i5olST5-*4

A Reader s Guide to the

j

Draft Management Plan

Contents ° | o f ■!

2 What’s in the Draft Plan? S ^ o

3 What are the limits of this Plan? ^ §.

4 Planning Goals %

5 Range of Alternatives

6 Vegetation Treatments

7 Managing Diverse Ecosystems

8 Conditions in the OGEA

1 0 Management Alternatives for the OGEA 12 Comparison of Alternative Treatments

14 Conditions in the Diversity Area

15 Management Alternatives for the DEA 18 Transportation and Access 20 Recreation and Facilities 22 Management Common to All Alternatives

22 Environmental Consequences

23 Public Involvement

Interested citizens are encouraged to use this supplemental document as an introduction to the scope, limits, and contents of the Draft Plan. This document is meant to provide readers with a general understanding of the proposed management alternatives for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. The Reader’s Guide is not a substitute, but a companion to the Draft Plan and only summarizes key issues. Readers must refer to the Draft Plan for a detailed description of the plan’s alternatives. Throughout the guide, page and map numbers refer readers to the Draft Plan for more information. The Guide also contains information on how to effectively participate in the public comment process.

Mariposa lily.

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

What’s in the Draft Plan?

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was designated on June 9, 2000 by Presidential Proclamation. The Proclamation establishing the Monument gave the BLM three years to complete a management plan for the area. The Draft Management Plan currently available for public review addresses many different Monument management issues, including the following:

What are the most effective ways for the BLM to protect species and ecosystems?

How can the BLM restore damaged ecosystems?

What can the BLM do to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds?

What types of recreation are compatible with protecting the Monument?

Should commercial outfitters operate in the Monument?

What type of transportation system best protects Monument resources while providing access opportunities for visitors?

What accommodations should the BLM make for adjacent landowners and others with access needs?

How can the BLM protect Monument resources while accommodating visitors?

What are the limits of this Plan?

The range of options in the management plan are constrained by the language in the Presidential Proclamation designating the Monument. Among other things, the Presidential Proclamation did the following:

• Established the Monument boundary;

• Directed the BLM to study the impacts of livestock grazing;

• Banned cross-country mechanized travel;

• Closed the Schoheim Road to mechanized vehicles;

• Eliminated commercial logging except when needed for ecological restoration or public safety.

The BLM can only analyze management alternatives that are consistent with the Proclamation. Potential boundary changes and the future management of livestock grazing are important issues to many people. However, these issues are not analyzed in the context of this management plan.

Boundary Changes

Last summer, Department of Interior Secretary Gale Norton sent a letter to state and public officials requesting additional input on the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. After reviewing this input, the Secretary determined that BLM’s planning process provided an appropriate forum for addressing most of the issues raised. By law, this plan cannot analyze or recommend boundary changes to the Monument. The management provisions detailed in the Presidential Proclamation, including the boundary, may only be altered by Congressional action that clarifies, changes or establishes new provisions.

Livestock Grazing Management

This plan does not address the management of livestock grazing. The BLM is currently studying the effects of existing livestock grazing in the Monument and has published a Draft Study. Management direction for livestock grazing will be developed upon completion of the study (pp. 6, 167).

Private Property

The management alternatives discussed in the Draft Plan do not apply to private property. Existing laws and regulations ensure that private property owners will retain access to their land. The Draft Plan notes that this management plan does not supercede valid existing rights (pp. 7, 161).

Planning Goals

The purpose of the Monument Management Plan is to provide a set of decisions outlining future management for the Monument. Many decisions made in the final plan will be subject to site specific analysis prior to implementation. In developing this plan, the BLM identified the following goals to guide the design of alternatives:

Protect and maintain natural processes in areas of high ecological integrity. Restore and enhance natural processes in areas of low ecological integrity.

Ecological integrity references the degree to which an area’s natural ecosystem processes have either remained intact or been interrupted through human intervention.

ALTERNATIVES (p. 131)

The Draft Plan analyzes four different alternatives. Alternative A, the No Action alternative gives an overview of existing management and provides a baseline for examining the action alternatives. Alternatives B, C, and D describe different methods for achieving the plan’s overall goal, which is the protection and enhancement of Monument resources. Although the methods for reaching this goal change by alternative, each alternative has the same overriding objectives which were determined when the Monument was established by proclamation.

The BLM has identified Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative for achieving management goals and objectives. BLM identifies a preferred alternative in hopes that this will make it easier for the public to read the plan and make focused comments. The identification of the preferred alternative does not guarantee that this is the alternative that the BLM will select. More likely, various parts of the different alternatives will comprise the final management plan.

Range of Alternatives

The alternatives range from virtually “ hands-off ’ management, to a more intensive, proactive approach that would employ a variety of management tools. Below is an brief overview of each alternative.

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (p. 137) describes current Monument management, which is based on the BLM Medford District Resource Management Plan and the specific direction of the Presidential Proclamation. This alternative is meant to serve as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.

Alternative B - Primitive, Hands-off Approach

The management strategy proposed under Alternative B (p. 140) relies on natural ecosystem processes that would allow plant community dynamics to unfold without active intervention. One exception would be in the management of young conifer stands that are a product of past timber harvest. Intervention in these stands would help ensure the establishment of mature conifer forests. Accommodations for recreation and visitation would be minimal under this alternative. The transportation system would be maintained at the minimal level necessary for access. For resource protection, many roads would be decommissioned naturally.

Alternative C - Moderate, Active Management

Alternative C (p. 145) represents the course of action that the BLM believes is best suited to address issues across the landscape. Alternative C would rely on a moderate level of active management for protection and maintenance of all plant communities. Recreation and visitor use would be accommodated at levels believed to be compatible with the protection of Monument resources. The transportation system would be managed to accommodate visitor use and safety.

To protect Monument resources both natural and mechanical decommissioning would be implemented on some roads.

Alternative D - Intense, Active Management

Under Alternative D (p. 155) the BLM would utilize intensive, proactive management for protection, maintenance and restoration of Monument plant communities. Recreation and visitor use would be accommodated to the fullest extent possible while protecting Monument resources. The transportation system would be managed to accommodate and promote visitor use, where feasible, while mechanically decommissioning many roads in order to protect and restore Monument resources more quickly.

Vegetation Treatments

The Draft Plan proposes several types of vegetative treatments. The alternatives draw from these treatments to accomplish plan goals. The Environmental Consequences (p. 173) section of the document examines the potential consequences of using different treatments at varying levels of intensity. Listed below are some of the treatments considered in the Draft Plan.

Prescribed Fire (p. 104)

Prescribed fire refers to planned ignitions designed to mimic the low intensity underbums that were once frequent throughout the Monument. Used carefully, prescribed fire could help restore fire dependent ecosystems in the Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA). Prescribed fire could also be used to reduce fire hazard in conifer stands throughout the Old Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA).

Site-specific analyses would proceed the use of prescribed fire. The use of prescribed fire would be limited by topography, aspect, elevation, weather conditions, fuel types, and proximity to private land and residences. An approved fire plan will be completed prior to any ignition and smoke clearances received from the Oregon Department of Forestry.

Commercial Thinning

Commercial thinning would entail the removal of generally merchantable trees (great than 7" diameter). Under certain conditions described in the Draft Plan, commercial thinning could be used to reduce fuel hazard and promote old-growth characteristics. If used as a tool, commercial thinning of this habitat would be part of a science-based ecological restoration project aimed at meeting protection and old-growth enhancement objectives. A site specific analysis, such as an Enviromnental Assessment, would proceed any removal of commercial vegetation.

Noncommercial Thinning

Noncommercial thinning is the removal of generally unmerchantable trees (less than 7" diameter). This could occur in some of these stands prior to fuel treatment if necessary. Special attention would be given to reducing the non-fire dependent (mainly white-fir) component of existing late- successional and old-growth habitat which could be accomplished through manually cutting individual trees.

FIRE HAZARD

In some alternatives, the BLM used fire hazard ratings to help determine priority areas for management activities. Fire hazard assesses the threat of a fire start in combination with the expected ease of spread and difficulty of containment. A fire hazard analysis, based on vegetatior type, arrangement, volume, condition, and location, rated the fire hazard for the CSNM as moderate over 66 percent of the landscape and high over 32% of the landscape (p. 102).

Managing Diverse Ecosystems

The northern and southern portions of the Monument are very different ecologically. The area that lies north of Highway 66 is primarily made up of either old-growth forests, or lands that are capable of becoming old-growth. The area south of Highway 66 is primarily comprised of hardwood, shrub and grass plant communities. The ecological differences between these two areas require different management strategies. For planning puiposes, these two areas have been divided into an Old Growth Emphasis Area (mostly north) and Diversity Emphasis Area (mostly south). See page 133 of the Draft Plan for additional information on these areas.

Old-Growth Emphasis Area

Located primarily (but not entirely) north of Highway 66, the Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA) consists of approximately 24,000 acres of land that is either currently old-growth (late- successional) forest, or is capable of becoming old-growth. Old-growth forests are typically comprised of mature conifers such as Douglas-fir that generally exceed 150 years in age.

These forests provide habitat for species associated with old-growth such as the

northern spotted owl. Most of the OGEA was formerly known as the Jenny Creek Late- Successional Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Diversity Emphasis Area

The Draft Plan refers to most of the southern portion of the Monument as the Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA) due to the remarkable diversity of plant communities and their inhabitants. There are an estimated 20,000 acres that make up the DEA. This area consists primarily of grasslands, shrublands, and woodland plant communities.

Vegetation in Scotch Creek is typical of the DEA.

Conditions in the OGEA

Overview (pp. 75-77)

The dominant conifer community in the Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA) is the mixed conifer community. The most common tree species are Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and incense cedar. Douglas-fir is typically the most common tree in the forest overstory, while young white fir dominates the understory. Decades without natural levels of wildfire have reduced the prevalence of sugar pine, ponderosa pine and incense cedar as dense stands of white fir and Douglas-fir have crowded these trees out. Various levels of timber harvest have taken place on approximately 83 percent of the OGEA. Some of these stands were clear cut and are now young tree plantations. Fragmentation of the forests through timber harvest, road construction and other activities has produced breaks in the forest larger than some wildlife species are willing to cross, limiting connectivity, or the ability of species to migrate.

Spotted Owl Habitat Types and Forest Condition

Wildlife biologists classify the condition of forests based on their potential use by northern spotted owls (p. 54). As the northern spotted owl is closely associated with late-successional forests, biologists assume that most habitat suitable for northern spotted owls is also suitable for most other late-successional species. Every acre of the CSNM was placed into one of six habitat categories (see below or pp. 55-56). The Draft Plan refers to suitable spotted owl habitat as Late-Successional and Old-Growth (LSOG) stands and relies on the habitat types listed below. This classification system is used throughout the Draft Plan to describe vegetative conditions and potential treatments.

Habitat Type 1: Nesting (Currently 3,426 acres)

Nesting habitat meets all spotted owl life requirements. These forests have a high canopy closure (greater than 60 percent), a multilayered structure, and large overstory trees. Deformed, diseased, and broken top trees, as well as large snags and down logs are also present.

Habitat Type 2: Roosting/Foraging (Currently 9,392 acres)

Habitat Type 2 is not suitable for nesting, but provides spotted owls with roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat. Canopy closure is usually greater than 60 percent but with a more uniform structure. Habitat Type 2 has moderately sized overstory trees. Deformed trees, snags and down wood are less prevalent than in Habitat Type 1 .

Habitat Type 3: Potential Habitat Only (Currently 3,865 acres)

Habitat Type 3 does not presently meet spotted owl needs. Past disturbances such as logging or fire have reduced canopy closure and other important late-successional features. Stand density is high with up to 1,500 small trees per acre. Due to overcrowding, trees in these stands may not develop into late-successional habitat in the near future without density reduction. These areas have the potential to grow into Type 1 or 2 Habitat if given enough time and appropriate management.

Habitat Type 4: No Potential (Currently 26,218 acres)

Primarily found in the southern portion of the Monument, these sites do not have the potential of developing into late-successional forest or supporting old-growth dependent species. Examples include chaparral, natural meadows, rocky open areas and oak woodlands. For planning purposes, the BLM classified this habitat type as the Diversity Emphasis Area. This habitat type provides suitable habitat for a wide range of species.

Habitat Type 5: Dispersal with potential (Currently 8,654 acres)

Habitat Type 5 is not suitable for spotted owl nesting, but is thought to be important for travel between old-growth stands due to a canopy closure greater than 40 percent. Many of these stands are growing at a higher density than stands that historically developed into late-successional old- growth. These stands are at risk of wildfire due to excessive levels of live and dead fuels. Habitat Type 5 has the potential to grow into Type 1 or 2 habitat if given enough time and appropriate management.

Habitat Type 6: Dispersal with no potential (Currently 1,392 acres)

This habitat type currently provides structure believed to be important for spotted owl dispersal. However, due to soil types and precipitation rates, these stands are not likely to provide conditions required by owls for reproduction.

Spotted owl monitoring over the past decade indicates that the area is not supporting the regional spotted owl population to the desired extent (pp. 56-58). Currently, 23 percent of the Monument serves as Nesting or Roosting habitat (Types 1 and 2) for spotted owls. Another 24 percent of the Monument has the potential to become suitable habitat.

Available Spotted Owl Habitat

7%

50%

■ Nesting (Type 1)	□ Roosting (Type 2)
□ Potential (Type 3)	■ No Potential (Type 4)
□ Dispersal/Potential (Type 5)	□ Dispersal/No Potential (Type 6)

Management Alternatives for the OGEA

Alternatives for managing the Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA) were designed to meet the following objectives:

♦ Protect existing habitat and facilitate the development of young stands into old-growth;

♦ Reduce forest fragmentation and enhance forest continuity;

♦ Reduce fire hazard in overly dense forests.

Alternative A - No Action (p. 137)

Linder Alternative A, no forest management would take place in the OGEA.

Alternative B - Hands-off Approach (pp. 141-142)

Emphasis: Facilitate the development of forests that are not currently old-growth, but have the potential (Habitat Type 3) to become old-growth.

Under Alternative B, up to 14 percent (3,400 acres) of the OGEA (Elabitat Type 3 only) would be managed. Treatments would target the reforestation (tree planting, cutting competing vegetation) of lands where past clearcutting or wildfire removed the existing forest stand. Density reduction would take place in young (generally under 30 years old) conifer stands that currently have unnaturally high tree densities. These noncommercial treatments would include the reduction of competing vegetation and the cutting of some trees under 7" in diameter.

Alternative C - Moderate, Active Management (pp. 150-151)

Emphasis: Reduction of fire hazard and enhancement of current and potential old growth forests in strategic areas.

Alternative C would manage up to 32 percent (7,700 acres) of the OGEA for fuel reduction, density management, and old-growth characteristics. Under Alternative C, forest stands would be selected for treatment based on fire hazard levels and proximity to existing late-successional stands (Habitat Types 1 & 2).

Alternative C would reduce stand density and fuel loading in Habitat Types 3, 4, 5 and 6 that have a high fire hazard rating and are located within 1/4 mile of existing late-successional old-growth (Habitat Types 1 & 2). Fuel reduction would also take place in potential habitat stands (Type 3) that have a moderate fire hazard rating and are located within 1/4 mile of late-successional old- growth (Habitat Types 1 & 2). Fuel reduction techniques could include noncommercial and commercial thinning as well as prescribed burning. These treatments would be designed to provide fire resistant buffers around existing stands of late successional old-growth. These treatments would also help reduce stand density and facilitate the development of old-growth in stands with potential (Habitat Types 3 and 5).

Noncommercial fuel reduction treatments and prescribed burning could also occur in up to 1,770 acres of late successional old-growth (Habitat Types 1 &2) that have high fire hazard (Map 45). The majority of treatments would occur in Habitat Type 2 stands.

Alternative D - Intensive, Proactive Management (pp. 156-157)

Emphasis: Reduction of fire hazard and enhancement of current and potential old -growth forests across the landscape.

Alternative D would utilize all treatments detailed in Alternative C as well as additional measures to protect and/or enhance existing late-successional old-growth. Under Alternative D, approximately 53 percent (14,126 acres) of the OGEA would be treated. In addition to the treatments proposed for Habitat Types 1 & 2 in Alternative C, Alternative D would also include commercial thinning to reduce fuels and encourage development of late-successional structure. Another change from Alternative C is that all Habitat Type 5 stands with moderate fire hazard (in addition to those with high hazard) that are within 1/4 mile of late successional habitat would be treated using noncommercial and/or commercial thinning followed by prescribed fire (Map 44). Alternative D would also allow treatment (commercial and noncommercial thinning) of an additional 2,000 acres in Habitat Type 5 stands (not within 1/4 mile of old-growth) to enhance late successional characteristics and reduce fire hazard.

Dense forests with young trees would benefit from thinning designed to facilitate the development of old-growth characteristics.

Comparison of Alternative Treatments

Potential Fuel Reduction and/or Thinning in Total Acres in Old-Growth Habitat (Type 1 & 2)

Habitat Types 1 & 2

14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Alt A Alt B Alt C AltD Acres treated by Alternative

Alt C is non-commercial only. Alt D could utilize commercial treatments.

Fuel Reduction and/or Thinning

Total Acres in Habitat (Type 3)

Habitat Type 3

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Alt A Alt B

Alt C Alt D

Acres Treated by Alternative

in Potential

□ Untreated Acres

□ Treatments in areas with Moderate Fire Hazard

■ Treatments in areas with High Fire Hazard

□ Enhancement Treatments

Potential Fuel Reduction/Thinning in Dispersal _ . . Habitat with Potential (Type 5)

Total Acres in ' J r '

Habitat Type 5

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Acres Treated by Alternative

--r.

Percent Acres T reated in Old-Growth Emphasis Area by Alternative

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

x - 71

^HZ7\

/ - T7!

d

r;i

□ Untreated Acres

□ Percent Acres Treated

Alt A

Alt B

Alt C

AltD

Comparisons of treatments proposed for Habitat Types 4 and 6 are not represented graphically. These Habitat Types would not be treated under Alternatives A and B. Under C and D, 2,614 acres of Habitat Type 4, and 157 acres of Habitat Type 6 would be treated for fuels reduction.

13

Conditions in the Diversity Area

Overview (pp. 65-75)

The Diversity Emphasis Area (DEA) is made up of lands primarily in the southern portion of the Monument that are comprised of hardwood, shrub and grass dominated plant communities (Map 41). This portion of the Monument best illustrates the ecological diversity for which the Monument was proclaimed. Many familiar landmarks such as Soda Mountain and Hobart Bluff are found in the DEA. In comparison to the conifer dominated communities in the Old-Growth Emphasis Area (OGEA), the landscape in the DEA is very dynamic with frequent changes taking place over relatively short periods of time. This is due, in part, to the fact that many plant species in the DEA have short life spans and are dependent on fire or other processes to maintain suitable habitat for growth. If the conditions are not just right (lack of fire etc.), one species may die out as another takes its place. In the past century, two of the largest influences on the composition of species in the DEA have been the lack of naturally occurring fires (due to fire suppression) and the invasion of non-native species, many of which are noxious weeds.

Lack of Fire

Many of the plant species in the Diversity Emphasis Area are adapted to survive low intensity wildfires. Some species, such as wedgeleaf ceanothus and manzanita, depend on wildfire for rejuvenation or regeneration. Fire exclusion may alter the distribution of species across the landscape. Presently, fire exclusion has led to a buildup of vegetation that is conducive to intense fires with the potential to damage, rather than rejuvenate plants.

Weed Invasion

At lower elevations, particularly within the Agate Flat area, much of the grassland, shrubland and open oak woodland have an understory dominated by annual weeds. Annual weeds monopolize soil water and nutrients, and alter soil surface conditions resulting in low native grass seedling establishment.

Yellow star-thistle, Canada thistle, and medusahead are the

most problematic noxious weeds in the Diversity Emphasis

Area. Dyer’s woad also has the potential to become a serious

ecological problem. Native grasses and forbs often have great

difficulty competing with weeds. Once established, noxious

weeds are difficult to eradicate. Yellow star-thistle is an unwel¬

come visitor in the DEA.

Management Alternatives for the DEA

The management goal for the DEA is to maintain and facilitate ecosystem processes (fire, succession) and ecosystem functions (nutrient cycling, hydrological cycle) to maintain the patterns of vegetation that sustain the wide range of individual species, habitats, and communities that contribute to local and regional diversity. In practical terms, this means understanding how the landscape has been altered since the settlement of Euro-

A , Oak woodlands characteristic of the Diversity Emphasis Area.

Americans, and trying to

approximate the manner in

which natural processes historically interacted with the physical landscape. Objectives include the following:

♦ Reduction of fuel loading in order to prevent severe wildfires;

♦ Restoration and maintenance of fire-dependent plant species;

♦ Reduction or elimination of noxious weeds.

Alternative A - No Action (p. 137)

Emphasis: Noxious weed control.

Under Alternative A, vegetative management in the DEA would be limited to noxious weed control, including herbicides and hand pulling, on up to 3,000 acres.

Alternative B - Hands-off Approach (p. 140-141)

Emphasis: Limit or reduce expansion of noxious weeds and establish a database of plant community conditions.

Under Alternative B, management intervention would be minimal. The BLM would use bio¬ control, herbicides and handpulling to control noxious weeds on up to 3,000 acres. Any proposed treatments would be applied to small study areas before application to the larger landscape. Noxious weed patches larger than one acre would be isolated to reduce further spread. Alt. B would also survey and monitor plant communities and sensitive species, establishing a baseline of existing conditions.

Alternatives for the DEA Cont’d

Alternative C - Moderate, Active Management (p. 145-150)

Emphasis: Maintain and restore plant community conditions through direct management intervention that mimics natural processes (such as fire) as closely as possible (p. 145-150). Alternative C would manage up to 2,000 acres of the DEA to help restore and enhance grasslands, shrublands, and oak woodlands. Another 3,000 acres could be treated for noxious weed control. In all cases, pilot studies would take place prior to large-scale treatments. Under this alternative, the following management tools would be available: manual weeding, prescribed fire, fence construction, manual thinning, herbicide application (for noxious weed control), native plant establishment, weed-eaters, chainsaws, and hand-held augers. This alternative would use these tools to help achieve the following objectives:

Grasslands

Grasslands are some of the most fire-dependent communities within the Monument. The lack of fire, as well as weed invasion, has led to the deterioration of many grassland communities.

♦ Maintain and protect existing native grasslands using prescribed fire.

♦ Reduce annual (invasive) grasses and restore native, perennial grasses using prescribed fire where appropriate. Apply herbicides to control the seedbank prior to native grass reestablishment.

Shrublands (Wedgeleaf ceanothus, rosaceous chaparral)

Fire suppression has prevented the rejuvenation of these plant communities and created many older-aged shrub stands than would naturally be found.

♦ Maintain a range of shrub stand ages through the use of prescribed fire and manual cutting.

Woodlands

Historically, frequent fires helped maintain open oak woodlands and prevented young conifers from invading these sites. As a result of fire suppression, many sites are being invaded by conifers and shrubs. Fire hazard has increased in these areas as well. Oak woodlands are loosing their openness as a younger generation of oaks fills in the spaces due to lack of fire.

♦ Use manual thinning and prescribed fire to reduce fire hazard and restore the balance between hardwoods, conifers, and shrubs.

Alternative D - Intense, Proactive Management (p. 156)

Emphasis: Maintain and restore plant community conditions through aggressive management intervention.

Alternative D proposes meeting the objectives detailed in Alternative C with a wider array of management tools. Additional tools include plowing/discing, mowing, mechanical chipping, mechanical thinning, and tractor driven augers. The addition of these tools would allow for treatments over larger areas of the Monument. Vegetative treatments in grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands would still be limited to 2,000 acres. Noxious weeds could be treated on up to 3,000 acres.

For information on the management of wetlands, riparian vegetation, floodplains, springs and seeps see pages 149-150 of the Draft Plan.

Manual thinning and prescribed fire (as seen here in this spring underburn) is proposed to reduce fire hazard and restore shrub-invaded woodlands.

Transportation and Access

Roads associated with the Monument are managed or owned by the BLM, timber companies, Jackson County, the State of Oregon, and many private landowners. These routes are generally used for recreation, resource management and private property access. Public access is gener¬ ally determined by the agency, individual, or entity responsible for the road. Due to an assort¬ ment of agreements, rights-of-ways, and easements, the managing entity is not always readily apparent to the public. Public roads often cross private land and private roads can cross public land. Where feasible, the BLM has obtained easements which allow for public access or has established reciprocal agreements that allow for forest management but not public access.

Many roads commonly used by the public are actually private roads where the owner has not prevented casual public access.

Transportation Management Objectives (TMOs)

The BLM manages 251 miles of roads in the Monument area. Following monument designa¬ tion, the BLM created a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for these roads (Appendix CC). The goal of the TMP is to protect Monument resources while maintaining the transporta¬ tion system. Within the TMP are TMOs or Transportation Management Objectives. The TMOs provide specific management direction for individual roads and are shown on Plate 1 and de¬ fined in the TMP.

Current Management

Approximately 77 miles of BLM-managed roads within the Monument are currently closed to mechanized vehicle access. The primary objectives of access controls (gates, barricades) are to reduce sedimentation, restore hydrologic processes, reduce maintenance requirements, and to reduce impacts to wildlife, cultural, and botanical resources. However, the BLM must provide reasonable access to private landowners. Therefore, roads that provide primary access to pri¬ vate lands will not be permanently closed to landowners needing access. These roads may be gated and keys provided to property owners.

The Draft Plan’s four alternatives focus on how to manage the 77 miles of roads that are cur¬ rently closed under interim management. The alternatives present different scenarios for in¬ creased access and road improvements, road blocks or gates, seasonal closures, or permanent closures with varying amounts of mechanical and natural decommissioning. The other 174 miles of BLM-managed roads within the Monument are not closed except for three miles that would be closed under Alternative B. The plan does not present options for temporary or permanent closures of these 1 74 miles of roads due to valid existing rights with the public such as right-of-way grants and reciprocal right-of-way agreements. However, the existence of a BLM road does not guarantee public access. Many BLM parcels of land are accessed by roads that cross private lands where the BLM may not have easements for public use.

8

Comparison of Alternatives for Roads

	Alternative A pp. 137-138 Map 30	Alternative B pp. 142-143 Map 31	Alternative C pp. 152-153 Map 32	Alternative D pp. 157-158 Map 33
Open Roads	1 74 miles	168 miles	174 miles	171 miles
Improve & Leave Road Open	0 miles	3 miles	0 miles	3 miles
Blocked Roads	77 miles (Currently closed)	31 miles	25 miles	1 9 miles
Natural Decommission	0 miles	49 miles	28 miles	6 miles
Mechanical Decommission	0 miles	0 miles	24 miles	52 miles
Total	251 miles	251 miles	251 miles	251 miles

For a detailed list of road treatments for each alternative please refer to the following pages in the Draft Plan: Alternative A (p. 137); Alternative B (p. 142); Alternative C (p. 152); and Alternative D (p. 157).

Natural Decommission

Some roads are presently well drained and have vegetation growing on them. They may also have trees and brush encroaching from the sides and trees that have fallen across them. Sections of these roads would be allowed to decommission naturally but may also include some selective ripping, removal of drainage structures, and construction of water bars and barricades. This treatment would normally be used for stable natural surfaced roads that have not been used very often and are revegetating naturally.

Mechanical Decommission

Under alternatives C and D, some roads would be decommissioned mechanically. These roads may be ripped (or tilled), seeded, mulched, and may be planted to reestablish vegetation. Cross drains, crossing structures and fills in stream channels, and potentially unstable fill areas would be removed to restore natural hydrologic flow. These roads would be closed with a device similar to an earthen bander or equivalent. These roads should not require future maintenance.

Recreation and Facilities

Alternatives in the Draft Plan examine options for providing recreational opportuni¬ ties that are compatible with the protection and/or restoration of Monument resources (pp. 111-112; 170).

North/South Zones (p. 133)

Based on the different historical uses between the northern and southern portions of the Monument, two management zones have been created, the North and South Manage¬ ment Zones. The northern portion of the Monument is easily accessible and inter¬ spersed with developed private property. The southern portion is relatively isolated with limited or no facilities. To reflect these differences, the two zones are used to describe proposed management activities that relate to non-vegetative issues such as recreation, visitor facilities, and signing (Map 42). In addition to North and South Zones, the Draft Plan also identifies primary recreation use areas that reflect current visitation trends such as Soda Mountain, Pilot Rock, and Hyatt Lake (Map 42).

Common To All Alternatives

In all cases the use of mechanized vehicles is restricted to designated roads (p. 166). Mechanized vehicles are prohibited on all closed roads, the Schoheim Road, trails, and from cross country travel. Parking in the Monument is permitted adjacent to all roads designated open for public use (Plate 1) and in pullout areas within the recreation zone (Map 42).

Hunting and fishing are managed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Regulations have not and will not change as a result of Monument designation. The Draft Plan does not analyze the impacts of hunting and fishing. For more information on hunting visit the Monument website at http:// www.or.blm.gov/csnm.

Alternative A No Action see pp. 138-139
Snowmobiling Not allowed on closed or decommissioned roads.	Pennitted in designated areas shown on Map 53.
Mountain Biking Not allowed on closed or decommissioned roads.	Permitted on designated roads (Plate 1).
Camping	Pennitted.
Campfires	Permitted.
Hiking	Pennitted. No new hiking trails would be constructed.
Stock Use (horses, llamas, dogs)	Pennitted throughout the Monument for recreational purposes. Commercial stock use prohibited.
Rock climbing, hang gliding, & para -sailing	Permitted.
Facilities Includes visitor centers, parking, trailhead, and toilet facilites.	Utilizes existing visitor sites. Only parking, trailhead, and toilet facilities needed for resource protection would be constructed.
Inte rpretive Signs & Sites	Existing signs & sites would be maintained with new ones constructed only if needed to promote protection & safety.

Alternative Comparison

Alternative B Hands-Off Approach see pp. 143-145

Prohibited.

Permitted on designated roads (Map 31).

Permitted only at Hyatt Lake Campground and along the PCT.

Permitted. Limited to designated roads within both RNAs.

No new hiking trails would be constructed.

Prohibited.

Uses existing visitor sites. Six designated parking facilities would be maintained. No new toilet facilities would be constructed.

Same as Alternative A.

Alternative C

The Preferred Alternative see pp. 153-155

Pennitted on BLM- administered roads open to the public within the North Zone on Map 42.

Pennitted on designated roads (Map 32). Additional roads could be considered for designation.

Permitted throughout except in RNAs and in staictures at the former Box-O- Ranch.

Permitted except in RNAs.

Same as Alt. B except the designation and construction of new hiking trails pennitted in recreation zone (Map 42).

Recreational stock use permitted with some restrictions and not in RNAs. Commercial stock use prohibited.

Permitted in designated areas with a pennit.

Uses existing visitor facilities and allows for their improvement. All existing parking, trailhead, and toilet facilities would be maintained. Within the recreation zone (Map 42), new facilities could be considered for construction. Temporary toilet facilities would be provided for public health and safety and permanent ones constaicted at Hyatt Lake.

Existing signs and sites could be maintained and unproved. New ones would be constructed in the section of recreation zone within the north zone (Map 42). New sign and sites could be installed in the south zone for protection and safety.

Alternative D Active Management see pp. 158-160

Pennitted on BLM- administered roads open to the public on Map 33.

Permitted on designated roads (Map 33). Additional roads could be considered or constructed for designation.

Same as Alternative C with restrictions on group camping.

Same as Alternative C.

Same as Alt. B except the designation and construction of new hiking trails pennitted throughout Monument except RNAs and WSA.

Recreational stock use pennitted with additional restrictions and not in RNAs Commercial stock use pennitted with restrictions and not in RNAs or WSA.

Rock climbing pennitted on Pilot Rock only. Hang gliding and para-sailing allowed except in RNAs and WSA.

Same as Ah. C with the following additions 1) allows for new visitor structures within the Monument; 2) allows for the construction of new parking and trailhead sites throughout the Monument; and 3) allows for pennanent toilet facilities and drinking water sources to be constructed in the recreation zone (Map 42).

All existing signs and sites could be maintained and/or improved. New ones could be developed throughout the Monument.

Mgmt Common to All Alternatives

Specific management direction for the issues listed below has been previously determined as a result of either 1) the Presidential Proclamation, 2) adequate analysis in previous NEPA documents, 3) existing laws and regulations or 4) the scope is so narrow that alternatives to current management are not appropriate. Pages 160-170 contain important infonnation on the future management of the following issues.

Aquatic Habitat ! The Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area ! Wildfire Suppression Special Use Activities ! Snags and Coarse Woody Debris ! Hunting and Fishing The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail ! Special Status Plants and Animals Noxious Weeds ! Air Quality ! Archaeological Sites ! Hyatt Lake Recreation Complex Visual Resources ! Off-Highway Vehicles ! Livestock Grazing

Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 of the Draft Plan (p. 173) contains the scientific and analytical foundation for comparing Alternatives A-D. This chapter describes the impacts to the affected environment on the important resources, processes, uses and activities as described in Chapter 2, Affected Environment (p. 13).

BLM recommends thoroughly reading Chapter 4 in order to understand the overall consequences of each alternative. Only through a detailed review will the reader be able to compare the purpose and need for the action to the desired environmental outcome. For that reason, the environmental consequences of each alternative are not summarized in this document. Please keep in mind that an adverse or negative impact from one perspective is often a benefit from another.

It should be clear that every alternative would result in some impacts, including continuation of the current interim management plan (Alternative A). Therefore, the alternatives taken together display consequences, trade-offs, benefits, and impacts in a way that reveals the interdependent workings of human use, management and protection of Monument resources.

Throughout Chapter 4, a range of impacts are described. Direct, indirect, cumulative impacts (both positive and negative), and short and long-term impacts are addressed for each resource, use or activity. Direct impacts are those occurring at the same time and place while indirect impacts are those occurring at a later time or at a different place. Cumulative impacts are the effects on the environment when considered with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that might occur inside and/or adjacent to the CSNM. Short-term impacts are those occurring during the first five years. Any impact occurring beyond the first five years is considered to be a long-term impact.

22

Public Involvement

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Draft Management Plan is also a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An EIS must include an examination of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects and alternatives available to the proposed action. This process is intended to help public officials make better decisions based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the human environment.

Public Participation & the BLM

Public comments are extremely important to the EIS process. Public participation allows for the identification of inaccuracies, the adequacy of the analysis, new impacts, alternatives or mitigation measures, and for discrepancies with inteipretations of impacts.

Under the direction of NEPA, the BLM is required to create public involvement opportunities. On June 15, 2002 from 2 PM to 5 PM at Southern Oregon University in Ashland, the BLM presented an overview of the Draft EIS at an open-house meeting. Subject-matter field trips may be made available.

Over the next three months, the BLM welcomes your comments on the contents of the draft plan. We are particularly interested in comments that address one or more of the following:

1) new information that would affect the analysis, 2) possible improvements in the analysis, and 3) suggestions for improving or clarifying the proposed management direction. Specific comments are most useful. Comments are being accepted on the Draft Plan until September 20, 2002.

A view of Mount Shasta from a rocky outcropping in the Monument.

I -

j

23

In finalizing the Draft Plan, the BLM is committed to an open approach with the public. The BLM wants to work cooperatively to build a strong foundation with the community for long-term management of the Monument. This will be accomplished through a broad public participation process that provides for all interested parties to become involved. Also, the BLM is available to work with interested and affected parties in further explaining the planning process. If you have questions on how best to participate in this process, please contact Howard Hunter or Lorie List at 541-618-2200. The comments generated will be useful in developing the final EIS to be release in the winter of 2002. A Record of Decision is expected to be released during the summer of 2003.

What’s Next?

To request a copy of the Draft Management Plan, or a CD version, please contact the Medford District BLM at 541-618-2200. Additional information and a copy of the Draft Plan are available at the Monument website:

www.or.blm.gov/CSNM

Oregon Gulch Research Natural Area.

Bureau of Land Management Medford District Oregon 3040 Biddle Road . Medford, OR 97504 B LM/OR/WA/PL-02/024+ 1792 541-61 8-2200