[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8617-8620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4099]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 8617]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Ashland Forest Resiliency, Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest, 
Jackson County, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of section 102(2) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4332 (2)), the USDA, 
Forest Service is analyzing Ashland Forest Resiliency as an authorized 
hazardous fuels project under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 
2003. Pursuant to Sections 103 and 104 of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act, the Ashland Ranger District of the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS). The purpose of the EIS is to analyze and disclose the 
environmental effects associated with a Proposed Action that includes a 
suite of site specific proposals for implementing several types of 
hazardous fuel reduction actions designed to restore more fire 
resilient forests for the federally managed lands within the Upper Bear 
Analysis Area. This area includes the Ashland Municipal Watershed and 
is the subject of an integrated assessment of current conditions and 
recommendations for action (2003 Upper Bear Assessment). Site-specific 
actions being proposed are designed to ``protect'' human and ecosystem 
values from large scale, high intensity wildfire. Proposals are 
designed as comprehensive and landscape-level treatments over several 
decades.
    The activities are proposed within portions of the Ashland Creek, 
Neil Creek, Hamilton Creek and Wagner Creek sub-watersheds of the Bear 
Creek watershed, located on lands administered by the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Jackson County, 
Oregon.
    This proposal will tier to and be designed under the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Rogue River National Forest Land 
and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1990), as amended by the Northwest 
Forest Plan (NWFP)(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 
Management 1994), which provides guidance for land management 
activities.
    The Ashland Ranger District invites written comments concerning the 
scope of the analysis in addition to those comments that will be 
solicited as a result of local public participation activities. The 
Forest Service will also give notice of the full environmental analysis 
and decision making process so that interested and affected people are 
made aware as to how they may participate and contribute to the final 
decision.

DATES: Issues and comments concerning the scope and analysis of this 
proposal must be received by April 30, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments regarding this proposal to District 
Ranger, Ashland Ranger District, 645 Washington Street, Ashland, 
Oregon, 97520; FAX (541) 552-2922 or electronically to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about this proposal 
and EIS to Chuck Anderson, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Rogue River--
Siskiyou National Forest, phone: (541) 858-2323, FAX: (541) 858-2330, 
e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, only 
National Forest System lands would be treated. The legal description of 
the area being considered is T. 39 S., R. 1 E., in sections 17, 19, 20, 
21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35; T.40 S., R. 1 E., in 
sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17; T. 39 
S., R 1 W., in sections 24, 25, 26, 34, 35 and 36; and T. 40 S., R. 1 
W., section 1 and 2, W.M., Jackson County, Oregon. One of the primary 
goals for the Ashland Watershed is to ``provide water for domestic 
supply'' for the City of Ashland (RRNF LRMP page 4-265). Additional 
primary goals for the Watershed and the associated Upper Bear Analysis 
Area are ``to protect and enhance conditions for late-successional and 
old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-
successional and old-growth related species including the northern 
spotted owl'' (NWEP page C-11).

Purpose and Need for Action

    The Need for the Proposed Action is for urgent reduction of large-
scale, high intensity wildland fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. 
One hundred years of fire suppression and fuel accumulations in this 
forest's wildland/urban interface now presents high potential for 
large-scale, high intensity wildfires that could significantly 
interrupt the supply of clean water and late-successional and old 
growth forest ecosystems in this Analysis Area. The Purpose of the 
Proposed Action is to protect values at risk, reduce crown fire 
potential and obtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland 
fires.
    For Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Proposed Action is based on a 
strategy resulting from the 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. It is an 
integrated package of connected actions designed to attain the stated 
Purpose and Need, while meeting Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 
There may be a need for Forest Plan amendment to ensure the ability to 
meet the Purpose and Need concurrent with attainment of Standards and 
Guidelines. A decision resulting from this NEPA analysis would also 
supplement the Rogue River-Siskiyou Fire Management Plan for the 
specific federally managed portions of the Upper Bear Analysis Area.

Proposed Action

    The primary treatment proposals and prescriptions include those 
that would modify fire behavior during a wildland fire event. Although 
stand treatments cannot alter all variables that influence fire 
behavior, they can directly or indirectly influence species 
composition, available fuel, fuel arrangement, fuel moisture, and 
surface winds. Reasons to enact treatments (vegetation management and 
fuel reduction) that affect fire behavior can be categorized into two 
broad groups: (1) Treatments that modify fire behavior to facilitate 
effective fire suppression, and (2) treatments that modify fire 
behavior to reduce potential for large scale high intensity wildland 
fire and/

[[Page 8618]]

or subsequent effects to soil, water, and late successional habitat.
    Under Ashland Forest Resiliency, a total of approximately 8,150 
acres are proposed to be treated. The first phase of the protection 
strategy for the Analysis Area and included under the Proposed Action 
is the concept of ``compartmentalization''. This strategy involves the 
creation of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) that integrate with 
existing shaded fuel breaks, to divide the Analysis Area into 
compartments. These compartments would be managed to eventually achieve 
the desired conditions with an overall objective of being able to 
contain any fire start (human or lightning) and subsequent fire within 
the compartment in which it started. DFPZs are a type of fuel break. 
The objective of the fuel modification within the DFPZ is to create 
large areas that are ``crown-fire-resistant''. Active crown fires 
moving into these areas would drop to the ground and rely less on the 
suppression forces to be effective as compared to the current shaded 
fuel break system. Fires may still burn in these areas but intensities 
and stand and resource damage would be lower than before treatment. 
This technique is not the same as the shaded fuel break strategy that 
has been previously implemented in the Ashland Watershed. The DFPZs 
proposed for Ashland Forest Resiliency are designed to: Reduce wildland 
fire intensity in treated areas by limiting the amount of area affected 
by wildland fire; create areas where fire suppression efforts can be 
conducted more safely and effectively; break up the continuity of fuels 
over a large landscape; and become anchor lines for further area-wide 
fuel treatment, such as prescribed burning. To develop DFPZs, surface 
fuel reduction and understory vegetation clearing would occur over 
wider expanses than the current shaded fuel breaks. The width of 
treated areas would generally be \1/4\ to \1/2\ mile, with variations 
in the widths depending on vegetation cover, roads, geographic 
features, strategic location, elevation, and overall potential risk. 
The completed DFPZs would consist mostly of stands that would maintain 
a closed canopy (60% canopy closure of dominant and co-
dominant trees). Cutting and disposing of generally smaller diameter 
trees would primarily accomplish this, although larger trees may also 
be part of the treatment. This treatment would remove the majority of 
the existing ladder fuels. Pruning would remove remaining ladder fuels 
and raise the height-to-live-crown to 20-25 feet to directly affect 
fire behavior. Reasons for maintaining a mostly closed canopy include: 
maintain higher fuel moistures; reduce brush and grass growth; reduce 
maintenance intervals; and maintain future options for vegetation and 
fuels management. The DFPZs as designed for this compartmentalization 
strategy would not be uniform even-aged areas, but would encompass a 
wide variety in ages, sizes, and distribution of trees. The key feature 
would be the general openness of the understory and discontinuity of 
ladder fuels and ground fuels, producing a low probability of sustained 
crown fire. Also included in these DFPZs would be strategically placed 
safety zones for fire management personnel. Continued maintenance of 
these areas is an important component to the effectiveness of this 
strategy. The DFPZs and compartmentalization phase of the Proposed 
Action are the highest priority in that they would strategically 
``compartmentalize'' any fire. Based on current vegetative conditions 
(as measured by seral stage condition), approximately 2,800 acres would 
be treated at this time to implement the entire DFPZ strategy.
    As part of the overall strategy, priority areas within certain 
``compartments'' would be treated using a combination of variable 
density management treatments and fuel hazard reduction treatments, 
including prescribed fire. Treatments within the compartments would be 
aimed at having a ``fire safe'' forest as described in the 2003 
Assessment. Efforts would be focused on modifying the existing stand 
density and current/future surface fuel loads so that: (1) Wildland 
fires are primarily ground fires (as compared with running crown-
fires); (2) fires would generate less than 4 foot flame lengths from 
ground fire under the 90th percentile of weather conditions; and (3) 
large woody material would be maintained to levels consistent with 
Forest Plan objectives.
    The second phase would include the treatment of those compartments 
outside the Ashland Municipal Watershed that serve to protect or reduce 
the chance of a fire entering the Watershed. Within six designated 
compartments on National Forest, there are approximately 3,200 acres 
that are either in late-closed or mid-closed forest seral conditions. 
In order to attain the approximate desired seral stage distributions, 
approximately 50% of these acres or 1,600 acres are proposed for 
treatment with variable density management, including treatment of all 
slash. The majority of the variable density management treatments would 
target the mid-closed seral conditions. The remaining 50% (1,600 acres) 
would receive fuel hazard reduction treatments such as underburning, 
pruning along roads, hand piling and burning. This would move these 
critical compartments toward the desired fuel models. Under this phase, 
no other existing seral stages would receive treatment (outside of 
DFPZs).
    The third phase would be to treat those compartments within and 
outside the Ashland Municipal Watershed that currently provide late-
successional habitat conditions that can be managed to maintain these 
conditions. Because of their location, there are certain areas where 
late-successional habitat is most important and higher numbers of late-
successional dependant species currently exist. Treatments proposed 
here focus on reducing the risk to late-successional habitat by 
treating approximately 600 acres of dense mid seral stands in a way 
that would break-up contiguous fuels. Proposed treatments would 
primarily be density management to reduce fire hazard and to encourage 
healthy forested stands that would grow into late seral stages. 
Treatments to additionally reduce fire risk include treatment of 
roadside areas (about 100-150 feet below roads and 50 feet above 
roads), with variable density management (about 250 acres). Under this 
phase, no other existing seral stages would receive treatment (outside 
of DFPZs).
    The final phase of proposed vegetation treatments focuses on the 
Ashland Research Natural Area (RNA). Within the RNA, the conservation 
of large ponderosa pine, and pine species in general is the primary 
objective. This diversity of species is the reason the RNA was 
established. Within approximately 1,300 acres of the RNA, treatments 
would reduce hazardous fuels along with selective removal of 
competition to large pine and Douglas fir and/or create conditions that 
would encourage regeneration of the pine species. Treatments would 
primarily include variable density management with some small group 
selection to favor pine, and fuel reduction treatments, most likely 
underburning. There would also be some slashing of smaller diameter 
less-favored species and jackpot burning. Additional protection of the 
RNA and its diversity values would be provided under this strategy with 
creation of the DFPZs outside of the RNA (200 feet from existing road 
centerlines when adjacent to the RNA). Prescribed and routine 
maintenance underburning is proposed after density management 
treatments as a complimentary method that would encourage more natural 
regeneration of pines and sustain the pine ecosystem.

[[Page 8619]]

    Depending on the location of areas being treated, as well as 
implementation methodology, additional facilities such as helicopter 
log landings from some density management treatments may be needed. 
These landings would be integrated into DFPZ and associated with 
existing roads and designated safety zones. There may also be need for 
the construction of access roads to the additional landings. Any new 
road segments are likely to be short spurs, located primarily on ridge 
top areas, and temporary. As the Proposed Action is fully developed, 
there may be additional connected activities that pertain to road 
management and/or watershed restoration.
    Fire exclusion is not a goal of this strategy. The use of widland 
fire for resource benefits is not appropriate at this time due to the 
large build up of live and dead vegetation resulting from fire 
suppression. A lightning ignited wildland fire would occur when soil 
and fuel moistures are low and have a high probability of escaping 
management suppression resulting in a large-scale, high intensity fire.
    There are various tools proposed for use to implement the strategy 
described above. These tools include variable density management, 
prescribed fire, and various vegetation modification treatments.
    Variable density management involves the selective removal of some 
trees within a forested stand to increase spacing and accelerate growth 
in the crowns and root systems of the remaining trees. Density 
management is used to improve forest health of stands, to open the 
forest canopy for selected trees, to accelerate growth to maintain 
desired seral conditions, or to attain late-successional 
characteristics for biological diversity. Stands proposed to receive 
this treatment are generally over-dense, with high crown density and 
ladder fuels. Variable density refers to a non-uniform pattern for 
remaining trees, which would emulate more natural conditions, as 
opposed to more uniform residual stocking or a specified basal area or 
number of trees per acre traditionally utilized in growth and yield 
forestry on lands allocated to timber production.
    A complementary treatment to variable density management includes 
the application of controlled (or prescribed) fire, termed 
underburning. Prescribed fire would be used to regulate the existing 
fuel profile and to create more of a mosaic of fuel loadings and canopy 
closures. Prescribed burning can result in a range of effects given a 
diversity of site conditions influencing fire intensity. Flame lengths, 
fire duration, age of vegetation, species, ladder fuels and condition 
of overstory vegetation would all determine the degree of overstory 
mortality. Some overstory mortality is expected.
    Vegetation modification includes various methods such as slashing, 
hand piling of down material (and subsequent burning of piles), pruning 
trees along high risk areas to reduce ladder fuels, and jackpot, hand 
pile and burning or chipping of resultant slash material. This method 
is most appropriate for small areas with high risk. Prescribed fire and 
vegetation modification methods can be used in combination and/or in 
conjunction with variable density management. These methods can be used 
to dispose of slash created as a result of other treatment activities 
or as initial treatments on current stand conditions. For any activity 
that results in slash, slash would be treated.

Alternatives

    Alternatives to the Proposed Action will include No-Action as 
required by NEPA. One additional alternative may be considered in 
detail in accordance with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process under NEPA, 
which will guide the development of the draft EIS. The draft EIS is 
expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 
to be available for public comment by June 2004. The comment period for 
the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date EPA publishes the Notice of 
Availability in the Federal Register.
    At the end of this period, comments submitted to the Forest 
Service, including names and addresses of those who responded, will be 
considered part of the public record for this proposal, and as such 
will be available for public review. Comments submitted anonymously 
will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous 
comments will not have standing to the Objection Process under the 36 
CFR part 218. This Objection Process is a pre-decisional administrative 
review for the public to seek administrative consideration as provided 
for under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HR-1904); the 
regulations at 36 CFR 215 do not apply.
    Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the 
agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. 
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the 
FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited 
circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service 
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the 
request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the 
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the 
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a 
specified number of days.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participiation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to 
the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections 
that could be raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are not raised 
until completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the 
courts. City Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and 
Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 
1980). Because of these court rulings, it is important that those 
interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 
comment period so substantive comments and objections are made 
available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully 
consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact 
statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should 
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to 
specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address 
the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer 
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and 
responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The 
final EIS is scheduled to be completed in Fall of 2004.
    The Forest Service Responsible Official is Scott D. Conroy, Forest 
Supervisor of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Responsible 
Official will consider the Final EIS, applicable laws, regulations, 
policies, and analysis files in making a decision. The Responsible 
Official will document

[[Page 8620]]

the decision and rationale in the Record of Decision.

    Dated: February 18, 2004.
Scott D. Conroy,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-4099 Filed 2-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M