Plan Revision for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona, 68776-68779 [E9-30665]
Download as PDF
68776
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 248
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plan Revision for Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests, Apache, Coconino,
Greenlee, and Navajo Counties,
Arizona
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to revise the
forest plan.
AGENCY:
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: As directed by the National
Forest Management Act, the USDA
Forest Service is preparing the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests’ revised land
management plan (forest plan) and will
also prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for this revised forest
plan. This notice briefly describes the
nature of the decision to be made, the
need for change and proposed action,
and information concerning public
participation. It also provides estimated
dates for filing the EIS and the names
and addresses of the responsible agency
official and the individuals who can
provide additional information. Finally,
this notice briefly describes the
applicable planning rule and how plan
revision work completed under the 2008
planning rule will be used or modified
for completing this plan revision.
The revised forest plan will supersede
the current forest plan that was
approved by the Regional Forester in
August 1987. The current forest plan
has been amended 14 times since its
approval, including 6 significant
amendments that clarified riparian, fire,
timber, and recreation issues, adjusted
the monitoring program, and added
direction for the Mexican spotted owl,
the northern goshawk, and old growth.
This current forest plan will remain in
effect until the revised forest plan takes
effect.
DATES: Comments concerning the need
for change provided in this notice will
be most useful in the development of
the draft revised forest plan and EIS if
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Dec 28, 2009
Jkt 220001
received by February 1, 2010. The
agency expects to release a draft revised
forest plan and draft EIS for formal
comment by fall, 2010 and a final
revised forest plan and final EIS by
summer, 2011. Public meetings to gather
input on potential alternatives to the
proposed action are scheduled for
spring, 2010. The dates, times, and
locations of these meetings will be
posted on the forests’ Web site: https://
www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests,
Attention: Forest Plan Revision Team,
P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona
85938. Comments may also be sent via
e-mail: asnf.planning@fs.fed.us, or via
facsimile to 928–333–5966.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Davalos, Forest Planner,
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests,
P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona
85938, (928) 333–6334. Information
regarding this revision is also available
at the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests’ revision Web site: https://
www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/.
Individuals who use telecommunication
devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8
AM and 8 PM, Eastern Time Monday
through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Name and Address of the Responsible
Official
Corbin Newman, Regional Forester,
Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway
SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Nature of the Decision To Be Made
The Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests are preparing an EIS to revise
the current forest plan. The EIS process
is meant to inform the Regional Forester
so that he can decide which alternative
best meets the need to achieve quality
land management under the sustainable
multiple-use management concept to
meet the diverse needs of people while
protecting the forests’ resources, as
required by the National Forest
Management Act and the Multiple Use
Sustained Yield Act.
The revised forest plan will describe
the strategic intent of managing the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests into
the next 10 to 15 years and will address
the need for change described below.
The revised forest plan will provide
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
management direction in the form of
goals (desired conditions), objectives,
suitability determinations, standards,
guidelines, and a monitoring plan. It
may also make new special area
recommendations for wilderness,
research natural areas, and other special
areas.
As important as the decisions to be
made is the identification of the types
of decisions that will not be made
within the revised forest plan. The
authorization of project-level activities
on the forests is not a decision made in
the forest plan but occurs through
subsequent project specific decisionmaking. The designation of routes,
trails, and areas for motorized vehicle
travel are not considered during plan
revision, but are addressed in the
concurrent, but separate, EIS for public
motorized travel planning on the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
Some issues (e.g., hunting regulations),
although important, are beyond the
authority or control of the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests and will not
be considered. In addition, some issues,
such as wild and scenic river suitability
determinations, may not be undertaken
at this time, but addressed later as a
future forest plan amendment.
Need for Change and Proposed Action
According to the National Forest
Management Act, forest plans are to be
revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The
purpose and need for revising the
current forest plan are (1) the forest plan
is over 20 years old, and (2) since the
forest plan was approved in 1987, there
have been changes in economic, social,
and ecological conditions, new policies
and priorities, and new information
based on monitoring and scientific
research. Extensive public and
employee collaboration, along with
science-based evaluations, identified the
need for change in the current forest
plan. This need for change has been
organized into three revision topics that
focus on the sustainability of ecological,
social, and economic systems: (1)
Maintenance and Improvement of
Ecosystem Health, (2) Managed
Recreation, and (3) Community-Forest
Interaction. The need for change is
described fully in the Comprehensive
Evaluation Report and the Analysis of
the Management Situation supplement
document, both of which are available
on the forests’ Web site: https://
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices
www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/
documents.shtml. The proposed action
is to revise the current forest plan to
address the three revision topics.
Revision Topic 1—Maintenance and
Improvement of Ecosystem Health
Conditions have changed since the
current forest plan was issued in 1987
including the recognition that
vegetation conditions (structure,
composition, and function) are
divergent from historic conditions;
forest conditions indicate a substantial
departure from the natural fire regime;
and there are plant and animal species
which need further consideration in the
planning process. There are also
emerging issues not addressed by the
current forest plan (e.g., non-native
invasive plants and animals, climate
change).
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Action
• Better describe desired conditions
for the vegetative communities of the
forests. The vegetative communities
include ponderosa pine, wet mixed
conifer, dry mixed conifer, spruce-fir,
˜
and aspen forests, pinon-juniper and
Madrean pine-oak woodlands, Great
Basin, semi-desert, and montane/
subalpine grasslands, interior chaparral,
mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane
willow, and cottonwood-willow
riparian forests, and wetland/cienega
riparian areas. The revised forest plan
will describe the desired composition,
structure, and cover of these vegetation
types that will result in resilient,
functioning ecosystems.
• Identify the desired fire regime that
will help to restore fire to a more natural
role as one of the forests’ primary
disturbance agents.
• Provide direction to guide future
vegetation management activities,
including burning and mechanical
treatments, to move towards or maintain
desired conditions.
• Incorporate management direction
to guide future projects to provide
habitat to maintain viable populations
of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in the planning
area.
• Include appropriate standards and
guidelines to provide direction to
maintain species diversity and viability
across the planning area.
• Reevaluate and update the
Management Indicator Species (MIS).
MIS are species whose population
changes are believed to indicate the
effects of management activities. MIS
are selected to allow evaluation of the
differences between alternatives in the
EIS.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Dec 28, 2009
Jkt 220001
• Add plan components to provide
future project direction to control, treat,
and eradicate non-native plant and
animal invasive species.
• Address the emerging issue of
climate change by incorporating
adaptive management strategies and
describing ecological conditions that are
resilient to change.
Revision Topic 2—Managed Recreation
There are several concerns related to
unmanaged recreation that are not
adequately addressed in the current
forest plan. These include increasing
recreational use of the forests and
changing demographics of forest users.
There are also special areas that were
not mentioned in the current forest plan
(e.g., scenic byways), as well as rivers
that are eligible for the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System. There may be
National Forest System lands that could
be recommended to Congress for
designation into the National
Wilderness Preservation System.
Proposed Action
• Update the spectrum of recreation
opportunities to reflect current and
projected recreation needs, natural
resource impacts, and public input. This
includes identification of areas that are
developed for high use and areas that
resemble more natural landscapes.
• Identify the suitability of areas on
the forests for motorized vehicle use and
other recreational activities, in
conformance with travel planning
concurrently being addressed on the
forests.
• Incorporate direction for special
areas that were not included in the
current forest plan, including
recommended research natural areas,
the Heber Wild Horse Territory, scenic
byways, and national recreation trails.
• Recommend additional special
areas (i.e., research natural areas) where
needed. The intent is to recommend
these areas in the revised forest plan;
subsequent analyses would determine
whether they should become official
designated areas.
• Recognize the management
requirements for rivers that are eligible
for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. The Eligibility Report for the
National Wild and Scenic River System
was completed in May 2009 and found
approximately 358 miles of 23 rivers
that are eligible for inclusion into the
National Wild and Scenic River System.
This report is available on the forests’
Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/
plan-revision/documents.shtml.
• Evaluate lands for wilderness
potential and, if determined to be
appropriate by the responsible official,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68777
recommend designation by Congress
and provide interim management
guidance. Note: the draft potential
wilderness evaluation was published in
June 2009 and is available on the
forests’ Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/
r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents.shtml.
Revision Topic 3—Community-Forest
Interaction
There are several social concerns that
cause a need to change the current forest
plan. Communities are at risk from
uncharacteristic wildfire. There are
increasing demands for goods, services,
and forest access from growing
populations and urban developments
that border the forests. Many
communities are surrounded by the
forests and can be affected by
adjustment to the forests’ land
ownership. Commodity use and
production have shown declines from
the past. However, these forest uses
contribute to sustaining the lifestyles
and traditions of local communities.
Energy resource demands also continue
to grow.
Proposed Action
• Provide direction to address
communities at risk from
uncharacteristic wildfire. This includes
describing the appropriate vegetation
desired conditions and fire regime, and
treatment of the wildland-urban
interface.
• Provide guidelines and suitability
determinations for addressing urban
interface demands (access, trailheads,
special use permits).
• Update guidelines regarding land
ownership adjustments that better
reflects community expansion needs
and preservation of open space.
• Continue to provide a sustainable
supply of forest and rangeland resources
that is consistent with achieving desired
conditions and that supports local
communities. Determine the suitability
of lands for timber production and the
allowable sale quantity of timber.
• Identify major existing energy
(utility) corridors and provide
management direction for these areas.
Update the criteria for establishing new
energy corridors.
Public Involvement
Extensive public involvement and
collaboration has already occurred.
Informal discussions with the public
regarding needed changes to the current
forest plan began with a series of public
meetings during the summer of 2006.
This input, along with science-based
evaluations, was used to determine the
need for change identified above.
Additional meetings, correspondence,
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
68778
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices
news releases, comment periods, and
other tools have been utilized to gather
feedback from the public, forest
employees, tribal governments, federal
and state agencies, and local
governments.
More recent public involvement
focused on the development, review,
and comment of the Working Draft Land
Management Plan which was released
in June 2009 (https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/
asnf/plan-revision/draftLMP/ASNFWorking-Draft-Plan-2009-06-15.pdf).
This document was developed based
upon public and employee
collaboration. A modified version of this
draft will be analyzed as one alternative
in the EIS process.
The forests will continue regular and
meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal nations on a
government-to-government basis. The
agency will work with tribal
governments to address issues
concerning Indian tribal selfgovernment and sovereignty, natural
and cultural resources held in trust,
Indian tribal treaty and Executive order
rights, and any issues that significantly
or uniquely affect their communities.
The forests desire to continue
collaborative efforts with members of
the public who are interested in forest
management, as well as federal and state
agencies, local governments, and private
organizations.
Public meetings to gather input on
potential alternatives to the proposed
action are scheduled for spring, 2010.
The dates, times, and locations of these
meetings will be posted on the forests’
Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/
plan-revision/. The information
gathered at these meetings, as well as
other feedback, will be used to prepare
the draft EIS.
At this time, the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests are seeking input on
the need for change and proposed
action: did we miss any substantive
issues or concerns? It is important that
reviewers provide their comments at
such times and in such a way that they
are useful to the agency’s preparation of
the revised forest plan and the EIS.
Therefore, comments on the proposed
action and need for change will be most
valuable if received by February 1, 2010
and should clearly articulate the
reviewer’s concerns. The submission of
timely and specific comments can affect
a reviewer’s ability to participate in
subsequent administrative or judicial
review. At this time, we anticipate using
the 2000 planning rule pre-decisional
objection process (36 CFR 219.32) for
administrative review.
Comments received in response to
this solicitation, including the names
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Dec 28, 2009
Jkt 220001
and addresses of those who comment
will be part of the public record.
Comments submitted anonymously will
be accepted and considered.
Applicable Planning Rule
Preparation of the revised forest plan
was underway when the 2008 National
Forest System land and resource
management planning rule (planning
rule) was enjoined on June 30, 2009, by
the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Citizens
for Better Forestry v. United States
Department of Agriculture, No. C 08–
1927 CW (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009). The
Department of Agriculture has
determined that the 2000 planning rule
is once again in effect. The 2000
planning rule’s transition provisions (36
CFR 219.35), amended in 2002 and 2003
and clarified by interpretative rules
issued in 2001 and 2004, allow use of
the provisions of the planning rule in
effect prior to the effective date of the
2000 Rule (November 9, 2000),
commonly called the 1982 planning
rule, to amend or revise forest plans.
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests
has elected to use the provisions of the
1982 planning rule, including the
requirement to prepare an EIS, to
complete its plan revision.
Prior to the enjoinment of the 2008
planning rule, the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests had been working to
revise the current forest plan. Informal
revision efforts began in the summer of
2006, with collaborative discussions
regarding the need to change the forest
plan and forest.
A formal Notice of Initiation to revise
the forest plan was published on
December 16, 2008, in the Federal
Register, Vol. 65, No. 212, p. 65290.
That notice also requested review on the
Comprehensive Evaluation Report, the
Ecological Sustainability Report, and
the Economic and Social Assessment
(documents that provide evaluations of
social, economic, and ecological
conditions and trends in and around the
forests).
The forests had begun collaborative
development of forest plan components
during summer, 2008. The latest set of
plan components, the Working Draft
Land Management Plan, was made
available for review and comment in
June 2009. A draft potential wilderness
evaluation of the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests was also made
available for review and comment in
June 2009. The Comprehensive
Evaluation Report was further
supplemented in December 2009 to
conform to the Analysis of the
Management Situation need for change
requirements of the 1982 rule
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
provisions. These documents are
available on the forests’ Web site:
https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/planrevision/documents.shtml.
Although the 2008 planning rule is no
longer in effect, information and data
gathered prior to the court’s injunction
is still useful for completing the plan
revision using the provisions of the
1982 planning rule. For example, the
following material developed during the
plan revision process to date is
appropriate for continued use in the
revision process:
• The Comprehensive Evaluation
Report that was completed in December
2008 forms the basis for need to change
the current forest plan and the proposed
action for the plan revision.
• The Comprehensive Evaluation
Report was supplemented in December
2009 with additional information to
conform to the Analysis of Management
Situation need for change provisions of
the 1982 planning rule. The need for
change previously identified in the
Comprehensive Evaluation Report has
been verified by this supplementary
information; no new need for change
was identified.
• The Ecological Sustainability
Report that was completed in December
2008 will continue to be used as a
reference in the planning process as
appropriate to those items in
conformance with the 2000 planning
rule transition language and 1982
planning rule procedures. This is
scientific information and is not affected
by the change of planning rule. This
information will be updated with any
new available information.
• The Economic and Social
Assessment that was completed in June
2008 and updated in January 2009 is not
affected by the change in planning rule
and will continue to be used as a
reference in the planning process. This
information will be updated with any
new available information.
• The draft evaluation of potential
wilderness areas that was made
available for public review and
comment in June 2009 is consistent
with appropriate provisions of the 1982
planning rule and will be brought
forward into this plan revision process.
• There are additional background
reports, assessments, datasets, and
public comment that will be used, some
of which can be found on the forests’
Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/
plan-revision/documents.shtml.
As necessary or appropriate, this
material will be further adjusted as part
of the planning process using the
provisions of the 1982 planning rule.
(Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600–1614; 36 CFR
219.35)
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 / Notices
Dated: December 18, 2009.
Chris Knopp,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9–30665 Filed 12–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0096]
General Conference Committee of the
National Poultry Improvement Plan;
Meeting
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–843]
The meeting will be held at
the Georgia World Congress Center, 285
Andrew Young International Boulevard
NW, Atlanta, GA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator,
National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS,
APHIS, USDA, 1498 Klondike Road,
Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094; (770)
922-3496.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
General Conference Committee (the
Committee) of the National Poultry
Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing
cooperating State agencies and poultry
industry members, serves an essential
function by acting as liaison between
the poultry industry and the Department
in matters pertaining to poultry health.
In addition, the Committee assists the
Department in planning, organizing, and
conducting the NPIP Biennial
Conference.
Topics for discussion at the upcoming
meeting are:
1. NPIP diamond anniversary
conference;
2. Salmonella isolation and
identification laboratory protocol;
3. Notifiable avian influenza;
4. Salmonella and baby poultry
contact;
5. Experimental use of a live
Mycoplasma synoviae vaccine in broiler
breeders; and
6. NPIP database.
The meeting will be open to the
public. However, due to time
constraints, the public will not be
allowed to participate in the discussions
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Dec 28, 2009
Jkt 220001
Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9–30666 Filed 12–28–09: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–S
SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a
meeting of the General Conference
Committee of the National Poultry
Improvement Plan.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
January 27, 2010, from 1:30 p.m. to 5
p.m.
ADDRESSES:
during the meeting. Written statements
on meeting topics may be filed with the
Committee before or after the meeting
by sending them to the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Written statements may also
be filed at the meeting. Please refer to
Docket No. APHIS-2009-0096 when
submitting your statements.
This notice of meeting is given
pursuant to section 10 of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day
of December 2009.
Certain Lined Paper Products from
India: Notice of Court Decision Not In
Harmony with Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 10, 2009, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department
of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’)
redetermination on remand of the final
results of the antidumping duty
investigation on certain lined paper
products from India. See Association of
American School Paper Suppliers v.
United States, Court No. 06–00395, Slip
Op. 09–136 (CIT December 10, 2009)
(‘‘AASPS, Slip. Op. 09–136’’).1 The
Department is now issuing this notice of
court decision not in harmony with the
Department’s determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Hargett or Joy Zhang, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4161 or (202) 482–
1168, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 The CIT’s action referenced in AASPS, Slip. Op.
09-136 includes court number 06-00395 and 0600399. See Association of American School Paper
Suppliers v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-00395
(Feb. 26, 2007) (order granting consent motion to
consolidate cases).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68779
Background
On August 8, 2006, the Department
published the final determination of
sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in
the antidumping duty investigation of
certain lined paper products (‘‘CLPP’’)
from India for the period of
investigation, July 1, 2004, through June
30, 2005 (‘‘POI’’). See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination
of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012
(August 8, 2006) (‘‘CLPP Final
Determination’’). The Association of
American School Paper Suppliers2
(‘‘AASPS’’) and Kejriwal Paper Limited
(‘‘Kejriwal’’) filed lawsuits challenging
the CLPP Final Determination.
In its November 17, 2008 opinion,3
the CIT partially remanded the CLPP
Final Determination. Specifically, the
CIT ordered the Department to further
explain 1) how the general and
administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expense ratio
reasonably identifies and fairly allocates
G&A expenses in light of the evidence
on the record; and 2) how its G&A
expense ratio is consistent with its
treatment of Kejriwal’s financial
expense ratio.
In accordance with the CIT’s remand
order in AASPS, Slip Op. 08–122, the
Department filed its redetermination on
remand of the CLPP Final Determination
(‘‘Remand Final Determination’’) on
March 16, 2009. In its redetermination,
the Department provided further
explanation on its calculation
methodology, and also determined that
certain additional expenses should be
attributed directly to Kejriwal’s
newsprint operations.
Decision Not in Harmony
On December 10, 2009, the CIT
sustained the Department’s
redetermination on remand of the final
results of the antidumping duty
investigation on CLPP from India. By
sustaining the remand results, the CIT
affirmed all of the issues in which the
Department was challenged, including
the Department’s explanation of how
the G&A expense ratio it calculated 1)
reasonably identifies and fairly allocates
G&A expenses in light of the evidence
on the record, and 2) is consistent with
the Department’s treatment of Kejriwal’s
financial expense ratio.
Pursuant to the Department’s
redetermination, Kejriwal’s G&A
2 The Association consists of MeadWestvaco
Corporation, Norcom, Inc., and Top Flight, Inc.
3 See Association of American School Paper
Suppliers v. United States, Consol. Court No. 0600395, Slip Op. 08-122 (CIT November 17, 2008)
(‘‘AASPS, Slip Op. 08-122’’)
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68776-68779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30665]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 29, 2009 /
Notices
[[Page 68776]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Plan Revision for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache,
Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to revise the forest plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the USDA
Forest Service is preparing the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests'
revised land management plan (forest plan) and will also prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this revised forest plan. This
notice briefly describes the nature of the decision to be made, the
need for change and proposed action, and information concerning public
participation. It also provides estimated dates for filing the EIS and
the names and addresses of the responsible agency official and the
individuals who can provide additional information. Finally, this
notice briefly describes the applicable planning rule and how plan
revision work completed under the 2008 planning rule will be used or
modified for completing this plan revision.
The revised forest plan will supersede the current forest plan that
was approved by the Regional Forester in August 1987. The current
forest plan has been amended 14 times since its approval, including 6
significant amendments that clarified riparian, fire, timber, and
recreation issues, adjusted the monitoring program, and added direction
for the Mexican spotted owl, the northern goshawk, and old growth. This
current forest plan will remain in effect until the revised forest plan
takes effect.
DATES: Comments concerning the need for change provided in this notice
will be most useful in the development of the draft revised forest plan
and EIS if received by February 1, 2010. The agency expects to release
a draft revised forest plan and draft EIS for formal comment by fall,
2010 and a final revised forest plan and final EIS by summer, 2011.
Public meetings to gather input on potential alternatives to the
proposed action are scheduled for spring, 2010. The dates, times, and
locations of these meetings will be posted on the forests' Web site:
https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests, Attention: Forest Plan Revision Team, P.O. Box 640,
Springerville, Arizona 85938. Comments may also be sent via e-mail:
asnf.planning@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 928-333-5966.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Davalos, Forest Planner,
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, P.O. Box 640, Springerville,
Arizona 85938, (928) 333-6334. Information regarding this revision is
also available at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests' revision Web
site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/. Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 AM and 8
PM, Eastern Time Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Name and Address of the Responsible Official
Corbin Newman, Regional Forester, Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway
SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Nature of the Decision To Be Made
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are preparing an EIS to
revise the current forest plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the
Regional Forester so that he can decide which alternative best meets
the need to achieve quality land management under the sustainable
multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people
while protecting the forests' resources, as required by the National
Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.
The revised forest plan will describe the strategic intent of
managing the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests into the next 10 to 15
years and will address the need for change described below. The revised
forest plan will provide management direction in the form of goals
(desired conditions), objectives, suitability determinations,
standards, guidelines, and a monitoring plan. It may also make new
special area recommendations for wilderness, research natural areas,
and other special areas.
As important as the decisions to be made is the identification of
the types of decisions that will not be made within the revised forest
plan. The authorization of project-level activities on the forests is
not a decision made in the forest plan but occurs through subsequent
project specific decision-making. The designation of routes, trails,
and areas for motorized vehicle travel are not considered during plan
revision, but are addressed in the concurrent, but separate, EIS for
public motorized travel planning on the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests. Some issues (e.g., hunting regulations), although important,
are beyond the authority or control of the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests and will not be considered. In addition, some issues, such as
wild and scenic river suitability determinations, may not be undertaken
at this time, but addressed later as a future forest plan amendment.
Need for Change and Proposed Action
According to the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are
to be revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. The purpose and need for
revising the current forest plan are (1) the forest plan is over 20
years old, and (2) since the forest plan was approved in 1987, there
have been changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new
policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and
scientific research. Extensive public and employee collaboration, along
with science-based evaluations, identified the need for change in the
current forest plan. This need for change has been organized into three
revision topics that focus on the sustainability of ecological, social,
and economic systems: (1) Maintenance and Improvement of Ecosystem
Health, (2) Managed Recreation, and (3) Community-Forest Interaction.
The need for change is described fully in the Comprehensive Evaluation
Report and the Analysis of the Management Situation supplement
document, both of which are available on the forests' Web site: https://
[[Page 68777]]
www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents.shtml. The proposed
action is to revise the current forest plan to address the three
revision topics.
Revision Topic 1--Maintenance and Improvement of Ecosystem Health
Conditions have changed since the current forest plan was issued in
1987 including the recognition that vegetation conditions (structure,
composition, and function) are divergent from historic conditions;
forest conditions indicate a substantial departure from the natural
fire regime; and there are plant and animal species which need further
consideration in the planning process. There are also emerging issues
not addressed by the current forest plan (e.g., non-native invasive
plants and animals, climate change).
Proposed Action
Better describe desired conditions for the vegetative
communities of the forests. The vegetative communities include
ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, dry mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and
aspen forests, pi[ntilde]on-juniper and Madrean pine-oak woodlands,
Great Basin, semi-desert, and montane/subalpine grasslands, interior
chaparral, mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane willow, and cottonwood-
willow riparian forests, and wetland/cienega riparian areas. The
revised forest plan will describe the desired composition, structure,
and cover of these vegetation types that will result in resilient,
functioning ecosystems.
Identify the desired fire regime that will help to restore
fire to a more natural role as one of the forests' primary disturbance
agents.
Provide direction to guide future vegetation management
activities, including burning and mechanical treatments, to move
towards or maintain desired conditions.
Incorporate management direction to guide future projects
to provide habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native
and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.
Include appropriate standards and guidelines to provide
direction to maintain species diversity and viability across the
planning area.
Reevaluate and update the Management Indicator Species
(MIS). MIS are species whose population changes are believed to
indicate the effects of management activities. MIS are selected to
allow evaluation of the differences between alternatives in the EIS.
Add plan components to provide future project direction to
control, treat, and eradicate non-native plant and animal invasive
species.
Address the emerging issue of climate change by
incorporating adaptive management strategies and describing ecological
conditions that are resilient to change.
Revision Topic 2--Managed Recreation
There are several concerns related to unmanaged recreation that are
not adequately addressed in the current forest plan. These include
increasing recreational use of the forests and changing demographics of
forest users. There are also special areas that were not mentioned in
the current forest plan (e.g., scenic byways), as well as rivers that
are eligible for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There may
be National Forest System lands that could be recommended to Congress
for designation into the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Proposed Action
Update the spectrum of recreation opportunities to reflect
current and projected recreation needs, natural resource impacts, and
public input. This includes identification of areas that are developed
for high use and areas that resemble more natural landscapes.
Identify the suitability of areas on the forests for
motorized vehicle use and other recreational activities, in conformance
with travel planning concurrently being addressed on the forests.
Incorporate direction for special areas that were not
included in the current forest plan, including recommended research
natural areas, the Heber Wild Horse Territory, scenic byways, and
national recreation trails.
Recommend additional special areas (i.e., research natural
areas) where needed. The intent is to recommend these areas in the
revised forest plan; subsequent analyses would determine whether they
should become official designated areas.
Recognize the management requirements for rivers that are
eligible for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The
Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic River System was
completed in May 2009 and found approximately 358 miles of 23 rivers
that are eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River
System. This report is available on the forests' Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents.shtml.
Evaluate lands for wilderness potential and, if determined
to be appropriate by the responsible official, recommend designation by
Congress and provide interim management guidance. Note: the draft
potential wilderness evaluation was published in June 2009 and is
available on the forests' Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents.shtml.
Revision Topic 3--Community-Forest Interaction
There are several social concerns that cause a need to change the
current forest plan. Communities are at risk from uncharacteristic
wildfire. There are increasing demands for goods, services, and forest
access from growing populations and urban developments that border the
forests. Many communities are surrounded by the forests and can be
affected by adjustment to the forests' land ownership. Commodity use
and production have shown declines from the past. However, these forest
uses contribute to sustaining the lifestyles and traditions of local
communities. Energy resource demands also continue to grow.
Proposed Action
Provide direction to address communities at risk from
uncharacteristic wildfire. This includes describing the appropriate
vegetation desired conditions and fire regime, and treatment of the
wildland-urban interface.
Provide guidelines and suitability determinations for
addressing urban interface demands (access, trailheads, special use
permits).
Update guidelines regarding land ownership adjustments
that better reflects community expansion needs and preservation of open
space.
Continue to provide a sustainable supply of forest and
rangeland resources that is consistent with achieving desired
conditions and that supports local communities. Determine the
suitability of lands for timber production and the allowable sale
quantity of timber.
Identify major existing energy (utility) corridors and
provide management direction for these areas. Update the criteria for
establishing new energy corridors.
Public Involvement
Extensive public involvement and collaboration has already
occurred. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes
to the current forest plan began with a series of public meetings
during the summer of 2006. This input, along with science-based
evaluations, was used to determine the need for change identified
above. Additional meetings, correspondence,
[[Page 68778]]
news releases, comment periods, and other tools have been utilized to
gather feedback from the public, forest employees, tribal governments,
federal and state agencies, and local governments.
More recent public involvement focused on the development, review,
and comment of the Working Draft Land Management Plan which was
released in June 2009 (https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/draftLMP/ASNF-Working-Draft-Plan-2009-06-15.pdf). This document was
developed based upon public and employee collaboration. A modified
version of this draft will be analyzed as one alternative in the EIS
process.
The forests will continue regular and meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal nations on a government-to-government basis.
The agency will work with tribal governments to address issues
concerning Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, natural and
cultural resources held in trust, Indian tribal treaty and Executive
order rights, and any issues that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.
The forests desire to continue collaborative efforts with members
of the public who are interested in forest management, as well as
federal and state agencies, local governments, and private
organizations.
Public meetings to gather input on potential alternatives to the
proposed action are scheduled for spring, 2010. The dates, times, and
locations of these meetings will be posted on the forests' Web site:
https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/. The information gathered
at these meetings, as well as other feedback, will be used to prepare
the draft EIS.
At this time, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are seeking
input on the need for change and proposed action: did we miss any
substantive issues or concerns? It is important that reviewers provide
their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to
the agency's preparation of the revised forest plan and the EIS.
Therefore, comments on the proposed action and need for change will be
most valuable if received by February 1, 2010 and should clearly
articulate the reviewer's concerns. The submission of timely and
specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in
subsequent administrative or judicial review. At this time, we
anticipate using the 2000 planning rule pre-decisional objection
process (36 CFR 219.32) for administrative review.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the
names and addresses of those who comment will be part of the public
record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.
Applicable Planning Rule
Preparation of the revised forest plan was underway when the 2008
National Forest System land and resource management planning rule
(planning rule) was enjoined on June 30, 2009, by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Citizens for
Better Forestry v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. C 08-
1927 CW (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009). The Department of Agriculture has
determined that the 2000 planning rule is once again in effect. The
2000 planning rule's transition provisions (36 CFR 219.35), amended in
2002 and 2003 and clarified by interpretative rules issued in 2001 and
2004, allow use of the provisions of the planning rule in effect prior
to the effective date of the 2000 Rule (November 9, 2000), commonly
called the 1982 planning rule, to amend or revise forest plans. The
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests has elected to use the provisions of
the 1982 planning rule, including the requirement to prepare an EIS, to
complete its plan revision.
Prior to the enjoinment of the 2008 planning rule, the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests had been working to revise the current
forest plan. Informal revision efforts began in the summer of 2006,
with collaborative discussions regarding the need to change the forest
plan and forest.
A formal Notice of Initiation to revise the forest plan was
published on December 16, 2008, in the Federal Register, Vol. 65, No.
212, p. 65290. That notice also requested review on the Comprehensive
Evaluation Report, the Ecological Sustainability Report, and the
Economic and Social Assessment (documents that provide evaluations of
social, economic, and ecological conditions and trends in and around
the forests).
The forests had begun collaborative development of forest plan
components during summer, 2008. The latest set of plan components, the
Working Draft Land Management Plan, was made available for review and
comment in June 2009. A draft potential wilderness evaluation of the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests was also made available for review
and comment in June 2009. The Comprehensive Evaluation Report was
further supplemented in December 2009 to conform to the Analysis of the
Management Situation need for change requirements of the 1982 rule
provisions. These documents are available on the forests' Web site:
https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents.shtml.
Although the 2008 planning rule is no longer in effect, information
and data gathered prior to the court's injunction is still useful for
completing the plan revision using the provisions of the 1982 planning
rule. For example, the following material developed during the plan
revision process to date is appropriate for continued use in the
revision process:
The Comprehensive Evaluation Report that was completed in
December 2008 forms the basis for need to change the current forest
plan and the proposed action for the plan revision.
The Comprehensive Evaluation Report was supplemented in
December 2009 with additional information to conform to the Analysis of
Management Situation need for change provisions of the 1982 planning
rule. The need for change previously identified in the Comprehensive
Evaluation Report has been verified by this supplementary information;
no new need for change was identified.
The Ecological Sustainability Report that was completed in
December 2008 will continue to be used as a reference in the planning
process as appropriate to those items in conformance with the 2000
planning rule transition language and 1982 planning rule procedures.
This is scientific information and is not affected by the change of
planning rule. This information will be updated with any new available
information.
The Economic and Social Assessment that was completed in
June 2008 and updated in January 2009 is not affected by the change in
planning rule and will continue to be used as a reference in the
planning process. This information will be updated with any new
available information.
The draft evaluation of potential wilderness areas that
was made available for public review and comment in June 2009 is
consistent with appropriate provisions of the 1982 planning rule and
will be brought forward into this plan revision process.
There are additional background reports, assessments,
datasets, and public comment that will be used, some of which can be
found on the forests' Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents.shtml.
As necessary or appropriate, this material will be further adjusted
as part of the planning process using the provisions of the 1982
planning rule.
(Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR 219.35)
[[Page 68779]]
Dated: December 18, 2009.
Chris Knopp,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-30665 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P