[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 654-657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest; Oregon; Shasta Agness 
Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 
(RRSNF), Gold Beach Ranger District is providing notice that it will 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Shasta Agness 
Landscape Restoration Project, which would implement multiple landscape 
restoration actions on National Forest System lands within an 
approximately 93,000-acre project planning area. Restoration actions 
include vegetation treatments, prescribed fire, sustainable recreation, 
and sustainable roads actions. In order to implement the project, the 
Forest Service identified the need for a project-specific amendment to 
exempt commercial and noncommercial thinning restoration actions in 
unique oak and pine units from the silviculture standard. This notice 
identifies the planning rule provisions likely to be directly related 
to the plan amendment.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by February 5, 2018. The draft environmental impact statement is 
expected early 2018, and the final environmental impact statement is 
expected fall of 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rogue River-Siskiyou National 
Forest (RRSNF), 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504.
    Comments may also be submitted online at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=49607; or via the Gold 
Beach Ranger District facsimile at 541-247-3641; or the RRSNF facsimile 
at (541) 618-2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Trulock, Deputy Forest 
Supervisor, [email protected], 541-618-2032. Individuals who use 
telecommunication devices for the deaf may call the Federal Information 
Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need

    As a result of past fire exclusion and vegetation management 
regimes conducted within the project area, current ecosystem conditions 
have departed from natural conditions and exhibit lower compositions of 
certain species, plant communities, and habitat types. The result is 
that some of these

[[Page 655]]

rare, highly specialized, and unique habitat types and plant 
associations are in decline and at risk of being lost or greatly 
reduced.
    Oak and pine savannahs and woodlands have suffered substantial 
losses in both areal extent and ecological integrity due to fire 
suppression and the resulting invading conifers. Composition, 
structure, and important habitat types associated with oak and pine 
vegetation communities are transitioning to a closed-canopy Douglas-fir 
forest, which is resulting in reduction and loss of these unique 
habitats.
    The overall purpose of the project is to restore resilience and 
ecological integrity to unique ecosystems and to aquatic and riparian 
habitats, to conserve and accelerate the development of late-
successional forests while preserving species diversity, and to provide 
a diverse range of high-quality, sustainable recreation opportunities 
supported by an environmentally sustainable road system.

Proposed Action

    Proposed project management activities include: Restoring unique 
oak savannahs and woodlands; restoring sugar pine and Jeffrey pine 
savannahs and woodlands; accelerating development of late seral forest 
structures; reducing spread of the Port-Orford-cedar root disease via 
roadside sanitation; implementing burn blocks of prescribed fire in and 
between thinning restoration units; improving water quality; 
rehabilitating soils impacted by past management activities and natural 
events; enhancing habitat conditions in aquatic and riparian areas for 
endangered and threatened fish species; reducing hydrologic impacts of 
excess or poorly designed roads; and managing recreational 
opportunities and needs in a sustainable manner.
    Variable and radial density thinning along with application of 
prescribed fire would be the primary restoration actions for the oak, 
pine, and plantation units. In order to optimize terrain features and 
weather windows and to achieve low-intensity prescribed fire 
conditions, burning would occur during spring-like conditions and 
include blocks of land between identified restoration thinning units. 
Roadside sanitation via removal of POC along identified road prisms 
would address the spread of root disease. Changes in road maintenance 
levels would address both water quality and sustainable recreation 
needs. Campground and trail maintenance and closures would address 
sustainable recreation needs. The RTV Plan would identify high-priority 
sites within the three watersheds analyzed and provide management 
direction to ensure RTV persistence and protection. This and future 
projects within those watersheds would follow that guidance.
    Portions of the project restoration units are located within the 
designated Fishhook Late Successional Reserve (LSR), which is 
geographically nested within the designated Southwest Oregon (SWOR) 
LSR, per the evaluation found in the SWOR Late-successional Reserve 
Assessment (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 
1995). Because of this, the proposed radial and variable density 
thinning to reduce competition around shade-intolerant oaks and pines, 
the restoration of forest structures and patterns, POC sanitation, and 
the reintroduction of ecological process and disturbance regimes (fire) 
all would be required to maintain consistency with the 1989 Siskiyou 
Land Resources Management Plan (LRMP) and as amended by the NWFP. The 
NWFP provides standards, guidelines, goals, and desired conditions for 
protecting and maintaining LSR resources.
    However, proposed commercial and noncommercial restoration thinning 
in older LSR stands would not comply with one NWFP silviculture 
standard: C-12, which prohibits harvest in stand over 80 years old in 
LSR (LRMP and NWFP; USDA Forest Service 1989; as amended by USDA Forest 
Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994); incorporated by 
reference and available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/rogue-siskiyou/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5315100). Therefore, after all 
reasonable stipulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts on 
National Forest LSR resources have been included, a project-specific 
forest plan amendment is required. This amendment would be the only 
exemption to Plan standards, and all other standards and guidelines 
would be unaffected.
    When proposing a Forest Plan amendment, the 2012 planning rule (36 
CFR 219), as amended, requires the responsible official to provide in 
the initial notice ``which substantive requirements of Sec. Sec.  
[thinsp]219.8 through 219.11 are likely to be directly related to the 
amendment'' (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(2)). Whether a rule provision is likely 
to be directly related to an amendment is determined by any one of the 
following: The purpose for the amendment, a beneficial effect of the 
amendment, a substantial adverse effect of the amendment, or a 
lessening of plan protections by the amendment. Based on this amendment 
proposal and requirements of the planning rule, the following 
substantive requirements of the 36 CFR 219 planning regulations would 
likely be directly related to the proposed amendment:
    Sec.  219.8(a)(1)(i)--[ . . . the plan must include plan components 
to maintain or restore . . . ] Interdependence of terrestrial and 
aquatic ecosystems in the plan area;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(1)(ii) Contributions of the plan area to ecological 
conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the plan area;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(1)(iii) Conditions in the broader landscape that may 
influence the sustainability of resources and ecosystems within the 
plan area;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological 
processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural 
succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and 
the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to 
adapt to change;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(1)(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore 
fire adapted ecosystems;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(1)(vi) Opportunities for landscape scale 
restoration;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(2)(ii) Soils and soil productivity, including 
guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation.
    Sec.  219.8(a)(2)(iii) Water quality;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(3)(i)--[ . . . the plan must include plan components 
to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in 
the plan area . . . ] including plan components to maintain or restore 
structure, function, composition, and connectivity . . . ;
    Sec.  219.8(a)(3)(ii) Plans must establish width(s) for riparian 
management zones;
    Sec.  219.8(b)(1)--[ . . . the plan must include plan components to 
guide the plan area's contribution to social and economic 
sustainability . . . ] Social, cultural and economic conditions 
relevant to the area influenced by the plan;
    Sec.  219.8(b)(2) Sustainable recreation; including recreation 
settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character;
    Sec.  219.8(b)(3) Multiple uses that contribute to local, regional, 
and national economies in a sustainable manner;
    Sec.  219.8(b)(4) Ecosystem services;
    Sec.  219.8(b)(5) Cultural and historic resources and uses;
    Sec.  219.9(a)(1)--[ . . . plan must provide for the diversity of 
plant and animal communities and include plan components to maintain or 
restore . . . ] Ecosystem integrity;

[[Page 656]]

    Sec.  219.9(a)(2)(i) Key characteristics associated with 
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types;
    Sec.  219.9(a)(2)(ii) Rare aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal 
communities;
    Sec.  219.9(a)(2)(iii) The diversity of native tree species similar 
to that existing in the plan area;
    Sec.  219.9(b)(1)--[ . . . plan must provide for the diversity of 
plant and animal communities and must include plan components to 
maintain or restore additional species-specific plan components . . . ] 
Provide the ecological conditions necessary to: contribute to the 
recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, 
conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable 
population of each species of conservation concern within the plan area 
. . . ;
    Sec.  219.9(c)--[ . . . plan must provide for the diversity of 
plant and animal communities and must include plan components to 
maintain or restore additional species-specific plan components . . . ] 
Species of conservation concern . . . for which the regional forester 
has determined that the best available scientific information indicates 
substantial concern about the species' capability to persist over the 
long-term in the plan area;
    Sec.  219.10(a)(1)--[ . . . plan must include plan components . . . 
for integrated resource management to provide for ecosystem services 
and multiple uses in the plan area . . . the responsible official shall 
consider: . . . ] Aesthetic values, cultural and heritage resources, 
ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, grazing and 
rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and 
opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface water quality, 
timber, vegetation, viewsheds;
    Sec.  219.10(a)(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements 
of Sec.  219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and 
used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
observing, subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with 
federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal 
agencies, and State and local governments);
    Sec.  219.10(a)(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, 
social, and economic sustainability;
    Sec.  219.10(a)(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological 
processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural 
succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and 
the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area 
to adapt to change (Sec.  219.8);
    Sec.  219.11(c)--[ . . . plan must include plan components . . . 
and other plan content regarding timber management within Forest 
Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area, . . . ] 
Timber harvest for purposes other than timber production . . . as a 
tool to assist in achieving or maintaining one or more applicable 
desired conditions or objectives of the plan in order to protect other 
multiple-use values, and for salvage, sanitation, or public health or 
safety. Examples of using timber harvest to protect other multiple use 
values may include improving wildlife or fish habitat, thinning to 
reduce fire risk, or restoring meadow or savanna ecosystems where trees 
have invaded;
    If this proposed project-specific amendment is determined to be 
directly related to the substantive rule requirements, the responsible 
official must apply those requirements within the scope and scale of 
the amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the amendment to 
meet these rule requirements (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).

Possible Alternatives

    The Shasta Agness Landscape Restoration Project has emphasized 
early and substantive collaboration in its development. Robust 
engagement and contributions to project location, design, and proposed 
restoration components were derived from collaboration with members of 
the Wild Rivers Coast Forest Collaborative (WRCFC). As a result of that 
collaboration, additional District analyses, and public input from 
scoping comments, the Forest Service identified and evaluated four 
alternatives, including the no action alternative. The proposed action 
is a slightly modified version of the proposed scoping action described 
in the initial scoping letter. The other two action alternatives 
include varying degrees and types of recreational opportunities and 
restoration treatments. All action alternatives were related to 
proposals put forth by the WRCFC as evaluated by Forest staff. The no 
action alternative provides the baseline conditions with which to 
compare the action alternatives; it assumes conditions which would 
occur if no decision related to this project were implemented.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official for this decision will be the Forest 
Supervisor for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor will decide where, and whether or not, to 
take action to meet desired conditions within the planning area. The 
responsible official also will decide how to mitigate any potential 
impacts of these actions and will determine when and how possible 
effects monitoring would take place. The final project decision and 
rationale will be documented in a Record of Decision supported by a 
final EIS.
    Per 36 CFR 218.7(a)(2), this is a project proposing to implement a 
land management plan and is not authorized under the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (HFRA). Therefore, it is subject to both subparts A and 
B of 36 CFR 218, Project-level Predecisional Administrative Review 
Process.
    Decisions by the Forest Supervisor to approve project-specific plan 
amendments are subject to the Administrative Review Process of 36 CFR 
218 Subpart A, in accordance with 36 CFR 219.59 (b). The term ``project 
specific'' refers to amendments that would only apply to the proposed 
project and would not apply to any future management actions.

Prior Scoping

    Besides ongoing public collaboration with the WRCFC, the Forest 
Service's project scoping proposal to develop an environmental 
assessment (EA) was first introduced to the broader public through the 
Forest Service's schedule of proposed action (SOPA) on June 14, 2016. A 
legal notice to initiate the 30-day NEPA public comment scoping period 
for the proposed action was published June 15, 2016 in the Curry County 
Reporter and in the Grants Pass Daily Courier. The proposed action and 
detailed maps were made available on the USFS website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/rogue-siskiyou/landmanagement/projects. 
Additionally, a public comment scoping letter dated June 15, 2016, was 
mailed via post to over 200 and electronically sent to over 60 
individuals, organizations, and agencies who had expressed interest in 
being informed of projects on the Gold Beach Ranger District. Letters 
summarized the proposed action and included directions to the Forest's 
website for more information. The formal scoping period ended July 15, 
2016. During the scoping period, the Forest Service received input from 
13 commenters representing a spectrum of individuals and groups from 
Oregon and Idaho. Comments received also were posted on the project 
website and can be viewed here: http://

[[Page 657]]

www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=49607.
    The project originally was released for scoping comments as an 
environmental assessment (EA) as described above. Subsequent to the 
initial EA scoping efforts and based on the overall project scope and 
complexity--including its associated analyses--it was determined that 
an EIS would better provide a more appropriate vehicle than an EA for 
evaluating project information important to the public and decision-
maker. Though the Forest Service anticipates and intends that this 
project will be beneficial for landscape restoration, due to these 
complex circumstances, the Forest Service proposes to develop an EIS to 
ensure sufficient analysis and to further the intent of NEPA.

Scoping Process

    Comments and submittals already received during the previously 
conducted public scoping comment period are part of the record and have 
been considered during further development of the project and its draft 
EIS and need not be re-submitted for the commenter to retain standing 
in the event of possible future objections. Furthermore, the draft EIS, 
including analysis of the project-specific plan amendment, is 
anticipated to be filed with the Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) 
and available for public review and a designated 45-day public comment 
by early 2018. The EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the 
draft EIS in the Federal Register. At such time, detailed instructions 
for how to submit comments regarding both the project-specific plan 
amendment and the draft EIS will be provided.
    Comments received, including names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action and 
will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously 
will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not 
afford the Agency the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent 
environmental documents, nor will those who submit anonymous comments 
have standing to object to the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 218.
    Access and review for documents related to information in this 
notice is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=49607.

    Dated: December 21, 2017.
Glenn P. Casamassa,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2018-00049 Filed 1-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3411-15-P