[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22305-22307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08740]



[[Page 22305]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLOR930000.L63500000.DO0000.LXSS081H0000.16XL1116AF; HAG 16-0053]


Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan 
and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Western Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a 
Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for Western Oregon and, by this notice, is announcing 
its availability.

DATES: BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the 
conditions as described in the regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 may 
protest the BLM's Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A person who meets the 
conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of 
the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice 
of Availability in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies or notification of the electronic availability of the 
RMPs for Western Oregon Proposed RMP/Final EIS have been sent to 
affected Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies and to 
other stakeholders including interested parties, that previously 
requested a copy. Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS are available 
for public inspection at the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and 
Salem Districts and the Lakeview District's Klamath Falls Field Office. 
Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the 
Internet at: www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/feis. All protests 
must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:

Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, P.O. 
Box 71383, Washington, DC 20024-1383
Overnight Delivery: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, 
20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Brown, RMPs for Western 
Oregon Project Manager, telephone 503-808-6233; address 1220 SW. 3rd 
Avenue, P.O. Box 2965; Portland, OR 97204; or email at: 
[email protected].
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339 to 
contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is 
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question 
with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal 
business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM Proposed RMP/Final EIS for Western 
Oregon encompasses approximately 2.5 million acres of BLM-administered 
lands and 69,000 acres of split-estate lands in western Oregon. The 
Proposed RMP/Final EIS analyzes in detail a range of alternatives to 
meet the purposes and needs of: producing a sustained yield of timber 
products, furthering the recovery of threatened and endangered species, 
providing for clean water, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, providing 
for recreation opportunities, and coordinating management of lands 
surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe. The Proposed 
RMP would revise the RMPs for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, 
and Salem District Offices and the Lakeview District's Klamath Falls 
Field Office. The current RMPs for these six offices were completed in 
1995 and incorporate the land use allocations and standards and 
guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan.
    In 2012, the BLM conducted an evaluation of the 1995 RMPs in 
accordance with its planning regulations and concluded that a plan 
revision was necessary to address changed circumstances and new 
information that had led to a substantial, long-term departure from the 
timber management outcomes predicted under the 1995 RMPs. Within the 
western Oregon districts, three BLM-administered areas are not included 
in the decision area: The Cascade Siskiyou National Monument (Medford 
District), the Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland (Klamath 
Falls Field Office), and the West Eugene Wetlands (Eugene District).
    BLM-administered lands in the planning area include Oregon and 
California Railroad (O&C) lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, Public 
Domain lands, and acquired lands. The Oregon and California Revested 
Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937 put the O&C lands under 
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior and provides 
the legal authority for the management of O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road 
lands. The lands were classified as timberlands to be managed for 
permanent forest production, and timber was to be sold, cut, and 
removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield for the 
purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply. The Act also 
provided for protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, 
contributing to the economic stability of local communities and 
industries, and providing recreational facilities. The Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides the legal authority for 
management of Public Domain lands and acquired lands. These lands and 
resources are to be managed under the principles of multiple use and 
sustained yield.
    Land ownership patterns in western Oregon create unique management 
challenges. Generally, O&C land is located in odd-numbered sections, 
and private land is located in even-numbered sections, creating a 
``checkerboard'' ownership pattern. Activities on adjacent private 
lands have implications for management of BLM-administered lands. The 
BLM typically manages only a small percentage of land in any particular 
watershed, and in many cases, cumulative actions across all ownerships 
determine resource outcomes. In the Coast Range, checkerboard ownership 
is spread across the entire watershed. In the western Cascades, 
checkerboard ownership is mostly in the lower part of watersheds with 
blocked U.S. Forest Service ownership in the headwater areas.
    The Proposed RMP/Final EIS for the RMPs for Western Oregon plan 
revisions analyzes in detail the Proposed RMP, four action 
alternatives, two sub-alternatives, and the No Action alternative. The 
No Action alternative would continue to implement the 1995 RMPs, as 
written, with no change in the management actions and level of 
management intensity in the planning area.
    The BLM developed the Proposed RMP and action alternatives to 
represent a range of overall management approaches to respond to the 
purpose and need. The Proposed RMP and all action alternatives include 
the following land use allocations: Congressionally Reserved (e.g., 
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers), District-Designated Reserves, 
Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve, Harvest Land Base, and 
Eastside Management Area. The location and acreage of these allocations 
vary by alternative, including the

[[Page 22306]]

Proposed RMP, with the exception of congressionally reserved 
allocations that are common to all alternatives, including the Proposed 
RMP. Within each action alternative, the Harvest Land Base, Late-
Successional Reserve, and Riparian Reserve have specific, mapped sub-
allocations with differing management direction. Given the checkboard 
ownership patterns and the widespread distribution of the federally 
listed species in the planning area analyzed in this Proposed RMP/Final 
EIS, regional mitigation considerations are incorporated throughout the 
action alternatives.
    The two sub-alternatives modify an individual component of northern 
spotted owl conservation and have related effects on timber production.
    Alternative A has a Late-Successional Reserve larger than the No 
Action Alternative. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-
Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber Area. The High Intensity 
Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention (clear 
cuts).
    Alternative B has a Late-Successional Reserve similar in size to 
Alternative A, though of a different spatial design. The Harvest Land 
Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber 
Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The portion of the Harvest 
Land Base in Uneven-Aged Timber Area is the largest of all action 
alternatives. The Low Intensity Timber Area and Moderate Intensity 
Timber Area include regeneration harvest with varying levels of 
retention.
    Sub-alternative B is identical to Alternative B, except that it 
includes protection of habitat within the home ranges of all northern 
spotted owl known and historic sites.
    Alternative C has the largest Harvest Land Base of any of the 
alternatives, including the Proposed RMP. The Harvest Land Base is 
comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber 
Area. The High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with 
no retention. Alternative C has the smallest acreage in the Riparian 
Reserve of all of the alternatives, including the Proposed RMP.
    Sub-alternative C is identical to Alternative C, except that the 
Late-Successional Reserve includes all stands 80 years old and older.
    Alternative D has the smallest Late-Successional Reserve of any of 
the alternatives, including the Proposed RMP. The Harvest Land Base is 
comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Owl Habitat Timber Area, and 
Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The Owl Habitat Timber Area includes 
timber harvest applied in a manner that would maintain northern spotted 
owl habitat. The Moderate Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration 
harvest with retention. Alternative D has the largest acreage in the 
Riparian Reserve of all of the action alternatives, including the 
Proposed RMP.
    The BLM has developed the Proposed RMP as a variation on 
Alternative B, which the BLM identified in the Draft RMP/EIS as the 
preferred alternative. The Proposed RMP has a Late-Successional Reserve 
that is a refinement of the Late-Successional Reserve design in 
Alternative B. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged 
Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber 
Area, as in Alternative B. The geographic extent of the portion of the 
Harvest Land Base in Uneven-Aged Timber Area in the Proposed RMP is 
intermediate between Alternative B and Alternative C. The Proposed RMP 
includes a Riparian Reserve design that is intermediate among the 
alternatives and incorporates elements of each of the alternatives, 
resulting in an acreage that is higher than Alternatives B and C but 
lower than Alternatives A and D.
    The BLM would expand the existing (100-foot) National Trail 
Management Corridor on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail to 1-
mile wide (1/2-mile either side of centerline), and would establish a 
National Trail Management Corridor on the California National Historic 
Trail-Applegate Study Trail Route of 100-feet (50-feet either side of 
centerline).
    The BLM evaluated 51 eligible Wild and Scenic River segments as 
part of this RMP revision. Six segments--the Rogue River and West Fork 
Illinois River in the Medford District; and the Little North Santiam 
River, North Fork Siletz River, Sandy River, and Table Rock Fork-
Molalla River in the Salem District--were found to be suitable and 
would be recommended for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System under the Proposed RMP. These six segments would receive 
protection of tentative classification, outstandingly remarkable 
values, free-flowing characteristics, and water quality while being 
considered for designation. One segment, the Nestucca River Segment B, 
was determined to warrant joint study with the U.S. Forest Service 
before determining suitability and would receive protection of 
tentative classification, outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing 
characteristics, and water quality until the completion of this joint 
study. One segment, South Yamhill River, contains no portion of the 
river or corridor on BLM-administered lands and was removed from 
further evaluation through this process. All remaining 43 evaluated 
eligible Wild and Scenic River segments were not found to be suitable 
for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System and would 
be released from protective management under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act.
    The land-use planning process was initiated on March 9, 2012, 
through a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register (77 FR 
14414) notifying the public of a formal scoping period and soliciting 
public participation which ended on October 5, 2012. The BLM held 
scoping open houses in May and June 2012. The BLM used public scoping 
comments to help identify planning issues that directed the formulation 
of alternatives and framed the scope of analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS.
    Cooperating agencies in the preparation of this land use plan 
include the Environmental Protection Agency; National Marine Fisheries 
Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Forest Service; State of 
Oregon; Benton County; Clackamas County; Columbia County; Coos County; 
Curry County; Douglas County; Klamath County; Lane County; Lincoln 
County; Linn County; Marion County; Multnomah County; Polk County; 
Tillamook County; Washington County; Yamhill County; Confederated 
Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; Confederated Tribes 
of Grand Ronde; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians; Coquille Indian 
Tribe; Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians; and the Klamath 
Tribes. With the exception of Benton County, all listed counties have 
authorized the Association of O&C Counties to act as the counties' 
agent and representative in their role as cooperating agencies in the 
planning process when county commissioners were otherwise absent.
    The BLM released the Draft RMP/EIS on April 24, 2015. The BLM 
conducted a series of public meetings after the release of the Draft 
RMP/EIS. The purpose of these meetings was to help members of the 
public understand the content of the Draft RMP/EIS and provide 
meaningful and constructive comments. The BLM held six ``open-house'' 
public meetings (one meeting per BLM District Office) and one meeting 
for elected officials where BLM employees could engage with 
stakeholders on all resources addressed in the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM 
also organized nine, issue-specific meetings

[[Page 22307]]

on topics such as socio-economics, forestry, aquatics, and wildlife.
    The comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS closed on August 21, 2015. 
All comments received during the comment period are available to the 
public at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/comments.php.
    Comments on the Draft RMP/EIS received from the public were 
considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed plan. 
Public comments resulted in formulation of the Proposed RMP, additional 
consideration of alternatives that were not analyzed in detail, 
presentation of new analysis within issues considered for forest 
management and socioeconomic resources, consideration of additional 
science, and the addition of clarifying text. No comments received 
significantly changed the proposed land use plan decisions.
    Instructions for filing a protest regarding the Proposed RMP/Final 
EIS may be found in the ``Dear Reader'' Letter of the RMPs for Western 
Oregon Proposed RMP/Final EIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must 
be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in 
the ADDRESSES section above. Emailed protests will not be accepted as 
valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original 
letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of 
the protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will consider the 
emailed protest as an advance copy and it will receive full 
consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance 
notification, please direct emails to [email protected].
    Before including your phone number, email address, or other 
personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware 
that your entire protest--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review we cannot guarantee that we will be able 
to do so.

    Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.

Jerome E. Perez,
State Director, Oregon/Washington.
[FR Doc. 2016-08740 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-33-P