### EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er Policy Review.

1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rul e Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans

RIN 2060-AS55 March 9, 2016

Issue: Wildland without a multi-year management pla n providing for prescribed fire

I. New Proposal by EPA

Preamble Section IV.E
If the projected RPG for a Class I area is above th e URP line due only to the anticipated use of wildland prescribed fire needed for ecosystem healt h and safety, we do not believe that states should expend valuable analytical and decision maki ng resources on additional analysis of measures necessary for reasonable progress if they have otherwise satisfied the terms of the Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, as in the case of im pacts from sources in other countries as discussed in section IV.D, we are requesting commen t on a proposed provision in §51.308(f)(1)(vi) that would allow states with Clas s I areas significantly impacted by emissions from wildland prescribed fires to make an adjustmen t to the uniform rate of progress with specific approval by the Administrator. The adjustm ent would consist of adding to the value of natural visibility conditions an estimate of wildla nd prescribed fire impacts, only for the purpose of calculating the uniform rate of progress and onl y for prescribed fires that were conducted under multi-year land or resource management plans for wildland areas that have a stated with the objective to establish, restore and/or maintain a s ustainable and resilient wildland ecosystems, and/or to preserve endangered or threatened species , and/or to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, through a program of prescribed fire and that pro vide for the use of during which appropriate basic smoke management practices were applied . FLMs prepare such multi-year management plans for the areas they mana ge that document the objective of prescribed fire for a land area . We would also consider a fire management plan 1 for state, tribal or private lands that has been reviewed and certifi ed by the appropriate fire and/or resource management professionals and agreed to and followed by the land owner/manager to be sufficient to meet this restriction on the scope of the adjustment to the uniform rate of progress. Other evidence of the objective of a prescribed fir e would be considered on a case-by-case basis. We believe that this adjustment should be permitted only if such prescribed fire impacts have been estimated with methods and data approved by th e Administrator as scientifically valid.1

Rule text

1 These plans could also include land and resource m anagement plans, landscape management plans or equivalent public planning documents, e.g. , State Forest Action Plans (as mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill). Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Highlight Commented [A1]: Edit for consistency with other parts of the NPRM, including the reference to safety near the be ginning of the current paragraph.

Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Highlight

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Highlight

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Highlight

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Highlight

### EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er Policy Review.

2 (B) The State may submit a request to the Administ rator seeking an adjustment to the uniform rate of progress for a mandatory Class I Fe deral area to account for impacts from (1) anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or (2) wildland prescribed fires that were conducted under a multi-year land or reso urce management plan for a wildland area that has a stated with the objective to establish, restore, or maintain sustai nable and resilient wildland ecosystems , or to preserve endangered or threatened species throug h a program of prescribed fire , and/or to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfi res and that provides for the use of appropriate basic smoke man agement practices. To calculate the proposed adjustment, the State must add the estimat ed impacts to natural visibility conditions and compare the resulting value to basel ine visibility conditions. If the Administrator determines that the State has estimat ed the impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States or wildland presc ribed fires using scientifically valid data and methods, the Administrator may approve the proposed adjustment to the uniform rate of progress for use in the State’s imp lementation plan.

II. Related sections of the Exceptional Events NPRM
Preamble on Unlikely to recur
Therefore, we are proposing in rule text that we wi ll consider a demonstration’s referencing of a multiyear land or resource management plan 91 (and including either a copy or an internet link to the plan) with a stated objective to establish, res tore and/ or maintain a sustainable and resilient wildland ecosystem and/or to preserve endangered or threatened species that also identifies the subject area as a candidate for prescribed fire to be dispositive evidence that a particular fire conducted in accordance with such a plan satisfies the ‘‘unlikely to recur at a particular location’’ criterion. We would also consider a demo nstration’s referencing of a fire management plan for tribal or private lands that has been revi ewed and certified by the appropriate fire and/or resource management professionals and agreed to and followed by the land owner/manager to be sufficient evidence satisfying the ‘‘unlikely to re cur at a particular location’’ criterion. (80 FR 72872) –

Footnote 91: .

Note that this concept about tribal/private lands i s not reflected in the proposed rule text:
(iii) Provided the Administrator determines that th ere is no compelling evidence to the contrary in the record, in addressing the requireme nts set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(E) of this section regarding the human activity unlike ly to recur at a particular location criterion for demonstrations involving prescribed f ires on wildland, the State must describe the actual frequency with which a burn was conducted, but may rely upon and reference an assessment of the natural fire return interval or the prescribed fire frequency needed to establish, restore, and/or maintain a sus tainable and resilient wildland ecosystem contained in a multi-year land or resourc e management plan with a stated objective to establish, restore, and/or maintain a sustainable and resilient wildland Commented [A2]: For consistency to references of prescribed fire in the preamble.

Commented [A3]: This footnote also includes “These plans could also include fire management plans, prescribe d fire on wildland management plans, landscape management pla ns or equivalent public planning documents.”

Equivalent public planning documents can include St ate Forest Action Plans (mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill) and p lans developed for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program

### EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er Policy Review.

3 ecosystem and/or to preserve endangered or threaten ed species through a program of prescribed fire.) (80 FR 72895)

Preamble on Not reasonably controllable or preventa ble
Accordingly, the EPA is proposing in rule text form to consider a prescribed fire on wildland conducted in accordance with a multi-year fire mana gement plan that has an objective to establish, restore and/or maintain a sustainable an d resilient wildland ecosystem to be not reasonably preventable, provided there is no compel ling evidence to the contrary in the record when the EPA approves the associated exceptional ev ents demonstration.97 (80 FR 72874)

Footnote: 97 On a case-by-case basis, in the absence of a multi -year plan, the EPA would also consider a prescribed fire on wildland conduct ed on a fire return interval established according to scientific literature to satisfy the n ot reasonably controllable or preventable criterion provided the prescribed fire was also con ducted with the objective to establish, restore and/or maintain a sustainable and resilient wildland ecosystem and conducted in compliance with either a state-certified SMP or BSM P. This case-by-case approach is similar to the approach currently used under the 20 07 Exceptional Events Rule.
Note that this concept about the absence of a multi -year plan is not reflected in the proposed rule

text: (A) With respect to the requirement that a prescrib ed fire be not reasonably controllable, the State must either certify to the Administrator that it has adopted and is implementing a smoke management plan or the State must demonstra te that the burn manager employed the generally applicable basic smoke management pra ctices identified in Table 2 to § 50.14. To make the latter demonstration, the State may rely on a statement or other documentation provided by the burn manager that he or she employed those practices. If an exceptional event occurs using the basic smoke m anagement practices approach, the State must undertake a review of its approach to en sure public health is being protected. (B) With respect to the requirement that a prescrib ed fire be not reasonably preventable, provided the Administrator determines that there is no compelling evidence to the contrary in the record, the State may rely upon and reference a multi-year land or resource management plan for a wildland area with a stated objective to establish, restore and/or maintain a sustainable and resilient wildlan d ecosystem and/or to preserve endangered or threatened species through a program of prescribed fire, but also provided that the use of prescribed fire in the area has not exceeded the frequency indicated in that plan.