[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number = 242)] [Notices] =20 [Page 67165-67169] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18de09-33] =20 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service =20 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=20 notice of its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to=20 analyze and disclose potential environmental consequences associated=20 with a National Forest System land management planning rule. [[Page 67166]] DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received=20 by February 16, 2010. The Forest Service (Agency) expects to publish=20 the draft environmental impact statement in December 2010 and the final=20 environmental impact statement in October 2011. The U.S. Department of=20 Agriculture (Department) expects to publish the record of decision in=20 November 2011. ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via e-mail to=20 fspr@contentanalysisgroup.c= om. Written comments concerning this notice=20 should be addressed to Forest Service Planning NOI, C/O Bear West=20 Company, 172 E 500 S, Bountiful, UT 84010; or via facsimile to 801-397- 1605. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are=20 placed in the record and are available for public inspection and=20 copying. The public may inspect comments at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=3DleavingFR.htm= l&log=3Dlinklog&to=3Dhttp://contentanalysisgroup.com/fsr/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Hayden, 202-205-0895,=20 lhayden@fs.fed.us. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD)=20 may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339=20 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through=20 Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:=20 Background A new Agency planning rule is needed to guide land managers in=20 developing, amending, and revising land management plans for the 155=20 national forests and 20 grasslands in the National Forest System (NFS).=20 A new planning rule provides the opportunity to help protect,=20 reconnect, and restore national forests and national grasslands for the=20 benefit of human communities and natural resources. Developing a new=20 rule will allow the Agency to integrate forest restoration, watershed=20 protection, climate resilience, wildlife conservation, the need to=20 support vibrant local economies, and collaboration into how the Agency=20 manages national forests and grasslands, with the goals of protecting=20 our water, climate, and wildlife while enhancing ecosystem services and=20 creating economic opportunity. Land management planning is also one way=20 the Agency complies with requirements under the National Forest=20 Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of=20 1960 (MUSYA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Wilderness Act of=20 1964, and other legal requirements. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared to=20 document the environmental analysis for a new planning rule at Title=20 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 219 (36 CFR part 219). In the=20 interim, the Agency will use the 2000 rule provisions to develop,=20 amend, or revise plans until a new planning rule is released. The 2000=20 rule had been replaced by the 2008 planning rule which was subsequently=20 held invalid by a Federal District Court. The 2000 planning rule=20 removed and replaced the 1982 planning rule in the Code of Federal=20 Regulations, preventing the Agency from being able to simply reinstate=20 the 1982 rule, but the 2000 rule contains transition provisions which=20 permit the use of the 1982 rule provisions. No national forest or=20 grassland has ever used the 2000 rule to amend or revise a plan because=20 of its complexity. The Department is announcing the reinstatement in=20 the Code of Federal Regulations of the National Forest System Land and=20 Resource Management Planning Rule of November 9, 2000, as amended (2000=20 rule), elsewhere in the Federal Register. The Agency's expectation,=20 based upon its experience with the 2000 rule, is that national forests=20 and grasslands will use the 1982 rule provisions, as permitted by the=20 transition provisions of the 2000 rule, to revise and amend plans until=20 a new planning rule is issued. Scoping Process This notice of intent 60-day comment period starts the scoping=20 process in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)=20 and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500. As part of the=20 scoping process, the Agency solicits public comment on the scope of the=20 proposed rule; the alternatives to be considered; and the physical,=20 biological, social, and economic effects that should be analyzed in the=20 draft environmental impact statement. Following the review of comments=20 received during this 60-day period, the Agency will continue to=20 collaboratively engage the public in a variety of ways as it develops a=20 new proposed planning rule. Discussions will focus on key issues raised=20 during the notice of intent public comment period. The Agency is in the=20 process of creating a Web forum for additional dialogue and public=20 interaction. Further information on planned collaborative discussions=20 and other opportunities for public comment are available at = http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=3DleavingFR.html= &log=3Dlinklog&to=3Dhttp://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. Comments Requested The proposed action lists several principles that could be included=20 in a new planning rule and a number of follow-up questions to help=20 frame the options for a proposed rule. Please comment on what features=20 you believe should be in a planning rule, whether the principles we=20 have identified are the right principles, and whether we have included=20 all of the issues that will need to be considered as a new planning=20 rule is developed. Please also respond to the specific questions posed=20 under the principles outlined below. The Agency will use the comments and input we receive to identify=20 issues, develop alternatives, and build planning rule content leading=20 to a proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement in the fall=20 of 2010. The Agency will continue to solicit public input through a=20 collaborative process as the proposed rule is developed. Further, we=20 need to hear your thoughts on the best ways the Agency could engage the=20 public during this process. Purpose and Need for Action The NFMA requires regulations ``under the principles of the=20 Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, that set out the process for=20 the development and revision of the land management plans, and the=20 guidelines and standards'' the Act prescribes (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)). In=20 1979, the Department first issued regulations to comply with this=20 statutory requirement. The 1979 regulations were superseded by the 1982=20 planning rule, which has formed the basis for all existing land=20 management plans. In 1989, the Agency initiated a comprehensive Critique of Land=20 Management Planning, which identified a number of adjustments that were=20 needed to the 1982 planning rule. The Critique found that the 1982=20 planning rule process was very complex; had significant costs, was=20 lengthy, and was cumbersome for public input. The recommendations in=20 the Critique and the Agency's experiences with planning led to the=20 Agency issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for new=20 regulations in 1991, and two proposed rules, in 1995 and 1999. After working with a committee of scientists, the Department issued=20 the 2000 rule to revise the 1982 regulations. The 2000 revision of the=20 planning rule described a new framework for NFS planning; made=20 sustainability the foundation for NFS planning and management; required=20 the consideration of the best available science during the planning=20 process, and set forth requirements for implementation, monitoring,=20 evaluation, amendment, and revision of land and resource management=20 plans. However, a review [[Page 67167]] in the spring of 2001 found that the 2000 rule was costly, complex, and=20 procedurally burdensome. The results of the review led the Department=20 to issue a new planning rule in 2005, and a revised version again in=20 2008, but each of those rules was held invalid by a Federal District=20 Court (Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp.2d 1059 (N.D.=20 Cal. 2007) (2005 rule); Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 632 F.=20 Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (2008 rule)). The NFMA requires the Agency to revise land management plans ``at=20 least every 15 years.'' The NFS has 127 land management plans.=20 Currently, 68 plans are past due for plan revision. Most plans were=20 developed between 1983 and 1993 and should have been revised between=20 1998 and 2008. The Agency now has an urgent need to establish a=20 planning rule that protects, reconnects, and restores national forests=20 and grasslands for the benefit of human communities and natural=20 resources. A new planning rule must be responsive to the challenges of climate=20 change; the need for forest restoration and conservation, watershed=20 protection, and wildlife conservation; and the sustainable use of=20 public lands to support vibrant communities. It must be clear,=20 efficient, and effective, and must meet requirements under the NFMA, as=20 well as allow the Agency to meet its obligations under the MUSYA, the=20 ESA, and the Wilderness Act, as well as other legal requirements. It=20 also must provide for a transparent, collaborative process that allows=20 for effective public participation. A new rule should also be within=20 the Agency's capability to implement on all NFS units. With stability=20 in planning regulations, national land management planning can regain=20 momentum, and units will be able to complete timely revisions that=20 guide sustainable management. For further information on the history of land management planning=20 and why the Agency is preparing a new EIS see the Web site at = http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=3DleavingFR.html= &log=3Dlinklog&to=3Dhttp://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. Proposed Action The NFMA at 16 U.S.C. 1604 requires the Agency to have a planning=20 rule. The Forest Service is proposing the development of a new planning=20 rule to be issued at 36 CFR part 219. The new rule will consist of=20 procedures for developing, amending, and revising land management=20 plans. We list below a number of principles based on substance and process=20 that could be used to guide the development of a new planning rule.=20 Through this notice of intent, we are seeking public input on these=20 principles and associated questions. We also ask reviewers to identify=20 and give input on any principles or issues not mentioned. Additionally,=20 we are seeking input on whether we have included a full list of the=20 issues that must be addressed in a new rule and how best to address=20 existing and future issues and challenges. Substantive Principles for a New Rule 1. Land management plans could address the need for restoration and=20 conservation to enhance the resilience of ecosystems to a variety of=20 threats. Climate change; alterations of natural fire regimes; changing=20 water conditions; aggressive insects, disease, and invasive species;=20 increasingly intense floods and drought; increasing air and water=20 pollution; increasing development pressures; and other factors threaten=20 the health of forests and grasslands. When the health and integrity of=20 our lands deteriorate, so do the environmental, economic, and social=20 benefits they provide, with enormous potential impacts on drinking=20 water, greenhouse gas emissions, climate, wildlife, recreation,=20 community health, and prosperity. Plans could promote restoration and=20 management of national forests and grasslands to make them more=20 resilient to these threats, and to ensure the continued delivery of=20 important ecosystem services and benefits. They could also promote the=20 active conservation of healthy lands to prevent them from degrading and=20 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=20 grassland health and ecosystem resiliency? How do you define restoration? What is your concept of=20 restoration? How can the planning rule foster restoration of NFS lands? What kinds of conservation efforts can enhance ecosystem=20 resiliency and prevent degradation? 2. Plans could proactively address climate change through=20 monitoring, mitigation and adaptation, and could allow flexibility to=20 adapt to changing conditions and incorporate new information. Climate=20 change is one of the great challenges facing the United States and the=20 world, and is dramatically reshaping how the Agency will deliver on its=20 mission of sustaining the health and diversity of the nation's forests.=20 Management will need to restore ecosystem resiliency, and also factor=20 adaptation and mitigation strategies into planning and project=20 development. Plans will need to be innovative, integrate climate change=20 and watershed management, and use climate change as a theme under which=20 to integrate and streamline existing national and regional strategies=20 for ecological restoration, fire and fuels, forest health, biomass=20 utilization, and others. Plans could also include clear monitoring=20 programs and incorporate evolving research in order to develop science- based understanding around climate change impacts and adaptation and=20 mitigation efforts. Plans will need to anticipate climate change-related uncertainty=20 and be adaptive to new science and knowledge about changing conditions=20 on the ground. Responsible officials will also need flexibility to be=20 able to adjust plan objectives and requirements where there are=20 circumstances outside of agency control: For example, where increasing=20 water temperatures resulting from climate change make it impossible to=20 maintain a sensitive fish species in its native habitat. Incorporating=20 this concept of adaptive management into the planning rule will be=20 especially important as we increase our understanding of climate change=20 and how it will impact the landscape, but will also be important to=20 respond to and apply new information regarding water conservation,=20 insect and disease, species conservation, threats from catastrophic=20 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=20 addressing the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation? What kinds of data, research, and monitoring could assist=20 land management planners to incorporate climate change adaptation=20 considerations into plans? How should the planning rule address uncertainty? How do=20 other public and private entities recognize and incorporate uncertainty=20 in their planning efforts? How can a new planning rule appropriately build in the=20 flexibility land managers will need to adapt to changing science,=20 information or conditions? What mechanisms should be used to=20 incorporate new data? Do you know of any successful adaptive management=20 regimes that can inform our process? How should plans anticipate and address changing=20 conditions or impacts outside of agency control? How can external=20 factors be incorporated or recognized in plan guidance and=20 requirements? [[Page 67168]] 3. Land management plans could emphasize maintenance and=20 restoration of watershed health, and could protect and enhance=20 America's water resources. Responding to the challenges of climate=20 change in providing water and water-related ecosystem services is one=20 of the most urgent tasks facing the Agency. The NFS alone is the source=20 of fresh water for more than 60 million people from coast to coast. In=20 coming decades, climate change; impacts from catastrophic fire and tree=20 mortality; the increasing intensity of weather patterns; events=20 including droughts and storms; increasing pollution; and increasing=20 development pressures will combine to impact the quantity,=20 availability, and quality of America's water resources and the health=20 of its watersheds. Plans could promote the restoration and maintenance=20 of watersheds to ensure abundant clean water, the protection of soils,=20 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=20 watershed health? If so, what might those look like? Should the Agency=20 be held accountable only for actions and problems on its NFS lands or=20 take into account water availability and quality factors that are=20 outside of the Agency's control? What planning or management guidance could the Agency=20 incorporate in the rule to protect and enhance water resources? One way to approach planning for an NFS unit is to think=20 about the future of the planning area through the context of its=20 watersheds. Do you see benefits and/or drawbacks to a rule requiring=20 land management planning on a watershed basis? Do you see benefits or drawbacks to a rule requiring=20 adherence to regionally specific Best Management Practices? 4. Plans could provide for the diversity of species and wildlife=20 habitat. The NFS is a refuge for numerous species, including 425=20 threatened and endangered species. The NFMA directs the Agency to=20 provide ``for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the=20 suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet=20 overall multiple-use objectives * * *'' (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). Over=20 time, the Agency's planning rules have sought to meet this statutory=20 requirement to provide for diversity in a number of ways. The 1982 planning rule required management prescriptions to provide=20 for diversity as well as additional prescriptions to provide for the=20 viability of native vertebrates and desired non-native vertebrate=20 species. The 2000 planning rule required (with qualifications)=20 ecological conditions that provide a ``high likelihood'' that=20 conditions are capable of supporting viability of native and desired=20 non-native species over time. In addition, the 2000 planning rule=20 included detailed and complex analytical requirements regarding=20 ecological sustainability in terms of ecosystem and species diversity=20 (ecological sustainability), including identification of ``focal=20 species'' and ``species at risk.'' The 2005 and 2008 planning rules=20 required plans to provide a framework for contributing to ecological=20 sustainability, in terms of ecosystem diversity and (where necessary)=20 species diversity, in terms of ``species of interest,'' and ``species=20 of concern.'' These two rules had much less detail than the 2000 rule=20 with additional detail set forth in the Forest Service Directive=20 System. The Agency faced a number of challenges in implementing the species=20 viability requirements of the 1982 rule. These challenges will be=20 exacerbated as climate change affects the range and viability of=20 species, both flora and fauna. In anticipation of coming changes, the=20 Agency must look at new ways to meet diversity requirements. The new rule needs to provide planning procedures that meet the=20 intent of NFMA to provide for diversity in a way that achieves=20 protection for species, habitats, and ecosystems while taking into=20 account environmental and management factors and impacts that are=20 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=20 species of animals and plants and their habitat? How can the new planning rule account for variables=20 outside of Agency control, including those impacts that are the result=20 of climate change? Should species diversity provisions in planning look=20 beyond the individual unit to a watershed or landscape scale, and if=20 so, what is a practical and workable way to incorporate a broader=20 perspective? How could wildlife habitat monitoring be addressed in a=20 planning rule? 5. Plans could foster sustainable NFS lands and their contribution=20 to vibrant rural economies. Forests and grasslands offer enormous=20 environmental benefits, including clean air, clean and abundant water,=20 wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, erosion control, and other=20 ecosystem services. They generate economic value by attracting tourism=20 and recreation visitors; sustaining green jobs; and producing timber,=20 other forest products, minerals, food, and energy, both renewable and=20 non-renewable. They are also of immense social importance; they enhance=20 rural quality of life, sustain scenic and culturally important=20 landscapes, oftentimes define the essence of a community, and provide=20 opportunities to engage in outdoor recreation and reconnection with the=20 land. The Agency recognizes the interdependence of these ecological,=20 economic, and social values and the need for land management planning=20 to take all three into account. In pursuit of sustainable management in the new planning rule, the=20 Agency proposes to include provisions for the protection and=20 enhancement of ecosystem services, such as clean water, clean air, and=20 wildlife habitat. It also proposes that plans could provide a=20 sustainable set of opportunities for goods and services that will=20 support vibrant rural and national economies in a way that is=20 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=20 social, economic, and ecological systems in a way that supports=20 sustainable management of national forests and grasslands? How can the Agency recognize and incorporate provisions in=20 the planning rule for managing lands for the sustainable delivery of=20 ecosystem services? How can plans guide units of the NFS in achieving natural=20 resource conservation and restoration goals in a way that is compatible=20 with providing a set of opportunities for goods and services to support=20 vibrant rural and national economies? Process Principles for a New Rule 1. Land management planning could involve effective and pro-active=20 collaboration with the public. NFS lands are the public's lands that=20 the Agency manages in trust for current and future generations. The=20 Agency welcomes and encourages public collaboration throughout the=20 planning process, and will seek to structure a new planning rule to=20 ensure that processes for developing, revising and amending plans are=20 efficient, transparent, and effectively engage the public. After plans=20 are approved, responsible officials will continue to work with the=20 public to resolve issues, to evaluate management [[Page 67169]] under the plan, and to consider whether there is a need to adjust the=20 plan. One challenge the Agency has faced with regard to public=20 participation is that plans can at times take 8-10 years to revise, a=20 timeframe that is too long to sustain a true collaborative effort and=20 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=20 kinds of participation, forums for collaboration, and methods of=20 providing input have you found most engaging? What should the rule require to ensure a planning process=20 that is both efficient and transparent while allowing for full public=20 collaboration and participation within a reasonable timeframe? What kinds of information, methods, and analyses should=20 the Agency provide to the public during the planning process to aid=20 understanding of the possible consequences of a proposed rule and=20 alternatives? What kind of administrative review process should be=20 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=20 the relationship between NFS lands and neighboring lands. The threats=20 and opportunities facing our lands and natural resources do not stop at=20 ownership boundaries. Healthy forests and grasslands are elements of=20 integrated landscapes that need to be restored, conserved and managed=20 across geographical and organizational boundaries in ways that respect=20 private rights and multiple ownerships. The land management planning=20 process provides direction for NFS lands only. However, the planning=20 process provides an opportunity for the Agency to engage other Federal=20 land management agencies; Tribes, State, and local land managers;=20 private landowners; and non-governmental partners to collaborate on=20 strategies to restore and sustain healthy forests and grasslands across=20 landscapes. Incorporating an all-lands approach in the planning process=20 is also important as land management plans anticipate the effects of=20 broad challenges such as climate change which can cause impacts on a=20 regional scale. Specific questions we would like the public to address include: How should the planning rule account for the relationship=20 of NFS lands to surrounding landscapes? What other planning and assessment efforts or processes at=20 the national, state or local level should the Agency look at that could=20 inform an ``all-lands'' approach? 3. Plans could be based on the latest planning science and=20 principles to achieve the best decisions possible. The new planning=20 rule could encourage the creation of a shared vision of the planning=20 area. Developing this through a strong collaborative public process=20 could create a common understanding of the goals and direction for each=20 plan, and will frame management actions and projects on the ground as a=20 plan is implemented. Creating a plan that reflects a clear description=20 of the shared vision and the desired conditions of a planning area, a=20 strategy for moving toward the vision; and design criteria, including=20 standards and guidelines that would apply to project and activity=20 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=20 vision for each planning area through the planning process? Local and regional differences will have an impact on=20 desired conditions and on the successful creation and implementation of=20 a shared vision for any given planning area. Given that different areas=20 will have different needs, should the planning rule allow a choice of=20 planning processes? How could the planning rule create different=20 process choices, and how could they be presented in the rule? What=20 kinds of provisions would need to be included to guide and evaluate a=20 process choice? Much discussion has been centered on how land management=20 plans should be viewed; are they strategic documents that lay the=20 foundation for specific future actions to help meet unit goals? Or,=20 should land management plans also make project or activity decisions? Based on your response to the question above, what is the=20 range of options for fully complying with NEPA during land management=20 plan development, amendment, or revision? Should the new planning rule require standards and=20 guidelines that are required for all plans? How can the agency analyze and describe the environmental=20 effects of a planning rule in the environmental impact statement? Possible Alternatives The Agency will identify a proposed action and a no-action=20 alternative as it develops an EIS. Additional alternatives have not=20 been identified, but will be developed based on the comments that are=20 received. The Agency will frame issues and alternatives during the=20 scoping and public comment periods in the NEPA process. Responsible Official The responsible official is the Under Secretary for Natural=20 Resources and Environment, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,=20 Washington, DC 20250. Nature of Decision To Be Made The responsible official will issue a land management planning=20 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