DOCSLIB.ORG

Land Management Plan Forest Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Land Management Plan Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture Land Management Plan Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Part 3 Design Criteria for the R5-MB-080 Southern California National September 2005 Forests Angeles National Forest Cleveland National Forest Los Padres National Forest San Bernardino National Forest 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 TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, Write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover collage contains a photograph by Ken Lubas (lower right), reprinted with permission (copyright, 2005, Los Angeles Times). Land Management Plan Part 3: Design Criteria for Southern California National Forests Angeles National Forest Cleveland National Forest Los Padres National Forest San Bernardino National Forest R5-MB-080 September 2005 Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................................i Tables................................................................................................................................................ iii Document Format Protocols ............................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 PLAN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY (36 CFR 219) ....................................................................3 Vegetation Management Standards..........................................................................................................3 Aesthetic Management Standards ............................................................................................................6 Fish and Wildlife Standards .....................................................................................................................6 Soil, Water, Riparian and Heritage Standards........................................................................................10 Wild and Scenic River Standards...........................................................................................................13 Cultural and Historic Standards .............................................................................................................13 Geographic Place Specific Standards.....................................................................................................14 Other Design Criteria .............................................................................................................................15 Monitoring of Design Criteria................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A - RELEVANT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OTHER MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .....................................................................................................17 Forest Service Directives (Manual and Handbook) ...............................................................................17 Federal Statutes ......................................................................................................................................20 Federal Regulations................................................................................................................................42 Executive Orders....................................................................................................................................44 Executive Memorandums.......................................................................................................................46 Agreements ............................................................................................................................................47 Federal Agency Management Direction ................................................................................................48 State and Local Laws and Regulations ..................................................................................................51 APPENDIX B - MINIMUM IMPACT SUPPRESSION TACTICS (MIST) ....................................55 APPENDIX C - MONITORING REQUIREMENTS......................................................................57 APPENDIX D - ADAPTIVE MITIGATION FOR RECREATION USES ......................................63 APPENDIX E - FIVE-STEP PROJECT SCREENING PROCESS FOR RIPARIAN CONSERVATION AREAS..........................................................................................................65 APPENDIX F - GUIDELINES FOR AERIAL APPLICATION OF RETARDANTS AND FOAMS IN AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS .................................................................................................67 APPENDIX G- GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF BIRD SPECIES AT MOUNTAIN TOP COMMUNICATIONS SITES, USDA FOREST SERVICE........................69 APPENDIX H - SPECIES GUIDANCE SUMMARY....................................................................71 Page i APPENDIX I - LAND ADJUSTMENT PRIORITIZATION GUIDE ..............................................77 Land Acquisitions ................................................................................................................................. 77 Land Conveyances ................................................................................................................................78 Access: .................................................................................................................................................. 78 APPENDIX J - LIVESTOCK CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY GUIDELINES .........................79 APPENDIX K - GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF WUI DEFENSE AND THREAT ZONES ...............................................................................................................81 WUI Defense Zone................................................................................................................................81 WUI Threat Zone .................................................................................................................................. 82 Maintenance .......................................................................................................................................... 83 State Fire Law, County Ordinances, and the Insurance Industry.......................................................... 83 APPENDIX L - GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................85 APPENDIX M - NATIONAL FORESTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WEED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ..............................................................................................................................121 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 121 1. Coordination And Cooperation ....................................................................................................... 122 2. Prevention And Education ............................................................................................................. 125 3. Control/Project Planning................................................................................................................ 127 4. Administration And Planning......................................................................................................... 128 5. Inventory, Mapping And Monitoring............................................................................................. 129 6. Research ......................................................................................................................................... 130 Page ii Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests September 2005 Tables Note: Tables were managed in a database environment, and were assigned unique numbers as their need was identified. Over 500 tables were created. Some tables were later determined to be redundant or unnecessary. The planning team decided not to renumber the tables for publication due to the amount of work required to locate and update every reference to every table. Thus, the table numbers are not consecutive, and a careful review of all documents will reveal that all table numbers were not used in the final documents. Table 3.1. Appropriate Silviculture Systems and Vegetation Treatments by General Forest Type 3 Table 3-2. Livestock Grazing Utilization Standards 12 Table 3-3. Part 1 Monitoring Summary 58 Table 3-4. Part 2 Monitoring Summary 61 Table 3-5. Part 3 Monitoring Summary 62 Page iii Document Format Protocols The following format protocols (font type, size,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Bear Lake Tmdl Action Plan
    BIG BEAR LAKE TMDL ACTION PLAN Prepared for Big Bear Lake Nutrient TMDL Task Force August 26, 2010 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 201 San Diego, California 92123 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Big Bear Lake TMDL Action Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ III LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................ V LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................................... VI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Watershed Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Big Bear Lake Watershed and Lake Characteristics .................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 Big
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Land Management Practices on Conservation Easement Protected Landscapes
    Society & Natural Resources An International Journal ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20 Factors Influencing Land Management Practices on Conservation Easement Protected Landscapes Dianne Stroman & Urs P. Kreuter To cite this article: Dianne Stroman & Urs P. Kreuter (2015) Factors Influencing Land Management Practices on Conservation Easement Protected Landscapes, Society & Natural Resources, 28:8, 891-907, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1024365 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1024365 Published online: 04 Jun 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 337 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20 Download by: [Texas A&M University Libraries] Date: 07 September 2016, At: 09:22 Society & Natural Resources, 28:891–907 Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1024365 Factors Influencing Land Management Practices on Conservation Easement Protected Landscapes DIANNE STROMAN AND URS P. KREUTER Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA The goal of this article is to investigate factors influencing conservation-oriented land management practices on land holdings with conservation easements. We report the results of a mail survey that produced responses from 251 out of a total of 518 landowners with a permanent conservation easement on their property. We predicted that landowner satisfaction with their easement and good relationships between land- owners and easement holders would be positively correlated with the amount of conservation-oriented land management practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Silvicultural Options for Young-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests: the Capitol Forest Study—Establishment and First Results Robert O
    United States Department of Silvicultural Options for Young- Agriculture Forest Service Growth Douglas-Fir Forests: Pacific Northwest Research Station The Capitol Forest Study— General Technical Report Establishment and First Results PNW-GTR-598 April 2004 Editors Robert O. Curtis, emeritus scientist, David D. Marshall, research forester, and Dean S. DeBell, (retired), Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193. Silvicultural Options for Young-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests: The Capitol Forest Study—Establishment and First Results Robert O. Curtis, David D. Marshall, and Dean S. DeBell, Editors U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-598 April 2004 Contributors Kamal M. Ahmed, research associate, University of Washington, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700 Hans Andersen, Ph.D. candidate, University of Washington, College of Forest Re- sources, Box 352112, Seattle, WA 98195-3112 Gordon A. Bradley, professor, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Box 352112, Seattle, WA 98195-3112 Leslie C. Brodie, forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 Andrew B. Carey, wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 Robert O. Curtis, emeritus scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 Terry A. Curtis, photogrammetry supervisor, forester, Washington Department of Natu- ral Resources, Olympia, WA 98501 Dean S.
    [Show full text]
  • H-1703-4, Project Management
    2 H-1703-4 PROJECT MANGEMENT HANDBOOK (Public) This page intentionally left blank. BLM Handbook Rel. 1-1711 04/09/2008 3 H-1703-4 PROJECT MANGEMENT HANDBOOK (Public) This Handbook does not create any right or benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party, person, or any entity against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers, or employees, or any other person or entity. This Handbook does not alter or amend any requirement under statute, regulation, or Executive Order. At the time this Handbook was written, the various hyperlinks referenced in this document were active and accurate. Because of the frequent changes to Websites, it is possible that some of the hyperlinks might become inaccurate and not link to the indicated document or Website. BLM Handbook Rel. 1-1711 04/09/2008 4 H-1703-4 PROJECT MANGEMENT HANDBOOK (Public) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 6 2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW 7 2.1. Project Management in General 7 2.2. Applicable BLM Projects 7 2.3. Purpose and Goals of BLM Project Management 8 2.4. Laws, Regulations, and Authorities 9 3.0 PROJECT LIFECYCLE 11 3.1. Initiation and Development 11 3.1.1. Project Goals and Objectives 15 3.1.2. Site Description, Background, History 15 3.1.3. Programmatic Framework 15 3.1.4. Regulatory Framework/Enforcement Actions 16 3.1.5. Organizational Structure 17 3.1.6. Statement of Work (SOW) 17 3.1.7. Project Team Identification and Responsibilities 18 3.1.7.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Flora of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed, San Bernardino Mountains, California
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281748553 THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA Article · January 2013 CITATIONS READS 0 28 6 authors, including: Naomi S. Fraga Thomas Stoughton Rancho Santa Ana B… Plymouth State Univ… 8 PUBLICATIONS 14 3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Available from: Thomas Stoughton Retrieved on: 24 November 2016 Crossosoma 37(1&2), 2011 9 THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED, SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA Naomi S. Fraga, LeRoy Gross, Duncan Bell, Orlando Mistretta, Justin Wood1, and Tommy Stoughton Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1500 North College Avenue Claremont, California 91711 1Aspen Environmental Group, 201 North First Avenue, Suite 102, Upland, California 91786 [email protected] All Photos by Naomi S. Fraga ABSTRACT: We present an annotated catalogue of the vascular flora of the upper Santa Ana River watershed, in the southern San Bernardino Mountains, in southern California. The catalogue is based on a floristic study, undertaken from 2008 to 2010. Approximately 65 team days were spent in the field and over 5,000 collections were made over the course of the study. The study area is ca. 155 km2 in area (40,000 ac) and ranges in elevation from 1402 m to 3033 m. The study area is botanically diverse with more than 750 taxa documented, including 56 taxa of conservation concern and 81 non-native taxa. Vegetation and habitat types in the area include chaparral, evergreen oak forest and woodland, riparian forest, coniferous forest, montane meadow, and pebble plain habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on the Organizational Structure of Rural Land Stock Cooperative System Based on Game Theory and Network Data
    International Journal of Security and Its Applications Vol. 10, No. 3 (2016), pp.333-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijsia.2016.10.3.29 Study on the Organizational Structure of Rural Land Stock Cooperative System based on Game Theory and Network Data Liang Xiao School of economics and management, Suzhou University, Suzhou city, Anhui province, 234000, China Abstract With the development of economy and society, the agricultural land stock cooperation system is a typical system innovation, which has a significant effect on rural production efficiency. In this paper, we research on the organizational structure of rural land stock cooperative system based on game theory; the result shows that the economic performance of land circulation stock cooperative system is much higher than other land transfer mode. At the same time, the mode of joint-stock cooperative system also has high social performance. By using game theory, we find that farmers tend to passively accept unfair treatment in enterprises based on the consideration of individual benefit, so that governments should effectively implement the macro management functions, and make punishment for the behavior of the enterprise managers' untrue disclosure. In order to improve the agricultural land stock cooperation system, the government should make clear the property right of farmland; promote the scale management of agricultural land and enhance the industrialization of rural areas. Keywords: Rural land circulation; Stock Corporation; Scale operation; Empirical analysis 1. Introduction The rural land stock cooperative system is the reform and innovation of the rural land property rights system in China, and it is a kind of land circulation mode which is explored in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Clear-Cutting on Stream Temperature
    VOL. 6, NO. 4 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH AUGUST 1970 Eects o[ Clear-Cuttingon StreamTemperature GEORGE W. BROWN AND JAMES T. KRYGIER OregonState University, Corvallis,Oregon 97331 Abstract. The principal source of energy for warming streams is the sun. The amount of sunlight reaching the stream may be increasedafter clear-cut logging. Average monthly maximum temperaturesincreased by 14øF and annual maximum temperaturesincreased from 57ø to 85øF one year after clear-cut logging on a small watershedin Oregon'scoast range. In a nearby watershedwhere strips of brush and trees separatedlogging units from the stream, no changesin temperature were observedthat could be attributed to clear- cutting. INTRODUCTION may cause fish mortality [Brett, 1956]. The growth of fish may be directly affectedby water Timber, water, and sport and commercialfish temperature as demonstrated on juvenile coho are the principal resourcesin the Oregon coast salmon [Brett, 1956]. In short, water tempera- range. The need for delineating the areas of ture is a major determinant of the suitability of conflict between logging and utilization of the water for many uses. other resources led to the establishment of the Research has been limited on temperature AlseaLogging-Aquatic Resources Study in 1958. changesin smallstreams from land use,although The purpose of this broadly interdisciplinary fisherybiologists have long been concernedwith study was to determine the effect of logging on the effects of deforestationon water tempera- the physical,chemical, and biologicalcharacter- ture. Meehan et al. [1969] studied the effectsof istics of small coastal streams. clear-cutting on the salmon habitat of two The purposeof this paper is to describethe southeastern Alaska streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Baer Survey Specialist Report Format
    Thomas Fire 2017-2018, Los Padres National Forest BAER Hydrology Report Resource Specialty: Hydrology Fire Name: Thomas Fires Month and Year: December 2017-January 2018 Author(s) Name and Home unit Name: Emily Fudge, Cleveland National Forest Objectives This assessment focused on evaluating possible post-fire hydrologic threats to potential values at risk for the Thomas Fire on the Los Padres National Forest, Santa Barbara County, California. Hydrologic post-fire threats include post-fire flooding, slope instability, and bulking of flows from sediment and debris. Potential threats also include avulsion on depositional fans and catchment outlets due to bulked flows (rapid relocation of channel location); braiding of channels, scour, and channel migration. I. Potential Values at Risk Initial potential Values at Risk (VARs) identified for evaluation for the Thomas Fire are listed below. See VAR spreadsheet in the 2500-8 for detailed list of evaluated values at risk (VARs). During preliminary reconnaissance, it was recognized that whole communities, major highways and roads, and privately owned infrastructure downstream/slope of the Thomas Fire could be affected by post-fire effects. A State Watershed Emergency Response Team (WERT) was tasked with conducting an assessment of VARs on non-FS lands including all these areas. This BAER assessment focuses on VARs owned by the Forest Service or located on FS lands. An initial BAER assessment considered VARs in the Ojai and Wheeler Ridge areas so these areas are excluded from this report. This assessment does not include assessment of post-fire impacts within the Adams Canyon, Harmon Canyon, Arundell Barranca, or Lower Ventura River HUC 6 watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Ventura River
    C ALIFORNIA Ventura River T HREAT: DAM Summary The Risk Matilija Dam not only stands in the way of The Matilija Dam is a 200-foot high concrete the Ventura River’s endangered southern steel- arched structure that is owned by the Ventura head; it also prevents much-needed sand and County Flood Control District. It was built in sediment from flowing downstream and 1947 as part of the river’s flood control system replenishing popular southern California surf- and to provide water for the Ojai Valley. The ing beaches. While it is easy to find wide- dam lacks fish passage, so southern steelhead spread support for removing the dam, it will are blocked from approximately 50 percent of be harder to find money to complete the task. their historical spawning and rearing habitat. Federal, state, and local authorities must agree The fish were listed as endangered under the that removing the dam is a top priority and federal Endangered Species Act in 1997. must work together to find the necessary Because a massive amount of silt has built funds. up behind the structure, Matilija Dam no longer provides flood control benefits and pro- The River vides only minimal water storage capacity. The mainstem of the Ventura River flows The reservoir, which originally held 7,000 approximately 16 miles from the confluence acre-feet of water, now holds only 500 acre- of Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija feet — and the storage capacity continues to Creek (located within the Los Padres National decrease. An estimated 5 million to 7 million Forest) to the Pacific Ocean near the City of cubic yards of sediment is backed up behind Ventura.
    [Show full text]
  • Calyptridium Parryi Var. Martirense (Montiaceae), a New Taxon Endemic to the Sierra De San Pedro Mártir, Baja California, Mexico Author(S): C
    Calyptridium parryi Var. Martirense (Montiaceae), A New Taxon Endemic to the Sierra De San Pedro Mártir, Baja California, Mexico Author(s): C. Matt Guilliams, Michael G. Simpson, and Jon P. Rebman Source: Madroño, 58(4):258-266. 2011. Published By: California Botanical Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3120/0024-9637-58.4.258 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3120/0024-9637-58.4.258 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/ terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. MADRON˜ O, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 258–266, 2011 CALYPTRIDIUM PARRYI VAR. MARTIRENSE (MONTIACEAE), A NEW TAXON ENDEMIC TO THE SIERRA DE SAN PEDRO MA´ RTIR, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO C. MATT GUILLIAMS1 AND MICHAEL G. SIMPSON Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA [email protected] JON P. REBMAN San Diego Natural History Museum, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Decisions on Washington Place Names * Admiralty Inlet
    DECISIONS ON WASHINGTON PLACE NAMES * ADMIRALTY INLET. That part of Puget Sound from Strait of Juan de Fuca to the lines: (1) From southernmost point of Double Bluff, Island County, to the northeast point of Foulweather Bluff, Kit­ sap County, Wash. (2) From northwest point of Foulweather Bluff to Tala Point, Jefferson County, Wash. ANNETTE. Lake, at head of Humpback Creek, west of Silver Peak, King County, Wash. BACON. Creek, tributary to Skagit River northeast of Diobsud Creek, Skagit County, Wash. BEDAL. Creek, tributary to South Fork Sauk River, Snohomish County, Wash. (not Bedel). BIG BEAR. Mountain (altitude, 5,612 feet), south of Three Fing­ ers Mountain and north of Windy Pass, Snohomish County, Wash. BLAKELy. 1 Rock, in Puget Sound, 7 miles west from Seattle, Kitsap County, Wash. (Not Blakeley.) BONANZA. Peak (altitude, 9,500 feet), Chelan County, Wash. (Not Mt. Goode nor North Star Mountain.) CHI KAMIN . Peak (elevation, about 7,000 feet), head of Gold Creek, 2 miles east of Huckleberry Mountain, Kittitas County, Wash. CHINOOK. Pass, T. 16 N., R. 10 E., crossing the summit of the Cascade Range, at head of Chinook Creek, Mount Rainier National Park, Pierce and Yakima Counties, Wash. (Not McQuellan.) CLEAR. Creek, rising in Clear Lake and tributary to Sank River, Ts. 31 and 32 N., Rs. 9 and 10, Snohomish County, Wash. ( ot North Fork of Clear.) DEL CAMPO. Peak, head of Weden Creek, Snohomish County, Wash. (Not Flag.) DIOBSUD. Creek, rising near Mount Watson, and tributary to Skagit River from west, Skagit County, Wash. (Not Diabase nor Diosub.) • A bulletin containing the decisions of the United States Geographic Board from July 1, 1916, to July 1, 1918, has appeared.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 98-425 An
    PUBLIC LAW 98-425-SEPT. 28, 1984 98 STAT. 1619 Public Law 98-425 98th Congress An Act Sept. 28, 1984 Entitled the "California Wilderness Act of 1984". [H.R. 1437] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this title may California Wilderness Act be cited as the "California Wilderness Act of 1984". of 1984. National TITLE I Wilderness Preservation System. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS National Forest System. SEC. 101. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act, National parks, the following lands, as generally depicted on maps, appropriately monuments, etc. referenced, dated July 1980 (except as otherwise dated) are hereby 16 USC 1131 designated as wilderness, and therefore, as components of the Na­ note. tional Wilderness Preservation System- (1)scertain lands in the Lassen National Forest, California,s which comprise approximately one thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Caribou Wilder­ ness Additions-Proposed", and which are hereby incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be a part of the Caribou Wilderness as designated by Public Law 88-577; 16 USC 1131 (2)s certain lands in the Stanislaus and Toiyabe Nationals note. 16 USC 1132 Forests, California, which comprise approximately one hundred note. sixty thousand acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Carson-Iceberg Wilderness-Proposed", dated July 1984, and which shall be known as the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness: Pro­ vided, however, That the designation of the Carson-Iceberg Wil­ derness shall not preclude continued motorized access to those previously existing facilities which are directly related to per­ mitted livestock grazing activities in the Wolf Creek Drainage on the Toiyabe National Forest in the same manner and degree in which such access was occurring as of the date of enactment of this title; (3)scertain lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Cali­ 16 USC 1132 fornia, which comprise approximately seven thousand three note.
    [Show full text]