WSP09638 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I' UHll1~l Federal Register/Vol. 67, No, 235/Friday, December 6, 2002/Proposed Rules 72777 developed landscape goals is addressed ill this preamble in the discussion of proposed 9219 12-Collaboration. cooperation and consultation. Proposed S 219.5 retains the concept of engaging the public in development of desired conditions as a cornerstone of planning. Paragraph (a) of proposed S 219.5 also differs from the 2(100 rule by including a specific requirement for obtaining inventory data. as required by NFMA. The 1982 rule used the term "issues" many times. and issue identification was a cornerstone of how planning was done. hut the 1982 rule was nol specific concerning the sources from which an issue could arise, except that public participation was a key element of issue identification. In contrast, the 2000 rule specifies how issues originate and gives detailed description of the Responsible Official's consideration of issues. Proposed paragraph (b)(l) lists factors the Responsible Official may use to determine if an issue or opportunity is timely. Like the 2000 rule. this section makes clear that the Responsible Official has full discretion to make this determination. Tho requirements in 9 219.4(b)(2)(ii). (iii), (iv). (vi). and [vii] of the 2000 rule address the extent to which "consideration" of the issues relate to opportunities of the planning unit to contribute to various elements of resource protection and sustainability. The proposed rule does not include these specific criteria, because it may not be practicable to consider these criteria at the initial stage of planning. There is often a lack of information when issues arise. and it is not always known how the issues relate to the National Forest System unit's contribution to sustainability. For example, there may not be complete information early in the issue identification stage related to opportunities to contribute to recovery of threatened or endangered species. This consideration mav not be appropriate or efficient to consider until later in the planning process when the best available science may be assembled. when better inventory data may become available. or when public involvement may help discover opportunities that wr.re not earlier known. This proposed section does not retain the provision at S 219,4(b)(Z)(v) that the Responsible Official should consider the extent 10 which addressing an issue relates to the potential for negative environmental effects on minorities. Potential negative effects are mosl meaningfully identified and addressed in the analysis phase of planning. Executive Order 12696 and Departmental Regulation 43004-4 (1978) require the Forest Service to determine if proposed actions would create disproportionate adverse effects on minority populations and, if so, to mitigate those effects to the extent practicable. The Forest Service complies. with these requirements through its NEPA procedures. Scoping. the process of accepting public comments on a proposed action, should indicate whether environmental justice issues exist and the social and economic effects analysis would display the depth and range of those impacts and possible mitigalion. The agency affirms that any action it can affect that would cause a disproportionate adverse effect on minority populations would be addressed through a NEPA procedure, thus there would be no controllable effects that the agency would not disclose, analyze, and mitigate to the extent practicable. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section incorporates the intent of ~ 219.5 of the 2000 rule with regard to addressing information needs and requires the Responsible Official to keep information gathering within reasonable costs and timeframes. However. this proposed paragraph does not carry forward the detailed provisions of S219.5 of the 2000 rule for conducting broad-scale assessments and local analvsis. These provisions are considered unduly detailed and too inflexible to apply to all National Forest System units, which have a wide variety of issues and information needs as weil as differences in budgets and staffing levels. Needed direction on what constitutes broad-scale assessments and local analyses and how the Responsible Official should develop and use this information is more appropriately described in the agency's Directive System. Proposed paragraph (b)(z) makes clear that a decision to consider or not consider an issue or opportunity is not subject to administrative objection. Proposed section 21g.6-Compljanct~ with National Emdronmental Policy Act. This proposed section is intended to replace S 219.6 of the 2000 rule, which defines proposed actions, requires compliance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. and ties scoping to issue development. Applicability of NEPA. NFMA section 6(g)(1) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to specify "procedures to insure that land management plans are prepared in accordance with" NEPA, including "direction 011 when and for what plans an environmental impact statement shall be prepared" (16 U.S.c. 1604[g)(1)), Thus, NFM,~ provides the statutory authority for the Secretary to specify not only what should be included in a plan, but also when and how the docu mentation of NEP A compliance applies to the planning process. This includes determining whether a plan decision's t-.'"EP ^ compliance is to be documented in an EIS. an EA and FONSI, or whether a plan decision may be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation. The proposed rule maintains the planning process requirements already familiar to the public. These include public notice, public involvement, analysis, public comment on the draft plan, and an objection process for contesting planning decisions. The proposed planning process is intended to be open to all stakeholders and well- informed regarding the environmental effects of the proposed plan and appropriate alternatives. Plan analysis and documentation: The 2000 rule at section 219.9 requires documentation of a plan revision in an EIS and allows the Responsible Official to determine whether or not to prepare an EIS for a plan amendment. The proposed rule at section 219.6. in contrast, applies this authority in a different manner and outlines the environmental analysis and documentation requirenwnts for revisions. An EIS at the planning stage will not be required if the decision to adopt a plan revision or amendment is not an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment or if a component of a plan does not yet authorize an action that commils funding or resources that could have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. In addition, all plans in revision were adopted with full EIS analysis. Therefore, where the existing -EIS and subsequent plan and! or project level documentation have adequately evaluated the significance of plan direction, no further supplementation is. required. Plans that only establish goals, objectives, standards, land allocations. monitoring requirements. and desired resource conditions do not authorize site-specific implementing actions and would not be expected to have significant effects on the environment or effects that have not been previously addressed in prior NEPA documents. As noted above, the question with respect to NFMA planning is when and how- not whether-Io follow NEPA where it applies. NFMA specifically authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to decide how and when to do NEPA environmental analysis for National Forest System plans. The agency may, based on the implementation orthe - proposed rule, identify a category of