Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 69653 

provide oral statements to the SAB 

Panel should contact the DFO directly. 

Oral Statements: In general, 

individuals or groups requesting to 

present an oral statement at a public 

teleconference will be limited to three 

minutes per speaker. To be placed on 

the public speaker list for the December 

3, 2015 teleconference, interested 

parties should notify Mr. Edward 

Hanlon, DFO, by email no later than 

November 25, 2015. 

Written Statements: Written 

statements for the December 3, 2015, 

teleconference should be received in the 

EPA Docket by November 25, 2015, so 

that the information may be made 

available to the SAB Panel sufficiently 

in advance of the teleconference for the 

Panel’s consideration. 

Written statements should be 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OA–2015–0245 and submitted to the 

Docket at www.regulations.gov by one of 

the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Docket_OEI@epa.gov: 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 

28221T), Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OA– 

2015–0245, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. The 

phone number is (202) 566–1752. 

• Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is 

located in the EPA headquarters Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center 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 (202) 566–1744. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

Public comments submitted after 

November 25, 2015 will be marked late, 

and should be submitted to the Docket 

by email, mail, hand delivery or fax (see 

detailed instructions above). Consistent 

with SAB Staff Office general practice, 

comments received after November 25, 

2015 will be made available to the SAB 

Panel as soon as practicable. It is EPA’s 

policy to include all comments received 

in the public docket without change and 

to make the comments available on-line 

at www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless a 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email directly 

to EPA without going through 

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, 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 EPA 

cannot read your comments due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the SAB Panel may 

not be able to consider your comments. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters 

Docket Center. 

Accessibility: For information on 

access or services for individuals with 

disabilities, please contact Mr. Edward 

Hanlon at the phone number or email 

address noted above, preferably at least 

ten days prior to the meeting to give 

EPA as much time as possible to process 

your request. 

Dated: November 3, 2015. 

Thomas H. Brennan, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28663 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668; FRL–9936–78– 

OW] 

Notice of Opportunity To Provide 

Information on Existing Programs That 

Protect Water Quality From Forest 

Road Discharges 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) solicits public input and 

information on existing public and 

private sector programs that address 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

This information will assist EPA in 

responding to the remand in 

Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. 

U.S. EPA, 344 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) 

that requires EPA to consider whether 

the Clean Water Act requires the Agency 

to regulate forest roads. This notice does 

not imply that EPA has made any 

decision to do so. EPA is considering 

the implementation, effectiveness, and 

scope of existing programs in addressing 

water quality impacts attributable to 

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

prior to making any decision. The 

Agency plans to assess a variety of 

existing programs, including federal, 

state, local, tribal, third party 

certifications, and combinations of these 

approaches, as well as voluntary best 

management practices (BMP)-based 

approaches. In preparing its response to 

the remand, EPA is coordinating with 

other federal agencies, and will assess 

whether any additional stormwater 

controls are called for, consistent with 

federal law, including the recent 2014 

amendments to the Clean Water Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0668, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water, Office of Wastewater 

Management via email at 

chumble.prasad@epa.gov or telephone 

at 202–564–0021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

Applicability 

This notice does not impose 

requirements on any entity. 

II. Background 

A. Purpose 

EPA is gathering information on 

existing programs addressing 

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

to determine what additional measures, 

if any, are necessary to protect water 

quality. As described below, section 

402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

allows EPA to consider a range of 

regulatory and non-regulatory 

approaches, and determine which 

stormwater discharges (if any) need 

controls under 402(p)(6). Since EPA’s 

last public notice on May 23, 2012 (77 

FR 30473), in which the Agency also 

solicited comments on approaches for 

addressing water quality impacts 

associated with forest roads, a number 

of developments have occurred, 

including statutory and regulatory 

changes, collection of additional water 

quality data, results from new research, 

new information pertaining to 

effectiveness of BMPs, and updates to 

federal, state, local, tribal, and other 

programs. Therefore, the Agency seeks 

to obtain public input and updated 

information on the implementation, 

effectiveness, and scope of approaches 

and programs that are currently in place 

for addressing stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. 

B. Legal Background 

The objective of the CWA is to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the nation’s 

waters. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To that end, 

the CWA provides that the discharge of 

any pollutant by any person shall be 

unlawful, except in compliance with 

other provisions of the statute. The 

CWA provides for a permit program, in 

general, for the discharge of a pollutant 

from a ‘‘point source,’’ which is defined 

in section 502 of the CWA as ‘‘any 

discernible, confined and discrete 

conveyance, including but not limited 

to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, 

conduit, well, discrete fissure, 

container, rolling stock, concentrated 

animal feeding operation, or vessel or 

other floating craft, from which 

pollutants are or may be discharged.’’ 33 

U.S.C. 1362(14). In 1987 Congress added 

section 402(p) to the CWA, which 

required National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

certain specified stormwater discharges 

and provided EPA with discretion to 

determine whether and how discharges 

from other stormwater sources should 

be addressed ‘‘to protect water quality.’’ 

For the initial phase of stormwater 

regulation, section 402(p)(1) created a 

temporary moratorium on NPDES 

permits for point sources except for 

those listed in section 402(p)(2), which 

includes discharges already required to 

have a permit; discharges from 

municipal separate storm sewer systems 

serving population of 100,000 or more; 

and stormwater discharges ‘‘associated 

with industrial activity.’’ Congress did 

not define discharges associated with 

industrial activity, allowing EPA to 

define the term. For other stormwater 

discharges, section 402(p)(5) directs 

EPA to conduct studies, in consultation 

with the states, for ‘‘identifying those 

stormwater discharges or classes of 

stormwater discharges for which 

permits are not required’’; ‘‘determining 

to the maximum extent practicable, the 

nature and extent of pollutants in such 

discharges’’; and ‘‘establishing 

procedures and methods to control 

stormwater discharges to the extent 

necessary to mitigate impacts on water 

quality.’’ Section 402(p)(6) directs the 

Agency to issue regulations, in 

consultation with state and local 

officials, based on such studies. The 

section allows EPA flexibility in issuing 

regulations to address designated 

stormwater discharges and does not 

require the use of NPDES permits. 

Specifically, the section states that the 

regulations ‘‘shall establish priorities, 

establish requirements for state 

stormwater management programs, and 

establish expeditious deadlines’’ and 

may include ‘‘performance standards, 

guidelines, guidance, and management 

practices and treatment requirements, as 

appropriate.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). This 

flexibility is unique to stormwater 

discharges regulated under section 

402(p)(6) and differs from the 

requirement for NPDES permits for 

stormwater discharges listed in section 

402(p)(2) of the Act. 

Prior to the 1987 Amendments, there 

were numerous questions regarding the 

appropriate means of regulating 

stormwater discharges through the 

NPDES program. These questions 

stemmed from serious water quality 

impacts of stormwater, the variable 

nature of stormwater, the large number 

of stormwater discharges, and the 

limited resources of permitting agencies. 

EPA undertook several regulatory 

actions, which resulted in extensive 

litigation, in an attempt to address these 

unique discharges. 

EPA’s Silvicultural Rule (40 CFR 

122.27) predates the 1987 amendments 

to the CWA that added section 402(p) 

for stormwater controls. The Agency 

defined silvicultural point source as 

part of the Silvicultural Rule to specify 

which silvicultural discharges were to 

be included in the NPDES program. The 

rule defines silvicultural point source to 

mean any ‘‘discernible, confined and 

discrete conveyance related to rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or 

log storage facilities which are operated 

in connection with silvicultural 

activities and from which pollutants are 

discharged into waters of the United 

States,’’ and further explains that ‘‘the 

term does not include non-point source 

silvicultural activities such as nursery 

operations, site preparation, 

reforestation and subsequent cultural 

treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, 

pest and fire control, harvesting 

operations, surface drainage, or road 

construction and maintenance from 

which there is natural runoff.’’ 

In 1990, EPA promulgated the Phase 

I stormwater regulations (55 FR 47990) 

(‘‘Phase I Rule’’), following the 1987 

amendments which directed the Agency 

to develop regulations requiring permits 

for large and medium municipal 

separate storm sewer systems and 

stormwater ‘‘discharges associated with 

industrial activity.’’ In the Phase I 

regulations EPA defined the term 

‘‘storm water discharge associated with 

industrial activity,’’ which is not 

defined by the Act but was discussed in 

the legislative history to the 1987 

amendments. In describing the scope of 

the term ‘‘associated with industrial 

activity,’’ several members of Congress 

explained in the legislative history that 

the term would apply if a discharge was 

‘‘directly related to manufacturing, 

processing or raw materials storage 

areas at an industrial plant.’’ (Vol. 132 

Cong. Rec. H10932, H10936 (daily ed. 

October 15, 1986); Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. 

H176 (daily ed. January 8, 1987)). The 

Phase I Rule provided the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘associated with industrial 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 69655 

activity’’ by adopting the language used 

in the legislative history and 

supplementing it with a description of 

various types of areas (for example, 

material handling sites, sites used for 

the storage and maintenance of material 

handling equipment, etc.) that are 

directly related to an industrial process 

and to industrial facilities identified by 

EPA. The Phase I regulations define the 

term ‘‘storm water discharge associated 

with industrial activity’’ to include 

stormwater discharges from facilities 

identified in the rule by Standard 

Industrial Classifications (SIC) codes. 40 

CFR 122.26(b)(14). The Phase I Rule 

does not include discharges from 

facilities or activities excluded from the 

NPDES program under other parts of 

EPA’s regulations, including the 

Silvicultural regulations. Id. As 

discussed above, EPA had previously 

specified under the Silvicultural 

regulations which silvicultural 

discharges were to be included in the 

NPDES program. 40 CFR 122.27. EPA 

intended to regulate those same 

‘‘silvicultural point source[s]’’ under the 

Phase I rule (i.e., rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage 

facilities) and to exclude from the Phase 

I regulation stormwater runoff from 

other silvicultural activities, consistent 

with the requirements of section 122.27. 

In developing the second phase of 

stormwater regulations, EPA submitted 

to Congress in March 1995 a report that 

evaluated the nature of stormwater 

discharges from municipal and 

industrial facilities that were not 

already regulated under the Phase I 

regulations (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water. 

Storm Water Discharges Potentially 

Addressed by Phase II of the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Storm Water Program: Report to 

Congress. Washington, DC EPA, 1995. 

(833–K–94–002)). On December 8, 1999, 

EPA promulgated the Phase II 

stormwater regulations to address 

stormwater discharges from small 

municipal separate storm sewer systems 

and construction sites that disturb one 

to five acres. 64 FR 68722. Under CWA 

sections 402(p)(2)(E) and 402(p)(6), EPA 

retains the authority to designate 

additional stormwater discharges for 

regulation. 

The Phase II stormwater regulations 

were challenged in Environmental 

Defense Center v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 

(9th Cir. 2003) (EDC v. EPA). In that 

case, petitioners contended that EPA 

arbitrarily failed to regulate discharges 

from forest roads under the Phase II 

rule. The court held that EPA failed to 

consider the petitioners’ comments and 

remanded the issue to EPA ‘‘so that it 

may consider in an appropriate 

proceeding Petitioner’s contention that 

section 402(p)(6) requires the EPA to 

regulate forest roads. The EPA may then 

either accept Petitioners’ arguments in 

whole or in part, or reject them on the 

basis of valid reasons that are 

adequately set forth to permit judicial 

review.’’ Id. at 863. 

During several years following the 

decision in EDC v. EPA, EPA undertook 

research to improve the Agency’s 

knowledge of forest road stormwater 

discharge impacts on water quality and 

what programs exist, whether voluntary 

or mandatory, to reduce those impacts. 

During the same period, the Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center initiated 

litigation concerning logging road 

stormwater discharges. 

In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in 

Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 

2011) (‘‘NEDC’’), a citizen suit alleging 

violations of the CWA for unpermitted 

discharges of stormwater from ditches 

alongside two logging roads in state 

forests. The court held that because the 

stormwater runoff from the two roads in 

question is collected by a system of 

ditches, culverts and channels and then 

discharged into waters of the United 

States, there was a point source 

discharge of stormwater associated with 

industrial activity for which an NPDES 

permit is required. 

On May 23, 2012, EPA published a 

Notice in the Federal Register 

summarizing known water quality 

impacts related to forest roads and 

discussing existing state, tribal, and 

voluntary programs designed to address 

those impacts. (77 FR 30473). The 

Notice expressed EPA’s intent to specify 

that only stormwater discharges 

associated with rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage are 

considered discharges associated with 

industrial activities, and that those 

would be the only discharges associated 

with silvicultural activity that would be 

subject to permitting under the 

stormwater regulations pertaining to 

industrial activity. The Notice also 

discussed the Agency’s consideration of 

non-permitting approaches to address 

other stormwater discharges from forest 

roads. 

On December 7, 2012, EPA 

promulgated a final rule (77 FR 72970) 

to specify that for the purposes of 

assessing whether stormwater 

discharges are ‘‘associated with 

industrial activity,’’ the only facilities 

under the SIC code 2411 that are 

‘‘industrial’’ are: Rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage. 

This rulemaking clarified that, contrary 

to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in NEDC, 

discharges of stormwater from 

silviculture activities other than the four 

specifically named activities identified 

above do not require an NPDES permit. 

On March 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme 

Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling 

in NEDC, holding that discharges of 

stormwater that ran off logging roads 

into ditches, culverts and channels did 

not require an NPDES permit. Decker, 

Oregon State Forester, et al. v. 

Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center, 133 S.Ct 1326 (2013). 

In 2014, Congress amended section 

402(l) of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act to effectively prohibit the 

use of NPDES permits for the discharge 

of runoff ‘‘resulting from the conduct of 

the following silviculture activities 

conducted in accordance with standard 

industry practice: nursery operations, 

site preparation, reforestation and 

subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, 

prescribed burning, pest and fire 

control, harvesting operations, surface 

drainage, or road construction and 

maintenance.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1342(l). In 

addition, the amendment prohibits third 

party lawsuits authorized by section 

505(a) for any non-permitting program 

established under 402(p)(6), or for any 

other limitations applied to silviculture 

activities. 

In December 2014, EDC and the 

Natural Resources Defense Council filed 

a petition with the Ninth Circuit to 

compel EPA to respond, within six 

months, to the question remanded in the 

2003 EDC v. EPA decision of whether 

section 402(p)(6) requires regulation of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Following execution of a settlement 

agreement that was filed with the court 

on August 26, 2015, the court entered an 

order establishing a schedule requiring 

EPA to issue a final determination by 

May 26, 2016. 

III. Water Quality Impacts From 

Stormwater Discharges From Forest 

Roads 

The Agency’s May 23, 2012 Notice 

summarized the research EPA had 

collected to date on the water quality 

impacts resulting from stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. Much of 

this research was compiled in the 2008 

report ‘‘National Level Assessment of 

Water Quality Impairments Related to 

Forest Roads and Their Prevention by 

Best Management Practices’’ prepared 

by the Great Lakes Environmental 

Center, Inc. (GLEC). This document is 

available in the docket for today’s notice 

and provides an extensive discussion on 

water quality impacts from forest road 

stormwater discharges, which are 

primarily erosion and sedimentation, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 

1Abandoned or ‘‘legacy roads’’ refers to forest 

roads built prior to the establishment of current 

design standards, which are not being used but may 

still be sources of sediment. 

but can also include changes in stream 

morphology, introduction of chemicals 

and other pollutants, and degradation of 

aquatic habitat. 

EPA’s research indicates that 

improperly designed, constructed, 

maintained, or decommissioned forest 

roads, as well as abandoned ‘‘legacy 

roads,’’ 1 can lead to a number of 

impacts. These impacts can include 

increased sediment load and changes in 

stream network hydrology, subsequently 

causing physical, biological, and 

ecological impacts to water quality. EPA 

also recognizes that not all forest roads 

cause water quality impacts and that 

within a basin the majority of the water 

quality impacts caused by discharges 

from forest roads may be attributed to a 

relatively small subset of forest roads 

(see, for example, Nelson et al., 2011; 

Fly et al., 2010; Luce and Black, 2001; 

Luce and Black, 1999). 

The focus of this notice is to solicit 

input on the implementation and 

effectiveness of existing public and 

private programs, whether voluntary or 

legally binding and enforceable, in 

mitigating water quality impacts from 

stormwater discharges from forest roads, 

rather than to receive additional 

comments or materials on water quality 

impacts of these discharges. 

Specifically, EPA seeks input on the 

implementation, effectiveness, and 

scope of existing federal, state, local, 

tribal and private sector programs. The 

Agency also seeks input on additional 

approaches and regulations, if 

necessary, to mitigate negative impacts 

on water quality from forest road 

stormwater discharges. 

IV. EPA’s May 23, 2012 Federal 

Register Notice 

On May 23, 2012, EPA published a 

Notice that sought comment on 

potential approaches for addressing 

water quality impacts resulting from 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

In response to that Notice, EPA received 

over 100 comment letters. Some 

comments pointed to existing programs 

suggesting that a national regulation 

addressing discharges from forest roads 

is unnecessary because existing state 

and tribal programs are sufficient. 

Others asserted that existing federal, 

state, and tribal programs are 

insufficient to protect water quality. 

As discussed above, EPA is prohibited 

from requiring NPDES permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

associated with defined ‘‘silvicultural 

activities’’ as a result of the 2014 

amendment to section 402(l) of the 

CWA. However, authority to regulate 

these discharges in other ways and 

using other methods remains, including 

under section 402(p)(6). As noted, 

section 402(p)(6) of the CWA allows 

EPA flexibility in issuing regulations to 

address designated stormwater 

discharges and does not require the use 

of NPDES permits. Specifically, the 

section states that the regulations shall 

establish priorities, establish 

requirements for state stormwater 

management programs, and establish 

expeditious deadlines and may include 

‘‘performance standards, guidelines, 

guidance, and management practices 

and treatment requirements, as 

appropriate.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). 

In assessing whether regulation is 

required under section 402(p)(6) of the 

CWA, EPA is considering the 

effectiveness of existing programs in 

addressing water quality impacts 

attributable to stormwater discharges 

from forest roads, including federal, 

state, local, tribal, third-party 

certifications, and combinations of these 

approaches, as well as voluntary BMPbased approaches. In this notice, EPA 

requests information on these and other 

means currently in place for addressing 

the water quality impacts of stormwater 

discharges from forest roads or certain 

portions of forest roads. EPA also 

requests information on implementation 

and lessons learned from experience 

with existing programs. 

V. Key Considerations 

In assessing how best to manage 

stormwater discharges from forest roads, 

EPA recognizes that any effective 

program should be informed by several 

considerations. It is EPA’s view that 

there are four key considerations for 

managing stormwater discharges as 

described later in this notice: (1) The 

advantage of leveraging existing 

strategies that work, including existing 

effective federal, state, local, tribal, 

private, and voluntary BMP-based 

programs; (2) the utility of addressing 

site-specific factors; (3) the need to 

prioritize actions; and (4) the benefits of 

accountability measures. 

Forest road stormwater management 

programs vary across the country in 

response to state or regional factors. 

EPA is working with federal agencies, 

states, and tribes as well as the private 

sector to understand their programs for 

managing stormwater discharges from 

forest roads. The Agency is interested in 

engaging other interested stakeholders 

in the process as well. EPA provided an 

overview of existing public and private 

programs to manage stormwater 

discharges from forest roads in its May 

23, 2012 Federal Register Notice, but 

understands that there may have been 

improvements and additions since that 

time. With this Notice, EPA seeks 

updated information on existing 

programs. 

A range of guidelines are available to 

assist forest owners, managers, and 

operators in designing and maintaining 

forest roads and selecting the 

appropriate BMPs to control stormwater 

discharges. For example, EPA has 

issued national guidance to assist forest 

owners and operators to protect lakes 

and streams from polluted runoff that 

can result from forestry activity and, in 

particular, from improperly built or 

maintained forest roads (USEPA, 2005). 

Other federal agencies as well as states 

have also developed guidance 

documents to protect water quality from 

forest road discharges (For example 

USFS (2012) and Georgia Forestry 

Commission (2009)). In addition, 

industry has developed standards for 

voluntary certification programs (For 

example, NCASI (2012) and SFI (2015)). 

BMP-based approaches allow forest road 

owners and operators to tailor 

management practices to site-specific 

factors such as topography, road design, 

soils, geologic factors, road use, and 

climate. The diversity of the forest road 

networks, the different classes of roads, 

the different local physical conditions, 

and the broad range of road conditions 

and uses indicate the importance of sitespecific BMP selection and 

implementation to protect water quality. 

EPA also intends to consider the 

complexity and vastness of the Nation’s 

forest road network and diversity of the 

forested landscape. EPA seeks 

additional information that would assist 

the Agency in evaluating various 

approaches, including, for example: 

Differences among forest uses; 

particularly vulnerable features of the 

road network (for example, stream 

crossings); critical phases (for example, 

road closure or decommissioning); 

ownerships of different forest tracts; 

types of ownership, including public, 

private, and tribal-owned lands; and 

forest road conditions, type, and usage. 

The selection of appropriate 

management strategies and BMPs can 

vary based on site-specific factors, 

including topography, road design, 

soils, geologic factors, road use, road 

maintenance schedule, and climate. 

EPA also would like information on the 

effectiveness of properly implemented 

BMPs in protecting water quality from 

forest road stormwater discharges. EPA 

solicits information on what approaches 

have been or could be applied 

nationally regardless of forest road type 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 69657 

and ownership, as well as which 

approaches might be best targeted to 

specific locations. For instance, 

performance-based management 

strategies may be more effective and less 

burdensome than approaches that rely 

upon prescriptive solutions. 

EPA recognizes the importance of 

prioritization in allocating resources. 

For example, protecting beneficial uses 

such as fish spawning or public water 

supply may be a high priority in some 

areas while reducing impacts to waters 

listed as impaired or included in an 

existing Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) might be a high priority in other 

areas. EPA requests information on how 

existing programs identify and 

determine where to allocate resources to 

prioritize high quality, or pristine, 

waters or alternatively, impaired waters, 

or how to prioritize focus on certain 

forest roads that may be more 

problematic than others. 

Finally, accountability is a key 

element of a successful approach 

ensuring stormwater discharges from 

forest roads are properly implemented 

and managed across the country and 

that reasonable progress is made in 

addressing inadequately managed 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

EPA seeks information regarding 

existing programs, such as adaptive 

management approaches, that include 

accountability measures such as 

monitoring, reporting, necessary 

updates, and consequences for failure to 

adhere to the objectives of the 

management program. 

VI. Approaches for Managing 

Stormwater Discharges From Forest 

Roads 

As described in further detail below, 

many owners and operators of forest 

lands are employing a variety of 

effective approaches to manage, operate, 

comply with and maintain forest roads 

to control stormwater discharges. 

Depending on the jurisdiction, owners 

or operators use federal requirements, 

BMP state program requirements, as 

well as tribal requirements, or follow 

the standards of voluntary programs, 

including forest stewardship and 

sustainability initiatives. Some of these 

approaches are used in combinations 

that may provide a more holistic 

approach, which may be more 

protective and effective. 

A. Examples of Existing State and Tribal 

Programs 

Many states and some tribes have 

programs in place that function to 

prevent or minimize forest road 

stormwater discharge impacts on water 

quality. These programs generally 

establish standards for the design of 

forest roads and BMPs. State and tribal 

programs vary in their substantive level 

of protection, specificity and 

enforceability, and generally fall into 

three categories: regulatory, nonregulatory, and combination programs. 

Information available to EPA indicates 

that 15 states have established 

mandatory BMPs for forest roads and 

the remaining 35 states allow for 

voluntary implementation of BMPs to 

control stormwater discharges from 

forest roads (GLEC, 2008). In some cases 

the failure to implement voluntary 

measures can result in enforcement 

where noncompliance leads to a 

significant risk to water quality. For 

example, the California program 

resembles a permit program and is 

mandatory, whereas Florida relies 

primarily on voluntary compliance with 

state-approved road BMPs. The 

discussion below describes two existing 

state programs and briefly describes 

several existing tribal programs to 

illustrate the different approaches used 

to address forest road impacts. 

Maine provides an example of a state 

that employs a non-regulatory forest 

management program. In a voluntary 

program, the state typically develops 

state-wide forestry BMPs (including 

measures for forest roads) and 

recommends that the forest owners 

implement the BMPs. Generally, there 

are no permit mechanisms or 

enforcement actions, but many states 

with voluntary programs use a hands-on 

approach that emphasizes education, 

outreach, and training for forest owners, 

loggers, and others (Maine DEC, 2012). 

Maine’s forestry BMP program is 

administered through the Maine Forest 

Service (MFS). Broadly, the program 

consists of voluntary BMPs 

implemented by the landowner, 

monitoring of the BMPs by MFS, and, if 

needed, a regulatory ‘‘safety net.’’ The 

primary focus of the MFS program is 

training and outreach. MFS works to 

develop and revise BMPs, the most 

recent set being published in 2004. MFS 

then offers frequent training courses 

across the state and online to promote 

understanding of the principles and 

techniques in selecting and installing 

appropriate BMPs. Deficiencies in the 

implementation of BMPs (as identified 

by follow-up monitoring or other 

mechanisms) may lead to specialized 

training sessions (Maine DEC, 2012). 

The MFS also conducts field 

monitoring of forestry BMPs. In 

collaboration with other stakeholders, a 

state-wide monitoring protocol was 

developed and has been implemented 

annually at selected sites since 2006. As 

noted in GLEC (2008), surveys have 

shown that BMPs are, for the most part, 

being consistently implemented and 

installation rates have improved 

substantially over time. When the need 

for improvements in BMP application 

are identified, MFS works cooperatively 

with the landowner to address the issue 

(Maine DEC, 2012). 

Maine has a number of state laws that 

address sediment discharges to surface 

waters, including discharges due to 

timber operations. As needed, MFS 

works with other state agencies to 

identify problems and address them in 

a regulatory manner. Most issues are 

resolved cooperatively before a 

regulatory solution is needed (Maine 

DEC, 2012). 

North Carolina has a combination 

approach for its forest management 

program, as it employs elements of both 

regulatory and non-regulatory programs. 

In 1990, the state developed 

administrative rules (Forest Practice 

Guidelines Related to Water Quality 

(FPGs)). Additionally, other state laws 

or interagency agreements can apply to 

forestry activities, including the 

location, construction, and maintenance 

of forest roads in wetlands (North 

Carolina FS, 2012). 

The North Carolina Forest Service 

(NCFS) conducts thousands of forestry 

compliance inspections each year and 

has found high FPG compliance rates on 

a statewide basis. More focused 

implementation-specific monitoring has 

been conducted several times since 

2000 by the NCFS and has also shown 

high implementation rates for forest 

road BMPs, despite their voluntary 

nature. State staff also provide technical 

assistance in designing and 

implementing BMPs and in assessing 

water quality. North Carolina revised its 

BMP manual in 2006 and included 

detailed discussions about all aspects of 

managing forest roads. The state has 

implemented a number of training and 

education programs in concert with 

demonstration projects to promote 

proper BMP usage. North Carolina 

agencies also coordinate to ensure that 

forestry operations are compliant with 

state requirements, that inspections are 

properly conducted, and that 

enforcement protocols are appropriately 

established (North Carolina FS, 2012). 

Across the country, over 300 tribal 

reservations are significantly forested, 

and tribal lands include 17.9 million 

acres of forest land, including 7.7 

million acres of productive timberland 

(ITC 2007). Tribal governments in 

partnership with the U.S. government 

dedicate substantial resources to 

improving tribal forest management. 

Much of the responsibility for managing 

forests on tribal lands across the country 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 

2http://www.mtemillwork.com/. 

3Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 

2530—Water Resource Management, 2532—Water 

Quality Management. 

4National Best Management Practices, Chapter 

10—National Core Best Management Practices. 

5National Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality Management on National Forest System 

Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical 

Guide, United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, FS–990a, April 2012. 

6http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/

Watershed_Condition_Framework.pdf. 

7http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/Legacy_Roads_

and_Trails/. 

8See, for example, http://www.fs.usda.gov/

Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362512.pdf 

and http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_

DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5399662.pdf. 

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 tribes, 

to obtain an independent assessment of 

the status of forest resources on tribal 

lands and their management. 

NIFRMA requires the development of 

forestry management plans under which 

the forests are managed in accordance 

with BMPs, as approved through an 

interdisciplinary team consisting of 

forestry experts from academia, the 

private sector, forest-managing tribes 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service. 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 tribes 

to carry out projects to protect forests on 

tribal lands. 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 the forested 

portions of the reservation for long-term 

sustainability through the Menominee 

Tribal Enterprises (MTE), which has 

received certifications for sustainable 

management from the Forest 

Stewardship Council (FSC)-approved 

programs conducted by the Scientific 

Certification and the Rainforest 

Alliance. According the MTE Millwork 

Web site,2 certification is awarded to 

forest operations that are well managed 

in accordance with environmentally and 

socially responsible guidelines. 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, which 

requires the closure of an existing road 

before a new forest road may be 

constructed. 

EPA requests comments regarding the 

implementation, effectiveness and scope 

of state, local, and tribal programs, both 

mandatory and voluntary, in preventing 

or minimizing forest road 

environmental impacts on water quality. 

EPA also seeks feedback on which 

elements are regarded as necessary for 

an effective program (for example, an 

inventory of forest roads; logger training 

and outreach; technical assistance; 

requirements for best management 

practices for forest roads; guidelines for 

prioritizing and addressing water 

quality concerns related to stormwater 

discharges from existing forest roads; 

accountability measures; public 

involvement and the opportunity for 

public input into the development of 

the state program; a program for 

monitoring or auditing to assess 

program compliance; a program for 

monitoring the effectiveness of the roads 

program in minimizing water quality 

impacts; and an adaptive management 

process to revise BMPs based on 

effectiveness monitoring) and how 

much flexibility is appropriate for state 

and tribal programs. 

B. Examples of Existing Federal 

Programs 

Federal agencies, such as the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), have established 

programs for the management of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

on federal lands. These agencies manage 

large tracts of forested lands, including 

lands that are actively being disturbed 

by road building, road maintenance, 

logging operations, unauthorized public 

and recreational use or other tasks, and 

have generally demonstrated sound 

environmental stewardship in managing 

these lands. 

FS has developed a number of 

programs related to managing 

discharges from forest roads to improve 

water quality. For example, FS is 

revising its Forest Service Manual and 

Forest Service Handbook directives 

(FSM 2500 3 and FSH 2509–19 4) on 

BMPs for water quality protection on 

National Forest Service lands. These 

revisions would establish national 

BMPs and associated monitoring 

protocols on National Forest Service 

lands. 70 FR 25824. As part of this 

effort, FS has developed a National Core 

BMP Technical Guide 5 intended to 

improve FS performance and 

accountability in managing water 

quality consistent with the CWA and 

State water quality programs. This 

Guide establishes national core BMPs 

that address 11 subject areas affecting 

water quality, including ‘‘Road 

Management Activities.’’ The Road 

Management Activities BMP provisions 

address: Travel Management Planning 

and Analysis; Road Location and 

Design; Road Construction and 

Reconstruction; Road Operations and 

Maintenance; Temporary Roads; Road 

Storage and Decommissioning; Stream 

Crossings; Snow Removal and Storage; 

Parking and Staging Areas; Equipment 

Refueling and Servicing; and Road 

Storm Damage Surveys. Each BMP 

draws on administrative directives that 

guide FS management of roads on NFS 

land. FS directives and BMP Guide 

allow for the use of state, tribal and 

local requirements and information to 

develop site-specific BMPs. They also 

provide monitoring of BMP 

implementation and effectiveness using 

national core BMP monitoring protocols 

and reporting systems. Based on 

monitoring results, these mechanisms 

provide for adaptive management in 

assessing implementation, effectiveness, 

and adjusting practices as needed to 

protect water quality. FS has enhanced 

its Road Preconstruction Handbook on 

Design (FSH 7709.59 Chapter 40) as 

well as the Transportation Structures 

Handbook on Hydraulics and Watershed 

Protection (FSH 7709.59b CH 60) to 

include design considerations for the 

construction and reconstruction of 

forest roads which minimize road and 

drainage impacts to the watershed. FS 

Technology and Development Centers 

have created a number of publications 

to assist designers when addressing 

road/water interactions http://

www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/. 

FS has also created the Watershed 

Condition Framework, an approach to 

assessing watersheds in national forests 

and grasslands, implementing protective 

measures and providing for ongoing 

monitoring.6 FS has developed another 

program, known as the Legacy Roads 

and Trails Program, to identify legacy 

roads in national forests and grasslands, 

and to minimize the discharge of 

stormwater by decommissioning or 

upgrading them.7 FS also publishes 

documents for specific regions or types 

of forests that contain information on 

forest road construction and 

maintenance, as well as information on 

appropriate BMPs.8

FS has also developed a suite of tools 

for the identification and prioritization 

of road segments at risk for contributing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 69659 

9See, for example, http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/. 

10See, for example, http://water.epa.gov/

polwaste/nps/success319/id_bear.cfm. 

11See, for example, http://www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/ 

downloads/case_studies/WatershedStudies_

LoloHelenaFlatheadNFs_SWCC_

2014%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

12http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

forests_and_woodland.html. 

13http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ak/

aktest/planning/planning_

general.Par.65225.File.dat/blm_lup_handbook.pdf. 

14http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/

rmpswesternoregon/deis.php. 

15http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yrreport. 

16http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/

Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/

0.Par.97719.File.dat/BLM_MOU_WO-200-2009- 

03.pdf. 

to water quality problems.9 These tools 

operate at scales of detail ranging from 

using corporate road databases and 

digital elevation data to using detailed 

GPS surveys. These tools have been 

applied in watershed sediment load 

reduction plans for waters listed as 

impaired under the CWA 10 and in forest 

restoration projects under the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program in the states of 

Idaho, Montana,11 and California. FS 

maintains an applied science program 

on road-related sediment risks to 

support all of the above efforts (see, for 

example, Luce et al., 2001; Switalski et 

al., 2004). 

BLM is a significant owner and 

manager of forests and woodlands on 

federal lands as well, primarily in the 

western U.S. and Alaska. Similar to FS, 

a full suite of activities are authorized 

and managed on BLM forests and 

woodlands, including timber harvesting, 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments, 

recreation, fish and wildlife 

conservation, oil and gas activities, and 

grazing. Authorized uses in forests and 

woodlands, such as timber harvesting, 

often include road construction and 

maintenance, which are broadly 

governed by policies, standards, and 

right of way agreements that ensure 

proper design and upkeep.12 The BLM’s 

Land Use Planning Handbook, which 

includes guidance for the development 

of BLM land use plans developed under 

section 202 of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA) and 

implementation of other BLM actions, 

provides broad agency direction for 

BLM to use BMPs to meet the standards 

and goals of the CWA, to address 

various protection measures to mitigate 

impacts to human health concerns, 

ecosystem health, riparian areas, and 

overall watershed conditions, and to 

meet state and local water quality 

requirements.13 One recent example on 

how BLM has incorporated this 

guidance into the planning process for 

management of lands that include forest 

roads can be found in Appendix I of the 

recently released western Oregon Draft 

Resource Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement 

(Appendix I).14

One example of multiple agencies 

coordinating to implement BMPs in a 

particular region of forests is the 

Northwest Forest Plan under the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The 

recently released ‘‘Northwest Forest 

Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring, 

20-Year Report, Status and Trend of 

Watershed Condition’’ summarizes the 

results of the 20-year interagency effort 

to implement an array of protective 

measures including BMPs to maintain 

watershed health in that region.15

Finally, BLM has partnered with the 

Society of America Foresters (SAF) to 

foster proper forest management 

techniques on BLM lands nationwide.16

EPA welcomes comments on the 

implementation, effectiveness and scope 

of these federal programs and how they 

work in coordination with state and 

tribal programs to assist EPA in 

developing its response to the 2003 

remand in EDC v. EPA, but emphasizes 

that this is not the forum for evaluating 

specific elements of FS or BLM 

programs. 

C. Examples of Third-Party Certification 

Programs 

In recent years, forestry organizations, 

such as the Sustainable Forestry 

Initiative (SFI) and Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC), have developed nongovernmental third-party certification 

programs to address water quality 

impacts from forest roads. A wide 

variety of certification programs exist 

worldwide, but most have common 

elements such as standards for 

responsible forest management and 

harvesting, third-party audits, 

documentation, and publication. These 

certification programs address many 

aspects of forest management, but they 

specifically include management 

practices for mitigating water quality 

impacts resulting from stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. Also, these 

programs typically avoid developing a 

single set of standards and acknowledge 

necessary regional variation in BMPs. 

Certification programs are, at their 

core, market- or consumer-driven. 

Certification is incorporated into a 

chain-of-custody process that permits a 

producer of consumer products (for 

example, paper, lumber, and furniture) 

to apply a ‘‘green’’ or ‘‘eco-friendly’’ 

label to those products as recognition of 

responsible sourcing and to ultimately 

influence consumer purchasing choices 

that translate into increased sales. Some 

producers of end products may only 

accept raw materials that meet 

certification program requirements; for 

example, a paper mill might not accept 

raw materials that do not have 

certification. The recent rise in 

prominence of certification programs 

coincides with other studies (for 

example, Ice et al., 2010) showing 

increases in the implementation rates of 

BMPs over the same period. 

SFI grew out of a program developed 

by the American Forest & Paper 

Association and relies on a system of 

principles and objectives. A set of BMPrelated requirements must be met for 

forest owners, loggers, and others to 

attain SFI’s certification for forest fiber 

sourcing. Performance measures focus 

on adherence to applicable water 

quality laws and installation of BMPs, 

with performance criteria that include 

developing an overall program for 

certification and compliance, 

monitoring of BMPs during all phases of 

forestry activities, mapping of water 

resources, and recordkeeping. Thirdparty audits (typically conducted 

annually) verify the certification 

process. This program is also already a 

central element in many of the states’ 

forestry training programs and also 

includes outreach to landowners and 

support for various research efforts. 

FSC’s program places an emphasis on 

conservation, as well as social and 

economic criteria. Similar to SFI, FSC’s 

program relies on a series of overarching 

principles and more specific 

performance criteria. One such criterion 

specifies that forest owners must 

develop written plans to address erosion 

and other impacts associated with forest 

operations. Specific guidelines for forest 

roads include minimizing erosion, 

avoiding water crossings, and 

minimizing habitat fragmentation. FSC 

offers two types of certification: one for 

forest managers and another for entities 

involved in the intermediate and end 

uses of the wood products. 

Like the state and federal programs, 

these programs are revised over time. 

For example, in 2015, SFI revised the 

standards that guide their certification 

program; the new standards specifically 

mention managing water quality 

impacts resulting from the construction 

and use of forest roads. Data also suggest 

that BMP implementation rates are 

substantially higher in forests that 

participate in certification programs 

(Texas Forest Service, 2011). 

EPA requests comments on the 

implementation, effectiveness and scope 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 10, 2015 / Notices 

of the elements of these third-party 

certification programs that address 

runoff from forest roads. EPA also 

welcomes comments from the 

organizations administering these 

programs. In particular, EPA seeks 

comment on how programs such as 

these fit with or complement other 

programs; for example, whether and to 

what extent these industry or nongovernmental programs fill gaps in state 

and tribal programs. 

VII. Request for Comments and Data 

EPA encourages public comments to 

inform EPA’s upcoming decision as to 

whether there is a need for additional 

regulation of stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. Requests for comment 

can be found throughout this notice in 

the sections where they are discussed. 

This section specifically requests 

comment on the issues below. To the 

extent possible, EPA requests that 

comments provide concrete examples or 

quantitative data. 

1. For purposes of the discussion in 

this notice, EPA uses the term ‘‘forest 

road’’ to mean a road located on forested 

land, and the term ‘‘logging road’’ to 

mean a forest road that is used to 

support logging activities. That is, as 

used in this notice, logging roads are a 

subset of forest roads. However, the 

Agency has not established regulatory 

definitions of ‘‘forest road,’’ ‘‘logging 

road,’’ or ‘‘forested land’’ and welcomes 

comment on whether and how EPA 

should define these terms. EPA is also 

interested in the way in which states, 

tribes, and other federal agencies 

currently define them. EPA recognizes 

that some forest roads are built initially 

to support logging activities but later 

serve other purposes that may or may 

not continue to include support for 

logging activities. EPA requests 

comment on the way in which states, 

tribes, and other federal agencies 

distinguish among such forest roads. 

2. EPA seeks comment on the 

implementation, effectiveness, and 

scope of existing federal, state, local, 

tribal, and other programs in addressing 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

EPA encourages submittal of specific 

information (for example, BMP 

implementation rates, effectiveness of 

implemented BMPs to protect water 

quality, pollutant reduction studies, 

audit results, and examples of adaptive 

management). 

3. EPA requests comments on what 

specific elements of a forest road 

program are most important to ensure it 

is effective and protective of water 

quality. For example, forest road 

programs may include an inventory of 

forest roads; a requirement for BMPs; a 

systematic planning process for 

prioritizing and addressing water 

quality concerns related to stormwater 

discharges from existing roads; an 

accountability measure; an opportunity 

for public involvement in the 

development and management of the 

program; water quality monitoring to 

assess effectiveness of the program; and/ 

or an adaptive management process to 

revise BMPs based on effective 

monitoring. 

4. EPA also invites comments on what 

additional measures, consistent with 

federal law, could be implemented in 

existing programs to increase water 

quality protection from forest roads 

stormwater discharges where necessary. 

IX. References 

A list of references cited in this notice 

is available at http://

www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668. 

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. 

Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. 

Georgia’s Best Management Practices for 

Forestry. May 2009. 

Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC). 

2008. National Level Assessment of 

Water Quality Impairments Related to 

Forest Roads and Their Prevention by 

Best Management Practices: Final 

Report. December 4, 2008. By Douglas 

Endicott. 

Ice, G.G., E. Schilling, and J. Vowell. 2010. 

Trends for forestry best management 

practice implementation. Journal of 

Forestry 108:267–273. 

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. 

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. 

Luce, C. H., B. E. Rieman, J. B. Dunham, J. 

L. Clayton, J. G. King, and T. A. Black 

(2001), Incorporating Aquatic Ecology 

into Decisions on Prioritization of Road 

Decommissioning, Water Resources 

Impact, 3(3), 8–14. 

Maine Department of Conservation (DEC). 

Comment letter on EPA’s May 23, 2012 

Notice of Intent. June 19, 2012. By Doug 

Denico. Document ID EPA–HQ–OW– 

2012–0195–0170. 

National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement (NCASI). 2012. Assessing 

the Effectiveness of Contemporary Forest 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): 

Focus on Roads. Special Report 12–01. 

January 2012. By Dr. G.G Ice and Dr. E.B. 

Schilling. 

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. 

North Carolina Forest Service (FS). 2012. 

Comment letter on EPA’s May 23, 2012 

Notice of Intent. June 21, 2012. By Wib 

Owen. Document ID EPA–HQ–OW– 

2012–0195–0100. 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). 2015. 

SFI 2015–2019 Standards and Rules: 

Standards, Rules for Label Use, 

Procedures and Guidance. January 2015. 

Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. 

DeLuca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej 

(2004), Benefits and impacts of road 

removal, Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 2(1), 21–28. 

Texas Forest Service. 2011. Voluntary 

Implementation of Forestry Best 

Management Practices in East Texas: 

Results from Round 8 of BMP 

Implementation Monitoring. December 

2011 By H. Simpson, C. Coup, and C. 

Duncan. 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). 2005. National 

Management Measures to Control 

Nonpoint Pollution from Forestry. EPA– 

841–B–05–001. Washington, DC: USEPA 

Office of Water. April 2005. 

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2012. 

National Best Management Practices for 

Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National 

Core BMP Technical Guide, United State 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, FS–990a, April 2012. 

Dated: October 31, 2015. 

Kenneth J. Kopocis, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2015–28649 Filed 11–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–1178] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), the Federal Communications 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES