Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument : draft resource management plan/environmental impact statement

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 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.

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