DOCSLIB.ORG

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest United States Department of Agriculture FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 2 - Appendices Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for the greatest good September 2015 VicinityVicinity Map Map OREGON Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest High Cascades Powers 5 ¨¦§ Grants Pass Wild Rivers Gold Beach Medford I Siskiyou Mountains Wild Rivers OREGON CALIFORNIA The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Lead Agency: TARGET CenterUSDA at Forest(202) 720 Service-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaintIn accordance of discrimination, with Federal write civil to rights USDA, law Director, and U.S. Office Department of of Civil Rights,Rogue 1400 River-Siskiyou Independence Avenue,National S.W., Forest Washington,Agriculture D.C. 20250 -(USDA)9410, or civilcall (800)rights 795 regulations-3272 (voice) and or policies, (202) the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on Responsible Official: Robert G. MacWhorter race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender Forest Supervisor expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or For Further Information Peggy O’Keefe Project Lead activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Forest Supervisor’s Office 2164 Spalding Avenue Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Phone: (541) 471-6747 Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr. usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . Table of Contents Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Appendix A - Summary of Comments and Responses to Comments Received on the September 2011 Draft Supplemental EIS Appendix B - Forest Plan Direction and Proposed Amendments Appendix C - Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report Appendix D - Watershed and Soil Characteristics Appendix E - Current Forest Orders Summary Appendix F - Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key Appendix G - Aquatic Biota Biological Evaluation & Specialist Report Appendix H - Motorized Trail Class and Season of Use by Ranger District Appendix I - Errata Sheet: Road And Trail Corrections Appendix A Summary of Comments and Responses to Comments Received on the September 2011 Draft Supplemental EIS Compiled and edited by: David Krantz Ken Grigsby Sasha Fertig Kristen Hauge Contributors: Wayne Rolle Joni Brazier Dave Clayton April 2015 Appendix A to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Responses to Comments Received on the September 2011 Draft Supplemental EIS A Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) was made available for public review and comment under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.10), and Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities, (36 CFR 215). The Forest Service accepted written, electronic and oral comments as provided in §215.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.6 (b), (1), this appendix documents the Responsible Official’s consideration of all substantive comments submitted in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) was dated November, 2009. That FEIS included a Response to Comments (Appendix A) addressing substantive comment received on the March 2009 Draft EIS. A Record of Decision (ROD) based on that FEIS was signed on December 3, 2009. Shortly thereafter, issues were raised through the appeal process that ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the December decision and the beginning of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) process, designed to address issues raised during the appeal process requiring additional analysis, clarification, or modification. For the Draft Supplemental EIS there was no “Scoping”. Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there was no formal Scoping period for this action. Appropriate procedures under NEPA required a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental EIS; the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2010 (FR page 45089-45090). A 45-day DSEIS public comment period for Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest formally began on October 7, 2011, the first day following publication of a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 195 (FR page 62406). The 45-day comment period began on October 8, 2011 and closed on November 21, 2011. Eighty-one paper copies and 63 compact discs of the full DSEIS were produced along with 20 paper copies of the DSEIS and a CD. Two hundred thirty-one letters were mailed to notify participants of the availability of the DSEIS. Copies of the full DEIS were distributed to federal and state agencies, local governments, elected officials, seven Federally recognized tribes, media representatives, libraries, organizations, and businesses (see DSEIS, Chapter VII, for a listing). The full DEIS was provided to others upon request. The document was also made available on the Rogue River National Forest website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue/. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC RESPONSE A total of 453 comments (various forms of input; see below) to the DSEIS were received by the Forest at the close of the comment period. All comments received within a few days of the close of the comment period were also reviewed and were considered as part of the comment analysis process. All comments were read and coded based on content and intent, by a Forest Service planning team, with Forest oversight, review and concurrence. The following statistics are provided for information only to show the basis and diversity of public response and comment to the DSEIS. FSEIS APPENDIX A Page A-1 Response to Comments – September 2011 DSEIS Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Form of Response The Forest Service tracked the various types of comments by form of response communication. Approximately 91% of the comments were received via the electronic email site established by the Forest Service to receive comments on the DSEIS ([email protected]). Approximately 405 (89%) of these comments were generated via an electronic site established to facilitate an electronic response (that contained a pre-determined viewpoint). Five or more responses received from different individuals but containing identical text, or identical text plus brief additional comments similar in content, were considered an organized response campaign. Type and Geographic Location of Respondent The Forest Service tracked the various types of comments by type of respondent. The following table shows the type or respondent tracked and the number of comments received by each type. As required by Forest Service policy, copies of the actual letters received by governmental agencies are contained at the end of this Appendix. 432 Individual/family 3 Federal Agency 2 County Government 12 Environmental Organization 4 Interest Group 453 Total The geographic location of those providing comment was tracked for informational purposes only and merely offers a sensing of the location of those who chose to comment on the DSEIS. The most respondents were from Oregon, primarily southwest Oregon. Other respondents were from California, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington. A majority of comments sent by email did not identify the respondent’s geographic location. Summary of Comments Substantive comments received on the 2011 DSEIS generally focused
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 8 — National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States
    Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Montana Custer National Forest* 331,130 1,482 332,612 Gallatin National Forest 582,181 2,657 584,838 Wyoming Shoshone National Forest 23,694 0 23,694 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Totals 937,005 4,139 941,144 Big Frog Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 136 0 136 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 7,996 0 7,996 Big Frog Wilderness Totals 8,132 0 8,132 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Arkansas Ouachita National Forest* 8,249 79 8,328 Oklahoma Ouachita National Forest* 5,098 40 5,138 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Totals 13,347 119 13,466 Cohutta Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 35,284 9 35,293 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 1,746 0 1,746 Cohutta Wilderness Totals 37,030 9 37,039 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 2,023 0 2,023 North Carolina Nantahala National Forest 3,417 0 3,417 South Carolina Sumter National Forest 2,857 9 2,866 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Totals 8,297 9 8,306 Processed Date: 2/5/2014 Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage
    [Show full text]
  • Bıoenu V( Land Management in U›E5v›I
    'Me Wíldemefif Eevíew P›v5›Aın v( tfie Bıoenu v( Land Management in U›e5v›ı _ " ;.` › › __. V L i_ „_ 4 ;' ~ gp ""! ¬~ «nvıvq f 1 -4-" _ ._ , 4_&,;¬__§?~~..„ V ıdı; "^. \-*_ ~¬¬ Q 1.z,“-_ ,._§,.';;.è,;;¶±„»_§ ' 1 4. _ _ı-?L_V wı -_ _` ' “T `;",~=:.f~ "_ ';1f“-=".f=«'í~.'›._ 2* T e \ ' "§11 ` `~. xx« (Part Une) Array Kerr ~OSPlR(5 lrwfr March 19/8 THE WILDERNESS REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN OREGON PART I Andy Kerr OSPIRG Intern March, 1978 This study is dedicated to those Bureau of Land Management personnel who know what is right for the land and are doing their best to see that it is done by the Bureau. They work under difficult circurs'ances. But with them on the inside and us on the outside, changes are being made, Someday they may all come out of the rloset victorious. Copyright l978 by Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. Individuals may reproduce or quote portions of this handbook For academic or cítizen action uses, but reproduction for commercial purposes is stríctly prohihíted. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must thank several persons who knowingly, and unknowingly, aided in this study. l'm sure that l'm forgetting some. First the BLM agency people: Ken white and Don Geary (Oregon State Office); Warren Edinger, Ron Rothschadl, and Bob Carothers (Medford District); and Dale Skeesick, Bill Power, Larry Scofield, Jerry Mclntire, Warren Tausch, John Rodosta, Scott Abdon. Jenna Gaston, Karl Bambe, and Paul Kuhns (Salem District). Bob Burkholder (U_S, Fish and Wildlife Service) was most helpful with the Oregon Islands Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Rogue Watershed Assessment
    Upper Rogue Watershed Assessment Chapter 2 Hydrology . TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 2.2 Water Use .......................................................................................................................1 2.3 Streamflow Data ............................................................................................................2 2.4 Peak Discharge ..............................................................................................................5 2.4.1 Trail Creek Subwatershed .....................................................................................5 2.4.2 Elk Creek Subwatershed .......................................................................................9 2.4.3 Upper Rogue River Subwatershed......................................................................12 2.4.4 South Fork Subwatershed...................................................................................16 2.4.5 Big Butte Creek Subwatershed ...........................................................................18 2.4.6 Lost Creek Lake Subwatershed ..........................................................................22 2.4.7 Shady Cove Subwatershed..................................................................................23 2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill to Designate Certain National Forest System Lands in the State of Oregon for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for Other Purposes
    97 H.R.7340 Title: A bill to designate certain National Forest System lands in the State of Oregon for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Weaver, James H. [OR-4] (introduced 12/1/1982) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 12/15/1982 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: Failed to Receive 2/3's Vote to Suspend and Pass by Yea-Nay Vote: 247 - 141 (Record Vote No: 454). SUMMARY AS OF: 12/9/1982--Reported to House amended, Part I. (There is 1 other summary) (Reported to House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amendment, H.Rept. 97-951 (Part I)) Oregon Wilderness Act of 1982 - Designates as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System the following lands in the State of Oregon: (1) the Columbia Gorge Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (2) the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (3) the Badger Creek Wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest; (4) the Hidden Wilderness in the Mount Hood and Willamette National Forests; (5) the Middle Santiam Wilderness in the Willamette National Forest; (6) the Rock Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (7) the Cummins Creek Wilderness in the Siuslaw National Forest; (8) the Boulder Creek Wilderness in the Umpqua National Forest; (9) the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness in the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests; (10) the Grassy Knob Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest; (11) the Red Buttes Wilderness in and adjacent to the Siskiyou
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary for the Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee
    Executive Summary for the Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee Site: Illinois River Scenic Area Site Type: HIRA Proposed Action: New Fees Recommended Fees: Area Fee: Begin charging $5.00 per vehicle per day Site Description - The Illinois River Scenic Area is a highly used area within the nationally designated Illinois Wild and Scenic River corridor located on the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District. The area is about 15 miles south of Grants Pass and within a 1 to 2 hour drive from the Rogue River Valley and Medford- Metropolitan area. The approximate 2,970 acre area is nestled in an old growth forest setting. The area has four campgrounds, five picnic areas, two scenic overlooks and interpretive sites, one historic site, five trailheads, four developed parking areas with swimming and rafting opportunities, and one private commercial lodge. The area is the gateway to the east side of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness and the Wild Section of the Illinois W&S River. The unique mix of recreation opportunities is significant to southern Oregon. Visits to the scenic area currently exceed 180,000 people per season. Fee Assessment - Recent capital investments of 1.2 million dollars in road and parking improvements, new picnic tables, shelters, trails, and campgrounds have been built to help serve the public, improve visitor safety and prevent resource damage. Subsequently, fees are needed to provide law enforcement presence, operation and maintenance. The recommended fees are based on 1) a Market Value analysis, 2) the Regional Campground Pricing rating, and 3) the Recreation Facility Analysis process.
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America 123 Ferc ¶ 62021
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 123 FERC ¶ 62,021 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PacifiCorp Project No. 2630-004 ORDER ISSUING NEW LICENSE (April 8, 2008) INTRODUCTION 1. On June 27, 2003, PacifiCorp filed an application for a new license pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 to continue operation and maintenance of the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project No. 2630. The project’s authorized capacity being licensed is 41.56 megawatts (MW). The project is located on the Rogue River, Middle Fork Rogue River, and Red Blanket Creek in Jackson County, Oregon.2 The project does not occupy federal lands. 2. On October 26, 2006, PacifiCorp filed a Settlement Agreement (settlement) signed by it and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Oregon DFW) that addresses certain resident trout issues related to this relicense proceeding, including ramping rate effects and large woody debris management. 3. As discussed below, I am issuing a new license for the project. The license incorporates most of the settlement’s provisions. 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 797(e) and 808 (2000). 2 The project is part of PacifiCorp’s interconnected system that transmits power across state lines for public utility purposes. The project was constructed in different segments, the first of which was completed in 1911 (Prospect No. 1) and the last in 1944 (Prospect No. 4). Because the project (1) is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, (2) affects interstate commerce through its connection to an interstate power grid, and (3) has had significant post-1935 construction, it is required to be licensed pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • OR Wild -Backmatter V2
    208 OREGON WILD Afterword JIM CALLAHAN One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am — a reluctant enthusiast.... a part-time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of your- selves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While it is still here. So get out there and hunt and fish and mess around with your friends, ramble out yonder and explore the forests, climb the mountains, bag the peaks, run the rivers, breathe deep of that yet sweet and lucid air, sit quietly for awhile and contemplate the precious still- ness, the lovely mysterious and awesome space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your brain in your head and your head firmly attached to the body, the body active and alive and I promise you this much: I promise you this one sweet victory over our enemies, over those desk-bound men with their hearts in a safe-deposit box and their eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I promise you this: you will outlive the bastards. —Edward Abbey1 Edward Abbey. Ed, take it from another Ed, not only can wilderness lovers outlive wilderness opponents, we can also defeat them. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (sic) UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT UNIVERSITY, to do nothing. MES SMITH NOEL COLLECTION, NOEL SMITH MES NOEL COLLECTION, MEMORIAL LIBRARY, LOUISIANA STATE LOUISIANA LIBRARY, MEMORIAL —Edmund Burke2 JA Edmund Burke. 1 Van matre, Steve and Bill Weiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Or Wilderness-Like Areas, but Instead Declassified Previously Protected Wildlands with High Timber Value
    48 OREGON WILD A Brief Political History of Oregon’s Wilderness Protections Government protection should be thrown around every wild grove and forest on the Although the Forest Service pioneered the concept of wilderness protection in the mountains, as it is around every private orchard, and trees in public parks. To say 1920s and 1930s, by the late 1940s and 1950s, it was methodically undoing whatever nothing of their values as fountains of timber, they are worth infinitely more than all good it had done earlier by declassifying administrative wilderness areas that contained the gardens and parks of town. any commercial timber. —John Muir1 Just prior to the end of its second term, and after receiving over a million public comments in support of protecting national forest roadless areas, the Clinton Administration promulgated a regulation (a.k.a. “the Roadless Rule”) to protect the Inadequacies of Administrative remaining unprotected wildlands (greater than 5,000 acres in size) in the National Forest System from road building and logging. At the time, Clinton’s Forest Service Protections chief Mike Dombeck asked rhetorically: here is “government protection,” and then there is government protection. Mere public ownership — especially if managed by the Bureau of Is it worth one-quarter of 1 percent of our nation’s timber supply or a fraction of a Land Management — affords land little real or permanent protection. fraction of our oil and gas to protect 58.5 million acres of wild and unfragmented land T National forests enjoy somewhat more protection than BLM lands, but in perpetuity?2 to fully protect, conserve and restore federal forests often requires a combination of Wilderness designation and additional appropriate congressional Dombeck’s remarks echoed those of a Forest Service scientist from an earlier era.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States
    Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Montana Custer National Forest* 331,130 1,482 332,612 Gallatin National Forest 582,181 2,657 584,838 Wyoming Shoshone National Forest 23,694 0 23,694 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Total 937,005 4,139 941,144 Big Frog Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 136 0 136 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 7,996 0 7,996 Big Frog Wilderness Total 8,132 0 8,132 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Arkansas Ouachita National Forest* 8,249 79 8,328 Oklahoma Ouachita National Forest* 5,098 40 5,138 Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Total 13,347 119 13,466 Cohutta Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 35,284 9 35,293 Tennessee Cherokee National Forest* 1,746 0 1,746 Cohutta Wilderness Total 37,030 9 37,039 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest 2,023 0 2,023 North Carolina Nantahala National Forest 3,417 0 3,417 South Carolina Sumter National Forest 2,857 9 2,866 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Total 8,297 9 8,306 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 8 - National Wilderness Areas in Multiple States * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest National Wilderness Area State NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Siskiyou Hiker 2020
    WINTER 2020 THE SISKIYOU HIKER Outdoor news from the Siskiyou backcountry SPECIAL ISSUE: 2020 Stewardship Report Photo by: Trevor Meyer SEASON UPDATES ALL THE TRAILS CLEARED THIS YEAR LOOKING AHEAD CHECK OUT OUR Laina Rose, 2020 Crew Leader PLANS FOR 2021 LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR Winter, 2020 Dear Friends, In this special issue of the Siskiyou Hiker, we’ve taken our annual stewardship report and wrapped it up into a periodical for your review. Like everyone, 2020 has been a tough year for us. But I hope this issue illustrates that this year was a challenge we were up for. We had to make big changes, including a hiring freeze on interns and seasonals. My staff, board, our volun- teers, and I all had to flex into what roles needed to be filled, and far-ahead planning became almost impossi- ble. But we were able to wrap up technical frontcountry projects in the spring, and finished work on the Briggs Creek Bridge and a long retaining wall on the multi-use Taylor Creek Trail. Then my staff planned for a smaller intern program that was stronger beyond measure. We put practices in place to keep everyone safe, and got through the year intact and in good health. This year we had a greater impact on the lives of the young people who serve on our Wilderness Conserva- tion Corps. They completed media projects and gained technical skills. Everyone pushed themselves and we took the first real steps in realizing greater diversity throughout our organization. And despite protocols in place to slow the spread of Covid-19, we actually grew our volunteer program.
    [Show full text]
  • 9691.Ch01.Pdf
    © 2006 UC Regents Buy this book University of California Press, one of the most distinguished univer- sity presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sawyer, John O., 1939– Northwest California : a natural history / John O. Sawyer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-23286-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Natural history—California, Northern I. Title. QH105.C2S29 2006 508.794—dc22 2005034485 Manufactured in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 10987654321 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum require- ments of ansi/niso z/39.48-1992 (r 1997) (Permanence of Paper).∞ The Klamath Land of Mountains and Canyons The Klamath Mountains are the home of one of the most exceptional temperate coniferous forest regions in the world. The area’s rich plant and animal life draws naturalists from all over the world. Outdoor enthusiasts enjoy its rugged mountains, its many lakes, its wildernesses, and its wild rivers. Geologists come here to refine the theory of plate tectonics. Yet, the Klamath Mountains are one of the least-known parts of the state. The region’s complex pattern of mountains and rivers creates a bewil- dering set of landscapes.
    [Show full text]