[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 242 (Friday, December 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67165-67169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30174]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
National Forest System Land Management Planning
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is giving
notice of its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to
analyze and disclose potential environmental consequences associated
with a National Forest System land management planning rule.
[[Page 67166]]
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by February 16, 2010. The Forest Service (Agency) expects to publish
the draft environmental impact statement in December 2010 and the final
environmental impact statement in October 2011. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Department) expects to publish the record of decision in
November 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via e-mail to
fspr@contentanalysisgroup.com. Written comments concerning this notice
should be addressed to Forest Service Planning NOI, C/O Bear West
Company, 172 E 500 S, Bountiful, UT 84010; or via facsimile to 801-397-
1605. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and
copying. The public may inspect comments at http://contentanalysisgroup.com/fsr/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Hayden, 202-205-0895,
lhayden@fs.fed.us.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A new Agency planning rule is needed to guide land managers in
developing, amending, and revising land management plans for the 155
national forests and 20 grasslands in the National Forest System (NFS).
A new planning rule provides the opportunity to help protect,
reconnect, and restore national forests and national grasslands for the
benefit of human communities and natural resources. Developing a new
rule will allow the Agency to integrate forest restoration, watershed
protection, climate resilience, wildlife conservation, the need to
support vibrant local economies, and collaboration into how the Agency
manages national forests and grasslands, with the goals of protecting
our water, climate, and wildlife while enhancing ecosystem services and
creating economic opportunity. Land management planning is also one way
the Agency complies with requirements under the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of
1960 (MUSYA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Wilderness Act of
1964, and other legal requirements.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared to
document the environmental analysis for a new planning rule at Title
36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 219 (36 CFR part 219). In the
interim, the Agency will use the 2000 rule provisions to develop,
amend, or revise plans until a new planning rule is released. The 2000
rule had been replaced by the 2008 planning rule which was subsequently
held invalid by a Federal District Court. The 2000 planning rule
removed and replaced the 1982 planning rule in the Code of Federal
Regulations, preventing the Agency from being able to simply reinstate
the 1982 rule, but the 2000 rule contains transition provisions which
permit the use of the 1982 rule provisions. No national forest or
grassland has ever used the 2000 rule to amend or revise a plan because
of its complexity. The Department is announcing the reinstatement in
the Code of Federal Regulations of the National Forest System Land and
Resource Management Planning Rule of November 9, 2000, as amended (2000
rule), elsewhere in the Federal Register. The Agency's expectation,
based upon its experience with the 2000 rule, is that national forests
and grasslands will use the 1982 rule provisions, as permitted by the
transition provisions of the 2000 rule, to revise and amend plans until
a new planning rule is issued.
Scoping Process
This notice of intent 60-day comment period starts the scoping
process in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500. As part of the
scoping process, the Agency solicits public comment on the scope of the
proposed rule; the alternatives to be considered; and the physical,
biological, social, and economic effects that should be analyzed in the
draft environmental impact statement. Following the review of comments
received during this 60-day period, the Agency will continue to
collaboratively engage the public in a variety of ways as it develops a
new proposed planning rule. Discussions will focus on key issues raised
during the notice of intent public comment period. The Agency is in the
process of creating a Web forum for additional dialogue and public
interaction. Further information on planned collaborative discussions
and other opportunities for public comment are available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.
Comments Requested
The proposed action lists several principles that could be included
in a new planning rule and a number of follow-up questions to help
frame the options for a proposed rule. Please comment on what features
you believe should be in a planning rule, whether the principles we
have identified are the right principles, and whether we have included
all of the issues that will need to be considered as a new planning
rule is developed. Please also respond to the specific questions posed
under the principles outlined below.
The Agency will use the comments and input we receive to identify
issues, develop alternatives, and build planning rule content leading
to a proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement in the fall
of 2010. The Agency will continue to solicit public input through a
collaborative process as the proposed rule is developed. Further, we
need to hear your thoughts on the best ways the Agency could engage the
public during this process.
Purpose and Need for Action
The NFMA requires regulations ``under 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)). In
1979, the Department first issued 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 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 very complex; had significant costs, was
lengthy, and was cumbersome for public input. The recommendations in
the Critique and the Agency's experiences with planning led to the
Agency issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for new
regulations in 1991, and two proposed rules, in 1995 and 1999.
After working with a committee of scientists, the Department issued
the 2000 rule to revise the 1982 regulations. The 2000 revision of the
planning rule described a new framework for NFS planning; made
sustainability the foundation for NFS planning and management; required
the consideration of the best available science during the planning
process, and set forth requirements for implementation, monitoring,
evaluation, amendment, and revision of land and resource management
plans. However, a review
[[Page 67167]]
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, but each of those rules was held invalid by a Federal District
Court (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)).
The NFMA requires the Agency to revise land management plans ``at
least every 15 years.'' The NFS has 127 land management plans.
Currently, 68 plans are past due for plan revision. Most plans were
developed between 1983 and 1993 and should have been revised between
1998 and 2008. The Agency now has an urgent need to establish a
planning rule that protects, reconnects, and restores national forests
and grasslands for the benefit of human communities and natural
resources.
A new planning rule must be responsive to the challenges of climate
change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed
protection, and wildlife conservation; and the sustainable use of
public lands to support vibrant communities. It must be clear,
efficient, and effective, and must meet requirements under the NFMA, as
well as allow the Agency to meet its obligations under the MUSYA, the
ESA, and the Wilderness Act, as well as other legal requirements. It
also must provide for a transparent, collaborative process that allows
for effective public participation. A new rule should also be within
the Agency's capability to implement on all NFS units. With stability
in planning regulations, national land management planning can regain
momentum, and units will be able to complete timely revisions that
guide sustainable management.
For further information on the history of land management planning
and why the Agency is preparing a new EIS see the Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.
Proposed Action
The NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604 requires the Agency to have a planning
rule. The Forest Service is proposing the development of a new planning
rule to be issued at 36 CFR part 219. The new rule will consist of
procedures for developing, amending, and revising land management
plans.
We list below a number of principles based on substance and process
that could be used to guide the development of a new planning rule.
Through this notice of intent, we are seeking public input on these
principles and associated questions. We also ask reviewers to identify
and give input on any principles or issues not mentioned. Additionally,
we are seeking input on whether we have included a full list of the
issues that must be addressed in a new rule and how best to address
existing and future issues and challenges.
Substantive Principles for a New Rule
1. Land management plans could address the need for restoration and
conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of
threats. Climate change; alterations of natural fire regimes; changing
water conditions; aggressive insects, disease, and invasive species;
increasingly intense floods and drought; increasing air and water
pollution; increasing development pressures; and other factors threaten
the health of forests and grasslands. When the health and integrity of
our lands deteriorate, so do the environmental, economic, and social
benefits they provide, with enormous potential impacts on drinking
water, greenhouse gas emissions, climate, wildlife, recreation,
community health, and prosperity. Plans could promote restoration and
management of national forests and grasslands to make them more
resilient to these threats, and to ensure the continued delivery of
important ecosystem services and benefits. They could also promote the
active conservation of healthy lands to prevent them from degrading and
to strengthen overall resiliency.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
What do you see as the biggest threats to forest and
grassland health and ecosystem resiliency?
How do you define restoration? What is your concept of
restoration? How can the planning rule foster restoration of NFS lands?
What kinds of conservation efforts can enhance ecosystem
resiliency and prevent degradation?
2. Plans could proactively address climate change through
monitoring, mitigation and adaptation, and could allow flexibility to
adapt to changing conditions and incorporate new information. Climate
change is one of the great challenges facing the United States and the
world, and is dramatically reshaping how the Agency will deliver on its
mission of sustaining the health and diversity of the nation's forests.
Management will need to restore ecosystem resiliency, and also factor
adaptation and mitigation strategies into planning and project
development. Plans will need to be innovative, integrate climate change
and watershed management, and use climate change as a theme under which
to integrate and streamline existing national and regional strategies
for ecological restoration, fire and fuels, forest health, biomass
utilization, and others. Plans could also include clear monitoring
programs and incorporate evolving research in order to develop science-
based understanding around climate change impacts and adaptation and
mitigation efforts.
Plans will need to anticipate climate change-related uncertainty
and be adaptive to new science and knowledge about changing conditions
on the ground. Responsible officials will also need flexibility to be
able to adjust plan objectives and requirements where there are
circumstances outside of agency control: For example, where increasing
water temperatures resulting from climate change make it impossible to
maintain a sensitive fish species in its native habitat. Incorporating
this concept of adaptive management into the planning rule will be
especially important as we increase our understanding of climate change
and how it will impact the landscape, but will also be important to
respond to and apply new information regarding water conservation,
insect and disease, species conservation, threats from catastrophic
wildfire, and impacts from the loss of open space.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
How can the planning rule be proactive and innovative in
addressing the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation?
What kinds of data, research, and monitoring could assist
land management planners to incorporate climate change adaptation
considerations into plans?
How should the planning rule address uncertainty? How do
other public and private entities recognize and incorporate uncertainty
in their planning efforts?
How can a new planning rule appropriately build in the
flexibility land managers will need to adapt to changing science,
information or conditions? What mechanisms should be used to
incorporate new data? Do you know of any successful adaptive management
regimes that can inform our process?
How should plans anticipate and address changing
conditions or impacts outside of agency control? How can external
factors be incorporated or recognized in plan guidance and
requirements?
[[Page 67168]]
3. Land management plans could emphasize maintenance and
restoration of watershed health, and could protect and enhance
America's water resources. Responding to the challenges of climate
change in providing water and water-related ecosystem services is one
of the most urgent tasks facing the Agency. The NFS alone is the source
of fresh water for more than 60 million people from coast to coast. In
coming decades, climate change; impacts from catastrophic fire and tree
mortality; the increasing intensity of weather patterns; events
including droughts and storms; increasing pollution; and increasing
development pressures will combine to impact the quantity,
availability, and quality of America's water resources and the health
of its watersheds. Plans could promote the restoration and maintenance
of watersheds to ensure abundant clean water, the protection of soils,
and the health of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
Should a new planning rule include standards to address
watershed health? If so, what might those look like? Should the Agency
be held accountable only for actions and problems on its NFS lands or
take into account water availability and quality factors that are
outside of the Agency's control?
What planning or management guidance could the Agency
incorporate in the rule to protect and enhance water resources?
One way to approach planning for an NFS unit is to think
about the future of the planning area through the context of its
watersheds. Do you see benefits and/or drawbacks to a rule requiring
land management planning on a watershed basis?
Do you see benefits or drawbacks to a rule requiring
adherence to regionally specific Best Management Practices?
4. Plans could provide for the diversity of species and wildlife
habitat. The NFS is a refuge for numerous species, including 425
threatened and endangered species. The NFMA directs the Agency to
provide ``for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the
suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet
overall multiple-use objectives * * *'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Over
time, the Agency's planning rules have sought to meet this statutory
requirement to provide for diversity in a number of ways.
The 1982 planning rule required management prescriptions to provide
for diversity as well as additional prescriptions to provide for the
viability of native vertebrates and desired non-native vertebrate
species. The 2000 planning rule required (with qualifications)
ecological conditions that provide a ``high likelihood'' that
conditions are capable of supporting viability of native and desired
non-native species over time. In addition, the 2000 planning rule
included detailed and complex analytical requirements regarding
ecological sustainability in terms of ecosystem and species diversity
(ecological sustainability), including identification of ``focal
species'' and ``species at risk.'' The 2005 and 2008 planning rules
required plans to provide a framework for contributing to ecological
sustainability, in terms of ecosystem diversity and (where necessary)
species diversity, in terms of ``species of interest,'' and ``species
of concern.'' These two rules had much less detail than the 2000 rule
with additional detail set forth in the Forest Service Directive
System.
The Agency faced a number of challenges in implementing the species
viability requirements of the 1982 rule. These challenges will be
exacerbated as climate change affects the range and viability of
species, both flora and fauna. In anticipation of coming changes, the
Agency must look at new ways to meet diversity requirements.
The new rule needs to provide planning procedures that meet the
intent of NFMA to provide for diversity in a way that achieves
protection for species, habitats, and ecosystems while taking into
account environmental and management factors and impacts that are
outside of the Agency's control.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
How should the new rule provide for diversity?
How should the planning rule guide protection of at-risk
species of animals and plants and their habitat?
How can the new planning rule account for variables
outside of Agency control, including those impacts that are the result
of climate change?
Should species diversity provisions in planning look
beyond the individual unit to a watershed or landscape scale, and if
so, what is a practical and workable way to incorporate a broader
perspective?
How could wildlife habitat monitoring be addressed in a
planning rule?
5. Plans could foster sustainable NFS lands and their contribution
to vibrant rural economies. Forests and grasslands offer enormous
environmental benefits, including clean air, clean and abundant water,
wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, erosion control, and other
ecosystem services. They generate economic value by attracting tourism
and recreation visitors; sustaining green jobs; and producing timber,
other forest products, minerals, food, and energy, both renewable and
non-renewable. They are also of immense social importance; they enhance
rural quality of life, sustain scenic and culturally important
landscapes, oftentimes define the essence of a community, and provide
opportunities to engage in outdoor recreation and reconnection with the
land. The Agency recognizes the interdependence of these ecological,
economic, and social values and the need for land management planning
to take all three into account.
In pursuit of sustainable management in the new planning rule, the
Agency proposes to include provisions for the protection and
enhancement of ecosystem services, such as clean water, clean air, and
wildlife habitat. It also proposes that plans could provide a
sustainable set of opportunities for goods and services that will
support vibrant rural and national economies in a way that is
compatible with natural resource conservation and restoration goals.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
How can the planning rule reflect the interdependency of
social, economic, and ecological systems in a way that supports
sustainable management of national forests and grasslands?
How can the Agency recognize and incorporate provisions in
the planning rule for managing lands for the sustainable delivery of
ecosystem services?
How can plans guide units of the NFS in achieving natural
resource conservation and restoration goals in a way that is compatible
with providing a set of opportunities for goods and services to support
vibrant rural and national economies?
Process Principles for a New Rule
1. Land management planning could involve effective and pro-active
collaboration with the public. NFS lands are the public's lands that
the Agency manages in trust for current and future generations. The
Agency welcomes and encourages public collaboration throughout the
planning process, and will seek to structure a new planning rule to
ensure that processes for developing, revising and amending plans are
efficient, transparent, and effectively engage the public. After plans
are approved, responsible officials will continue to work with the
public to resolve issues, to evaluate management
[[Page 67169]]
under the plan, and to consider whether there is a need to adjust the
plan. One challenge the Agency has faced with regard to public
participation is that plans can at times take 8-10 years to revise, a
timeframe that is too long to sustain a true collaborative effort and
use the most up-to-date science and management thinking.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
How could the Agency foster collaborative efforts? What
kinds of participation, forums for collaboration, and methods of
providing input have you found most engaging?
What should the rule require to ensure a planning process
that is both efficient and transparent while allowing for full public
collaboration and participation within a reasonable timeframe?
What kinds of information, methods, and analyses should
the Agency provide to the public during the planning process to aid
understanding of the possible consequences of a proposed rule and
alternatives?
What kind of administrative review process should be
offered to the public in the planning rule? Should there be a pre-
decisional objection or a post-decisional appeal process?
2. Plans could incorporate an ``all-lands'' approach by considering
the relationship between NFS lands and neighboring lands. The threats
and opportunities facing our lands and natural resources do not stop at
ownership boundaries. Healthy forests and grasslands are elements of
integrated landscapes that need to be restored, conserved and managed
across geographical and organizational boundaries in ways that respect
private rights and multiple ownerships. The land management planning
process provides direction for NFS lands only. However, the planning
process provides an opportunity for the Agency to engage other Federal
land management agencies; Tribes, State, and local land managers;
private landowners; and non-governmental partners to collaborate on
strategies to restore and sustain healthy forests and grasslands across
landscapes. Incorporating an all-lands approach in the planning process
is also important as land management plans anticipate the effects of
broad challenges such as climate change which can cause impacts on a
regional scale.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
How should the planning rule account for the relationship
of NFS lands to surrounding landscapes?
What other planning and assessment efforts or processes at
the national, state or local level should the Agency look at that could
inform an ``all-lands'' approach?
3. Plans could be based on the latest planning science and
principles to achieve the best decisions possible. The new planning
rule could encourage the creation of a shared vision of the planning
area. Developing this through a strong collaborative public process
could create a common understanding of the goals and direction for each
plan, and will frame management actions and projects on the ground as a
plan is implemented. Creating a plan that reflects a clear description
of the shared vision and the desired conditions of a planning area, a
strategy for moving toward the vision; and design criteria, including
standards and guidelines that would apply to project and activity
decisions, might be one way to move toward achieving the vision.
Specific questions we would like the public to address include:
How can the planning rule support the creation of a shared
vision for each planning area through the planning process?
Local and regional differences will have an impact on
desired conditions and on the successful creation and implementation of
a shared vision for any given planning area. Given that different areas
will have different needs, should the planning rule allow a choice of
planning processes? How could the planning rule create different
process choices, and how could they be presented in the rule? What
kinds of provisions would need to be included to guide and evaluate a
process choice?
Much discussion has been centered on how land management
plans should be viewed; are they strategic documents that lay the
foundation for specific future actions to help meet unit goals? Or,
should land management plans also make project or activity decisions?
Based on your response to the question above, what is the
range of options for fully complying with NEPA during land management
plan development, amendment, or revision?
Should the new planning rule require standards and
guidelines that are required for all plans?
How can the agency analyze and describe the environmental
effects of a planning rule in the environmental impact statement?
Possible Alternatives
The Agency will identify a proposed action and a no-action
alternative as it develops an EIS. Additional alternatives have not
been identified, but will be developed based on the comments that are
received. The Agency will frame issues and alternatives during the
scoping and public comment periods in the NEPA process.
Responsible Official
The responsible official is the Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20250.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The responsible official will issue a land management planning
rule.
Dated: December 14, 2009.
Harris D. Sherman,
Under Secretary, NRE.
[FR Doc. E9-30174 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P