WSP09638 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~' (Jiil~ ~~. J 72778 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No, 235/ Friday, December 6, 2002/ Proposed Rules plan decisions that do 110t individuallv or cumulatively have significant effects and may be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation through a subsequent rule-making process. However, plan decisions including actions that may have significant effects all the human environment must analyze and describe those effects in a more detailed environmental document, including an EIS where relevant. The following examples illustrate this principle. . A plan decision revising or amending a plan's desired conditions. objectives. and standards for rangeland conditions would not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects. However, plan direction substantially increasing or reducing livestock grazing on a part or all of the plan area would be an action requiring further NEPA documentation of the effects of such a decision prior to plan approvaL . Plan direction revising or amending <1 plan's desired vegetative conditions, objectives, and standards to achieve such conditions would not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects. However, if plan direction imposes a substantial change in vegetative conditions, such as conversion of vegetation type, or if the plan decision includes a specific project or set of projects to reach those desired conditions, then further NEPA documentation for those actions must occur prior to plan approval. . A plan decision revising or amendmg a plan's objectives for travel management within the plan area would not ordi\~arilv constitute an action with significant ellvironmental effects. However, when such a plan decision would substantially modify ongoing uses within the plan area, then NEPA documentation would be required for that proposed action prior to plan approval. . Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives for consumptive and non.consumptive National Forest water uses and for special use authorizations would not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects. However, if a plan would impose substantial new or changed by-pass flov\'s on current special use authorizations for the di\lersion of water, then NEP A documentation of the effects of that proposed action would be required prior to plan approval. . Plan direction that revises or amends goals and objectives for oil and gas leasing would not ordinarily be an action with significant environmental effects. However, when a plan specifies stipulations for oil and gas leasing which have not been previously analyzed, NEPA disclosure would be required prior to plan approval. Plan and project analysis: In contrast to the 2000 rule, the proposed rule at S 219.6(b) requires the detail of analysis at the plan and projecllevel to be proportional to the decisions proposed. The proposed rule requires plans to provide substantial baseline data and trend analysis, which can include the description of direct, indirect. and cumulative effects information at a broad scale appropriate to planning, while requiring more detailed fine-scale NEPA analysis, including the description of direct. indirect, and cumulative effects, to be conducted when a site-specific action at the project level is proposed to implement the plan. Experience has shown that site-specific NEPA analysis, based upon more general plan-level analysis, provides a more timely and accurate assessment of the effects of Forest Service management actions than could otherwise be projected under more hypothetical reasoning in more detailed NEPA analysis at the plan level. The proposed rule requires plans to be based on substantial analysis of pertinent issues regardless of the level of NEPA analysis and documentation. These plan analyses would: (lJ Serve 10 help the Responsible Official. the public. and others develop land allocations, standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; (2) help limit the effects of future projects by application of the plan allocations, standards, desired conditions, and other plan decisions; and (3) provide information useful for analyzing project effects. For example. both options in proposed section 219.13, developed to ensure that the NFMA diversity requirements are met. require ecological analyses. Option 2 in this proposed rule contains very specific imalytical requirements. It focuses ecological analyses at both ecosystem and species levels of ecological organization, requires analyses of diversity across multiple geographic areas and timeframes, and stresses the importance of analyses conducted over large geographic areas or long timeframes. Option 2 requires description of the influence of the ecological condition, structure, and land use history of the surrounding landscape, as well as of natural and human-induced disturbance regimes, and a discussion on how these factors influence a forest's or grassland's ability to achieve biological diversity objectives. These analyses are a key part of both the proposed planning rule and the analysis of the ecological effects of proposals for plan decisions. This analysis will also provide essential baseline and trend data that will inform the analysis of the direct and indirect effects o.f plan implementation at the project level. Cumulati1.'e effects analysis: Cumulative effects analysis normally involves analysis both at the plan level and at the project level. Under the proposed rule, plan-level analysis would evaluate existing conditions and broad trends at the geographic scale of the plan area. For example, depending on applicable issues, plan analysis may examine habitats for wide-ranging species at various geographic scales and discuss trends for that habitat. Plan analysis may examine recreation use and trends near a community. Plan analysis may also examine the current distribution and likelihood of spread for noxious weeds and whether existing roads may serve as vectors for that spread. Analysis for site-specific projects will provide additional information that. when combined with the plan-level analysis and monitoring information collected and maintained on the plan's monitoring requirements. would serve as a basis for evaluating the cumulative effects of projects carried out under the plan. For example, whl~re plan analysis documents the quantity and quality of habitat that is available for a wide- ranging species, that plan-level analysis, combined with applicable monitoring data and other inventory information, can provide much of the information needed to describe the cumulative effects of project and other past. current. and reasonably foreseeable projects upon the habitat available for that species. Likewise, if plan analysis indicates that a particular recreation use is high and increasing the risk of loss of a rare plant, then plan direction may require particular measures for rare plant protection near trails in the recreation use area and a closer and more detailed examination for cumulative effects analysis associated with recreation management decisions. If plan-level analysis indicates that llses of existing roads are contributing to the spread of noxious weeds, and monitoring indicates that open roads from nearbv projects are contributing to the spread, the project-level cumulative effects analysis may be required to assess mitigation measures that may be needed to restrict travel for the area. Project Je\.'el NEPA compliance: As stated elsewhere in this preamble, agency guidelines on project-level planning are specified in FSM 1950 and