[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30473-30481]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12524]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 122

[FRL-9671-5; EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195]

Notice of Intent To Revise Stormwater Regulations To Specify That
an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging
Roads and To Seek Comment on Approaches for Addressing Water Quality
Impacts From Forest Road Discharges

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA intends to expeditiously propose revisions to its
Phase I stormwater regulations to specify that stormwater discharges
from logging roads \1\ are not stormwater discharges ``associated with
industrial activity.'' This notice of intent is in

response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which found in Northwest
Environmental Defense Center v. Brown that certain logging roads are
stormwater point sources ``associated with industrial activity.''
Additionally, EPA is seeking comment on approaches for addressing water
quality impacts associated with discharges of stormwater from forest
roads. Where appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are used,
receiving waters can be protected and impacts can be minimized. If not
properly managed, however, stormwater discharges from some forest roads
can cause preventable impairments to water quality. EPA believes that
stormwater discharges from forest roads should be evaluated under
section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act because the section allows for
a broad range of flexible approaches that are well-suited to address
the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use. Section
402(p) of the Clean Water Act allows EPA to consider a range of
regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and determine which forest
road discharges (if any) should be regulated under 402(p)(6). The EPA
intends to study the water quality impacts of forest roads and existing
federal, state, tribal, and voluntary programs designed to address them
to determine if additional Agency action is necessary. The EPA will
seek input again prior to taking additional action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the 9th Circuit decision in NEDC v. Brown
addressed only certain logging roads, not forest roads more
generally. EPA interprets the decision as not affecting the status
of silvicutural activities other than logging roads. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) and 122.27 exclude most
silviculture activities from the requirement to obtain an NPDES
stormwater permit, with certain exceptions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-HQ-
OW-2012-0195, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC, 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-
0195. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
notice, you may contact Jeremy Bauer, EPA Headquarters, Office of
Water, Office of Wastewater Management via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Applicability

    This notice does not impose requirements on any entity. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this notice, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Copies of This Document and Other Information

    This document is available for download at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/forestroads or under docket EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195.

II. Background

A. Purpose

    This notice describes the administrative steps the Agency intends
to take to address the unpermitted stormwater discharges identified
under Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176
(9th Cir. 2011) and related discharges subject to the partial remand
under Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d. 832, 863
(9th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the Agency is announcing its plan to
propose revisions to its Phase I stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122.26)
to specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not
included in the definition of ``storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity.'' The effect of this revision would be to remove
any obligation for an owner or operator of a logging road that has
discharges of stormwater to waters of the United States to seek
coverage of the discharge under the Stormwater Multisector General
Permit and to comply with that General Permit or to have an individual
permit under section 402 of the Clean Water Act for such a discharge.
EPA is aware that a Congressional moratorium on NPDES permitting of
some logging roads is set to expire on September 30, 2012, and intends
to move expeditiously to complete this revision.
    At the same time, the Agency intends to evaluate stormwater
discharges from forest roads to determine what additional measures, if
any, are necessary to address such discharges. The EPA is publishing
this notice to request comment on some potential approaches that the
Agency should consider for addressing stormwater discharges from forest
roads. As indicated earlier in this notice, the Agency will seek input
again prior to taking additional action.

B. Overview of Forests and Forest Roads

    A vast and diverse network of forest roads provides access into and
through the nation's forested lands. These roads traverse federal
public land, state and local public land, county land, tribal land,
private land, and they can span any combinations of these. The network
includes active and inactive roads that vary in age and condition. Some
roads on public lands are unauthorized and may not be included in
existing inventories. Forest roads provide important access for a wide
range of activities, including timber operations, recreation, fire
protection, transportation, and often serve multiple purposes by
multiple users at the same time.
    There are about 751 million acres of forested land in the United
States. Private forests make up over half (56 percent) or approximately
423 million acres (USDA Forest Service 2008), and account for over 90
percent of all timber harvested in the United States in recent years
(Adams et al., 2006). Of the private forest land, 62 percent is owned
by families and individuals and is commonly referred to as ``family
forests.'' Most of the family forest owners (around 61 percent) own
fewer than 10 acres of forest land. Owners of the remaining private
forest land include corporations, Real Estate Investment Trusts
(REITs), conservation organizations, clubs, and Native American tribes
(USDA Forest Service 2008). Over 300 Native American reservations are
significantly forested, and Native American tribal lands include 17.9
million acres of forest land, including 7.7 million acres of productive
timberland (ITC 2007). Private forest land owners invest considerable
resources in forest road construction and maintenance, as they are
critical assets that enhance property values, maintain economic
viability, and facilitate sustainable forestry management.
    Forty-four percent of forest land is publicly-owned, or
approximately 328 million acres. The Federal government administers an
estimated 76 percent of the public forest land. State forestry, park,
and wildlife agencies account for most of the 21 percent of state-owned
public forest land. The remaining 3 percent of public forest land is
owned by local governments, such as counties and towns (USDA Forest
Service 2008). Within the United States, the distribution of public
versus private forests differs greatly among the various regions of the
country. For example, forest-ownership in the Northwest is dominated by
public (primarily the USFS and BLM) ownership, while private ownership
is more prevalent in the Southeast and Northeast (Ibid.).
    While some forest road inventory information on federal lands is
available, meaningful interpretation and comparison of that information
requires an understanding of differences in inventory methods used
(e.g., minimum road length included in road length counts), differences
in the classes of forest roads (e.g., road surfacing, sediment
production and delivery, and hydrologic connectivity), and differences
in road densities. Nevertheless, the networks of forest roads on
federal land are vast by any measure, with total lengths on the order
of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of miles. The networks in
other publicly-owned forests, tribal forests, and private forests have
not been fully catalogued, and the density and condition of forest
roads on these lands, as with the federal lands, varies widely.
    Forest road networks differ greatly in development through time and
layout over terrain, and they carry this history into their present
performance and environmental impacts (Gucinski et al, 2001). In many
parts of the 193 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS), the
major roads were built in the 1950s and 1960s, with secondary and
tertiary feeder roads following as the road networks expanded into
watersheds. In other areas, logging roads developed from previous road
systems used for mining in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern states
or agriculture in the southern Appalachians, Ozarks, and New England.
Thus, changes in forest road standards through time (for example,
width, construction methods, position in the landscape) have affected
different parts of road networks. Consequently, each forest road
network commonly contains a collection of older and newer roads,
designed to different standards, for various purposes, and crossing
terrain of differing sensitivities. This mosaic of road segments has
implications for how the forest road network will interact with the
forest watershed, streams, and other downstream aquatic resources
(Gucinski et al., 2001), as well as for what is practicable, or even
feasible, to address stormwater discharges from these roads.
    Regional differences are also evident in where the forest roads
were located. For example, in southeastern Alaska, main roads were
built on the broad, valley floors, where timber growing on the lower
hillslopes was yarded downhill to them. In California, west of the
Sierra Nevada, major roads were built along broad ridges, with
secondary roads leading down into headwater areas. The main roads into
western Oregon forests entered watersheds along narrow stream bottoms
and then climbed the adjacent steep, unstable hill slopes to access
timber extending from ridge to valley floor (Gucinski et al., 2001).
    Federal forest roads on both BLM and Forest Service lands generally
support traffic from multiple uses such as recreational,
administrative, fire protection, and mineral and silvicultural
activities. Of those, only a portion may be used for accessing timber
resources. The federal land management agencies may grant easements,
reservations, and permits for the purpose of construction, operation,
and maintenance or use of roads crossing their lands.
    The majority of BLM industrial logging operations occur on Oregon
and California (O&C) lands \2\ which have approximately 14,455 miles of
road. BLM O&C lands are interspersed in a checkerboard pattern with
many landowners. The roads often cross multiple jurisdictions,
including tribal, state, county and private land as well as BLM lands.
As a result, a complex system of road right-of-way agreements exists on
the BLM O&C lands, as discussed later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Oregon and California (O&C) Lands Act of 1937. 43 U.S.C.
1181a. The O&C Lands Act placed management jurisdiction of the lands
under the United States Department of the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The paragraphs above discuss the range of property types into which
forest roads provide access. The same road may pass through multiple
owners and multiple properties. Moreover, the ownership of the road
does not necessarily correspond to the ownership of the forest land.
For example, a BLM owned road may pass through private property, and a
privately owned road may pass through BLM property.
    In general, only a subset of forest roads are active or open in any
given year or at any given time of year. When active or open, forest
roads may be serving multiple purposes by a number of different users.
For example, those roads that are open and used for logging may cross
multiple ownerships with overlapping responsibilities for the road and
be used by multiple logging operators during the same time frame. This
creates a highly complex mosaic of overlapping responsibilities. The
EPA does not have information on all forest roads but notes that usage
for some roads, including forest roads on private property, may only
occur during harvesting once every 20 years or so.
    Some forest roads are inactive and have been closed and ``storm-
proofed''

(i.e., they have appropriate BMPs for road drainage and erosion control
and for reducing the vulnerability of the roads to natural disasters).
Others may have been closed or abandoned. Among both active and
inactive forest roads are older forest roads that were built or located
without the benefit of newer standards.
    The wide range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches
authorized under section 402(p) of the CWA are well-suited to address
stormwater discharges originating from the complex and diverse forest
road universe because such approaches provide for flexibility and
prioritization and allow EPA to focus on the subset of forest roads
with stormwater discharges that cause or contribute to water quality
impacts. Under 402(p) EPA could build on or defer to other federal,
state, tribal, local, and voluntary programs.

C. Overview of Water Quality Impacts From Stormwater Discharges From
Forest Roads

    The goal of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 33
U.S.C. 1251(a). High quality water supplies from forests are widely
recognized as valuable resources. Forests cover about one-third of the
continental United States. Most major rivers and streams originate in
forested catchments (NCASI, 1994), and 80 percent of the nation's
freshwater sources originates in these forests (USFS 2000). In 2000,
the US Forest Service (USFS) calculated the marginal value of water
from all National Forest System (NFS) lands to be at least $3.7 billion
per year (Ibid.). Between 50 and 75 percent of the population of the
United States relies on forest lands for good quality water (Neary et
al. 2009), and approximately 60 million people rely on NFS lands as the
primary source of their drinking water (Dissmeyer 2000).
    Stormwater discharges from logging roads, especially improperly
constructed or maintained roads, may introduce significant amounts of
sediment and other pollutants into surface waters and, consequently,
cause a variety of water quality impacts. Results of nationwide
waterbody assessments from the EPA's Assessment and Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDL) Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS), which
contains the most currently available data reported by states to the
EPA under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the CWA, found silviculture
(forestry) and related activities, including forest and logging roads,
to be among the top twelve probable sources of impairment for rivers,
streams, and coastal shorelines (USEPA 2012).
    The ATTAINS database indicates that silviculture sources
contributed to impairment of 19,444 miles of rivers and streams (3.8
percent of the total of 514,795 miles impaired) and 242,583 acres of
lakes, reservoirs and ponds (1.9 percent of the total of 13,038,033
acres of impaired). States cited ``Logging roads (construction and
use)'' as the ``specific source'' of impairment in the case of 1,334
miles of rivers and streams (.003 percent of total impaired) and 6,150
acres of lakes, reservoirs and ponds (.0005 percent of total impaired).
    The contribution of silviculture to water quality impairments can
vary by region, and the contribution of discharges from forest roads to
water quality impairments in the ATTAINS database may not be
representative due to reporting differences among states. Some states
may have categorized the source of impairment as ``hydromodifcation''
or ``habitat alteration''; many states consistently report in the
``unknown'' source category for impairments--the third leading probable
source category of impairment nationwide. Additionally, much of the
nation's waters still remain unassessed (72 percent of rivers and
streams; 54 percent of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds; 62 percent of bays
and estuaries; and 96 percent of coastal shorelines). The EPA
considered the differential contribution from forest road stormwater
discharges on water quality as the Agency developed the potential
approaches for addressing these sources. For example, the EPA
recognizes that not all forest roads cause water quality impacts and
that the majority of the water quality impacts caused by discharges
from forest roads may be attributed to a relatively small subset of
forest roads and often a small portion of those roads (Nelson et al.,
2010; Fly et al., 2010; Luce and Black, 2001; Luce and Black, 1999).
Thus, any approach to address stormwater discharges from forest roads
would likely focus on the subset of forest roads that were not properly
constructed or are not properly maintained.
    Stormwater discharges from improperly constructed or maintained
forest roads can lead to excess sedimentation in nearby waters and
subsequently lead to physical, biological and ecological impacts to
water quality. These forest roads can degrade aquatic ecosystems by
increasing levels of fine sediment input to streams and by altering
natural streamflow patterns. Forest road runoff from improperly
designed or maintained forest roads can detrimentally affect stream
health and aquatic habitat by increasing sediment delivery and stream
turbidity. This can adversely affect the survival of dozens of
sensitive aquatic biota (salmon, trout, other native fishes, amphibians
and macroinvertebrates) where these species are located. Increased fine
sediment deposition in streams and altered streamflows and channel
morphology can result in increased adult and juvenile salmonid
mortality where present (e.g., in the Northwest and parts of the East),
a decrease in aquatic amphibian and invertebrate abundance or
diversity, and decreased habitat complexity.
    The physical impacts of forest roads on streams, rivers, downstream
water bodies and watershed integrity have been well documented but vary
depending on site-specific factors. Improperly designed or maintained
forest roads can affect watershed integrity through three primary
mechanisms: they can intercept, concentrate, and divert water
(Williams, 1999). Forest roads can intercept water falling as rainfall
directly on road surfaces and cutbanks as well as subsurface water
moving underground down the hillslope. They can concentrate flow on the
road surface and in adjacent ditches and channels. Forest roads, if not
properly designed, can divert both surface and subsurface water from
flow paths that otherwise would be taken in the absence of a road. The
hydrologic and geomorphic consequences resulting from these three
processes will vary based on the forest road and underlying material.
In some cases, impacts may be negligible, while they may be significant
in others. Potential effects of forest roads that were not properly
constructed or are not properly maintained on water quality can include
increased loading of sediment due to erosion and mass wasting,
increased suspended solids and turbidity, increased sediment deposition
and bed load, alteration of stream morphology and channel
simplification, altered streamflow, pollution from other chemicals
associated with forest roads, increased turbidity and sedimentation in
water treatment and supply systems, siltation of streambed substrates,
impairments of spawning and rearing habitat, and degradation of habitat
for salmonids, other fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic organisms.
    Section VII, References, at the end of this notice provides a
preliminary list of articles and publications that have examined
various potential effects of stormwater discharges from forest roads,
as well as management practices to address them. The EPA will further

review this literature as part of its detailed study of these sources.
The Agency also welcomes suggestions for additional references that it
should consider in its review.

D. Description and Effectiveness of BMPs and Current Practices

    Forest roads are vital components of the human use of forested
systems (Gucinski et al., 2001). They provide access for recreation,
resource extraction, fire suppression activities, and many other forest
management activities. While improperly built and maintained forest
roads can have detrimental effects on the water quality, the
application of appropriate BMPs can minimize these effects.
    Owners and operators of many forest lands may already be employing
a variety of effective approaches to manage, operate, and maintain
forest roads to control stormwater discharges. These approaches are
implemented by the forest road owners themselves or by operators or
users of the roads. Depending on the jurisdiction, owners or operators
use BMPs as a result of state program requirements, federal
requirements, or because they may follow voluntary programs, including
forest stewardship and sustainability initiatives. Under these required
or voluntary programs, owners and operators of forest roads use BMPs to
minimize or prevent discharges of pollutants into surface waters. They
include design approaches, treatment techniques, operating procedures,
and practices to control runoff, spillage, and leaks.
1. State Programs
    Most states have forest land management laws regulating multiple
aspects of forest and timber resources and management and the products
derived from these resources. Many states have a complex legal
framework of forestry regulations that shape the state's forest road
BMP programs. This framework and the resulting BMP programs vary
considerably from one state to another. States also differ in how they
distribute responsibility and authority for the forest road BMP
programs among the state water quality, forestry, and fish and wildlife
agencies. This notice describes three existing state programs to
illustrate some of the variety among the states. Descriptions of the
remaining state programs may be available through state Web pages.
    In Washington State, the forest practices act and rules (Forests
and Fish Rules) apply to all private and state forest roads. Forest
Practices Rules require that forest landowners construct and maintain
roads to avoid potential or actual damage to public resources, such as
water quality and fish habitat. The Washington program addresses both
new forest roads as well as existing roads. The program requires larger
forest landowners to complete an inventory of existing roads, identify
where roads are impacting state resources (including fish and water
quality), and allows for prioritization of repairing, relocating, or
abandoning existing roads to correct problems. All large forest
landowners must develop and submit for approval by the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) a Road Maintenance and
Abandonment Plan (RMAP) in which they inventory their forest roads and
outline a schedule for any needed road work, including a timeline to
bring old roads up to current standards or to decommission or
``abandon'' substandard roads. Small forest landowners are required to
submit a ``checklist RMAP,'' which is a form landowners fill out to
indicate they have assessed their roads included in a harvest and
identified any potential road maintenance problems. While the program
is enforceable, the state focuses first on technical assistance and
then, to correct problems, uses progressive enforcement mechanisms and
generally reserves civil penalties for more serious infractions. If a
problem is identified, WA DNR describes the outcome expected, and the
landowner describes what BMPs will be used to correct it.
    Forest roads that no longer need to be used or cannot meet the
performance standards are encouraged to be abandoned. Abandonment
strategies may involve the removal of stream crossing structures and
unstable road fill, installing water bars, re-vegetating exposed soils,
and employing other similar techniques. WA DNR must approve the
roadwork before the road can be considered abandoned.
    Florida relies primarily on voluntary compliance with state
approved forest road BMPs. However, BMPs can be enforced where
noncompliance leads to a significant risk to water quality. When a
significant risk has been identified, professionally-trained BMP
foresters advise the landowners on how to implement corrective
measures. Afterward, a follow-up site evaluation is made to reassess
compliance. Landowner non-compliance with recommendations made by the
BMP Forester could result in a referral to the appropriate regulatory
agency for enforcement action.
    California's Forest Practice Rules establish a comprehensive
framework that includes state-developed and approved BMPs for
silvicultural activities on private lands, including road-building
practices, and other related silvicultural activities. California
allows coverage under one approach that includes requirements that
closely resemble those of an individual permit, known as ``Waste
Discharge Requirements,'' as well as another approach allowing the use
of a ``waiver'' whose requirements are closer to those of a general or
regional permit. Having a ``waiver'' obviates the procedural need for
coverage under the ``Waste Discharge Requirements'' program, but the
substantive requirements of that program remain enforceable.
    The California program is based on input from state water quality
and natural resource agencies and incorporates a formal, annual
adaptive management process reflecting incremental analysis of BMPs,
which regularly results in updated BMP requirements. The waste
discharge requirements apply similarly and equally to both public and
private lands. Enforceability of the Forest Practice Rules is overseen
by multiple agencies: California Department of Forestry, the California
Department of Fish and Game, and the state water Quality Control Board
and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (California's water quality
agency).
    Many states have been monitoring forestry BMP implementation for
the past 20 years or more. During that time, state forestry agencies
have approached implementation monitoring in different ways with
varying degrees of detail, precision, and statistical strength. In
general, BMP implementation has been reported to be highest on public
land, followed in descending order by forest industry land, corporate
non-industrial land, and private non-industrial land (Prud'homme and
Greis, 2002).
    EPA recognizes that one-size-fits-all approaches may not be
appropriate for addressing the multiplicity of issues and situations
within and across states. EPA welcomes diversity in state programs and
will be carefully studying the full range of such programs as it
considers whether any additional measures to address stormwater
discharges from forest roads are needed.
2. USDA Forest Service Programs
a. Forest Service National BMP Program
    The goal of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) National BMP Program is
to improve agency performance and accountability in managing water
quality in a manner consistent with the CWA and state water quality
programs. Current USFS policy directs compliance with any required CWA
permits and

state rules and regulations, and requires the use of approved BMPs to
control pollution. The National BMP Program was developed over the past
decade and is currently in the initial stages of implementation. It is
intended to provide consistency among USFS administrative units to
efficiently administer BMPs and demonstrate performance and
accountability at multiple scales in an adaptive management context.
The program is intended to meet or exceed state BMP objectives as well
as to simplify and standardize water quality protection measures and
monitoring on NFS land. (USDA Forest Service 2012)
    The National Core BMPs integrate existing state and USFS regional
BMPs under one umbrella to facilitate an agency-wide BMP implementation
and effectiveness monitoring program. The National Core BMPs provide a
general, non-prescriptive framework of BMPs for the broad range of
activities that occur on NFS lands. (Ibid.)
b. Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework
    The USFS's Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a comprehensive
approach for classifying watershed condition, implementing integrated
restoration in priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands,
and tracking and monitoring outcome-based program accomplishments for
performance accountability (USDA Forest Service 2011). The policy goal
of the USFS WCF is ``to protect National Forest System watersheds by
implementing practices designed to maintain or improve watershed
condition, which is the foundation for sustaining ecosystems and the
production of renewable natural resources, values, and benefits.'' The
WCF provides a consistent way to evaluate watershed condition at both
the national and forest levels. The WCF consists of reconnaissance-
level assessments by individual national forests, implementation of
integrated improvement activities--including those related to roads--
within priority watersheds, validation and monitoring of watershed
condition class changes, and aggregation of program performance data
for national reporting.
c. Forest Service Legacy Roads Project
    The USFS has been engaged in an extensive program of road
improvement efforts called the Legacy Roads Project since 2008. The
goals of this effort are to reduce the hydrologic and geomorphic
impacts of the existing USFS road network on critical watersheds and
aquatic resources by decommissioning or upgrading forest roads. The
Legacy Roads Monitoring Project is a regional effort to examine the
effectiveness of the road decommissioning, storm damage risk reduction
(aka ``storm-proofing'') and road storage projects.
3. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Programs
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 58 million acres of
forest and woodlands in eleven western states and Alaska, including 2.4
million acres within the Oregon and California (O&C) grant lands in
western Oregon. BLM O&C regulations regarding third party road uses
provide that ``The intent and expectation of both parties to agreements
is that roads are left in `at least as good condition as existed prior
to commencement of use''' (43 CFR 2812.6-2(b)(2)). The Federal Land
Policy Management Act (FLPMA) requires public lands to be managed on
the basis of multiple use and sustained yield without permanent
impairment of the land and quality of the environment. Under Sec 502 of
FLPMA, the Interior Secretary is authorized to provide for the
maintenance of roads within and near the public lands and perform that
work, in part, by cooperative financing with other public agencies and
with private agencies and persons in proportion to their use. Forest
roads may be constructed and maintained by logging operators, private
landowners, the BLM, the USFS, or state or county governments. BLM
roads, culverts, and bridges are designed, constructed, and maintained
in accordance with policies and standards found in BLM 9100 Manual
Series (Engineering) for road BMPs. In Oregon and Washington, the BLM
has recently (2011) updated BMPs and, as a result, current road
construction and maintenance standards are substantially improved over
the standards in existence when the CWA was enacted in 1972. BLM timber
sale contracts contain extensive specifications related to methods and
timing of road construction and maintenance. In addition, the BLM often
includes operational restrictions in their timber sale contracts to
reflect appropriate protections for fish species listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    Under rights-of-way agreements, examples exist of private companies
owning roads constructed on BLM lands, and BLM owning roads built on
private lands. There are dozens of rights-of-way agreements in place on
O&C lands. These agreements are subject to frequent amendment as
landowners consolidate or sell lands or split off separate corporate
entities for business purposes, creating a complex access program.
4. Tribal Programs
    Tribal governments in partnership with the US government dedicate
substantial resources to improving Indian forest management (ITC 1993).
Much of the responsibility for managing Indian forests across the
country is carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with the
involvement of tribal governments. The National Indian Forest Resources
Management Act (NIFRMA), Title III, Public Law 101-630, directs the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the affected Indian
tribes, to obtain an independent assessment of the status of Indian
forest resources and their management. Similar to the National Forest
Management Act, the NIFRMA requires the development of forestry
management plans under which the forests are managed in accordance with
BMPs, as approved thorough an interdisciplinary team. The Tribal Forest
Protection Act (Pub. L. 108-278) authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an
agreement or contract with Indian tribes to carry out projects to
protect Indian forest land. Protection of such land is particularly
important for tribes because they pass their land on from generation to
generation. This helps to ensure future availability of natural
resources, including healthy forests and clean water.
    Many tribes have taken on significant roles in sustainable forest
management. For example, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
manages 95 percent of the forested portions of the reservation for
long-term sustainability through the Menominee Tribal Enterprises which
has received certifications for sustainable management from two groups,
Scientific Certification Systems (The Forest Conservation Program) and
the Rainforest Alliance (SmartWood), and is accredited by the Forest
Stewardship Council. As another example, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe
requires that all new roads be obliterated and seeded after forest
harvesting activities. Similarly, the Blackfeet Nation has a no net new
road miles policy, in that new forest roads associated with forest
harvest must be closed, or other roads must be closed in their place.
5. Voluntary Certification Programs
    On private forestlands, significant BMP implementation can be
attributed to growing involvement of forest owners

in sustainable forestry certification programs. Several certification
programs exist. Under one program, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
(SFI) of the American Forest and Paper Association, member companies
must meet or exceed state BMPs on company-owned forest land (Prud'homme
and Greis, 2002). Because SFI is linked to state BMPs, the forest road
BMPs applied under SFI vary by state. Some forest products companies
impose sanctions on timber producers who fail to implement BMPs when
logging on other ownerships.
    Under another, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification
program, certified forest owners and operators follow a set of
principles and criteria that support responsible forest management (FSC
2012). Principles and criteria include conservation of biological
diversity, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems
and landscapes. Under FSC certification, additional requirements
tailored by region guidelines must also be met in addition to state
BMPs.
    Under a third program, the American Tree Farm System, a written
certification is issued by an independent third-party that attests to
the sustainable management of a working forest (ATFS 2012). In addition
to requirements that they be in compliance with state BMPs, certified
forest managers must also attest compliance with eight standards of
sustainability, including the maintenance or enhancement of the
environment and ecosystems.
    Certification programs can both help ensure implementation of state
BMPs and in some instances require additional BMPs. Forestry operations
that utilize experienced and informed land managers generally have
higher rates of BMP implementation. Thus, many states recommend that
landowners utilize forestry professionals (e.g., private consultants,
certified Master Loggers) when planning any forest management
operations. Many certification programs require involvement of forestry
professionals.

E. Successes and Remaining Challenges

    As described above, successful federal, state, tribal, and local
programs for controlling stormwater discharges from logging and forest
roads currently exist in many parts of the country and many forest
owners are implementing BMP programs to address these discharges. Some
studies have observed trends of decreasing sediment input as forest
roads are closed and storm-proofed or newly built or brought up to
standards (e.g., Dub[eacute] et al. 2010).
    However, this does not mean that all of the existing programs have
been successful at effectively addressing stormwater discharges from
forest roads, and some discharges continue to cause or contribute to
impairments for the Nation's waters.
    At the same time, not all forest roads are alike, and the severity
of the remaining challenges varies. There is evidence that a majority
of the water quality impacts caused by discharges from forest roads can
be attributed to a relatively small subset of forest roads and often a
small portion of those roads (Nelson et al., 2010; Fly et al., 2010;
Luce and Black, 2001; Luce and Black, 1999). Thus, EPA believes that
further study of forest roads and their impacts is needed in order to
determine what additional measures may be needed to address remaining
water quality impacts. EPA will consider a full range of potential
approaches to address water quality impacts associated with discharges
of stormwater from forest roads.

III. Approaches for Managing Stormwater Discharges From Forest Roads

    The Agency is considering several options for addressing
significant water quality impacts caused by stormwater discharges from
forest roads. EPA is considering designating a subset of stormwater
discharges from forest roads for appropriate action under section
402(p)(6) of the Act. Section 402(p)(6) allows the EPA flexibility in
issuing regulations to address designated stormwater discharges and
does not require the use of NPDES permits. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6).
Section 402(p) allows for a broad range of regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches and provides flexibility as to which stormwater
discharges, if any, should be designated under Section 402(p)(6). For
example, in lieu of regulation, EPA could support or defer to other
federal, state, tribal, local, and voluntary programs. If EPA does
determine that regulation under Section 402(p)(6) is appropriate for a
subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads, such a regulation
might address discharges only from roads used for logging or might
address discharges based on contribution of the discharge to a water
quality problem. Section 402(p)(6), in turn, provides considerable
flexibility to EPA if it does designate any discharges for regulation
in how it regulates those discharges.
    EPA intends to further study the impacts of stormwater discharges
from forest roads, available management practices and approaches, and
the effectiveness of existing Federal, State, Tribal, local and private
programs in managing these discharges, as it considers appropriate next
steps.

IV. Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement

    The EPA is in the process of reviewing available information on
both the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest
roads as well as existing practices for their control. Consistent with
past Agency actions, the EPA invites interested stakeholders and the
public to share in the exchange of information and to engage as the
Agency considers alternative approaches for addressing stormwater
discharges from forest roads.
    The Agency participated in the recent technical symposium hosted by
the Society of American Foresters during which EPA scientists and
engineers had the opportunity to hear perspectives on forest roads and
the Clean Water Act from state and industry representatives directly.
In addition, the EPA has begun communicating with states, tribes, and
other federal agencies to understand their current forest road
stormwater management programs. The Agency worked closely in particular
with USDA (the USFS) and the Department of the Interior (the BLM). The
EPA also welcomes information from other interested parties and plans
to work closely with other stakeholders moving forward.
    The EPA encourages stakeholders and the public to provide input
into its consideration of appropriate measures to address stormwater
discharges from forest roads and is already planning to host public
meetings and webcasts to provide a forum for them to do so.

V. Next Steps

    The Agency will move expeditiously to propose a revision to its
Phase I stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122.26) to specify that
stormwater discharges from logging roads are not included in the
definition of ``storm water discharge associated with industrial
activity.'' EPA is aware that a Congressional moratorium on NPDES
permitting of some logging roads is set to expire on September 30,
2012, and intends to move expeditiously to complete this revision. EPA
will also study the water quality impacts of forest roads and existing
federal, state, tribal, and voluntary programs designed to address them
to determine if additional Agency action is necessary. EPA also plans
to hold listening sessions to obtain stakeholder input this summer on
its consideration of how best to address stormwater discharges from
forest roads.

VI. Request for Comment

    The EPA requests comment on potential approaches for addressing
stormwater discharges from forest roads. The Agency also seeks input on
examples of successful existing BMP-based state programs, tribal
programs, and voluntary certification programs for managing stormwater
discharges from forest roads; how these programs are implemented; how
program accountability is assured; the costs of implementing those
programs, including costs incurred by owners or operators of forest
roads as well as the costs incurred by the organizations responsible
for implementation and enforcement; the demonstrable successes of these
programs; and the lessons learned in implementing such programs.
    The EPA will again seek input on any additional measures to address
such discharges before taking additional action.

VII. References

Adams, Darius M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Daigneault, Adam J. 2006.
Estimated Timber Harvest by U.S. Region and Ownership, 1950-2002.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-659. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. p. 64.
Aitken, W.W. 1936. The Relation of Soil Erosion to Stream
Improvement and Fish Life. Journal of Forestry. 34:1059-1061.
Anderson, H.W.; Hoover, M.D. and K.G. Reinhart. 1976. Forest and
Water: Effects of Forest Management on Floods, Sedimentation, and
Water Supply. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-18.
San Francisco, CA.
American Tree Farm System (ATFS). 2012. http://www.treefarmsystem.org. (visited April 2012).
Berry, W.; Rubinstein, N.; Melzian, B. and B. Hill. 2003. The
Biological Effects of Suspended and Bedded Sediment (SABS) in
Aquatic Systems: A Review. USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory,
Narragansett, RI and National Health and Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Midcontinent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN. August 20,
2003. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/appendix1.pdf (visited April 2012).
Beschta, R.L. 1981. Management Implications of Sediment Routing
Research. Chapter in: Measuring and Assessing the Effectiveness of
Alternative Forest Management Practices on Water Quality. NCASI
Technical Bulletin 353. National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement. New York, NY. August 1981.
Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W. 1987. Stream Temperature and
Aquatic Habitat: Fisheries and Forestry Interactions. In: Salo, E.;
Cundy, T., eds. Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery
Interactions. Contrib. 57. Seattle: University of Washington,
College of Forest Resources: 191-232.
Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Forest Practices as Nonpoint
Sources of Pollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin
29(5): 729-740.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; Chalfant, G.R.; Townsend, M.A. 1976. Slope
Stability in Road Construction: a Guide to the Construction of
Stable Roads in Western Oregon and Northern California. Portland,
OR: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Clayton, J.L. 1983. Evaluating Slope Stability Prior to Road
Construction. Res. Pap. INT-307. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Dissmeyer, George E.; [Editor] 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and
Grasslands: a Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. Gen. Tech.
Rep. SRS-39. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research
Station. p. 3.
Dub[eacute], Kathy, A. Shelly, J. Black, K. Kuzis. 2010. Washington
Road Sub-Basin Scale Effectiveness Monitoring First Sampling Event
(2006-2008) Report. CMER 08-801. Olympia, WA. Washington State
Department of Natural Resources.
Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San
Francisco, CA. W.H. Freeman.
Eaglin, G. S. and W. A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of Logging and Roads
on Substrate and Trout in Streams of the Medicine Bow National
Forest, WY. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 844-
846.
Elliot, W. 2000. Roads and Other Corridors (Ch. 9). Pages 85-101. In
G. Dissmeyer, ed. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A
Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. USDA Forest Service,
Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
Elliot, W.J. and Hall, D.E. 1997. Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) Forest Applications. General Technical Report INT-GTR-365.
Moscow, ID: Intermountain Research Station.
Fly, C., Grover-Wier, K., Thornton, J., Black, T., Luce, C. 2010
Bear Valley Road Inventory (GRAIP) Report In Support of the Bear
Valley Category 4b Demonstration. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 54 pp.
FPAC. 2001. Section B--Forest Roads Issue Paper. Report of the
Forest Practice Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds. Oregon
Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds. Oregon
Department of Forestry. Salem, Oregon.
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2012. http://www.fsc.org. (Visited
April 2012)
Furniss, M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road Construction and
Maintenance. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of Forest and
Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. Spec.
Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD. American Fisheries Society. 297-323.
Gibbons, D.R.; Salo, E.O. 1973. An Annotated Bibliography of the
Effects of Logging on Fish of the Western United States and Canada.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-10. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Grace, J.M. III and B.D. Clinton. 2006. Forest Road Management to
Protect Soil and Water. ASABE Paper No. 068010. St. Joseph, MI.
Gucinski, H., M. Furniss, R. Ziemer, and M. Brookes. 2001. Forest
roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Hammond, C.J.; Miller, S.M.; Prellwitz, R.W. 1988. Landslide Hazard
Assessment using Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proceedings of the 24th
symposium on engineering geology and soils engineering; 1988
February 29; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Logan: Utah State University,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: 319-331.
Harr, R. D., W. C. Harper and J. T. Krygier. 1975. Changes in Storm
Hydrographs After Road Building and Clear-Cutting in the Oregon
Coast Range. Water Resources Research 11: 436-444.
Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream Dynamics: an Overview for Land Managers.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-72. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Henjum, M.G.; Karr, J.R.; Bottom, D.L. [and others]. 1994. Interim
Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds:
National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington.
Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society.
Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1991.
Responses of Salmonids to Habitat Changes. Ch. 14 of Influences of
Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their
Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 483-
518.
Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), 2007. National Overview of Tribal
Forestry. Proceedings in Trust and Transition: Perspectives on
Native American Forestry. April 30, 2007. University of Washington.
Available for viewing at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwVwbdg24Hk
(viewed March 2012).
Jackson, W.L. and Beschta, R.L. 1984. Influences of Increased Sand
Delivery on the Morphology of Sand and Gravel Channels. Water
Resources Bulletin. 20(4): 527-533.
King, J.G.; Tennyson, L.C. 1984. Alteration of Streamflow
Characteristics Following Road Construction in North Central Idaho.
Water Resources Research. 20(8): 1159-1163.
Lee, D.C.; Sedell, J.R.; Rieman, B.E. 1997. Broadscale Assessment of
Aquatic Species and Habitats. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J.,
tech. eds. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior
Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume
III. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1057-1496. Chapter 4. (Quigley,
T.M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project: scientific assessment).
Lewis, J. 1998. Evaluating the Impacts of Logging Activities on
Erosion and Suspended Sediment Transport in the Caspar Creek
Watersheds. In: Ziemer, Robert R., technical coordinator.
Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Watersheds: the Caspar
Creek story, 6 May 1998; Ukiah, California. General Tech. Rep. PSW
GTR-168. Albany, CA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Forest Service. 55-69.
Lisle, T.E. 1982. Effects of Aggradation and Degradation on Riffle-
Pool Morphology in Natural Gravel Channels, Northwestern California.
Water Resources Research. 18(6): 1643-1651.
Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest
Roads in Western Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vo. 35, No. 8 p.
2561-2570.
Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch
Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment Production. V64-V74, Proceedings
of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 25-29
March 2001, Reno, NV.
MacDonald, L.H.; Smart, A.W.; Wissmar, R.C. 1991. Monitoring
Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in
the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. USEPA 910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA,
USEPA, Region 10.
Madej, M. A. 1982. Sediment Transport and Channel Changes in an
Aggrading Stream in the Puget Lowland, Washington. In Sediment
Budgets and Routing in Forested Drainage Basins. Swanson, et al.
Editors. USDA. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station. General Technical Report PNW-141.
Megahan, W. F. 1972. Subsurface Flow Interception by a Logging Road
in Mountains of Central Idaho. pp. 350-356 in Watersheds in
Transition. Proceedings of a symposium Watersheds in Transition.
Fort Collins, Colorado, June 19-22, 1972. AWRA. Urbana, IL.
Megahan, W.F. and W.J. Kidd. 1972. Effect of Logging Roads on
Sediment Production Rates in the Idaho Batholith. Res. Pap. INT-123.
Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Megahan, W.F., J.P. Potyondy, and K.A. Seyedbagheri. 1992 . Best
Management Practices and Cumulative Effects from Sedimentation in
the South Fork Salmon River: an Idaho Case Study. Pages 401-414 in
R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and
Environmental Change. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag.
Mills, K., L. Dent and J. Robben., 2003. Oregon Department of
Forestry Wet Season Road Use Monitoring Project Final Report. Oregon
Department of Forestry Forest Practices Monitoring Program Technical
Report  17. June, 2003.
Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road Surface Drainage, Channel Initiation,
and Slope Instability. Water Resources Research. 30(6): 1925-1932.
NCASI. 2001. Forest Roads and Aquatic Ecosystems: A Review of
Causes, Effects and Management Practices. Pages 70. National
Committee for Air and Stream Improvement, Corvallis, Oregon.
Neary, D.G., G.G. Ice, C.R. Jackson. 2009. Linkages Between Forest
Soils and Water Quality and Quantity. Forest Ecology and Management.
258(10):2269-2281.
Nelson, N., Cissel, R., Black, T., Luce, C. 2011. Monitoring Road
Decommissioning in the Mann Creek Watershed: Post-storm Report
Payette National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 33 pp.
Norris, L.A.; Lorz, H.W.; Gregory, S.V. 1991. Forest Chemicals. In:
Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on
Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD:
American Fisheries Society: 207-296.
Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of
Forestry. 74(10): 671-677.
Rehder, K.J. and J.D. Stednick, 2007. Effectiveness of Erosion and
Sediment Control Practices for Forest Roads. Report to San Dimas
Development and Technology Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, San
Dimas, CA.
Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road
Surfaces. Water Resources Research 20: 1753-1761.
Rhodes, J.J.; McCullough, D.A.; Espinosa, F.A., Jr. 1994. A Coarse
Screening Process for Evaluation of the Effects of Land Management
Activities on Salmon Spawning and Rearing Habitat in ESA
Consultations. Tech. Rep. 94-4. Portland, OR: Columbia River
Intertribal Fish Commission.
Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and Sediment Control at Road-Stream
Crossings. Forestry Chronicle 23: 62-66.
Trautman, M.B. 1933. The General Effects of Pollution on Ohio Fish
Life. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 63:69-72.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water & the Forest Service. USDA Forest
Service, Washington, DC. FS-660. January 2000.
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Who Owns America's Forests? NRS-INF-06-
08, May 2008. p. 2.
USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-977,
May 2011. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/ (visited
April 2012).
USDA Forest Service. 2008. The US Forest Service--An Overview.
http://www.fs.fed.us/documents/USFS_An_Overview_0106MJS.pdf
(visited April 2012).
USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for
Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1:
National Core BMP Technical Guide, FS-990a. Washington, DC: USDA
Forest Service. April 2012. http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/index.html (visited April 2012).
USEPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint
Pollution from Forestry. EPA-841-B-05-001. Washington, DC: USEPA
Office of Water. April 2005.
USEPA. 2012. The Assessment, TMDL, Tracking And ImplementatioN
System (ATTAINS). http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control (visited April 2012).
Van Lear, D.H.; Taylor, G.B.; Hansen, W.F. 1995. Sedimentation in
the Chattooga River Watershed. Tech. Pap. 19. Clemson, SC. Clemson
University, Department of Forest Resources.
Wemple, B.C.; Jones, J.A.; Grant, G.E. 1996. Channel Network
Extension by Logging Roads in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon.
Water Resources Bulletin. 32(6): 1195-1207.
Williams, C.D. 1999. Current Status of Roads on National Forest
System Lands. Pacific Rivers Council. January, 1999.
Williams, T.M.; Hook, D.D.; Limpscomb, D.J. 1999. Effectiveness of
Best Management Practices to Protect Water Quality in the South
Carolina Piedmont. In: Haywood, James D., ed. Proceedings of the
Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SRS-30. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern
Research Station: 271-276.

    Dated: May 18, 2012.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-12524 Filed 5-21-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 75430-75431]
[DOCID:fr11de08-62]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-343-000]

SC Landfill Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 5, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SC Landfill Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 26, 2008.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-29357 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68257-68260]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23742]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0971; Product Identifier 2020-NM-083-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that
threaded fuel couplings were incorrectly installed at final assembly
and in service. This proposed AD would require repetitive functional
tests of the auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel feed line shroud, a
general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any loose
couplings; and tightening any loose couplings, which would terminate
the repetitive functional tests. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December
14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel,
Qu[eacute]bec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://a220world.airbus.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South

216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0971; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0971; Project Identifier
AD 2020-NM-083'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and
Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-14, dated April
30, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-
1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0971.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that threaded fuel
couplings were incorrectly installed at final assembly and in service.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address loose fuel couplings, which
could eventually disconnect and could lead to fuel starvation of the
APU and pose a risk of fire. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    Airbus Canada has issued Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 003,
dated August 14, 2020. This service information describes procedures
for repetitive functional tests of the APU fuel feed line shroud, a
general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any loose
couplings, and tightening of any loose couplings if necessary. The
inspection and tightening of the APU fuel feed line shroud couplings
terminates the repetitive functional tests of the APU fuel feed line
shroud. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 22 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 42 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0   Up to $3,570............  Up to $78,540.
 Up to $3,570.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680....              $0             $680
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held
by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.):
Docket No. FAA-2020-0971; Product Identifier 2020-NM-083-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by December 14, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (type
certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 50010 through
50018 inclusive, and 50020 through 50041 inclusive.
    (2) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 55003 through
55016 inclusive, 55018 through 55054 inclusive, and 55056.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that threaded fuel
couplings were incorrectly installed at final assembly and in
service. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loose fuel couplings,
which could eventually disconnect and could lead to fuel starvation
of the auxiliary power unit (APU) and pose a risk of fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Functional Test of the APU Fuel Feed Line Shroud

    Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
do an initial functional test of the APU fuel feed line shroud, in
accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 003, dated August 14,
2020. Thereafter, repeat the functional test at intervals not to
exceed 4,000 flight hours. If any functional test reveals a leak,
before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Inspection and Torque of APU Fuel Feed Line Shroud Couplings

    (1) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 9,350
flight hours or within 56 months, whichever occurs first after the
effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the APU
feed line shroud for any loose couplings, and tighten any loose
couplings as applicable, in accordance with Part B of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-
282009, Issue 003, dated August 14, 2020.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspection and tightening of the
APU fuel feed line shroud couplings was done before the effective
date of this AD, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue
001, dated December 13, 2019: Within 9,350 flight hours or 56
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
do a general visual inspection of the APU feed line shroud for any
loose couplings between frame (FR) 63 and FR 80, and tighten any
loose couplings as applicable, in accordance with Part C of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-
282009, Issue 003, dated August 14, 2020.

(i) Terminating Action for the Functional Tests

    The inspection and tightening of the APU fuel feed line shroud
couplings as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD terminate the
initial and repetitive functional tests of the APU fuel feed line
shroud specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Canada Service Bulletin
BD500-282009, Issue 001, dated December 13, 2019, or Airbus Canada
Service Bulletin BD500-282009, Issue 002, dated March 18, 2020,
provided the functional test is repeated at intervals not to exceed
4,000 flight hours from the completion of those actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using Airbus Canada Service Bulletin
BD500-282009, Issue 001, dated December 13, 2019.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership's TCCA Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2020-14, dated April 30, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0971.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard,
Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://a220world.airbus.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on October 22, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-23742 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55321]
[FR Doc No: C2-2011-16089]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket Nos. FDA-2011-C-0344 and FDA-2011-C-0463]

CooperVision, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petitions

Correction

    In proposed rule document C1-2011-16089 appearing on page 49707 in
the issue of Thursday, August 11, 2011, make the following correction:
    On page 49707, in the first column, in the nineteenth line,
``methacryloxyethyl)phenlyamino]'' should read
``methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino]''.

[FR Doc. C2-2011-16089 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D