FEIS Appendices

620 Pages·2016·24.29 MB·English

v,‘
j)

m-‘vL7)i-I9;r7\-h-m—
UnitedStates
Department Modoe National Forest
OfAgriculture
ForestService
APPENDICES
I
PacificSouthwestRegion
1991 TRANSPORTAHON LIBRARY .
Final Environmental
050 1991
Impact Statement
NORTHWESTERN UNWERLJM
l——_
Land and ResourceManagement Plan

Hlllllllll
llll!lllllllllllill

5556 O1
Appendices
Table ofContents
Issues,Concerns and Opportunities
ModellingandAnalysis Process (pending) 8-]
-_=_=1.-1=.r=s=n.==.>
Economic EfficiencyAnalysis C-1
AcreageAllocations byManagement PrescriptionsandManagementAreas . D-1
Roadless Areas 15-]
National Natural LandmarkAnalysis F-l
Snag Management and Modeling
Withdrawals H-l
ManagementStrategies For Major Pests l-l
AverageAnnualWaterYield l'orWatersheds ontheModocNF J-l
s=.-1s».=@r=s>.zzr,w.~
Wildlifeand Fish onthe ModocNationalForest K-l
Mule DeerForage Requirements . . . . . . L-l
Wildlife Habitat RelationshipSeral Stages
Potential Special InterestAreas
Identification ofLands SuitableforTimberManagement
MajorSilvicultural Systems andTheirApplication
Visual QualityObjectives and Program Levels
Budgets andTheir RelationshiptotheForest Plan
The RegionalTimberSupply-Demand Situation in California
Wild And Scenic RiverStudy
SummaryofPublic Responseto the DEIS and Drait Plan

APPENDE
Issues, Concerns and Opportun

Issues, Concerns and Opportunities 4) The issue cannot be best resolved through
ForestServiceprograms andactions.
Identification Process
5) Within the ten-year life of the Plan, no acu'oi
Thefirstformalpublicinvolvementeffortbeganwiththe
resultinirreversibleeffects.
filingofaNoticeofIntentintheFederalRegister,Octo
ber 10, 1979. Toinitiate theplanningprocess, aprelimi 6) State-of-the-artknowledgeandtechnologyalloi
narylist ofissues and criteria waspresented at a public completeorsubstantialresolutionofthisissuea
meetinginAlturas,California,onNovember15,1979;26 apositivecourseofactionforfull resolution.
peopleattended.
InJanuary1981,theForestandAlturasResource
The following received the list and were invited to
oftheBLM (whichwasconductingin asimilarpla
identifyissuestobeaddressed in theForestPlan:
process)jointlyreleased a listofForest- and Area
—Localgovernments issuesforpublicreview.Almost700agencies,indivit
andorganizationsonForest andBLM mailinglists
—IndiantriballeaderswithinModoc,Siskiyou,Lassen
invitedtoreviewthe issuesindepth andcheck for
CountiesinCalifornia,andLakeandKlamathCoun
sions. The issues were slightly modified as a res‘
tiesin Oregon
public comments. In April 1982, BLM issues
—Adjacent landowners droppedfrom the Forest-wide set ofissues becaus
AlturasResourceAreahadaccelerateditsplanning
-Individuals and organizations on the Forest mailing
cess.
list
Thirty-eight respondents proposed additional issues, Notice of a public hearing on the Big Valley Fe
identified public demands, and suggested conflict reso Sustained-YieldUnitwasfiledinthe May28, 1982
lutions. of the Federal Register, and subsequent legal m
were published in local newspapers. Nineteen 0
Inwinterof1980, theForest andtheAlturasResource people attending the Adin hearing onJune 24 tesl
Area of the Susanville District of the Bureau of Land The Forest received fourteen letters and one pc
Management(BLM)developedauniformfirewoodpol with 106 signatures during the formal public com
icy. On March 17-24, 1980, fourworkshopswereheld; period.Allcommentswere analyzed in the mannel
105 local residents attended one or more sessions. Nu viouslydescribed.
merous issues surfaced. Somewere resolvedbythe pol
icy; the remaining were added to the Forest issues for The final set ofForest issues, as approved by th
resolutionin theForestPlan. gionalForesterinNovember 1983,appearsinGM]
ofthisdocument.Theplanningrecordscontainall|:
TheInterdisciplinary(ID)Teamappliedscreeningcri
teria to potential issues extracted from the public re comments, hearing documents, and additional da
the processused tosummarize publicresponses.
sponses. Issues passing the screening criteria were
addressed during the Forest planning process. The
screeningcriteriaarelistedbelow:
Consultation With Others
1) TheissuecanberesolvedwithexistingForestSuper
visorauthority. In addition to the formal scoping activities, va
agencies, Indian tribes, local officials and others
2) The issue affects or is affected by Forest Service
contactedindividuallybymembersoftheLD.Team
activities.
theForestManagement Staff.
3) Theissuecannotbereadilyresolvedbyotherparties.
The following were contacted by personal lettc
telephone to explain the Forest planning process
invitecommenton theissues:
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
SusanvilleDistrict,BureauofLandManagement —frequent meetings and telephone contacts between
USFishandWildlifeService
March 1981and1984toprovideaconsistentapproach
Lava BedsNationalMonument
ModocRefuge indealingwithprescriptions,standardsandguidelines,
SoilConservationService
etc.
CADeptofForestry
ModocCo.BoardofSupervisors
SiskiyouCo.BoardofSupervisors
KlamathCo.BoardofCommissioners US.AirForce
PitRiverTribalCouncil
ModocCo.ChamberofCommerce
ModocCo.RoadDept —severalmeetings andtelephonecontactsbetweenJan
Canby4WD
uary1983and1985todiscussthelocationandimpacts
ModocCo.FarmBureau
JeffersonAssoc. ontheinstallationoftheOvertheHorizon-Backscatter
ModocCo.Cattlemen'sAssn
RadarSystem (OTH-B).
ModocCo.SkiClub
ModocC0.GemandMineralsSociety
ModocLargerParish(BlueLakeCamp)
Sierra PacificIndustries US. FishandWildlifeService
SurpriseValleyLumber
NorCalNevaRCD
CADeptofFish&Game -briefing on the planning process and discussion of
CADeptWaterResources
LassenCo.BoardofSupervisors issuesthatwouldbeaddresed. Attheirrequest, wedid
LakeCo. BoardofSupervisors notinitiateformalconsultationwiththeUSFWS. They
LakeCo.BoardofCommissioners
PitRiverHomeandAg.CoopAssn feltthatconsultationonprogrammaticdocumentssuch
ModocCo.AgCommission astheEISandPlan wasnotappropriate.
CalandorPineCorp.
EdgertonLumber
ModocCo.GardenClub
WesternTimberAssociation (WTA)
MainIndustries
ModocCo.HistoricalSociety
ModocCo.Sportsmen
ModocGrazin AdvisoryBoard -meetingOctober 1982toprovidean overviewofplan
PacificPower ' Light
ningprocess andtimberdata; meetingApril 1983to
SurpriseValleyElectric
ModocCo.SeniorCitizens review FORPLAN, benchmarks and initial alterna
Inaddition, otherconsultation activitiesoccurred. tives;fieldtriptotheLongBellareatodiscusssivicultu
raloptionson low-yieldtimbersites.
BLM,AlturasResourceAreaoftheSusanvilleDistrict
-frequentmeetingsandtelephonecontactsbetween 1980 MotherLodeChapter,SierraClub
and 198310 insure close coordination throughout the
planningprocess.
—informal meetings February 1982 and May 1984 to
CaliforniaFishandGame discuss monitoring, junipermanagement, and Road
lessAreaReviewandEvaluation (RARE) areas.
-frequent meetings to share information and data on
habitatareas,forageproductionetc.
FremontNational Forest
TribalcommunitiesconsistingoftheFt.BidwellIndian
Community, Pit River Home & Ag Coop Association,
-meetingApril 1984with bothplanningstafiorganiza~
KlamathTribalCouncil,Pit RiverTribalCouncil
tions to share similarities and differences in ap
—letters and telephone contacts between January and proaches, followed by numerous telephone contacts
March I984toseekcommentson thedocument "Cul betweenresourcespecialists.
tural Resource Overview: Modoc National Forest,”
whichaddressestheForestculturalresourcesplanning Initiated with a Notice ofIntent to reevaluate road~
issues. Noconcern wasexpressed. lessareas,theForestheldanopenhousedailybetween
Northern California County Supervisors Association July25 and August 12, 1983, in Alturas to discuss and
gather information about roadless areas; threepeople
(NCCSA)consistingofcountyrepresentativesfromnine
signed the register. A newsletter was mailed to 366
northerncounties
individuals, agencies, and organizations on the Forest
-meetinglune1981toprovidestatusinformationthethe mailing list to invite comment; eight letters were re
Northeastem CalifomiaForestplans. ceived. Issues were extracted and analyzed. Informa
tion supplied byindividualswasincorporated into the
Northeast Zone Forests consisting of the Lassen,
Forest data base.
Plumas, Mendocino, ModocNational Forests
A-Z Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
The Selected Issues, Concerns, and -Howand where will borrowandagregate sources be
designated, and whatprovisions will be madeforsite
Opportunities
restoration?
Chapter 1, contains thefinal setofissues derivedfrom —How willthe Forest manage existing, andidentifypo
the scoping process. They are listed below with their tential, electronicsites?
facets. Chapter 2, Table 2-24 displays treatment ofthe
-HowwilltheForestmanageexistingandnewrights-of
issues by each alternative. Chapter 2 also discusses the
way(utilitycorridors, roads, andtrails)?
relationship ofthe issues to the benchmarks, the use of
issuesinformulatingalternatives,andtheimpactofissue —Howcantransportationsystemcoordinationwithother
responseonpresentnetvalue(PNV)andothereconomic agenciesbeimproved?
indicators. Chapter3gives thebackground necessaryto
understandtheissues, andChapter4describestheenvi —Are there opportunities toupgrade accessforresource
ronmental consequencesofrespondingtoeach issue. managementandpublicuse?

naéefiicjhi
All issues were addressed in the Forest planning pro
cess; nonewere deferred.
HowwillfirebemanagedtoprotectandimproveForest
resources?
Facets ofthe Issue:
Whatdirectionwillbeprovidedfortheinventory,man
agement, andinterpretationofcultural resources? —What will be thefire suppression direction in specific
managementareas?
Facets ofthe Issue:
-Whereandtowhatextentwillprescribedfirebeusedfor
fuels reduction, wildlife habitat andforage improve
—HowwillNativeAmericanheritageconcemsbeaccom
ment, orothervegetativemanipulation?
modatedin landuseandresourceallocations?
-Whatcan bedonetoimprovecoordination with other
-Whereandtowhatextentwillotherlandusesbemod
federal, State, andlocalfireprotectionagenciesaswell
(lied toprotect the cultural resource base and to en
asadjacentowners?
hancepublicappreciation ofits value?

Howandwherewill firewoodbe managed?
Howwillmanagementprovidefordiversityofplantand
animalcommunitiessothatdiversityisatleastasgreatas Facets ofthe Issue:
thatwhich presentlyexists?
-Howandwherewilljuniper,oak,andmahoganywood
landsbemanagedtoprovidefirewoodandothergoods

I
andservices?
HowwillForestmanagementcontributetothefederal -Howwillwildlifeandrangeneedsandculturalresource
policyofachievingnational energyself~sufficiency? protectionbeconsideredinfirewoodmanagement?
—How willthefirewoodresource be distributedamong
free, commercial, andindustrialusers?
Howand wherewill the transportation and communi —How will the administration (including law enforce
cationsystembe managedand maintained? ment) offirewoodmanagementbehandled?
—Whatutilizationstandardsandslashtreatmentrequire
FacetsoftheIssue:
ments willbeestablished?
-How will the road network be managed to provide

public accessforfirewood gathering while protecting
againstresourcedamages?
Whatwillbetheprioritiesforadjustmentsinlandown
—Under what conditions will roads be rehabilitated or ership to meet public demand and to support resource
obliterated? managementgoalsandadministrative needs?
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities A-3
Facets ofthe Issue: Facets ofthe Issue:
-Whichfederallandsshouldbe transferredto State or -How will demandsforfuture recreation development
privateownershiptomeetlocalcommunityneedsorto (e.g., campgrounds, trailheads,picnicgrounds, etc.)be
facilitateForestadministration? handled?
- WhichprivateandStatelandsshouldbetransferredto —How willpublic demandsforwintersportsopportuni
federalownershiptosupportnationalorregionalgoals tiesbemet?
ortofacilitateForestadministration?
—How will dispersedrecreation be managedoutside of
- Whatmethods ofacquisition and disposalshould be wildernessareas?
usedin landadjustments?
—How will the Forest manage existing trails, and what
-Whatwillbethepriorityforreviewingexistingwithdraw newopportunitieswillbeprovidedin thefuture?
als?
-Wherewilloff-roadvehiclesbepermittedandhowwill

theirusebemanaged?
—Whatopportunities willbeprovidedto increasepublic
Howwillmineralareasbemanaged?
understanding of the environment and the Forest's
managementactivities?
Facets ofthe Issue:
-Howwillrecreation use bemanaged within theSouth
—How will leasable and common variety minerals be
WarnerWilderness?
managed?
—Are there unique areas on the Forest that should be
-How will the surface resources associated with local
nominatedfor inclusion in the National Registry of
ablemineralsbemanaged?
NaturalLandmarks?
— Whatpriorities andguidelines will be establishedfor

supportingtheexploration, development, andmanage
mentofenergyminerals(includinggeothemial, oil,and
gas)? What amounts, methods, and locations oftimber har
vest andothersilviculturalactivitieswillbe practiced?
Facetsofthe lssue:
HowwillForest pestsbecontrolled?
—On which lands and to what intensity will timber be
Underwhatconditionswill pesticidesbe used? managed?
—Howandwhere willcleancuttingbeapplied (e.g., eon
flguration, dispersion, size)?
Whatwillbethelevelofrangeuseand development?
— What direction will be given for reforestation (e.g.,
under what conditions willplantations be grazed or
Facetsofthe Issue:
vegetative competition controlled; how willpotential
-HowwilltheForestdistributeforageamonglivestock, impacts on deer be considered in bntsh conversion;
wildlife, andwildhorses whilecontinuingtomaintain whatdirectionwillbegivenformaintainingtreespecies
orimprovetheecologicalcondition oftheland? diversity)?
-Whereandtowhatextentwilllivestockgrazein wilder -How will thefollowingconsiderations influence rota
nessareas? tionlength?
— Whatwillbethedirectionforwildhorsemanagement? o Vegetativediversity.
0 Tree size and its effects on wildlife, aesthetics,
- Whatcriteria willbe usedfordetemiininggrazingsea
woodproducts, and energyel'liciency.
sons,rangesuitabilityforlivestock,andrangecondition
goals? 0 Biological potential.
0 Socio-economics.
Recreation
—Underwhatconditionswilluneven-agemanagementbe
What recreationopportunitieswillbeprovided? practiced? ‘
A-4
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities