pointed 

out that the rule should link the 

assessment process with the Agency’s 

integrated management reviews to 

assess performance in implementation 

of plan priorities. 

Response: While management reviews 

can be a tool to assess plan progress 

toward meeting the intended results, the 

final rule does not require management 

review be linked with the assessment 

process. Management reviews are part of 

the management process for all mission 

areas, and are broader in scope, looking 

at many issues. The final rule is limited 

in scope to the planning process to 

develop, amend, or revise plans. 

Comment: Notification of scientists. 

Some respondents stated the proposed 

rule’s requirement to encourage and 

notify scientists to participate in the 

process was unwieldy. 

Response: The detailed notification 

requirements previously included in 

this section have been removed in order 

to make the process more efficient and 

clearer. However, the final rule still 

requires that the responsible official 

coordinate with Forest Service Research 

and Development, identify and evaluate 

information from relevant scientific 

studies and reports, provide 

participation opportunities to the 

public, and use best available scientific 

information to inform the planning 

process. 

Comment: Public comment and 

participation on assessment reports. 

Some respondents felt the rule should 

provide the public with the opportunity 

to review, comment, and provide 

additional information during the 

assessment phase. Other respondents 

felt the proposed rule was not clear as 

to what role the public would play in 

determining the scope of the 

assessment. The desire was also 

expressed for the opportunity to appeal 

the development or use of the 

assessment report. 

Response: The rule requires the 

responsible official to provide 

opportunities for the public to 

participate in and provide information 

for the assessment process. For a new 

plan or plan revision, the final rule 

specifies the minimum scope of the 

assessment. For a plan amendment 

assessment, the need for and scope of 

the assessment will be determined by 

the responsible official based on the 

circumstances. The assessment is an 

informational document, not a decision 

document; therefore, a formal comment 

period is not required. As such, an 

opportunity to appeal or object to an 

assessment report is not required by the 

final rule. Other opportunities for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21202 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

formal comment and objection are 

provided in the rule for plan decisions. 

Comment: Distinctive roles and 

contributions. Some respondents felt the 

requirement for assessments to identify 

‘‘distinctive roles and contributions of 

the unit within the broader landscape’’ 

should be retained; while others felt it 

should be removed. 

Response: The final removes this 

requirement from the assessment as it 

implies a decision that should be made 

when approving the distinctive roles 

and contributions of the unit as part of 

the other plan content (§ 219.7(f)). It is 

retained in the requirement for other 

plan content in § 219.7 of the final rule. 

Comment: Assessments and plan 

components. A respondent suggested 

assessments should include 

development of plan components to 

meet the substantive requirements of 

other rule provisions such as water 

quality standards. 

Response: Assessments do not 

develop plan components, but only 

gather and evaluate existing information 

that can be used later in the 

development of plan components. 

Comment: Information gaps or 

uncertainties. Some respondents 

declared the rule should require a 

component in the assessment 

identifying information gaps or 

uncertainties. 

Response: Section 219.6(a)(3) of the 

final rule requires the assessment to 

document in the report information 

needs related to the list of topics in 

paragraph (b) as part of the assessment 

report. Adding a requirement for the 

responsible official to document all 

information gaps or uncertainties could 

become burdensome and was 

inconsistent with the rapid evaluation 

of existing information. 

Comment: Cumulative effects 

disclosure. Some respondents stated 

proposed § 219.6(b)(3) should 

specifically address the need to 

document cumulative effects to the 

condition of lands, water, and 

watersheds. 

Response: The final rule does not add 

a cumulative effects requirement to the 

assessment. The assessment identifies 

and evaluates information on conditions 

and trends related to the land 

management plan. This will include 

influences beyond the plan area and 

influences created by the conditions and 

trends in the plan area. Cumulative 

effects analysis is part of the NEPA 

process and disclosed in the 

environmental documentation for 

planning or project decisionmaking. 

Section 219.7—Plan Development or 

Plan Revision 

This section sets out requirements for 

how to develop a new plan or revise an 

existing plan. This section has two 

primary topics: (1) The process for 

developing or revising plans and (2) 

direction to include plan components 

and other content in the plan. The 

intent of this section is to set forth a 

process for planning that reflects public 

input and Forest Service experience. 

The process set forth in the final rule 

requires the use of the best available 

scientific information to inform 

planning (§ 219.3), and requires public 

participation early and throughout the 

process (§ 219.4). By conducting an 

assessment using a collaborative 

approach before starting a new plan or 

plan revision, and by working with the 

public to develop a proposal for a new 

plan or plan revision, the Department 

expects that the actual preparation of a 

plan would be much less time 

consuming then under the 1982 rule 

procedures, and that plans will be better 

supported. These requirements 

incorporate the best practices learned 

from the past 30 years of planning, and 

the Department concludes these 

practices can be carried out in an 

efficient and effective manner. 

This section also sets out 

requirements for plan components. 

These plan components are based on 

techniques widely accepted and 

practiced by planners, both inside and 

outside of government. The set of plan 

components must meet the substantive 

requirements for sustainability (§ 219.8), 

plant and animal diversity (§ 219.9), 

multiple use (§ 219.10), and timber 

requirements based on the NFMA 

(§ 219.11) as well as other requirements 

laid out in the plan. Except to correct 

clerical errors, plan components can 

only be changed through plan 

amendment or revision. Plan 

components themselves cannot compel 

Agency action or guarantee specific 

results. Instead, they provide the vision, 

strategy, objectives, and constraints 

needed to move the unit toward 

ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability 

In addition to the plan components, 

this section includes requirements for 

other plan content. Other required plan 

content differs from plan components in 

that an amendment or revision is not 

required for changes to be made that 

reflect new information or changed 

conditions. 

Section 219.7—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on aspects of the plan 

component and NEPA requirements. 

The Department retains the 2011 

proposed rule wording in the final rule 

except for minor changes and the 

following: 

(1) At paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 

section, the Department consolidated 

the requirement to identify a 

preliminary need to change the plan 

from § 219.6(a) and § 219.7(a). This 

change is not a change in requirement 

for the planning process, but moves this 

requirement from the assessment phase 

to the start of the planning phase. Also, 

in this paragraph, the Department 

modified the wording to make the link 

between the assessment and monitoring 

phases with the plan phase clearer: the 

final rule requires that the responsible 

official review relevant information 

from the assessment and monitoring to 

identify a preliminary need to change 

the plan and to inform the development 

of plan components and other plan 

content. This change reflects the intent 

of the Department as stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule and 

responds to public comment. It is a 

change in requirement. 

(2) At paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this 

section, the Department added a 

requirement to consider the goals and 

objectives of the Forest Service strategic 

plan. The Department added this 

requirement to respond to public 

comments and to address the 

requirement of 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3) to 

specify guidelines for land management 

plans developed to achieve the goals of 

the ‘‘Program.’’ Today the ‘‘Program’’ is 

equivalent to the Forest Service strategic 

plan. This is an additional requirement 

to implement the NFMA. 

(3) At, paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this 

section, the Department edited the 

wording regarding whether to 

recommend any additional area for 

wilderness to remove the confusing 

term ‘‘potential wilderness areas.’’ The 

paragraph was also edited to clarify that 

lands that may be suitable, as well as 

lands that are recommended for 

wilderness designation, must be 

identified. These changes clarify the 

proposed rule and respond to public 

comment. 

(4) At paragraph (c)(2)(vii), the 

Department added a new requirement to 

identify existing designated areas other 

than wilderness or wild and scenic 

rivers, and determine whether to 

recommend any additional areas for 

designation. The changes make clear 

that if the responsible official has the 

delegated authority to designate a new 

area or modify an existing area, then the 

responsible official may designate such 

lands when approving the plan, plan 

revision, or plan amendment. Based on 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21203 

public comment, the Department added 

this requirement to clarify the 

requirement of § 219.10(b)(1)(vi) of the 

proposed rule. 

(5) At paragraph (c)(3) the Department 

added the requirement for the regional 

forester to identify species of 

conservation concern for the plan area 

in coordination with the responsible 

official in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. The Department added this 

requirement in response to public 

comment to provide more consistency 

and accountability in selecting the 

species of conservation concern. This is 

a new requirement. 

(6) At paragraph (d) of this section, 

the Department clarified that 

management areas or geographic areas 

are required in every plan. This is a 

clarification of paragraph (d) of the 

proposed rule and reflects the 

Department’s intent for the proposed 

rule. Under the proposed rule, inclusion 

of management and/or geographic areas 

was implied by paragraph (d); the 

change to the final rule makes clear that 

every plan must include management 

areas or geographic areas or both, to 

which plan components would apply as 

described in paragraph (e) of the final 

rule. The Department removed the 

provision of the proposed rule that 

stated every project and activity must be 

consistent with the applicable plan 

components, because § 219.15(b) and (d) 

also state this, and this statement would 

be redundant. These changes are not 

changes in requirements; they are 

clarifications. 

(7) At paragraph (e)(1)(iv), the 

Department clarified the wording in the 

description of a guideline to respond to 

comments on the preferred alternative. 

The Department changed the word 

‘‘intent’’ to ‘‘purpose.’’ The final 

wording is: ‘‘a guideline is a constraint 

on project and activity decisionmaking 

that allows for departure from its terms, 

so long as the purpose of the guideline 

is met.’’ In addition, in the second 

sentence of paragraph (e)(1)(iv), 

Department added the words ‘‘or 

maintain’’ because guidelines, like 

standards, may be established to help 

achieve or maintain a desired 

conditions or conditions. 

(8) At paragraph (e)(1)(v), the 

Department clarified that plans will 

include identification of specific lands 

as suitable or not suitable for various 

multiple uses and activities, in response 

to public comment on this section. It 

retains the wording that makes clear 

that the suitability of an area need not 

be identified for every use or activity, 

and adds clarifying wording stating that 

suitability identifications may be made 

after consideration of historic uses and 

of issues that have arisen in the 

planning process. This is a clarification 

of the proposed rule paragraph (d)(1)(v) 

to carry out the intent of the proposed 

rule. 

Comment: Alternate plans. A 

respondent said wording contained in 

the 1982 rule at § 219.12(f)(5) requiring 

the Agency to develop alternatives to 

address public concerns should be 

restored. 

Response: The rule requires 

preparation of an EIS as part of the plan 

revision process. The NEPA requires 

development of a range of reasonable 

alternatives in the EIS. Therefore, a 

duplicative requirement in the rule is 

not necessary. 

Comment: Requests for revision. A 

respondent said there should be a 

process for others to request plan 

revisions. The responsible official 

would retain the option of determining 

whether such a request would warrant 

starting the assessment process. 

Response: The public may request a 

plan revision at any time. The public 

does not need special process to make 

this request. 

Comment: Combining multiple 

national forests under one plan. Some 

respondents felt a multi-forest plan 

would need separate tailored 

requirements for the different 

ecosystems, landscapes, landforms, 

forest types, habitats, and stream types 

that exist in each of the national forests 

affected. 

Response: The final rule allows the 

responsible official the discretion to 

determine the appropriateness of 

developing a multi-forest plan, or a 

separate plan for each designated unit. 

Plan components would be designed as 

appropriate for those units to meet the 

requirements of the final rule, whether 

for a single or a multi-forest plan. 

Comment: Environmental Policy Act 

compliance and plan development, 

amendment, or revision (NEPA). Some 

respondents felt plans should be as 

simple and programmatic as possible 

and that the preparation of an EIS for a 

new plan or plan revision is not 

appropriate. NEPA compliance should 

occur only at the project level. One 

respondent wanted a clear commitment 

for preparation of an EIS for forest plan 

revisions. Another respondent said 

categorical exclusions should be used 

for minor amendments, environmental 

assessments for more significant 

amendments, and EISs should be 

reserved for major scheduled plan 

revisions. A respondent said responsible 

officials should not be allowed to 

combine NEPA and planning associated 

public notifications (§ 219.16). A 

respondent said to please consider and 

discuss an efficient amendment process 

in the proposed rule. Another 

respondent proposed § 219.7(e)(1)(iv) be 

rewritten to clarify any aspect of any 

planning document are proposals 

subject to NEPA. 

Response: The final rule requires the 

preparation of an EIS for plan revisions 

and new plans. Plan amendments must 

be consistent with Forest Service NEPA 

procedures, which require an EIS, an 

EA, or a CE, depending on the scope 

and scale of the amendment. Projects 

and activities will continue to be 

conducted under Forest Service NEPA 

procedures. The Department believes 

the NEPA analysis requirements are 

appropriate to inform the public and 

help responsible officials make 

decisions based on the environmental 

consequences. The requirements for 

public participation are described in 

§ 219.4 and notifications in § 219.16. 

The Department retained the wording 

on combining notifications where 

appropriate to allow for an efficient 

amendment process while continuing 

requiring public notice. 

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 

1508.23 provides that a proposal ‘‘exists 

at that stage in the development of an 

action when an agency subject to the 

Act has a goal and is actively preparing 

to make a decision on one or more 

alternative means of accomplishing that 

goal and the effects can be meaningfully 

evaluated.’’ Not all aspects of planning 

and planning documentation fall under 

this definition, and the Department 

considers classifying every aspect of 

every planning document as a 

‘‘proposal’’ subject to NEPA would be 

an unnecessary and burdensome 

requirement on the Agency. 

Comment: Additional coordination 

requirements. Some respondents 

suggested additional coordination 

requirements for noxious weed 

management, reduction of the threat of 

wildland fire, assessment of existing 

aircraft landing sites, and guidelines to 

ensure project coordination across forest 

and grassland boundaries where 

discrepancies between individual unit 

plans may occur. 

Response: The Department agrees the 

issues raised are important. The final 

rule does emphasize an all lands 

approach precisely to address issues 

like these. This emphasis is in each 

phase of planning: in the assessment 

phase, responsible officials are directed 

to identify and evaluate relevant 

information in the context of the 

broader landscape; in § 219.8, the final 

rule requires that the responsible official 

consider management and resources 

across the landscape; and in § 219.4 the 

responsible official is directed to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

consider opportunities for the plan to 

address the impacts identified or 

contribute to joint objectives across 

jurisdictions. Section 219.12 provides a 

framework for coordination and 

broader-scale monitoring. However, the 

rule provides overall direction for plan 

components and other plan content, and 

for how plans are developed, revised, 

and amended. More specific guidance 

with regard to particular resources is 

properly found in the plans themselves, 

or in the subsequent decisions regarding 

projects and activities on a particular 

national forest, grassland, prairie, or 

other comparable administrative unit. 

Those communities, groups, or persons 

interested in these important issues can 

influence plan components and plan 

monitoring programs by becoming 

involved in planning efforts throughout 

the process, including the development 

and monitoring of the plan, as well as 

the development of proposed projects 

and activities under the plan. 

Comment: Scope of the responsible 

official’s discretion. Some respondents 

raised concerns over the responsible 

official’s discretion to determine 

conditions on a unit have changed 

significantly so a plan must be revised, 

because the proposed rule fails to define 

significant and does not include an 

opportunity for public involvement in 

this determination. Other respondents 

felt use of the terms ‘‘consider’’ and 

‘‘appropriate,’’ as in proposed 

§ 219.7(c)(2)(ii) are vague, too 

discretionary, and could mean the 

official would look at conditions and 

trends, but then fail to address them, 

leading to a poor assessment and 

planning. 

Response: A primary goal of the new 

rule is to create a framework in which 

new information is identified and used 

to support adaptive management. The 

Department expects the new rule to 

facilitate, over time, the increased use of 

the amendment process to react more 

quickly to changing conditions. Placing 

overly prescriptive requirements in this 

section could inhibit the responsible 

official’s ability to adaptively manage 

within the planning rule framework. 

Section 219.7(c)(2)(ii) in the proposed 

rule, now (c)(2)(iii) in the final rule, is 

simply intended as a process step to 

identify the relevant resources present 

in plan area for the purpose of 

developing plan components. This is 

not intended to be a new assessment, 

but is linked to the requirements for the 

assessment in section 219.6(b) of the 

final rule. Sections 219.8–219.11 

contain the requirements for developing 

plan components to address those 

resources. 

Plan Components 

Comment: Plan component wording, 

standards, and guidelines. A respondent 

remarked that it was unclear if plans 

could meet the requirements in this 

section for plan components by 

including only one of each of the 

different kinds of plan components, or 

whether the Agency is making a binding 

commitment to include more than one 

standard, which the respondent 

believed to be more binding than 

desired conditions or guidelines. 

Response: This section of the rule 

identifies what plan components are, 

and requires that every plan contain 

desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, and suitability. 

The intent of the Department in the 

proposed rule was that the responsible 

official would determine the best mix of 

plan components to address the rule’s 

substantive requirements. However, 

some respondents were concerned that 

the rule could be interpreted to require 

only one of each kind of plan 

component for every plan. Therefore, 

the final rule includes changes to the 

wording in sections 219.8–11 to require 

that plans include ‘‘plan components, 

including standards or guidelines.’’ 

Comment: Desired Future Condition 

plan component. A respondent felt 

desired future condition should be 

included as a plan component, as it is 

more than the sum total of the 

individual desired conditions for each 

of the important ecological, social, and 

economic resources on the forest and 

causes individual desired conditions to 

occur somewhat in sync. 

Response: Plans under the rule will 

identify the forest or grassland’s 

distinctive roles and contributions 

within the broader landscape and the 

desired conditions for specific social, 

economic, and ecological characteristics 

of the plan area. The Department 

believes those requirements, combined 

with the requirements for public 

participation and integrated resource 

management, will result in plans that 

reflect an overall vision for the future 

desired condition of the plan area as a 

whole. 

Comment: Desired conditions. Some 

respondents stated defining a desired 

condition as specific social, economic, 

and/or ecological conditions may 

continue ecologically unsustainable 

social and economic practices leading to 

unsustainable outcomes. A respondent 

commented that States are responsible 

for setting fish and wildlife population 

objectives and the wording must be 

changed to prevent the Agency from 

taking on the role of the States. Other 

respondents wanted more direction on 

how the responsible official determines 

desired conditions. 

Response: Desired conditions are a 

way to identify a shared vision for a 

plan area. In some instances, desired 

conditions may only be achievable in 

the long-term. At times, the desired 

conditions may be the same as existing 

conditions. Desired conditions may be 

stated in terms of a range of conditions. 

Other plan components would provide 

the strategy and guidance needed to 

achieve that vision. Plans must meet the 

requirements of §§ 219.8 through 

219.11, including to provide for 

ecological sustainability. Projects and 

activities must be consistent with 

desired conditions as described in 

§ 219.15. The Forest Service Directives 

System will describe how desired 

conditions should be written and 

developed. 

States do have responsibilities for 

managing fish and wildlife, but the rule 

requires plans to include plan 

components for ecological conditions 

(habitat and other conditions) to 

maintain diversity of fish and wildlife 

species, as required by NFMA. 

Responsible officials will continue to 

coordinate with Federal, State, and local 

governments and agencies on other 

public planning efforts. 

Comment: Procedures for analysis. 

Some respondents suggested that the 

final rule should include specific 

procedures for analysis. These include 

specific economic indicators for the 

economic analysis part of the planning 

process, the model paradigm for social 

and economic resources important to 

rural communities, and means of 

weighing relative values of multiple 

uses. 

Response: Such guidance is not 

included in this final rule. Analysis 

methods and technical procedures are 

constantly changing; the planning rule 

would quickly be outdated if specific 

methods were mandated. Additional 

guidance with regard to social and 

economic resource analysis is more 

appropriate in the Forest Service 

Directives System, and revisions to the 

Forest Service directives will be 

available for public comment. 

Comment: Objectives. Several 

respondents supported clear, 

measurable, and specific objectives to 

enhance transparency and 

accountability. Several respondents felt 

basing objectives on reasonable 

foreseeable budgets unduly constrains 

planning analysis. Another respondent 

thought a desired condition without 

objectives is completely meaningless. 

Response: The rule uses objectives to 

support measureable progress toward a 

desired condition. Objectives will lead 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21205 

to the development of a proactive 

program of work to achieve the desired 

condition by describing the focus of 

management in the plan area. Objectives 

will be based on achieving and 

monitoring progress toward desired 

conditions, and will be stated in 

measurable terms with specific time 

frames. Objectives based on budgets and 

other assumptions help set realistic 

expectations for achievement of plan 

objectives over the life of the plan and 

assist in building public trust in the 

Agency being able to make progress 

towards achieving desired conditions 

and objectives. 

Comment: Goals. Several respondents 

felt goals should be mandatory because 

broad general goal statements describe 

how the desired future conditions will 

be achieved and create the overall 

framework for the other plan 

components. Others felt they should be 

optional. Another respondent suggested 

inclusion of a goal to connect youth, 

minority, and urban populations to the 

national forest or grassland to better 

assure required plan components 

incorporate and reflect the needs of 

diverse populations. 

Response: The proposed wording for 

goals is unchanged in the final rule 

because the proposed optional use of 

goals allows responsible officials to 

determine whether or not they are a 

useful plan component in addressing 

the local situation. Inclusion of a goal 

for youth, minority, and urban 

populations is not required in the final 

rule because the final rule requires the 

responsible official to encourage 

participation of youth, low-income 

populations, and minority populations 

throughout the planning process, and to 

consider opportunities to connect 

people with nature as well as to 

contribute to social and economic 

sustainability when developing plan 

components. See §§ 219.4, 219.8(b), and 

219.10(a). 

Comment: Suitability for uses other 

than timber. Some respondents felt the 

rule should require suitability 

determinations for multiple uses. In 

addition to suitability for timber use as 

required under NFMA, a respondent felt 

suitability of lands for livestock grazing, 

fire suppression, energy developments, 

mineral leasing, and off highway 

vehicles should be required to meet the 

Act. Another respondent felt economics 

should be a part of the analysis and land 

suitability determinations. A respondent 

felt identification of lands where 

specific uses are not allowed is de facto 

regulation of those uses, and proposed 

§ 219.2(b)(2) wording ‘‘a plan does not 

regulate uses by the public’’ appears 

inconsistent with NFMA direction 

regarding the identification of lands as 

suitable for resource management 

activities, such as timber harvest. In 

addition, the respondent stated this 

wording may be inconsistent with 

proposed § 219.7(d)(1)(v) wording that a 

‘‘plan may also identify lands within the 

plan area as not suitable for uses that are 

not compatible with desired conditions 

for those lands.’’ 

Response: Determining the suitability 

of a specific land area for a particular 

use or activity is usually based upon the 

desired condition for that area and the 

inherent capability of the land to 

support the use or activity. NFMA does 

not impose a requirement to make 

suitability determinations for all 

multiple uses. The NFMA requires that 

plans ‘‘determine * * * the availability 

of lands and their suitability for 

resource management’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1604(e)(2). 

The Department clarified the wording 

of paragraph (e)(1)(v) to make clear that 

plans will include identification of 

specific lands as suitable or not suitable 

for various multiple uses and activities, 

in response to public comment on this 

section; however, the Department 

decided not to require determinations in 

every plan for specific uses other than 

timber. The final rule retains the 

wording that makes clear that the 

suitability of an area need not be 

identified for every use or activity, and 

adds clarifying wording stating that 

suitability identifications may be made 

after consideration of historic uses and 

of issues that have arisen in the 

planning process. The responsible 

official will determine when to identify 

suitability for various uses and activities 

as part of the set of plan components 

needed to meet the requirements of 

§§ 219.8–219.11. 

The identification of suitability is not 

de facto regulation of those uses. 

However, responsible officials may, and 

often do, develop closure orders to help 

achieve desired conditions. If a 

responsible official were to develop a 

closure order, that closure order is a 

regulation of uses and would prohibit or 

constrain public use and occupancy. 

Such prohibitions are made under Title 

36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

261—Prohibitions, Subpart B— 

Prohibitions in Areas Designated by 

Order. Issuance of a closure order may 

be made contemporaneously with the 

approval of a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision. 

Comment: Suitability for mineral 

materials. Several respondents felt the 

determination of the suitability of lands 

for energy developments, leasing and 

extraction, mineral exploration, or 

mineral leasing must be required. Other 

respondents felt the rule should not 

imply the Agency has regulatory or 

administrative authority to determine 

which portions of NFS lands are 

suitable for mineral exploration and 

development as such a determination 

would be a de facto withdrawal not in 

accordance with existing laws. 

Response: Responsible officials 

should not make suitability 

determinations for any resource such as 

minerals where another entity has 

authority over the disposal or leasing. 

Congress has given the Secretary of the 

Interior authorities over the disposal of 

locatable minerals (gold, silver, lead, 

and so forth) and leasable minerals (oil, 

gas, coal, geothermal, among others). 

The Secretary of Agriculture has 

authority over saleable minerals (sand, 

gravel, pumice, among others). The final 

rule or a plan developed under the final 

rule cannot make a de facto withdrawal. 

Withdrawals occur only by act of 

Congress or by the Secretary of the 

Interior through a process under 43 CFR 

2300. The Forest Service minerals 

regulation at 36 CFR 228.4(d) govern 

how the Agency makes decisions about 

the availability of lands for oil and gas 

leasing, and those decisions are not 

suitability determinations. Decisions 

about availability of lands for oil and 

gas leasing under 36 CFR 228.4(d), have 

been made for most national forests and 

grasslands. Decisions about the 

availability of lands for oil and gas 

leasing under 36 CFR 228.4(d) are not 

plan components; however, availability 

decisions may be made at the same time 

as plan development, plan amendment, 

or plan revision; but that is not required. 

Comment: Guidelines. One 

respondent noted the preamble for the 

proposed rule stated that guidelines are 

requirements, but felt guidelines should 

be optional. Another respondent felt the 

proposed rule eliminates the distinction 

between plan guidelines and standards, 

making guidelines legally enforceable 

standards with which all projects must 

comply. The respondent felt that 

making guidelines enforceable in the 

same way as standards eliminates what 

the respondent believed to be the 

Department’s that guidelines are 

discretionary to provide management 

flexibility. One respondent policy 

advocated making guidelines binding, 

because if they are discretionary, why 

include them. Several respondents 

commented on the preferred alternative 

that the Department should remove the 

discretion to meet the rule’s substantive 

mandates through either standards ‘‘or’’ 

guidelines by requiring ‘‘standards and 

guidelines.’’ 

Response: The final rule retains the 

proposed rule’s distinction between 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21206 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

standards and guidelines. Under the 

final rule, standards and guidelines are 

both mandatory—projects and activities 

must be consistent with the applicable 

standards and guidelines. Consistency 

with a standard is determined by strict 

adherence to the specific terms of the 

standard, while consistency with a 

guideline allows for either strict 

adherence to the terms of the guideline, 

or deviation from the specific terms of 

the guideline, so long as the purpose for 

which the guideline was included in the 

plan is met (§ 219.15). This approach to 

guidelines allows for flexibility as 

circumstances warrant, for example, 

when there is more than one way to 

achieve the intended purpose, or new 

information provides a better way to 

meet the purpose, without lessening 

protections. Guidelines included in 

plans pursuant to this final rule must be 

written clearly and without ambiguity, 

so the purpose is apparent and project 

or activity consistency with guidelines 

can be easily determined. 

The final rule retains the preferred 

alternative’s wording of ‘‘standards or 

guidelines’’ throughout sections 219.8– 

219.11. While every set of plan 

components developed to meet a 

substantive requirement of the rule must 

include standards or guidelines, 

including both may not be appropriate 

in every circumstance. 

Comment: Use of standards and 

guidelines to promote action. A 

respondent suggested standards and 

guidelines should be used to promote or 

mandate certain management actions, 

like managing suitable timberlands 

towards the desired future condition or 

reducing fuels around wildland-urban 

interface areas. 

Response: The Department expects 

that the set of plan components 

developed in response to one or more 

requirements in the rule will facilitate 

management to move the unit towards 

one or more desired conditions. 

Standards and guidelines set out design 

criteria which are applied to projects 

and activities, but do not by themselves 

result in specific management actions 

taking place. 

Comment: Mandatory standards. 

Some respondents stated the final rule 

must include measurable standards for 

specific resources such as climate 

change, species viability, sustainable 

recreation, valid existing rights, or 

watershed management, in order to 

implement the intent of the rule and to 

ensure consistency. Others were 

opposed to the use of standards and 

guidelines. 

Response: The rule includes specific 

requirements for plan components in 

§§ 219.8 through 219.11. The final rule 

has been modified to clarify that 

‘‘standards or guidelines’’ must be part 

of the set of plan components required 

by each of those sections. However, the 

Department does not agree there should 

be specific national standards for each 

of the resources or uses mentioned in 

the comment, because significant 

differences in circumstances across the 

National Forest System could make 

specific national standards unworkable 

or not reflective of the best available 

scientific information for a given plan 

area. The final rule balances the need 

for national consistency with the need 

for local flexibility to reflect conditions 

and information on each unit. 

Additional direction will be included in 

the Forest Service Directives System, 

and a new requirement was added to 

§ 219.2 that require the Chief to 

establish a national oversight process for 

accountability and consistency of 

planning under this part. 

Comment: Management areas and 

special areas. Some respondents 

indicated management areas and 

prescriptions should be required plan 

components and identification of areas 

with remarkable qualities for special 

designation should be required as part 

of the planning process. 

Response: The final rule requires each 

plan to include management areas or 

geographic areas, allows for the plan to 

identify designated or recommended 

areas as management areas or 

geographic areas, allows the responsible 

official to identify or recommend new 

designated areas, and clarifies the term 

‘‘designated area’’ under § 219.19, in 

response to public comment. 

Comment: Potential wilderness area 

evaluation and management. Some 

respondents found the term ‘‘potential 

wilderness area’’ confusing or 

inadequate, and the wilderness 

evaluation process unclear or in conflict 

with congressional action. 

Response: The final rule wording 

removes the term ‘‘potential wilderness 

areas’’ from the final rule in response to 

public comments. The wording in 

§ 219.7 clarifies that the Agency will 

identify and evaluate lands that may be 

suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System and 

determine whether to recommend them 

for wilderness designation. Section 

219.10(b)(iv) wording has also been 

changed to clarify that areas 

recommended for wilderness 

designation will be managed to protect 

and maintain the ecological and social 

characteristics that provide the basis for 

their suitability for wilderness 

designation. Direction for the evaluation 

process and inventory criteria is listed 

in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12— 

Land Management Planning Handbook, 

Chapter 70—Wilderness Evaluation. 

Chapter 70 is part of the Forest Service 

Directives System being revised 

following the final rule and the public 

is encouraged to participate in the 

upcoming public comment period for 

those directives. The wilderness 

evaluation requirement in the rule is not 

in conflict with the law. In addition, 

many State wilderness acts require the 

Forest Service to review the wilderness 

option when the plans are revised. The 

Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 is one 

example, Public Law 98–428. 

§ 201(b)(2); 98 Stat. 1659. 

Comment: Roadless area management 

and inventory. Some respondents noted 

that direction should be added to 

identify, evaluate, and protect 

inventoried roadless areas, and a 

requirement to remove these areas from 

lands suitable for timber production. 

Some respondents suggested inclusion 

of ‘‘unroaded areas,’’ as defined in 

§ 219.36 of the 2000 planning rule, in 

evaluation of lands that may be suitable 

for potential wilderness and protocols 

for such evaluation be included in the 

rule. An organization commented on the 

preferred alternative that the 

Department should clarify that the 

intended starting point for the 

wilderness evaluation is a full inventory 

of all unroaded lands. 

Response: Agency management 

direction for inventoried roadless areas 

is found at 36 CFR part 294—Special 

Areas, and plans developed pursuant to 

the final rule must comply with all 

applicable laws and regulations 

(§ 219.1(f)). 

The wording of § 219.7(c)(2)(v) was 

changed in the final rule to clarify that 

areas that may be suitable for inclusion 

in the National Wilderness System must 

be identified as part of the planning 

process, along with recommendations 

for wilderness designation. This change 

makes clear that each unit will identify 

an inventory of lands that may be 

suitable as a starting point for evaluating 

which lands to recommend. Inventories 

of lands that may be suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System will be conducted 

following direction in Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12—Land Management 

Planning Handbook, Chapter 70 

Wilderness evaluation, which also 

includes criteria for evaluation. Chapter 

70 is part of the Forest Service 

Directives System which will be revised 

following the promulgation of this rule. 

The public is encouraged to participate 

in the upcoming public comment period 

for those directives. It is currently 

Agency policy that unless otherwise 

provided by law, all roadless, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21207 

undeveloped areas that satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in 

section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 

1964 be evaluated and considered for 

recommendation as potential wilderness 

areas during plan development or 

revision (FSM 1923). 

Comment: Time limit on 

Congressional action. A respondent 

suggested the rule should include a 10- 

year time limit for Wild and Scenic 

River or Wilderness recommendations 

to be acted upon by Congress or the 

Agency’s recommendation is 

withdrawn. 

Response: The Constitution does not 

grant the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

authority to set time limits on 

Congressional action. The Department 

decided it is not going to require 

responsible officials to withdraw any 

such recommendations. 

Other Plan Content 

Comment: Forest vegetation 

management practices. Some 

respondents requested clarification of 

proposed § 219.7(f)(1)(iv) phrase 

‘‘proportion of probable methods of 

forest vegetation management practices 

expected’’ as it is unclear what type of 

management practices must be 

undertaken to successfully satisfy this 

requirement. 

Response: Section 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(2) 

of the NFMA requires plans to ‘‘be 

embodied in appropriate written 

material * * * reflecting proposed and 

possible actions, including the planned 

timber sale program and the proportion 

of probable methods of timber harvest 

within the unit necessary to fulfill the 

plan.’’ Therefore, under the final rule 

and Forest Service Directives System, 

the Department expects plans to display 

the expected acres of timber harvest by 

the categories, such as: regeneration 

cutting (even- or two-aged), unevenaged management, intermediate harvest, 

commercial thinning, salvage/ 

sanitation, other harvest cutting, 

reforestation, and timber stand 

improvement in an appendix. Examples 

of such exhibits are displayed in Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12, Land 

Management Planning, Chapter 60, 

Forest Vegetation Resource Planning is 

available at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/

directives/fsh/1909.12/1909.12_60.doc. 

The list of proposed and possible 

actions may also include recreation and 

wildlife projects. The final rule allows 

the list to be updated through an 

administrative change (§ 219.13(c)). 

Comment: Distinctive roles and 

contributions. Some respondents said 

there is no legal requirement for 

identification of a forest or grassland’s 

distinctive roles and contributions, and 

the requirement will bias and polarize 

the planning process in favor of some 

uses, products, and services and against 

others. Other respondents felt the unit’s 

distinctive roles should be plan 

components requiring a plan 

amendment to change, or the wording 

strengthened to require assessment of 

underrepresented ecosystems and 

successional classes across the broader 

landscape. 

Response: Under the public 

participation process, the Department 

believes the development of the 

distinctive roles and contributions, 

while not required by NFMA, will be a 

unifying concept helping define the 

vision for the plan area within the 

broader landscape. The preferred vision 

is expected to assist the responsible 

official in developing plan components 

for the multiple uses. However, projects 

and activities would not be required to 

be consistent with the plan area’s 

distinctive roles and contributions, so 

the Department decided to keep this 

description as other plan content. 

Comment: Additional plan 

components and content. Some 

respondents suggested additional 

required plan components like 

partnership opportunities, coordination 

activities, monitoring program, or 

specific maps. 

Response: Plan components are the 

core elements of plans. Projects and 

activities must be consistent with plan 

components (§ 219.15), and an 

amendment or revision is required to 

change plan components. Plan 

components in the rule are usually 

reserved for ecological, social, or 

economic aspects of the environment, 

but the responsible official has 

discretion in developing plan 

components to meet the requirements of 

the final rule. 

Some items like a monitoring program 

are included as other required content 

in the plan, but not as a required plan 

component. The final rule allows the 

responsible official to add other plan 

content for unit issues and conditions. 

Other plan content can be other 

information that may be useful to Forest 

Service employees when designing 

projects and activities under the plan 

components. The other content in the 

plan (§ 219.7(f)) differs from plan 

components in that an amendment or 

revision would not be required for 

changes to be made to reflect new 

information or changed conditions. 

Monitoring is not included as a plan 

component, so the monitoring program 

can be refined and updated without a 

plan amendment in response to new 

information or changing conditions. 

Listing of specific methods for 

partnership opportunities or 

coordination activities as part of the 

plan is optional content for a plan. The 

Department did not require specific 

maps as part of the final rule. 

Comment: Priority Watersheds. Some 

respondents asked what process is used 

to identify priority watersheds and why 

priority watersheds are not a plan 

component. Some respondents noted 

the proposed rule requirement to 

identify priority watersheds for 

maintenance and restoration did not 

include specific criteria for selecting 

watersheds and did not prescribe what 

activities or prohibitions would occur in 

priority watersheds. 

Response: Section 219.7(f)(1)(i) 

requires identification of priority 

watersheds for restoration. This will 

focus integrated restoration of 

watershed conditions. Setting priorities 

can help ensure that investments 

provide the greatest possible benefits. 

The Department realizes that priority 

areas for potential restoration activities 

could change quickly due to events such 

as wildfire, hurricanes, drought, or the 

presence of invasive species. Therefore, 

this requirement is included as ‘‘other 

required content’’ in § 219.7(f)(1)(i) 

rather than as a required plan 

component, allowing an administrative 

change (§ 219.13) to be used when 

necessary to quickly respond to changes 

in priority. Any changes would require 

notification. 

The Department intends to use the 

Watershed Condition Framework 

(WCF), http://www.fs.fed.us/

publications/watershed/Watershed_

Condition_Framework.pdf, for 

identifying priority watersheds, 

developing watershed action plans and 

implementing projects to maintain or 

restore conditions in priority 

watersheds. However, the WCF is a 

relatively new tool that will be adapted 

as lessons are learned from its use, as 

new information becomes available, or 

as conditions change on the ground. 

Therefore, because the criteria for 

selecting watersheds may change in the 

future, it is not appropriate to codify 

such criteria in a rule. The adaptive 

management approach incorporated in 

the WCF provides the best opportunity 

and most efficient way to prioritize 

watersheds for restoration or 

maintenance. The Department expects 

that implementation of the final rule 

and the WCF will be mutually 

supportive. 

Section 219.8—Sustainability 

The requirements of this section of 

the final rule are linked to the 

requirements in the assessment (§ 219.6) 

and monitoring (§ 219.12). In addition, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21208 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

this section provides a foundation for 

the next three sections regarding 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities (§ 219.9), multiple use 

(§ 219.10), and timber requirements 

based on the NFMA (§ 219.11). Together 

these sections of the final rule require 

plans to include plan components 

designed to maintain or restore 

ecological conditions to provide for 

ecological sustainability and to 

contribute to social and economic 

sustainability. 

The requirements of this section, and 

all sections of the rule, are limited by 

the Agency’s authority and the inherent 

capability of the plan area. This 

limitation arises from the fact that some 

influences on sustainability are outside 

the Agency’s control, for example, 

climate change, national or global 

economic or market conditions, and 

urbanization on lands outside of or 

adjacent to NFS lands. Given those 

constraints, the Department realizes it 

cannot guarantee ecological, economic, 

or social sustainability. It is also 

important to note that plan components 

themselves do not compel agency action 

or guarantee specific results. Instead, 

they provide the vision, strategy, 

guidance, and constraints needed to 

move the plan area toward 

sustainability. The final rule should be 

read with these constraints in mind. 

Additional requirements for 

contributing to social and economic 

sustainability are found in § 219.10 and 

§ 219.11. 

Section 219.8—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on the concepts of ecological 

health, resilience and integrity, 

requirements for riparian area 

management, the relationship between 

social, ecological, and economic 

sustainability, and the requirements for 

social and economic sustainability. The 

Department reorganized this section to 

improve clarity, and made the following 

changes in response to public comment. 

1. The Department changed the order 

of the wording of the introductory 

paragraph. 

2. At paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 

the Department changed the caption 

‘‘Ecosystem plan components’’ to 

‘‘Ecosystem Integrity.’’ In addition, the 

Department replaced the phrase 

‘‘healthy and resilient’’ to ‘‘ecological 

integrity’’ in this paragraph and 

throughout this subpart. The 

Department also modified additional 

wording of this section to reflect this 

change. This change responds to public 

concern about how to define and 

measure ‘‘health’’ and ‘‘resilience.’’ 

Ecosystem integrity is a more 

scientifically supported term, has 

established metrics for measurement, 

and is used by both the National Park 

Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management. Requirements included in 

this section, as well as in § 219.9 require 

plans to include plan components 

designed to ‘‘maintain or restore 

ecological integrity.’’ 

3. The Department modified the list of 

factors the responsible official must take 

into account when developing plan 

components at paragraph (a)(1)(i)–(v). 

The Department removed the term 

‘‘landscape scale integration’’ and 

replaced it with a requirement for the 

responsible official to take into account 

the interdependence of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems, the contributions of 

the plan area to the broader landscape, 

and the conditions of the broader 

landscape that influence the plan area. 

The Department also added a 

requirement to take into account 

opportunities for landscape scale 

restoration. The additional wording 

clarifies the Department’s intent that the 

planning framework be designed to 

ensure that managers understand the 

landscape-scale context for 

management, and the interdependence 

of ecosystems and resources across the 

broader landscape. 

The Department removed air quality 

from paragraph (a)(1) and added air 

quality to paragraph (a)(2). This change 

is in response to public comment that 

requested that air resources be treated in 

a similar manner to soil and water 

resources. Additionally, the paragraph 

was modified to add the term 

‘‘standards or guidelines’’ to clarify here 

and in similar sentences throughout 

§§ 219.8 through 219.11 that standards 

or guidelines must be part of the set of 

plan components developed to comply 

with requirements throughout the rule. 

Except for the change for air quality, 

these changes to paragraph (a)(1) are not 

changes in requirements, because they 

reflect the Department’s intent as stated 

in the preamble for the proposed rule, 

and provide additional clarity. 

4. At paragraph (a)(2) of this section, 

the Department changed the caption 

‘‘Ecosystem elements’’ to ‘‘Air, soil, and 

water.’’ This reorganized paragraph 

requires the plan to have plan 

components, including standards or 

guidelines, to maintain or restore the 

elements of air, soil, and water 

resources. The Department also changed 

the phrase ‘‘maintain, protect, or 

restore’’ of the proposed rule to 

‘‘maintain or restore’’ here and 

throughout the final rule. This change is 

in response to public comment, and to 

make the rule consistent throughout the 

sections, and recognizes that the 

concept of protection is incorporated as 

part of how a responsible official 

accomplishes the direction to maintain 

or restore individual resources. These 

changes are not changes in 

requirements, they are clarifications. 

5. At paragraph (a)(2) the Department 

reorganized the elements that plan 

components are designed to maintain or 

restore. The Department removed the 

provisions about terrestrial elements 

and rare plant communities from 

paragraph (a)(2); these items are now 

discussed in § 219.9(a) of the rule. At 

paragraph (a)(2)(iv) the Department 

combined the wording about aquatic 

elements and public water supplies of 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(iv) of the 

proposed rule. The wording about water 

temperatures changes, blockages of 

water courses, and deposits was 

removed from this paragraph and is now 

more appropriately discussed with 

riparian areas at paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section. 

6. Paragraph (a)(3) adds specific 

requirements to the proposed rule to 

maintain or restore riparian areas. It 

provides that plan components must 

maintain or restore the ecological 

integrity of riparian areas, including 

‘‘structure, function, composition and 

connectivity,’’ to make clear that the 

plan must provide direction for 

proactive management of riparian areas. 

Paragraph (a)(3) also sets out a list of 

elements relevant to riparian areas that 

must be considered when developing 

plan components to maintain or restore 

ecological integrity, and it changes the 

proposed rule’s requirement for a 

‘‘default width’’ for riparian areas to a 

requirement for a riparian management 

zone. These changes respond to public 

comment to provide more clear and 

specific direction for riparian areas. In 

addition, at paragraph (a)(3), the 

Department added a requirement to give 

special attention to the area 100 feet 

from the edges of perennial streams and 

lakes; and a requirement that plan 

components must ensure that no 

management practices causing 

detrimental changes in water 

temperature or chemical composition, 

blockages of water courses, or deposits 

of sediment that seriously and adversely 

affect water conditions or fish habitat 

shall be permitted within the zones or 

the site-specific delineated riparian 

areas. These requirements are carried 

forward from the 1982 rule. These 

additional requirements were added 

because public comments suggested the 

proposed rule was too vague or too open 

to interpretation with regard to 

minimum requirements. 

7. At paragraph (a)(4), the Department 

added a requirement for the Chief to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21209 

establish requirements for national best 

management practices for water quality 

in the Forest Service directives and for 

plan components to ensure 

implementation of these practices. The 

public will have an opportunity to 

comment on these Forest Service 

directives. The Department added this 

requirement to respond to comments 

that the rule needed provisions to 

protect water quality and other 

comments about the use of best 

management practices. 

8. At paragraph (b) of this section, the 

Department requires plan components 

to guide the unit’s contribution to social 

and economic sustainability. The 

Department modified this paragraph to: 

(i) Add reference to ‘‘standards or 

guidelines,’’ consistent with changes in 

other sections. 

(ii) Remove wording about distinctive 

roles and contributions contained in the 

proposed rule, because the requirement 

is in § 219.7. This is not a change in 

requirements. 

(iii) Add scenic character, recreation 

settings, and access in response to 

public comment about recreation. This 

change reflects the intent of the 

Department as stated in the preamble to 

the proposed rule. 

(iv) Add a new requirement to take 

into account opportunities to connect 

people with nature to respond to public 

comments about the need to connect 

Americans, especially young people and 

underserved communities, with the 

NFS. This additional requirement adds 

specificity to the proposed rule 

direction to contribute to social 

sustainability and provide for ecosystem 

services as defined in the proposed rule. 

(v) Make additional edits for clarity. 

Comment: Maintain, protect, or 

restore. Some respondents did not 

understand why in some sections of the 

rule (such as § 219.9) the phrase 

‘‘maintain or restore’’ was used and in 

other sections (such as § 219.8) the 

phrase ‘‘maintain, protect, or restore’’ 

was used. They questioned whether the 

two phrases were intended to mean 

different things or provide different 

levels of protection. 

Response: The use of the two different 

phrases in the proposed rule was 

unintended. There was no intent to 

impart differing levels of protection or 

different requirements by the use of the 

two phrases. After review of the 

proposed rule and the preamble, it is 

apparent that the two phrases are used 

interchangeably and often 

inconsistently. To avoid future 

confusion, the phrase ‘‘maintain and 

restore’’ has been used consistently 

throughout §§ 219.8 and 219.9. The 

Department believes that ‘‘protection’’ is 

inherent in maintaining resources that 

are in good condition and restoring 

those that are degraded, damaged, or 

destroyed. The Department did not 

intend to imply that plan components 

would not ‘‘protect’’ resources where 

the word ‘‘protect’’ was not part of the 

phrase. Maintenance and restoration 

may include active or passive 

management and will require different 

levels of investment based on the 

difference between the desired and 

existing conditions of the system. 

Comment: Best management practices 

and specificity for water sustainability. 

Some respondents felt the requirements 

for maintaining and restoring 

watersheds, sources of drinking water, 

and riparian areas of the proposed rule 

lacked the specificity necessary to 

consistently implement the rule. A 

respondent said the rule should 

reemphasize a commitment to 

maintaining water quality standards— 

through the limitation of uses 

incompatible with clean water, 

management for restoration of water 

quality, and the mandatory use of best 

management practices. One respondent 

suggested that plans may list best 

management practices that a project is 

required to adopt. Other respondents 

said the final planning rule should also 

require monitoring for water quality 

standard compliance and 

implementation and effectiveness of 

best management practices. 

Response: Wording was added to 

§ 219.8 of the final rule to clarify and 

add detail to the requirements for plan 

components for watersheds, aquatic 

ecosystems, water quality, water 

resources including drinking water 

resources, and riparian areas, in 

response to public comment. 

Wording was also added to require 

that the Chief establish requirements for 

national best management practices 

(BMPs) for water quality in the Forest 

Service Directives System, and that plan 

components ensure implementation of 

those practices. The relevant directives 

(FSM 2532 and FSH 2509.22) are 

currently under development and will 

be published for public comment. At 

this time, the Department anticipates 

that the proposed directives will require 

the use of the national core BMPs 

(National Core BMP Technical Guide, 

FS–990a, in press). 

The final rule does not require 

monitoring of implementation and 

effectiveness of best management 

practices, but does require monitoring of 

select watershed and ecosystem 

conditions, as well as progress toward 

meeting the plan’s desired conditions 

and objectives. 

These changes and the requirements 

in this and other sections reflect the 

intent as stated in the preamble of the 

proposed rule to place a strong 

emphasis on water resources and 

develop a framework that will support 

watersheds, aquatic ecosystems, and 

water resources throughout the National 

Forest System. 

Comment: Riparian area management 

zone size. Some respondents felt the 

rule should include a minimum default 

width for riparian areas ranging from 

100 feet to 300 feet or to the width of 

the 100 or 200-year flood plain. Without 

specific requirements, respondents felt 

there would be inconsistent 

implementation of the rule. Others 

preferred the riparian area default width 

vary depending on ecological or 

geomorphic characteristics approach 

used in the proposed rule. 

Response: The Department added 

wording at § 219.8(a)(3) to require 

special attention to land and vegetation 

for approximately 100 feet from the 

edges of all perennial streams and lakes. 

The Department decided to make this 

change to respond to public comment 

and retain the special attention 

provided in the 1982 rule, but decided 

not to require a minimum default width 

because the scientific literature states 

riparian area widths are highly variable 

and may range from a few feet to 

hundreds of feet. The final rule requires 

the responsible official to use the best 

available scientific information (§ 219.3) 

to inform the establishment of the width 

of riparian management zones around 

all lakes, perennial and intermittent 

streams, and open water wetlands. Plan 

components to maintain or restore the 

ecological integrity of riparian areas will 

apply within that zone, or within a sitespecific delineation of the riparian area. 

Comment: Management activities in 

riparian areas. Some respondents felt 

the riparian area guidance in the 

proposed rule represented a weakening 

of protection from the 1982 rule and 

wanted to see stronger national 

standards. They felt some management 

activities, like grazing and off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use, should be prohibited 

or limited in riparian areas as they can 

be harmful to riparian area health. 

Others felt management activities in 

riparian areas should be left to only 

restoration efforts. Some respondents 

felt the riparian management 

requirements in the proposed rule were 

vague or too open to interpretation. 

Others felt the proposed rule may 

preclude active management within 

riparian areas. 

Response: Section 219.8 has been 

revised in the final rule to address these 

concerns. The final rule requires the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21210 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

responsible official to give special 

attention to land and vegetation for 

approximately 100 feet from the edges 

of all perennial streams and lakes and 

further requires that plan components 

must ensure that no management 

practices causing detrimental changes in 

water temperature or chemical 

composition, blockages of water 

courses, or deposits of sediment that 

seriously and adversely affect water 

conditions or fish habitat shall be 

permitted within the riparian 

management zones or the site-specific 

delineated riparian areas. The 

Department expects projects and 

activities, including restoration projects, 

will occur in riparian areas. Plans may 

allow for projects and activities in 

riparian areas that may have short term 

or localized adverse impacts in order to 

achieve or contribute to a plan’s desired 

conditions or objectives, so long as they 

do not seriously and adversely affect 

water conditions or fish habitat. 

These requirements are similar to the 

requirements of the 1982 rule. They are 

in addition to the final rule 

requirements in § 219.8(a)(3) that plans 

must include plan components, 

including standards or guidelines, to 

maintain or restore the ecological 

integrity of riparian areas in the plan 

area, including plan components to 

maintain or restore structure, function, 

and composition. The changes to the 

proposed rule make clear that plans 

must provide for the ecological integrity 

of riparian areas in the plan area, and 

must include a set of plan components, 

including standards or guidelines, to do 

so. The responsible official must also 

take into account water temperature and 

chemical composition, blockages of 

water courses, deposits of sediment, 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats, 

ecological connectivity, restoration 

needs, and floodplain values and risk of 

flood loss when developing these plan 

components. These requirements are in 

addition to the requirements in 

§ 219.8(a)(2) to include plan 

components to maintain or restore water 

quality and water resources, and the 

requirement in § 219.7(f) to identify 

priority watersheds for restoration or 

maintenance. 

The Department believes that these 

requirements provide strong direction 

for proactive management (active and 

passive) of water resources beyond what 

was required in the 1982 rule, while 

allowing the responsible official to use 

the best available scientific information, 

public input, and information about 

local conditions to inform development 

of plan components in response to these 

requirements. 

Comment: Sustainability and multiple 

use. Some respondents felt the proposed 

rule did not adequately recognize the 

importance of the multiple use mandate 

because the proposed rule at § 219.8 

omitted any reference to multiple use. 

Response: The proposed rule and the 

final rule both explicitly recognize 

multiple uses in § 219.8(b), with 

additional direction provided in 

§ 219.10 with regard to management for 

multiple uses. 

Comment: Maintain ecological 

conditions. Some respondents felt the 

proposed requirements to maintain or 

restore ecological conditions in §§ 219.8 

and 219.9 would allow for the Agency 

to develop plan components 

maintaining current degraded ecological 

conditions. 

Response: The intent of the rule is for 

plan components to maintain desired 

conditions, and restore conditions 

where they are degraded. However, the 

Department recognizes in some 

instances it may be impracticable or 

impossible to restore all degraded, 

damaged or destroyed systems that may 

be present in a plan area because of cost, 

unacceptable tradeoffs between other 

resource and restoration needs, or where 

restoration is outside the capability of 

the land or Forest Service authority. 

There are also degraded areas on NFS 

lands where the tools or methods are 

not currently available to effectively 

restore them to desired conditions. The 

Department recognizes that at times, 

management activities maintaining 

existing, less than desirable conditions 

in the short-term may be critical to 

preventing further degradation and for 

successful restoration towards desired 

conditions over the long-term. For 

example, the primary management 

emphasis in some areas may be 

controlling the spread of invasive 

species when eradication is not 

currently feasible. 

Ecological Integrity 

Comment: Integration of terrestrial 

and aquatic ecosystems. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule was 

unclear in the requirement that the 

responsible official take into account the 

integration of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems in the plan area when 

creating plan components to maintain or 

restore the health and resilience of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

watersheds in the plan area. 

Response: The final rule adds 

clarifying wording to § 219.8. The word 

‘‘integration’’ was changed to 

‘‘interdependence’’ to better reflect the 

Department’s intent, and new wording 

was added requiring the responsible 

official to consider contributions of the 

unit to ecological conditions within the 

broader landscape influenced by the 

plan area and conditions in the broader 

landscape that may influence the 

sustainability of resources and 

ecosystems, as well as opportunities for 

landscape scale restoration. These 

changes clarify the former requirement 

in the proposed rule and strengthen the 

planning framework by ensuring 

responsible officials understand the 

interdependence of ecosystems in the 

plan area, as well as the role and 

contribution of their units and the 

context for management within the 

broader landscape. 

Comment: Invasive species. Some 

respondents felt the rule should have 

more explicit requirements on how 

invasive species management would be 

included in plans. 

Response: It is clear that the 

introduction of invasive species to 

national forest and grassland ecosystems 

has had, and is continuing to have, 

profound effects on the ecological 

integrity of these ecosystems. The final 

rule explicitly addresses invasive 

species in § 219.6, which requires 

information about stressors such as 

invasive species to be identified and 

evaluated, and in corresponding 

requirements in §§ 219.8 and 219.10. 

Plan components are required to 

maintain or restore ecological integrity 

under §§ 219.8, taking into account 

stressors including invasive species, and 

the ability of the ecosystems on the unit 

to adapt. Plan components for multiple 

uses must also consider stressors, 

including invasive species, and the 

ability of the ecosystems on the unit to 

adapt. 

Social and Economic Sustainability 

Comment: Relationship between 

ecological, social and economic 

sustainability. Some respondents felt 

ecological sustainability should be 

prioritized over social and economic 

sustainability, whereas other felt that 

economic sustainability should be 

prioritized. Others felt NFS lands 

should be managed primarily for 

multiple uses that contribute to 

economic and social sustainability. 

Some respondents felt the proposed rule 

incorrectly prioritizes plan components 

by use of ‘‘maintain or restore’’ elements 

of ecological sustainability over the use 

of the term ‘‘to contribute’’ for social 

and economic sustainability. Some 

respondents expressed differing 

opinions about the relative importance 

of ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability in relation to multiple 

uses. A respondent felt social and 

economic sustainability should not be 

included in the rule, while another felt 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21211 

ecological sustainability should not be 

included. Some respondents felt social, 

environmental, and economic 

considerations are not competing values 

but interdependent and all play a role 

in management. Some respondents 

disagreed with the concept that the 

Agency has more control over ecological 

sustainability than social and economic 

sustainability. Some respondents felt 

the proposed rule definition of 

sustainability was not clear. 

Response: The MUSYA requires 

‘‘harmonious and coordinated 

management of the various resources, 

each with the other, without 

impairment of the productivity of the 

land, with consideration being given to 

the relative values of the various 

resources, and not necessarily the 

combination of uses that will give the 

greatest dollar return or greatest unit 

output’’ (16 U.S.C. 531). Under this final 

rule, ecological, social, and economic 

systems are recognized as 

interdependent, without one being a 

priority over another. The rule requires 

the consideration of ecological, social, 

and economic factors in all phases of 

the planning process. However, the final 

rule recognizes that the Agency 

generally has greater influence over 

ecological sustainability on NFS lands 

than over broader social or economic 

sustainability, although it cannot 

guarantee sustainability for any of three. 

The Department recognizes that 

management of NFS lands can influence 

social and economic conditions relevant 

to a planning area, but cannot ensure 

social and economic sustainability 

because many factors are outside of the 

control and authority of the responsible 

official. For that reason, the final rule 

requires that the plan components 

contribute to social and economic 

sustainability, and provide for 

ecological sustainability, within Forest 

Service authority and the inherent 

capability of the plan area. 

Ecological sustainability will help 

provide people and communities with a 

range of social, economic, and 

ecological benefits now and in the 

future. In addition, plan components 

will provide directly for a range of 

multiple uses to contribute to social and 

economic sustainability. The final rule 

includes a modified definition of 

sustainability by defining the terms 

ecological sustainability, economic 

sustainability, and social sustainability 

as part of the definition of 

sustainability. 

Comment: Connecting people to 

nature. Some respondents felt the rule 

should contain wording to encourage a 

sense of value for public lands 

necessary in maintaining these lands for 

enjoyment by future generations. In an 

increasingly urbanized society, they felt 

access to NFS lands is necessary for 

people to visit, learn, recreate, and 

generate their livelihood. 

Response: Section 219.8(b)(6) of the 

final rule requires the responsible 

official take into account opportunities 

to connect people with nature. 

Comment: Cultural sustainability. 

Some respondents felt the rule should 

include management of cultural 

resources as a separate aspect of 

sustainability. A respondent felt 

proposed § 219.8(b)(4) should be 

expanded to include ‘‘cultural 

landscapes.’’ 

Response: The final rule does not 

create a separate aspect of sustainability 

for management of cultural resources, 

but does address cultural resources and 

uses. The definition in the final rule of 

‘‘social sustainability’’ recognizes the 

‘‘relationships, traditions, culture, and 

activities that connect people to the 

land and to one another, and support 

vibrant communities.’’ In addition: 

Section 219.1(c) recognizes that NFS 

lands provide people and communities 

with a wide array of benefits, including 

‘‘cultural benefits.’’ Section 219.4 

requires opportunities for public and 

Tribal participation and coordination 

throughout the planning process. 

Section 219.4(a)(3) requires that the 

responsible official request ‘‘information 

about native knowledge, land ethics, 

cultural issues, and sacred and 

culturally significant sites’’ during 

consultation and opportunities for 

Tribal participation. Section 219.6(b) 

requires the assessment to include 

identification and evaluation of 

information about cultural conditions 

and cultural and historic resources and 

uses. Section 219.8 in the final rule 

recognizes cultural aspects of 

sustainability by requiring ‘‘cultural and 

historic resources and uses’’ be taken 

into account when designing plan 

components to guide contributions to 

social and economic sustainability. 

Section 219.10(b)(1)(ii) of the rule 

requires ‘‘plan components * * * for a 

new plan or plan revision must provide 

for protection of cultural and historic 

resources,’’ and ‘‘management of areas 

of Tribal importance.’’ The final rule 

also includes recognition of and 

requirements for ‘‘ecosystem services,’’ 

which include ‘‘cultural heritage 

values.’’ These requirements, in 

combination with the requirement that 

plan content include descriptions of a 

unit’s roles and contributions within the 

broader landscape under § 219.7(e), 

ensure the cultural aspects of 

sustainability will be taken into account 

when developing plan components that 

guide unit contributions to social 

sustainability. 

Comment: Local economies, 

communities, and groups. Some 

respondents felt the rule should require 

coordination with or participation of 

local communities. Some respondents 

felt the rule should recognize that how 

units are managed can greatly influence 

local communities and economies. 

Some respondents felt the rule should 

include maintaining ‘‘vibrant 

communities.’’ Some respondents felt 

the proposed rule preamble discussion 

about the Agency’s relative influence 

over ecological as compared with social 

and economic sustainability was 

incorrect, as the Agency has more 

influence or impact on local 

communities than the preamble 

implied. A respondent felt the rule 

should consider all communities, not 

just local. A respondent felt the 

proposed rule inappropriately allows 

the Agency to dictate social and 

economic sustainability of local 

communities. 

Response: Nothing in the final rule 

would dictate the social or economic 

sustainability of local communities—to 

the contrary, the rule recognizes that 

plans cannot dictate social or economic 

sustainability. However, the Department 

recognizes that management of NFS 

lands can influence local communities 

as well as persons and groups outside of 

these communities, and that some local 

economies may be more dependent on 

the management of the plan area and 

NFS resources than others. Section 

219.4 requires the responsible official to 

engage local communities, as well as 

those interested at the regional and 

national levels, as well as to coordinate 

with other public planning efforts, 

including State and local governments, 

and Tribes. Section 219.6(b) requires in 

the assessment phase that responsible 

officials identify and evaluate existing 

relevant information about social, 

cultural, and economic conditions, 

benefits people obtain from the NFS 

planning area, and multiple uses and 

their contribution to the local, regional, 

and national economies. Section 219.8 

requires that plans provide plan 

components to contribute to economic 

and social sustainability, and section 

219.10 requires plans to provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses. 

Section 219.12 requires monitoring 

progress toward meeting the desired 

conditions and objectives in the plan, 

including for providing multiple use 

opportunities. These requirements will 

help plans contribute to vibrant 

communities. 

Comment: Specific processes for 

assessing social and economic 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21212 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

sustainability. Some respondents felt 

the final rule should include specific 

processes for assessing social and 

economic sustainability, such as 

analyzing the role of forest receipts 

(Federal revenues that are shared with 

states and counties) on local economies. 

A respondent felt the proposed rule 

required less involvement by social and 

economic experts than by other types of 

experts or scientists. 

Response: The final rule provides a 

framework for plan development, 

amendment, and revision with 

sufficient flexibility to accommodate the 

continuously evolving range of social 

and economic conditions across the 

Forest Service administrative units. The 

final rule does not prescribe a specific 

process for assessing and evaluating 

social and economic sustainability, nor 

does it include descriptions of area 

boundaries for social and economic 

impact analysis. Such direction, 

guidance, or advice, is more appropriate 

in the Forest Service directives. The 

public will be given an opportunity to 

review and comment on any Forest 

Service Manual or Forest Service 

Handbook revision associated with land 

management planning. Social, 

economic, and ecologic experts are all 

welcome to participate in the planning 

process: This final rule does not 

discriminate or give more weight to one 

group or kind of expert over another. 

Section 219.9—Diversity of Plant and 

Animal Communities 

This section of the final rule fulfills 

the diversity requirement of the NFMA, 

which directs the Forest Service to 

‘‘provide for diversity of plant and 

animal communities based on the 

suitability and capability of the specific 

land area in order to meet multiple-use 

objectives, and within the multiple-use 

objectives of a land management plan 

adopted pursuant to this section [of this 

Act], provide, where appropriate, to the 

degree practicable, for steps to be taken 

to preserve the diversity of tree species 

similar to that existing in the region 

controlled by the plan’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(B)). 

The final rule adopts a 

complementary ecosystem and speciesspecific approach to provide for the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the long-term 

persistence of native species in the plan 

area. Known as a coarse-filter/fine-filter 

approach, this is a well-developed 

concept in the scientific literature and 

has broad support from the scientific 

community and many members of the 

public. This requirement retains the 

strong species conservation intent of the 

1982 rule but with a strategic focus on 

those species that are vulnerable paired 

with a focus on overall ecosystem 

integrity and diversity. The final rule 

requires the use of the best available 

scientific information to inform the 

development of the plan components 

including the plan components for 

diversity. It also recognizes limits to 

agency authority and the inherent 

capability of the plan area. 

The Department’s intent in providing 

the requirements in this section is to 

provide for diversity of plant and 

animal communities, and provide 

ecological conditions to keep common 

native species common, contribute to 

the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species, conserve candidate 

and proposed species, and maintain 

viable populations of species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area. 

The premise behind the coarse-filter 

approach is that native species evolved 

and adapted within the limits 

established by natural landforms, 

vegetation, and disturbance patterns 

prior to extensive human alteration. 

Maintaining or restoring ecological 

conditions similar to those under which 

native species have evolved therefore 

offers the best assurance against losses 

of biological diversity and maintains 

habitats for the vast majority of species 

in an area, subject to factors outside of 

the Agency’s control, such as climate 

change. The final rule recognizes the 

importance of maintaining the 

biological diversity of each national 

forest and grassland, and the integrity of 

the compositional, structural, and 

functional components comprising the 

ecosystems on each NFS unit. 

The coarse-filter requirements of the 

rule are set out as requirements to 

develop plan components designed to 

maintain or restore ecological 

conditions for ecosystem integrity and 

ecosystem diversity in the plan area. 

Based upon the current science of 

conservation biology, by working 

toward the goals of ecosystem integrity 

and ecosystem diversity with connected 

habitats that can absorb disturbance, the 

Department expects that over time, 

management would maintain and 

restore ecological conditions which 

provide for diversity of plant and 

animal communities and support the 

abundance, distribution, and long-term 

persistence of native species. These 

ecological conditions should be 

sufficient to sustain viable populations 

of native plant and animal species 

considered to be common or secure 

within the plan area. These coarse-filter 

requirements are also expected to 

support the persistence of many species 

currently considered imperiled or 

vulnerable across their ranges or within 

the plan area. 

For example, by maintaining or 

restoring the composition, structure, 

processes, and ecological connectivity 

of longleaf pine forests, national forests 

in the Southeast provide ecological 

conditions that contribute to the 

recovery of the red-cockaded 

woodpecker (an endangered species) 

and conservation of the gopher tortoise 

(a threatened species), in addition to 

supporting common species that depend 

on the longleaf pine ecosystem. 

Similarly, maintaining or restoring 

shortgrass prairies on national 

grasslands in the Great Plains 

contributes to the conservation of blacktailed prairie dogs (regional forester 

sensitive species (RFSS) of the Rocky 

Mountain Region), mountain plovers 

(proposed threatened), and burrowing 

owls (RFSS), in addition to supporting 

common species that depend on the 

shortgrass prairie ecosystem. 

Maintaining or restoring watershed, 

riparian, and aquatic conditions in the 

national forests in the Northeast 

contributes to the conservation of the 

eastern brook trout (RFSS), in addition 

to supporting common species that 

depend on functioning riparian areas 

and aquatic ecosystems in the area. 

The final rule would further require 

additional, species-specific plan 

components, as a ‘‘fine-filter,’’ to 

provide for additional specific habitat 

needs or other ecological conditions of 

certain categories of species, when the 

responsible official determines those 

needs are not met through the coarsefilter. The species for which the rule 

requires fine-filter plan components, 

when necessary, are federally listed 

threatened and endangered (T&E) 

species, proposed and candidate 

species, and species of conservation 

concern. If the responsible official 

determines that compliance with the 

coarse-filter approach is insufficient to 

provide the ecological conditions 

necessary to contribute to the recovery 

of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, conserve species 

that are proposed or candidates to 

Federal listing, or maintain within the 

plan area a viable population of a 

species of conservation concern, then 

additional species-specific plan 

components that would do so are 

required, within Agency authority and 

the inherent capability of the land. 

Species-specific plan components 

provide the fine-filter complement to 

the coarse-filter approach. For example, 

while coarse-filter requirements to 

restore longleaf pine ecosystems may 

provide most of the necessary ecological 

conditions for the endangered redVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:15 Apr 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR2.SGM 09APR2

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21213 

cockaded woodpecker, additional finefilter species-specific plan components 

may also be needed, for example, a plan 

standard to protect all known redcockaded woodpecker cavity trees 

during prescribed burning activities. 

Examples for other species might 

include requiring proper size and 

placement of culverts to allow for 

aquatic organism passage on all streams 

capable of supporting eastern brook 

trout, or requiring closure devices on all 

cave and mine entrances to prevent the 

spread of white-nose syndrome to bat 

populations in the plan area. 

Unlike the 1982 rule, the final rule 

explicitly acknowledges that there are 

limits to Agency authority and the 

inherent capability of the land. With 

respect to species of conservation 

concern (SCC), the responsible official 

may determine that those limits prevent 

maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological conditions necessary to 

maintain a viable population of a 

species of conservation concern within 

the boundaries of the plan area. The 

responsible official must then include 

plan components to maintain or restore 

ecological conditions within the plan 

area to contribute to maintaining a 

viable population of that species within 

its range. In doing so, the responsible 

official would be required to coordinate 

to the extent practicable with other land 

managers. 

Examples of factors outside the 

control of the Agency could include: A 

species needing an area larger than the 

unit to maintain a viable population; 

non-NFS land management impacts to 

species that spend significant parts of 

their lifecycle off NFS lands; activities 

outside the plan area (for example, 

increasing fragmentation of habitat or 

non- and point source pollution often 

impact species and their habitats, both 

on and off NFS lands); failure of a 

species to occupy suitable habitat; and 

climate change and related stressors, 

which could impact many species and 

may make it impossible to maintain 

current ecological conditions. Other 

stressors, such as invasive species, 

insects, disease, catastrophic wildfire, 

floods, droughts, and changes in 

precipitation, among others, may also 

affect species and habitat in ways that 

the Agency cannot completely control 

or mitigate for. 

In section 219.19, the Department 

defines native species as ‘‘an organism 

that was historically or is present in a 

particular ecosystem as a result of 

natural migratory or evolutionary 

processes; and not as a result of an 

accidental or deliberate introduction 

into that ecosystem. An organism’s 

presence and evolution (adaptation) in 

an area are determined by climate, soil 

and other biotic and abiotic factors.’’ By 

defining species as ‘‘was historically or 

is present in a particular ecosystem,’’ 

the Department is not suggesting that 

historically native species that are no 

longer present must be reintroduced. 

The Department is recognizing that if 

such species were to return or to be 

reintroduced to the area, they would 

still be considered native. 

In addition to developing, amending, 

and revising plans under the diversity 

requirements of this section, the final 

rule includes requirements for 

ecological sustainability in § 219.8, and 

in § 219.10 for providing for multiple 

uses including wildlife and fish, 

considering ecosystem services, fish and 

wildlife species, habitat and habitat 

connectivity, and habitat conditions for 

wildlife, fish, and plants commonly 

enjoyed and used by the public when 

developing plan components for 

integrated resource management. 

Requirements in the assessment and 

monitoring phases are also linked to and 

support the requirements of this section. 

Section 219.9—Response to Comments 

The Department received many 

comments on this section. People 

suggested a broad range of approaches, 

including reinstating the 1982 viability 

requirements; protecting and 

maintaining healthy habitats with no 

species specific provisions; increasing 

viability requirements; and mirroring 

the NFMA wording for diversity 

without including reference to viability. 

In addition, some people emphasized 

that there is a need to coordinate and 

cooperate beyond NFS unit boundaries 

for purposes of identifying and 

protecting critical habitat, migration 

corridors, and other habitat elements. 

The Department also received many 

comments expressing concern or 

confusion over the relationship between 

the ecosystem diversity requirement in 

paragraph (a) and the species 

conservation requirement in paragraph 

(b) in this section of the proposed rule. 

In particular, there was concern over 

whether the complementary coarse-filter 

and fine-filter strategy described in the 

preamble and DEIS for the proposed 

rule was clearly expressed in the 

proposed rule wording itself. 

Additionally, there was a lack of 

understanding of how these two 

requirements would maintain both the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the persistence of 

native species within the plan area as 

expressed in the preamble. 

In response to public comments, the 

Department modified the proposed rule 

wording and made additions to it. The 

result is a final § 219.9 that has the same 

intent as the proposed rule but is clearer 

and will better effectuate the 

Department’s approach to providing for 

diversity. 

The Department added wording to the 

introduction to explain, as expressed in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, that 

plans adopt a complementary ecosystem 

(coarse-filter) and species-specific (finefilter) approach to maintaining the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the persistence of 

native species in the plan area. This 

combined approach for maintaining 

biological diversity over large 

landscapes is a well-developed concept 

in the scientific literature, and is 

generally supported by the science 

community for application on Federal 

lands. 

Paragraph (a) was modified with the 

new heading of ‘‘Ecosystem plan 

components,’’ and subdivided into 2 

parts. The new paragraph (a)(1) has a 

heading of ‘‘Ecosystem integrity’’ and 

includes the requirements of paragraph 

(a) of the proposed rule, consistent with 

the equivalent requirement in § 219.8(a). 

As in § 219.8 the ‘‘health and resilience’’ 

of the proposed rule was replaced with 

‘‘ecological integrity’’ as described in 

the discussion of 219.8. The concept of 

ecological integrity is also being 

advanced by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior for National Park System lands. 

Having similar approaches to assessing 

and evaluating ecological conditions 

across the broader landscape will 

facilitate an all-lands approach to 

ecological sustainability. 

The Department added a new 

paragraph ((a)(2)), which retains the 

proposed rule heading of ‘‘ecosystem 

diversity.’’ This paragraph includes new 

wording to make clear that the plan 

must include plan components to 

maintain the diversity of ecosystems 

and habitat types in the plan area. This 

change was made to explain, as 

described in the preamble to the 

proposed rule that plans provide for 

ecosystem diversity. As part of 

providing for this requirement, 

paragraph (a)(2) includes direction to 

provide plan components to maintain 

and restore key characteristics of 

ecosystem types (similar to 

requirements of proposed rule 

§ 219.8(2)(i) and (ii)), rare native plant 

and animal communities (moved from 

proposed rule § 219.8(a)(2)(iii)), and 

diversity of native tree species (moved 

from paragraph (c) of proposed § 219.9). 

Both subsections of paragraph (a) direct 

that the responsible official include 

‘‘standards or guidelines’’ in the set of 

plan components developed to meet 

these requirements. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

The heading of paragraph (b) was 

changed from ‘‘Species Conservation’’ to 

‘‘Additional, species-specific plan 

components’’ to clarify the fact that both 

the ecosystem plan components (coarsefilter) and the additional speciesspecific plan components (fine-filter) 

contribute to species conservation. 

Paragraph (b)(1) adds proposed species 

to candidate species as species to be 

conserved. The substance of paragraph 

(b) was modified in the final rule to 

make it clear that the plan components 

required by this paragraph are intended 

to complement and supplement the 

coarse-filter requirements, where 

necessary. 

In response to comments on the 

preferred alternative, a change was 

made to the wording in § 219.9(b)(1) to 

clarify the Department’s intent that the 

responsible official must make a 

determination as to whether additional, 

species-specific plan components are 

required. The final rule states that ‘‘the 

responsible official shall determine 

whether or not the plan components 

required by paragraph (a) provide the 

ecological conditions necessary to: 

contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed threatened and endangered 

species, conserve proposed and 

candidate species, and maintain a viable 

population of each species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area.’’ 

The ‘‘if then’’ statement in paragraph 

(b)(1) conveys the Department’s 

expectation that for most native species, 

including threatened, endangered, 

proposed, candidate, and species of 

conservation concern, the ecosystem 

integrity and ecosystem diversity 

requirements (coarse-filter) would be 

expected to provide most or all of the 

ecological conditions necessary for 

those species’ persistence within the 

plan area. However, for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, candidate, and 

species of conservation concern, the 

responsible official must review the 

coarse-filter plan components, and if 

necessary, include additional, speciesspecific (fine-filter) plan components to 

provide the ecological conditions to 

contribute to recovery of threatened and 

endangered species, to conserve 

proposed and candidate species, and to 

maintain viable populations of species 

of conservation concern in the plan 

area. As in many places in the final rule, 

paragraph (b) clarifies that the 

responsible official will include 

‘‘standards or guidelines’’ in the set of 

plan components developed to meet 

these requirements. The word 

‘‘developed’’ in this paragraph was 

changed to the word ‘‘included’’ to be 

consistent with similar construction in 

this and other sections that the plan will 

include plan components to meet 

various requirements. 

Within paragraph (b)(1), the 

Department changed the requirement for 

ecological conditions to maintain 

‘‘viable populations of species of 

conservation concern’’ (§ 219.9 (b)(3) of 

the proposed rule) to ‘‘a viable 

population of each species of 

conservation concern’’ (emphasis 

added). The change reflects the 

Department’s intent from the proposed 

rule, but provides clarity in response to 

confusion about whether the proposed 

rule wording referred to populations of 

different species or multiple 

populations of the same species in the 

plan area, as well as concern that the 

proposed rule wording could be 

interpreted to mean that plans did not 

have to address every species of 

conservation concern. This clarification 

is consistent with the preamble of the 

proposed rule which discusses the 

agency’s obligation in terms of 

maintaining ‘‘a viable population of a 

species of conservation concern * * * 

to maintain the long-term persistence of 

that species.’’ 76 FR 8493 (February 14, 

2011). 

As in the proposed rule, the 

ecosystem and species-specific 

requirements in the final rule are both 

limited by Forest Service authority and 

the inherent capability of the plan area. 

As in the proposed rule, the final rule 

provides an alternative standard for 

species of conservation concern if it is 

beyond the Forest Service’s authority or 

the inherent capability of the plan area 

to provide ecological conditions to 

maintain a viable population of a 

species of conservation concern within 

the plan area. In such cases, the final 

rule requires that the responsible official 

document that determination (new 

requirement in the final rule) and 

include plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, to maintain or 

restore ecological conditions within the 

plan area to contribute to maintaining a 

viable population of the species within 

its range. The words ‘‘to the extent 

practicable’’ following the word 

‘‘contribute’’ were removed from the 

final rule because they caused confusion 

and were unnecessary given other 

provisions of the rule, including Section 

219.1(g). The final rule retains a 

modified requirement that in providing 

such plan components, the responsible 

official shall coordinate to the extent 

practicable with other Federal, State, 

Tribal, and private land managers 

having management authority over 

lands ‘‘relevant to that population,’’ to 

reflect the need for a cross boundary 

approach to species conservation. 

The Department added paragraph (c) 

to the final rule to modify and clarify 

the definition of species of conservation 

concern, formerly in section 219.19. The 

new wording clarifies that the species of 

conservation concern must be ‘‘known 

to occur in the plan area,’’ that the 

regional forester is the line officer who 

identifies the species of conservation 

concern, and the standard for that is 

‘‘the best available scientific 

information indicates substantial 

concern about the species’ capability to 

persist over the long term in the plan 

area.’’ 

The Department believes these 

revisions more clearly describe the 

application of the coarse-filter/fine-filter 

strategy for maintaining biological 

diversity as discussed in scientific 

literature and the PEIS. As plan 

components designed to meet these 

requirements are created and complied 

with, the broad spectrum of habitat and 

other ecological conditions necessary to 

support the diversity of plant and 

animal communities and the persistence 

of native plant and animal species 

would be expected through this 

complementary strategy. 

Comment: Relationship between 

ecosystem diversity and species 

conservation. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule was confusing in its 

description of the relationship between 

the ecosystem diversity requirement in 

proposed § 219.9(a) and the species 

conservation requirement in § 219.9(b). 

They felt the complementary coarsefilter/fine-filter strategy described in the 

preamble and DEIS was not clearly 

expressed in the proposed rule wording. 

Additionally, they felt it was unclear on 

how these two requirements would 

maintain the diversity of plant and 

animal communities and the persistence 

of native species within the plan area. 

Response: In response to public 

comments, the Department clarified the 

proposed rule wording and made 

additions to the final rule. The coarsefilter/fine-filter approach used in the 

final rule and the modifications made to 

the proposed rule are explained in the 

introductory paragraphs of the response 

to comments on section 219.9. 

Comment: Threatened, and 

endangered species. Some respondents 

felt the Department should consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

on potential effects to threatened and 

endangered species as a result of the 

proposed planning rule. Others felt 

recovery plans are not legally 

enforceable documents; therefore, they 

are not mandatory for Federal agency 

adoption. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21215 

Response: Beginning in 2009 and 

continuing through the development of 

this planning rule and its accompanying 

PEIS, representatives from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service met regularly 

with the Forest Service to discuss ESA 

issues related to the rule. The three 

agencies worked together to identify the 

relevant issues and appropriate level of 

analysis associated with the final rule 

and environmental analysis, and have 

collaborated on a consultation process 

and on the biological assessment. The 

Agency requested consultation with 

these regulatory agencies in July 2011. 

Additionally, the Agency requested 

conferencing on the potential effects of 

the rule on all species proposed for 

Federal listing that currently occur on 

NFS lands and those that are candidates 

for Federal listing occurring on or are 

suspected to occur on NFS lands. The 

Agency completed consultation, as 

discussed in this preamble in the 

section with the caption of: Compliance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as Amended. 

NFS lands are a major contributor to 

threatened and endangered species 

recovery plans and actions, maintaining 

habitat for such species as red-cockaded 

woodpecker, Canada lynx, bull trout, 

steelhead, and many other listed 

species. As part of the Forest Service 

mission, the actions needed to recover 

T&E species and maintain or restore 

critical habitats are a high priority. 

These species are at risk of extinction 

and are protected under the ESA. Under 

the ESA, the Forest Service is to carry 

out ‘‘programs and activities for the 

conservation of endangered species and 

threatened species’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(1)) and ‘‘insure that any action 

authorized, funded or carried out by [it] 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

[designated critical habitat]’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1635(a)(2)). 

As did the proposed rule, the final 

rule requires that the plan include plan 

components to provide ecological 

conditions in the plan area necessary to 

contribute to the recovery of T&E 

species, using coarse-filter plan 

components and adding species-specific 

plan components where necessary. 

While the 1982 rule at section 

219.19(a)(7) did have specific 

requirements for protection of T&E 

critical habitat, and required objectives 

to remove T&E species from listing, 

where possible, through appropriate 

conservation measures, the requirement 

in the final rule that requires plan 

components to provide ecological 

conditions to ‘‘contribute to the 

recovery of’’ T&E species is more 

comprehensive. The final rule 

recognizes that these species may not be 

viable or have a viable population at 

this time, and in many cases may rely 

on lands and conditions outside NFS 

boundaries and beyond Agency control. 

Thus an individual NFS unit rarely can 

fully meet the recovery needs of a listed 

species. Under this final rule, the 

Department anticipates that plan 

components, including standards or 

guidelines, for the plan area would 

address conservation measures and 

actions identified in recovery plans 

relevant to T&E species. When 

implemented over time, these 

requirements would be expected to 

result in plans that will be proactive in 

the recovery and conservation of the 

threatened, endangered, proposed, and 

candidate species in the plan areas. 

These requirements will further the 

purposes of § 7(a)(1) of the ESA, by 

actively contributing to threatened and 

endangered species recovery and 

maintaining or restoring the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. 

The Forest Service frequently 

collaborates with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) in the 

development and implementation of 

recovery plans for many species. The 

Forest Service will continue to work 

with USFWS, NOAA, States, and other 

partners to conserve and recover 

federally listed plant and animal 

species. The responsible official may 

also contribute to other recovery 

actions, such as species reintroductions 

to increase species distribution and 

threatened and endangered species 

monitoring programs. In addition, the 

Agency will continue to evaluate effects 

of proposed management actions to T&E 

species or designated critical habitat. 

Consultation with the appropriate 

regulatory agency(s) will also occur at 

the plan development, amendment, or 

revision stage and again at the project 

stage, if they may affect any federally 

listed species or designated critical 

habitat. Additional guidance will be 

forthcoming on procedures for 

conducting ESA section 7(a)(1) 

conservation reviews of plans in the 

Forest Service directives. 

Complementary sections of the final 

rule, §§ 219.3, 219.4, and 219.6, in 

combination emphasize: the role of 

science in preparing, revising, or 

amending a plan; collaboration, 

including coordination with other 

planning efforts; consideration of 

objectives of other agencies and entities; 

the encouragement of appropriate 

agencies and entities to participate in 

determining assessment needs and 

identify contributions of relevant broadscale assessments and plans of other 

agencies and governments; and the 

incorporation of broad-scale monitoring 

to address questions that are more 

appropriately answered at scales beyond 

NFS boundaries. These processes, 

programs, and activities would be 

incorporated into future unit planning 

processes and plans, and as these plans 

are implemented, they will actively 

contribute to ESA goals. 

Comment: Candidate and proposed 

species. Many respondents supported 

the proposed rule requirement to 

conserve species that are candidates for 

Federal listing. Other respondents 

questioned why the proposed rule 

requires candidate species conservation 

as these species have not received 

Federal protection under ESA, and this 

may lead to more petitions for species 

listings being filed in the future and 

further limit the management options of 

the Agency. 

Response: The Department added 

definitions for ‘‘candidate species,’’ and 

‘‘proposed species,’’ and ‘‘conserve’’ to 

§ 219.19 of the final rule to clarify the 

definitions of these terms and to avoid 

misunderstanding. Under the ESA, 

candidate and proposed species do not 

receive the special legal protections 

afforded to threatened and endangered 

species. However, the Department 

believes it is important to develop plan 

components for those plant and animal 

species that are proposed or candidates 

for Federal listing that occur on NFS 

lands, in order to assist in their recovery 

such that a Federal listing is no longer 

required. Similar to T&E species, 

candidate and proposed species may not 

have a viable population that can be 

maintained in the plan area at this time. 

In the final rule, the Agency would 

provide coarse-filter, and where 

necessary, additional fine-filter plan 

components for ecological conditions 

that would conserve candidate and 

proposed species, reducing risks to 

those species and providing for the 

maintenance or restoration of needed 

ecological conditions. 

Comment: Authority for viability. 

Some respondents felt the proposed 

rule’s concept of species viability may 

be outside the Agency’s authority to 

implement; they take the position that 

managing for species diversity and 

viability is the responsibility of State 

agencies, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Response: The requirement, to 

‘‘provide for diversity of plant and 

animal communities’’ as set forth under 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21216 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1604(g)(3)(B) of the NFMA, does not 

specifically reference the diversity or 

viability of particular species. It is a 

statutory requirement that there be a 

planning rule that provides for 

diversity. However, it is within the 

Department’s authority to require that 

plans provide ecological conditions to 

maintain viable populations of species 

of conservation concern. The 

Department’s ability to maintain the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities is dependent on protecting 

the plant and animal species and the 

interactions and processes the species 

perform. The Department developed the 

final rule in recognition that many 

Agency plans, programs, and activities 

are important influences on providing 

the desired ecological conditions for 

plant and animal communities and 

native species on NFS lands. In 

accordance with the MUSYA, plans 

must also provide for multiple uses 

including wildlife and fish. 

The provisions in this final rule are 

focused on providing the ecological 

conditions necessary to support the 

diversity and persistence of native plant 

and animal species. The final rule 

maintains and provides additional 

direction to work with State fish and 

wildlife agencies, other Federal 

agencies, as well as others, to conserve 

fish, wildlife, and plant habitats and 

populations on NFS lands and to 

contribute to shared goals, such as those 

provided in state wildlife action plans 

or in threatened or endangered species 

recovery plans. Requirements in 

§§ 219.4, 219.6, 219.10, and 219.12 of 

this final rule complement and support 

interagency collaboration on habitat and 

species conservation. 

Comment: Species of Conservation 

Concern (SCC) and Viability. Some 

respondents felt the rule should include 

the following wording from § 219.19 of 

the 1982 rule: ‘‘Fish and wildlife habitat 

shall be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and 

desired non-native vertebrate species in 

the planning area.’’ Some felt this 

standard should be extended to plants 

and invertebrates as well as vertebrates, 

and not only to SCC. Some respondents 

felt the proposed rule weakens current 

protections for plant and animal species 

therefore, the rule needs inclusion of 

clear, strong requirements focused on 

protecting and maintaining all native 

species within a plan area. On the other 

hand several respondents felt the 

proposed requirement to maintain 

viability of SCC is too expensive and 

cumbersome to implement. They felt 

this requirement is unattainable and 

procedurally impossible to demonstrate. 

Some respondents were opposed to 

providing protections for species other 

than vertebrates as it could lead to the 

possibility of maintaining viable 

populations of invertebrates, fungi, 

microorganisms, and other life forms, 

which these respondents suggest is 

inappropriate and beyond the Agency’s 

authority. 

Response: The Department concludes 

that managing ecological conditions for 

species protection is well within the 

authority of the Forest Service to 

manage the NFS for multiple use, and 

that the requirements of this section are 

more strategic and implementable than 

the 1982 rule while providing strong 

requirements focused on maintaining 

diversity and the persistence of native 

species within the plan area. The 1982 

rule required that ‘‘habitat shall be 

managed to maintain viable populations 

of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in the planning 

area.’’ There may be hundreds of 

vertebrate species on a particular plan 

area. For some vertebrate species there 

may be little scientific information 

about their life requirements and habitat 

relationships, even though they may be 

considered common and secure within 

habitats provided on a NFS unit. For 

other vertebrate species, the 

requirement to maintain viable 

populations in the planning area may be 

unattainable, for reasons outside of the 

Agency’s control. 

The final rule instead relies on 

current scientific literature to adopt the 

complementary ecosystem and speciesspecific approach described above in 

the introduction to this section, and to 

focus species-specific management 

attention on those species that are 

vulnerable. Ecosystem (coarse-filter) 

plan components are expected to 

provide the necessary ecological 

conditions for species that are common, 

with viable populations in the plan area 

and no reason for concern about their 

ability to persist in the plan area over 

the long term. For species that are 

known to be imperiled (threatened, 

endangered, proposed and candidate 

species), the final rule requires coarsefilter, and where necessary, fine-filter 

plan components to provide ecological 

conditions that contribute to recovery or 

conservation of the species, recognizing 

that there is likely not a viable 

population of such species in the plan 

area at the time of plan approval. 

The final rule provides direction for a 

third category of species: species that 

are vulnerable within the plan area, but 

not federally recognized for purposes of 

the ESA. These are species known to 

occur in the plan area, for which the 

best available scientific information 

indicates a substantial concern about 

the species’ capability to persist in the 

plan area over the long term. The 

Department called this category 

‘‘species of conservation concern.’’ 

For this category of species, the final 

rule requires coarse-filter, and where 

necessary, fine-filter plan components 

to provide ecological conditions to 

maintain a viable population of such 

species within the plan area, where it is 

within Forest Service authority and the 

inherent capability of the land to do so. 

If providing the ecological conditions to 

maintain a viable population within the 

plan area is beyond Forest Service 

authority or the inherent capability of 

the land, then the final rule requires 

coarse-filter, and where necessary, finefilter plan components to provide 

ecological conditions to contribute to 

maintaining a viable population of the 

species within its range. For example, if 

a unit is incapable of providing a 

sufficient amount of the ecological 

conditions necessary to maintain a 

viable population of a species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area, then the responsible official must 

include plan components that provide 

the ecological conditions in the plan 

area necessary to contribute to a viable 

population of that species in the broader 

landscape. The rule requires the 

responsible official to work in 

coordination with other relevant land 

managers when developing such plan 

components. 

Species of conservation concern, like 

the categories of common species and 

imperiled species, is not limited to 

native and desired non-native 

vertebrates (as in the 1982 rule); it may 

include any native plant or animal 

species that meets the definition. The 

Department has the authority to include 

requirements for species other than 

vertebrate species under the NFMA and 

the MUSYA. Non-vertebrate species can 

be federally recognized as threatened or 

endangered. In addition, in each NFS 

region, the regional forester has 

developed and maintained a list of 

regional forester sensitive species 

(RFSS) for over two decades. The RFSS 

list can include any native plant or 

animal species. RFSS are those plant 

and animal species identified by a 

regional forester for which population 

viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 

significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population 

numbers or density; or significant 

current or predicted downward trends 

in habitat capability that would reduce 

a species’ existing distribution. RFSS 

are similar to SCC. The conservation 

and management of many RFSS has 

been a part of many land management 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21217 

plans and projects and activities for 

decades. 

The projected costs of carrying out the 

rule are found in the Regulatory 

Planning and Review section of the 

preamble and in the final PEIS 

supporting this final rule. These costs 

are not expected to be too expensive or 

cumbersome to be carried out by the 

Agency. Because these requirements 

adopt a scientifically supported 

approach, acknowledge that there are 

limits to Agency control, and focus 

management attention more strategically 

on ecosystem plan components that will 

provide for most species and where 

necessary on additional species-specific 

plan components for species that are 

vulnerable, the Department believes that 

the requirements of this section, 

combined with the requirements in 

other sections of the rule for public 

participation, assessment and 

monitoring, will result in a strong, more 

effective, efficient, and implementable 

framework for providing for species 

diversity and persistence. 

Comment: Distribution of species or 

habitat. Some respondents raised 

concerns that the definition of a viable 

population and the requirements for 

species of conservation concern do not 

include the requirement that these 

species or habitats be ‘‘well-distributed’’ 

as is required in the 1982 rule and they 

feel that this omission results in a 

lessening of protection for species 

between the 1982 rule and this final 

planning rule. 

Response: NFMA does not require 

that species or habitats be welldistributed within the plan area. The 

1982 rule stated at § 219.19 that: ‘‘Fish 

and wildlife habitat shall be managed to 

maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species in the planning area. For 

planning purposes, a viable population 

shall be regarded as one which has the 

estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to insure its 

continued existence is well distributed 

in the planning area. In order to insure 

that viable populations will be 

maintained, habitat must be provided to 

support, at least, a minimum number of 

reproductive individuals and that 

habitat must be well distributed so that 

those individuals can interact with 

others in the planning area.’’ 

This final rule includes requirements 

to restore or maintain ecological 

conditions to support viable 

populations of species of conservation 

concern. It requires that the responsible 

official determine whether or not the 

plan components required by paragraph 

(a) ‘‘provide the ecological conditions 

necessary to * * * maintain a viable 

population of each species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area. If the responsible official 

determines that the plan components 

required in paragraph (a) are insufficient 

to provide such ecological conditions, 

then additional, species-specific plan 

components, including standards or 

guidelines, must be included in the plan 

to provide such ecological conditions in 

the plan area’’ (§ 219.9(b)(1)). The rule 

defines a viable population as: ‘‘A 

population of a species that continues to 

persist over the long term with sufficient 

distribution to be resilient and 

adaptable to stressors and likely future 

environments’’ (§ 219.19) (emphasis 

added). 

The intent behind both the 1982 

provisions and the final rule provisions 

is the same: To provide habitat to 

maintain viable populations. However, 

there are a number of reasons for the 

Department’s decision not to include 

the term ‘‘well-distributed’’ in the final 

rule and instead used the phrase ‘‘with 

sufficient distribution to be resilient and 

adaptable.’’ The term is not defined in 

the 1982 rule, has been inconsistently 

interpreted in plans, and has been 

applied in many different ways. 

Importantly, the term ‘‘welldistributed’’ on its own is not clearly 

biological: Many people have 

interpreted the term in a geographical 

context as opposed to a biological 

context. This geographic interpretation 

has proven problematic at times, 

because the plan area is not an 

ecological boundary; it is an 

administrative boundary that may 

overlap completely or only partially 

with a species’ natural ecological range. 

In addition, for some species, those 

areas of overlap may be changing in 

response to changing conditions. 

Since 1982, we have learned more 

about what is important for a species to 

persist on the landscape, with an 

evolving understanding of important 

ecological concepts like resilience, 

connectivity, and adaptability, and of 

stressors such as climate change. For 

these reasons, instead of relying on the 

term ‘‘well-distributed,’’ the Department 

chose instead to include a more 

ecologically-based definition of a viable 

population, ‘‘with sufficient distribution 

to be resilient and adaptable to stressors 

and likely future environments’’ such 

that the population ‘‘continues to persist 

over the long term.’’ 

Combined with the requirement in 

section 219.3 to use the best available 

scientific information to inform the 

plan, this definition is intended to focus 

the development of plan components on 

providing ecological conditions where 

they will be most useful and important 

to the species, which may or may not 

lead to habitat that is evenly or ‘‘well’’ 

distributed across the plan area for 

every species. For some species, that 

may mean having the appropriate 

ecological conditions throughout the 

plan area. For others, it may mean 

focusing on a small portion of the plan 

area. For others, it may mean working 

to restore or provide ecological 

conditions for a species whose range is 

migrating in response to changing 

conditions. For still others, it may mean 

providing a corridor or corridors to 

connect habitat. 

The change from ‘‘well distributed’’ to 

‘‘sufficient distribution to be resilient 

and adaptable’’ is intended to clarify 

that we are using ‘‘distribution’’ in an 

ecological context to support species’ 

long term persistence and to help 

increase consistency in implementation. 

The Department recognizes that the 

long-term security of species improves 

as distribution increases and habitat and 

other ecological conditions are 

maintained or improved. Whether 

distribution is ‘‘sufficient’’ will be 

evaluated in the context of what a 

population needs for resilience and 

adaptability such that it can continue to 

persist over the long term, considering 

the species’ natural history, the ability 

of individuals to interact, historical 

distribution and potential future 

distribution, and recognizing that 

habitat and species distribution will be 

dynamic over time. The responsible 

official will use the best available 

scientific information to inform this 

evaluation. In making this evaluation, it 

is the Department’s expectation that for 

the purposes of this subpart, the 

individuals of a species of conservation 

concern that exist in the plan area will 

be considered to be members of one 

population of that species. The 

responsible official would consider the 

distribution of individuals or groups 

that would support a viable population 

of that species in the plan area. 

Additional guidance will be included in 

the directives, which will be available 

for public notice and comment. 

It is important to recognize that the 

requirements of § 219.9(b)(1) and the 

definition of viable population support 

and are part of a broader set of 

requirements in the final rule that are 

important for species conservation, 

including the requirements in §§ 219.8 

and 219.9 to maintain or restore 

ecological integrity, including 

connectivity of ecosystems in the plan 

area; and the requirement in § 219.9(a) 

to provide a diversity of ecosystem 

types throughout the plan area. 

Combined, the requirements in the 

final rule are expected to provide the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21218 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

conditions that support the persistence 

of native species in the plan area and 

maintain the diversity of plant and 

animal communities. For these reasons, 

the Department believes that the set of 

requirements in the final rule is not a 

lessening of protection from the 1982 

rule, and represents a science-based 

approach to species conservation. 

Comment: Identification and 

definition of species of conservation 

concern. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule was unclear on who the 

responsible official for identifying SCC 

was, what criteria would be used to 

identify SCC; and whether or not that 

criteria should be established in the 

planning rule. Some respondents 

offered suggested criteria for identifying 

SCC. Several respondents expressed 

concern the proposed rule provides too 

much discretion to the responsible 

official in deciding which species will 

receive protection. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, the definition of species of 

conservation concern was moved from 

§ 219.19 to a new paragraph (c) in this 

section and was modified. The 

Department changed the line officer 

who identifies the SCC for the plan area 

from the responsible official (normally 

the forest supervisor) to the regional 

forester in the final rule. The change 

was made to provide additional 

consistency and promote efficiency in 

identifying species of conservation on 

and among national forests and 

grasslands within a region. The broaderscale monitoring strategy will also be 

developed by the regional forester. 

The final rule’s definition of SCC 

makes the criterion for identifying such 

species narrower and more scientific 

than the definition in the proposed rule. 

The species must be ‘‘known to occur in 

the plan area,’’ and ‘‘the best available 

scientific information’’ must indicate 

‘‘substantial concern’’ about the species’ 

capability to persist over the long-term 

in the plan area. 

Additional guidance for the 

identification of species of conservation 

concern will be included in the Forest 

Service Directives System, with an 

opportunity for public comment. The 

Department expects that State or Tribal 

lists of endangered, threatened, rare, 

endemic, or other classifications of 

species, such as those listed as 

threatened under State law; and other 

sources such as the NatureServe 

conservation status system may be used 

to inform the identification of SCC. 

Comment: Circumstances not within 

Forest Service authority, consistent with 

the inherent capability of the plan area. 

Some respondents felt the rule needs to 

clarify what is meant by ‘‘within Forest 

Service authority, and consistent with 

the inherent capability of the plan area,’’ 

to provide consistency in their 

application and intent. Others felt use of 

these terms allowed the Agency to avoid 

responsibilities for maintaining the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the persistence of 

native species within the plan area. Still 

others felt the rule should describe the 

types of circumstances that make the 

Agency’s ability to meet the requirement 

for maintaining viable populations of 

species of conservation concern 

infeasible or impractical. Some 

respondents said the rule should 

provide more discretion and flexibility. 

Response: The acknowledgment of 

limits to Agency authority and the 

inherent capability of the land do not 

‘‘allow’’ the Agency to avoid 

responsibility for maintaining the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the persistence of 

native species within the plan area. 

These limits exist whether they are 

acknowledged in the rule or not. The 

Department believes it is more 

transparent and effective to require a 

robust and scientifically supported 

approach to providing for the diversity 

of plant and animal communities and 

the persistence of native species within 

the plan area and openly acknowledge 

that there are some circumstances 

outside of Agency control, allowing 

responsible officials to adjust, adapt, 

and work more collaboratively with 

other land managers to protect species 

in the context of the broader landscape. 

The ‘‘inherent capability of the land’’ 

is defined in § 219.19 of the final rule 

as: ‘‘The ecological capacity or 

ecological potential of an area 

characterized by the interrelationship of 

its physical elements, its climatic 

regime, and natural disturbances’’ 

Examples of circumstances where the 

plan area may lack the inherent 

capability to maintain a viable 

population of a species include where a 

plan area is not large enough to produce 

sufficient habitat on the unit or where, 

due to current or projected changes in 

climate, it would be impossible for the 

plan area to produce or maintain the 

required amount or quality of habitat 

conditions necessary to sustain a viable 

population of the species within the 

plan area. Additional examples of 

circumstances outside the Agency’s 

control, including those that may be 

outside the Agency’s authority or the 

inherent capability of the land, are 

discussed earlier in this document as 

part of the rational for non-selection of 

Alternative B (No Action). 

There may also be circumstances 

where the plan area has the inherent 

capability over time to provide for 

certain ecological conditions, but cannot 

produce such ecological conditions 

within the lifetime of the plan: for 

example, where a species needs old 

growth or late successional habitat 

where there is none (for example, where 

bark beetle has killed all of the late 

successional stands in a plan area). The 

plan would include plan components to 

move the plan area towards providing 

that habitat in the future, but would not 

have the capability to produce it 

instantly. 

Examples of circumstances not within 

the authority of the Agency include land 

use patterns on private lands within or 

adjacent to NFS units that fragment and 

reduce habitat for a species whose range 

extends well beyond the plan area, 

habitat loss or degradation along 

important migration routes or wintering 

grounds for a species who spends some 

of its life history on other lands or in 

other countries, or the influence of 

disease or invasive species. 

Section 219.3 requires the use of the 

best available scientific information to 

inform the plan components required by 

this section, and § 219.14 requires the 

responsible official to document how 

the requirements of this section were 

met. Section 219.2 requires that the 

Chief establish a national oversight 

process for accountability and 

consistency. The Forest Service 

Directives System will include 

additional direction for implementing 

the requirements of this section, and 

will be available for public comment. 

Comment: Diversity of tree and other 

plant species. Some respondents felt the 

rule is not protective enough of the 

diversity of tree and other plant species. 

Others felt the rule should have specific 

requirements for old growth and large, 

intact blocks of forest; leaving more 

snags and dead wood; reforestation 

guidelines that include diverse tree 

mixtures; and use of herbicides. 

Response: The Department based the 

requirements of § 219.9(a)(2)(iii) on the 

NFMA. 

The final rule requires in paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) and (ii) plan components to 

provide for key characteristics 

associated with terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystem types and rare aquatic and 

terrestrial plant and animal 

communities, which may include old 

growth stands, meadows, snags, or other 

characteristics. These characteristics are 

similar to what was required in the 

proposed rule at § 219.8(2)(i) and (ii) 

and (iii)). More specific requirements 

were not included in the final rule, 

because these issues are best identified 

and determined at the forest or 

grassland level, reflecting ecosystems 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21219 

and plant and animal communities on 

the unit. Further direction will be 

provided in the Forest Service 

Directives System and in individual 

plans. 

Comment: Additional species 

comments. Some respondents felt the 

rule should include direction on species 

assessments, developing the coarsefilter, and disclosing specific 

environmental effects. 

Response: The Department agrees the 

issues raised are important. The final 

rule is intended to provide overall 

planning direction applicable 

throughout the entire National Forest 

System. The type of guidance requested 

by these respondents is more 

appropriately found in the Forest 

Service Directives System and/or in the 

plans themselves or in the subsequent 

decisions regarding projects and 

activities on a particular national forest, 

grassland, prairie, or other comparable 

administrative unit. Some of the 

requested guidance, such as how to do 

assessments for particular species, 

would not apply to planning throughout 

the entire System. Other types of 

guidance, instructing the Agency on 

how to carry out the rule’s 

requirements, may be so detailed that if, 

included in the rule, may make it 

unmanageably long and complicated. 

Also, including instructions in the rule 

on how to carry out various planning 

tasks may tie the Agency to procedures 

even when it learns better ways to 

carrying out those tasks. The 

Department concludes that placing such 

direction in Forest Service directives, 

which can change more readily than a 

rule, or allowing the Agency to try out 

various ways to carry out the rule, is 

likely to result in more effective and 

efficient planning than including such 

detail in the final rule itself. 

Comment: ‘‘survey and manage.’’ 

Several respondents requested the 

planning rule require ‘‘survey and 

manage’’ procedures currently 

employed in the Pacific Northwest 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Several respondents said one 

foreseeable outcome could be court 

ordered service-wide requirements for 

‘‘survey and manage’’ as they believe is 

currently mandated in the Northwest 

Forest Plan. One respondent believes by 

expanding the requirements for viability 

beyond vertebrates the Forest Service 

will be forced to use ‘‘survey and 

manage’’ procedures of the Northwest 

Forest Plan on a nationwide basis. 

Response: The final rule does not 

require ‘‘survey and manage’’ 

procedures similar to those in the 

Northwest Forest Plan. ‘‘Survey and 

manage’’ is a Northwest Forest Plan 

program where, before ground 

disturbing projects can be approved, the 

Forest Service must inventory late 

successional and old structure stands 

for nearly 400 species including fungi, 

lichens, bryophytes, mollusks, and 

several vascular plants, arthropods and 

vertebrates. None of the species are 

listed under ESA, but little is known 

about them. The final rule requires an 

assessment of existing, relevant 

information, and the use of best 

available scientific information to 

inform plan components to meet the 

species and diversity requirements of 

the rule. The final rule clarifies that 

species of conservation concern must be 

known to occur in the plan area and that 

the best available scientific information 

must indicate substantial concern about 

the species’ capability to persist over the 

long term in the plan area. 

Section 219.10—Multiple Use 

This section requires that plans 

provide for ecosystem services and 

multiple uses, including outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

wildlife, and fish, within Forest Service 

authority and the inherent capability of 

the plan area, through integrated 

resource management. The responsible 

official must consider a range of uses, 

resources, services, and opportunities 

relevant to the plan area when 

developing plan components to provide 

ecosystem services and multiple uses, 

along with reasonably foreseeable risks 

to ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability. In addition, this section 

includes specific requirements for plan 

components for a new plan or plan 

revision. This section builds on the 

requirements in § 219.8 for plans to 

provide for ecological sustainability and 

contribute to social and economic 

sustainability. 

Section 219.10—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on multiple use requirements, 

requirements for ecosystem services, 

recreation, cultural and historic 

resources, wilderness and wild and 

scenic rivers, and designated areas. In 

response to public comment, the 

Department made a number of changes 

to this section to clarify intent. 

The Department rearranged the 

wording of the introductory paragraph 

of this section to clarify the intent of the 

Agency that plans must provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses. 

The Department removed the term 

‘‘fiscal capability’’ from the introductory 

paragraph because direction about fiscal 

capability is now included in § 219.1(g), 

and to be consistent with §§ 219.8 and 

219.9. 

The Department modified the 

requirements of paragraph (a) to clarify 

the wording, make these requirements 

parallel to other sections of the rule, and 

to respond to public comments. The 

Department added a requirement to 

have plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, for integrated 

resource management to provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses in 

the plan area. This change is in response 

to public comment to clarify that plan 

components for integrated resource 

management are to provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses, 

and to require standards or guidelines as 

part of the set of plan components 

developed to comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (a). As in 

earlier sections, the Department also 

changed the phrase ‘‘multiple uses, 

including ecosystem services’’ to 

‘‘ecosystem services and multiple uses,’’ 

consistent with the MUSYA (see 

response to comments for § 219.1). The 

Department added a definition of 

integrated resource management in 

§ 219.19, reflecting the interdependence 

of ecological resources as well as 

economic, ecological, and social 

systems. 

Paragraph (a)(1) to (a)(10) includes a 

list of elements the responsible official 

shall consider when developing plan 

components for integrated resource 

management to provide for ecosystem 

services and multiple uses in the plan 

area. The Department modified this list 

in response to public comments; some 

of these modifications are additional 

requirements. The Department modified 

the list as follows: In paragraph (a)(1), 

changed the term recreational values to 

recreation opportunities to make the 

wording consistent with other sections 

and with paragraph (b)(1), and added 

‘‘and uses’’ to the end of the list in 

paragraph (a)(1) to recognize that the list 

includes both resources and uses and 

that there may be other resources and 

uses relevant to the plan area; in 

paragraph (a)(3), added the words 

‘‘appropriate placement of 

infrastructure’’ to recognize that there 

may be new infrastructure needs or 

proposals in addition to the need for 

sustainable management of already 

existing infrastructure; in paragraph 

(a)(5), modified wording to emphasize 

that responsible officials, in addition to 

meeting the requirements in § 219.9 for 

diversity and species and providing for 

wildlife and fish as part of the earlier 

direction in § 219.10 and paragraph 

(a)(1), should specifically consider 

habitat conditions for species that are 

used or enjoyed by the public for 

recreational opportunities such as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

hunting and fishing, or for subsistence, 

and added a requirement that the 

responsible official collaborate with 

other land managers in doing so; in 

paragraph (a)(6), dropped the wording 

in the proposed rule to consider ‘‘the 

landscape context for management as 

identified in the assessment’’ because it 

was redundant with modifications made 

to the requirements in § 219.7, and 

moved the text at proposed paragraph 

(a)(7) to the final paragraph (a)(6); 

moved the text from proposed rule 

paragraphs (a)(7), (8) and (9), with some 

modifications, to the final rule 

paragraphs (a)(6),(7), and (8); in 

paragraph (a)(9) in the final rule added 

a new requirement, to consider ‘‘public 

water supplies and associated water 

quality,’’ in recognition of the role that 

national forests and grasslands play in 

providing drinking water to nearly one 

in five Americans; and added a 

requirement at (a)(10), to require 

consideration of opportunities to 

connect people to nature, recognizing 

that plans should consider both the 

resources on the plan area and people’s 

connection to them. 

Paragraph (b)(1)(i) to (b)(1)(vi) sets 

forth a list of requirements for plan 

components for new plans or plan 

revisions, adding the requirement that 

the set of plan components developed to 

meet these requirements include 

standards or guidelines, consistent with 

similar changes in other sections. The 

Department modified the requirements 

of paragraph (b) to clarify the wording, 

make these requirements parallel to 

other sections of the rule, and to 

respond to public comments. In 

paragraph (b)(1)(i), the Department 

slightly modified the requirement to 

require that plans must provide for 

sustainable recreation, including 

recreation settings, opportunities, and 

access; and scenic character; and to 

make clear in this section that recreation 

opportunities may include nonmotorized, motorized, developed, and 

dispersed recreation on land, water, and 

in the air. 

In addition, the Department modified 

paragraph (b) by: Changing the wording 

for protection of wilderness and 

management of areas recommended for 

wilderness to be clearer; adding a 

requirement for management of rivers 

‘‘determined suitable’’ for inclusion in 

the Wild and Scenic River System; 

changed paragraph (b)(1)(vi) to be 

consistent with changes made to 

§ 219.7(c)(2)(vii) that clarify that the 

responsible official may establish new 

designated areas as part of the plan; and 

made additional edits for clarity. Some 

of these are additional requirements to 

respond to public comment. 

Comment: Inclusion of MUSYA, 

multiple use. Some respondents felt 

proposed § 219.10 does not specifically 

reference MUSYA. Other respondents 

felt that administering the NFS lands for 

multiple uses should not be included in 

the final rule. Some respondents 

requested the rule include specific uses. 

Response: The Department made 

changes to this section to clarify that 

plans must include plan components to 

provide for multiple uses. The MUSYA 

has guided NFS management since it 

was enacted in 1960, and will continue 

to do so, regardless of whether it is 

specifically referenced in this section, or 

any other section, of the rule. The 

MUSYA expanded upon the original 

purposes for which national forests may 

be established and administered, which 

were identified in the Organic 

Administration Act: ‘‘to improve and 

protect the forest within the boundaries, 

or for the purpose of securing favorable 

conditions of water flows, and to 

furnish a continuous supply of timber 

for the use and necessities of citizens of 

the United States.’’ (Act of June 4, 1897 

(16 U.S.C. 475)). 

The MUSYA states that the Forest 

Service is to ‘‘administer the renewable 

surface resources of the national forests 

for multiple use and sustained yield of 

the several products and services 

obtained therefrom.’’ (16 U.S.C. 529). 

The Act defines ‘‘multiple use’’ as ‘‘The 

management of all the various 

renewable surface resources of the 

national forests so that they are utilized 

in the combination that will best meet 

the needs of the American people; 

making the most judicious use of the 

land for some or all of these resources 

or related services * * *.’’ (16 U.S.C. 

531(a)). 

The Department acknowledges and 

applies the MUSYA throughout the final 

rule. In the very first section of the final 

rule, § 219.1(b) states that the Forest 

Service manages the NFS to sustain the 

multiple use of its renewable resources 

in perpetuity while maintaining the 

long term health and productivity of the 

land, consistent with MUSYA. The rest 

of the sections in subpart A give 

additional direction on how to do that. 

The assessment phase and public 

participation will help the responsible 

official determine the range of 

ecosystem services and multiple uses 

provided by the unit. Section 219.10 

requires plan components to provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses, 

using an integrated approach to resource 

management. These plan components 

will be informed by the assessment, 

public input, and the best available 

scientific information, as well as 

monitoring. 

Comment: Ecosystem services and 

methods for assessing multiple use. 

Some respondents felt the proposed rule 

improperly expands the MUSYA’s 

specified multiple use purposes to 

include ecosystem services, which the 

proposed rule defines as educational, 

aesthetic, spiritual, and cultural heritage 

values. Some respondents felt 

ecosystem services should be 

determined by research. 

Response: The phrase ‘‘multiple uses, 

including ecosystem services’’ has been 

changed throughout the rule to 

‘‘ecosystem services and multiple uses.’’ 

The Department believes this revised 

wording is consistent with the MUSYA, 

which directs the Agency to ‘‘develop 

and administer the renewable surface 

resources of the national forests for 

multiple use and sustained yield of the 

several products and services obtained 

therefrom’’ (16 U.S.C. 529). MUSYA 

anticipated and provided for ‘‘periodic 

adjustments in use to conform to 

changing needs and conditions.’’ (16 

U.S.C 531). ‘‘Ecosystem services’’ may 

be a relatively new term, but it is 

entirely within the scope of the Act to 

acknowledge that the ‘‘several products 

and services obtained’’ from national 

forests and grasslands incorporates the 

full range of values, resources, uses and 

benefits that these lands provide. 

Research has provided insights into 

the ecosystem services to be obtained 

from the NFS. During the planning 

process, the assessment phase, public 

input, monitoring, and the best available 

scientific information will help the 

responsible official identify and develop 

plan components to provide for the 

ecosystem services to be obtained from 

each NFS unit. 

Comment: Relationship of ecosystem 

services to other multiple uses. Some 

respondents felt proposed § 219.10 gave 

ecosystem services higher priority than 

other multiple uses. 

Response: The final rule does not give 

ecosystem services higher priority than 

multiple uses. It provides an integrated 

resource management approach, where 

interdependent elements of 

sustainability are considered as a whole, 

instead of as separate resources or uses. 

The mix of plan components included 

in each plan will reflect local conditions 

in the broader landscape, the best 

available scientific information, and 

public input. 

Comment: Procedures for economic 

analysis. Some respondents felt the rule 

should include specific economic 

indicators for the economic analysis, the 

model paradigm for social and 

economic resources, and means of 

weighing relative values of multiple 

uses. Some respondents suggested the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21221 

rule should include specific procedures 

for analysis of ecosystem services. 

Several respondents suggested the rule 

include specific methods for assessing 

multiple uses. 

Response: The final rule does not 

include this type of guidance as it is 

more appropriate in the Agency’s 

directives, because methods, models, 

and indicators will alter over time. 

Forest Service directives will be 

developed for the final rule, and 

members of the public will have the 

opportunity to comment on them. In 

addition, economic information and 

models represent one kind of best 

available scientific information that the 

responsible official must use to inform 

the planning process and plan 

components. 

Comment: Identification of those 

providing multiple use information. 

Some respondents felt the rule should 

specify who should be included to 

provide information about multiple 

uses. 

Response: Section 219.4 of the final 

rule requires the responsible official to 

provide opportunities for public 

participation in all phases of the 

planning framework. Section 219.3 

requires the identification and use of the 

best available scientific information to 

inform the planning process. Section 

219.6 requires identifying and 

evaluating existing information relevant 

to the plan area, including with regard 

to multiple uses. Monitoring will also 

provide information about multiple 

uses. Communities, groups, or 

individuals interested in these issues 

can provide input on plan components 

for multiple uses by becoming engaged 

in the public participation process 

required under this section. 

Comment: Specific objectives, 

prohibitions, and inclusion of specific 

multiple uses and ecosystem services. 

Several respondents felt the final rule 

should establish specific objectives for 

resources and prohibitions of uses. 

Several respondents requested that the 

rule include specific uses. Some 

respondents were for and others against 

a rule requirement for specific 

ecosystem services. Some respondents 

felt the rule provides the responsible 

official with too much discretion over 

multiple uses and instead should 

prioritize multiple uses or require 

inclusion of specific multiple uses. 

Some respondents felt it was unclear if 

multiple uses listed in proposed 

§ 219.10 would have priority over those 

not listed. 

Response: The final rule recognizes 

that conditions on each plan area will 

vary. The final rule therefore focuses on 

providing a framework for sustainability 

and integrated resource management 

and requiring associated plan 

components, including standards and 

guidelines. Objectives for resources and 

constraints on uses will be established 

by the responsible official in the plans 

themselves, or in the subsequent 

decisions regarding projects and 

activities. Agency regulations at 36 CFR 

part 261 establish certain national 

prohibitions. The final rule provides a 

planning framework to be used on all 

units in the NFS. As part of the 

planning process, the final rule includes 

direction for the responsible official to 

identify, evaluate, and consider all 

relevant resources when developing 

plan components for ecosystem services 

and multiple uses. Section 219.6 

includes general direction to identify 

and evaluate existing relevant 

information for ecosystem services and 

multiple uses, in addition to direction to 

identify and evaluate information about 

specific resources and uses such as air, 

soil, water, and recreation. Section 

219.7 includes direction to develop a 

list of relevant resources as part of the 

plan revision or development process, 

building on the assessment and any 

additional information developed in the 

planning process. Sections 219.8–219.11 

include requirements for some specific 

resources, in addition to the 

requirement in § 219.10(a) to consider 

all relevant resources and uses in 

developing plan components. 

Throughout, the responsible official will 

use the best available scientific 

information, and will be informed by 

public participation. 

The final rule does not prioritize 

multiple uses; rather, it requires the 

responsible official to provide plan 

components for integrated resource 

management, based on the resources 

and uses relevant to the plan area. 

Specific direction or guidance for 

specific uses will be included in the 

Forest Service Directives System, the 

plans themselves, and/or in the 

subsequent decisions regarding projects 

and activities. 

Comment: Mineral exploration and 

development. Some respondents felt 

that the Forest Service should establish 

specific, detailed requirements to 

address mining of mineral resources on 

NFS lands while some respondents felt 

the Forest Service fails to address delays 

and impediments to mineral exploration 

and development caused by the failure 

of the rule to address minerals 

consistent with applicable statutes. 

Response: The planning rule does not 

impose requirements that would create 

inconsistencies with existing laws or 

regulations governing mineral 

exploration and development on 

Federal lands. Plans developed under 

the final rule must comply with all 

applicable laws and regulations 

(§ 219.1(f)). It is not expected that the 

rule will cause delays or impede 

mineral exploration and development 

on NFS units. Section 219.10(a) 

specifically recognizes mineral 

resources and directs the responsible 

official to consider mineral resources 

when developing plan components for 

integrated resource management for 

multiple use and sustained yield under 

the MUSYA. In addition, § 219.8 

requires the responsible official take 

into account multiple uses that 

contribute to the local, regional or 

national economies. 

Comment: Relationship of livestock 

grazing with ecological sustainability 

and other uses. Some respondents felt 

range resource activities should not be 

supported in the rule, while others felt 

it should be supported. Some 

respondents felt the rule should include 

more specific direction for livestock 

grazing. 

Response: The final rule sets the stage 

for a planning process that is responsive 

to the multiple use desires and needs of 

present and future generations of 

Americans. Rangeland ecosystems are 

part of many units, and the MUSYA 

specifically provides that range is one of 

the multiple uses for which the national 

forests are managed. The appropriate 

level of grazing on a unit or other 

direction regarding range use in the plan 

area is best determined in individual 

plans and at the site-specific level, so 

that direction is appropriate to the 

conditions in the plan area. 

Comment: Game species. Some 

respondents felt the rule should include 

requirements for species that are 

hunted, fished, or trapped, including 

recognition of their social and economic 

importance to sportsman, 

photographers, and other enthusiasts 

who enjoy viewing all wildlife. Several 

Indian Tribes and State game and fish 

departments said that certain species 

play a special role in contributing to 

social, cultural, and economic 

sustainability, and that plans should 

consider habitat for those species 

beyond what is required to provide 

diversity. 

Response: The Agency recognizes the 

important role of NFS lands in 

providing the habitat for these species. 

Plan components designed to meet the 

ecosystem integrity and ecosystem 

diversity requirements of § 219.9, along 

with additional components where 

needed if the species is in the categories 

listed in § 219.9(b), will provide the 

habitat and other ecological conditions 

necessary to support these species. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Sections 219.6, 219.8 and 219.12 also 

recognize the importance of outdoor 

recreation opportunities and uses, 

including hunting and fishing. In 

addition, section 219.10 of the final rule 

retains the provision of the proposed 

rule that specifically requires 

consideration of habitat conditions for 

wildlife, fish, and plants commonly 

enjoyed and used by the public for 

hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 

observing, and subsistence. The final 

rule adds a provision that such 

consideration is to be done in 

collaboration with federally recognized 

Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, 

other Federal agencies, and State and 

local governments. This addition, 

combined with the requirements of 

§§ 219.4 and 219.6, should ensure 

appropriate consideration is given to 

species of importance to these groups 

and entities. The final rule is not 

intended to require that units maintain 

ecological conditions that meet all 

population goals of State agencies. 

Comment: Recreational priority and 

opportunities. Several respondents felt 

recreation and its relationship with 

ecological sustainability deserves 

greater importance in the rule, including 

discussion of specific recreational 

opportunities under a separate section. 

Other respondents felt more specific 

requirements for recreational activities 

and opportunities should be included in 

the rule. Some respondents felt it was 

inappropriate to include recreational 

facilities with transportation and utility 

corridors as examples of infrastructure. 

Response: The final rule recognizes 

the importance of recreation, both for its 

contributions to economic and social 

sustainability, and as an important use 

connecting people to the land. The high 

value placed on recreation has been a 

common theme throughout the public 

participation process leading to this 

final rule. Americans make over 170 

million visits to national forests and 

grasslands each year. These visits 

provide an important contribution to the 

economic vitality of rural communities 

as spending by recreation visitors in 

areas surrounding national forests 

amounts to nearly 13 billion dollars 

annually. Recreation is also a critical 

part of social sustainability, connecting 

people to nature, providing for outdoor 

activities that promote long-term 

physical and mental health, enhancing 

the American public’s understanding of 

their natural and cultural environments, 

and catalyzing their participation and 

stewardship of the natural world. 

Providing for sustainable recreation is 

one of the biggest challenges and 

opportunities facing the Forest Service, 

and land management planning is a 

critical process in meeting this need. 

The final rule provides direction for 

sustainable recreation throughout the 

planning process. The final rule retains 

the term ‘‘sustainable recreation’’ to 

recognize that planning should identify, 

evaluate, and provide a set of 

recreational settings, opportunities and 

access for a range of uses, recognizing 

the need for that set to be sustainable 

over time. Ecosystem services include 

‘‘cultural services’’ such as recreational 

experiences, and social sustainability 

recognizes the activities and traditions 

that connect people to the land. The 

rule recognizes and states in § 219.10 

and the definition section in § 219.19 

that recreational opportunities include 

non-motorized, motorized, developed, 

and dispersed recreation on land, water, 

and in the air. Examples include 

activities such as hiking, biking, 

hunting, fishing, horseback riding, 

skiing, off-highway vehicle use, 

camping, picnicking, bird and other 

wildlife watching, canoeing, kayaking, 

geocaching, recreational aviation, hang 

gliding, and many more. A detailed list 

was not included in § 219.10 so as not 

to inadvertently leave a recreation use 

out, and also in recognition that new 

recreational uses are always being 

developed. 

In the assessment phase (§ 219.6), the 

responsible official must identify and 

evaluate existing information relevant to 

recreation settings, opportunities, and 

access, in addition to recreational 

infrastructure, benefits people obtain 

from the plan area and the contribution 

of multiple uses to the local, regional, 

and national economies. Section 219.8 

requires the responsible official to take 

sustainable recreation and scenic 

character into account when developing 

plan components to contribute to social 

and economic sustainability. 

Section 219.10 requires plan 

components to provide for multiple uses 

including outdoor recreation. In 

paragraph (a), responsible officials must 

consider aesthetic values, ecosystem 

services, recreation settings and 

opportunities, and habitat conditions 

specifically for species used and 

enjoyed by the public for recreational 

opportunities such as hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife observation. Responsible 

officials must also consider placement 

and management of infrastructure, 

including recreational facilities. It is 

appropriate to refer to such facilities as 

infrastructure because recreational 

facilities are fixed capital installations 

that enhance recreational experiences. 

These facilities include: campgrounds, 

roads, trails, backcountry airstrips, and 

drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure. In paragraph (b), the final 

rule requires that plan revisions and 

new plans include plan components to 

provide for sustainable recreation; 

including recreation settings, 

opportunities, access; and scenic 

character. Section 219.12 requires 

monitoring for visitor use and progress 

toward meeting recreational objectives. 

These requirements are in response to 

public comment and in recognition of 

the importance of recreation. 

Comment: Objectives, standards and 

guidelines for sustainable recreation. 

Several respondents felt the rule should 

require the plan to identify objectives, 

standards and guidelines for sustainable 

recreation. A respondent felt the rule 

should use the term ‘‘must’’ instead of 

‘‘should’’ with respect to identifying 

recreational settings, and desired 

conditions for scenic landscape 

character. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule provision that the plan 

should identify desired conditions for 

‘‘scenic landscape character’’ was too 

narrow; others felt it expanded Agency 

authorities beyond legal mandates. 

Response: The requirement in 

§ 219.10(b)(1)(i) is changed in the final 

rule; where the proposed rule provided 

that the plan ‘‘should identify 

recreational settings and desired 

conditions for scenic landscape 

character,’’ the final rule requires that a 

new plan or plan revision must include 

plan components, including standards 

or guidelines, to provide for sustainable 

recreation; including recreation settings, 

opportunities, and access; and scenic 

character. The term ‘‘landscape 

character’’ in proposed § 219.19 has 

been replaced in the final rule with 

‘‘scenic character’’ to clarify what 

resource is being considered. The scenic 

resource falls under the Agency’s 

multiple use and sustained yield 

mandate. ‘‘Landscape character’’ in the 

proposed rule was defined in terms of 

visual and cultural identity; ‘‘scenic 

character’’ is defined in the final rule in 

terms of scenic identity. 

Comment: Use of land allocations. 

Some respondents felt the rule should 

require land allocations to allow the 

Agency to establish a recreation zoning 

system. 

Response: Section 219.7(d) of the final 

rule requires management areas or 

geographic areas in every plan. A plan 

could include management areas based 

on recreation settings and opportunities. 

Comment: Preservation easement. A 

respondent expressed concern the 

Agency is considering putting grazing 

allotments under a ‘‘preservation 

easement.’’ 

Response: ‘‘Preservation easements’’ 

were not proposed for inclusion in the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21223 

planning rule and are not included in 

the final rule. 

Comment: Protection of cultural and 

historic resources. Several respondents 

felt the proposed rule would allow 

responsible officials to damage or 

destroy cultural and historic resources if 

done for the purpose of achieving other 

resources objectives. Some respondents 

felt specific direction for management of 

cultural and historic resources and uses 

should be added to the rule. Some 

respondents suggested that 

§ 219.10(b)(1)(ii) include protection of 

the ‘‘uses’’ and ‘‘cultural landscapes.’’ 

Other respondents felt the rule should 

establish priorities between cultural and 

historic resources and other resource 

objectives. 

Response: The Department considers 

cultural and historic resources to be 

very important for social sustainability 

as well as important economic 

contributors. Benefits of cultural and 

historic sites include: expanded 

knowledge and understanding of 

history; cultural and spiritual 

connections to our heritage; scientific 

data about past cultures or historical 

conditions and similar matters; and 

tourism that benefits rural economies. 

The final rule provides direction for 

cultural and historic resources 

throughout the planning process. The 

assessment phase requires identifying 

and evaluating information about 

cultural and historic resources and uses 

and areas of Tribal importance, in 

addition to ecosystem services, which 

include ‘‘cultural services.’’ Section 

219.8 also requires the responsible 

official to take cultural and historic 

resources on the plan area into account 

when developing plan components to 

contribute to economic sustainability 

and social sustainability, which 

includes the traditions and culture that 

connect people to the land. 

In § 219.10, paragraph (a) requires that 

the responsible official consider cultural 

and heritage resources, habitat 

conditions for species used and enjoyed 

by the public, and opportunities to 

connect people with nature, when 

developing plan components for 

integrated resource management to 

provide for ecosystem services and 

multiple uses, which include cultural 

and historic resources and uses. 

Paragraph (b) retains the requirement of 

the proposed rule that plan components 

must provide for the protection of 

cultural and historic resources. The use 

of the word ‘‘protect’’ is to ensure that 

the responsible official takes into 

account the effect a plan may have on 

cultural and historic values and provide 

for these resources, within the context 

of managing for multiple use purposes. 

It does not create a preservation 

mandate, but where actions might 

impair the resources or use, the 

Department expects that the responsible 

official would seek to avoid or minimize 

potential harm by following established 

procedures for cultural and historic 

resource management. The rule does not 

remove or change Agency obligations to 

meet the National Historic Preservation 

Act and other laws and Executive orders 

for the protection of these resources. 

The final rule does not include more 

specific direction for cultural and 

historic uses or activities and does not 

establish priorities among the multiple 

uses. Additional process requirements 

and guidance are more appropriately 

located in Agency directives, land 

management plans, and projects or 

activities. 

Comment: Non-Tribal indigenous 

rights. Several respondents stated the 

final rule should address the 

management of areas of importance for 

non-Tribal indigenous entities with preexisting cultural and natural resources 

access, maintenance and use rights 

based on historical and documented 

claims to lands now managed by the 

Forest Service. 

Response: Section 219.1(d) of the final 

rule states that the planning rule ‘‘does 

not affect treaty rights or valid existing 

rights established by statute or legal 

instruments.’’ Section 219.4(a) of the 

final rule requires the responsible 

official to provide opportunities for 

public participation, during which nonTribal indigenous entities can inform 

the responsible official of areas of 

importance to them. Section 219.6(a)(1) 

requires the responsible official to 

identify and consider, ‘‘relevant 

information, including local 

knowledge,’’ and to identify areas of 

Tribal importance, as well as cultural 

and historic resources and uses. Section 

219.10 requires plan components to 

provide for management of areas of 

Tribal importance. Specific issues of 

access and use will be addressed at the 

levels of unit planning or project or 

activity planning. 

Comment: Spiritual sustenance. Some 

respondents felt the rule should not 

provide for spiritual sustenance, 

because there is no legal mandate for 

doing it. A respondent stated that the 

First Amendment prohibits ‘‘making of 

any law respecting an establishment of 

religion.’’ 

Response: Plans are not required to 

provide for spiritual sustenance. The 

final rule recognizes in § 219.1(c) and in 

the definition of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ 

that spiritual values is one of the 

benefits people derive from the NFS. To 

contribute to social and economic 

sustainability, plans must provide for 

ecosystem services and multiple uses as 

provided in this section. Managing NFS 

lands and resources such that they 

provide opportunities for spiritual 

benefits does not establish a religion, 

and no preference is given to one 

religion over another. 

Comment: Management of wilderness 

areas and areas recommended for 

wilderness designation. Some 

respondents felt the rule should ensure 

wilderness protection is not extended to 

recommended wilderness areas so de 

facto wilderness areas are not created by 

the Agency. Some respondents felt the 

rule should address activities affecting 

designated wilderness areas or with the 

potential to degrade areas recommended 

for wilderness and reduce their 

potential for designation. One 

respondent states the rule should 

include wilderness management 

direction parallel to the Wilderness Act 

wording. Another respondent felt the 

rule should provide wilderness 

management flexibility to respond to 

changing conditions. 

Response: Wilderness areas provide 

important places for recreation, 

solitude, and renewal; are refuges for 

species; and can attract tourism that 

benefits rural economies. Section 219.1 

of the final rule states plans must 

comply with all applicable laws and 

regulations, including the Wilderness 

Act. The Department changed the 

wording of § 219.10(b)(iv) of the final 

rule from ‘‘protection of wilderness 

areas as well as the protection of 

recommended wilderness areas to 

protect the ecologic and social values 

and character for which they might be 

added to the National Wilderness 

System,’’ in the proposed rule to 

‘‘protection of congressionally 

designated wilderness areas as well as 

management of areas recommended for 

wilderness designation to protect and 

maintain the ecological and social 

characteristics that provide the basis for 

their suitability for wilderness 

designation.’’ The changes were made to 

increase clarity and better reflect the 

Department’s intent from the proposed 

rule. This requirement, in addition to 

related requirements in §§ 219.6, 219.7, 

and 219.10(a)(1), reflect the Agency’s 

responsibilities under the Wilderness 

Act and are consistent with the 

recognition in the MUSYA that 

wilderness is consistent with its 

purposes and provisions. 

The protection of designated 

wilderness areas is a requirement of 

law. Management of areas 

recommended for wilderness 

designation to protect and maintain the 

characteristics that provide the basis for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

their suitability for designation is lawful 

and within the Agency’s authority. In 

fact, many State wilderness acts require 

that any areas recommended for 

wilderness designation are to be 

managed for the purpose of protecting 

the area’s suitability for wilderness. The 

Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 is one 

example (Pub. L. 98–428. § 201(b)(4); 98 

Stat 1660). 

The Department believes the 

requirement in the final rule meets the 

Agency’s intent to ensure that the types 

and levels of use allowed would 

maintain wilderness character and 

would not preclude future designation 

as wilderness. Specific direction 

regarding incompatible uses in 

recommended wilderness areas will be 

found in the Forest Service Directives 

System and in plans themselves. 

Comment: Responsible official 

discretion to recommend areas for 

wilderness designation. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule 

provides the responsible official with 

too much discretion about evaluations 

for, determinations of, and management 

of areas recommended for wilderness 

designation. 

Response: Section 219.7 of the final 

rule was modified to require the 

identification and evaluation of areas 

that may be suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System. Public input during the 

opportunities for public participation 

will help the responsible official 

determine whether to recommend any 

such areas for wilderness designation. 

State wilderness acts, typically require 

the Forest Service to review the 

wilderness option of areas during plan 

revision. The Utah Wilderness Act of 

1984 is one example (Pub. L. 98–428. 

§ 201(b)(2); 98 Stat. 1659). The 

responsible official’s recommendation 

in a plan is not the President’s 

recommendation to Congress. So, the 

recommendation is not necessarily what 

is recommended to Congress. The 

Agency’s process for identifying and 

evaluating areas for recommendation is 

established in the Forest Service 

Directives System in the Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, which will be 

revised and made available for public 

comment. Specific direction and 

requirements for management of 

wilderness areas are also included in 

the Forest Service Directives System, 

and are in the process of being revised 

and put out for public comment. 

Comment: Wilderness designation. 

Several respondents felt that the Agency 

should increase wilderness areas, while 

others felt that the Agency should 

reduce wilderness areas. 

Response: Only Congress has the 

authority to designate wilderness areas 

or change the boundaries of designated 

wilderness areas, under the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. Wilderness areas provide a 

number of benefits, and the MUSYA 

recognizes wilderness as consistent with 

its multiple use purposes and 

provisions. The responsible official will 

determine whether or not to recommend 

any new areas for designation as part of 

the planning process. 

Comment: Wild and scenic river 

protection. Some respondents supported 

protection of rivers not designated as a 

wild and scenic river, while others did 

not. One respondent commented that 

proposed § 219.10(b)(1)(v) provides 

protection for only eligible rivers. 

Response: The final rule has been 

changed to include suitable rivers in 

§ 219.10(b)(1)(v). The Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act requires ‘‘every wild, scenic, 

or recreational river in its free-flowing 

condition, or upon restoration to this 

condition, shall be considered eligible 

for inclusion in the national wild and 

scenic river system.’’ To be eligible for 

inclusion, a river must be free-flowing 

and, with its adjacent land area, possess 

one or more ‘‘outstandingly remarkable’’ 

values. The determination of eligibility 

is an assessment that does not require a 

decision or approval document, 

although the results of this inventory 

need to be documented as a part of the 

plan document or plan set of 

documents. 

Once a river is determined to be 

eligible, a suitability study gives the 

basis for determining which rivers to 

recommend to Congress as potential 

additions to the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (National System). 

Therefore, the Department decided it is 

appropriate and consistent with the Act 

for the Agency to protect rivers 

determined to be suitable until Congress 

decides on designation and those 

eligible until the Agency determines if 

the rivers are suitable for the values for 

which they may be included in the 

national wild and scenic river system. 

Comment: Special designations. Some 

respondents felt the rule should provide 

for special designations including a 

comprehensive list of designated or 

recommended special areas. Several 

respondents felt the rule should include 

specific procedures for identifying areas 

for special designation. A respondent 

felt the rule should provide the 

responsible official the opportunity to 

designate special areas. 

Response: The Agency manages many 

kinds of designated areas in addition to 

wilderness areas and wild and scenic 

rivers, including experimental forests, 

national heritage areas, national 

monuments, national recreational areas, 

national scenic trails, research natural 

areas, and scenic byways. These areas 

can contribute in important ways to 

social and economic sustainability as 

well as ecologic sustainability. 

The definition of designated areas in 

§ 219.19 has been modified so that it is 

clear that designated areas may be 

established in the land management 

planning process or by a separate 

process by statute or by an 

administrative process in accord with 

NEPA requirements and other 

applicable laws. Section 219.7(c)(2) has 

been modified to make clear that 

responsible officials may designate an 

area if they have the delegated authority 

to do so. Section 219.10(b)(1)(vi) of the 

final rule requires plan components to 

provide for the ‘‘appropriate 

management of other designated or 

recommended special areas in the plan 

area, including research natural areas.’’ 

Specific guidance on designation 

procedures is more appropriate for the 

Agency’s directives, and is not found in 

the rule. 

Section 219.11—Timber Requirements 

Based on the NFMA 

This section of the final rule includes 

provisions for identifying lands as not 

suitable for timber production and for 

limitations on timber harvest. This 

section meets the statutory requirements 

of the NFMA related to management of 

the timber resource. The NFMA, along 

with the requirements of this section, 

would provide for mitigation of the 

effects of timber harvest on other 

resources and multiple uses. Other 

sections of the final rule contain 

provisions that supplement the 

requirements of this section. 

Timber is one of the multiple use 

purposes of the NFS, as recognized by 

the MUSYA and the Act of 1897, also 

known as the Organic Administration 

Act. Timber is also recognized by 

§ 219.10 of this subpart. The National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 signaled 

a new direction for the planning and 

management of NFS lands, especially 

with regard to management of the 

timber resource and impacts to other 

resources. Management and use of 

timber harvest on NFS lands continues 

to evolve. Today, harvest of timber on 

NFS lands occurs for many different 

reasons, including ecological 

restoration, community protection in 

wildland urban interfaces, habitat 

restoration, and protection of municipal 

water supplies. Timber harvest also 

supports economic sustainability 

through the production of timber, pulp 

for paper, specialty woods for furniture, 

and fuel for small-scale renewable 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21225 

energy projects. Timber harvesting, 

whether for restoration or wood 

production objectives, also supports 

employment and provides payments in 

lieu of taxes in many counties 

throughout the country. 

This final rule provides the guidance 

for developing plans, not guidance for 

individual projects, and it is important 

to recognize that any individual timber 

project or activity could not provide for 

all aspects of social, economic, or 

ecological sustainability. However, all 

projects and activities must be 

consistent with the plan components in 

the plan, including those developed to 

meet the requirements of sustainability, 

diversity, multiple use, and timber 

(§§ 219.8 through 219.11), as required 

by § 219.15. 

Section 219.11—Response to Comments 

Many concerns were raised over 

direction for timber harvest for purposes 

other than timber production, 

responsible official discretion in 

determining timber harvest on lands not 

suited for timber production, and 

suitability of lands for timber 

production. For clarity, the Department 

modified this section from the wording 

of the proposed rule. 

In the opening paragraph of this 

section, the Department removed the 

phrase ‘‘the plan must provide for 

multiple uses and ecosystem services 

including timber’’ because that 

requirement is found in § 219.10 and 

replaced that phrase with the words 

‘‘the plan must include plan 

components, including standards or 

guidelines, and other plan content 

regarding timber management’’ to more 

accurately reflect the requirements of 

this section. The Department changed 

the term ‘‘capability’’ to ‘‘inherent 

capability’’ to be consistent with other 

sections of this subpart. The Department 

defines the term inherent capability in 

§ 219.19. The Department removed the 

term ‘‘fiscal capability’’ from this 

section. Fiscal capability is now 

discussed in § 219.1 and is an 

overarching consideration throughout 

the planning process, rather than being 

pointed out for only selected portions of 

the planning process. Other minor 

wording changes were made for clarity. 

Paragraph (a) has a new caption of 

‘‘Lands not suited for timber 

production.’’ In paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, in the discussion of identifying 

lands not suitable for timber production, 

the Department removed the sentence 

‘‘The responsible official may 

determine, considering physical, 

economic, and other pertinent factors, 

that lands are not suitable for timber 

production.’’ The Department removed 

this sentence about factors because the 

criteria at paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through 

(a)(1)(vi) are the physical, economic, 

and other pertinent factors to deal with 

the requirements of the statute (16 

U.S.C. 1604(k)), and include the 

consideration of other desired 

conditions and objectives in the plan. In 

particular, paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this 

section deals with the economic factors 

as the responsible official develops 

desired conditions to provide for social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability 

(§§ 219.8–219.11). 

The provision discussing the 10-year 

review of lands not suitable for timber 

production that was in paragraph (a) of 

the proposed rule has been removed 

from paragraph (a)(1) and moved to 

modified paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. 

The specific factors in paragraph (a) 

for identifying lands not suitable for 

timber production are based on the 

NFMA requirements limiting timber 

harvest (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(E)) and the 

Agency policy. Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of 

this section contains a specific criterion 

that would not allow lands to be 

identified as suitable for timber 

production unless technology is 

currently available for conducting 

timber harvest without causing 

irreversible damage to soil, slope, or 

other watershed conditions. Available 

technology may vary from place to 

place, and could be, for example: horse 

logging, ground based skidding, aerial 

systems, or cable logging systems. This 

provision has been in place since the 

1979 rule, to meet the NFMA obligation 

to consider physical factors to 

determine the suitability of lands for 

timber production. The factor has been 

effective in protecting watershed 

conditions. However, the Department 

removed the words ‘‘or substantial and 

permanent impairment of the 

productivity of the land’’ from 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv) in the final rule 

because it caused confusion and the 

Department’s intent was captured by the 

remaining term ‘‘irreversible damage to 

soil, slope, or watershed conditions.’’ 

Paragraph (a)(2) of this section now 

discusses the requirements of the 10- 

year review of lands not suitable for 

timber production. This paragraph 

combines and modifies discussions 

from paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph 

(a)(3) of the proposed rule for clarity. 

Paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule 

has been modified and redesignated as 

paragraph (b) with a new caption of 

‘‘Timber harvest for the purposes of 

timber production.’’ The Department 

removed the wording of the proposed 

rule about lands which are not 

identified in the plan as ‘‘not suitable’’ 

for timber production are suited for 

timber production because some 

respondents believed this required the 

designation of these lands as suitable for 

timber production, which was not the 

Department’s intent. In addition, the 

Department added a requirement in 

paragraph (b) of this section to clarify 

that where a plan identifies lands as 

suitable for timber production the plan 

must include plan components to guide 

timber harvest for timber production or 

for other multiple purposes on such 

lands. 

Modified paragraph (c) of this section 

combined provisions from paragraph 

(b)(2) and paragraph (c) of the proposed 

rule. Paragraph (c) has a new caption of 

‘‘timber harvest for purposes other than 

timber production.’’ 

Paragraph (c) of this section sets forth 

that the plan may include plan 

components to allow for timber harvest 

for purposes other than timber 

production as a tool to assist in 

achieving or maintaining one or more 

applicable desired condition(s) or 

objective(s) of the plan in order to 

protect other multiple-use values, and 

for salvage, sanitation, or public health 

or safety. The wording ‘‘in order to 

protect other multiple-use values’’ was 

added for consistency with the intent of 

the NFMA, which allows for timber 

harvest ‘‘necessitated to protect * * * 

multiple use values’’ other than timber 

production on lands not suited for 

timber production (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)). 

The wording of this paragraph also 

reflects longstanding Agency practices 

of using timber harvest to protect other 

multiple use values and public health 

and safety in areas not suited for timber 

production. 

In modified paragraph (d) of this 

section, the rule discusses the 

limitations on timber harvest based on 

statutory requirements, incorporating 

and modifying wording from the 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (d) of this section 

of the proposed rule. Paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section in the final rule states the 

same requirement as paragraph (b)(1) of 

the proposed rule. 

At paragraph (d)(2) in this section, the 

rule includes the provision that plan 

components shall ensure timber harvest 

would occur only where soil, slope, or 

other watershed conditions would not 

cause irreversible damage, which is a 

requirement of NFMA (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(E)(i)); the proposed rule (at 

paragraph (d)(1)) included a citation to 

this part of NFMA, therefore this change 

does not add a new requirement. 

Paragraph (d)(3) of this section 

includes the same requirement as 

paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed rule. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

In paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through 

(d)(4)(iii) of this section, the rule directs 

that plan components must ensure that 

plans include size limits for 

regeneration of even-aged stand of trees 

in one harvest operation. The rule 

retains wording of paragraphs (d)(3), 

(d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), and (d)(3)(iii) of the 

proposed rule, with minor changes for 

clarity. The changes include: (1) 

Clarifying what the plan may or may not 

provide, rather than set out a 

prohibition on projects; (2) the term 

‘‘areas to be cut in one harvest 

operation’’ has been replaced with 

’’openings that may be cut in one 

harvest operation;’’ and (3) the 

discretion for plans to exceed the 

default maximum size of paragraph 

(d)(3)(i) of the proposed rule has been 

changed from ‘‘Cut openings larger than 

those specified may be permitted where 

larger units will produce a more 

desirable combination of benefits’’ to 

‘‘Plan standards may allow for openings 

larger than those specified in paragraph 

(d)(4) of this section to be cut in one 

harvest operation where the responsible 

official determines that larger harvest 

openings are necessary to help achieve 

desired ecological conditions in the 

plan area.’’ These changes in wording 

from the proposed to the final rule are 

not changes in requirements, but simply 

clarify the Department’s intent. 

In paragraph (d)(5) of this section, the 

rule directs that plan components must 

ensure that timber will be harvested 

only where the harvest complies with 

resource protection requirements of the 

NFMA. Paragraph (d)(5) is a 

modification of paragraph (d)(1) of the 

proposed rule and this modification is 

not a change in requirements. These 

requirements reference the provisions of 

NFMA to limit harvest to situations 

where the productivity of the land could 

be sustained and harvesting 

prescriptions are appropriately applied. 

For example, by referencing NFMA 

paragraph (d)(5) requires plan 

components for even-aged timber 

harvest that: (1) Limit clearcutting to 

locations where it is determined to be 

the optimum method for regenerating 

the site; (2) require interdisciplinary 

review of the harvest proposal; and (3) 

require cutting to be blended with the 

natural terrain. These requirements are 

referenced but not repeated in the final 

rule because the Department believes 

they are incorporated and enhanced by 

the requirements for resource protection 

in other sections of the rule and plan 

consistency requirements of § 219.15. In 

addition, some requirements are not 

repeated because they are addressed by 

other regulations; for example, the 

NEPA regulations direct environmental 

analysis and the use of interdisciplinary 

teams. 

In paragraph (d)(6) of this section, the 

rule directs that plan components must 

set forth the limit on the quantity of 

timber that may be sold in the national 

forest. The Department modified the 

wording of paragraph (d)(4) of the 

proposed rule, and moved the provision 

to paragraph (d)(6) of the final rule as 

follows: 

(1) The proposed rule required plan 

components to limit the quantity of 

timber that can be removed annually in 

perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis. 

The final rule says plan components 

must ensure the quantity of timber that 

may be sold from the national forest is 

limited to an amount equal to or less 

than that which can be removed from 

such forest annually in perpetuity on a 

sustained-yield basis. This change was 

made to agree with the NFMA wording. 

(2) The Department added a sentence 

that this limit may be measured on a 

decadal basis to reflect the Agency 

practice, and 16 U.S.C. 1611. Note that 

under this paragraph the quantity sold 

in any given year may exceed the 

annual average for the decade, but the 

total quantity sold over a 10-year period 

may not exceed the decadal limit. 

(3) The Department changed the 

provision that required the plan to 

‘‘provide for departure from the limit, as 

provided by NFMA’’ to ‘‘The plan may 

provide for departures from this limit as 

provided by the NFMA where departure 

would be consistent with the plan’s 

desired conditions and objectives.’’ 

(4) The Department added that 

exceptions for departure from this limit 

on the quantity sold must be made with 

a public review and comment period of 

at least 90 days, to be consistent with 

the NFMA. 

The Department concludes that these 

changes in wording at revised 

paragraphs (d)(6) of this section clarify 

the Department’s intent and reflect the 

requirements of the NFMA. 

In paragraph (d)(7) of this section, the 

rule directs that plan components must 

ensure that the regeneration harvest of 

even-aged stands of trees is limited to 

stands that generally have reached the 

culmination of mean annual increment 

of growth (CMAI). The Department 

retains the wording of paragraphs (d)(5) 

of the proposed rule, with minor 

changes for clarity. The changes 

include: Changing the provision that 

‘‘Exceptions, set out in 16 U.S.C. 

1604(m), are permitted only if 

consistent with the land management 

plan’’ to ‘‘Plan components may allow 

for exceptions, set out in 16 U.S.C. 

1604(m), only if such harvest is 

consistent with other plan components 

of the land management plan.’’ The 

Department removed the provision of 

the proposed rule at paragraph (d)(5) 

that stated: ‘‘If such exceptions are 

anticipated, the responsible official 

should include those exceptions in the 

land management plan as standards or 

guidelines’’ because it is now redundant 

with the sentence ‘‘Plan components 

may allow for exceptions * * *.’’ The 

Department removed the provision 

about directives and CMAI, because that 

sentence is redundant with the 

provision at § 219.2(b)(5)(i) requiring 

Forest Service directives. These 

modifications at revised paragraphs 

(d)(7) of this section are not changes in 

requirements but clarify the 

Department’s intent and reduce 

redundancy. 

Comment: Timber harvest for other 

purposes. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule at § 219.11(b)(2) was 

either too discretionary or too restrictive 

in meeting NFMA’s allowance for 

salvage sales and other limited timber 

harvest on lands not suited for timber 

production. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule should prohibit timber 

harvesting on unsuitable lands or 

specify that timber salvage on those 

lands be solely for non-commercial 

purposes. 

Response: Today, timber harvest is 

often used to achieve ecological 

conditions and other multiple use 

benefits for purposes other than timber 

production. Therefore, the Department 

clarified at § 219.11(c) that a plan may 

include plan components to allow for 

timber harvest for purposes other than 

timber production as a tool to assist in 

achieving or maintaining one or more 

applicable desired conditions or 

objectives of the plan to protect other 

multiple-use values. Consistent with 

Section 1604(k) of NFMA, § 219.11(c) of 

the proposed rule also allows timber 

harvest for salvage, sanitation or public 

health or safety in areas not suitable for 

timber production. The Department 

believes that the provisions of this 

section provide a balanced approach 

recognizing that timber harvest will be 

necessary in many places to assist the 

Agency in accomplishing restoration 

and other multiple use objectives. 

Section 219.11(d)(1) of the final rule 

restates the prohibition that had been in 

the proposed rule at 219.11(b)(1), that 

no harvest for the purpose of timber 

production may occur on lands not 

suitable for timber production. The final 

rule at § 219.11(d) also requires plan 

components to ensure no timber harvest 

may occur on lands where timber 

harvest would cause irreversible damage 

to soil, slope, or other watershed 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21227 

conditions. Timber harvest must be 

consistent with the desired conditions 

set out in the plan (§ 219.15). 

Comment: Responsible official 

discretion in determining timber harvest 

on lands not suited for timber 

production. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule allows the responsible 

official too much discretion in allowing 

or permitting timber harvesting on lands 

not suited for timber production. 

Response: This section, as well as 

other sections of the rule, provides 

sideboards to the responsible official’s 

discretion. The rule identifies factors to 

be considered by the responsible official 

in paragraph (c) of this section 

consistent with the NFMA, specific 

limitations that require standards or 

guidelines for timber harvest, and 

consistency with other applicable plan 

components. 

Section 219.3 of the rule requires the 

responsible official to use the best 

available scientific information. The 

rule also allows those interested 

communities, groups, or persons to 

engage in the public participation 

process for the development of plan 

components and monitoring programs 

and for the subsequent development of 

proposed projects and activities under 

the plan. Individual proposed projects 

for timber harvesting will still undergo 

additional opportunities for public 

involvement during the project’s NEPA 

process. The Department believes that 

these requirements provide an 

appropriate balance of requirements and 

discretion. 

Comment: Suitability of lands with a 

primary conservation focus. A 

respondent felt the rule should state that 

timber production is not suitable on 

lands managed with a primary 

conservation or restoration focus, 

including inventoried roadless areas, 

old-growth forests, priority and 

municipal watersheds, and riparian 

areas. 

Response: The proposed rule provides 

overall direction for how plans are 

developed, revised, and amended. 

Section 219.11(a)(1)(iii) requires that 

where timber production would not be 

compatible with desired conditions and 

objectives established by the plan, 

including those established in 

accordance with the requirements for 

suitability (§ 219.8), diversity (§ 219.9), 

and multiple use (§ 219.10), the 

responsible official shall identify such 

lands as not suitable for timber 

production. Additional guidance 

regarding suitability of lands will be 

found in the plans themselves, or in the 

subsequent decisions regarding projects 

and activities on a particular national 

forest, grassland, prairie, or other 

comparable administrative unit. The 

rule also allows those interested 

communities, groups, or persons to 

engage in the public participation 

process for the development of plans. 

Public participation will also be used 

during the subsequent development of 

proposed projects and activities under 

the plan, during which concerns 

regarding suitability of lands may be 

raised. 

Comment: Cost and revenues of 

timber harvesting. Some respondents 

felt the rule should require full and 

explicit disclosure of costs and benefits 

of timber harvesting in order for the 

public to more accurately compare plan 

alternatives and plan components. They 

felt timber harvesting should only be 

allowed where direct revenues will 

exceed all direct costs, and lands not 

cost-efficient should be designated 

unsuitable. Some felt the Government 

should not subsidize the logging 

industry or compete against private 

timber forest owners. 

Response: The costs and benefits of 

each alternative for a plan developed 

under the final rule is required to be 

disclosed under the NEPA process at the 

time of plan development, revision, or 

(if relevant) amendment. The 

Department recognizes that the cost of 

timber harvest is a major concern. The 

real measure of the worth of the timber 

program; however, is not net cost versus 

revenues, but costs versus public 

benefits. The final rule requires plan 

components for restoration which will 

likely result in projects to achieve 

multiple benefits. Some of these benefits 

can be measured as receipts; others are 

public benefits for which revenues are 

not received, such as restored 

watersheds; improved wildlife habitat; 

and improved bird watching, fishing, 

and hunting opportunities. The 

emphasis of the final rule is 

sustainability; and managing vegetation 

can help attain sustainability. Selling 

timber and managing vegetation is a key 

tool for restoration and providing 

wildlife habitat (cover types and age 

classes), creating diversity in the visual 

appearance of the landscape, improving 

the overall ecological integrity, 

producing timber products, providing 

jobs, and providing additional 

recreational opportunities by increasing 

forest access. Increasingly, the Agency 

uses stewardship contracts to offer 

projects to achieve multiple objectives 

including harvesting timber for 

restoration purposes. 

For lands to be identified in the plan 

as suitable for timber production, timber 

production on those lands must be 

compatible with the achievement of the 

desired conditions and objectives 

established by the plan. The desired 

conditions include those to meet 

requirements for plan development or 

revision (§ 219.7); social, economic, and 

ecological sustainability (§ 219.8); plant 

and animal diversity (§ 219.9); multiple 

use (§ 219.10); and timber (§ 219.11). 

The responsible official will establish 

management areas with different 

desired conditions based on providing 

social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability. This suitability 

determination is complex and will be 

based on analysis of costs, benefits, and 

values. 

Additional rule requirements for a 

detailed analysis of costs and benefits 

other than the final rule requirement for 

an EIS for plan development and plan 

revision and that plans be amended to 

be consistent with Forest Service NEPA 

procedures are not necessary. 

Comment: Review of lands suitable 

for timber production. A respondent felt 

lands suitable and not suitable for 

timber production should be reviewed 

every 10 years to ensure these 

designations are still appropriate. A 

respondent said the proposed rule has 

incorrectly expanded and interpreted 

the base requirements of the NFMA by: 

(1) falsely stating that the NFMA 

requires the identification of lands 

suitable for timber production (the 

respondent declared that the NFMA 

only requires identification of land not 

suited for timber production); and (2) 

stating that all lands not identified as 

not suitable are therefore suitable. 

Response: The NFMA requires a 

review of lands designated not suitable 

every 10 years, and the rule follows this 

mandate. The rule requires 

identification of land not suited for 

timber production and imposes specific 

factors to be considered. The purpose of 

identifying lands not suitable for timber 

production is to identify the land base 

upon which timber production harvest 

levels are subsequently calculated 

(lands suitable for timber production). 

To avoid confusion, the provision 

saying that ‘‘all lands not identified in 

the plan as not suitable for timber 

production are suited for timber 

production’’ has been removed from the 

final rule. The Department believes the 

respondent’s assumption behind this 

comment is that all lands except those 

determined to be not suitable will be 

harvested. That is not the Agency’s 

expectation. The identification of lands 

suitable for timber production is not a 

final decision compelling or approving 

projects and activities. A final 

determination of suitability is made 

through project and activity 

decisionmaking. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: Aesthetic resources. A 

respondent felt ‘‘aesthetic resources’’ 

should be removed from proposed 

§ 219.11(d)(2) wording because timber 

harvesting can create less appealing 

aesthetics but can be an integral part of 

sustaining high quality wildlife habitat. 

Response: The final rule retains the 

wording of the proposed rule at 

§ 219.11(d) ensuring timber harvesting 

is consistent with protection of aesthetic 

resources, because the wording matches 

the NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(F)(v). 

However, the Department recognizes 

that selling timber and managing 

vegetation are important tools for 

providing wildlife habitat (cover types 

and age classes), creating diversity in 

the visual appearance of the landscape, 

and improving the overall forest health. 

Comment: Allowable sale quantity. A 

respondent felt the planning rule should 

include a requirement for allowable sale 

quantity as in the 1982 rule. 

Response: Section 219.11 includes 

timber requirements based on the 

NFMA. The term ‘‘allowable sale 

quantity’’ (ASQ) is a term of art of the 

1982 rule. The term ASQ is used in the 

NFMA in discussions about departures 

that exceed the quantity of timber that 

may be sold from the national forest (16 

U.S.C. 1611). However, the NFMA does 

not require that the term be used in the 

implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. 

1604). The term has caused confusion 

about whether ASQ is a target or an 

upper limit under the 1982 rule 

procedures, the Agency wants to avoid 

this confusion under this final rule. 

Plans will have an upper limit for 

timber harvest for the quantity of timber 

sold as required in § 219.11(d)(6). The 

requirements in § 219.7(f) that plan 

content must include information about 

the planned timber sale program and 

timber harvesting levels, and in 

§ 219.11(d)(6) that the plan must limit 

the quantity of timber that may be sold 

from the national forest to that which 

can be removed annually in perpetuity 

on a sustained-yield basis, provide a 

more practicable way to give direction 

than using the term ‘‘ASQ.’’ Additional 

requirements will be found in the Forest 

Service Directive System. 

Comment: Changing plan harvest 

levels relationship with plan 

amendments. A respondent felt 

changing the timber harvesting level 

specified in the unit plan should be 

done through a revision or amendment 

of the unit plan because timber 

harvesting is an important objective. 

Response: Any change to plan 

components related to timber harvesting 

level requires a plan amendment under 

this final rule. Such plan components 

may include objectives for annual 

timber harvest or standards limiting the 

amount of timber harvested in the first 

decade. However, changing the tables or 

graphs of associated timber information 

in other plan content (§ 219.7(f)) may be 

done with an administrative change. 

Comment: Levels of timber harvest. A 

respondent felt the rule should require 

forest plans to identify three timber 

production levels. Those three levels 

were: (1) The long-term sustained-yield 

capacity, which is the theoretical 

maximum sustainable level in 

perpetuity; (2) the timber harvest level 

associated with achieving the desired 

future conditions contemplated in the 

plan; and (3) the probable timber 

harvest level given anticipated budgets 

and other priorities. 

Response: Final rule §§ 219.7(f) and 

219.11(d)(6) require determination of 

the long-term sustained-yield capacity 

(the quantity of timber that may be sold 

from the national forest) and require 

determination of the planned timber 

sale program. A requirement for the 

timber harvest level associated with 

achieving the desired future conditions 

is not included because the NFMA does 

not require such a calculation and it 

would be a highly speculative harvest 

level that would not likely be realistic. 

Harvest levels must be within the fiscal 

capability of the unit. 

Comment: Timber harvest unit size 

limits. Some respondent felt the 

proposed rule standards for maximum 

size limits for areas to be cut in one 

regeneration harvest operation should 

be determined by local conditions, 

individual forest plans objectives, based 

on science, and mimic historic forest 

disturbance regimes. 

Response: These limits on the 

maximum opening sizes were 

established in the 1979 planning rule 

and have been in use under the 1982 

rule. In 1979, the committee of scientists 

recommended the maximum size for 

openings created by timber cutting be 

set by regional plans or regional 

silvicultural guides, not be set as a 

national standard. However, the 

Department decided in 1979 to set 

maximum size of harvest cut openings 

(40-, 60-, or 100-acre maximums 

depending on geographic location) with 

exceptions provided for through 

regional plans where larger openings 

will produce more desirable 

combinations of benefits. In the final 

rule, the Department continues these 

standards with the exceptions provided 

through the responsible official, who is 

normally the forest or grassland 

supervisor. The procedure for varying 

these limits is an established process 

that has worked effectively, providing a 

limit on opening size and public 

involvement with higher level approval 

for exceeding the limits. The 

Department believes that the procedure 

for varying from these limits may be 

particularly justifiable in the future for 

ecological restoration, species recovery, 

improvement of vegetation diversity, 

mitigation of wildland fire risk, or other 

reasons. For example, some rare species 

are adapted to large patch sizes with 

similar habitat attributes for critical 

parts of their life cycle. 

Comment: Limiting the quantity of 

timber removed annually. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule was 

unclear on direction for limiting the 

quantity of timber removed annually in 

perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis as 

it simply repeats NFMA wording. 

Response: The Department changed 

the wording in paragraph (d)(6) of this 

section of the final rule to add clarity. 

In addition, the Department requires the 

Chief to set forth procedures for 

planning in the Forest Service 

Directives System to further explain the 

methods for determining the limit of the 

quantity of timber removed annually in 

perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis for 

an individual unit plan (§ 219.11(d)(6)). 

Comment: Use of culmination of 

mean annual increment. A respondent 

felt the proposed use of culmination of 

mean annual increment (CMAI) of 

growth to limit regeneration harvests of 

even-aged stands will not address issues 

of poor forest health, and the likelihood 

of uncharacteristic insect, disease, and 

fire. Another respondent felt CMAI 

should also be used where timber is cut 

in non-even-aged stands. 

Response: The Department does not 

agree that the national policy of CMAI 

as required by 16 U.S.C. 1604(m) has 

caused problems with issues of forest 

heath and the likelihood of 

uncharacteristic insect, disease, and fire. 

The national policy gives the Agency 

authority for exceptions from this 

standard for recreation, wildlife habitat, 

and other purposes. The NFMA requires 

that standards shall not preclude the use 

of sound silvicultural practices, such as 

thinning or other stand improvement 

measures. CMAI does not apply to 

uneven-aged stands as these stands are 

multi-aged; therefore, the final rule 

continues to limit the use of CMAI to 

regeneration harvests of even-aged 

stands. 

Section 219.12—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on requirements for the plan 

monitoring program, broad-scale 

monitoring strategies, and use of the 

monitoring information and the 

monitoring report. Throughout this 

section of the final rule, the Department 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21229 

made minor edits for clarity and 

changed the name from ‘‘unit 

monitoring program’’ in the proposed 

rule to the ‘‘plan monitoring program’’ 

In the final rule. This change to the 

name clarifies that monitoring is 

intended to focus on the plan 

components and is not geographically 

defined or applicable to other resource 

program monitoring on the unit. 

Additionally, the Department added a 

sentence to paragraph (a) to draw a 

clearer link between the monitoring 

program and the use of monitoring 

information for adaptive management of 

the plan area. 

The Department removed the 

requirements for science in paragraph 

(a)(4)(ii) because the requirements of 

§ 219.3 apply to the entire subpart and 

therefore do not need to be repeated 

here. The Department is committed to 

using science to inform monitoring and 

the decisions based on monitoring 

information. 

At paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the 

Department corrected the phrase 

monitoring ‘‘questions or indicators’’ to 

‘‘questions and associated indicators’’ to 

better reflect the way questions and 

indicators are used for monitoring. In 

response to public comment the 

Department made several changes to the 

list of required monitoring questions 

and associated indicators of paragraph 

(a)(5) as follows: 

(1) At paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this 

section, the Department added direction 

that the monitoring for the status of 

select ecological conditions include 

questions and indicators for key 

characteristics of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, to link this monitoring 

requirement to the ecological 

requirements in §§ 219.8 and 219.9. 

(2) At paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this 

section, the Department clarified that 

questions and indicators for the status of 

focal species are to assess the ecological 

conditions required under § 219.9, to 

link this monitoring requirement more 

clearly to the coarse-filter requirements. 

(3) At paragraph (a)(5)(iv) the 

Department added a new requirement 

for questions and indicators for the 

status of a select set of ecological 

conditions required under § 219.9 to 

contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed threatened and endangered 

species; conserve proposed and 

candidate species; and maintain a viable 

population of each species of 

conservation concern. This change was 

made in response to comments to more 

closely link monitoring with the need to 

assess progress towards meeting plan 

components for the species 

requirements in § 219.9. Additional 

discussion of this addition is discussed 

in the comment on monitoring of at risk 

species. 

(4) At paragraph (a)(5)(v), the 

Department added the status of visitor 

satisfaction to the requirement for 

questions and indicators for the status of 

visitor use designated at paragraph 

(a)(5)(iv) of the proposed rule, in 

response to public comment. 

(5) At paragraph (a)(5)(vi), the 

Department retained the requirement for 

questions and indicators related to 

climate change designated at paragraph 

(a)(5)(v) of the proposed rule, and 

changed the words ‘‘and other stressors 

on the unit’’ to ‘‘and other stressors that 

may be affecting the plan area.’’ 

(6) The Department removed the 

requirement for questions and 

indicators for the carbon stored in above 

ground vegetation previously designated 

at paragraph (a)(5)(vi) of the proposed 

rule. This change is accompanied by a 

change to § 219.6(b)(4) that requires 

responsible officials to identify and 

evaluate existing information for a 

baseline assessment of carbon stocks as 

part of the assessment. This change in 

requirements will lead to a more 

comprehensive assessment of carbon 

stocks (as opposed to carbon stored in 

above ground vegetation) earlier in the 

planning process. The Department 

retains the requirement to monitor 

changes related to climate change and 

other stressors (§ 219.12(a)(5)(vi). 

(7) At paragraph (a)(5)(vii), the 

Department removed the requirement 

for questions and indicators for the 

progress toward fulfilling the unit’s 

distinctive roles and contributions and 

added a requirement for questions and 

indicators addressing the progress 

toward meeting the desired conditions 

and objectives in the plan, including for 

providing multiple use opportunities. 

This change more accurately reflects 

what the Department intended to 

accomplish with the previous 

requirement at paragraph (a)(5)(vii) and 

the other requirements of (a)(5), and will 

help inform management effectiveness. 

(8) At paragraph (a)(5)(viii), the 

Department changed the term 

‘‘management system’’ to ‘‘each 

management system’’ to use words of 

the NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C) 

and respond to public comments. 

The Department added wording to 

paragraph (a)(7) to clarify that project 

and activity monitoring may be used to 

gather information for the plan 

monitoring program, and that plan 

monitoring may inform the 

development of specific projects and 

activities; but that the plan monitoring 

requirements of this section are not a 

prerequisite for making a decision to 

carry out a project or activity. 

At paragraph (c) of this section on 

timing and process, the Department 

removed the requirement at paragraph 

(c)(1) where the proposed rule required 

the responsible official to work with the 

public to identify potential monitoring 

needs during the assessment. The 

Department removed this requirement 

from the assessment phase in response 

to public comments to make the 

assessment phase more efficient and 

focused. As required in § 219.7, the 

assessment information will inform the 

development of monitoring questions 

and indicators during the plan 

development or revision phase. 

The Department removed paragraph 

§ 219.12(c)(4) of the proposed rule, the 

requirement that responsible officials 

ensure that scientists are involved in the 

design and evaluation of unit and broadscale monitoring, because wording of 

the requirement was confusing and the 

substance of the requirement was 

redundant with the coordination 

requirements at §§ 219.12(a)(1) and 

(b)(2) of the rule. 

The Department reorganized 

paragraph (d) for clarity. The 

Department removed the second 

sentence of paragraph (d)(1) of the 

proposed rule and moved to paragraph 

(d)(2) the requirement the monitoring 

evaluation report indicate whether a 

change to plan components or other 

plan content may be warranted. In 

addition, at paragraph (d)(2) the 

Department added the requirement that 

the report must be used to inform 

adaptive management of the unit. 

At paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of the 

proposed rule the Department removed 

the requirement that the monitoring 

evaluation report must describe how 

best available science was taken into 

account, because the report is intended 

to be an evaluation of data and 

information gathered by the plan 

monitoring program, which must be 

informed by best available scientific 

information. A new requirement was 

added to section 219.14(a)(4) to make 

clear that the plan decision document 

must document how the responsible 

official used best available scientific 

information to inform the plan 

monitoring program. 

In addition, paragraph (d)(3) of the 

proposed rule is now paragraph 

(d)(1)(iii) of the final rule, paragraph 

(d)(2) of the proposed rule is now (d)(3) 

of the final rule, but no changes to these 

requirements were made. 

Comment: Scope of monitoring. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule was 

unclear as to the extent of topics, 

including ones for desired conditions, 

responsible officials could consider 

when choosing the scope and scale of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

plan monitoring. A respondent felt the 

rule should require the scope of the 

monitoring question be as complete as 

possible even if the scope of the final 

monitoring program cannot address all 

the questions. 

Response: Because the information 

needs most critical for informed and 

adaptive management will vary by unit, 

the rule allows the responsible official 

the discretion to set the scope and scale 

of the plan monitoring program, subject 

to the minimum requirements in 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section. 

Paragraph (a)(2) directs that questions 

and indicators should be based on one 

or more desired conditions, objectives, 

or other plan component(s), but makes 

clear that not every plan component 

needs to have a corresponding 

monitoring question. Furthermore, the 

questions and indicators must be 

designed to inform the management of 

resources on the plan area, including by 

testing assumptions, tracking changes, 

and measuring management 

effectiveness and progress towards 

achieving or maintaining the plan’s 

desired conditions or objectives. This 

direction allows the responsible official 

to develop the most strategic, effective 

and useful monitoring program for the 

plan area, based on the plan 

components in the plan and informed 

by best available scientific information 

and public input. This direction also 

recognizes possible limits to the 

technical or financial capabilities of the 

Agency: not all parts of a plan, or every 

acre, can be monitored each year—and 

it may not be a strategic investment to 

do so. 

However, section 219.12(a)(5) of the 

final rule provides direction for a set of 

monitoring questions and associated 

indicators that must be part of every 

plan monitoring program. The list 

reflects substantive requirements of the 

final rule and links to the assessment 

phase. The responsible official can 

always consider additional factors and 

add questions and indicators. 

Every plan monitoring program would 

contain one or more questions and 

associated indicators that address each 

of the following: (1) The status of select 

watershed conditions; (2) the status of 

select ecological conditions including 

key characteristics of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems; (3) the status of 

focal species to assess the ecological 

conditions required under § 219.9; (4) 

the status of a select set of ecological 

conditions required under § 219.9 to 

contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed threatened and endangered 

species; conserve proposed and 

candidate species; and maintain a viable 

population of each species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area; (5) the status of visitor use, visitor 

satisfaction, and progress toward 

meeting recreation objectives; (6) 

measurable changes on the plan area 

related to climate change and other 

stressors affecting the plan area; (7) 

progress toward meeting the desired 

conditions and objectives in the plan, 

including for providing multiple use 

opportunities; and (8) the effects of each 

management system to determine that 

they do not substantially and 

permanently impair the productivity of 

the land. 

Comment: Accountability and public 

oversight for monitoring: Some 

respondents felt the rule should provide 

sufficient opportunity for public 

enforcement of monitoring quality and 

for public input on the Agency’s use of 

monitoring information affecting project 

decisions. Several respondents felt the 

proposed rule did not establish 

accountability for monitoring and 

suggested the rule either require review 

by the Chief or specify the consequences 

of not conducting monitoring. Another 

suggested that the monitoring effort be 

periodically reviewed objectively by 

disinterested parties. Some respondents 

felt to improve accountability findings 

from monitoring program reports, the 

reports should be decisions subject to 

review. 

Response: The rule cannot grant 

enforcement authorities to the public. 

Those authorities can only be granted by 

Congress. However, the rule’s public 

participation and reporting 

requirements allow for a more 

transparent Government and holds 

officials accountable for sharing 

monitoring information and data with 

the public. This data will be open to 

public scrutiny, criticism, and objective 

review. The public will be able to 

evaluate and provide input on the 

Agency’s use of the monitoring 

information to inform future decisions 

during opportunities for public 

participation and comment for those 

decisions, including future plan 

amendments, plan revisions, projects, 

and activities. 

Accountability is achieved through 

the rule by requiring officials to develop 

monitoring, plan monitoring programs 

with questions and indicators and 

broader-scale monitoring strategies, and 

to prepare biennial monitoring reports. 

All these requirements allow for public 

involvement and review. Section 

219.2(b)(5) of the rule further requires 

the Chief of the Forest Service to 

administer a national oversight and 

accountability process to review NFS 

land management planning which 

includes monitoring programs. The 

Agency already follows Departmental 

standards for the objectivity of 

information used to inform significant 

decisions under the Information Quality 

Act (Section 515 of Public Law 106– 

554). In addition, the responsible 

official is subject to performance review 

and accountability for fulfilling 

requirements of the rule and policies of 

the Agency. The Forest Service is 

required to report monitoring 

information consistent with the USDA 

Strategic Plan. (http://www.ocfo.usda.

gov/usdasp/sp2010/sp2010.pdf). 

Monitoring reports (like assessment 

reports) will include information that 

will be used to inform decisions, but are 

not decision documents because they do 

not compel an action or make a decision 

on an action; therefore, subjecting 

monitoring specifications to objection or 

appeal procedures is not necessary. 

Comment: Monitoring requirements. 

A respondent felt the rule should 

include monitoring requirements for 

scientific grounding, thoughtful design, 

and sufficient funding, regularly 

scheduled, and analysis of cumulative 

impacts. 

Response: The final rule requires the 

use of the best available scientific 

information to inform the monitoring 

program, requires the responsible 

official to identify the fundamental 

questions and indicators that will 

inform the design of monitoring 

programs, and will lead to a robust 

monitoring program that will be used to 

inform management. The public will 

have opportunities to provide input into 

the design of the monitoring program 

and to review the monitoring data. The 

monitoring information can be used in 

a number of ways, including analyzing 

cumulative effects. The final rule 

includes direction to take financial and 

technical capabilities of the Agency into 

account in designing the monitoring 

program, and requires in § 219.1(g) that 

the plan be within the fiscal capability 

of the unit. 

Comment: Monitoring and 

consistency of methods. Some 

respondents felt the rule should include 

national monitoring standards to enable 

consistency across units so each 

national forest and grassland could be 

compared to others. Some respondents 

felt units could not develop monitoring 

programs efficiently in the absence of 

regional or national standards or 

guidance. Some respondents felt units 

will need additional guidance to enable 

them to design and conduct monitoring 

because the necessary resources and 

expertise is not often available on each 

unit. A respondent felt clarification was 

needed for how broader-scale 

monitoring could be associated with 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21231 

assessments by the plan unit in the 

absence of regional guidelines. A 

respondent felt specific terminology 

should be used regarding monitoring 

types: range and distribution 

monitoring, status and change 

monitoring, and cause and effect 

monitoring. Some respondents felt the 

rule should require technical details like 

methods for data collection, sampling 

methods, specific measurements to 

sample, statistically sound set of 

monitoring guidelines, reference 

conditions or baseline data, cause-effect 

designs for monitoring, or possible 

contaminants to water quality, or that 

schedules of work be required in 

monitoring programs and documented 

in plans. 

Response: The Department and 

Agency recognize the importance of 

having a system of monitoring that 

allows for information to be collected, 

used and compared across planning 

units. For that reason the final rule 

directs that the plan monitoring 

program must be coordinated and 

integrated with broader scale 

monitoring strategies to ensure that 

monitoring is complementary and 

efficient, and gathered at the 

appropriate scales, along with direction 

to coordinate with Research and 

Development, State and Private 

Forestry, and others. To support 

implementation of these requirements, 

the Agency is currently reviewing its 

inventory and monitoring system. 

However, the final rule does not include 

national monitoring standards for 

consistency across units because there is 

no fully tested national approach 

available at this time. The kinds of 

things to be monitored are varied, 

monitoring techniques and protocols 

evolve and improve over time, and 

different techniques may be more or less 

appropriate depending on what is being 

monitored and the information needs 

most critical to inform adaptive 

management on the unit. In addition, 

monitoring techniques may vary by 

partner, impacting opportunities to 

coordinate monitoring across 

landscapes and among neighboring land 

managers. 

For these reasons the Department 

concluded it would be more appropriate 

to include additional direction and 

guidance, including for the kinds of 

technical specifications identified by 

the respondents, in the Forest Service 

Directives and in the unit plans. The 

final rule makes clear in paragraph (a)(6) 

of this section that a range of monitoring 

techniques may be used to carry out the 

monitoring required by this section: 

different questions and indicators will 

require the use of different, and 

evolving, techniques or methodologies. 

The responsible officials will use the 

best available scientific information to 

inform those choices. Monitoring 

protocols and methods would be 

coordinated with the regional forester 

and Forest Service State and Private 

Forestry and Research and 

Development. 

Comment: Monitoring triggers. Some 

respondents thought that the monitoring 

program should include triggers or 

thresholds for action. 

Response: The rule did not include 

triggers or thresholds because not all 

monitoring elements and indicators are 

suited to triggers. Establishing triggers 

can be complex and time consuming. 

The rule does not preclude the 

inclusion of triggers where they can be 

developed and where they are informed 

by the best available scientific 

information. The Department does 

intend the three phases of planning to 

be connected, and for each phase to 

inform the others. The information 

gathered and evaluated in the 

assessment phase will help the 

responsible official to develop a 

strategic monitoring program, and the 

information from monitoring will be 

used to indicate whether a new 

assessment is warranted, and to inform 

future assessments and plan 

components and other plan content. 

Wording was added to § 219.7 to make 

clear that the assessment and 

monitoring reports should be used to 

inform the plan development or 

revision, and to § 219.12 to make clear 

that the monitoring report should be 

used to inform adaptive management. 

Comment: Use of non-agency data. 

Some respondents felt the Agency is 

reluctant to accept monitoring data 

about environmental conditions from a 

third party, like livestock permittees, 

and that the proposed rule funding 

requirements would further reduce 

funding available for monitoring. These 

conditions would cause the Agency to 

unfairly restrict some special uses, like 

grazing. Other respondents felt the rule 

should clearly provide opportunities for 

the responsible official to use 

information and assistance from nonagency organizations and individuals to 

contribute to monitoring programs. 

Other respondents felt non-agency data 

must meet Agency data standards. Still 

others felt the rule should allow the 

public opportunity to assist in gathering 

and submitting data. 

Response: The rule provides more 

encouragement to use secondary data 

including sources external to the 

Agency than previous planning rules. 

Section 219.4 requires opportunities for 

public participation throughout the 

planning process, including developing 

the monitoring program. Section 

219.12(c)(3)(i and ii) specifically directs 

the responsible official to take into 

account existing NFS and non-NFS 

inventory, monitoring and research 

programs, and to take into account 

opportunities to design and carry out 

multi-party monitoring. Many current 

monitoring programs and assessments 

rely on secondary data from a variety of 

sources, governmental and nongovernmental sources. Monitoring data 

will be used to inform adaptive 

management. The requirements in this 

rule are intended to result in a more 

strategic use of monitoring dollars, and 

to leverage those investments where it is 

feasible and appropriate to do so. 

Comment: Collection of data beyond 

unit boundaries. Some respondents felt 

the proposed rule inappropriately 

makes the responsible officials 

undertake broader-scale monitoring 

analyses, monitoring of significant areas 

not federally owned, and to collect data 

beyond unit boundaries. 

Response: The final rule does not 

impose a requirement for responsible 

officials or regional foresters to monitor 

non-NFS lands. The monitoring 

requirements do not give responsible 

officials license to monitor where they 

lack authority. 

It is appropriate and efficient to 

recognize that some monitoring 

questions are best evaluated at scales 

broader than one unit, to best inform 

management of a 193 million acre 

National Forest System that spans the 

country. The final rule directs the 

regional forester to develop a broaderscale monitoring strategy, in 

coordination with others, and 

encourages identifying opportunities for 

multi-party monitoring. The rule 

encourages responsible officials to 

coordinate monitoring across NFS units. 

The rule allows the Agency to continue 

efforts to use data from other agencies 

and sources because monitoring 

cooperation is in the best interest of 

Americans and the land, informing 

effective management and facilitating 

the strategic use of monitoring dollars. 

Comment: Use of the Forest Inventory 

and Analysis system (FIA). A 

respondent suggests the rule should use 

the FIA system to monitor the health of 

forests and changes related to climate 

change. 

Response: Many Agency units 

actively use FIA information as an 

integral part of their monitoring 

programs. The final rule directs the 

responsible official to take into account 

existing national and regional inventory, 

monitoring, and research programs, 

including from Forest Service State and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Private Forestry and Research and 

Development which includes FIA data. 

Comment: Scientist involvement in 

plan and broader-scale monitoring 

design. A respondent felt the proposed 

rule sets too high a standard of ensuring 

scientists are involved in plan and 

broader-scale monitoring design. 

Another respondent felt the proposed 

rule did not specify in detail how the 

external scientific community would be 

involved. 

Response: The requirement under 

§ 219.12(c)(4) of the proposed rule for 

scientists to be involved in the design 

and evaluation of unit and broader-scale 

monitoring has been removed in 

response to public comment because the 

requirement was confusing and can be 

met through the coordination 

requirements at §§ 219.12(a)(1), (b)(2) 

and (c)(3)(ii) of the final rule. The final 

rule requires the use of best available 

scientific information to inform the 

design and content of the monitoring 

program, opportunities for public 

participation, and coordination in 

development of the monitoring program 

with Forest Service Research and 

Development, along with other partners 

and the public. The external science 

community may be involved in variety 

of ways, for example, through public 

participation opportunities or the use of 

external scientific reports. 

Comment: Changes to specific 

subjects to be addressed in monitoring 

programs. A respondent suggested the 

responsible official discretion would be 

improved by deleting proposed wording 

‘‘related to climate change and other 

stressors’’ and ‘‘carbon stored in 

vegetation.’’ Others felt requirements to 

monitor accomplishment of plan 

objectives and progress towards 

achieving plan ‘‘desired conditions’’ 

should be added. Some respondents felt 

the proposed rule’s monitoring 

requirements for specific resource areas 

unduly limited responsible official 

discretion in determining what 

questions and indicators to include in 

the unit monitoring program. Some 

respondents felt specific subjects should 

be required in all plan monitoring 

programs including: grazing impacts, 

off-road vehicle use, species 

populations, vegetation, ecological 

conditions, social and economic 

sustainability, effects of long-term uses, 

noise pollution, water quality, 

recreational use satisfaction, and public 

safety, among others. Some respondents 

felt the proposed rule would limit 

monitoring programs to consider only 

one monitoring question or indicator. 

Response: Section 219.12(a)(5) of the 

rule requires the responsible official to 

develop a plan monitoring program that 

describes, at a minimum, one or more 

questions and associated indicators on 

eight specific topics. The number of 

monitoring questions and indictors may 

vary by topic. The Department believes 

that the set of minimum requirements 

for the plan monitoring program 

included in paragraph (a)(5) of the final 

rule is appropriate, reflects the 

substantive requirements of the final 

rule, builds on the information gathered 

during the assessment phase, and is 

focused on informing adaptive 

management of the plan area. 

Paragraph (a)(5) does not limit the 

questions and indicators in any given 

plan. The responsible official has the 

authority to determine whether 

additional monitoring elements are 

warranted or necessary to inform 

management decisions if they are within 

the fiscal capability of the unit to 

implement. The Department’s intent is 

for the responsible official to determine 

what information needs are most critical 

for informed and adaptive management 

of the plan area. Because most resource 

management concerns vary by forests or 

grasslands, the rule allows the 

responsible official discretion to set 

priorities for monitoring where it is 

most needed. This discretion is also 

important for fostering opportunities to 

coordinate monitoring with other 

government agencies and nongovernment entities. Therefore, an 

extensive list of other possible 

monitoring requirements in addition to 

the set in paragraph (a)(5) is not 

included in the final rule. 

The requirements to include 

questions and associated indicators to 

monitor measurable changes on the plan 

area related to climate change and other 

stressors was retained in the final rule, 

because it is important to track changing 

conditions. The final rule removes the 

monitoring requirement for carbon 

stored in above ground vegetation 

because the Department added a 

requirement in the assessment phase 

(§ 219.6(b)) to identify and evaluate 

existing information for a baseline 

assessment of carbon stocks. This 

change reflected comments to this 

section and the assessment section, and 

is consistent with the Agency’s Climate 

Change Scorecard which also requires a 

baseline assessment of carbon stocks. 

The Department added a requirement 

for the plan monitoring program to 

monitor progress toward meeting the 

plan’s desired conditions and objectives 

and a requirement to monitor visitor 

satisfaction in § 219.12(a)(5) of the final 

rule. 

Comment: Ecological Conditions and 

Focal Species (§ 219.9). Some 

respondents felt the required monitoring 

questions and indicators of § 219.12(a) 

of the proposed rule did not adequately 

address fish and wildlife populations or 

gauge progress towards meeting the 

requirements of § 219.9 of the proposed 

rule. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, the Department added 

wording to the required questions and 

indicators of § 219.12 to link them to the 

ecological conditions required by 

§§ 219.8 and 219.9, added the 

requirement in paragraph (a)(5)(iv) to 

monitor ecological conditions 

associated with the species 

requirements in § 219.9, and modified 

two definitions. The changes to the 

requirements for questions and 

indicators are explained in the 

introduction to the response to 

comments of this section. The 

Department modified the definition of 

‘‘ecosystem’’ to explain these 

interrelated ecosystem elements so the 

relationship between monitoring 

questions and indicators are clearly 

related to the ecological conditions of 

§§ 219.8 and 219.9. The Department 

modified the definition of focal species 

to clarify the intended role of focal 

species in assessing the effectiveness of 

the plan in maintaining the diversity of 

plant and animal communities in the 

plan area. 

Comment: Questions about focal 

species. Respondents asked questions 

about focal species. (1) What are they? 

(2) What do they represent? (3) What 

criteria will be used to select them? (4) 

How many will there be for a particular 

plan area? (5) How will they be 

monitored? 

Response: (1) The inclusion of the 

focal species (§ 219.19) in the 

monitoring section is based on concepts 

from the March 15, 1999, Committee of 

Scientists report, which recommended 

focal species as an approach to monitor 

and assess species viability. The term 

‘‘focal species’’ is defined in the rule as: 

A small subset of species whose status 

permits inference to the integrity of the 

larger ecological system to which it 

belongs and provides meaningful 

information regarding the effectiveness 

of the plan in maintaining or restoring 

the ecological conditions to maintain 

the diversity of plant and animal 

communities in the plan area. Focal 

species would typically be selected on 

the basis of their functional role in 

ecosystems. 

(2) The requirement for monitoring 

questions that address the status of focal 

species is linked to the requirement of 

§ 219.9 of the final rule to provide for 

ecosystem integrity and diversity, which 

describes the coarse-filter approach for 

providing diversity of plant and animal 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21233 

communities and the persistence of 

native species in the plan area. The rule 

requires plan components designed to 

maintain or restore a range of ecological 

conditions at a variety of spatial and 

temporal scales (§§ 219.8 and 219.9). 

Appropriate monitoring of focal species 

will provide information about the 

integrity of the ecosystem and the 

effectiveness of the plan components in 

maintaining diversity of plant and 

animal communities in the plan area. In 

other words, focal species monitoring is 

used as means of understanding 

whether a specific ecological condition 

or set of conditions is present and 

functioning in the plan area. Focal 

species monitoring is not intended to 

provide information about the 

persistence of any individual species. 

The rule does not require managing 

habitat conditions for focal species, nor 

does it confer a separate conservation 

requirement for these species simply 

based on them being selected as focal 

species. 

(3) The Committee of Scientists report 

said focal species may be indicator 

species, keystone species, ecological 

engineers, umbrella species, link 

species, or species of concern. Agency 

directives will provide guidance for 

considering the selection of a focal 

species from these or other categories. 

Criteria for selection may include: the 

number and extent of relevant 

ecosystems in the plan area; the primary 

threats or stressors to those ecosystems, 

especially those related to predominant 

management activities on the plan area; 

the sensitivity of the species to changing 

conditions or their utility in confirming 

the existence of desired ecological 

conditions; the broad monitoring 

questions to be answered; factors that 

may limit viability of species; and 

others. This does not preclude the use 

of an invasive species as a focal species, 

whose presence is a major stressor to an 

ecosystem. 

(4) The final planning rule does not 

require a specific number or numeric 

range of focal species to be selected. The 

number will vary from unit to unit. The 

definition of focal species requires a 

small subset of species. The responsible 

official has discretion to choose the 

number of focal species that he or she 

determines will be useful and 

reasonable in providing the information 

necessary to make informed 

management decisions. It is not 

expected that a focal species be selected 

for every element of ecological 

conditions. 

(5) The rule does not specify how to 

monitor the status of focal species. 

Monitoring methods may include 

measures of abundance, distribution, 

reproduction, presence/absence, area 

occupied, survival rates, or others. The 

objective is not to choose the monitoring 

technique(s) that will provide the most 

information about the focal species, but 

to choose a monitoring technique(s) for 

the focal species that will provide useful 

information with regard to the purpose 

for which the species is being 

monitored. 

The final rule does not require 

monitoring species population trends. 

Species population trend monitoring is 

costly, time intensive, and may not 

provide conclusive or relevant 

information. In addition, traditional 

monitoring of species population size 

and trend is not reliable for many 

species because of wide variations in 

population size. For certain species, for 

example, a more reliable method may be 

presence-absence data obtained through 

non-invasive genetic sampling. 

Presence-absence modeling could be 

used to map and predict species 

distribution, help model habitat 

requirements and use occurrence data to 

help estimate the probability of a 

species being present in sustainable 

numbers within a geographic area. 

Genetic sampling, which is drawing 

DNA from physical species evidence 

collected at sites under evaluation, can 

be used to acquire data for this 

approach. Other monitoring techniques 

in addition to these examples may be 

more appropriate in a given 

circumstance. Therefore, although 

population trend monitoring may be 

used where feasible and appropriate, the 

final rule explicitly provides discretion 

to the responsible official to choose the 

most appropriate methods for 

monitoring, using the best available 

scientific information to inform the 

monitoring program. 

Specific guidance on focal species 

selection and monitoring methodology 

is expected to be further described in 

the Agency’s planning directives. Some 

focal species may be monitored at scales 

beyond the plan area boundary, while 

others may be more appropriately 

monitored and assessed at the plan area 

scale. 

Comment: Focal species vs. 

management indicator species. Many 

respondents expressed concern or 

confusion over the role of focal species 

monitoring in meeting the requirements 

of § 219.9; and how focal species would 

be used differently from management 

indicator species (MIS) as required 

under the 1982 planning rule. 

Response: The Department’s decision 

to require monitoring of focal species as 

well as select ecological and watershed 

conditions is a shift from the 1982 rule’s 

requirement to specifically monitor 

population trends of ‘‘management 

indicator species,’’ or MIS. The theory 

of MIS has been discredited since the 

1982 rule. Essentially, monitoring the 

population trend of one species should 

not be extrapolated to form conclusions 

regarding the status and trends of other 

species. The requirement for monitoring 

questions that address the status of focal 

species is linked to the requirement of 

§ 219.9 of the final rule to provide for 

ecosystem integrity and diversity, which 

describes the coarse-filter approach for 

providing diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the persistence of 

native species in the plan area. Focal 

species are not intended to provide 

information about the persistence of any 

individual species. 

In addition, population trends for 

most species are extremely difficult to 

determine within the 15-year life of a 

plan, as it may take decades to establish 

accurate trend data, and data may be 

needed for a broader area than an 

individual national forest or grassland. 

Nor is this data the most useful to 

inform management for the purposes of 

meeting the diversity requirements of 

the rule. Instead, the Agency expects to 

take advantage of recent technological 

advancements in monitoring the status 

of focal species, such as genetic 

sampling to estimate area occupied by 

species. 

The provisions under § 219.9 of the 

final planning rule are focused on 

maintaining or restoring the ecological 

conditions necessary to maintain the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and support the 

persistence of native species in the plan 

area. Because of the problems with MIS 

as stated above, and because the concept 

of monitoring focal species, as described 

by the Committee of Scientists report of 

March 15, 1999, is used to assess the 

integrity of ecological systems, the final 

planning rule incorporates the concept 

of focal species for monitoring the 

ecological conditions required in 

§ 219.9. Focal species are not intended 

to be a proxy for other species. Instead, 

they are species whose presence, 

numbers, or status are useful indicators 

that are intended to provide insight into 

the integrity of the larger ecological 

system, the effects of management on 

those ecological conditions, and the 

effectiveness of the § 219.9 provisions. 

The monitoring questions and 

associated indicators required in 

§ 219.12(a)(5)(i–iv) as discussed above 

are expected to assess progress towards 

meeting the desired ecological 

conditions required under §§ 219.8 and 

219.9, and the effectiveness of those 

conditions in maintaining the diversity 

of plant and animal communities and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

supporting the persistence of native 

species in the plan area. 

Comment: Selection and monitoring 

of focal species. Respondents felt the 

rule should require 3 items for selection 

and monitoring of focal species: (1) The 

best available scientific information; (2) 

the engagement of research, state fish 

and wildlife agencies, and others; and 

(3) a broader spatial scale then one plan 

area. 

Response: The rule requires (1) all 

aspects of planning to use the best 

available scientific information to 

inform the planning process, plan 

components, and other plan content, 

including the monitoring program 

(§§ 219.3 and 219.14); (2) coordination 

with research, and consideration of 

opportunities to design and carry out 

monitoring with a variety of partners 

including state agencies (§§ 219.12(a)(1), 

(b)(2), and (c)(3)(ii)); and (3) broaderscale monitoring strategies be developed 

in addition to the plan monitoring 

program, to address questions that are 

best answered at a broader scale than 

one plan area (§ 219.12(b)), which may 

include monitoring for one or more 

focal species. 

Comment: Monitoring of at risk 

species. Some respondents felt the rule 

should require monitoring of 

populations of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species, 

species that are candidates for Federal 

listing, and species of conservation 

concern. 

Response: In response to public 

comments, the Department added a 

requirement to the rule for monitoring 

questions and associated indicators to 

monitor the status of a select set of the 

ecological conditions required under 

§ 219.9 to contribute to the recovery of 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species; conserve proposed 

and candidate species; and maintain a 

viable population of each species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area (§ 219.12(a)(5)(iv). It is expected 

that monitoring a select set of the 

ecological conditions required by these 

species will give the responsible official 

information about the effectiveness of 

the coarse and fine-filter plan 

components included to meet the 

requirements of at risk species. The 

intent of the term ‘‘a select set’’ is to 

focus the monitoring on a few important 

ecological conditions that may be 

monitored in an efficient way. 

Monitoring for watershed conditions, 

other ecological conditions, and focal 

species will also provide information 

about the effectiveness of plan 

components for at risk species. 

In some circumstances, a threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or candidate 

species, or a species of conservation 

concern may be the most appropriate 

focal species for assessing the ecological 

conditions required by § 219.9. 

However, as explained in earlier 

responses in this section, population 

trend monitoring is not required by the 

final rule. 

Comment: Monitoring of habitat 

conditions. Respondents felt that 

monitoring habitat conditions only, 

specifically related to vegetation 

composition and structure, will not 

adequately address the reasons why 

species may or may not occupy those 

habitats; and that there may be other 

stressors unrelated to habitat that make 

suitable habitat conditions unsuitable 

for occupation by a particular species. 

Response: The final rule requires 

monitoring the status of select 

ecological conditions. The concept of 

ecological conditions as defined in the 

proposed rule and the final rule 

includes more than vegetation 

composition and structure: it is 

designed to encompass those factors as 

well as others, including stressors that 

are relevant to species and ecological 

integrity. 

Examples of ecological conditions 

include the abundance and distribution 

of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, 

connectivity, roads and other structural 

developments, human uses, and 

invasive species. 

Comment: Distinctive roles and 

contributions. A respondent felt 

‘‘distinctive roles and contributions’’ 

wording in proposed § 219.12(a)(5)(vii) 

is inappropriate and should be stricken 

from the monitoring section. 

Response: The final rule removes 

‘‘distinctive roles and contributions’’ 

from § 219.12 in response to public 

comment because the Department has 

decided that the new requirement at 

paragraph (a)(5)(vii) for questions and 

indicators addressing the progress 

toward meeting the desired conditions 

and objectives in the plan, including for 

providing multiple use opportunities, 

more accurately reflects what the 

Department intended to accomplish 

with the previous requirement at 

paragraph (a)(5)(vii) in the proposed 

rule and the other proposed 

requirements of (a)(5). 

Comment: Management systems in 

NFMA. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule misinterprets the NFMA 

reference to management systems by not 

repeating the word ‘‘each’’ and by 

overly restricting the types of 

management systems. 

Response: The final rule adds the 

word ‘‘each’’ to the monitoring 

requirement for management systems. 

As clarification, § 219.19 of the final 

rule also includes a definition of 

management system as a timber 

management system such as even-aged 

management or uneven-aged 

management. Management system is a 

term of art of the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(C)). The term management 

system must be understood in the 

context of the NFMA which was 

developed to give guidance to the 

Agency in how to manage timber. The 

Department understands the intent of 

Congress was that research and 

evaluation would be done on a sample 

basis. The Forest Service Research and 

Development staff began the long-term 

soil productivity program in 1989 to 

examine the long term consequences of 

soil disturbance on fundamental forest 

productivity through a network of 

designed experiments. (Powers, R.F. 

2006. Long-Term Soil Productivity: 

genesis of the concept and principles 

behind the program. Can. J. For. Res. 

36:519–528.) 

Comment: Monitoring effects of 

management procedures. A respondent 

felt the 1982 provisions for requiring 

documentation of the measured 

prescriptions and effects of management 

procedures (practices) are superior to 

the monitoring requirements of the 

proposed rule. The respondent felt the 

proposed provisions would fail to 

ensure that actions do not jeopardize 

biodiversity. 

Response: The Department requires 

monitoring questions and indicators to 

monitor eight topics including the status 

of ecological conditions. Ecological 

conditions include vegetation 

composition and structure, abundance 

and distribution of aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats, connectivity, roads 

and other structural developments, 

human uses, and invasive species. 

Questions and indicators associated 

with the required topics in 

§ 219.12(a)(5) of the final rule can be 

used to evaluate effects of management 

procedures (practices) based on the 

outcomes observed in ecological 

conditions. The Department concludes 

that these monitoring requirements 

support the substantive requirements for 

ecological integrity and ecosystem and 

species diversity in the final rule. 

Comment: Conservation education: A 

respondent felt monitoring should 

include conservation education. 

Response: Conservation education can 

be a valuable outcome from 

collaborative planning and reaching out 

to engage others in design of monitoring 

programs. The rule gives discretion to 

the responsible officials to consider the 

extent and methods chosen to address 

conservation education. Other sections 

direct the responsible official to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21235 

consider opportunities to connect 

people to nature. However, a specific 

requirement for monitoring 

conservation education was not added 

to the final rule. 

Comment: Financial feasibility of 

monitoring. Some respondents felt the 

proposed rule was obligating the 

Agency to undertake unaffordable or 

unachievable monitoring work, in 

particular broad-scale monitoring 

extending beyond the boundaries of 

NFS lands. Some felt the monitoring 

requirements may cause the Agency to 

increase fees to cover costs or that 

broad-scale monitoring would become a 

precondition before issuing special use 

permits. 

Response: The proposed rule does not 

obligate the Agency to monitor beyond 

its fiscal means. Final rule §§ 219.1(g), 

219.12(a)(4)(ii) and 219.12(b)(3) ensures 

that responsible officials must exercise 

discretion to develop technically and 

financially feasible monitoring 

programs. Although monitoring 

information will be used by responsible 

officials to inform the need to change 

plan components, including standards 

or guidelines, the rule specifically 

makes clear in § 219.12(a)(7) that 

monitoring is not a prerequisite for 

carrying out a project or activity such as 

the renewal of special use permits. 

Comment: Financial feasibility of 

monitoring economic and social 

structures of communities. A 

respondent felt the financial feasibility 

of monitoring under the proposed rule 

was unattainable and additional 

discussion was needed on how 

economic and social structures of local 

communities will be monitored. 

Response: The rule requires certain 

subjects be addressed with one or more 

questions and associated indicators as 

the basis for plan monitoring. The NEPA 

compliance in support of proposed 

plans and projects will disclose the 

economic and social effects to local 

communities, and paragraph (a)(5)(vii) 

of this section requires monitoring 

progress towards meeting desired 

conditions and objectives in the plan, 

which will include plan components 

developed to contribute to social and 

economic sustainability. However, there 

is no requirement to monitor the 

economic and social structures of local 

communities. The Department believes 

that the monitoring requirements of the 

final rule will be achievable. 

Comment: Feasibility of climate 

change monitoring. Some respondents 

felt the requirement for plan monitoring 

programs to include one question and 

indictor associated with measurable 

changes on the unit related to climate 

change and other stressors would be 

neither affordable nor achievable. 

Response: The Department believes 

that including monitoring questions and 

indicators associated with measureable 

changes on the unit related to climate 

change and other stressors is achievable. 

The Agency is already conducting 

monitoring for climate change and other 

stressors such as insects, diseases, 

invasive species, wildfire, and more. In 

addition, the Agency is implementing 

the Climate Change Roadmap and 

Scorecard, which includes monitoring 

for climate change. This section allows 

the responsible official to use and build 

on other data and programs, encourages 

coordination with others and multiparty monitoring, and recognizes that 

some monitoring questions may best be 

answered at a scale broader than on 

plan area. The flexibility provided in 

this section will allow the responsible 

official to develop a strategic, effective, 

and financially achievable monitoring 

program, while meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(5). 

Comment: Project monitoring. Some 

respondents felt project monitoring 

requirements should be included in the 

rule. Citing Department of Army 

regulations, a respondent felt the rule 

should require project monitoring 

funding be allocated before project 

implementation. Some respondents felt 

proposed § 219.12(a)(7) meant project 

monitoring would not occur. 

Response: The Department agrees 

project monitoring is important and is a 

valuable means of understanding the 

effects of projects and can provide 

information useful to adapt future 

project plans to improve resource 

protection and restoration. The 

Department added wording to paragraph 

(a)(7) to clarify that project and activity 

monitoring may be used to gather 

information for the plan monitoring 

program, and that plan monitoring may 

inform the development of specific 

projects and activities. The Department 

anticipates that project and activity 

monitoring will be used as part of the 

plan monitoring program, but the 

responsible official has the discretion to 

strategically select which projects to 

monitor and the monitoring questions 

related to those projects that will best 

inform the monitoring program and test 

assumptions, track changing conditions, 

or evaluate management effectiveness. 

However, the final rule makes clear the 

monitoring requirements of this section 

are not a prerequisite for making a 

decision to carry out a project or 

activity. Each project carried out under 

the plan will not automatically include 

the monitoring requirements for the 

plan. 

Project monitoring may also occur for 

purposes other than supporting the plan 

monitoring program, and the final rule 

does not preclude project-specific 

monitoring requirements developed as 

part of project or activity decisions. The 

planning rule does not discuss 

requirements for project monitoring; 

therefore, funding of project monitoring 

is an issue outside the scope of the 

planning rule. 

Comment: Risks from lack of 

monitoring or monitoring information. 

Some respondents felt the lack of 

monitoring, or information not available 

through monitoring, could delay 

management actions or foreclose 

activities and projects because of 

uncertainties. A respondent felt the rule 

should clearly state monitoring goals are 

not preconditions to approve, continue, 

or renew special use permits or provide 

for public uses, or State fish and 

wildlife management activities. 

Response: Although monitoring 

information may be used by responsible 

officials to inform the need to change 

the plan, monitoring is not a 

precondition of conducting projects or 

carrying out management actions. The 

rule establishes those elements of 

monitoring necessary to inform adaptive 

management of the resources on the 

unit. None of the requirements of 

monitoring for the plan monitoring 

program apply to individual projects or 

activities. These monitoring 

requirements do not delay or foreclose 

management activities. 

Comment: Monitoring and extractive 

actions. A respondent felt the rule 

should require all extractive actions to 

cease on a unit until timely monitoring 

has been completed. 

Response: The planning rule does not 

apply to any ongoing projects or 

activities except as provided by 

§ 219.15. 

Comment: Monitoring and assessment 

data. A respondent felt the rule should 

specifically state new and accurate data 

is important to the success of 

monitoring and assessment, and use of 

new and accurate data is required. 

Response: The final rule requires the 

use of best available scientific 

information to inform the development 

of the monitoring program. However, 

the final rule does not add the 

requirement suggested by the 

respondent as some monitoring 

questions or indicators may be 

adequately addressed with existing data. 

Accuracy in data is met through data 

protocols and quality control standards 

covered in other Agency guidance 

outside the planning regulations. 

Comment: Feedback needed from 

monitoring to planning and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

management actions. Some respondents 

felt the proposed rule lacks feedback 

between monitoring and changes to plan 

components. Some respondents felt the 

rule should include accountability 

measures and explicitly include 

‘‘adaptive management’’ requirements 

rather than just describing a framework 

for planning consistent with principles 

of ‘‘adaptive management.’’ 

Response: The Department made 

changes in response to public comments 

to make clear the focus on adaptive 

management. The monitoring program 

is required to be designed to inform 

management (§ 219.12(a)). The final rule 

requires that the monitoring evaluation 

report be used to inform adaptive 

management of the plan area 

(§ 219.12(d)(2)), in addition to the 

requirement that the report indicate 

whether new information indicates that 

changes are warranted. The final rule 

requires that the responsible official 

review relevant information from both 

the assessment and monitoring to 

inform the development of plan 

components and other plan content 

(§ 219.7(c)(2)(i)). Section 219.5(a) sets 

forth a responsive planning process that 

informs integrated resource 

management and allows the Agency to 

adapt to changing conditions, including 

climate change, and improve 

management based on new information 

and monitoring. The final rule also 

requires the Chief to administer a 

national oversight process for 

accountability and consistency to 

review NFS land management planning 

in the context of this framework 

(§ 219.2(b)(5)). 

Comment: Biennial evaluations. Some 

respondents felt the proposed biennial 

evaluations requirement would be too 

costly, time consuming and complex. 

Others felt the rule should require an 

annual evaluation. Others thought the 

biennial evaluation time is too short 

because of long-term aspects, such as 

climate change, require long periods of 

time before meaningful evaluations can 

be conducted. Still others felt the rule 

should require a public comment period 

on the biennial evaluation. One 

respondent felt the rule should not 

allow the responsible official to publish 

monitoring evaluation reports without 

approval at a higher level. Some 

respondents felt the proposed 

requirement for biennial reporting 

would not meet NFMA’s requirement 

for continuous monitoring. 

Response: The Department decided to 

retain the requirement that the 

responsible official conduct a biennial 

evaluation of the monitoring 

information and issue a written report of 

the evaluation and make it available to 

the public. The biennial evaluation of 

monitoring is intended to collect, 

evaluate, and report on new data or 

results that provide information for 

adaptive management: for example, 

information about management 

effectiveness, progress towards meeting 

desired conditions or objectives, 

changing conditions, or validation (or 

invalidation) of assumptions. The 

biennial monitoring evaluation does not 

need to evaluate all questions or 

indicators on a biennial basis but must 

focus on new data and results that 

provide new information for adaptive 

management. The responsible official 

may postpone the monitoring evaluation 

for 1 year after providing notice to the 

public in the case of exigencies such as 

a natural disaster or catastrophic fire. 

The Department believes that this 

requirement is implementable and 

important to inform adaptive 

management. 

The Agency’s experience is that an 

annual evaluation is too frequent to 

determine trends or to accumulate 

meaningful information and the 5-year 

time frame (§ 219.10(g) of the 1982 rule) 

is too long to wait in order to respond 

to changing conditions or new 

information. Therefore, the Department 

determined the monitoring evaluation 

would occur at a 2-year interval. The 

Department recognizes some kinds of 

monitoring indicators require longer 

time frames for thorough evaluation of 

results, but a biennial review of what 

information has been collected will 

ensure evaluation of available 

information is timely and can be used 

to inform planning and adaptive 

management of the unit. 

The Department also retained the 

requirement that the responsible official 

publish the monitoring evaluation 

report, so that it is available to the 

public. Section 219.4(a) of the final rule 

requires the responsible official to 

provide opportunities for the public to 

participate in reviewing the results of 

monitoring information. The 

responsible official may elect various 

methods for this participation, but the 

rule does not direct any specific form 

for this participation such as requiring 

formal comment on the biennial 

evaluation. Public notice of the 

availability of the monitoring evaluation 

report is required, and must be posted 

online. Additional notice may be made 

in any way the responsible official 

deems appropriate. Any changes to the 

monitoring program require 

consideration of public comment. 

Section 219.5(a)(3) of the final rule 

states that under the planning 

framework ‘‘monitoring is continuous.’’ 

The biennial monitoring evaluation 

report would not halt monitoring; it 

would simply report new information 

obtained from that monitoring. 

Comment: Evaluation reports and 

changes to plan components based on 

information from petition(s). A 

respondent suggested the biennial 

evaluation report incorporate science 

contained in environmental analyses 

and the plan be updated to incorporate 

information from petition(s). 

Response: The requirement in this 

section for a biennial evaluation report 

is focused on providing systematic and 

transparent reporting and evaluation of 

information obtained pursuant to the 

monitoring program established 

consistent with this section. The report 

will be used to inform adaptive 

management on the unit. As part of the 

planning process, the responsible 

official may also consider any 

additional relevant information 

contained in other sources, such as 

petitions or new environmental 

analyses. 

Comment: Required actions in 

response to monitoring. Some 

respondents felt monitoring results 

might be of no consequence if there are 

no requirements in the rule to take 

specific actions to respond to 

monitoring results. These changes 

should not wait for another planning 

cycle. Others felt the rule should 

include criteria as to when a need to 

change the plan is indicated by 

monitoring. A respondent suggested 

unit monitoring incorporate efforts to 

focus on non-native invasive species not 

present but can reasonably be foreseen 

as posing a risk to eventually enter the 

plan area. Another respondent felt 

proposed § 219.12(a)(7) would result in 

monitoring programs not dealing with 

watershed degradation associated with 

projects or activities, such as grazing, 

and the rule should focus on watersheds 

in poor condition, degraded riparian 

and upland habitats, substantial and 

permanent losses in soil productivity, 

and streams. A respondent felt the 

requirement to monitor ‘‘the status of 

select watershed conditions’’ was vague 

and could lead to the collection of 

disparate types of information across 

planning units and could create local 

conflicts over the requirement’s 

interpretation. A respondent felt more 

explanation was necessary in the rule 

on why topics were not included in 

requirements under § 219.12(a)(5). A 

respondent felt the rule should require 

the monitoring program to substantiate 

why certain portions of the plan do not 

warrant monitoring. A respondent 

suggested the rule specify a framework 

for reporting on forest conditions such 

as the Montreal Protocol. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21237 

Response: The final rule requires that 

the monitoring evaluation report 

indicate whether a change to the plan, 

management activities, the monitoring 

program, or a new assessment may be 

warranted based on the new 

information. It also requires that the 

monitoring evaluation report be used to 

inform adaptive management of the plan 

area to ensure that the plan remains 

effective and relevant. The responsible 

official will need to evaluate when the 

information warrants a change to the 

plan. The public will have the 

opportunity to review the biennial 

monitoring report, and is welcome to 

provide input to the responsible official. 

The Department modified the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(5) in 

response to public comments and to 

more closely link the monitoring 

requirements to the assessment topics 

and to the substantive requirements in 

§§ 219.7 through 219.11. The 

responsible official is not limited to the 

monitoring requirements identified in 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section. The 

responsible official may add questions 

and indicators to reflect the monitoring 

needs most appropriate to inform 

effective management for that unit. In 

addition, the broader-scale monitoring 

strategies will identify questions and 

indicators best monitored at a broader 

geographic scale than the plan area. 

The Department concluded that the 

set of monitoring requirements in the 

final rule provides an appropriate 

balance between requiring core 

monitoring on each unit and 

recognizing that there will be a wide 

and diverse array of monitoring needs 

across each system, including with 

regard to what specific questions and 

indicators may be most relevant for the 

topics in paragraph (a)(5) of this section. 

The responsible official will need to 

document the rationale for 

decisionmaking, as well as how best 

available scientific information was 

used to inform the monitoring program. 

Additional direction will be included in 

the Forest Service Directive System, and 

may be provided as a result of the 

Agency’s ongoing review of its 

monitoring system. 

The final rule requires monitoring of 

watershed conditions, as well as 

ecological conditions associated with 

aquatic ecosystems, and progress 

towards meeting desired conditions and 

objectives. The Department believes that 

these monitoring requirements will 

support the substantive requirements in 

the final rule for plan components for 

watersheds, water quality, water 

resources, and riparian areas, including 

those considerations with regard to 

water identified in the comment, and 

will inform management effectiveness 

and adaptive management. 

The Department expects monitoring 

will be informed by FIA data. The FIA 

program inventories and reports on 

changing conditions across all forested 

lands and provides information that 

reflects many Montreal Process 

indicators. 

Comment: Adjusting plans without 

adequate monitoring information. A 

respondent felt the proposed rule’s 

emphasis on making rapid changes may 

cause the responsible official to make 

changes to plan components without the 

benefit of monitoring over an 

appropriate period of time, as some 

monitoring questions and indicators 

cannot be adequately evaluated 

annually. A respondent felt the 

proposed rule’s support of rapid 

adjustment of management through 

monitoring could lead to mistakes when 

causal factors are not understood. 

Another respondent felt the adaptive 

management approach was too vague 

and the rule needed wording to endorse 

a precautionary approach when the 

responsible official has only limited 

data available for a decision about a 

significant change in resource 

management. 

Response: The Department agrees 

numerous monitoring questions and 

indicators could take many years of 

monitoring data collection before the 

information can be credibly evaluated. 

The use of the monitoring information 

is one factor in deciding when and how 

to change a plan. Any amendment or 

revision conducted as a result of new 

information from monitoring would be 

carefully done in accordance with the 

NEPA and the requirements of this final 

rule. Rapid, narrow amendments can 

help plans stay current and relevant, 

while recognizing that more information 

will be available over time. Since 

responsible officials already have 

discretion to consider precautionary 

measures when risks to resources are 

uncertain during NEPA analysis, the 

Department decided it is not necessary 

to add precautionary wording to the 

final rule. Any significant change in 

resource management would need to be 

consistent with the sustainability and 

other requirements in the final rule. 

Comment: Administrative change 

applied to monitoring program. A 

respondent felt modifying monitoring 

programs with an administrative change 

would pose a risk of not conducting 

good monitoring because changes could 

be done too easily. 

Response: Section 219.2 requires 

national oversight and process for 

accountability for planning. In addition, 

a substantive change to a monitoring 

program via an administrative change 

can only be made after public notice 

and consideration of public comment. 

Monitoring design and specification of 

details about measurement quality 

objectives, techniques, and frequency 

are subject to changing scientific 

knowledge. The final rule allows 

monitoring programs to be changed in a 

timely way to respond to evolving 

science and to maintain scientific 

credibility. Additionally, monitoring 

programs do not rely exclusively on 

protocols authored by the Agency. For 

example, other agencies such as 

Environmental Protection Agency, US 

Geological Survey, and National Park 

Service possess expertise and have 

already incurred substantial expense 

developing, reviewing, and testing 

protocols. It will be important, 

especially for multi-party monitoring, to 

be able to evaluate and incorporate 

these protocols when appropriate in the 

plan monitoring program as new 

partnerships are formed. 

Section 219.13—Plan Amendment and 

Administrative Changes 

This section of the rule sets out the 

process for changing plans through plan 

amendments or administrative changes. 

The section would allow the responsible 

official to use new information obtained 

from the monitoring program or other 

sources and react to changing 

conditions to amend or change the plan. 

The Department’s intent is that plans 

will be kept more current, effective, and 

relevant by the use of more frequent and 

efficient amendments, and 

administrative changes over the life of 

the plan, also reducing the amount of 

work needed for a full revision. 

Plan Amendments 

Plan amendments incrementally 

change the plan as need arises. Plan 

amendments could range from project 

specific amendments or amendments of 

one plan component, to the amendment 

of multiple plan components. For 

example, a monitoring evaluation report 

may show that a plan standard is not 

sufficiently protecting streambeds, 

indicating that a change to that standard 

may be needed to achieve an objective 

or desired condition in the plan for 

riparian areas. In that case, the 

responsible official could choose to act 

quickly to propose an amendment to 

change that particular standard. 

The process requirements for plan 

amendments and administrative 

changes are simpler than those for new 

plan development or plan revisions in 

order to allow responsible officials to 

keep plans current and adapt to new 

information or changed conditions. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

As discussed in § 219.6, the final rule 

does not require an assessment prior to 

initiating a plan amendment, because a 

new assessment will not always be 

necessary or useful. However, the 

responsible official can always choose 

to conduct an assessment and take 

additional time to develop a proposal 

when the potential amendment is 

broader or more complex or requires an 

updated understanding of the 

landscape-scale context for 

management. For example, a monitoring 

evaluation report may indicate that a 

new invasive species is affecting forest 

health on the plan area. The responsible 

official may want to conduct a new, 

focused assessment to synthesize new 

information about the spread of that 

species, how other plan areas or land 

management agencies are dealing with 

the threat, what stressors make a 

resource more vulnerable to the species, 

how the species may be impacting 

social or economic values, or how 

neighboring landowners are 

approaching removal of the species. The 

responsible official, consistent with the 

requirements for public participation in 

§ 219.4, would then collaboratively 

develop a proposal to amend several 

plan components to deal with the 

invasive species. 

All plan amendments must comply 

with Forest Service NEPA procedures. 

This final rule provides that appropriate 

NEPA documentation for an amendment 

could be an EIS, an environmental 

assessment (EA), or a categorical 

exclusion (CE) depending upon the 

scope and scale of the amendment and 

its likely effects. A proposed 

amendment that may create a significant 

environmental effect and thus require 

preparation of an EIS is considered a 

significant change in the plan for the 

purposes of the NFMA. 

Administrative Changes 

Administrative changes allow for 

rapid correction of errors in the plan 

components. In addition, other content 

in the plan, as identified in § 219.7(f), 

could be altered with an administrative 

change, including the monitoring plan, 

the identification of watersheds that are 

a priority for maintenance or 

restoration, the plan area’s distinctive 

roles and contributions, and information 

about proposed or possible actions that 

may occur on the plan area during the 

life of the plan. This final rule requires 

the responsible official to provide 

public notice before issuing any 

administrative change. If the change 

would be a substantive change to the 

monitoring program, the responsible 

official must also provide an 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on the intended change and consider 

public concerns and suggestions before 

making a change. The Department 

believes that allowing administrative 

changes to other content, other than 

plan components, would help the 

responsible official rapidly adapt that 

content to changing conditions and 

respond to new information, while 

requiring the responsible official to keep 

the public informed. For example, a 

major fire event may make a particular 

watershed a new priority, or a new 

collaborative monitoring effort may 

require the addition of one or more 

monitoring questions. 

Section 219.13—Response to Comments 

The Department made minor 

modifications to the wording of this 

section from the 2011 proposed rule for 

clarity. 

At the end of paragraph (a), the words 

‘‘(including management areas or 

geographic areas)’’ were added to reflect 

the modifications of § 219.7, and to 

clarify that an amendment is required 

for any change in how or whether plan 

components apply to those areas. 

The Department merged provisions 

about plan amendments found in two 

sections of the proposed rule 

(§§ 219.6(c) and 219.13(b)(1)) into one 

paragraph (paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section) of the final rule, for clarity. The 

provisions were removed from 

§ 219.6(c) of the final rule. 

The Department added a sentence to 

the end of paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section to make clear that a proposed 

amendment that may have a significant 

environmental effect and thus require 

preparation of an EIS is considered a 

‘‘significant change in the plan’’ for 

purposes of the NFMA. The NFMA at 16 

U.S.C. 1604(f)(4) states that plans shall 

be amended in any matter whatsoever 

after public notice, and, if such 

amendment would result in a significant 

change in a plan, the plan must be 

amended in accordance to the 

requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1604(e) and 

(f) and public involvement required by 

16 U.S.C. 1604(d). Likewise, as part of 

the NEPA process, the responsible 

official must determine whether the 

significance of the proposed 

amendment’s impact on the 

environment would require an 

environmental impact statement. This 

addition to the final rule makes the 

NEPA and NFMA findings of 

‘‘significance’’ one finding. If under 

NEPA a proposed amendment may have 

a significant effect on the environment 

and an EIS must be prepared, the 

amendment would automatically be 

considered a significant change to a 

plan. 

The Department finds that the process 

requirements for an EIS, the 90-day 

public comment period required by this 

final rule, and the additional 

requirements for amendments under 

this final rule meet the requirements for 

a amendment that results in a 

significant change to the plan under 16 

U.S.C. 1604(f)(4). Thus, the responsible 

official must make only one 

determination of significance, under the 

well-known standards of NEPA. 

For other plan amendments, less 

detailed levels of NEPA compliance 

such as the preparation of 

environmental assessment or a decision 

memo using a categorical exclusion may 

be appropriate. There is the same 

opportunity for persons to file 

objections to all proposed amendments 

as there is for proposed revisions 

(subpart B of the final rule). 

Paragraph (c)(1) of both the proposed 

and the final rule provide that changes 

to ‘‘other plan content,’’ may be made 

via an administrative change (unlike the 

plan components, which require an 

amendment to make substantive 

changes). Because of the importance of 

the monitoring program to the public, 

the proposed rule provided and the final 

rule retained a requirement that 

substantive changes to the monitoring 

program made via an administrative 

change can be made only after notice 

and consideration of public comment. 

In the final rule, the Department added 

the word ‘‘substantive’’ to convey the 

Department’s intent that minor changes 

or corrections to the monitoring 

program can be made via an 

administrative change without 

providing an opportunity for public 

comment. 

Comment: Appropriate NEPA for plan 

amendments. Some respondents felt 

plans should be as simple and 

programmatic as possible and NEPA 

compliance should occur only at the 

project level. Another respondent said 

categorical exclusions should be used 

for minor amendments, environmental 

assessments for more significant 

amendments. Some respondents felt any 

action requiring an amendment should 

be considered a significant action, 

therefore requiring development of an 

EIS to disclose the anticipated effects of 

the amendment. A respondent felt it 

was unclear as to when an EIS was done 

for an amendment and when it was 

done for a plan revision. Other 

respondents felt use of categorical 

exclusions was inappropriate for a plan 

amendment as any changes to the plan 

should be subject to careful 

environmental review, scrutiny, and 

analysis. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21239 

Response: Requiring an EIS for all 

amendments would be burdensome, and 

unduly expensive for amendments with 

no significant environmental effect. It 

would also inhibit the more frequent 

use of amendments as a tool for 

adaptive management to keep plans 

relevant, current and effective between 

plan revisions based on changing 

conditions and new information. The 

Department requires the responsible 

official to follow NEPA procedures and 

choose the appropriate level of analysis: 

EIS, EA, or CE, based on the scale and 

scope of the amendment. As 

clarification, § 219.13 of the final rule 

clarifies that any plan amendment that 

may create a significant environmental 

effect and therefore require preparation 

of an EIS will be considered ‘‘a 

significant change in the plan’’ for the 

purposes of the NFMA; requiring a 90- 

day comment period under § 219.16. An 

EIS is always required for a plan 

revision or for development of a new 

plan. 

Comment: Amendment verses 

administrative change. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule was 

confusing regarding when an 

amendment and when an administrative 

change was to be used. 

Response: Plan components are the 

plan’s desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, suitability of 

areas, or goals described in § 219.7. An 

amendment is required if a change, 

other than correction of a clerical error 

or a change needed to conform to new 

statutory or regulatory requirements, 

needs to be applied to any of these plan 

components. 

Administrative changes are made to 

correct clerical errors to plan 

components, to alter content in the plan 

other than the plan components, or to 

achieve conformance of the plan to new 

statutory or regulatory requirements. A 

clerical error is an error of the 

presentation of material in the plan such 

as phrasing, grammar, typographic 

errors, or minor errors in data or 

mapping that were appropriately 

evaluated in the development of the 

plan, plan revision, or plan amendment. 

An administrative change could not 

otherwise be used to change plan 

components or the location in the plan 

area where plan components apply, 

except to conform the plan to new 

statutory or regulatory requirements. 

Changes that could be made through an 

administrative change may also be made 

as part of a plan amendment or revision 

instead. 

Comment: Thirty-day comment period 

on environmental assessments (EAs). 

Some respondents felt more than 30 

days was needed for public review of a 

large and complicated plan amendment 

supported by an EA. They proposed a 

three tiered public response period: 90 

days for proposals requiring an EIS, 60 

days for those requiring an EA, and 30 

days for all others. 

Response: The final rule retains the 

30-day minimum comment period for a 

plan amendment (§ 219.16(a)). Agency 

practice shows 30 days can be 

reasonable when an EA is prepared. 

Comment: Project specific plan 

amendments. Some respondents 

expressed concern with the use of 

project specific plan amendments 

because they felt that they do not get 

sufficient analysis, review, public input, 

and may not use the best available 

science. A respondent felt these 

amendments should only be allowed for 

unforeseen events or special 

circumstances. Another respondent felt 

the supporting NEPA documentation 

should include a ‘no amendment’ 

alternative which accomplishes the 

proposed action without amending the 

plan. 

Response: No change was made to 

this provision in the final rule. Projectspecific amendments are short-lived 

with the project, and localized to the 

project area. The point of a projectspecific amendment is to allow a project 

that would otherwise not be consistent 

with the plan to be authorized and 

carried out in a manner appropriate to 

the particular time and place of the 

project, without changing how the plan 

applies in other respects. Project 

specific amendments give a way to deal 

with exceptions. An exception is similar 

to a variance to a county zoning 

ordinance. If the amendment changed 

plan components that would apply to 

future projects, the exception would not 

be applicable. Section 219.16(b) requires 

use of the Agency’s notification 

requirements used for project planning 

at 36 CFR parts 215 or 218 for projectspecific of amendment. 

Comment: Amending plans under 

existing regulations. A respondent felt 

the rule should allow for the option of 

amending existing plans under the 

existing planning regulations. 

Response: Final rule § 219.17(b)(2) 

allows amendments to existing plans to 

be initiated for a period of 3 years under 

the provisions of the prior planning 

regulation. This provision is unchanged 

from the proposed rule. 

Comment: Administrative changes. 

Some respondents felt allowing 

wilderness area boundaries to be 

changed with administrative changes 

was inappropriate. Some respondents 

felt changes to monitoring programs 

should not be done administratively as 

these changes should be transparent and 

have public accountability. 

Response: Wilderness area boundaries 

may only be changed by an act of 

Congress, therefore a change to the 

wilderness area boundaries identified in 

the plan would only be made to 

conform the plan to the congressionally 

mandated change, with no discretion 

available to the responsible official or to 

the public. When there is no agency 

discretion, an administrative change to 

the plan is appropriate. 

The rule requirements for 

administrative changes will facilitate 

more rapid adjustment of plans. The 

technical aspects of monitoring may 

need adjustment due to new 

information or advances in scientific 

methods, or a change may be needed to 

reflect a new monitoring partnership or 

for other reasons. The responsible 

official must involve the public in the 

development of the plan monitoring 

program and post notice of changes to 

the monitoring program online. If the 

change to the monitoring program is 

substantive, the public must be given an 

opportunity to comment. These 

requirements are intended to keep the 

public engaged and informed of the 

monitoring program, while allowing the 

program to build on new information 

and stay current. 

Section 219.14—Decision Documents 

and Planning Records 

This section of the rule requires the 

responsible official to record approval of 

a new plan, plan revision, or 

amendment in a decision document 

prepared according to Forest Service’s 

NEPA procedures and this section. This 

section describes requirements for 

decision documents and associated 

records for approval of plans, plan 

amendments, or plan revisions. These 

requirements will increase the 

transparency of the decision and the 

rationale for approval, and require the 

responsible official to document how 

the plan complies with the requirements 

in this final rule. 

This section also sets forth basic 

requirements for the responsible official 

to maintain public documents related to 

the plan and monitoring program. It 

requires the responsible official to 

ensure that certain key documents are 

readily accessible to the public online 

and through other means, and that the 

planning record be available to the 

public. 

Section 219.14—Response to Comments 

Comments on this section focused on 

the availability of documents. The 

Department largely retained the wording 

from the 2011 proposed rule; however, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the Department did make changes for 

consistency in this section to reflect 

changes made in other sections of the 

rule. 

At paragraph (a)(2) the proposed rule 

wording of ‘‘An explanation of how the 

plan components meet the sustainability 

requirements of § 219.8 and the 

diversity requirements of § 219.9, taking 

into account the limits of Forest Service 

authority and the capability of the plan 

area’’ was modified to ‘‘An explanation 

of how the plan components meet the 

sustainability requirements of § 219.8, 

the diversity requirements of § 219.9, 

the multiple use requirements of 

§ 219.10, and the timber requirements of 

§ 219.11.’’ The Department added the 

requirements to explain how plan 

components meet the requirements of 

§§ 219.10 and 219.11 to cover all the 

substantive requirements for plan 

components. The Department removed 

the words taking into account the limits 

of Forest Service authority and the 

capability of the plan area, because they 

are part of §§ 219.8–11 and § 219.1(g). 

At paragraph (a)(4), the Department 

changed the wording from the proposed 

rule wording of ‘‘taken into account and 

applied in the planning process,’’ to 

‘‘how the best scientific information was 

used to inform planning, the plan 

components, and other plan content, 

including the plan monitoring program’’ 

to be consistent with the final rule 

wording of § 219.3. This change was 

made to make clear that § 219.3 applies 

to every aspect of planning, and the 

public must be able to see and 

understand how it has been applied. 

Additional minor edits were made for 

clarity. 

Comment: Content of decision 

document. Some respondents felt these 

proposed requirements should be 

reduced to what is required by the 

NEPA. Others felt a discussion on 

multiple use and timber requirements 

per the NFMA, and use of best available 

scientific information should be 

included. 

Response: The Council on 

Environmental Quality NEPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 1505.5 requires a 

record of decision to identify and 

discuss all factors and essential 

considerations of national policy which 

were balanced by the Agency in making 

its decision and state how those 

considerations entered into its decision. 

The plan only provides the management 

direction approved by the decision, 

while the decision document provides 

the rationale for the decision; therefore, 

the factors used in decisionmaking are 

most appropriate for the discussion in 

the decision document. The 

requirements of this section will help 

increase transparency and public 

understanding of the responsible 

official’s decisions. Based on public 

comment, the Department added the 

multiple use requirements of § 219.10 

and the timber requirements of § 219.11 

to the list of items (§ 219.14(a)(2)) that 

the responsible official address in 

explaining how plan components meet 

the requirements of the rule. Section 

219.14(a)(4) of the final rule also 

requires the decision document to 

document how the best available 

scientific information was used to 

inform the planning process, the plan 

components, and other plan content. 

Comment: Availability of planning 

documents on the Internet. Some 

respondents supported the proposed 

requirement to make available online 

assessment reports; plan decision 

documents; proposed plans, plan 

revisions, or plan amendments; public 

notices and environmental documents 

associated with a plan; the monitoring 

program and monitoring evaluation 

reports. Some respondents felt the plan 

should also include all documents 

supporting analytical conclusions made 

and alternatives considered throughout 

the planning process source data, 

including GIS data, the monitoring 

program, and any plan revision. Some 

respondents made specific requests 

about when and how documents are 

made available online. 

Response: Section 219.14(b)(1) of the 

final rule requires online availability of 

documents including assessments, the 

monitoring evaluation report, the 

current plan and proposed plan changes 

or decision documents, and any public 

notices or environmental documents 

associated with the plan. The final rule 

keeps the wording of the proposed rule 

that these documents must be ‘‘readily 

accessible’’ online; the expectation is 

that the documents would be posted as 

soon as they are finished and formatted 

for public viewing. Documents that 

require formal notifications will be 

posted when formal notice is made, if 

not before. In addition, the final rule 

requires that documents identified in 

§ 219.52(c)(1) must be available online 

at the time of notification of the start of 

the objection period. 

Making all data and information used 

in the planning process available online 

would be very time-consuming and 

expensive. However, to ensure that 

units continue to make all planning 

records available for those who may be 

interested, the final rule requires the 

responsible official to make all 

documents available at the office where 

the plan, plan revision, or amendment 

was developed. The final rule does not 

prohibit the responsible official from 

using other means of making documents 

available. 

Comment: Availability of NEPA 

documents. Some respondents stated 

the final EIS supporting a plan should 

be made available no later than the start 

of objection process. 

Response: The Department requires 

the objection process to begin after the 

NEPA documents are final and made 

available. Section 219.52(c) lists the 

required items that the public notice 

must contain in notifying the public of 

the beginning of the objection process 

including a draft plan decision 

document. In addition, the final rule 

requires that documents identified in 

§ 219.52(c)(1) must be available online 

at the time of notification of the start of 

the objection period. 

Section 219.15—Project and Activity 

Consistency With the Plan 

This section of the final rule provides 

that projects and activities authorized 

after approval of a plan, plan revision, 

or plan amendment developed pursuant 

to the final rule must be consistent with 

plan components as set forth in this 

section. The NFMA requires that 

‘‘resource plans and permits, contracts 

and other instruments for the use and 

occupancy of National Forest System 

lands shall be consistent with the land 

management plans’’ (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)). 

However, no previous planning rule 

provided specific criteria to evaluate 

consistency of projects or activities with 

the plan. 

This section provides that every 

project and activity authorized after 

approval of a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision developed pursuant to the 

final rule must be consistent with the 

plan and the applicable plan 

components as set forth in this section. 

Project decision documents must 

describe how the project or activity is 

consistent with the plan. This final rule 

specifies criteria to use to evaluate 

consistency with the plan components. 

The Agency has experienced 

difficulty in the past in determining 

how new plan components and content 

in a plan apply to projects and activities 

approved prior to the effective date of a 

plan amendment or revision. With 

respect to such projects and activities, 

the rule requires that: 1) the plan 

decision document must expressly 

allow such projects to go forward or 

continue, and thus deem them 

consistent, or 2) in the absence of such 

express provision, the authorizing 

instrument (permit, contract, and so 

forth) approving the use, occupancy, 

project, or activity must be adjusted as 

soon as practicable to be consistent with 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21241 

the plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision, subject to valid existing rights. 

Other types of plans may be 

developed for the lands or resources of 

the planning area. These resource plans, 

such as travel management plans, wild 

and scenic river plans, and other 

resource plans, may be developed for 

the lands or resources of the planning 

area. This section requires that other 

resource plans be consistent with the 

land management plan and applicable 

plan components. If such plans are not 

consistent, modifications of the resource 

plan must be made or amendments to 

the land management plan must be 

made to resolve any inconsistencies. 

Section 219.15—Response to Comments 

The Department retained the wording 

of the proposed rule, except for three 

modifications. The Department clarified 

the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) to 

say every decision document approving 

a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision must state whether 

authorizations of occupancy and use 

made before the decision document may 

proceed unchanged. 

At paragraph (d), the Department 

added that every project and activity 

must be consistent with the applicable 

plan components and removed those 

words from § 219.7(d) of the proposed 

rule, because this provision is more 

appropriate in this section of the final 

rule. 

At paragraph (d)(3), in response to 

comments received on the preferred 

alternative, the Department modified 

the direction for determining 

consistency with guidelines to make the 

Department’s intent more clear. 

Paragraph (d)(3)(i) was modified to 

reflect the structure of the requirement 

for standards in paragraph (d)(2), and 

now reads: ‘‘Complies with applicable 

guidelines as set out in the plan.’’ In 

paragraph (d)(3)(ii), the Department 

replaced ‘‘carrying out the intent’’ to 

‘‘achieving the purpose’’ of the 

applicable guidelines. 

The Department removed the wording 

at § 219.15(d)(3)(ii) of the proposed rule 

that repeated text from § 219.7(e)(1)(iv), 

to avoid duplication and because the 

reference to § 219.7(e)(1)(iv) is adequate. 

Comment: Consistency requirement. 

Some respondents felt the proposed rule 

was too vague and unclear about project 

or activity consistency with the plan. 

They felt the rule needs specific criteria 

for determining if a project or activity is 

consistent with the plan, and achieving 

consistency may not be feasible unless 

guidelines are made mandatory. 

Response: No previous planning rule 

provided specific criteria to evaluate 

consistency of projects or activities with 

the plan. The Forest Service policy was 

that consistency could only be 

determined with respect to standards 

and guidelines, or just standards, 

because an individual project alone 

could almost never achieve objectives 

and desired conditions. See the 1991 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 56 FR 6508, 6519–6520 

(Feb 15, 1991) and the 1995 Proposed 

Rule, at 60 FR 18886, 18902, 18909 

(April 13, 1995). 

The Department continues to believe 

that the consistency requirement cannot 

be interpreted to require achievement of 

the desired conditions or objectives of a 

plan by any single project or activity, 

but we believe that we can provide 

direction for consistency to move the 

plan area toward desired conditions and 

objectives, or to not preclude the 

eventual achievement of desired 

conditions or objectives, as well as 

direction for consistency with the other 

plan components. 

This section requires that every 

project and activity authorized after the 

approval of a plan, plan revision or plan 

amendment must be consistent with the 

plan as provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section. Paragraph (d) specifies criteria 

to evaluate consistency, and requires 

that project approval documents 

describe how the project or activity is 

consistent. Given the very large number 

of project and activities, and the wide 

variety of those projects and activities, 

it is not feasible to provide any direction 

more specific than that set out in 

paragraph (d). 

Section 219.16—Public Notifications 

In this section, the final rule sets forth 

requirements for public notification 

designed to ensure that information 

about the planning process reaches the 

public in a timely and accessible 

manner. This section describes when 

public notification is required, how it 

must be provided, and what must be 

included in each notice. This section of 

the final rule is meant to be read with 

§ 219.4 of the rule in mind, which sets 

forth direction for responsible officials 

to engage the public and provide 

opportunities for interested individuals, 

entities, and governments to participate 

in the planning process. 

This final rule represents a significant 

new investment in public engagement 

designed to involve the public early and 

throughout the planning process. The 

Department is making this investment 

in the belief that public participation 

throughout the planning process will 

result in a more informed public, better 

plans, and plans that are more broadly 

accepted by the public than in the past. 

The requirements in this section 

respond to the consensus that people 

want to be informed about the various 

stages of the planning process, with 

clear parameters for when and how they 

can get involved. 

Public input at several points during 

the development of the rule emphasized 

the importance of updating the way we 

provide notice to the public to ensure 

that we successfully reach a diverse 

array of people and communities and 

inform them about the process and how 

they could participate. Many people 

said that using only one outreach 

method would not reach all needed 

communities. In response, this section 

directs responsible officials to use 

contemporary tools to provide notice to 

the public, and, at a minimum, to post 

all notices on the relevant Forest Service 

Web site. 

This section of the final rule provides 

that ‘‘notifications may be combined 

where appropriate.’’ This provision 

would allow flexibility for plan 

amendments to have a more 

streamlined, efficient process than new 

plans or plan revisions, where 

appropriate. This approach is in keeping 

with the public’s desire and the 

Agency’s need for a process that allows 

plan areas to quickly and efficiently 

adapt to new information and changing 

conditions. (see § 219.13 for further 

discussion.) 

Section 219.16—Response to Comments 

The Department made the following 

changes to this section of the final rule: 

In the introduction to paragraph (a) 

the Department changed the term 

‘‘formal notifications’’ to 

‘‘notifications.’’ This change is a 

clarification. 

The Department removed the 

requirement at paragraph (a)(1) for a 

formal notice for the preparation of an 

assessment, in response to public 

comments on the efficiency of the 

assessment process. A requirement for 

notice of opportunities to provide 

information for assessments is now in 

paragraph (c)(6) of this section: notice 

must be posted online, and additional 

notice may be provided in any way the 

responsible official deems appropriate. 

The wording of paragraph (a)(1) in the 

final rule, formerly paragraph (a)(2) in 

the proposed rule, was modified to 

remove the words ‘‘when appropriate’’ 

before plan amendment. The change 

reflects the Department’s intent in the 

proposed rule and responds to public 

comments about confusion over 

whether notice to initiate the 

development of plan amendments is 

required (it is). This change is not a 

change in requirement, this is a 

clarification. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

At paragraph (c)(3) the Department 

added a new paragraph that requires 

that when the notice is for the purpose 

of inviting comments on a proposed 

plan, plan revision, or plan amendment, 

and a draft EIS is prepared, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Federal Register notice of availability of 

an EIS shall serve as the required 

Federal Register notice. This change 

makes the procedure similar to the prior 

rule procedures and eliminates an 

additional Federal Register notice at the 

time of a DEIS. 

At paragraph (c)(6), the Department 

modified ‘‘plan amendment 

assessments’’ to ’’assessment reports’’ in 

the list of public notices that may be 

made in any way the responsible official 

deems appropriate that was in 

paragraph (c)(5) of the proposed rule. 

This change clarifies how the public 

will receive notice of a completed 

assessment report. The word 

‘‘additional’’ was added to the 

beginning of paragraph (c)(6) to make 

clear that, at a minimum, notice for the 

items in the paragraph must be posted 

online. This change is a clarification. 

At paragraph (d), the Department 

added an exception for the content for 

public notices when the notice is for the 

purpose of inviting comments on a 

proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision for which a draft EIS is 

prepared. This change is necessary 

because of the change at paragraph 

(c)(3), stating that the Federal Register 

notice of availability for the draft EIS 

will serve as the required public notice. 

The EPA has a standard format for 

notices that does not include the 

requirements of paragraph (d). The 

public will be able to find the additional 

information online. 

Comment: When appropriate. Some 

respondents felt proposed rule 

§ 219.16(a)(2) wording ‘‘when 

appropriate’’ should be removed in 

reference to public notification of plan 

amendments. 

Response: The final rule removes the 

wording ‘‘when appropriate’’ in relation 

to plan amendments in what is now 

§ 219.16(a)(1) in the final rule, in 

response to public comment and to 

clarify the Department’s intent from the 

proposed rule. 

Comment: Notification. Some 

respondents felt the words ‘‘deems 

appropriate’’ in paragraph (c)(5) of the 

proposed rule should be removed, and 

requested clarification of what 

contemporary tools would be used. 

Some respondents requested direct 

notification, or notification of changes 

to a specific use. A respondent felt 

Federal Register notice should be 

mandatory for all plan amendments and 

any other notification such as 

administrative changes. Some 

respondents suggested changes to the 

proposed notification process to better 

inform those individuals and groups 

who would be most affected and 

interested in these activities. Some 

respondents felt that use of a newspaper 

of record is not effective since 

newspaper subscriptions are declining 

across the country. 

Response: Section 219.16 of the final 

rule requires, at a minimum, that all 

public notifications must be posted 

online and the responsible official 

should use contemporary tools to 

provide notice to the public. These 

could include an array of methods, such 

as meetings, town halls, email, or 

Facebook posts. The best forms of notice 

will vary by plan area and over time, 

therefore the rule does not seek to 

predetermine what those tools might be. 

The wording ‘‘deems appropriate’’ in 

paragraph (c)(6) for the notices not 

listed in paragraph (a) allows the 

responsible official the flexibility to 

determine the notification method that 

best meets the needs of interested 

individuals, groups, and communities; 

therefore, it has been retained in the 

final rule. 

Additionally, there are requirements 

outlined in (c)(1)–(5) for posting notices 

in the Federal Register and applicable 

newspaper(s) of record for the notices 

required in paragraph (a). The use of the 

Federal Register to give notice for all 

amendments and administrative 

changes would be inefficient for the 

Agency; therefore the requirements in 

paragraph (c) vary. 

Persons desiring notification of 

changes to a specific use on a national 

forest or grassland should contact that 

office. A requirement for direct 

notification has not been added. The 

Department concludes that such a 

requirement would be unworkable, and 

that the forms of public notice required 

by this section, including the 

requirement that all notices be posted 

online, will enable informed and active 

public engagement. 

Section 219.17—Effective Dates and 

Transition 

This section of the final rule describes 

when approval of plans, plan revisions, 

or plan amendments would take effect 

and when units must begin to use the 

new planning regulations. 

Section 219.17—Response to Comments 

Many comments on this section 

focused on the efficiency of the process, 

clarity, and potential additional 

requirements. The Department retained 

the wording from the proposed rule 

except for the following changes: 

The Department changed the wording 

of paragraph (a) of the proposed rule 

about effective dates of the proposed 

rule in response to public comments 

about the efficiency of the planning 

process. The final rule retains the 

requirement that a plan or plan revision, 

is effective 30 days after publication of 

notice of approval, and also retains that 

requirement for a plan amendment for 

which an EIS is prepared. The final rule 

removes the 30 day delay for 

amendments that do not require an EIS; 

such amendments are effective 

immediately upon publication of the 

notice of approval. This change in 

requirements improves the efficiency of 

amendments. 

Paragraphs (b)(1)–(3) were modified 

slightly to reflect that the effective date 

of the final rule will be 30 days after the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register. 

In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 

Department modified the wording and 

added a new first sentence to clarify that 

all new plan amendments initiated after 

the effective date of this rule must use 

the objections process of subpart B, even 

if the amendment is developed using 

the planning procedures of the prior 

planning regulation. This is a change 

made to require that subpart B apply to 

all plans, plan revisions and plan 

amendments initiated after the effective 

date of the final rule. In the rest of 

paragraph (b)(2) the Department: 

Revised the sentences to improve the 

ease, flow, and clarity of this paragraph, 

and clarified that when initiating plan 

amendments the optional appeal 

procedures are not available. 

In paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 

Department clarified that the objection 

process of subpart B of this part applies 

if the responsible official completing a 

plan process initiated prior to this part 

chooses objections instead of optional 

appeal procedures. This change was 

made to avoid confusion about which 

objection procedures would apply in 

that case (prior rule of December 18, 

2009, or subpart B of this final rule). In 

addition, the Department clarified that 

the objection process of subpart B may 

be chosen only if the public is provided 

the opportunity to comment on a 

proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision, and associated 

environmental analysis. These 

clarifications are not a change in 

requirements. 

In paragraph (c) the Department 

added wording in response to public 

comments to clarify that existing plans 

will remain in effect until revised, and 

that the final rule does not compel a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21243 

change to any existing plan, except as 

required in § 219.12(c)(1). In addition 

the Department added wording that 

none of the requirements of this part 

apply to projects or activities on units 

with plans developed or revised under 

a prior planning rule until the plan is 

revised under this part, except that 

projects and activities must be 

consistent with plan amendments 

developed under this final rule. These 

changes are not changes in 

requirements; the changes clarify the 

intent of the Department in the 

proposed rule. This paragraph in the 

final rule is needed for clarity so that all 

NFS units understand they are subject 

to the new planning rule for plan 

development, plan amendment, and 

plan revision, while still requiring NFS 

units to follow the plan provisions of 

their current plans. 

Comment: Timing of compliance. 

Some respondents felt the rule should 

establish a time limit beyond which any 

action which is being performed under 

a previous regulation must be brought 

into compliance with this part, and the 

responsible official should not have 

discretion to apply prior planning 

regulation in completing a plan 

development, plan amendment, and 

plan revisions initiated before the 

effective date of this part. A respondent 

felt newly started plan amendments 

should follow the new planning 

direction without exception. Another 

respondent felt the rule should allow 

the option of amending existing plans 

under either the existing planning 

regulations or the new planning rule 

requirements until the current plan is 

revised under the new rule. Some 

respondents felt the rule’s transition 

provisions should state the Agency will 

operate under existing plans until all 

legal challenges to a new plan or plan 

revision are resolved to avoid disruption 

of existing contracts. 

Response: There is no transition 

period for new plans or plan revisions 

initiated after the effective date of the 

final rule: all new plans and plan 

revisions must conform to the new 

planning requirements in subpart A. 

Plan revisions that are currently ongoing 

or initiated prior to the effective date of 

the final rule may be completed using 

either the previous rule or the final rule. 

Many of the ongoing plan revision 

efforts have taken many years, and it 

could be expensive in terms of both 

time and costs to require them to follow 

the new procedures, in addition to 

delaying needed improvements to 

outdated plans. It could also be unfair 

to the public who have invested time in 

these efforts. The responsible official 

does have the discretion to conform an 

ongoing revision effort to the 

requirements of the new rule after 

providing notice to the public, if doing 

so would be feasible and appropriate for 

that effort. 

For amendments, there would be a 3- 

year transition window during which 

amendments may be initiated and 

completed using the 2000 rule, 

including the 1982 procedures via the 

2000 rule’s transition provisions, or may 

conform to the new rule. After 3 years, 

all new plan amendments must conform 

to the new rule. This transition period 

for new amendments would give the 

responsible official the option to 

facilitate amendments for plans 

developed under previous rules for a 

limited time, using a familiar process, 

until full familiarity with the new rule 

develops. 

Plan decisions will not be approved 

until the Agency has resolved any 

objections filed under subpart B. This 

delay of the effective date until after the 

objections are resolved should 

adequately avoid disruptions. Many 

legal challenges to plans go on for years, 

however, and it would not be workable 

to wait to implement a plan until after 

all legal challenges are resolved. 

Comment: Climate change 

requirements for 1982 revisions. A 

respondent felt the rule’s transition 

provisions should require forests 

currently planning revisions under the 

1982 planning rule to consider climate 

change impacts and actions to address 

climate change and to reduce stressors 

to provide for greater habitat resiliency. 

Response: The Department decided 

not to include this requirement in the 

transition provisions of the final rule. 

However, all NFS units are working to 

implement the climate change roadmap 

released in 2009, and are using the 

climate change scorecard, which 

requires consideration of climate change 

impacts, vulnerability, and adaptability, 

as well as monitoring and other 

requirements. The Department decided 

that the Roadmap and Scorecard 

implementation is the most appropriate 

method for working to address climate 

change in plan revisions currently being 

conducted under the 1982 rule. 

Comment: Conflicts between rules. A 

respondent felt the proposed rule’s 

transition section is confusing because 

there will be situations where the old 

rule can be in conflict with the new rule 

and the final rule should therefore 

include guidance to handle those 

conflicting situations. Another 

respondent also felt the entire section 

needs more clarity. 

Response: The transition provision is 

important to provide a smooth change to 

the new rule, and is workable. Changes 

were made as described above to 

improve clarity. 

Comment: Planning schedule for 

revisions. A respondent felt the rule 

should establish some schedule by 

which overdue plans, or ones due 

within the next year or two, will be 

revised as currently 68 plans of 127 

plans are past due for revision. 

Response: The Agency does not have 

the resources to revise all 68 plans that 

need revision within the next few years. 

The Agency posts the Chief’s schedule 

for plan revision online at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index.htm. 

Comment: Compliance with 

regulatory scheme. A respondent felt the 

Forest Service should eliminate the 

proposed rule § 219.2(c) (none of the 

requirements of the final rule applies to 

projects) and § 219.17(c) (projects 

completed under existing forest plans 

need only be consistent with the plan 

and not the 1982 rule). They believe the 

provisions are inconsistent with case 

law. They cite several judicial decisions. 

Another respondent felt § 219.17(c) of 

the proposed rule allows plans to be 

revised free of any obligation to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

regulatory scheme under which it was 

developed. 

Response: The Ninth Circuit and 

Tenth Circuits Court of Appeals have 

confirmed the Agency’s position that 

the 1982 rule was superseded by the 

2000 Rule, and no longer applies. See, 

Land Council v. McNair, 537 F. 3d 981, 

989 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2008); Forest 

Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 641 F. 

3d. 423 (10th Cir. 2011). This provision 

is needed for clarity so that all NFS 

units understand they are subject to the 

new planning rule for plan 

development, plan amendment, and 

plan revision, but otherwise are 

governed by the plan provisions of their 

current plans. Responsible officials, 

who continue plan development, 

revisions or amendments initiated prior 

to the effective date of the final rule 

using the procedures of the 1982 rule, 

must comply with the 1982 rule 

procedures in developing those plans, 

plan revisions or amendments. Plan 

amendments initiated after the effective 

date of this rule, may for three years 

follow the 1982 rule procedures or the 

requirements of this rule for 

amendments. 

Comment: Delay of project-specific 

plan amendments. Some respondents 

felt the rule should require a 30-day 

delay for the effective date of all projectspecific plan amendments, as plan 

amendments are significant actions and 

no amendment may apply only to a 

single concurrent project. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: Not all plan amendments 

are significant actions. The final rule 

does not require a 30 day-delay for 

project-specific plan amendments, and 

provides for site-specific project 

amendments, in keeping with the 

Department’s intent that the amendment 

process be efficient and used more 

frequently. 

Section 219.18—Severability 

If any part of this final rule is held 

invalid by a court, this section provides 

that the invalid part would be severed 

from the other parts of the rule, which 

would remain valid. 

Section 219.18—Response to Comments 

This section explains that it is the 

Department’s intent that the individual 

provisions of the final rule be severable 

from each other. The Department retains 

the 2011 proposed rule wording in the 

final rule. 

Comment: Invalidation of entire rule. 

A respondent felt if any part of the 

proposed rule is judged invalid by a 

court the rule should state the entire 

rule is invalid. 

Response: The Department retained 

the provision in the final rule, because 

rulemaking is an extensive 

Departmental and public undertaking, 

and the entire rule should not be 

dismissed if a court finds only a portion 

of the rule is inappropriate. 

Section 219.19—Definitions 

This section sets out and defines the 

special terms used in the final subpart 

A. Changes to this section were made in 

response to public comments. 

The Department added definitions for: 

best management practices, candidate 

species, conserve, disturbance regime, 

ecological integrity, inherent capability 

of the plan area, integrated resource 

management, maintain, management 

system, native species, persistence, 

proposed species, recreation 

opportunity, restore, recovery, riparian 

management zone, scenic character, and 

stressors for clarity and to define new 

terms. 

The Department removed definitions 

for: Health(y), landscape character, 

potential wilderness areas, and 

resilience, because the terms are not 

used in the final rule. The Department 

moved a modified definition of species 

of conservation concern from § 219.19 to 

§ 219.9. The Department removed the 

definition of system drivers, because the 

term is defined in the rule in § 219.6 as 

disturbance regimes, dominant 

ecological processes, and stressors— 

including wildland fire, invasive 

species, and climate change. 

The Department modified the 

definitions for: assessment, 

collaboration, connectivity, 

conservation, designated areas, 

ecological conditions, ecosystem, focal 

species, landscape, multiple use, 

recreation setting, restoration, riparian 

areas, sole source aquifer, sustainability, 

and sustainable recreation to improve 

clarity. 

The Department modified the 

definition of ‘‘ecosystem’’ to further 

explain and describe the key 

characteristics related to ecosystem 

composition, structure, function, and 

connectivity so the relationship between 

monitoring questions and indicators are 

clearly related to the ecological 

conditions of §§ 219.8 and 219.9. 

Section 219.19—Response to Comments 

Comment: Definitions for various 

terms. Some respondents felt more 

detailed definitions or explanations 

about specific terms should be included 

in the rule, including: access, aesthetic 

value, air quality, capability, clerical 

error, concurrence, coordination, 

cultural images, cultural sustenance, 

decision document, documented need, 

ecological integrity, educational, 

evaluation, extent practicable, 

feedbacks, fiscal capability of the unit, 

grasslands, identify, Indian, interested 

parties, irreversible damage, landscape 

character, no reasonable assurance, 

opportunity, partners, reasonably 

foreseeable budgets, renewable energy 

projects, renewable resources, scenic 

attractiveness, scenic integrity, smallscale reasonably foreseeable risks, 

spatial mosaic, spiritual, substantial and 

permanent impairment, sustainable 

management of infrastructure, 

transportation and utility corridors, 

valid existing rights, and watershed 

conditions. 

Response: Some of the requested 

definitions were included in the final 

rule, where including a definition 

provides additional meaning or clarity, 

or where the term is uncommon terms 

or used with a specific meaning. Other 

requested definitions were not included, 

either because the term was not 

included in the final rule, or the 

Department used the terms in their 

ordinary meaning. 

Comment: Requests for inclusion of 

definitions. Some respondents felt 

additional definitions should be 

included in the rule, including: airstrip, 

alternate disputes resolution methods, 

animal welfare, appropriately 

interpreted and applied, biodiversity, 

biological integration, completeness or 

wholeness, cost effectiveness, cost 

efficiency, default width, ecological 

unit, ecologically sustainable, economic 

efficiency, efficiency, environmental 

justice, healthy and resilient ecosystem, 

incidental recreation, Indian land, 

internal trailheads, materially altered, 

measureable progress, national historic 

trails, net public benefits, non-Tribal 

indigenous entity, primitive road, 

reasonable basis, recreational values, 

roadless area, scenic landscape 

character, science-based understanding, 

silviculture, soundscape, substantive 

way, sustainable multiple uses, and 

timely manner. 

Response: The final rule either does 

not use the term; therefore, a definition 

is not provided or the final rule uses the 

commonly understood meaning, making 

definition unnecessary. 

Comment: Definition of assessment. A 

respondent felt the definition of 

assessment should be revised to allow 

for the development of new information 

if and when it is necessary for a 

successful assessment. 

Response: The Department has 

modified the definition to be clear that 

an assessment is to focus on and rapidly 

evaluate existing information to provide 

an informed basis and context for 

initiating a change to a plan or plan 

development. The need for new 

information may be identified in the 

assessment report, but development of 

new information is not required or 

intended during the assessment process. 

Comment: Definition of collaboration 

processes. A respondent felt the Agency 

should define collaborative process. A 

respondent requested the Agency add 

the concept of feedback to collaboration 

definition. 

Response: The proposed rule defined 

collaboration; the final rule defines both 

collaboration and collaborative process 

using the proposed rule’s definition of 

collaboration. The definition is 

unchanged except that the last sentence 

of the proposed rule’s definition was 

moved to § 219.4. The concept of 

feedback is indirectly included in the 

proposed rule definition. The concept of 

feedback is an important part of why the 

Department supports an adaptive 

framework that provides meaningful 

opportunities for public participation 

early and throughout the process. The 

moved sentence clarifies that under 

collaboration the Forest Service retains 

decisionmaking authority and 

responsibility for all decisions 

throughout the process. 

Comment: Definitions for 

congressionally designated areas and 

administratively designated areas. A 

respondent felt separating of 

congressionally designated and 

administratively designated areas 

through the definition would help in 

clarifying their differences, including a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21245 

definition for national scenic and 

historic trail. A comment was received 

on the preferred alternative, asking if 

the lists in the definition of designated 

areas were exhaustive. 

Response: The Department clarified 

the definition of designated areas in the 

final rule. The definition encompasses 

both congressionally and 

administratively designated areas, and 

provides examples of areas that are 

designated by each process. National 

scenic trails are referenced as one of the 

examples of a designated area, but a 

separate definition was not added to the 

final rule. The final rule provides 

direction for wilderness and wild and 

scenic rivers in § 219.10(b) separately 

from other designated or recommended 

areas because their associated 

legislation contains specific 

requirements for the Secretary of 

Agriculture. The final rule in 

§ 219.10(b)(vi) provides for appropriate 

management of other designated or 

recommended areas, which would 

include areas such as congressionally 

designated national historic trails. To 

respond to the comment on the 

preferred alternative, the Department 

clarified the definition of designated 

areas to explicitly show that the list of 

examples is not exhaustive by removing 

the word ‘‘include’’ and added the 

words: Examples of * * * designated 

areas are. 

Comment: Definition of connectivity. 

Some respondents felt the definition 

should remove the word ‘‘separate’’ so 

that it includes connectivity both within 

and between national forests at multiple 

scales, reflecting the disparate needs of 

different species with different 

capacities for mobility. A respondent 

said the term is not appropriate because 

it might trigger counterproductive 

litigation. 

Response: Connectivity is an 

important part of the concept of 

ecological integrity. The Department 

therefore retained the term in the final 

rule, and modified it in response to 

public comments. The Department 

modified the definition of connectivity, 

removing the words that would limit the 

concept to ‘‘separate national forest or 

grassland areas.’’ The final rule 

definition is worded to apply to several 

scales and to identify the types of the 

biophysical aspects of ecological 

functions that the term encompasses. 

Comment: Definition of conservation. 

Respondents felt the proposed rule 

definition fails to include elements of 

resource use and wise use, or should not 

include preservation or should not 

include management. 

Response: The Department retains the 

definition of conservation because the 

definition is consistent with the use of 

the term in the rule. However, the 

Department added species to the list of 

resources included in the definition so 

that conservation is defined as the 

protection, preservation, management, 

or restoration of natural environments, 

ecological communities, and species. 

Comment: Definition of disturbance. 

A respondent felt the definition of 

disturbance should go beyond biological 

resources and extend to cultural, 

historic, recreational, and aesthetic 

resources as well. 

Response: In the final rule, the 

concept of disturbance is limited to any 

disruption of an ecosystem, watershed, 

plant and animal community, or species 

population: therefore the Department 

retained the proposed rule definition. 

Such disturbance may result in impacts 

to cultural, historic, recreation, 

aesthetic, or other resources or uses. 

Comment: Definition of diversity. A 

respondent felt the rule needs a 

definition of ‘‘diversity.’’ One 

respondent requested a definition of 

biodiversity. 

Response: When the term diversity is 

used alone in the rule, its meaning is the 

commonly understood use of the term 

and therefore no rule definition of the 

term is necessary. The final rule retains 

a definition of the term ecosystem 

diversity. The term biodiversity is not in 

the rule, and therefore no definition of 

that term is needed. 

Comment: Definition of ecosystem 

services. Some respondents felt specific 

aspects of services should be included 

in the definition. Other respondents felt 

the proposed definition is too limiting 

to ‘‘direct human utility.’’ A respondent 

felt the proposed rule definition mixes 

services with uses and resources, 

making the term ‘‘ecosystem services’’ 

confusing. 

Response: The final rule retains the 

proposed definition, which focuses on 

the ‘‘benefits people obtain from 

ecosystems.’’ The definition is 

consistent with the MUSYA mandate to 

‘‘administer the renewable surface 

resources of the national forests for 

multiple use and sustained yield of the 

several products and services obtained 

therefrom’’ (16 U.S.C. 529), and allows 

for changing conditions and needs. 

Comment: Definition of focal species. 

A respondent felt the definition of focal 

species is too narrow: it should not be 

limited to a small number because of 

fiscal capability. 

Response: The Department changed 

the definition of focal species based on 

public comment to clarify the intended 

role of focal species in assessing the 

effectiveness of the plan in maintaining 

the diversity of plant and animal 

communities in the plan area, as 

required in § 219.9. The Department 

retained the concept of a small number 

in the final rule because the responsible 

official has discretion to choose the 

small subset of focal species that he or 

she determines will be useful and 

reasonable in providing the information 

necessary to make informed 

management decisions. The Department 

does not expect a focal species to be 

selected for every element of ecological 

conditions. 

Comment: Definition of integrated 

resource management. Several 

respondents felt the phrase ‘‘integrated 

resource management’’ needed to be 

defined. 

Response: In the final rule the term 

has been defined as multiple-use 

management that recognizes the 

interdependence of ecological resources 

and is based on the need for integrated 

consideration of ecological, social, and 

economic factors. The approach of 

integrated resource management 

considers all relevant interdependent 

elements of sustainability as a whole, 

instead of as separate resources or uses. 

‘‘Integrated resource management’’ is 

not the same as the ‘‘all-lands 

approach.’’ ‘‘Integrated resource 

management’’ refers to the way in which 

the resources are to be considered, as a 

whole instead of by individual resource. 

The ‘‘all-lands approach’’ refers to the 

area of analysis for the planning phases, 

which can extend beyond the national 

forest and grassland boundary. 

Comment: Definition of landscape. A 

respondent felt landscapes should not 

be defined as being irrespective of 

ownership. 

Response: The Department recognizes 

and respects ownership boundaries. The 

definition applies to a perspective for 

assessment purposes for resources and 

influences that may extend beyond the 

NFS boundary. The Department 

retained the landscape term in the final 

rule because conditions and trends 

across the broader area may influence, 

or be influenced by projects or activities 

on NFS lands. Plan components would 

apply only the NFS lands, but the 

responsible official should be informed 

by an understanding of the broader 

landscape when developing plan 

components. 

Comment: Definition of local and 

indigenous knowledge. Some 

respondents felt the rule should provide 

a definition for local and indigenous 

knowledge, and this knowledge should 

not be considered on the same level as 

scientifically- or historically-based 

information. 

Response: Section 219.19 of the final 

rule retains the proposed rule’s 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

definition for native knowledge. The 

final rule requires the use of the best 

available scientific information to 

inform decisions. The final rule strikes 

a balance for using science as an integral 

and foundational, but not the sole, 

influence on planning, allowing for 

other sources of information or input, 

including native knowledge, to be 

considered during the planning process. 

Comment: Definition of monitoring. A 

respondent felt the definition of 

monitoring should be revised to capture 

the concept of measuring the response 

of resources to land management over 

time. Another respondent felt the 

definition should include the concepts 

of inventory, continuity, desired 

conditions, public participation, and 

open and transparent process. 

Response: The final rule revised the 

proposed rule definition to remove the 

words ‘‘over time and space’’ to ensure 

that the definition is broad enough to 

incorporate the concept of measuring 

the response of resources to land 

management over time, or at a single 

instant, at a broad geographic scale, or 

at a specific location, depending on the 

objective for an individual monitoring 

question or indicator. The rule 

framework itself is based on the concept 

that the set of monitoring questions and 

indicators that make up the monitoring 

program will be used to inform adaptive 

management on the unit over time. The 

terms that the commenter wishes added 

to the definition are key concepts and 

terms in the rule, but adding them to the 

definition of monitoring is unnecessary. 

Comment: Multiple use definition. 

Some respondents requested specific 

inclusions and exclusions from the 

definition of ‘‘multiple use. Other 

respondents requested more detailed 

definitions or explanations about 

specific terms associated with § 219.10 

Multiple use, such as access, aesthetic 

value, small-scale renewable energy 

projects and transportation and utility 

corridors. 

Response: The definition does not 

reference specific uses or services. The 

definition was established by Congress 

at 16 U.S.C. 531. The type of direction 

requested by the respondents is more 

appropriate as part of the specific 

requirements of the final rule, as part of 

plans, or as part of projects or activities 

carried out under the plans. 

Other terms used in § 219.10 are 

defined where necessary; see the first 

response to comments in this section for 

additional discussion. 

Comment: Definition of participation. 

A respondent felt that the definition of 

participation be defined as engagement 

in activities. 

Response: The Department retained 

the proposed rule definition for 

participation because the Department 

cannot require engagement; but it can 

offer participation opportunities. 

Comment: Definition of productivity. 

A respondent felt the current definition 

of ‘‘productivity’’ should be amended to 

include economic productivity. 

Response: The Department’s use of 

the term productivity in the rule does 

not include economic productivity; 

therefore, the proposed rule definition is 

retained in the final rule. 

Comment: Definition of restoration. 

Several respondents felt the definition 

should not include the concept of going 

back to ecosystem conditions that once 

existed, especially under changing 

climatic conditions. Still others felt that 

the definition should be clearer and 

more in line with definitions found in 

the scientific literature. 

Response: The final planning rule 

adopts the definition advanced by the 

Society for Ecological Restoration 

International, but retains from the 

proposed rule (with minor word 

changes) the additional explanation that 

ecological restoration focuses on 

reestablishing the composition, 

structure, pattern, and ecological 

processes necessary to facilitate 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem 

sustainability, resilience, and health 

under current and future conditions. 

Chapter 3 of the Final PEIS discusses 

the relevance of evaluating the range of 

natural variation in the ‘‘Historical 

Range of Variability (HRV) as a Way of 

Understanding the Historical Nature of 

Ecosystems and Their Variation’’ under 

the ‘‘Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems’’ 

portion of the Affected Environment 

discussion. 

Comment: Definition of riparian area 

vs. riparian management zones. Some 

respondents felt the use of the terms 

‘‘riparian areas’’ and ‘‘riparian 

management zones’’ between the 

preamble and the proposed rule were 

inconsistent. Some felt the proposed 

definition of riparian areas was outdated 

and did not reflect current science and 

understanding of riparian areas function 

and management. 

Response: The final rule rewords the 

proposed rule’s definition for ‘‘riparian 

areas’’ and adds a definition for 

‘‘riparian management zone.’’ Riparian 

areas are ecologically defined areas of 

transition between terrestrial and 

aquatic systems and have unique 

characteristics, values, and functions 

within the landscape. Riparian 

management zones are portions of 

watersheds areas where ripariandependent resources receive primary 

emphasis. ‘‘Riparian areas’’ are defined 

in physical and biological terms; 

riparian management zones are defined 

in administrative terms. A riparian area 

and a riparian management zone would 

overlap, but one may be wider or 

narrower than the other. 

Comment: Definition of risk. A 

respondent felt the definition of ‘‘risk’’ 

should refer to ‘‘probability’’ and 

‘‘magnitude.’’ 

Response: The Department retains the 

definition of the proposed rule for risk 

because ‘‘probability and magnitude’’ 

are equivalent to ‘‘likelihood and 

severity’’ in the proposed rule 

definition, which is ‘‘a combination of 

the likelihood that a negative outcome 

will occur and the severity of the 

subsequent negative consequences.’’ 

Comment: Definition of social science. 

A respondent felt the final rule should 

define social science. 

Response: The term ‘‘social science’’ 

was not in the proposed rule and is not 

in the final rule, and therefore need not 

be defined. The final rule includes 

reference to social sustainability in the 

definition for sustainability. 

Comment: Definition of stressor. A 

respondent felt the Agency should 

define the term stressor. 

Response: The Department defines the 

term stressor in the final rule as a factor 

that may directly or indirectly degrade 

or impair ecosystem composition, 

structure, or ecological process in a 

manner that may impair its ecological 

integrity, such as invasive species, loss 

of connectivity, or the disruption of a 

natural disturbance regime. 

Comment: Definition of sustainable 

recreation. A respondent felt the term 

was defined vaguely and should be 

deleted from the rule. A respondent felt 

ecosystem services and sustainable 

recreation are equivalent concepts but 

defined differently so that it is 

confusing. A respondent felt the 

definition should include the 

predictability of opportunities, 

programs, and facilities over time. A 

respondent said the definition should 

include ecologically sustainable, 

economically sustainable, fiscally 

sustainable, socially sustainable, and be 

focused on outcomes. A respondent 

objected to the inclusion of the 

undefined term ‘‘social sustainability’’ 

in the definition of sustainable 

recreation, because social sustainability 

might be an opportunity to remove 

hunting and fishing from the NFS. 

Response: The Department decided to 

keep the term but modify the definition 

for clarity. The definition in the rule is: 

‘‘the set of recreation settings and 

opportunities on the National Forest 

System that is ecologically, 

economically, and socially sustainable 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21247 

for present and future generations.’’ In 

addition, the Department defined the 

terms economic sustainability and 

social sustainability as part of the 

definition of sustainability. The socially 

sustainable part of sustainable 

recreation (when considered within the 

boundaries of the NFS, which is how we 

have now defined it) deals largely with 

addressing conflicts between uses. 

The Department’s use of the term 

socially sustainable is intended to give 

the opposite direction as the 

respondent’s concern, leading to 

support for hunting and fishing 

opportunities because hunting and 

fishing are important to sustain 

traditions and connect people to the 

land and to one another. 

Comment: Definition of viable 

population. Some respondents felt the 

rule should replace ‘‘sufficient 

distribution to be resilient and 

adaptable’’ in the proposed definition 

and incorporate the phrase ‘‘welldistributed in habitats throughout the 

plan area’’ and ‘‘high likelihood’’ over a 

specified time period (50 years) into the 

definition of viable population. 

Response: See the response to 

comments to section 219.9 for a 

discussion of the term well-distributed. 

The final planning rule does not 

specifically incorporate ‘‘high 

likelihood’’ or a specified time period 

into the definition of viable population 

because it is difficult to interpret and 

measure consistently and because 

estimating the probabilities of 

maintaining a viable population of a 

particular species of conservation 

concern over a certain period time will 

vary from species to species and from 

unit to unit, depending on existing 

conditions and potential existing and 

future threats and stressors, especially 

those related to climate change, that 

may affect species differently on 

different NFS units. 

Subpart B—Pre-Decisional 

Administrative Review Process 

Introduction to This Subpart 

Subpart B sets forth the requirements 

for the objection process in this final 

rule. 

Prior to the 2000 rule, the 

administrative review process for plan 

decisions provided an opportunity for a 

post-decisional appeal. With this 

process, a plan was generally put into 

effect before the appeal was resolved. 

This scenario has often been 

problematic because when reviewing 

appeals, if a reviewing officer finds fault 

with a plan already in effect, the remedy 

can be costly to both the Forest Service 

and the public in terms of time and 

money. Such a situation can also 

damage public trust in the planning 

process. Interim direction is often put 

into place while the responsible official 

prepares further analysis and other 

appropriate corrections. 

After receiving initial public input, 

reviewing public comments, and taking 

into account agency history and 

experience regarding pre- or postdecision administrative appeal 

processes, the Department decided to 

include a pre-decisional administrative 

review process, called an objection 

process, in the final rule. An objection 

prompts an independent administrative 

review by an official at a level above the 

deciding official and a process for 

resolution of issues. This process allows 

interested individuals to voice 

objections and point out potential errors 

or violations of law, regulations, or 

agency policy prior to approval and 

implementation of a decision. The 

Forest Service has successfully used a 

similar process since 2004 for 

administrative review of hazardous fuel 

reduction projects developed pursuant 

to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

Section 219.50—Purpose and Scope 

This section states that the purpose of 

the subpart is to establish a process for 

pre-decisional administrative review of 

plans, plan amendments, and plan 

revisions. 

Section 219.50—Response to Comments 

This subpart describes a predecisional administrative review 

(objection) process for plans, plan 

amendments, or plan revisions. The 

Department retains the 2011 proposed 

rule wording in the final rule of 

§ 219.50. To respond to comments on 

the preferred alternative, the 

Department changed the wording in 

§ 219.50 and throughout subpart B to 

clarify that the parties that may object 

include States and Tribes as well as 

organizations and individuals. The 

preferred alternative and the proposed 

rule used the terms ‘‘individual’’ and 

‘‘organization’’ for those who may file 

an objection. States and Tribes are not 

organizations; therefore, the Department 

changed the term ‘‘organization’’ to 

‘‘entity’’ in sections 219.50, 219.53, 

219.55 and 219.61. These modifications 

to subpart B are clarifications, not 

changes in requirements, 

Comment: Objection process over 

appeals process. Some respondents 

expressed support for the objection 

process while some respondents want 

the objection process removed and 

replaced with the appeals process, or 

want to see both processes used. 

Response: The Department’s choice of 

this approach is based on two primary 

considerations. First, a pre-decisional 

objection is more consistent with the 

collaborative nature of this final rule 

and encourages interested parties to 

bring specific concerns forward earlier 

in the planning process, allowing the 

Forest Service a chance to consider and 

respond to potential problems in a plan 

or decision before it is approved and 

implemented. Second, pre-decisional 

objections lead to a more timely and 

efficient planning process, reducing 

waste of taxpayer and agency time and 

dollars spent implementing projects 

under plans subsequently found to be 

flawed. 

With a pre-decisional objection 

process, the responsible official, the 

reviewing official, interested parties, 

and the objector have the opportunity to 

seek reasonable solutions to conflicting 

views of plan components before a 

responsible official approves a plan, 

plan amendment, or plan revision. This 

approach fits well with a collaborative 

approach to planning, and encourages 

resolution before a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision is 

approved. 

The Department believes that having 

both a pre-decisional objection process 

and a post decision appeals process 

would be redundant and inefficient. 

Section 219.51—Plans, Plan 

Amendments, or Plan Revisions Not 

Subject To Objection 

This section identifies those plans, 

plan amendments, or plan revisions that 

would not be subject to the predecisional objection process under the 

final rule. 

Section 219.51—Response to Comments 

The Department retains the 2011 

proposed rule wording in the final rule 

except to change the term formal 

comments to substantive formal 

comments. This change was made 

throughout this subpart. 

Comment: Secretary decisions subject 

to administrative review. Some 

respondents felt decisions made by the 

Secretary or the Under Secretary for 

Natural Resources and Environment 

affecting the Forest Service should be 

subject to administrative review. 

Response: Land management plan 

decisions made by the Secretary or 

Under Secretary for Natural Resources 

and Environment have never been 

subject to appeal or objection. The 

Department chooses not to change this 

approach. The Agency anticipates that 

approvals of plans, plan amendments, 

or plan revisions by the Secretary or 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Under Secretary will continue to be rare 

occurrences. 

Section 219.52—Giving Notice of a Plan, 

Plan Amendment, or Plan Revision 

Subject To Objection Before Approval 

Section 219.52 provides additional 

information for providing the public 

notice, required by § 219.16 subpart A, 

that would begin the objection filing 

period. This notice serves three 

particular purposes: (1) To notify parties 

eligible to file objections that the 

objection filing period is commencing; 

(2) to notify parties eligible to file 

objections and others of the availability 

of planning documents and how to 

obtain those documents; and, (3) to 

establish a publicly and legally 

verifiable start date for the objection 

filing period. 

Section 219.52 would require the 

Forest Service to make a special effort 

to ensure the public understands how 

the objection process in this subpart 

would be used for each plan, plan 

amendment, and plan revision. 

Specifically, the responsible official 

would be required to disclose the 

objection procedures by stating that this 

process will be used during scoping 

under the NEPA process and in the 

appropriate NEPA documents. Early 

disclosure will help ensure that those 

parties who may want to file objections 

are aware of the necessary steps to be 

eligible. 

The final rule also requires the 

responsible official to make the public 

notice for beginning the objection filing 

period available to those who have 

requested the environmental documents 

or who are eligible to file an objection. 

This requirement is intended to ensure 

that the necessary information reaches 

those who have specifically requested it 

and those who could have a particular 

interest in the start of the objection 

filing period by virtue of their eligibility 

to file an objection. 

Paragraph (c) outlines the format and 

content of the public notice to ensure 

potential objectors have necessary 

procedural information, can find 

underlying documents, and understand 

the process, timing, and requirements 

for filing an objection. 

Section 219.52—Response to Comments 

Changes were made to wording in this 

section to be consistent with changes 

made in response to public comments 

on other sections in this subpart, 

including changing the term ‘‘formal 

comments’’ to ‘‘substantive formal 

comments’’ and the objection periods 

from 30 days in the proposed rule to 45 

days, or 60 days if an EIS was prepared. 

The Department added a sentence to 

paragraph (a) of this section to allow the 

responsible official to choose to use the 

objection process for a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision initiated 

before the effective date of the rule even 

when the scoping notice had not 

indicated that an objection process 

would be used. To ensure meaningful 

notice is given, however, the notice that 

the objection process will be used must 

be given prior to an opportunity to 

provide substantive formal comment on 

a proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

revision and associated environmental 

analysis. 

A requirement to make the documents 

identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section available online at the time of 

public notice was added for clarity, to 

reflect the Department’s intent. 

Comment: Notice of a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision subject to 

objection. Some respondents felt 

‘‘making available’’ the public notice for 

the beginning of the objection period for 

a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision was not adequate notification. 

Response: Section 219.16(a)(3) of 

subpart A requires formal notification of 

the beginning of the objection period by 

posting the information online, and via 

the Federal Register and/or the 

newspaper of record as set forth in 

§ 219.16(c). The term ‘‘making 

available’’ is used in this section to 

allow the responsible official the 

flexibility to use other tools at his or her 

disposal for notification, for example, 

sending an email to a list of interested 

parties or issuing a news release, in 

addition to the formal notifications 

identified in § 219.16. 

Comment: Specific date for the start 

of the objection process. Some 

respondents felt there is a need for a 

specific publication date for the 

beginning of the objection period. 

Response: The Department believes 

the matter is best addressed by having 

the objection filing deadline begin the 

day after publication of the public 

notice as outlined in § 219.56(b)(2). 

Although the Agency can request 

newspapers publish notices on a certain 

date, a publication date is not 

guaranteed. When publication occurs on 

a different date than estimated, the 

result could lead to confusion. By not 

publishing a (potentially different) 

starting date, the Department believes 

the potential for confusion is reduced or 

eliminated and leaves all parties with 

the same information. 

Comment: Need to guess and predict 

decision. Some respondents said the 

objection process forces the public to 

guess and predict what the actual 

decision will be. 

Response A draft plan decision 

document is one of the items § 219.52 

(c) requires to be made available to the 

public when public notice of the 

beginning of the objection process is 

given. If no objections are filed, the 

draft, once signed would become the 

decision. If an objection is filed, there 

may be changes made for the final 

decision. The objection process allows 

objectors and interested parties to meet 

with the reviewing officer to try to 

resolve issues raised in an objection 

before a final plan decision. This 

process is more efficient and more 

consistent with the participatory 

approach used in the final rule. 

Section 219.53—Who May File an 

Objection 

This section of the rule identifies 

eligibility requirements for filing an 

objection under this subpart. This 

section is written in the context of 

§ 219.4 in subpart A, which expresses 

the Agency’s intent to involve the 

public early and throughout the 

planning process in keeping with the 

collaborative nature of this final rule. 

Section 219.53—Response to Comments 

Except for minor corrections of 

editorial errors, the Department retains 

the proposed rule wording. The 

Department changed the term ‘‘formal 

comments’’ to ‘‘substantive formal 

comments.’’ In the proposed rule, we 

used both terms; in the final rule, we 

used the term ‘‘substantive formal 

comments’’ consistently throughout. 

The Department clarified in paragraph 

(a) that objections must be based on 

previously submitted substantive formal 

comments ‘‘attributed to the objector’’ to 

be consistent with § 219.54(c)(7). As 

discussed in response to comments for 

§ 219.50, the Department changed the 

term ‘‘organizations’’ to ‘‘entities’’ in 

this section. These changes are not 

changes in requirements, but are 

clarifications. 

Comment: Substantive formal 

comment. Some respondents requested 

the rule define ‘‘substantive formal 

comment.’’ 

Response: The proposed rule 

included a definition for ‘‘formal 

comments.’’ The final rule includes 

instead a definition of ‘‘substantive 

formal comments,’’ the term used 

throughout this subpart in the final rule, 

at § 219.62 of the final rule, in response 

to this comment. The definition is 

consistent with the definition used in 

Agency appeal regulations 36 CFR part 

215 for ‘‘substantive comment.’’ 

Comment: Who may file an objection? 

Some respondents felt limiting the 

opportunity for filing an objection to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21249 

those who have participated in 

providing substantive formal comments 

was the correct approach. Other 

respondents felt anyone should be able 

to file an objection. 

Response: The rule requires the 

responsible official to engage the public 

early and throughout the planning 

process in an open and transparent way, 

providing opportunities for meaningful 

public participation to inform all stages 

of planning. The requirement for 

limiting the opportunity for filing an 

objection to those who have provided 

substantive formal comments during at 

least one public participation 

opportunity is intended to encourage 

public engagement throughout the 

planning process and help ensure that 

the Agency has the opportunity to hear 

and respond to potential problems as 

early as possible in the process. Without 

this requirement some substantive 

problems might not be identified until 

the end of the planning process. 

This requirement will increase the 

efficiency of the planning process and 

the effectiveness of plans by 

encouraging early and meaningful 

public participation. Engaging the 

public early and often results in better 

identification of issues and concerns 

and allows the Agency to respond 

earlier in the process and in a way that 

is transparent to all members of the 

public. 

Comment: Substantive comment 

submittal requirement. Some 

respondents felt the proposed rule 

requirement for participation by a 

formal comment submittal in order to 

file an objection is an undue burden on 

the public because organizations and 

individuals with limited resources 

cannot be expected to participate in all 

public involvement opportunities. 

Others felt it places an unreasonable 

limitation on the ability of citizens to 

participate in the objection process. Still 

others disagree with the basic concept of 

not submitting formal comments 

equates to not having an opportunity to 

object. 

Response: Because the final rule 

requires significant investment in 

providing opportunities for public 

participation, the Department believes it 

is important to honor that process and 

ensure that issues arise as early in the 

process as possible, when then can best 

be addressed. The Department does not 

believe it is too high a burden for a 

potential objector to first engage in and 

provide formal substantive comments 

during at least one of the numerous 

opportunities for public participation 

during the planning process for a plan, 

plan amendment, or plan revision. 

Subpart B does not require participation 

in every one of those opportunities. This 

requirement should assist in the timely 

involvement of the public. The 

objection process is expected to resolve 

many potential conflicts by encouraging 

resolution before a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision is 

approved. 

Comment: Objection eligibility. Some 

respondents felt the objection process 

forces the public to submit comments 

on everything in order to preserve their 

right to object based on submitted 

comments. A number of respondents 

stated objections should be permitted on 

issues raised by any party at any time. 

Response: The planning process is 

intended to engage interested 

individuals and entities in an ongoing 

dialogue in which all substantive issues 

and concerns are identified. The 

Department decided to retain the 

requirements in this section to make 

sure that issues are identified as early as 

possible, by the parties interested in 

those issues. At the same time, this 

subpart recognizes that there may be 

issues that arise after the opportunities 

for public comment, and allows parties 

who have participated earlier to object 

on those issues. 

Comment: Objections by other Federal 

agencies and Federal employees. A 

respondent stated that objections from 

other Federal agencies should be 

allowed. Another respondent stated that 

a Federal employee should be allowed 

to file an objection and should be 

allowed to include and discuss nonpublic information in their objection. 

Response: The objection process is an 

administrative review opportunity for 

individuals and entities, other than 

Federal agencies. Federal agencies have 

other avenues for working together to 

resolve concerns, including 

consultations required by various 

environmental protection laws. It is 

expected that Federal agencies will 

work cooperatively during the planning 

process. 

Federal employees who meet 

eligibility requirements of § 219.53(a) 

and choose to file an objection may do 

so, but not in an official capacity. They 

must not be on official duty or use 

Government property or equipment in 

the preparation or filing of an objection, 

nor may they include information only 

available to them in their official 

capacity as Federal employees. 

Section 219.54—Filing an Objection 

This section of the final rule sets out 

how to file an objection, and the 

minimum content that must be 

included. 

Section 219.54—Response to Comments 

Minor changes were made to this 

section in response to public comment. 

Paragraph (a) was changed to clarify that 

all objections must be submitted to the 

reviewing officer for the plan. The 

Department added ‘‘other published 

Forest Service documents’’ to (b)(2) of 

this section to indicate that, along with 

Forest Service Directives System 

documents and land management plans, 

published Forest Service documents 

may be referenced rather than included 

in an objection. The Department also 

clarified in Paragraph (b) that any 

documents not listed in (b)(1)–(4) that 

are referenced in an objection must be 

included with the objection or a web 

link must be provided. These minor 

changes and clarifications reflect public 

comments. 

Comment: Proposed prohibition on 

incorporation by reference. Some 

respondents felt the proposed 

prohibition on incorporation by 

reference is unduly burdensome. Some 

felt the wording on what references are 

required to be included in an objection 

were unclear. 

Response: Section 219.54(b) of the 

final rule retains the proposed rule 

wording. The Department believes the 

requirements are clear, and will help the 

reviewing officer understand the 

objection and review it in a timely way. 

The documents that can be included by 

reference include: Federal laws and 

regulations, Forest Service Directives 

System documents, land management 

plans, and other published documents, 

documents referenced by the Forest 

Service in the planning documentation 

related to the proposal subject to 

objection, and formal comments 

previously provided to the Forest 

Service by the objector during a 

proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision comment period. The final 

rule was modified to allow for 

published Forest Service documents to 

be included by reference as well. All 

documents not identified in the list in 

§ 219.54(b), or Web links to those 

documents, must be included with the 

objection, if referenced in the objection. 

Comment: Internet submission of 

objections. Some respondents felt the 

rule should allow filing of objections via 

Internet communication. 

Response: An email submittal to the 

appropriate email address is an 

acceptable form of filing an objection. 

Comment: Remedy inclusion 

requirement. Some respondents felt 

requiring inclusion of a potential 

remedy presents an obstacle for 

participation in the objection process. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: The objection process sets 

the stage for meaningful dialogue on 

how a proposed plan, plan amendment, 

or plan revision could be improved. The 

objection, including suggesting about 

how the proposed plan may be 

improved, can be concise, but should 

provide a basis for dialogue to resolve 

concerns. The reviewing officer should 

be able to use the objection to engage 

with the objector and other interested 

parties during the objection period to 

determine an appropriate course of 

action. 

Section 219.55—Objections Set Aside 

From Review 

This section describes the various 

circumstances that would require a 

reviewing officer to set aside an 

objection from review and the 

notification requirements related to 

setting an objection aside. 

Section 219.55—Response to Comments 

The Department made minor changes 

for clarity and consistency. Comments 

on this section were answered in 

response to comments regarding 

§ 219.53. As discussed in response to 

comments for § 219.50, the Department 

changed the term ‘‘organization’’ to 

‘‘entity’’ in this section. 

Section 219.56—Objection Time Periods 

and Process 

This section details the time in which 

objections can be filed, how time 

periods are calculated, the evidence 

required to demonstrate a timely filing, 

the role and responsibilities of the 

reviewing officer, publication of 

notifications, and the reviewing officer’s 

response requirements. 

Section 219.56—Response to Comments 

Two changes were made to this 

section. The Department lengthened the 

amount of time from 30 days to 60 days 

to file an objection if an EIS has been 

prepared and the Department 

lengthened the time from 30 days to 45 

days if an EIS is not prepared. This 

change in procedural requirements was 

made to give more time to the public in 

response to public comment on the 

proposed rule. Changes to other sections 

in this subpart were made to be 

consistent with this change. 

In addition, in paragraph (e) of this 

section, the Department added the 

requirement that for an objection or part 

of an objection related to the selection 

of species of conservation concern, the 

reviewing officer may not be the 

regional forester who identified those 

species, but must be a different line 

officer. The Chief may be the reviewing 

officer or may delegate the reviewing 

officer authority and responsibility to a 

line officer at the same administrative 

level as the regional forester. In 

addition, the Department added a 

requirement for the reviewing officer for 

the plan to convey any such objections 

to the appropriate line officer. These 

changes in requirements are needed 

because of the change in § 219.9(c) 

subpart A requiring that the regional 

forester, rather than the responsible 

official for the plan, identify the species 

of conservation concern. 

Comment: Thirty-day comment 

period. Some respondents felt the 30- 

day time limit for filing an objection is 

too short. 

Response: Section 219.56 was 

changed to modify the objection filing 

period to 60 days for a new plan, plan 

revision, or a plan amendment for 

which an EIS is prepared, and 45 days 

for amendments for which an EIS is not 

prepared in response to this comment. 

Comment: Interested person’s 

timeframe. Some respondents felt the 

proposed interested person’s timeframe 

of 10 days is insufficient and would 

limit interested parties ability to fully 

participate in the objection process. 

Response: The final rule retains the 

10-day requirement. Persons who have 

been participating throughout the 

process should already be familiar with 

those issues, and should be able to file 

a request to participate within this 

timeframe. Granting a longer timeframe 

for filing a request to participate in an 

objection would affect the reviewing 

officer’s ability to schedule meetings in 

a timely manner to discuss issues raised 

in the objection with the objector and 

interested parties, thereby delaying 

resolution of an objection and impacting 

the reviewing officer’s ability to respond 

to all objections within the timeframe 

provided by § 219.57. 

Section 219.57—Resolution of 

Objections 

This section explains the 

Department’s requirements for the 

process and responsibilities related to 

the resolution of objectives. The intent 

of this process is to have a meaningful 

dialogue with objectors and interested 

parties in order to resolve as many 

concerns as possible prior to approval of 

a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision. 

Section 219.57—Response to Comments 

The Department retains the proposed 

rule wording in the final rule. 

Comment: Some respondents felt that 

not requiring a point by point written 

response to objections is contrary to the 

objective of resolving issues before 

decisions are made. 

Response: It is the intent of the 

Agency that all issues raised through 

objection will be responded to, although 

the responses may not necessarily 

address each issue individually. 

Consolidating objection issues and 

answering with a single response may 

be appropriate for objection issues of a 

similar or related nature. Consolidated 

responses allow similar issues to be 

examined and responded to consistently 

and efficiently. 

Section 219.58—Timing of a Plan, Plan 

Amendment, or Plan Revision Decision 

This section describes when a 

responsible official could approve a 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. 

Section 219.58—Response to Comments 

Other than a minor correction to 

paragraph (c) to change ‘‘30-day time 

period’’ to ‘‘allotted filing period’’ to be 

consistent with the option of either the 

60-day or 45-day time period for filing 

of an objection under § 219.56, the 

Department retains the proposed rule 

wording in the final rule. 

Comment: A respondent felt that the 

5-day business period following the 

objection period should be increased to 

10 days. 

Response: The Department 

determined that 5 business days are an 

adequate time period for an objection 

that was timely filed to be received by 

the reviewing officer, under any 

delivery option. 

Section 219.59—Use of Other 

Administrative Review Processes 

This section would allow for the use 

of other administrative review processes 

in lieu of the objection process in 

certain circumstances when the Forest 

Service is participating in a multiFederal agency planning process or 

when a plan amendment is approved in 

a decision document approving a 

project or activity. 

Section 219.59—Response to Comments 

The proposed rule authorized the 

reviewing officer to choose whether to 

adopt the administrative review 

procedure of another Federal agency. 

The final rule instead gives the 

responsible official this authority, to 

better reflect the Department’s intent, 

and consistent with the requirement for 

the responsible official to notify the 

public early in the planning process that 

a review process other than the 

objection process of this subpart would 

be used. 

Comment: Public burden. Some 

respondents expressed concern about 

the unreasonable and unfair burden 

placed on the public for site-specific 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21251 

plan amendments by having to respond 

to two processes, the NEPA appeal of 

project level activity and the planning 

NFMA objection process for planning 

decision. 

Response: The Department recognizes 

there may be limited circumstances 

when a plan amendment decision 

applicable to a project and all future 

projects in the plan area is made at the 

same time as that project or activity 

decision. In such circumstances, the 

objection process applies to the plan 

amendment decision, and the review 

process of 36 CFR part 215 or 218 would 

apply to the project or activity decision 

(§ 219.59(b)). In these circumstances, 

while the NEPA analysis for amendment 

and project may be combined, the 

responsible official is making two 

separate decisions: A project or activity 

decision and a plan amendment that 

applies to all future projects or 

activities. Each action, project, and 

amendment, should be reviewed under 

its appropriate review procedures. A 

person or entity may seek review of 

either or both, depending upon the 

person’s or entity’s concerns. 

The Department requires the public 

be notified during the NEPA process 

that the objection process will be used 

(unless the option provided by 

paragraph (a) of this section to use 

another process is available and 

chosen). The Agency’s NEPA 

requirements serve to assure ample 

opportunities for notification of the 

public of the use of the objection 

process as well as the beginning of the 

objection process. 

Section 219.60—Secretary’s Authority 

This section clarifies that nothing in 

this subpart restricts the statutory 

authority of the Secretary of Agriculture 

regarding the protection, management, 

or administration of NFS lands. 

Section 219.60—Response to Comments 

The section of the final rule is 

unchanged from the proposed rule. No 

comments were submitted by the public 

on this section. 

Section 219.61—Information Collection 

Requirements 

This section explains that this 

subpart’s requirements regarding 

information that an objector must 

provide are ‘‘information collection 

requirements’’ as defined by 5 CFR part 

1320 and that these requirements have 

been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Section 219.61—Response to Comments 

This section of the final rule is 

unchanged from the proposed rule. No 

comments were submitted by the public 

on this section. 

Section 219.62—Definitions 

This section defines some of the terms 

and phrases used in subpart B of the 

proposed rule. 

Section 219.62—Response to Comments 

The Department has made a few 

minor changes throughout this section. 

The final rule dropped the definition 

of ‘‘formal comments’’ and added a 

definition of ‘‘substantive formal 

comments.’’ This definition includes the 

definition of the proposed rule’s term, 

‘‘formal comments,’’ and added wording 

to clarify when comments are 

considered substantive. The final rule 

also modified the definition of 

‘‘objection period’’ by replacing the 

proposed rule’s ‘‘30 calendar day 

period’’ with ‘‘allotted filing period.’’ As 

discussed in response to comments for 

§ 219.50, the Department changed the 

term ‘‘organization’’ to ‘‘entity’’ in this 

section. 

Comment: Substantive formal 

comment: Some respondents requested 

the rule define ‘‘substantive formal 

comment.’’ 

Response: In response to this 

comment, and because the term 

‘‘substantive formal comment’’ is now 

used consistently throughout this 

subpart, the final rule defines 

‘‘substantive formal comments.’’ The 

definition is consistent with the 

definition used in Agency appeal 

regulations 36 CFR 215 for ‘‘substantive 

comment.’’ 

Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Agency reviewed this final rule 

under U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(Department) procedures and Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13563 issued January 18, 

2011, and E.O. 12866 issued September 

30, 1993. Executive Orders 13563 and 

12866 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. 

The final rule will not have an annual 

effect of $100 million or more on the 

economy or adversely affect 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State or local governments. This final 

rule will not interfere with an action 

taken or planned by another Agency. 

Finally, this final rule will not alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients of 

such programs. However, because of the 

extensive interest in National Forest 

System (NFS) planning and 

decisionmaking, this rule has been 

designated a significant regulatory 

action, although not economically 

significant, under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the rule has been reviewed by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

A cost benefit analysis, including the 

regulatory impact analysis requirements 

associated with Executive Orders 13563 

and 12866 and OMB circulars, has been 

developed. The analysis evaluates the 

regulatory impact and compares the 

costs and benefits of implementing the 

final rule to the baseline, which 

assumes planning pursuant to the 1982 

rule procedures, as allowed by the 

transition provisions of the 2000 

planning rule (36 CFR 219.35(b), 74 FR 

67073 (December 18, 2009)). This 

analysis is posted on the World Wide 

Web at: http://www.fs.usda/ 

planningrule, along with other 

documents associated with this final 

rule. 

The scope of this analysis is limited 

to programmatic or agency procedural 

activities related to plan development, 

plan revision, and plan amendment of 

land management plans for management 

units (for example, national forests, 

grasslands, prairies) within the NFS. No 

costs or benefits associated with on-theground projects or activities are 

characterized or projected. Potential 

procedural effects evaluated in the 

analysis include potential changes in 

agency costs for planning and changes 

in overall planning efficiency. In this 

analysis, costs refer to planning costs to 

the Agency. Benefits refer to the benefits 

of the alternatives in terms of planning 

efficiency and capacity for land 

management plans to maintain longterm health and productivity of the land 

for the benefits of human communities 

and natural resources. This analysis 

identifies and compares the costs and 

benefits associated with developing, 

maintaining, revising, and amending 

NFS land management plans under six 

alternatives: Alternative A the proposed 

NFS planning rule (proposed rule); 

Modified Alternative A modification of 

the proposed rule (final rule); 

Alternative B the implementation of 

1982 rule procedures under the 2000 

rule (No Action); Alternative C the 

minimum to meet the National Forest 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Management Act (NFMA) and purpose 

and need; Alternative D a modified 

version of the proposed rule with an 

alternative approach to species diversity 

and an emphasis on watershed health; 

Alternative E a modified version of the 

proposed rule with emphasis on 

monitoring performance and 

collaboration. Alternative B is the no 

action alternative and therefore the 

baseline for this analysis. 

The final rule includes the same 

concepts and underlying principles as 

the proposed rule. However, there are a 

number of changes to the rule text and 

to the document structure. The changes 

are based on public comment received 

during the comment period on the DEIS 

and the proposed rule (Alternative A). 

The cost and benefits of the final rule 

are evaluated within the context of a 

planning framework consisting of the 

three-part learning and planning cycle: 

Assessment, development/revision/ 

amendment, and monitoring. The costbenefit analysis focuses on key activities 

related to this three-part planning cycle 

for which agency costs can be estimated 

with the 1982 rule procedures as a 

baseline. Differences in costs across 

alternatives are estimated when 

possible, but benefits are discussed 

qualitatively as potential changes in 

procedural or programmatic efficiency. 

The key activities for which costs were 

analyzed include: (1) Assessments (for 

example, identification and evaluation 

of existing information relevant to the 

plan area to establish a basis of 

information and the landscape-scale 

context for management prior to 

changing the plan); (2) public 

participation (for example, collaboration 

and public participation activities not 

including those required by the NFMA 

and NEPA); (3) development and 

analysis of plan revision and 

amendment decisions (developing of 

alternatives to address the need to 

change the plan, analyzing and 

comparing the effects of alternatives, 

notification and comment solicitation 

requirements under NEPA, and 

finalizing and documenting plan 

revision and plan amendment 

decisions); (4) science support 

(activities for assuring identification and 

use of the best available scientific 

information); (5) resolution of issues 

regarding plan revisions or plan 

amendments through the administrative 

processes of appeals or objections; (6) 

monitoring (limited to those monitoring 

activities that support planning); and (7) 

minimum plan maintenance (minimum 

expenses to maintain a plan during nonrevision years, excluding assessment, 

collaboration, and analysis/decision 

costs associated specifically with plan 

amendments). 

Primary sources of data used to 

estimate agency costs include recent 

cost-benefit analyses, business 

evaluations, and budget justifications 

for planning rules issued between 2000 

and 2008 and recent historical data 

(1996–2009) regarding regional and 

unit-level budget allocations and paid 

expenditures for planning and 

monitoring activities related to 

planning. The 1982 rule procedures are 

considered the baseline for this analysis. 

Until a new planning rule is in place, 

the 1982 rule procedures are being used, 

as permitted by the transition provision 

of the 2000 rule, to develop, revise, and 

amend all plans. Agency costs are 

initially estimated for the 1982 rule 

procedures and then used as a baseline 

from which adjustments are made, 

based on explicit differences in 

planning procedures, to estimate the 

incremental impact of the final rule. 

However, it should be noted that cost 

projections of the final rule are 

speculative because there are challenges 

anticipating the process costs of revising 

and amending plans at this 

programmatic level of analysis. Annual 

costs are estimated separately for years 

during which units (with regional 

support) are engaged in plan revision 

and the years units are engaged in plan 

maintenance/amendment. The 

estimated costs are then aggregated to 

estimate total planning costs. Based on 

past studies and analyses of plan 

revisions under the 1982 rule 

procedures, the agency determines that 

plan revisions under the 1982 rule 

procedures will take approximately 5 

years. These studies and analyses 

indicate that plan revisions for some 

units may take 7 years or longer. For 

estimation of average agency costs for 

planning over a 15-year planning cycle, 

it is assumed that management units 

will be engaged in plan revision for 3 to 

4 years under the final rule and 5 years 

under the 1982 rule procedures, 

assuming annual plan maintenance or 

more frequent but shorter amendments 

than the 1982 rule procedures will be 

occurring for the remaining years 

between revision cycles. 

Monitoring is assumed to occur every 

year, but monitoring differs slightly for 

plan revision years compared to 

maintenance years. Shorter revision 

periods reflect the expectation that the 

process for revising plans will be more 

efficient under the final rule because of 

procedural changes described below 

(see ‘‘Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness 

Impacts’’). It is also assumed that 

approximately 120 management units 

will initiate plan revision over the next 

15 years (2012 through 2026). Total 

costs are assumed to cover activities 

directly related to planning (and 

monitoring for planning purposes) at the 

unit and regional office levels, as well 

as indirect or overhead (cost pools) 

activity for supporting planning 

activities, but do not include projectlevel costs. Costs associated with 

planning at the national office and 

research stations are assumed to remain 

relatively constant across alternatives; 

these costs are unknown but not 

expected to be substantial compared to 

other costs evaluated. Total costs (2009 

dollars ($)) are estimated for a 15-year 

planning cycle and then annualized 

assuming a 3 percent and 7 percent 

discount rate. Annualized costs accrued 

over the 15-year period reflect the 

annual flow of costs that have been 

adjusted to acknowledge society’s time 

value of money. 

Due to the programmatic nature of the 

final action, the benefits derived from 

land management plans developed, 

revised, or amended under the different 

alternatives are not quantified. Instead, 

the benefits of the alternatives are 

assessed qualitatively for procedural or 

programmatic efficiency. Efficiency is a 

function of (1) the time and resources 

used (costs) to complete and maintain 

plans, and (2) the degree to which those 

plans are capable of providing direction 

for resource monitoring, management, 

and use/access that sustains multiple 

uses (including ecosystem services) in 

perpetuity and maintains long-term 

health and productivity of the land for 

the benefit of human communities and 

natural resources, giving due 

consideration to relative values of 

resources (that is, meets the objectives 

of the NFMA and other key guiding 

legislation). 

Agency Cost Impacts 

Results of the cost analysis indicate 

agency costs increase for some key 

activities and decrease for others under 

the final rule and alternatives. However, 

total annual planning costs are not 

projected to be substantially different 

between the final rule and the 1982 rule 

procedures. Estimates of potential 

differences in planning costs are 

complicated by the unknown effects of 

any future Forest Service directives that 

might be developed to support the final 

rule. 

As shown in Table 1, the annual 

average undiscounted cost to the 

Agency for all planning-related 

activities under the final rule ($97.7 

million per year) are estimated to be 

$4.8 million per year lower compared to 

the proposed rule ($102.5 million per 

year), and $6.3 million per year lower 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21253 

compared to the 1982 rule procedures 

($104 million per year). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE RULES

[In million $ per year *] 

Estimated annual average costs Net savings/(cost) 

comparisons 

Final rule Proposed rule 1982 rule procedures Final rule to 

proposed rule 

Final rule to 

1982 rule procedures 

Annual average undiscounted costs .......................... 97 .7 102 .5 104 4 .8 6 .3 

Annualized discounted costs at 3% ........................... 97 102 103 5 6 

Annualized discounted costs at 7% ........................... 96 .3 101 .2 102 .2 4 .9 5 .9 

* Estimates are in 2009 dollars. 

Assuming a 3 percent discount rate, 

the projected annualized cost for the 

final rule is estimated to be $97 million, 

while the projected annualized cost for 

the proposed rule is $102 million, 

implying an annualized cost difference 

between the final rule and the proposed 

rule of $5 million, while the projected 

annualized cost for the 1982 rule 

procedures is $103 million, implying a 

projected annualized cost difference of 

$6 million. Assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate for the same timeframe, 

the projected annual cost estimate for 

the final rule is $96.3 million compared 

to $102.2 million under the 1982 rule 

procedures. 

Given the relatively small change in 

estimated costs, combined with the 

uncertainty associated with costing 

assumptions, estimated annual planning 

costs for the final rule are not projected 

to be substantially different from the 

proposed rule and the 1982 procedures. 

However, over a 15-year period more 

plan revisions and amendments are 

expected to be completed under the 

final rule as compared to the 1982 rule 

procedures for about the same amount 

of cost estimated. It is anticipated that 

units will have greater capacity to 

maintain the currency, reliability, and 

legitimacy of plans to meet the 

objectives of the MUSYA, the NFMA, 

and the planning rule (§ 219.1(b) and 

(c)): Thereby improving the quality of 

plans and therefore the efficiency of the 

planning process. 

Based on the above quantitative 

comparison, annual average planning 

costs to the Agency are projected to be 

similar for the final rule, the proposed 

rule, and the 1982 procedures. A 

learning curve is expected under the 

final rule. During the initial efforts by 

management units to develop, revise, or 

amend plans under the new rule, costs 

are expected to reflect additional time 

and resources needed to adjust to a new 

planning framework, including training. 

It is likely the cost of training will 

decrease gradually over time. Therefore, 

during the first 15-year period, planning 

costs will be slightly elevated and not 

significantly different from the noaction alternative as units adjust to the 

new planning process and build 

collaborative capacity. In subsequent 

15-year periods, planning costs are 

likely to decrease as the new process 

becomes more established. Planning 

costs in subsequent planning cycles are 

expected to decrease, recognizing there 

will still be efficiency gains during the 

initial planning efforts. 

The cost and benefit analysis assumed 

eight management units will start plan 

revision annually. Therefore, 

approximately 120 management units 

will at least initiate plan revision over 

the next 15 years (2012 through 2026). 

This analysis also assumed each 

management unit would take 3 to 4 

years to revise a plan under the final 

rule and 5 years under the 1982 rule 

procedures. Given these assumptions, 

over a 15 year period, there would be 

approximately 104 plan revisions 

completed under the final rule in 

contrast to an estimated 88 plans 

revised under the 1982 rule procedures, 

a net increase of 16 plans revised under 

the final rule. 

Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness 

Impacts 

The numerous public meetings, 

forums, and roundtable discussions 

revealed growing concern about a 

variety of risks, stressors, and challenges 

to planning (for example, climate 

change; insects and disease; recreation, 

timber, and other shifts in demands; 

population growth, and other 

demographic shifts; water supply 

protection and other ecosystem support 

services). Addressing these types of 

risks and contingencies requires a larger 

landscape perspective, information from 

a broad spectrum of sources, and a 

framework that can facilitate adaptation 

to new information. The new procedural 

requirements under the rule are 

designed to recognize these needs. The 

requirements are intended to increase 

agency capacity to adapt management 

plans in response to new and evolving 

information about risks, stressors, 

contingencies, and management 

constraints as described in the section 

above. It is anticipated under the final 

rule that the Agency will be able to 

establish plans that are efficient and 

legitimate frameworks for managing 

resources that meet public demand in a 

sustainable fashion and satisfy the goals 

of the MUSYA and the NFMA, and that 

management units will be better able to 

keep plans updated and current with 

evolving science and public concerns 

without substantial changes in planning 

costs over a 15-year period. 

Under the final rule, costs are 

projected to be redirected toward 

collaboration, assessment, and 

monitoring activities and away from 

development and analysis of 

alternatives compared to the 1982 rule 

procedures. Costs are also expected to 

be redirected more toward maintenance 

or plan amendments under the final 

rule, due in part to expectations that 

less time will be needed to complete 

plan revisions. These effects are 

projected to occur, in part, because of 

broader support and resolution of issues 

at earlier stages of plan revision, 

achieved through collaboration as well 

as other procedural changes. 

The reallocation of efforts and costs 

across different phases of planning, and 

across key planning activities under the 

final rule is expected to improve overall 

planning efficiency. Shifts in emphasis 

and resources under the final rule are 

projected to improve the currency, 

reliability, and legitimacy of plans to 

serve as a guide for: (1) Reducing 

uncertainty by identifying and gathering 

existing and new information about 

conditions, trends, risks, stressors, 

contingencies, vulnerabilities, values/ 

needs, contributions, and management 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

constraints; (2) integrating and assessing 

ecological, social, and economic 

information to determine if outputs and 

outcomes related to unit contributions 

to ecological, social, and economic 

conditions indicate a need to change the 

plan; and (3) responding to the need for 

change in management activities, 

projects, or revisions and amendments 

to plan components. Potential increases 

and/or reallocation of costs associated 

with assessment, analysis, and 

monitoring requirements for elements 

such as diversity and sustainability are 

expected to provide clearer direction for 

subsequent project planning. Projectlevel costs are not included in the 

analysis of land management planning 

costs. 

Agency planning costs under the final 

rule are estimated to be slightly lower 

compared to the proposed rule and the 

1982 rule procedures, however, due to 

relatively small differences in estimated 

costs, combined with uncertainty 

associated with costing assumptions, 

the estimated agency costs are not 

projected to be substantially different 

between the proposed rule, the final 

rule, and the 1982 rule procedures. 

Changes in rule requirements under the 

final rule will enhance planning 

efficiency, and more plan revisions and 

amendments, as well as more effective 

plans, are expected as a result of the 

final rule. Details about the potential 

effects of specific procedural changes on 

agency costs and planning efficiency are 

described below, by activity category. 

Assessment: Slight increases in 

assessment costs (compared to the cost 

of doing an analysis of the management 

situation under the 1982 rule 

procedures) are anticipated under the 

final rule. This is due to an increased 

emphasis on characterizing factors such 

as assessing conditions, trends, and 

sustainability within a broader 

ecological and geographic context 

(landscapes), ecosystem and species 

diversity, climate change, as well as 

other system drivers, risks, threats, and 

vulnerabilities. Gains in cost 

effectiveness are achieved through other 

elements such as direction to rely on 

existing information and the removal of 

required prescriptive benchmark 

analysis. Changes in the assessment 

requirements and guidance are expected 

to increase planning efficiency and 

effectiveness by improving capacity to 

assimilate and integrate existing and 

new information to inform changes to 

the plan. 

Assessments would identify and 

evaluate information at landscape levels 

and at a geographic scale based on 

ecological, economic, or social factors 

relevant to the plan area, rather than 

reliance on administrative boundaries. 

This broader approach would enhance 

capacity to incorporate information 

about conditions outside of NFS 

boundaries relevant to management of 

the plan area. 

Risks and vulnerabilities to ecosystem 

elements and functions would be 

considered in assessments thereby 

encouraging consideration of the effects 

of long-term environmental or social/ 

economic variability, events, and trends 

on future outputs, ecosystem services, 

and outcomes. 

For the final rule, the level of effort, 

or reallocation of effort (and cost) to the 

assessment phase is reduced as 

compared with the proposed rule, due 

to a narrower focus on rapid review and 

evaluation of existing information (for 

example, assessments completed by 

States and other entities, and so forth), 

as well as the inclusion of a specific set 

of topics to focus on for the assessment, 

as opposed to the broader direction in 

the proposed rule. Requirements to 

discuss roles and contributions, ‘‘needto-change,’’ as well as monitoring 

questions have been removed under the 

final rule. The ‘benefits people obtain 

from NFS planning areas’ (ecosystem 

services) have been highlighted under 

the final rule. Direction to gather and 

evaluate information about potential 

species of conservation concern is more 

explicit (and transparent) under the 

final rule. The changes in assessment 

requirements under the final rule are 

expected to improve the cost 

effectiveness of assessments. These 

changes are also designed to increase 

the likelihood of improving capacity to 

respond to changes in conditions and 

trends, as originally intended under the 

proposed rule. 

Public Participation: Requirements for 

public participation (including 

collaboration) have not changed 

between the proposed and final rules. 

Costs associated with public 

participation are projected to increase 

under the final rule as compared to the 

1982 rule procedures due primarily to 

requirements that opportunities for 

participation, including collaboration 

where feasible and appropriate, be 

provided throughout the planning 

process. Gains in cost effectiveness may 

occur, in part, by providing responsible 

officials with discretion to design 

collaborative strategies that meet unitspecific needs and constraints and 

recognize local collaborative capacity. 

Costs for some units may be higher 

where potential barriers to collaboration 

are present (for example, pre-existing 

relationships may exacerbate perceived 

inequities; absence of pre-existing social 

networks or capacity; or false 

commitments). Recognizing these 

challenges, the final rule provides 

responsible officials with discretion to 

determine the scope, methods, and 

timing of opportunities for public 

participation that are appropriate to the 

circumstances specific to the action 

being taken, and the final rule states that 

opportunities for collaboration be 

offered when feasible and appropriate. 

However, changes in guidance and 

requirements for public participation 

under the final rule are expected to 

increase planning efficiency, especially 

as related to the relevance and 

effectiveness of plans, because of the 

following: 

(1) Improved analysis and 

decisionmaking efficiency during latter 

stages of planning due to increases in 

public input during early phases; 

(2) Improved capacity to reduce 

uncertainty by gathering, verifying, and 

integrating information from a variety of 

sources, including Tribal or other forms 

of knowledge, within and beyond unit 

boundaries; 

(3) Potential to offset or reduce agency 

monitoring costs as a result of 

collaboration during monitoring plan 

development and monitoring itself; 

(4) Improved capacity to consider 

values and concerns for all economic 

sectors and social segments, including 

amenity-driven demographic shifts 

associated with local or rural 

communities in wildland dependent 

counties; 

(5) Reduced need for large numbers of 

plan alternatives as well as time needed 

to complete plan revisions as a 

consequence of broader support and 

resolution of issues achieved through 

public participation and collaboration 

during early phases of final plan 

development; 

(6) Improved perceptions regarding 

the legitimacy of plans and the planning 

process and improved ability to address 

issues and concerns prior to the need for 

litigation by increasing transparency, 

developing awareness of the values and 

expected behavior of others, and seeking 

greater understanding about values, 

needs, tradeoffs, and outcomes during 

earlier stages of planning; and, 

(7) Building unit (and regional) 

capacity to overcome existing barriers to 

collaboration (for example, absence of 

social networks or capacity; perceptions 

about pre-existing power relationships) 

through training and facilitation. 

Analysis and decisions (plan 

development, plan revision or 

amendment): Costs associated with 

analysis and decisions are estimated to 

decrease overall under the final rule due 

primarily to the effect of fewer 

prescriptive requirements (relative to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21255 

1982 rule procedures) regarding 

probable (management) actions, timber 

program elements, number and types of 

alternatives, evaluation of alternatives, 

and minimum management 

requirements. The forces affecting the 

cost include (1) increased emphasis on 

consideration of resource attributes and 

conditions such as sustainability, 

watershed health, and water supply, 

and (2) adaptation to new approaches 

for addressing species viability and 

diversity in the short-term (with longterm potential for gains in costeffectiveness). 

The following elements associated 

with the final rule are expected to 

increase planning efficiency by 

facilitating plan revisions and 

amendments, expanding capacity for 

adaptive management, and improving 

guidance for responding to diverse 

determinations of a need to change the 

plan: 

The adoption of a coarse-filter/finefilter approach for addressing species 

viability and diversity within plan 

components, combined with the 

recognition of land management and 

resource limits which constrain the 

Agency, is expected to make 

management units better able to develop 

plans that provide feasible or realistic 

direction for responding to species and 

ecosystem sustainability and recovery 

needs and meeting requirements for 

plant and animal diversity. 

A greater emphasis on sustainability 

and ecosystem integrity in plan 

components is expected to facilitate 

restoration responses triggered by new 

information regarding environmental, 

social, and economic risks and stressors, 

including climate change and changes 

in demand for goods and services. 

Expected results include reduced effects 

from anthropogenic stressors, thereby 

helping to restore healthy ecosystems 

and compatible uses (especially in areas 

sensitive to disturbance and changing 

conditions) as well as increased 

protection of riparian area function. 

Refocusing the use of the term 

‘‘restoration’’ to focus on recovery of 

resiliency and ecosystem functions 

(instead of historical reference points) 

provides greater flexibility to respond to 

need-for-change regarding damaged 

ecosystems. 

Greater emphasis placed on 

identifying each unit’s role in providing 

ecosystem services within a broader 

landscape or region should facilitate the 

design of management responses that 

recognize the marginal effects or 

contributions of ecological, social, or 

economic conditions originating from 

outside of the traditional unit study area 

boundaries. 

More frequent amendments expected 

under the final rule could potentially 

lead to fewer need-for-change 

determinations when plans are revised. 

Assessments and proposal steps may 

not be needed for some amendments. 

Under the final rule, slightly more 

effort is re-directed to activities 

associated with development and 

analysis of plan revisions (or 

amendments) compared to the proposed 

rule. Examples of changes under the 

final rule that can enhance overall 

planning efficiency include: 

• Moving ‘‘Need-to-change’’ 

determinations from assessments to the 

plan revision phase to clarify the 

separation between the assessment and 

NEPA phases; 

• Clarifying how plan area 

ecosystems are integrated into 

landscape-level ecological, social, and 

economic sustainability; 

• Refining and clarifying 

requirements for riparian zones; and 

• Clarifying unit responsibilities for 

the diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

These changes are expected to 

contribute to planning efficiency by 

improving the capacity of plans to 

provide for sustainability and diversity. 

Science support: Slight cost increases 

for science support may occur under the 

final rule due in part to more 

prescriptive wording to use the best 

available scientific information during 

the planning process to inform the 

planning process, plan components, and 

other plan content, including the 

monitoring program. On the other hand, 

requirements under the final rule for 

using the best available scientific 

information to inform decisions 

contribute to planning efficiency by 

maximizing coverage of scientific input 

from diverse sources, integrating science 

throughout all stages of planning, and 

taking advantage of scientific knowledge 

from external partners and agency 

research stations, thereby strengthening 

the decisionmaking process. Also the 

final rule has fewer documentation 

requirements, concentrating the burden 

of documentation on the most relevant 

and appropriate points in the planning 

process. Additional changes are made to 

clarify the responsible official’s use of 

best available scientific information in 

informing the planning process. 

Resolutions: The cost effect of a shift 

from a post-decisional appeals process 

(under the 1982 rule procedures) to a 

pre-decisional objection period under 

the final rule is difficult to project. 

Ongoing litigation under the current 

planning rule is costly and time 

consuming and may continue under the 

new rule. However, the new planning 

framework (i) places greater emphasis 

on public participation and 

collaboration early and throughout the 

planning process, (ii) adopts a predecisional objection process, and (iii) 

changes the regional office responsible 

official from regional forester to forest 

supervisor. These changes are expected 

to improve legitimacy and trust in the 

planning process and contribute to more 

efficient resolution of issues early in the 

process, prior to the plan development, 

plan revision or plan amendment 

approval. Making a decision on an 

objection before plan approval can be 

less disruptive than an appeal decision 

which can come months after plan 

implementation begins. The more 

frequent use of amendments expected 

under the final rule will keep plans 

more current and is expected to narrow 

the focus of changes over time. In 

addition, the assessment and monitoring 

phases of the planning framework are 

expected to build public support and 

improve the legitimacy and relevance of 

plans by providing and continually 

updating a transparent base of 

information to inform management 

decisions. There is no expectation of 

unanimous support for any given 

proposed plan development, plan 

revision or plan amendment under any 

of the alternatives, however early 

resolution of issues is expected to occur 

and contribute to overall planning 

efficiency under the final rule. 

Efficiency gains under the final rule are 

expected to be similar to the proposed 

rule for resolution of issues, recognizing 

that the objection period for actions 

involving environmental impact 

statements is extended to 60 days under 

the final rule and to 45 days when there 

is no environmental impact statement. 

Monitoring: Relative increases in 

monitoring costs as compared to the 

1982 rule procedures are anticipated as 

a consequence of a greater emphasis on 

broader input and participation in the 

design and implementation of 

monitoring, new approaches for 

characterizing diversity and resiliency, 

and two-level (plan and broad-scale) 

monitoring. However, over time, the 

two-level approach to monitoring is 

expected to increase monitoring 

efficiencies and decrease the cost of 

other planning related activities. Under 

the final rule, the two-level approach to 

monitoring is intended to inform the 

plan area management and make 

progress toward desired outcomes. By 

testing assumptions, tracking changing 

conditions, and assessing management 

effectiveness, monitoring information 

will inform adaptive management and 

lead to more effective and relevant 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21256 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

plans. Plan monitoring and broaderscale monitoring levels are related. The 

monitoring framework would require 

monitoring to be more consistent across 

units of the NFS. The final rule would 

mobilize multi-party monitoring 

resources by working across all Forest 

Service branches and engage partners 

and other Government agencies in its 

monitoring efforts to help reduce the 

cost of added monitoring requirements 

and provide for monitoring efforts that 

are complementary. There is also 

potential that collaboration would result 

in more cooperative monitoring 

programs with other agencies and the 

public. This could help leverage 

resources to accomplish additional 

monitoring. 

Changes in guidance and 

requirements for monitoring under the 

final rule as compared to the 1982 rule 

procedures are expected to increase 

planning effectiveness by improving 

capacity to gather information and 

reduce uncertainty for a number of 

integrated ecological, social, and 

economic conditions, trends, risks, 

stressors, constraints, and values within 

and beyond unit boundaries. 

Monitoring under the final rule 

focuses to a greater extent on 

ecosystems, habitat diversity, and 

smaller numbers of species to monitor 

(relative to MIS under Alternative B), 

with the intent that tracking of species 

diversity and habitat sustainability will 

be more cost-effective and reflective of 

unit-specific capabilities. Two-level 

monitoring is intended to create a more 

systematic and unified monitoring 

approach to detect effects of 

management within unit boundaries as 

well as track risks, stressors, and 

conditions beyond unit boundaries that 

affect, or are affected by, unit conditions 

and actions. 

Emphasis on coordination between 

plan area monitoring and broader-scale 

monitoring helps ensure information is 

complementary, is gathered at scales 

appropriate to monitoring questions, 

reduces redundancy, and improves costeffectiveness. 

Efficiency gains under the final rule 

are expected to be similar to the 

proposed rule. Changes to monitoring 

requirements under the final rule 

should enhance those gains by: (1) 

Clarifying that monitoring information 

should inform need-to-change, (2) 

modifying requirements for engaging 

various partners in developing the 

monitoring program, and (3) clarifying 

the connection between the monitoring 

requirements and the requirements for 

diversity in § 219.9. 

Distributional Impacts 

Due to the programmatic nature of 

this rule, it is not feasible to assess 

distributional impacts (for example, 

changes in jobs, income, or other 

measures for social and economic 

conditions across demographics or 

economic sectors) in detail. Under the 

final rule, units would continue to use 

their timber sale program and other 

forest management activities to enhance 

timber and other forest resource values 

and benefits over time (similar to the 

1982 procedures). Continued 

monitoring of recreation use is expected 

under the final rule as a result of 

continuation of the national visitor use 

monitoring system. Collaboration under 

the final rule would help assure 

consideration of a broad spectrum of 

recreational values and an integrated 

mix of sustainable recreation 

opportunities relevant to each NFS unit. 

Grazing allotments are parcels or 

designated areas of rangeland leased or 

permitted to a livestock grazer. Their 

use is planned and monitored to 

maintain sustainable production and 

rangeland health. Plans would include 

plan components to maintain or restore 

ecological integrity of lands, including 

rangelands, and grazing allotment 

management plans would continue to be 

modified to be consistent with plans 

developed under the final rule, as they 

are for plans developed using the 1982 

rule procedures. 

In general, the final rule is designed 

to facilitate engagement and 

involvement throughout all phases of 

planning, thereby improving capacity to 

consider and incorporate values and 

concerns for all economic sectors and 

social segments affected by any given 

plan, plan revision, or plan amendment. 

The final rule is also intended to 

facilitate assimilation of existing or new 

information about local or rural, as well 

as national, concerns and values 

throughout the planning process. 

Increased opportunities for considering 

and addressing social and economic 

concerns through participation and 

collaboration under the final rule 

therefore apply evenly across all sectors 

and populations. 

The final rule requires plans to have 

plan components that ‘‘guide the plan 

area’s contributions to social and 

economic sustainability.’’ The final rule 

also requires that plans include a 

statement of the roles and contributions 

of the unit within a broader landscape 

and that assessments, plan component 

development, and monitoring consider 

social and economic conditions, 

including a broad spectrum of goods 

and services. These requirements 

provide a flexible means for 

acknowledging the varying and relative 

importance of plan area contributions to 

social and economic sustainability as it 

relates to a range of economic sectors 

and populations across units and 

regions. 

The final rule is more prescriptive 

about considering and facilitating 

restoration of damaged resources as well 

as improving resource capacity to 

withstand environmental risks and 

stressors (that is, resiliency), thereby 

providing greater capacity for sustaining 

local or rural economic opportunities to 

benefit from forest resources and 

ecosystem services, including 

recreation/tourism and water supply/ 

watershed health as well as restoration 

based activities. 

Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

The final rule has also been 

considered in light of Executive Order 

13272 regarding proper consideration of 

small entities and the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), which amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et. seq.). The Department has 

determined this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined by the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA, 

because the final rule imposes no 

requirements or costs on small entities, 

nor does it impose requirements or costs 

on specific types of industries or 

communities. In addition, the final rule 

provides more opportunities for small 

entities to engage with the Department 

and become more involved in all phases 

of planning, thereby expanding capacity 

to identify and consider the needs and 

preferences of small entities. Timelier 

planning and management decisions 

under the final rule should increase 

opportunities for small entities to 

benefit from implementation of updated 

land management plans. Additional 

emphasis on ecosystem resiliency to 

facilitate restoration activities and on 

sustainable recreation opportunities 

should help sustain economic 

opportunities linked to local or rural 

communities, many of which are host to 

small entities. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required for 

this final rule. 

Energy Effects 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 

issued May 18, 2001), ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ It has been 

determined that this final rule does not 

constitute a significant energy action as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21257 

defined in E.O. 13211. While the 

Agency does not manage subsurface 

minerals, mineral exploration and 

development does occur on NFS lands. 

Similarly, the Agency recognizes the 

growing demand for geothermal, wind, 

and solar energy development on NFS 

lands. Agency management of the 

renewable resources mandated by 

MUSYA recognizes ongoing and 

potential exploration and development 

while protecting and conserving these 

renewable resources. The final rule set 

out administrative procedural 

requirements whereby NFS land 

management plans are developed, 

revised, and amended. The final rule 

recognizes in § 219.10 that development 

of renewable and non-renewable energy 

resources are among the potential uses 

in a plan area. However, the final rule 

does not dictate the activities that may 

occur or not occur on administrative 

units of the NFS. Accordingly, the final 

rule does not have energy requirements 

or energy conservation potential. 

Plans developed under the final rule 

will provide the guidance for making 

future project or activity resource 

management decisions. The final rule 

recognizes in § 219.10 that the 

placement and maintenance of 

infrastructure such as transmission lines 

are among the potential uses in a plan 

area. Land management plans may 

identify major rights-of-way corridors 

for utility transmission lines, pipelines, 

and water canals. The effects of the 

construction of utility transmission 

lines, pipelines, and canals are, of 

necessity, considered on a case-by-case 

basis as specific construction proposals. 

While these plans may consider the 

need for such facilities and may include 

standards and guidelines that may 

constrain energy exploration and 

development, they would not authorize 

construction of them; therefore, the final 

rule does not constitute a significant 

energy action within the meaning of 

E.O. 13211. Consistent with E.O. 13211, 

direction to incorporate consideration of 

energy supply, distribution, and use in 

the planning process will be included in 

the Agency’s administrative directives 

for carrying out the final rule. 

Environmental Impacts 

This final rule establishes the 

administrative procedures to guide 

development, amendment, and revision 

of NFS land management plans. The 

Agency has prepared a final 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement to analyze possible 

environmental effects of the final rule, 

present several alternatives to the final 

rule, and disclose the potential 

environmental impacts of those 

alternatives. The final programmatic 

environmental impact statement is 

available on the Web at http:// 

www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. 

The final rule requires plan 

development, amendment, or revision to 

follow NEPA procedures. The rule 

requires an EIS for plan development 

and plan revisions. The rule also 

requires that plan amendments comply 

with Forest Service NEPA procedures. 

The appropriate NEPA documentation 

for an amendment may be an EIS, an 

EA, or a CE, depending upon the scope 

and scale of the amendment and its 

likely effects. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

reporting requirements for the objection 

process were previously approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and assigned control number 

0596–0172 for the objection process 

included in the Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 218—Predecisional 

Administrative Review Processes, 

Subpart. A—Predecisional 

Administrative Review Process for 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects 

Authorized by the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2003. 

The information required by subpart 

B of this rule is needed for an objector 

to explain the nature of the objection 

being made to a land management plan, 

plan amendment, or plan revision. This 

final rule retains the objection process 

established in the CFR 218 objection 

regulation and does not require 

additional information be provided from 

the public. This rule does instead give 

direction that is more detailed to both 

the public and Forest Service personnel 

on the timelines, requirements, and 

procedures of the objection process. 

Federalism 

The Agency has considered this final 

rule under the requirements of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 issued 

August 4, 1999, ‘‘Federalism.’’ The 

Agency has made an assessment that the 

final rule conforms with the Federalism 

principles set out in this Executive 

Order; would not impose any 

compliance costs on the States; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national Government and 

the States, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Therefore, 

the Agency concludes that this final rule 

does not have Federalism implications. 

Moreover, § 219.4(a) of this final rule 

shows sensitivity to Federalism 

concerns by requiring the responsible 

official to encourage participation of 

State and local governments and Indian 

Tribes in the planning process. In 

addition, § 219.4(b) requires the 

responsible official to coordinate 

planning with State and local 

governments and Indian Tribes. 

In the spirit of E.O. 13132, the Agency 

provided many opportunities for State 

and local officials, including their 

national representatives, to share their 

ideas and concerns in developing the 

final regulation. Respondents to the 

February 14, 2011, proposed rule 

included the following: 113 county 

government agencies or elected officials, 

62 State government agencies, elected 

officials, or associations, and 18 

American Indian government agency, or 

elected officials. Many Tribal, State, and 

local government agencies submitted 

comments requesting that collaboration 

and coordination be mandatory before 

beginning plan revisions. Some 

respondents suggested that forest plans 

be made locally and adapted to ‘‘local 

management,’’ ‘‘local control,’’ and 

‘‘local collaboration.’’ Intergovernmental 

planning coordination was supported by 

many respondents as well. Many 

respondents cited Federal, Tribal, State, 

local, and other types of planning they 

felt the Agency should be careful to 

consider and integrate into forest plans. 

Respondents often agreed that the 

Agency’s planning efforts are 

strengthened when achieved in careful 

collaboration with local governments 

and other local interests. Comments of 

this nature were sometimes followed up 

with considerations for ‘‘cooperating 

agency’’ provisions to solidify the 

process and outcomes to be achieved 

through the participation of cooperating 

agencies. The Department carefully 

considered these comments when 

making changes to the rule. 

Consultation With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

On September 23, 2010, the Deputy 

Chief for the National Forest System 

sent letters inviting more than 600 

federally recognized Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations to begin 

consultation on the proposed planning 

rule. The Forest Service continued to 

conduct government-to-government 

consultation on the planning rule while 

developing the final rule. The Forest 

Service considers Tribal consultation as 

an ongoing, iterative process through 

the issuance of the final rule. 

The Agency held 16 consultation 

meetings across the country in 

November and December 2010. During 

these meetings, Forest Service leaders 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21258 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

met with Tribal and Alaska Native 

Corporation leaders, or their designees, 

to discuss a Tribal consultation paper, 

which described how the draft proposed 

rule discussed concerns Tribes had 

raised during the collaborative sessions 

held earlier in the year. Forest Service 

leaders also met one-on-one with Tribal 

leaders that requested consultation in 

this manner. In July 2011, the Deputy 

Chief for the National Forest System 

sent letters encouraging federally 

recognized Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations to continue consult prior 

to release of the final rule. Tribes have 

continued to consult one-on-one with 

Forest Service leaders, as well as 

through regional or sub-regional 

consultation meetings. All of the 

consultation meetings that have 

occurred throughout development of the 

proposed and final rule have 

strengthened the government-togovernment relationship with the Tribes 

as well as improved the final rule. 

Consultation is an ongoing process and 

can occur at any time, including 

following publication of the final rule. 

The Agency incorporated the input 

received through consultation before 

December 13, 2010, into the proposed 

rule. Those concerns heard during 

Tribal consultation after December 13 

and which were given to the Agency by 

October 21, 2011, were considered for 

incorporation in the final rule. 

The Agency also held two national 

Tribal roundtable conference calls to 

provide additional opportunities for 

Tribes and Tribal associations to 

comment prior to the development of 

the proposed planning rule. More than 

45 Tribes and Tribal associations 

participated in the First National Tribal 

Roundtable on May 3, 2010, and more 

than 35 Tribes and Tribal associations 

participated in the Second National 

Tribal Roundtable on August 5, 2010. 

Transcripts and summaries of these 

meetings are available on the planning 

rule Web site. Additionally, six Tribal 

roundtables were held in California, 

Arizona, and New Mexico. 

On March 11, 2011, after publication 

of the proposed rule, the Forest Service 

held a Tribal teleconference to provide 

information on the proposed rule and 

answer questions. Sixteen Tribes 

participated in the discussion and had 

the opportunity to have their questions 

answered by the Ecosystem 

Management Coordination Director and 

the Associate Chief of the Forest 

Service. A number of Tribes submitted 

comments on the proposed rule during 

the public comment period and the 

content of these letters has been 

carefully considered in developing the 

final rule. 

The Agency heard from Tribal leaders 

that the rule should clearly state how 

the special rights and interests of Tribes 

would be provided for in the planning 

process and show how Tribes will be 

engaged early throughout the planning 

process. They emphasized the 

obligation the Forest Service has to 

Tribes to fulfill treaty obligations and 

trust responsibilities, protect and honor 

reserved rights, and fully recognize the 

unique government-to-government 

relationship that exists between the 

Federal Government and Tribes. Tribal 

leaders also stated that the role of 

science in the planning process must 

account for traditional Tribal 

knowledge. In response to these 

concerns, the final rule recognizes and 

does not modify the unique 

government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and Indian 

Tribes. The final rule recognizes and 

does not modify prior existing Tribal 

rights, including those involving 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

protecting cultural and spiritual sites. 

The rule requires the agency to work 

with federally recognized Indian Tribes, 

government-to-government, as 

providing in treaties and laws and 

consistent with Executive orders when 

developing, amending, or revising 

plans. The final rule encourages Tribal 

participation in NFS planning. Further, 

the rule recognizes the responsibility of 

Forest Service officials to consult early 

with Tribal governments and to work 

cooperatively with them where 

planning issues affect Tribal interests. 

Nothing in the final rule should be 

construed as eliminating public input or 

Tribal consultation requirements for 

future projects conducted in accordance 

with the final rule. The responsible 

official shall request information from 

Tribes about native knowledge, 

including information about land ethics, 

cultural issues, and sacred and 

culturally significant sites, during the 

planning process. 

At § 219.4(b)(2), for plan development 

or revision, the responsible official shall 

review the planning and land use 

policies of federally recognized Indian 

Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, 

other Federal agencies, and State and 

local governments. The results of the 

review would be displayed in the 

environmental impact statement for the 

plan. The final rule at § 219.4(a)(1)(v) 

requires, where appropriate, the 

responsible official to encourage 

federally recognized Tribes to seek 

cooperating agency status. This provides 

an additional opportunity for Tribes to 

be engaged in the planning process and 

provides further avenues for Tribes to 

provide input during the planning 

process. Additionally, the responsible 

official may participate in planning 

efforts of federally recognized Indian 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, 

where practicable and appropriate. For 

federally recognized Tribes, cooperating 

agency status does not replace or 

superseded the trust responsibilities and 

requirements for consultation also 

recognized and included in the final 

rule. 

Tribal leaders stated that they want to 

see non-federally recognized Tribes and 

groups included in the consultation or 

planning process, as well as the 

involvement of youth. Non-federally 

recognized groups and Tribes would be 

able to participate in the planning 

process under the public requirements 

in § 219.4. Section 219.4(a)(1)(ii) 

requires the responsible officials to 

encourage participation by youth, as 

well as low-income and minority 

populations. 

Tribes place great emphasis on 

protection of water resources and want 

to see the planning rule include 

stipulations for water protection. Water 

resources are discussed throughout this 

final rule, including specifically in 

§ 219.7 (New plan development or plan 

revision), § 219.8 (Sustainability), 

§ 219.9 (Diversity of Plant and Animal 

Communities), and § 219.10 (Multiple 

Use). Tribes support a management 

approach that moves away from 

monoculture management and promotes 

sustainable and diverse populations of 

plants and animals. Section 219.9 of the 

final rule requires land management 

plans to contain components, including 

standards or guidelines, to maintain or 

restore the ecological integrity of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

watersheds in the plan area. 

The definition of native knowledge in 

§ 219.19 has been retained based on the 

feedback that we received during 

consultation. The definition 

acknowledges that native knowledge is 

a way of knowing or understanding the 

world derived from multiple 

generations of indigenous peoples’ 

interactions, observations, and 

experiences with their ecological 

systems, and that it is also place-based 

and culture-based knowledge in which 

people learn to live in and adapt to their 

own environment through interactions, 

observations, and experiences with their 

ecological system. 

Many Tribes had a variety of concerns 

regarding social, economic, and 

ecological sustainability, and suggested 

that the Agency specifically discuss 

cultural sustainability within the final 

rule and protect cultural resources. The 

definition in the final rule of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21259 

‘‘sustainability’’ notes that ‘‘social 

sustainability refers to the capability of 

society to support the network of 

relationships, traditions, culture, and 

activities that connect people to the 

land and to one another, and support 

vibrant communities.’’ In addition, 

§ 219.1(c) recognizes that NFS lands 

provide people and communities with a 

wide array of benefits, including 

‘‘cultural benefits.’’ Section 219.4 

requires opportunities for public and 

Tribal participation and coordination 

throughout the planning process. 

Section 219.4(a)(3) requires that the 

responsible official request ‘‘information 

about native knowledge, land ethics, 

cultural issues, and sacred and 

culturally significant sites’’ during 

consultation and opportunities for 

Tribal participation. Section 219.6(b) 

requires assessment content to include 

cultural conditions and cultural and 

historic resources and uses. Section 

219.8 in the final rule recognizes 

cultural aspects of sustainability by 

requiring ‘‘cultural and historic 

resources and uses ‘‘be taken into 

account when designing plan 

components to guide contributions to 

social and economic sustainability.’’ 

Section 219.10(b)(1)(ii) of the rule 

requires ‘‘plan components * * * for a 

new plan or plan revision must provide 

for protection of cultural and historic 

resources,’’ and ‘‘management of areas 

of Tribal importance.’’ The final rule 

also includes recognition of and 

requirements for ‘‘ecosystem services,’’ 

which include ‘‘cultural heritage 

values.’’ These requirements, in 

combination with the requirement that 

plan content include descriptions of a 

unit’s roles and contributions within the 

broader landscape under § 219.7(e), 

ensure the cultural aspects of 

sustainability will be taken into account 

when developing plan components that 

guide unit contributions to social 

sustainability. 

During the consultation meetings, the 

Agency heard from Tribal leaders that 

confidentiality is a big concern. To 

explicitly discuss confidentiality, 

§ 219.1(e) states that the responsible 

official shall comply with Section 8106 

of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008, Executive Order 13007 of 

May 24, 1996, Executive Order 13175 of 

November 6, 2000, laws and other 

requirements with respect to disclosing 

or withholding under the Freedom of 

Information Act certain information 

regarding reburial sites or other 

information that is culturally sensitive 

to Indian Tribe or Tribes. 

The Agency has heard from Tribal 

leaders that they want to see sacred sites 

protected. The final rule requires that 

responsible officials request information 

from Tribes about sacred sites, and 

provides for protection of cultural and 

historic resources and management of 

areas of Tribal importance. In addition, 

a separate initiative by the USDA Office 

of Tribal Relations and the Forest 

Service is conducting a policy review 

concerning sacred sites and is 

consulting with Tribes during their 

effort. The Agency has informed Tribes 

of this separate initiative and how they 

can participate during the consultation 

meetings. Information that the Agency 

received during the planning rule 

consultation process regarding sacred 

sites has been shared with the USDA 

Office of Tribal Relations and the Forest 

Service initiative. 

The Forest Service received many 

other comments during the Tribal 

consultation meetings. A number of 

these comments were regarding 

concerns that are outside of the scope of 

the national planning rule or that will 

be discussed at the local level during 

the development of land management 

plans. Tribes received responses to 

these comments in separate documents, 

which were mailed to those Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations that 

participated in the October and 

November 2010 consultation meetings 

following the publication of the 

proposed rule. Additionally, a 

document summarizing the comments 

and responses from these meetings was 

made available to federally recognized 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations 

as part of the consultation documents 

provided in August 2011. 

Many of the public participation and 

other requirements in the final rule have 

significant potential to involve Tribes 

and tribal members in NFS planning 

and management, and to incorporate 

information into the process that will be 

relevant with regard to local effects of 

management on individual units, 

including to Tribal communities. 

However, pursuant to Executive Order 

13175 of November 6, 2000, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ the final 

rule itself does not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects.’’ Effects, both positive and 

adverse, may occur at the local planning 

level, which is one of the many reasons 

the final rule includes requirements for 

tribal consultation as well as outreach to 

Tribes during public participation 

opportunities. Effects may also occur at 

the project or activity level, which have 

additional opportunities for public 

engagement. 

The Agency has also determined that 

this final rule does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian Tribal governments. This final 

rule does not mandate Tribal 

participation in NFS planning. Rather, 

the final rule imposes an obligation on 

Forest Service officials to provide Tribes 

an opportunity to consult and to reach 

out early to engage them throughout the 

planning process. 

Takings of Private Property 

The Agency analyzed this rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

12630 issued March 15, 1988, and the 

Agency determined that the rule does 

not pose the risk of a taking of private 

property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The Agency reviewed the rule under 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform.’’ The Agency has not identified 

any State or local laws or regulations 

that are in conflict with this regulation 

or that would impede full 

implementation of this rule. 

Nevertheless, in the event that such 

conflicts were to be identified, the final 

rule, if implemented, would preempt 

the State or local laws or regulations 

found to be in conflict. However, in that 

case, (1) no retroactive effect would be 

given to this final rule; and (2) the 

Department would not require the use of 

administrative proceedings before 

parties could file suit in court 

challenging its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), the Agency has assessed 

the effects of this final rule on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. This final rule does not 

compel the expenditure of $100 million 

or more by any State, local, or Tribal 

governments or anyone in the private 

sector. Therefore, a statement under 

§ 202 of the Act is not required. 

Environmental Justice 

The Department considered impacts 

of the final rule to civil rights and 

environmental justice (pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994)). If implemented, 

with outreach, public engagement and 

using NEPA procedures to document 

effects, this analysis concludes that no 

adverse civil rights or environmental 

justice impacts from the planning rule 

are anticipated to the delivery of 

benefits or other program outcomes on 

a national level for any underrepresented population or to other U.S. 

populations or communities from the 

adoption of the final planning rule. 

While national level impacts are not 

expected to be disproportionate, yet-toVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:15 Apr 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR2.SGM 09APR2

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21260 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

be-identified adverse impacts may be 

possible on a regional or local scale at 

the unit planning level. Differences in 

national level effects and regional/local 

level effects are the result of uneven 

distribution of minorities, low-income 

populations, and variations in regional, 

cultural, or traditional use, and 

differences in local access to resources. 

Impacts on the national forest level will 

be further examined at the unit level, 

including NEPA analysis for plan 

development, plan revision, or plan 

amendment and site-specific projects. 

The participation efforts required by 

the final rule have significant potential 

to reach and involve diverse segments of 

the population that historically have not 

played a large role in NFS planning and 

management. Section 219.4(a) requires 

that when developing opportunities for 

public participation, the responsible 

official shall take into account the 

discrete and diverse roles, jurisdictions, 

responsibilities, and skills of interested 

and affected parties as well as the 

accessibility of the process, 

opportunities, and information. The 

responsible official is required to be 

proactive and use contemporary tools, 

such as the Internet, to engage the 

public, and share information in an 

open way with interested parties. 

Requirements of § 219.4 to consider 

accessibility and requirements to 

encourage participation by youth, lowincome populations, and minority 

populations may improve 

environmental justice outcomes. 

The final rule includes provisions for 

filing an objection before the final 

decision if the objector has filed a 

substantive formal comment related to a 

new plan, plan revision, or plan 

amendment. In the past, substantive 

formal comments were required to be in 

writing and submitted during the formal 

comment period when developing land 

management plans. The final rule 

expands the definition of a substantive 

formal comment to include written or 

oral comments submitted or recorded 

during an opportunity for public 

participation provided during the local 

unit’s planning process (§§ 219.4 and 

219.16). 

If implemented, there are no 

anticipated adverse or disproportionate 

impacts to underserved, protected 

groups, low income, or socially 

disadvantaged communities. The final 

rule requirements, including outreach 

and collaboration, and the requirement 

for NEPA analysis are designed to avoid 

adverse or disproportionate effects; 

therefore, mitigating measures are not 

necessary or appropriate for adopting or 

implementing the planning rule. Local 

site-specific mitigation may occur as 

NFS projects and activities are planned 

and executed consistent with 

Department policy. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 219 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statements, Indians, Intergovernmental 

relations, National forests, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Science and technology. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, the Forest Service revises 

part 219 of Title 36 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations to read as follows: 

PART 219—PLANNING 

Subpart A—National Forest System Land 

Management Planning 

Sec. 

219.1 Purpose and applicability. 

219.2 Levels of planning and responsible 

officials. 

219.3 Role of science in planning. 

219.4 Requirements for public 

participation. 

219.5 Planning framework. 

219.6 Assessment. 

219.7 New plan development or plan 

revision. 

219.8 Sustainability. 

219.9 Diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

219.10 Multiple use. 

219.11 Timber requirements based on the 

NFMA. 

219.12 Monitoring. 

219.13 Plan amendment and administrative 

changes. 

219.14 Decision document and planning 

records. 

219.15 Project and activity consistency 

with the plan. 

219.16 Public notifications. 

219.17 Effective dates and transition. 

219.18 Severability. 

219.19 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Pre-Decisional Administrative 

Review Process 

219.50 Purpose and scope. 

219.51 Plans, plan amendments, or plan 

revisions not subject to objection. 

219.52 Giving notice of a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision subject to 

objection before approval. 

219.53 Who may file an objection. 

219.54 Filing an objection. 

219.55 Objections set aside from review. 

219.56 Objection time periods and process. 

219.57 Resolution of objections. 

219.58 Timing of a plan, plan amendment, 

or plan revision decision. 

219.59 Use of other administrative review 

processes. 

219.60 Secretary’s authority. 

219.61 Information collection 

requirements. 

219.62 Definitions. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 1604, 

1613. 

Subpart A—National Forest System 

Land Management Planning 

§ 219.1 Purpose and applicability. 

(a) This subpart sets out the planning 

requirements for developing, amending, 

and revising land management plans 

(also referred to as plans) for units of the 

National Forest System (NFS), as 

required by the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974, as amended by the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 

1600 et seq.) (NFMA). This subpart also 

sets out the requirements for plan 

components and other content in land 

management plans. This part is 

applicable to all units of the NFS as 

defined by 16 U.S.C. 1609 or subsequent 

statute. 

(b) Consistent with the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 

528–531) (MUSYA), the Forest Service 

manages the NFS to sustain the multiple 

use of its renewable resources in 

perpetuity while maintaining the longterm health and productivity of the 

land. Resources are managed through a 

combination of approaches and 

concepts for the benefit of human 

communities and natural resources. 

Land management plans guide 

sustainable, integrated resource 

management of the resources within the 

plan area in the context of the broader 

landscape, giving due consideration to 

the relative values of the various 

resources in particular areas. 

(c) The purpose of this part is to guide 

the collaborative and science-based 

development, amendment, and revision 

of land management plans that promote 

the ecological integrity of national 

forests and grasslands and other 

administrative units of the NFS. Plans 

will guide management of NFS lands so 

that they are ecologically sustainable 

and contribute to social and economic 

sustainability; consist of ecosystems and 

watersheds with ecological integrity and 

diverse plant and animal communities; 

and have the capacity to provide people 

and communities with ecosystem 

services and multiple uses that provide 

a range of social, economic, and 

ecological benefits for the present and 

into the future. These benefits include 

clean air and water; habitat for fish, 

wildlife, and plant communities; and 

opportunities for recreational, spiritual, 

educational, and cultural benefits. 

(d) This part does not affect treaty 

rights or valid existing rights established 

by statute or legal instruments. 

(e) During the planning process, the 

responsible official shall comply with 

Section 8106 of the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (25 U.S.C. 

3056), Executive Order 13007 of May 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21261 

24, 1996, Executive Order 13175 of 

November 6, 2000, laws, and other 

requirements with respect to disclosing 

or withholding under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) certain 

information regarding reburial sites or 

other information that is culturally 

sensitive to an Indian Tribe or Tribes. 

(f) Plans must comply with all 

applicable laws and regulations, 

including NFMA, MUSYA, the Clean 

Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the 

Wilderness Act, and the Endangered 

Species Act. 

(g) The responsible official shall 

ensure that the planning process, plan 

components, and other plan content are 

within Forest Service authority, the 

inherent capability of the plan area, and 

the fiscal capability of the unit. 

§ 219.2 Levels of planning and responsible 

officials. 

Forest Service planning occurs at 

different organizational levels and 

geographic scales. Planning occurs at 

three levels—national strategic 

planning, NFS unit planning, and 

project or activity planning. 

(a) National strategic planning. The 

Chief of the Forest Service is 

responsible for national planning, such 

as preparation of the Forest Service 

strategic plan required under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010 (5 U.S.C. 

306; 31 U.S.C. 1115–1125; 31 U.S.C. 

9703–9704), which is integrated with 

the requirements of the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974, as amended by 

the NFMA. The strategic plan 

establishes goals, objectives, 

performance measures, and strategies 

for management of the NFS, as well as 

the other Forest Service mission areas: 

Research and Development, State and 

Private Forestry, and International 

Programs. 

(b) National Forest System unit 

planning. (1) NFS unit planning results 

in the development, amendment, or 

revision of a land management plan. A 

land management plan provides a 

framework for integrated resource 

management and for guiding project and 

activity decisionmaking on a national 

forest, grassland, prairie, or other 

administrative unit. A plan reflects the 

unit’s expected distinctive roles and 

contributions to the local area, region, 

and Nation, and the roles for which the 

plan area is best suited, considering the 

Agency’s mission, the unit’s unique 

capabilities, and the resources and 

management of other lands in the 

vicinity. Through the adaptive planning 

cycle set forth in this subpart, a plan can 

be changed to reflect new information 

and changing conditions. 

(2) A plan does not authorize projects 

or activities or commit the Forest 

Service to take action. A plan may 

constrain the Agency from authorizing 

or carrying out projects and activities, or 

the manner in which they may occur. 

Projects and activities must be 

consistent with the plan (§ 219.15). A 

plan does not regulate uses by the 

public, but a project or activity decision 

that regulates a use by the public under 

36 CFR Part 261, Subpart B, may be 

made contemporaneously with the 

approval of a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision. Plans should not repeat 

laws, regulations, or program 

management policies, practices, and 

procedures that are in the Forest Service 

Directive System. 

(3) The supervisor of the national 

forest, grassland, prairie, or other 

comparable administrative unit is the 

responsible official for development and 

approval of a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision for lands under the 

responsibility of the supervisor, unless 

a regional forester; the Chief; the Under 

Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment; or the Secretary acts as 

the responsible official. Two or more 

responsible officials may undertake 

joint planning over lands under their 

respective jurisdictions. 

(4) A plan for a unit that contains an 

experimental area may not be approved 

without the concurrence of the 

appropriate research station director 

with respect to the direction applicable 

to that area, and a plan amendment 

applicable to an experimental area may 

not be approved without the 

concurrence of the appropriate research 

station director. 

(5) The Chief is responsible for 

leadership and direction for carrying out 

the NFS land management planning 

program under this part. The Chief 

shall: 

(i) Establish planning procedures for 

this part in the Forest Service Directive 

System in Forest Service Manual 1920— 

Land Management Planning and in 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12— 

Land Management Planning Handbook. 

(ii) Establish and administer a 

national oversight process for 

accountability and consistency of NFS 

land management planning under this 

part. 

(iii) Establish procedures in the Forest 

Service Directive System for obtaining 

inventory data on the various renewable 

resources, and soil and water. 

(c) Project and activity planning. The 

supervisor or district ranger is the 

responsible official for project and 

activity decisions, unless a higher-level 

official acts as the responsible official. 

Requirements for project or activity 

planning are established in the Forest 

Service Directive System. Except as 

provided in the plan consistency 

requirements in § 219.15, none of the 

requirements of this part apply to 

projects or activities. 

§ 219.3 Role of science in planning. 

The responsible official shall use the 

best available scientific information to 

inform the planning process required by 

this subpart. In doing so, the responsible 

official shall determine what 

information is the most accurate, 

reliable, and relevant to the issues being 

considered. The responsible official 

shall document how the best available 

scientific information was used to 

inform the assessment, the plan 

decision, and the monitoring program as 

required in §§ 219.6(a)(3) and 

219.14(a)(4). Such documentation must: 

Identify what information was 

determined to be the best available 

scientific information, explain the basis 

for that determination, and explain how 

the information was applied to the 

issues considered. 

§ 219.4 Requirements for public 

participation. 

(a) Providing opportunities for 

participation. The responsible official 

shall provide opportunities to the public 

for participating in the assessment 

process; developing a plan proposal, 

including the monitoring program; 

commenting on the proposal and the 

disclosure of its environmental impacts 

in accompanying NEPA documents; and 

reviewing the results of monitoring 

information. When developing 

opportunities for public participation, 

the responsible official shall take into 

account the discrete and diverse roles, 

jurisdictions, responsibilities, and skills 

of interested and affected parties; the 

accessibility of the process, 

opportunities, and information; and the 

cost, time, and available staffing. The 

responsible official should be proactive 

and use contemporary tools, such as the 

Internet, to engage the public, and 

should share information in an open 

way with interested parties. Subject to 

the notification requirements in 

§ 219.16, the responsible official has the 

discretion to determine the scope, 

methods, forum, and timing of those 

opportunities. The Forest Service 

retains decisionmaking authority and 

responsibility for all decisions 

throughout the process. 

(1) Outreach. The responsible official 

shall engage the public—including 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, 

other Federal agencies, State and local 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

governments, individuals, and public 

and private organizations or entities— 

early and throughout the planning 

process as required by this part, using 

collaborative processes where feasible 

and appropriate. In providing 

opportunities for engagement, the 

responsible official shall encourage 

participation by: 

(i) Interested individuals and entities, 

including those interested at the local, 

regional, and national levels. 

(ii) Youth, low-income populations, 

and minority populations. 

(iii) Private landowners whose lands 

are in, adjacent to, or otherwise affected 

by, or whose actions may impact, future 

management actions in the plan area. 

(iv) Federal agencies, States, counties, 

and local governments, including State 

fish and wildlife agencies, State 

foresters and other relevant State 

agencies. Where appropriate, the 

responsible official shall encourage 

States, counties, and other local 

governments to seek cooperating agency 

status in the NEPA process for 

development, amendment, or revision of 

a plan. The responsible official may 

participate in planning efforts of States, 

counties, local governments, and other 

Federal agencies, where practicable and 

appropriate. 

(v) Interested or affected federally 

recognized Indian Tribes or Alaska 

Native Corporations. Where appropriate, 

the responsible official shall encourage 

federally recognized Tribes to seek 

cooperating agency status in the NEPA 

process for development, amendment, 

or revision of a plan. The responsible 

official may participate in planning 

efforts of federally recognized Indian 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations, 

where practicable and appropriate. 

(2) Consultation with federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations. The Department 

recognizes the Federal Government has 

certain trust responsibilities and a 

unique legal relationship with federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. The 

responsible official shall honor the 

government-to-government relationship 

between federally recognized Indian 

Tribes and the Federal government. The 

responsible official shall provide to 

federally recognized Indian Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations the 

opportunity to undertake consultation 

consistent with Executive Order 13175 

of November 6, 2000, and 25 U.S.C. 450 

note. 

(3) Native knowledge, indigenous 

ecological knowledge, and land ethics. 

As part of tribal participation and 

consultation as set forth in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(v) and (a)(2) of this section, the 

responsible official shall request 

information about native knowledge, 

land ethics, cultural issues, and sacred 

and culturally significant sites. 

(b) Coordination with other public 

planning efforts. (1) The responsible 

official shall coordinate land 

management planning with the 

equivalent and related planning efforts 

of federally recognized Indian Tribes, 

Alaska Native Corporations, other 

Federal agencies, and State and local 

governments. 

(2) For plan development or revision, 

the responsible official shall review the 

planning and land use policies of 

federally recognized Indian Tribes (43 

U.S.C. 1712(b)), Alaska Native 

Corporations, other Federal agencies, 

and State and local governments, where 

relevant to the plan area. The results of 

this review shall be displayed in the 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2). 

The review shall include consideration 

of: 

(i) The objectives of federally 

recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native 

Corporations, other Federal agencies, 

and State and local governments, as 

expressed in their plans and policies; 

(ii) The compatibility and interrelated 

impacts of these plans and policies; 

(iii) Opportunities for the plan to 

address the impacts identified or 

contribute to joint objectives; and 

(iv) Opportunities to resolve or reduce 

conflicts, within the context of 

developing the plan’s desired 

conditions or objectives. 

(3) Nothing in this section should be 

read to indicate that the responsible 

official will seek to direct or control 

management of lands outside of the plan 

area, nor will the responsible official 

conform management to meet nonForest Service objectives or policies. 

§ 219.5 Planning framework. 

(a) Planning for a national forest, 

grassland, prairie, or other comparable 

administrative unit of the NFS is an 

iterative process that includes 

assessment (§ 219.6); developing, 

amending, or revising a plan (§§ 219.7 

and 219.13); and monitoring (§ 219.12). 

These three phases of the framework are 

complementary and may overlap. The 

intent of this framework is to create a 

responsive planning process that 

informs integrated resource 

management and allows the Forest 

Service to adapt to changing conditions, 

including climate change, and improve 

management based on new information 

and monitoring. 

(1) Assessment. Assessments rapidly 

evaluate existing information about 

relevant ecological, economic, and 

social conditions, trends, and 

sustainability and their relationship to 

the land management plan within the 

context of the broader landscape. The 

responsible official shall consider and 

evaluate existing and possible future 

conditions and trends of the plan area, 

and assess the sustainability of social, 

economic, and ecological systems 

within the plan area, in the context of 

the broader landscape (§ 219.6). 

(2) Plan development, plan 

amendment, or plan revision. 

(i) The process for developing or 

revising a plan includes: Assessment, 

preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan based on the 

assessment, development of a proposed 

plan, consideration of the 

environmental effects of the proposal, 

providing an opportunity to comment 

on the proposed plan, providing an 

opportunity to object before the 

proposal is approved, and, finally, 

approval of the plan or plan revision. A 

new plan or plan revision requires 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. 

(ii) The process for amending a plan 

includes: Preliminary identification of 

the need to change the plan, 

development of a proposed amendment, 

consideration of the environmental 

effects of the proposal, providing an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed amendment, providing an 

opportunity to object before the 

proposal is approved, and, finally, 

approval of the plan amendment. The 

appropriate NEPA documentation for an 

amendment may be an environmental 

impact statement, an environmental 

assessment, or a categorical exclusion, 

depending upon the scope and scale of 

the amendment and its likely effects. 

(3) Monitoring. Monitoring is 

continuous and provides feedback for 

the planning cycle by testing relevant 

assumptions, tracking relevant 

conditions over time, and measuring 

management effectiveness (§ 219.12). 

The monitoring program includes planlevel and broader-scale monitoring. The 

plan-level monitoring program is 

informed by the assessment phase; 

developed during plan development, 

plan amendment, or plan revision; and 

implemented after plan decision. The 

regional forester develops broader-scale 

monitoring strategies. Biennial 

monitoring evaluation reports document 

whether a change to the plan or change 

to the monitoring program is warranted 

based on new information, whether a 

new assessment may be needed, or 

whether there is no need for change at 

that time. 

(b) Interdisciplinary team(s). The 

responsible official shall establish an 

interdisciplinary team or teams to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21263 

prepare assessments; new plans, plan 

amendments, and plan revisions; and 

plan monitoring programs. 

§ 219.6 Assessment. 

The responsible official has the 

discretion to determine the scope, scale, 

and timing of an assessment described 

in § 219.5(a)(1), subject to the 

requirements of this section. 

(a) Process for plan development or 

revision assessments. An assessment 

must be completed for the development 

of a new plan or for a plan revision. The 

responsible official shall: 

(1) Identify and consider relevant 

existing information contained in 

governmental or non-governmental 

assessments, plans, monitoring reports, 

studies, and other sources of relevant 

information. Such sources of 

information may include State forest 

assessments and strategies, the 

Resources Planning Act assessment, 

ecoregional assessments, nongovernmental reports, State 

comprehensive outdoor recreation 

plans, community wildfire protection 

plans, public transportation plans, State 

wildlife data and action plans, and 

relevant Agency or interagency reports, 

resource plans or assessments. Relevant 

private information, including relevant 

land management plans and local 

knowledge, will be considered if 

publicly available or voluntarily 

provided. 

(2) Coordinate with or provide 

opportunities for the regional forester, 

agency staff from State and Private 

Forestry and Research and 

Development, federally recognized 

Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations, other governmental and 

non-governmental parties, and the 

public to provide existing information 

for the assessment. 

(3) Document the assessment in a 

report available to the public. The report 

should document information needs 

relevant to the topics of paragraph (b) of 

this section. Document in the report 

how the best available scientific 

information was used to inform the 

assessment (§ 219.3). Include the report 

in the planning record (§ 219.14). 

(b) Content of the assessment for plan 

development or revision. In the 

assessment for plan development or 

revision, the responsible official shall 

identify and evaluate existing 

information relevant to the plan area for 

the following: 

(1) Terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic 

ecosystems, and watersheds; 

(2) Air, soil, and water resources and 

quality; 

(3) System drivers, including 

dominant ecological processes, 

disturbance regimes, and stressors, such 

as natural succession, wildland fire, 

invasive species, and climate change; 

and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to 

change; 

(4) Baseline assessment of carbon 

stocks; 

(5) Threatened, endangered, proposed 

and candidate species, and potential 

species of conservation concern present 

in the plan area; 

(6) Social, cultural, and economic 

conditions; 

(7) Benefits people obtain from the 

NFS planning area (ecosystem services); 

(8) Multiple uses and their 

contributions to local, regional, and 

national economies; 

(9) Recreation settings, opportunities 

and access, and scenic character; 

(10) Renewable and nonrenewable 

energy and mineral resources; 

(11) Infrastructure, such as 

recreational facilities and transportation 

and utility corridors; 

(12) Areas of tribal importance; 

(13) Cultural and historic resources 

and uses; 

(14) Land status and ownership, use, 

and access patterns; and 

(15) Existing designated areas located 

in the plan area including wilderness 

and wild and scenic rivers and potential 

need and opportunity for additional 

designated areas. 

(c) Plan amendment assessments. 

Where the responsible official 

determines that a new assessment is 

needed to inform an amendment, the 

responsible official has the discretion to 

determine the scope, scale, process, and 

content for the assessment depending 

on the topic or topics to be addressed. 

§ 219.7 New plan development or plan 

revision. 

(a) Plan revisions. A plan revision 

creates a new plan for the entire plan 

area, whether the plan revision differs 

from the prior plan to a small or large 

extent. A plan must be revised at least 

every 15 years. But, the responsible 

official has the discretion to determine 

at any time that conditions on a plan 

area have changed significantly such 

that a plan must be revised (16 U.S.C. 

1604(f)(5)). 

(b) New plan development. New plan 

development is required for new NFS 

units. The process for developing a new 

plan is the same as the process for plan 

revision. 

(c) Process for plan development or 

revision. (1) The process for developing 

or revising a plan includes: Public 

notification and participation (§§ 219.4 

and 219.16), assessment (§§ 219.5 and 

219.6), developing a proposed plan, 

considering the environmental effects of 

the proposal, providing an opportunity 

to comment on the proposed plan, 

providing an opportunity to object 

before the proposal is approved (subpart 

B), and, finally, approving the plan or 

plan revision. A new plan or plan 

revision requires preparation of an 

environmental impact statement. 

(2) In developing a proposed new 

plan or proposed plan revision, the 

responsible official shall: 

(i) Review relevant information from 

the assessment and monitoring to 

identify a preliminary need to change 

the existing plan and to inform the 

development of plan components and 

other plan content. 

(ii) Consider the goals and objectives 

of the Forest Service strategic plan 

(§ 219.2(a)). 

(iii) Identify the presence and 

consider the importance of various 

physical, biological, social, cultural, and 

historic resources on the plan area 

(§ 219.6), with respect to the 

requirements for plan components of 

§§ 219.8 through 219.11. 

(iv) Consider conditions, trends, and 

stressors (§ 219.6), with respect to the 

requirements for plan components of 

§§ 219.8 through 219.11. 

(v) Identify and evaluate lands that 

may be suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System and determine whether to 

recommend any such lands for 

wilderness designation. 

(vi) Identify the eligibility of rivers for 

inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System, unless a 

systematic inventory has been 

previously completed and documented 

and there are no changed circumstances 

that warrant additional review. 

(vii) Identify existing designated areas 

other than the areas identified in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi) of this 

section, and determine whether to 

recommend any additional areas for 

designation. If the responsible official 

has the delegated authority to designate 

a new area or modify an existing area, 

then the responsible official may 

designate such area when approving the 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. 

(viii) Identify the suitability of areas 

for the appropriate integration of 

resource management and uses, with 

respect to the requirements for plan 

components of §§ 219.8 through 219.11, 

including identifying lands which are 

not suitable for timber production 

(§ 219.11). 

(ix) Identify the maximum quantity of 

timber that may be removed from the 

plan area (§ 219.11(d)(6)). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21264 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(x) Identify questions and indicators 

for the plan monitoring program 

(§ 219.12). 

(xi) Identify potential other content in 

the plan (paragraph (f) of this section). 

(3) The regional forester shall identify 

the species of conservation concern for 

the plan area in coordination with the 

responsible official. 

(d) Management areas or geographic 

areas. Every plan must have 

management areas or geographic areas 

or both. The plan may identify 

designated or recommended designated 

areas as management areas or 

geographic areas. 

(e) Plan components. Plan 

components guide future project and 

activity decisionmaking. The plan must 

indicate whether specific plan 

components apply to the entire plan 

area, to specific management areas or 

geographic areas, or to other areas as 

identified in the plan. 

(1) Required plan components. Every 

plan must include the following plan 

components: 

(i) Desired conditions. A desired 

condition is a description of specific 

social, economic, and/or ecological 

characteristics of the plan area, or a 

portion of the plan area, toward which 

management of the land and resources 

should be directed. Desired conditions 

must be described in terms that are 

specific enough to allow progress 

toward their achievement to be 

determined, but do not include 

completion dates. 

(ii) Objectives. An objective is a 

concise, measurable, and time-specific 

statement of a desired rate of progress 

toward a desired condition or 

conditions. Objectives should be based 

on reasonably foreseeable budgets. 

(iii) Standards. A standard is a 

mandatory constraint on project and 

activity decisionmaking, established to 

help achieve or maintain the desired 

condition or conditions, to avoid or 

mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet 

applicable legal requirements. 

(iv) Guidelines. A guideline is a 

constraint on project and activity 

decisionmaking that allows for 

departure from its terms, so long as the 

purpose of the guideline is met. 

(§ 219.15(d)(3)). Guidelines are 

established to help achieve or maintain 

a desired condition or conditions, to 

avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or 

to meet applicable legal requirements. 

(v) Suitability of lands. Specific lands 

within a plan area will be identified as 

suitable for various multiple uses or 

activities based on the desired 

conditions applicable to those lands. 

The plan will also identify lands within 

the plan area as not suitable for uses 

that are not compatible with desired 

conditions for those lands. The 

suitability of lands need not be 

identified for every use or activity. 

Suitability identifications may be made 

after consideration of historic uses and 

of issues that have arisen in the 

planning process. Every plan must 

identify those lands that are not suitable 

for timber production (§ 219.11). 

(2) Optional plan component: goals. A 

plan may include goals as plan 

components. Goals are broad statements 

of intent, other than desired conditions, 

usually related to process or interaction 

with the public. Goals are expressed in 

broad, general terms, but do not include 

completion dates. 

(3) Requirements for the set of plan 

components. The set of plan 

components must meet the 

requirements set forth in this part for 

sustainability (§ 219.8), plant and 

animal diversity (§ 219.9), multiple use 

(§ 219.10), and timber (§ 219.11). 

(f) Other content in the plan. (1) Other 

required content in the plan. Every plan 

must: 

(i) Identify watershed(s) that are a 

priority for maintenance or restoration; 

(ii) Describe the plan area’s distinctive 

roles and contributions within the 

broader landscape; 

(iii) Include the monitoring program 

required by § 219.12; and 

(iv) Contain information reflecting 

proposed and possible actions that may 

occur on the plan area during the life of 

the plan, including: the planned timber 

sale program; timber harvesting levels; 

and the proportion of probable methods 

of forest vegetation management 

practices expected to be used (16 U.S.C. 

1604(e)(2) and (f)(2)). Such information 

is not a commitment to take any action 

and is not a ‘‘proposal’’ as defined by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 

CFR 1508.23, 42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(C)). 

(2) Optional content in the plan. A 

plan may include additional content, 

such as potential management 

approaches or strategies and partnership 

opportunities or coordination activities. 

§ 219.8 Sustainability. 

The plan must provide for social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability 

within Forest Service authority and 

consistent with the inherent capability 

of the plan area, as follows: 

(a) Ecological sustainability. (1) 

Ecosystem Integrity. The plan must 

include plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, to maintain or 

restore the ecological integrity of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

watersheds in the plan area, including 

plan components to maintain or restore 

structure, function, composition, and 

connectivity, taking into account: 

(i) Interdependence of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems in the plan area. 

(ii) Contributions of the plan area to 

ecological conditions within the broader 

landscape influenced by the plan area. 

(iii) Conditions in the broader 

landscape that may influence the 

sustainability of resources and 

ecosystems within the plan area. 

(iv) System drivers, including 

dominant ecological processes, 

disturbance regimes, and stressors, such 

as natural succession, wildland fire, 

invasive species, and climate change; 

and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to 

change. 

(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to 

restore fire adapted ecosystems. 

(vi) Opportunities for landscape scale 

restoration. 

(2) Air, soil, and water. The plan must 

include plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, to maintain or 

restore: 

(i) Air quality. 

(ii) Soils and soil productivity, 

including guidance to reduce soil 

erosion and sedimentation. 

(iii) Water quality. 

(iv) Water resources in the plan area, 

including lakes, streams, and wetlands; 

ground water; public water supplies; 

sole source aquifers; source water 

protection areas; and other sources of 

drinking water (including guidance to 

prevent or mitigate detrimental changes 

in quantity, quality, and availability). 

(3) Riparian areas. (i) The plan must 

include plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, to maintain or 

restore the ecological integrity of 

riparian areas in the plan area, 

including plan components to maintain 

or restore structure, function, 

composition, and connectivity, taking 

into account: 

(A) Water temperature and chemical 

composition; 

(B) Blockages (uncharacteristic and 

characteristic) of water courses; 

(C) Deposits of sediment; 

(D) Aquatic and terrestrial habitats; 

(E) Ecological connectivity; 

(F) Restoration needs; and 

(G) Floodplain values and risk of 

flood loss. 

(ii) Plans must establish width(s) for 

riparian management zones around all 

lakes, perennial and intermittent 

streams, and open water wetlands, 

within which the plan components 

required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section will apply, giving special 

attention to land and vegetation for 

approximately 100 feet from the edges 

of all perennial streams and lakes. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21265 

(A) Riparian management zone 

width(s) may vary based on ecological 

or geomorphic factors or type of water 

body; and will apply unless replaced by 

a site-specific delineation of the riparian 

area. 

(B) Plan components must ensure that 

no management practices causing 

detrimental changes in water 

temperature or chemical composition, 

blockages of water courses, or deposits 

of sediment that seriously and adversely 

affect water conditions or fish habitat 

shall be permitted within the riparian 

management zones or the site-specific 

delineated riparian areas. 

(4) Best management practices for 

water quality. The Chief shall establish 

requirements for national best 

management practices for water quality 

in the Forest Service Directive System. 

Plan components must ensure 

implementation of these practices. 

(b) Social and economic 

sustainability. The plan must include 

plan components, including standards 

or guidelines, to guide the plan area’s 

contribution to social and economic 

sustainability, taking into account: 

(1) Social, cultural, and economic 

conditions relevant to the area 

influenced by the plan; 

(2) Sustainable recreation; including 

recreation settings, opportunities, and 

access; and scenic character; 

(3) Multiple uses that contribute to 

local, regional, and national economies 

in a sustainable manner; 

(4) Ecosystem services; 

(5) Cultural and historic resources and 

uses; and 

(6) Opportunities to connect people 

with nature. 

§ 219.9 Diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

This section adopts a complementary 

ecosystem and species-specific 

approach to maintaining the diversity of 

plant and animal communities and the 

persistence of native species in the plan 

area. Compliance with the ecosystem 

requirements of paragraph (a) is 

intended to provide the ecological 

conditions to both maintain the 

diversity of plant and animal 

communities and support the 

persistence of most native species in the 

plan area. Compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (b) is 

intended to provide for additional 

ecological conditions not otherwise 

provided by compliance with paragraph 

(a) for individual species as set forth in 

paragraph (b). The plan must provide 

for the diversity of plant and animal 

communities, within Forest Service 

authority and consistent with the 

inherent capability of the plan area, as 

follows: 

(a) Ecosystem plan components. (1) 

Ecosystem integrity. As required by 

§ 219.8(a), the plan must include plan 

components, including standards or 

guidelines, to maintain or restore the 

ecological integrity of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in 

the plan area, including plan 

components to maintain or restore their 

structure, function, composition, and 

connectivity. 

(2) Ecosystem diversity. The plan 

must include plan components, 

including standards or guidelines, to 

maintain or restore the diversity of 

ecosystems and habitat types 

throughout the plan area. In doing so, 

the plan must include plan components 

to maintain or restore: 

(i) Key characteristics associated with 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types; 

(ii) Rare aquatic and terrestrial plant 

and animal communities; and 

(iii) The diversity of native tree 

species similar to that existing in the 

plan area. 

(b) Additional, species-specific plan 

components. (1) The responsible official 

shall determine whether or not the plan 

components required by paragraph (a) of 

this section provide the ecological 

conditions necessary to: contribute to 

the recovery of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species, 

conserve proposed and candidate 

species, and maintain a viable 

population of each species of 

conservation concern within the plan 

area. If the responsible official 

determines that the plan components 

required in paragraph (a) are insufficient 

to provide such ecological conditions, 

then additional, species-specific plan 

components, including standards or 

guidelines, must be included in the plan 

to provide such ecological conditions in 

the plan area. 

(2) If the responsible official 

determines that it is beyond the 

authority of the Forest Service or not 

within the inherent capability of the 

plan area to maintain or restore the 

ecological conditions to maintain a 

viable population of a species of 

conservation concern in the plan area, 

then the responsible official shall: 

(i) Document the basis for that 

determination (§ 219.14(a)); and 

(ii) Include plan components, 

including standards or guidelines, to 

maintain or restore ecological 

conditions within the plan area to 

contribute to maintaining a viable 

population of the species within its 

range. In providing such plan 

components, the responsible official 

shall coordinate to the extent 

practicable with other Federal, State, 

Tribal, and private land managers 

having management authority over 

lands relevant to that population. 

(c) Species of conservation concern. 

For purposes of this subpart, a species 

of conservation concern is a species, 

other than federally recognized 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate species, that is known to 

occur in the plan area and for which the 

regional forester has determined that the 

best available scientific information 

indicates substantial concern about the 

species’ capability to persist over the 

long-term in the plan area. 

§ 219.10 Multiple use. 

While meeting the requirements of 

§§ 219.8 and 219.9, the plan must 

provide for ecosystem services and 

multiple uses, including outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

wildlife, and fish, within Forest Service 

authority and the inherent capability of 

the plan area as follows: 

(a) Integrated resource management 

for multiple use. The plan must include 

plan components, including standards 

or guidelines, for integrated resource 

management to provide for ecosystem 

services and multiple uses in the plan 

area. When developing plan 

components for integrated resource 

management, to the extent relevant to 

the plan area and the public 

participation process and the 

requirements of §§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, 

and 219.11, the responsible official shall 

consider: 

(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, 

cultural and heritage resources, 

ecosystem services, fish and wildlife 

species, forage, geologic features, 

grazing and rangelands, habitat and 

habitat connectivity, recreation settings 

and opportunities, riparian areas, 

scenery, soil, surface and subsurface 

water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, 

viewsheds, wilderness, and other 

relevant resources and uses. 

(2) Renewable and nonrenewable 

energy and mineral resources. 

(3) Appropriate placement and 

sustainable management of 

infrastructure, such as recreational 

facilities and transportation and utility 

corridors. 

(4) Opportunities to coordinate with 

neighboring landowners to link open 

spaces and take into account joint 

management objectives where feasible 

and appropriate. 

(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the 

requirements of § 219.9, for wildlife, 

fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and 

used by the public; for hunting, fishing, 

trapping, gathering, observing, 

subsistence, and other activities (in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21266 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

collaboration with federally recognized 

Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, 

other Federal agencies, and State and 

local governments). 

(6) Land status and ownership, use, 

and access patterns relevant to the plan 

area. 

(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to 

ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability. 

(8) System drivers, including 

dominant ecological processes, 

disturbance regimes, and stressors, such 

as natural succession, wildland fire, 

invasive species, and climate change; 

and the ability of the terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to 

adapt to change (§ 219.8); 

(9) Public water supplies and 

associated water quality. 

(10) Opportunities to connect people 

with nature. 

(b) Requirements for plan components 

for a new plan or plan revision. (1) The 

plan must include plan components, 

including standards or guidelines, to 

provide for: 

(i) Sustainable recreation; including 

recreation settings, opportunities, and 

access; and scenic character. Recreation 

opportunities may include nonmotorized, motorized, developed, and 

dispersed recreation on land, water, and 

in the air. 

(ii) Protection of cultural and historic 

resources. 

(iii) Management of areas of tribal 

importance. 

(iv) Protection of congressionally 

designated wilderness areas as well as 

management of areas recommended for 

wilderness designation to protect and 

maintain the ecological and social 

characteristics that provide the basis for 

their suitability for wilderness 

designation. 

(v) Protection of designated wild and 

scenic rivers as well as management of 

rivers found eligible or determined 

suitable for the National Wild and 

Scenic River system to protect the 

values that provide the basis for their 

suitability for inclusion in the system. 

(vi) Appropriate management of other 

designated areas or recommended 

designated areas in the plan area, 

including research natural areas. 

(2) Other plan components for 

integrated resource management to 

provide for multiple use as necessary. 

§ 219.11 Timber requirements based on 

the NFMA. 

While meeting the requirements of 

§§ 219.8 through 219.10, the plan must 

include plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, and other plan 

content regarding timber management 

within Forest Service authority and the 

inherent capability of the plan area, as 

follows: 

(a) Lands not suited for timber 

production. (1) The responsible official 

shall identify lands within the plan area 

as not suited for timber production if 

any one of the following factors applies: 

(i) Statute, Executive order, or 

regulation prohibits timber production 

on the land; 

(ii) The Secretary of Agriculture or the 

Chief has withdrawn the land from 

timber production; 

(iii) Timber production would not be 

compatible with the achievement of 

desired conditions and objectives 

established by the plan for those lands; 

(iv) The technology is not currently 

available for conducting timber harvest 

without causing irreversible damage to 

soil, slope, or other watershed 

conditions; 

(v) There is no reasonable assurance 

that such lands can be adequately 

restocked within 5 years after final 

regeneration harvest; or 

(vi) The land is not forest land. 

(2) The responsible official shall 

review lands identified in the plan as 

not suited for timber production at least 

once every 10 years, or as otherwise 

prescribed by law, to determine whether 

conditions have changed so that they 

have become suitable for timber 

production. As a result of this 10-year 

review, the plan may be amended to 

identify any such lands as suitable for 

timber production, if warranted by 

changed conditions. 

(b) Timber harvest for purposes of 

timber production. A plan that identifies 

lands as suitable for timber production 

must include plan components, 

including standards or guidelines, to 

guide timber harvest for timber 

production or for other multiple use 

purposes on such lands. 

(c) Timber harvest for purposes other 

than timber production. Except as 

provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section, the plan may include plan 

components to allow for timber harvest 

for purposes other than timber 

production throughout the plan area, or 

portions of the plan area, as a tool to 

assist in achieving or maintaining one or 

more applicable desired conditions or 

objectives of the plan in order to protect 

other multiple-use values, and for 

salvage, sanitation, or public health or 

safety. Examples of using timber harvest 

to protect other multiple use values may 

include improving wildlife or fish 

habitat, thinning to reduce fire risk, or 

restoring meadow or savanna 

ecosystems where trees have invaded. 

(d) Limitations on timber harvest. 

Whether timber harvest would be for the 

purposes of timber production or other 

purposes, plan components, including 

standards or guidelines, must ensure the 

following: 

(1) No timber harvest for the purposes 

of timber production may occur on 

lands not suited for timber production. 

(2) Timber harvest would occur only 

where soil, slope, or other watershed 

conditions would not be irreversibly 

damaged; 

(3) Timber harvest would be carried 

out in a manner consistent with the 

protection of soil, watershed, fish, 

wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic 

resources. 

(4) Where plan components will allow 

clearcutting, seed tree cutting, 

shelterwood cutting, or other cuts 

designed to regenerate an even-aged 

stand of timber, the plan must include 

standards limiting the maximize size for 

openings that may be cut in one harvest 

operation, according to geographic 

areas, forest types, or other suitable 

classifications. Except as provided in 

paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 

section, this limit may not exceed 60 

acres for the Douglas-fir forest type of 

California, Oregon, and Washington; 80 

acres for the southern yellow pine types 

of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas; 

100 acres for the hemlock-Sitka spruce 

forest type of coastal Alaska; and 40 

acres for all other forest types. 

(i) Plan standards may allow for 

openings larger than those specified in 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section to be cut 

in one harvest operation where the 

responsible official determines that 

larger harvest openings are necessary to 

help achieve desired ecological 

conditions in the plan area. If so, 

standards for exceptions shall include 

the particular conditions under which 

the larger size is permitted and must set 

a maximum size permitted under those 

conditions. 

(ii) Plan components may allow for 

size limits exceeding those established 

in paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(4)(i) of this 

section on an individual timber sale 

basis after 60 days public notice and 

review by the regional forester. 

(iii) The plan maximum size for 

openings to be cut in one harvest 

operation shall not apply to the size of 

openings harvested as a result of natural 

catastrophic conditions such as fire, 

insect and disease attack, or windstorm 

(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)). 

(5) Timber will be harvested from 

NFS lands only where such harvest 

would comply with the resource 

protections set out in sections 6(g)(3)(E) 

and (F) of the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(E) and (F)). Some of these 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21267 

requirements are listed in paragraphs 

(d)(2) to (d)(4) of this section. 

(6) The quantity of timber that may be 

sold from the national forest is limited 

to an amount equal to or less than that 

which can be removed from such forest 

annually in perpetuity on a sustainedyield basis. This limit may be measured 

on a decadal basis. The plan may 

provide for departures from this limit as 

provided by the NFMA when departure 

would be consistent with the plan’s 

desired conditions and objectives. 

Exceptions for departure from this limit 

on the quantity sold may be made only 

after a public review and comment 

period of at least 90 days. The Chief 

must include in the Forest Service 

Directive System procedures for 

estimating the quantity of timber that 

can be removed annually in perpetuity 

on a sustained-yield basis, and 

exceptions, consistent with 16 U.S.C. 

1611. 

(7) The regeneration harvest of evenaged stands of trees is limited to stands 

that generally have reached the 

culmination of mean annual increment 

of growth. This requirement would 

apply only to regeneration harvest of 

even-aged stands on lands identified as 

suitable for timber production and 

where timber production is the primary 

purpose for the harvest. Plan 

components may allow for exceptions, 

set out in 16 U.S.C. 1604(m), only if 

such harvest is consistent with the other 

plan components of the land 

management plan. 

§ 219.12 Monitoring. 

(a) Plan monitoring program. (1) The 

responsible official shall develop a 

monitoring program for the plan area 

and include it in the plan. Monitoring 

information should enable the 

responsible official to determine if a 

change in plan components or other 

plan content that guide management of 

resources on the plan area may be 

needed. The development of the plan 

monitoring program must be 

coordinated with the regional forester 

and Forest Service State and Private 

Forestry and Research and 

Development. Responsible officials for 

two or more administrative units may 

jointly develop their plan monitoring 

programs. 

(2) The plan monitoring program sets 

out the plan monitoring questions and 

associated indicators. Monitoring 

questions and associated indicators 

must be designed to inform the 

management of resources on the plan 

area, including by testing relevant 

assumptions, tracking relevant changes, 

and measuring management 

effectiveness and progress toward 

achieving or maintaining the plan’s 

desired conditions or objectives. 

Questions and indicators should be 

based on one or more desired 

conditions, objectives, or other plan 

components in the plan, but not every 

plan component needs to have a 

corresponding monitoring question. 

(3) The plan monitoring program 

should be coordinated and integrated 

with relevant broader-scale monitoring 

strategies (paragraph (b) of this section) 

to ensure that monitoring is 

complementary and efficient, and that 

information is gathered at scales 

appropriate to the monitoring questions. 

(4) Subject to the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the 

responsible official has the discretion to 

set the scope and scale of the plan 

monitoring program, after considering: 

(i) Information needs identified 

through the planning process as most 

critical for informed management of 

resources on the plan area; and 

(ii) The financial and technical 

capabilities of the Agency. 

(5) Each plan monitoring program 

must contain one or more monitoring 

questions and associated indicators 

addressing each of the following: 

(i) The status of select watershed 

conditions. 

(ii) The status of select ecological 

conditions including key characteristics 

of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. 

(iii) The status of focal species to 

assess the ecological conditions 

required under § 219.9. 

(iv) The status of a select set of the 

ecological conditions required under 

§ 219.9 to contribute to the recovery of 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, conserve proposed 

and candidate species, and maintain a 

viable population of each species of 

conservation concern. 

(v) The status of visitor use, visitor 

satisfaction, and progress toward 

meeting recreation objectives. 

(vi) Measurable changes on the plan 

area related to climate change and other 

stressors that may be affecting the plan 

area. 

(vii) Progress toward meeting the 

desired conditions and objectives in the 

plan, including for providing multiple 

use opportunities. 

(viii) The effects of each management 

system to determine that they do not 

substantially and permanently impair 

the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(C)). 

(6) A range of monitoring techniques 

may be used to carry out the monitoring 

requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(7) This section does not apply to 

projects or activities. Project and 

activity monitoring may be used to 

gather information for the plan 

monitoring program, and information 

gathered through plan monitoring may 

be used to inform development of 

projects or activities. But, the 

monitoring requirements of this section 

are not a prerequisite for making a 

decision to carry out a project or 

activity. 

(b) Broader-scale monitoring 

strategies. (1) The regional forester shall 

develop a broader-scale monitoring 

strategy for plan monitoring questions 

that can best be answered at a 

geographic scale broader than one plan 

area. 

(2) When developing a monitoring 

strategy, the regional forester shall 

coordinate with the relevant responsible 

officials, Forest Service State and 

Private Forestry and Research and 

Development, partners, and the public. 

Two or more regional foresters may 

jointly develop broader-scale 

monitoring strategies. 

(3) Each regional forester shall ensure 

that the broader-scale monitoring 

strategy is within the financial and 

technical capabilities of the region and 

complements other ongoing monitoring 

efforts. 

(4) Projects and activities may be 

carried out under plans developed, 

amended, or revised under this part 

before the regional forester has 

developed a broader-scale monitoring 

strategy. 

(c) Timing and process for developing 

the plan monitoring program and 

broader-scale strategies. (1) The 

responsible official shall develop the 

plan monitoring program as part of the 

planning process for a new plan 

development or plan revision. Where a 

plan’s monitoring program has been 

developed under the provisions of a 

prior planning regulation and the unit 

has not initiated plan revision under 

this part, the responsible official shall 

modify the plan monitoring program 

within 4 years of the effective date of 

this part, or as soon as practicable, to 

meet the requirements of this section. 

(2) The regional forester shall develop 

a broader-scale monitoring strategy as 

soon as practicable. 

(3) To the extent practicable, 

appropriate, and relevant to the 

monitoring questions in the plan 

monitoring program, plan monitoring 

programs and broader-scale strategies 

must be designed to take into account: 

(i) Existing national and regional 

inventory, monitoring, and research 

programs of the Agency, including from 

the NFS, State and Private Forestry, and 

Research and Development, and of other 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

governmental and non-governmental 

entities; 

(ii) Opportunities to design and carry 

out multi-party monitoring with other 

Forest Service units, Federal, State or 

local government agencies, scientists, 

partners, and members of the public; 

and 

(iii) Opportunities to design and carry 

out monitoring with federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska 

Native Corporations. 

(d) Biennial evaluation of the 

monitoring information. (1) The 

responsible official shall conduct a 

biennial evaluation of new information 

gathered through the plan monitoring 

program and relevant information from 

the broader-scale strategy, and shall 

issue a written report of the evaluation 

and make it available to the public. 

(i) The first monitoring evaluation for 

a plan or plan revision developed in 

accordance with this subpart must be 

completed no later than 2 years from the 

effective date of plan decision. 

(ii) Where the monitoring program 

developed under the provisions of a 

prior planning regulation has been 

modified to meet the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the first 

monitoring evaluation must be 

completed no later than 2 years from the 

date the change takes effect. 

(iii) The monitoring evaluation report 

may be postponed for 1 year in case of 

exigencies, but notice of the 

postponement must be provided to the 

public prior to the date the report is due 

for that year (§ 219.16(c)(6)). 

(2) The monitoring evaluation report 

must indicate whether or not a change 

to the plan, management activities, or 

the monitoring program, or a new 

assessment, may be warranted based on 

the new information. The monitoring 

evaluation report must be used to 

inform adaptive management of the plan 

area. 

(3) The monitoring evaluation report 

may be incorporated into other planning 

documents if the responsible official has 

initiated a plan revision or relevant 

amendment. 

(4) The monitoring evaluation report 

is not a decision document representing 

final Agency action, and is not subject 

to the objection provisions of subpart B. 

§ 219.13 Plan amendment and 

administrative changes. 

(a) Plan amendment. A plan may be 

amended at any time. Plan amendments 

may be broad or narrow, depending on 

the need for change, and should be used 

to keep plans current and help units 

adapt to new information or changing 

conditions. The responsible official has 

the discretion to determine whether and 

how to amend the plan. Except as 

provided by paragraph (c) of this 

section, a plan amendment is required 

to add, modify, or remove one or more 

plan components, or to change how or 

where one or more plan components 

apply to all or part of the plan area 

(including management areas or 

geographic areas). 

(b) Amendment process. The 

responsible official shall: 

(1) Base an amendment on a 

preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan. The preliminary 

identification of the need to change the 

plan may be based on a new assessment; 

a monitoring report; or other 

documentation of new information, 

changed conditions, or changed 

circumstances. When a plan amendment 

is made together with, and only applies 

to, a project or activity decision, the 

analysis prepared for the project or 

activity may serve as the documentation 

for the preliminary identification of the 

need to change the plan; 

(2) Provide opportunities for public 

participation as required in § 219.4 and 

public notification as required in 

§ 219.16. The responsible official may 

combine processes and associated 

public notifications where appropriate, 

considering the scope and scale of the 

need to change the plan; and 

(3) Amend the plan consistent with 

Forest Service NEPA procedures. The 

appropriate NEPA documentation for an 

amendment may be an environmental 

impact statement, an environmental 

assessment, or a categorical exclusion, 

depending upon the scope and scale of 

the amendment and its likely effects. A 

proposed amendment that may create a 

significant environmental effect and 

thus require preparation of an 

environmental impact statement is 

considered a significant change in the 

plan for the purposes of the NFMA. 

(c) Administrative changes. An 

administrative change is any change to 

a plan that is not a plan amendment or 

plan revision. Administrative changes 

include corrections of clerical errors to 

any part of the plan, conformance of the 

plan to new statutory or regulatory 

requirements, or changes to other 

content in the plan (§ 219.7(f)). 

(1) A substantive change to the 

monitoring program made outside of the 

process for plan revision or amendment 

may be made only after notice to the 

public of the intended change and 

consideration of public comment 

(§ 219.16(c)(6)). 

(2) All other administrative changes 

may be made following public notice 

(§ 219.16(c)(6)). 

§ 219.14 Decision document and planning 

records. 

(a) Decision document. The 

responsible official shall record 

approval of a new plan, plan 

amendment, or revision in a decision 

document prepared according to Forest 

Service NEPA procedures (36 CFR 220). 

The decision document must include: 

(1) The rationale for approval; 

(2) An explanation of how the plan 

components meet the sustainability 

requirements of § 219.8, the diversity 

requirements of § 219.9, the multiple 

use requirements of § 219.10, and the 

timber requirements of § 219.11; 

(3) A statement of how the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision applies to 

approved projects and activities 

(§ 219.15); 

(4) The documentation of how the 

best available scientific information was 

used to inform planning, the plan 

components, and other plan content, 

including the plan monitoring program 

(§ 219.3); 

(5) The concurrence by the 

appropriate research station director 

with any part of the plan applicable to 

any experimental forests or 

experimental ranges (§ 219.2(b)(4)); and 

(6) The effective date of the plan, 

amendment, or revision. 

(b) Planning records. (1) The 

responsible official shall keep the 

following documents readily accessible 

to the public by posting them online 

and through other means: assessment 

reports (§ 219.6); the plan, including the 

monitoring program; the proposed plan, 

plan amendment, or plan revision; 

public notices and environmental 

documents associated with a plan; plan 

decision documents; and monitoring 

evaluation reports (§ 219.12). 

(2) The planning record includes 

documents that support analytical 

conclusions made and alternatives 

considered throughout the planning 

process. The responsible official shall 

make the planning record available at 

the office where the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision was 

developed. 

§ 219.15 Project and activity consistency 

with the plan. 

(a) Application to existing 

authorizations and approved projects or 

activities. Every decision document 

approving a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision must state whether 

authorizations of occupancy and use 

made before the decision document may 

proceed unchanged. If a plan decision 

document does not expressly allow such 

occupancy and use, the permit, contract, 

and other authorizing instrument for the 

use and occupancy must be made 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21269 

consistent with the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision as soon as 

practicable, as provided in paragraph (d) 

of this section, subject to valid existing 

rights. 

(b) Application to projects or activities 

authorized after plan decision. Projects 

and activities authorized after approval 

of a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision must be consistent with the 

plan as provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(c) Resolving inconsistency. When a 

proposed project or activity would not 

be consistent with the applicable plan 

components, the responsible official 

shall take one of the following steps, 

subject to valid existing rights: 

(1) Modify the proposed project or 

activity to make it consistent with the 

applicable plan components; 

(2) Reject the proposal or terminate 

the project or activity; 

(3) Amend the plan so that the project 

or activity will be consistent with the 

plan as amended; or 

(4) Amend the plan 

contemporaneously with the approval of 

the project or activity so that the project 

or activity will be consistent with the 

plan as amended. This amendment may 

be limited to apply only to the project 

or activity. 

(d) Determining consistency. Every 

project and activity must be consistent 

with the applicable plan components. A 

project or activity approval document 

must describe how the project or 

activity is consistent with applicable 

plan components developed or revised 

in conformance with this part by 

meeting the following criteria: 

(1) Goals, desired conditions, and 

objectives. The project or activity 

contributes to the maintenance or 

attainment of one or more goals, desired 

conditions, or objectives, or does not 

foreclose the opportunity to maintain or 

achieve any goals, desired conditions, or 

objectives, over the long term. 

(2) Standards. The project or activity 

complies with applicable standards. 

(3) Guidelines. The project or activity: 

(i) Complies with applicable 

guidelines as set out in the plan; or 

(ii) Is designed in a way that is as 

effective in achieving the purpose of the 

applicable guidelines (§ 219.7(e)(1)(iv)). 

(4) Suitability. A project or activity 

would occur in an area: 

(i) That the plan identifies as suitable 

for that type of project or activity; or 

(ii) For which the plan is silent with 

respect to its suitability for that type of 

project or activity. 

(e) Consistency of resource plans 

within the planning area with the land 

management plan. Any resource plans 

(for example, travel management plans) 

developed by the Forest Service that 

apply to the resources or land areas 

within the planning area must be 

consistent with the plan components. 

Resource plans developed prior to plan 

decision must be evaluated for 

consistency with the plan and amended 

if necessary. 

§ 219.16 Public notifications. 

The following public notification 

requirements apply to plan 

development, amendment, or revision. 

Notifications may be combined where 

appropriate. 

(a) When formal public notification is 

required. Public notification must be 

provided as follows: 

(1) To initiate the development of a 

proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision; 

(2) To invite comments on a proposed 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision, 

and associated environmental analysis. 

For a new plan, plan amendment, or a 

plan revision for which a draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

prepared, the comment period is at least 

90 days. For an amendment for which 

a draft EIS is not prepared, the comment 

period is at least 30 days; 

(3) To begin the objection period for 

a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision before approval (§ 219.52); 

(4) To approve a final plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision; or 

(5) To announce whenever a plan, 

plan amendment, or plan revision 

process initiated under the provisions of 

a previous planning regulation will be 

conformed to meet the provisions of this 

part (§ 219.17(b)(3)). 

(b) Project or activity plan 

amendments. When a plan amendment 

is approved in a decision document 

approving a project or activity and the 

amendment applies only to the project 

or activity, the notification requirements 

of 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart 

A, applies instead of this section. 

(c) How public notice is provided. The 

responsible official should use 

contemporary tools to provide notice to 

the public. At a minimum, all public 

notifications required by this part must 

be posted online, and: 

(1) When the Chief, the Under 

Secretary, or the Secretary is the 

responsible official, notice must be 

published in the Federal Register. 

(2) For a new plan or plan revision, 

when an official other than the Chief, 

the Under Secretary, or the Secretary is 

the responsible official, notice must be 

published in the Federal Register and 

the applicable newspaper(s) of record. 

(3) When the notice is for the purpose 

of inviting comments on a proposed 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 

for which a draft EIS is prepared, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Federal Register notice of availability of 

a draft EIS shall serve as the required 

Federal Register notice. 

(4) For a plan amendment when an 

official other than the Chief, the Under 

Secretary, or the Secretary is the 

responsible official, and for which a 

draft EIS is not prepared, notices must 

be published in the newspaper(s) of 

record. 

(5) If a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision applies to two or more units, 

notices must be published in the 

Federal Register and the newspaper(s) 

of record for the applicable units. 

(6) Additional public notice of 

administrative changes, changes to the 

monitoring program, opportunities to 

provide information for assessments, 

assessment reports, monitoring 

evaluation reports, or other notices not 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section 

may be made in any way the responsible 

official deems appropriate. 

(d) Content of public notices. Public 

notices required by this section except 

for notices applicable to paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section, must clearly describe the 

action subject to notice and the nature 

and scope of the decisions to be made; 

identify the responsible official; 

describe when, where, and how the 

responsible official will provide 

opportunities for the public to 

participate in the planning process; and 

explain how to obtain additional 

information. 

§ 219.17 Effective dates and transition. 

(a) Effective dates. (1) A plan or plan 

revision is effective 30 days after 

publication of notice of its approval. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, a plan amendment 

for which an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) has been prepared is 

effective 30 days after publication of 

notice of its approval; a plan 

amendment for which an EIS has not 

been prepared is effective immediately. 

(3) A plan amendment that applies to 

only one specific project or activity is 

effective on the date the project may be 

implemented in accordance with 

administrative review regulations at 36 

CFR parts 215 and 218. 

(b) Plan amendment and plan 

revision transition. For the purposes of 

this section, initiation means that the 

Agency has issued a notice of intent or 

other notice announcing the beginning 

of the process to develop a proposed 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. 

(1) Initiating plan development and 

plan revisions. Plan development and 

plan revisions initiated after May 9, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2012 must conform to the requirements 

of this part. 

(2) Initiating plan amendments. All 

plan amendments initiated after May 9, 

2012 are subject to the objection process 

in subpart B of this part. With respect 

to plans approved or revised under a 

prior planning regulation, including the 

transition provisions of the reinstated 

2000 rule (36 CFR part 209, published 

at 36 CFR parts 200 to 209, revised as 

of July 1, 2010), plan amendments may 

be initiated under the provisions of the 

prior planning regulation for 3 years 

after May 9, 2012, and may be 

completed and approved under those 

provisions (except for the optional 

appeal procedures of the prior planning 

regulation); or may be initiated, 

completed, and approved under the 

requirements of this part. After the 3- 

year transition period, all plan 

amendments must be initiated, 

completed, and approved under the 

requirements of this part. 

(3) Plan development, plan 

amendments, or plan revisions initiated 

before this part. For plan development, 

plan amendments, or plan revisions that 

were initiated before May 9, 2012, the 

responsible official may complete and 

approve the plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision in conformance with the 

provisions of the prior planning 

regulation, including its transition 

provisions (36 CFR part 209, published 

at 36 CFR parts 200 to 209, revised as 

of July 1, 2010), or may conform the 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 

to the requirements of this part. If the 

responsible official chooses to complete 

an ongoing planning process under the 

provisions of the prior planning 

regulation, but chooses to allow for an 

objection rather than an administrative 

appeal, the objection process in subpart 

B of this part shall apply. When the 

responsible official chooses to conform 

an ongoing planning process to this 

part, public notice must be made 

(§ 219.16(a)(5)). An objection process 

may be chosen only if the public is 

provided the opportunity to comment 

on a proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision, and associated 

environmental analysis. 

(c) Plans developed, amended, or 

revised under a prior planning 

regulation. This part supersedes any 

prior planning regulation. No 

obligations remain from any prior 

planning regulation, except those that 

are specifically included in a unit’s 

existing plan. Existing plans will remain 

in effect until revised. This part does 

not compel a change to any existing 

plan, except as required in 

§ 219.12(c)(1). None of the requirements 

of this part apply to projects or activities 

on units with plans developed or 

revised under a prior planning rule until 

the plan is revised under this part, 

except that projects or activities on such 

units must comply with the consistency 

requirement of § 219.15 with respect to 

any amendments that are developed and 

approved pursuant to this part. 

§ 219.18 Severability. 

In the event that any specific 

provision of this part is deemed by a 

court to be invalid, the remaining 

provisions shall remain in effect. 

§ 219.19 Definitions. 

Definitions of the special terms used 

in this subpart are set out as follows. 

Alaska Native Corporation. One of the 

regional, urban, and village native 

corporations formed under the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. 

Assessment. For the purposes of this 

subpart, an assessment is the 

identification and evaluation of existing 

information to support land 

management planning. Assessments are 

not decisionmaking documents, but 

provide current information on select 

topics relevant to the plan area, in the 

context of the broader landscape. 

Best management practices for water 

quality (BMPs). Methods, measures, or 

practices selected by an agency to meet 

its nonpoint source control needs. BMPs 

include but are not limited to structural 

and nonstructural controls and 

operation and maintenance procedures. 

BMPs can be applied before, during, and 

after pollution-producing activities to 

reduce or eliminate the introduction of 

pollutants into receiving waters. 

Candidate species. (1) For U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service candidate species, 

a species for which the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service possesses sufficient 

information on vulnerability and threats 

to support a proposal to list as 

endangered or threatened, but for which 

no proposed rule has yet been published 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(2) For National Marine Fisheries 

Service candidate species, a species that 

is: 

(i) The subject of a petition to list and 

for which the National Marine Fisheries 

Service has determined that listing may 

be warranted, pursuant to section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), or 

(ii) Not the subject of a petition but for 

which the National Marine Fisheries 

Service has announced in the Federal 

Register the initiation of a status review. 

Collaboration or collaborative 

process. A structured manner in which 

a collection of people with diverse 

interests share knowledge, ideas, and 

resources while working together in an 

inclusive and cooperative manner 

toward a common purpose. 

Collaboration, in the context of this part, 

falls within the full spectrum of public 

engagement described in the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s publication of 

October, 2007: Collaboration in NEPA— 

A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners. 

Connectivity. Ecological conditions 

that exist at several spatial and temporal 

scales that provide landscape linkages 

that permit the exchange of flow, 

sediments, and nutrients; the daily and 

seasonal movements of animals within 

home ranges; the dispersal and genetic 

interchange between populations; and 

the long distance range shifts of species, 

such as in response to climate change. 

Conservation. The protection, 

preservation, management, or 

restoration of natural environments, 

ecological communities, and species. 

Conserve. For purposes of § 219.9, to 

protect, preserve, manage, or restore 

natural environments and ecological 

communities to potentially avoid 

federally listing of proposed and 

candidate species. 

Culmination of mean annual 

increment of growth. See mean annual 

increment of growth. 

Designated area. An area or feature 

identified and managed to maintain its 

unique special character or purpose. 

Some categories of designated areas may 

be designated only by statute and some 

categories may be established 

administratively in the land 

management planning process or by 

other administrative processes of the 

Federal executive branch. Examples of 

statutorily designated areas are national 

heritage areas, national recreational 

areas, national scenic trails, wild and 

scenic rivers, wilderness areas, and 

wilderness study areas. Examples of 

administratively designated areas are 

experimental forests, research natural 

areas, scenic byways, botanical areas, 

and significant caves. 

Disturbance. Any relatively discrete 

event in time that disrupts ecosystem, 

watershed, community, or species 

population structure and/or function 

and changes resources, substrate 

availability, or the physical 

environment. 

Disturbance regime. A description of 

the characteristic types of disturbance 

on a given landscape; the frequency, 

severity, and size distribution of these 

characteristic disturbance types; and 

their interactions. 

Ecological conditions. The biological 

and physical environment that can 

affect the diversity of plant and animal 

communities, the persistence of native 

species, and the productive capacity of 

ecological systems. Ecological 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21271 

conditions include habitat and other 

influences on species and the 

environment. Examples of ecological 

conditions include the abundance and 

distribution of aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats, connectivity, roads and other 

structural developments, human uses, 

and invasive species. 

Ecological integrity. The quality or 

condition of an ecosystem when its 

dominant ecological characteristics (for 

example, composition, structure, 

function, connectivity, and species 

composition and diversity) occur within 

the natural range of variation and can 

withstand and recover from most 

perturbations imposed by natural 

environmental dynamics or human 

influence. 

Ecological sustainability. See 

sustainability. 

Ecological system. See ecosystem. 

Economic sustainability. See 

sustainability. 

Ecosystem. A spatially explicit, 

relatively homogeneous unit of the 

Earth that includes all interacting 

organisms and elements of the abiotic 

environment within its boundaries. An 

ecosystem is commonly described in 

terms of its: 

(1) Composition. The biological 

elements within the different levels of 

biological organization, from genes and 

species to communities and ecosystems. 

(2) Structure. The organization and 

physical arrangement of biological 

elements such as, snags and down 

woody debris, vertical and horizontal 

distribution of vegetation, stream habitat 

complexity, landscape pattern, and 

connectivity. 

(3) Function. Ecological processes that 

sustain composition and structure, such 

as energy flow, nutrient cycling and 

retention, soil development and 

retention, predation and herbivory, and 

natural disturbances such as wind, fire, 

and floods. 

(4) Connectivity. (see connectivity 

above). 

Ecosystem diversity. The variety and 

relative extent of ecosystems. 

Ecosystem services. Benefits people 

obtain from ecosystems, including: 

(1) Provisioning services, such as 

clean air and fresh water, energy, fuel, 

forage, fiber, and minerals; 

(2) Regulating services, such as long 

term storage of carbon; climate 

regulation; water filtration, purification, 

and storage; soil stabilization; flood 

control; and disease regulation; 

(3) Supporting services, such as 

pollination, seed dispersal, soil 

formation, and nutrient cycling; and 

(4) Cultural services, such as 

educational, aesthetic, spiritual and 

cultural heritage values, recreational 

experiences and tourism opportunities. 

Environmental assessment (EA). See 

definition in § 219.62. 

Environmental document. For the 

purposes of this part: an environmental 

assessment, environmental impact 

statement, finding of no significant 

impact, categorical exclusion, and 

notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

Environmental impact statement 

(EIS). See definition in § 219.62. 

Even-aged stand. A stand of trees 

composed of a single age class. 

Federally recognized Indian Tribe. An 

Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, 

nation, pueblo, village, or community 

that the Secretary of the Interior 

acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe 

under the Federally Recognized Indian 

Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. 

Focal species. A small subset of 

species whose status permits inference 

to the integrity of the larger ecological 

system to which it belongs and provides 

meaningful information regarding the 

effectiveness of the plan in maintaining 

or restoring the ecological conditions to 

maintain the diversity of plant and 

animal communities in the plan area. 

Focal species would be commonly 

selected on the basis of their functional 

role in ecosystems. 

Forest land. Land at least 10 percent 

occupied by forest trees of any size or 

formerly having had such tree cover and 

not currently developed for non-forest 

uses. Lands developed for non-forest 

use include areas for crops, improved 

pasture, residential or administrative 

areas, improved roads of any width and 

adjoining road clearing, and power line 

clearings of any width. 

Geographic area. A spatially 

contiguous land area identified within 

the planning area. A geographic area 

may overlap with a management area. 

Inherent capability of the plan area. 

The ecological capacity or ecological 

potential of an area characterized by the 

interrelationship of its physical 

elements, its climatic regime, and 

natural disturbances. 

Integrated resource management. 

Multiple use management that 

recognizes the interdependence of 

ecological resources and is based on the 

need for integrated consideration of 

ecological, social, and economic factors. 

Landscape. A defined area 

irrespective of ownership or other 

artificial boundaries, such as a spatial 

mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, landforms, and plant 

communities, repeated in similar form 

throughout such a defined area. 

Maintain. In reference to an ecological 

condition: To keep in existence or 

continuance of the desired ecological 

condition in terms of its desired 

composition, structure, and processes. 

Depending upon the circumstance, 

ecological conditions may be 

maintained by active or passive 

management or both. 

Management area. A land area 

identified within the planning area that 

has the same set of applicable plan 

components. A management area does 

not have to be spatially contiguous. 

Management system. For purposes of 

this subpart, a timber management 

system including even-aged 

management and uneven-aged 

management. 

Mean annual increment of growth and 

culmination of mean annual increment 

of growth. Mean annual increment of 

growth is the total increment of increase 

of volume of a stand (standing crop plus 

thinnings) up to a given age divided by 

that age. Culmination of mean annual 

increment of growth is the age in the 

growth cycle of an even-aged stand at 

which the average annual rate of 

increase of volume is at a maximum. In 

land management plans, mean annual 

increment is expressed in cubic measure 

and is based on the expected growth of 

stands, according to intensities and 

utilization guidelines in the plan. 

Monitoring. A systematic process of 

collecting information to evaluate 

effects of actions or changes in 

conditions or relationships. 

Multiple use. The management of all 

the various renewable surface resources 

of the NFS so that they are utilized in 

the combination that will best meet the 

needs of the American people; making 

the most judicious use of the land for 

some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to 

provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in use to conform to 

changing needs and conditions; that 

some land will be used for less than all 

of the resources; and harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various 

resources, each with the other, without 

impairment of the productivity of the 

land, with consideration being given to 

the relative values of the various 

resources, and not necessarily the 

combination of uses that will give the 

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

output, consistent with the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 

U.S.C. 528–531). 

National Forest System. See definition 

in § 219.62. 

Native knowledge. A way of knowing 

or understanding the world, including 

traditional ecological and social 

knowledge of the environment derived 

from multiple generations of indigenous 

peoples’ interactions, observations, and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

experiences with their ecological 

systems. Native knowledge is placebased and culture-based knowledge in 

which people learn to live in and adapt 

to their own environment through 

interactions, observations, and 

experiences with their ecological 

system. This knowledge is generally not 

solely gained, developed by, or retained 

by individuals, but is rather 

accumulated over successive 

generations and is expressed through 

oral traditions, ceremonies, stories, 

dances, songs, art, and other means 

within a cultural context. 

Native species. An organism that was 

historically or is present in a particular 

ecosystem as a result of natural 

migratory or evolutionary processes; 

and not as a result of an accidental or 

deliberate introduction into that 

ecosystem. An organism’s presence and 

evolution (adaptation) in an area are 

determined by climate, soil, and other 

biotic and abiotic factors. 

Newspaper(s) of record. See definition 

in § 219.62. 

Objection. See definition in § 219.62. 

Online. See definition in § 219.62. 

Participation. Activities that include a 

wide range of public involvement tools 

and processes, such as collaboration, 

public meetings, open houses, 

workshops, and comment periods. 

Persistence. Continued existence. 

Plan area. The NFS lands covered by 

a plan. 

Plan or land management plan. A 

document or set of documents that 

provide management direction for an 

administrative unit of the NFS 

developed under the requirements of 

this part or a prior planning rule. 

Plant and animal community. A 

naturally occurring assemblage of plant 

and animal species living within a 

defined area or habitat. 

Productivity. The capacity of NFS 

lands and their ecological systems to 

provide the various renewable resources 

in certain amounts in perpetuity. For 

the purposes of this subpart, 

productivity is an ecological term, not 

an economic term. 

Project. An organized effort to achieve 

an outcome on NFS lands identified by 

location, tasks, outputs, effects, times, 

and responsibilities for execution. 

Proposed Species. Any species of fish, 

wildlife, or plant that is proposed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service in the 

Federal Register to be listed under 

Section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Recovery. For the purposes of this 

subpart, and with respect to threatened 

or endangered species: The 

improvement in the status of a listed 

species to the point at which listing as 

federally endangered or threatened is no 

longer appropriate. 

Recreation. See Sustainable 

recreation. 

Recreation opportunity. An 

opportunity to participate in a specific 

recreation activity in a particular 

recreation setting to enjoy desired 

recreation experiences and other 

benefits that accrue. Recreation 

opportunities include non-motorized, 

motorized, developed, and dispersed 

recreation on land, water, and in the air. 

Recreation setting. The social, 

managerial, and physical attributes of a 

place that, when combined, provide a 

distinct set of recreation opportunities. 

The Forest Service uses the recreation 

opportunity spectrum to define 

recreation settings and categorize them 

into six distinct classes: primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized, semi-primitive 

motorized, roaded natural, rural, and 

urban. 

Responsible official. See definition in 

§ 219.62. 

Restoration. The process of assisting 

the recovery of an ecosystem that has 

been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. 

Ecological restoration focuses on 

reestablishing the composition, 

structure, pattern, and ecological 

processes necessary to facilitate 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

sustainability, resilience, and health 

under current and future conditions. 

Restore. To renew by the process of 

restoration (see restoration). 

Riparian Areas. Three-dimensional 

ecotones of interaction that include 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that 

extend down into the groundwater, up 

above the canopy, outward across the 

floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain 

to the water, laterally into the terrestrial 

ecosystem, and along the water course 

at variable widths. 

Riparian management zone. Portions 

of a watershed where ripariandependent resources receive primary 

emphasis, and for which plans include 

plan components to maintain or restore 

riparian functions and ecological 

functions. 

Risk. A combination of the likelihood 

that a negative outcome will occur and 

the severity of the subsequent negative 

consequences. 

Scenic character. A combination of 

the physical, biological, and cultural 

images that gives an area its scenic 

identity and contributes to its sense of 

place. Scenic character provides a frame 

of reference from which to determine 

scenic attractiveness and to measure 

scenic integrity. 

Social sustainability. See 

sustainability. 

Sole source aquifer. Underground 

water supply designated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

as the ‘‘sole or principle’’ source of 

drinking water for an area as established 

under section 1424(e) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h– 

3(e)). 

Source water protection areas. The 

area delineated by a State or Tribe for 

a public water system (PWS) or 

including numerous PWSs, whether the 

source is ground water or surface water 

or both, as part of a State or tribal source 

water assessment and protection 

program (SWAP) approved by 

Environmental Protection Agency under 

section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (42 U.S.C. 300h–3(e)). 

Stressors. For the purposes of this 

subpart: Factors that may directly or 

indirectly degrade or impair ecosystem 

composition, structure or ecological 

process in a manner that may impair its 

ecological integrity, such as an invasive 

species, loss of connectivity, or the 

disruption of a natural disturbance 

regime. 

Sustainability. The capability to meet 

the needs of the present generation 

without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their needs. 

For purposes of this part, ‘‘ecological 

sustainability’’ refers to the capability of 

ecosystems to maintain ecological 

integrity; ‘‘economic sustainability’’ 

refers to the capability of society to 

produce and consume or otherwise 

benefit from goods and services 

including contributions to jobs and 

market and nonmarket benefits; and 

‘‘social sustainability’’ refers to the 

capability of society to support the 

network of relationships, traditions, 

culture, and activities that connect 

people to the land and to one another, 

and support vibrant communities. 

Sustainable recreation. The set of 

recreation settings and opportunities on 

the National Forest System that is 

ecologically, economically, and socially 

sustainable for present and future 

generations. 

Timber harvest. The removal of trees 

for wood fiber use and other multipleuse purposes. 

Timber production. The purposeful 

growing, tending, harvesting, and 

regeneration of regulated crops of trees 

to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round 

sections for industrial or consumer use. 

Viable population. A population of a 

species that continues to persist over the 

long term with sufficient distribution to 

be resilient and adaptable to stressors 

and likely future environments. 

Watershed. A region or land area 

drained by a single stream, river, or 

drainage network; a drainage basin. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21273 

Watershed condition. The state of a 

watershed based on physical and 

biogeochemical characteristics and 

processes. 

Wild and scenic river. A river 

designated by Congress as part of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

that was established in the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 

1271 (note), 1271–1287). 

Wilderness. Any area of land 

designated by Congress as part of the 

National Wilderness Preservation 

System that was established in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131– 

1136). 

Subpart B—Pre-Decisional 

Administrative Review Process 

§ 219.50 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart establishes a predecisional administrative review 

(hereinafter referred to as objection) 

process for plans, plan amendments, or 

plan revisions. This process gives an 

individual or entity an opportunity for 

an independent Forest Service review 

and resolution of issues before the 

approval of a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision. This subpart identifies 

who may file objections to a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision; the 

responsibilities of the participants in an 

objection; and the procedures that apply 

to the review of the objection. 

§ 219.51 Plans, plan amendments, or plan 

revisions not subject to objection. 

(a) A plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision is not subject to objection when 

the responsible official receives no 

substantive formal comments (§ 219.62) 

on that proposal during the 

opportunities for public comment 

(§ 219.53(a)). 

(b) Plans, plan amendments, or plan 

revisions proposed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the Under Secretary for 

Natural Resources and Environment are 

not subject to the procedures set forth in 

this section. A decision by the Secretary 

or Under Secretary constitutes the final 

administrative determination of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

(c) A plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision is not subject to objection 

under this subpart if another 

administrative review process is used 

consistent with § 219.59. 

(d) When a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision is not subject to objection 

under this subpart, the responsible 

official shall include an explanation 

with the signed decision document. 

§ 219.52 Giving notice of a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision subject to 

objection before approval. 

(a) The responsible official shall 

disclose during the NEPA scoping 

process and in the appropriate NEPA 

documents that the proposed plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision is subject 

to the objection procedures in this 

subpart. This disclosure is in addition to 

the public notice that begins the 

objection filing period, as required at 

§ 219.16. When a responsible official 

chooses to use the objection process of 

this subpart for a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision process 

initiated before the effective date of this 

rule, notice that the objection process 

will be used must be given prior to an 

opportunity to provide substantive 

formal comment on a proposed plan, 

plan amendment, or revision and 

associated environmental analysis. 

(b) The responsible official shall make 

available the public notice for the 

beginning of the objection period for a 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 

(§ 219.16(a)(3)) to those who have 

requested the environmental documents 

or are eligible to file an objection 

consistent with § 219.53. 

(c) The content of the public notice 

for the beginning of the objection period 

for a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision before approval (§ 219.16(a)(3)) 

must: 

(1) Inform the public of the 

availability of the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision, the 

appropriate final environmental 

documents, the draft plan decision 

document, and any relevant assessment 

or monitoring evaluation report; the 

commencement of the objection filing 

period under 36 CFR part 219 Subpart 

B; and the process for objecting. The 

documents in this paragraph will be 

made available online at the time of 

public notice. 

(2) Include the name of the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision, the name 

and title of the responsible official, and 

instructions on how to obtain a copy of 

the appropriate final environmental 

documents; the draft plan decision 

document; and the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision. 

(3) Include the name and address of 

the reviewing officer with whom an 

objection is to be filed. The notice must 

specify a street, postal, fax, and email 

address; the acceptable format(s) for 

objections filed electronically; and the 

reviewing officer’s office business hours 

for those filing hand-delivered 

objections. 

(4) Include a statement that objections 

will be accepted only from those who 

have previously submitted substantive 

formal comments specific to the 

proposed plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision during any opportunity for 

public comment as provided in subpart 

A. 

(5) Include a statement that the 

publication date of the public notice in 

the applicable newspaper of record (or 

the Federal Register, if the responsible 

official is the Chief) is the exclusive 

means for calculating the time to file an 

objection (§ 219.56). 

(6) Include a statement that an 

objection, including attachments, must 

be filed with the appropriate reviewing 

officer (§ 219.62) within 60 days, if an 

environmental impact statement has 

been prepared, otherwise within 45 

days of the date of publication of the 

public notice for the objection process. 

(7) Include a statement describing the 

minimum content requirements of an 

objection (§ 219.54(c)). 

§ 219.53 Who may file an objection. 

(a) Individuals and entities who have 

submitted substantive formal comments 

related to a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision during the opportunities 

for public comment as provided in 

subpart A during the planning process 

for that decision may file an objection. 

Objections must be based on previously 

submitted substantive formal comments 

attributed to the objector unless the 

objection concerns an issue that arose 

after the opportunities for formal 

comment. The burden is on the objector 

to demonstrate compliance with 

requirements for objection. Objections 

that do not meet the requirements of 

this paragraph may not be accepted; 

however, objections not accepted must 

be documented in the planning record. 

(b) Formal comments received from 

an authorized representative(s) of an 

entity are considered those of the entity 

only. Individual members of that entity 

do not meet objection eligibility 

requirements solely based on 

membership in an entity. A member or 

an individual must submit substantive 

formal comments independently to be 

eligible to file an objection in an 

individual capacity. 

(c) When an objection lists multiple 

individuals or entities, each individual 

or entity must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section. Individuals 

or entities listed on an objection that do 

not meet eligibility requirements may 

not be considered objectors, although an 

objection must be accepted (if not 

otherwise set aside for review under 

§ 219.55) if at least one listed individual 

or entity meets the eligibility 

requirements. 

(d) Federal agencies may not file 

objections. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) Federal employees who otherwise 

meet the requirements of this subpart 

for filing objections in a non-official 

capacity must comply with Federal 

conflict of interest statutes at 18 U.S.C. 

202–209 and with employee ethics 

requirements at 5 CFR part 2635. 

Specifically, employees may not be on 

official duty nor use government 

property or equipment in the 

preparation or filing of an objection. 

Further, employees may not include 

information unavailable to the public, 

such as Federal agency documents that 

are exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552(b)). 

§ 219.54 Filing an objection. 

(a) All objections must be filed, in 

writing, with the reviewing officer for 

the plan. All objections must be open to 

public inspection during the objection 

process. 

(b) Including documents by reference 

is not allowed, except for the following 

list of items that may be referenced by 

including the name, date, page number 

(where applicable), and relevant section 

of the cited document. All other 

documents or Web links to those 

documents, or both must be included 

with the objection, if referenced in the 

objection. 

(1) All or any part of a Federal law or 

regulation. 

(2) Forest Service Directive System 

documents and land management plans 

or other published Forest Service 

documents. 

(3) Documents referenced by the 

Forest Service in the planning 

documentation related to the proposal 

subject to objection. 

(4) Formal comments previously 

provided to the Forest Service by the 

objector during the proposed plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision comment 

period. 

(c) At a minimum, an objection must 

include the following: 

(1) The objector’s name and address 

(§ 219.62), along with a telephone 

number or email address if available; 

(2) Signature or other verification of 

authorship upon request (a scanned 

signature for electronic mail may be 

filed with the objection); 

(3) Identification of the lead objector, 

when multiple names are listed on an 

objection (§ 219.62). Verification of the 

identity of the lead objector if requested; 

(4) The name of the plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision being 

objected to, and the name and title of 

the responsible official; 

(5) A statement of the issues and/or 

the parts of the plan, plan amendment, 

or plan revision to which the objection 

applies; 

(6) A concise statement explaining the 

objection and suggesting how the 

proposed plan decision may be 

improved. If applicable, the objector 

should identify how the objector 

believes that the plan, plan amendment, 

or plan revision is inconsistent with 

law, regulation, or policy; and 

(7) A statement that demonstrates the 

link between prior substantive formal 

comments attributed to the objector and 

the content of the objection, unless the 

objection concerns an issue that arose 

after the opportunities for formal 

comment (§ 219.53(a)). 

§ 219.55 Objections set aside from review. 

(a) The reviewing officer shall set 

aside and not review an objection when 

one or more of the following applies: 

(1) Objections are not filed in a timely 

manner (§ 219.56); 

(2) The proposed plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision is not 

subject to the objection procedures of 

this subpart pursuant to §§ 219.51 and 

219.59; 

(3) The individual or entity did not 

submit substantive formal comments 

(§ 219.53) during opportunities for 

public comment on the proposed 

decision (§ 219.16(a)(1) and (a)(2)); 

(4) None of the issues included in the 

objection is based on previously 

submitted substantive formal comments 

unless one or more of those issues arose 

after the opportunities for formal 

comment; 

(5) The objection does not provide 

sufficient information as required by 

§ 219.54(c); 

(6) The objector withdraws the 

objection in writing; 

(7) The objector’s identity is not 

provided or cannot be determined from 

the signature (written or electronically 

scanned), and a reasonable means of 

contact is not provided (§ 219.54(c)); or 

(8) The objection is illegible for any 

reason and a legible copy cannot easily 

be obtained. 

(b) When an objection includes an 

issue that is not based on previously 

submitted substantive formal comments 

and did not arise after the opportunities 

for formal comment, that issue will be 

set aside and not reviewed. Other issues 

raised in the objection that meet the 

requirements of this subpart will be 

reviewed. 

(c) The reviewing officer shall give 

written notice to the objector and the 

responsible official when an objection 

or part of an objection is set aside from 

review and shall state the reasons for 

not reviewing the objection in whole or 

part. If the objection is set aside from 

review for reasons of illegibility or lack 

of a means of contact, the reasons must 

be documented in the planning record. 

§ 219.56 Objection time periods and 

process. 

(a) Time to file an objection. For a 

new plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision for which an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) is prepared, 

written objections, including any 

attachments, must be filed within 60 

days following the publication date of 

the public notice for a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision before 

approval (§§ 219.16 and 219.52). For an 

amendment for which an EIS is not 

prepared, the time to file an objection is 

within 45 days. It is the responsibility 

of the objector to ensure that the 

reviewing officer receives the objection 

in a timely manner. 

(b) Computation of time periods. (1) 

All time periods are computed using 

calendar days, including Saturdays, 

Sundays, and Federal holidays in the 

time zone of the reviewing officer. 

However, when the time period expires 

on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal 

holiday, the time is extended to the end 

of the next Federal working day (11:59 

p.m. for objections filed by electronic 

means such as email or facsimile 

machine). 

(2) The day after publication of the 

public notice for a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision before 

approval (§§ 219.16 and 219.52), is the 

first day of the objection filing period. 

(3) The publication date of the public 

notice for a plan, plan amendment, or 

plan revision before approval (§§ 219.16 

and 219.52), is the exclusive means for 

calculating the time to file an objection. 

Objectors may not rely on dates or 

timeframe information provided by any 

other source. 

(c) Evidence of timely filing. The 

objector is responsible for filing the 

objection in a timely manner. 

Timeliness must be determined by one 

of the following indicators: 

(1) The date of the U.S. Postal Service 

postmark for an objection received 

before the close of the fifth business day 

after the objection filing date; 

(2) The electronically generated 

posted date and time for email and 

facsimiles; 

(3) The shipping date for delivery by 

private carrier for an objection received 

before the close of the fifth business day 

after the objection filing date; or 

(4) The official agency date stamp 

showing receipt of hand delivery. 

(d) Extensions. Time extensions for 

filing are not permitted except as 

provided at paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21275 

(e) Reviewing officer role and 

responsibilities. The reviewing officer is 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) or Forest Service official having 

the delegated authority and 

responsibility to review an objection 

filed under this subpart. The reviewing 

officer is a line officer at the next higher 

administrative level above the 

responsible official; except that: 

(1) For a plan amendment, that next 

higher-level line officer may delegate 

the reviewing officer authority and 

responsibility to a line officer at the 

same administrative level as the 

responsible official. Any plan 

amendment delegation of reviewing 

officer responsibilities must be made 

prior to the public notification of an 

objection filing period (§ 219.52). 

(2) For an objection or part of an 

objection specific to the identification of 

species of conservation concern, the 

regional forester who identified the 

species of conservation concern for the 

plan area may not be the reviewing 

officer. The Chief may choose to act as 

the reviewing officer or may delegate 

the reviewing officer authority to a line 

officer at the same administrative level 

as the regional forester. The reviewing 

officer for the plan will convey any such 

objections or parts thereof to the 

appropriate line officer. 

(f) Notice of objections filed. Within 

10 days after the close of the objection 

period, the responsible official shall 

publish a notice of all objections in the 

applicable newspaper of record and post 

the notice online. 

(g) Response to objections. The 

reviewing officer must issue a written 

response to the objector(s) concerning 

their objection(s) within 90 days of the 

end of the objection-filing period. The 

reviewing officer has the discretion to 

extend the time when it is determined 

to be necessary to provide adequate 

response to objections or to participate 

in discussions with the parties. The 

reviewing officer must notify all parties 

(lead objectors and interested persons) 

in writing of any extensions. 

§ 219.57 Resolution of objections. 

(a) Meetings. Prior to the issuance of 

the reviewing officer’s written response, 

either the reviewing officer or the 

objector may request to meet to discuss 

issues raised in the objection and 

potential resolution. The reviewing 

officer must allow other interested 

persons to participate in such meetings. 

An interested person must file a request 

to participate in an objection within 10 

days after publication of the notice of 

objection by the responsible official 

(§ 219.56(f)). The responsible official 

shall be a participant in all meetings 

involving the reviewing officer, 

objectors, and interested persons. 

During meetings with objectors and 

interested persons, the reviewing officer 

may choose to use alternative dispute 

resolution methods to resolve 

objections. All meetings are open to 

observation by the public. 

(b) Response to objections. (1) The 

reviewing officer must render a written 

response to the objection(s) within 90 

days of the close of the objection-filing 

period, unless the allowable time is 

extended as provided at § 219.56(g). A 

written response must set forth the 

reasons for the response but need not be 

a point-by-point response, and may 

contain instructions to the responsible 

official. In cases involving more than 

one objection to a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision, the 

reviewing officer may consolidate 

objections and issue one or more 

responses. The response must be sent to 

the objecting party(ies) by certified mail, 

return receipt requested, and posted 

online. 

(2) The reviewing officer’s review of 

and response to the objection(s) is 

limited to only those issues and 

concerns submitted in the objection(s). 

(3) The response of the reviewing 

officer will be the final decision of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture on the 

objection. 

§ 219.58 Timing of a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision decision. 

(a) The responsible official may not 

issue a decision document concerning a 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

until the reviewing officer has 

responded in writing to all objections. 

(b) A decision by the responsible 

official approving a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision must be 

consistent with the reviewing officer’s 

response to objections. 

(c) When no objection is filed within 

the allotted filing period, the reviewing 

officer must notify the responsible 

official. The responsible official’s 

approval of the plan, plan amendment, 

or plan revision in a plan decision 

document consistent with § 219.14, may 

occur on, but not before, the fifth 

business day following the end of the 

objection-filing period. 

§ 219.59 Use of other administrative 

review processes. 

(a) Where the Forest Service is a 

participant in a multi-federal agency 

effort that would otherwise be subject to 

objection under this subpart, the 

responsible official may waive the 

objection procedures of this subpart and 

instead adopt the administrative review 

procedure of another participating 

Federal agency. As a condition of such 

a waiver, the responsible official for the 

Forest Service must have agreement 

with the responsible official of the other 

agency or agencies that a joint agency 

response will be provided to those who 

file for administrative review of the 

multi-agency effort. When such an 

agreement is reached, the responsible 

official for the Forest Service shall 

ensure public notice required in 

§ 219.52 sets forth which administrative 

review procedure is to be used. 

(b) When a plan amendment is 

approved in a decision document 

approving a project or activity and the 

amendment applies only to the project 

or activity, the administrative review 

process of 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, 

subpart A, applies instead of the 

objection process established in this 

subpart. When a plan amendment 

applies to all future projects or 

activities, the objection process 

established in this subpart applies only 

to the plan amendment decision; the 

review process of 36 CFR part 215 or 

part 218 would apply to the project or 

activity part of the decision. 

§ 219.60 Secretary’s authority. 

Nothing in this subpart restricts the 

Secretary of Agriculture from exercising 

any statutory authority regarding the 

protection, management, or 

administration of NFS lands. 

§ 219.61 Information collection 

requirements. 

This subpart specifies the information 

that objectors must give in an objection 

to a plan, plan amendment, or plan 

revision (§ 219.54(c)). As such, this 

subpart contains information collection 

requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 

1320 and have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget and 

assigned control number 0596–0158. 

§ 219.62 Definitions. 

Definitions of the special terms used 

in this subpart are set out as follows. 

Address. An individual’s or entity’s 

current mailing address used for postal 

service or other delivery services. An 

email address is not sufficient. 

Decision memo. A concise written 

record of the responsible official’s 

decision to implement an action that is 

categorically excluded from further 

analysis and documentation in an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

environmental assessment (EA), where 

the action is one of a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment, and does not 

give rise to extraordinary circumstances 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
21276 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 68 / Monday, April 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

in which a normally excluded action 

may have a significant environmental 

effect. 

Environmental assessment (EA). A 

public document that provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an EIS 

or a finding of no significant impact, 

aids an agency’s compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) when no EIS is necessary, and 

facilitates preparation of a statement 

when one is necessary (40 CFR 1508.9; 

FSH 1909.15, Chapter 40). 

Environmental impact statement 

(EIS). A detailed written statement as 

required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (40 CFR 1508.11; 36 

CFR 220). 

Formal comments. See substantive 

formal comments. 

Lead objector. For an objection 

submitted with multiple individuals, 

multiple entities, or combination of 

individuals and entities listed, the 

individual or entity identified to 

represent all other objectors for the 

purposes of communication, written or 

otherwise, regarding the objection. 

Line officer. A Forest Service official 

who serves in a direct line of command 

from the Chief. 

Name. The first and last name of an 

individual or the name of an entity. An 

electronic username is insufficient for 

identification of an individual or entity. 

National Forest System. The National 

Forest System includes national forests, 

national grasslands, and the National 

Tallgrass Prairie. 

Newspaper(s) of record. The 

newspaper(s) of record is (are) the 

principal newspaper(s) of general 

circulation annually identified and 

published in the Federal Register by 

each regional forester to be used for 

publishing notices as required by 36 

CFR 215.5. The newspaper(s) of record 

for projects in a plan area is (are) the 

newspaper(s) of record for notices 

related to planning. 

Objection. The written document filed 

with a reviewing officer by an 

individual or entity seeking predecisional administrative review of a 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. 

Objection period. The allotted filing 

period following publication of a public 

notice in the applicable newspaper of 

record (or the Federal Register, if the 

responsible official is the Chief) of the 

availability of the appropriate 

environmental documents and draft 

decision document, including a plan, 

plan amendment, or plan revision 

during which an objection may be filed 

with the reviewing officer. 

Objection process. Those procedures 

established for pre-decisional 

administrative review of a plan, plan 

amendment, or plan revision. 

Objector. An individual or entity who 

meets the requirements of § 219.53, and 

files an objection that meets the 

requirements of §§ 219.54 and 219.56. 

Online. Refers to the appropriate 

Forest Service Web site or future 

electronic equivalent. 

Responsible official. The official with 

the authority and responsibility to 

oversee the planning process and to 

approve a plan, plan amendment, and 

plan revision. 

Reviewing officer. The USDA or 

Forest Service official having the 

delegated authority and responsibility to 

review an objection filed under this 

subpart. 

Substantive formal comments. 

Written comments submitted to, or oral 

comments recorded by, the responsible 

official or his designee during an 

opportunity for public participation 

provided during the planning process 

(§§ 219.4 and 219.16), and attributed to 

the individual or entity providing them. 

Comments are considered substantive 

when they are within the scope of the 

proposal, are specific to the proposal, 

have a direct relationship to the 

proposal, and include supporting 

reasons for the responsible official to 

consider. 

Dated: March 23, 2012. 

Harris D. Sherman, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7502 Filed 4–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2