United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 1989 I Land and Resource Management Plan Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Caring for the Land.. ~~ ~~ ~~ FElS APPENDICES A & I TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A Issues. Concerns and Opportunities Page Introduction ........................................ A-I Issue Identification ....................................... A-1 Consultation with Others ................................ A4 The Screening Process .............................. A-5 How were the Issues Developed in the Public Involvement Process ............................... A-6 Changes in Issues from Draft to Final ................... A-13 Issues to be Addressed by the EIS ....................... A-I 6 How were the Issues Used in the Development of Alternatives ........... A-24 APPENDIX I Response to Public Comments Page 1 Introduction Summary of Public Participation Activities ....................... 1-1-1 Summary of Comments Received. .................................. 1-14 Issues and Public Comment Summary ........................... 1-1-6 Supplement to the DElS ..................................... 1-1-1 1 Responses to Public Comments ............................ 1-1-12 Changes Made in Response to Public Comments .................... 1-1-13 2 List of Respondents ................................... 1-2-1 3. Summary of Comments and Forest Service Responses Subject Area Index........................................ 13-1 Comments and Responses.................................... 1-3-6 4 . Comments from Elected Officials, Agencies and Indian Tribal Governments .............................................. 1-4-1 5 . Newspaper Articles Chronicling Publication of the Draft Documents and Supplement to the DElS .............................. 1-5-1 I APPENDIX I LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Review Period Public Meetings. 1-1-2 1-2 Forest Sewice Presentations . , . 1-1-2 1-3 Sources of Responses. 1-14 14 WhoResponded ... ... .......... ... .... ... ... .. ... 1-1-4 1-5 TypeofResponse. .......... ... ... ........ ....... .. 1-14 1-6 How They Responded - Respondents Preferring a Particular Alternative. ,. 1-1-5 1-7 How They Responed - Respondents Preferring a Particular Alternative (Resource) . , . 1-16 1-8 Summary of Public Comment Received on the Supplement to the DEIS. 1-1-12 i Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities The Management Team agreed to utilize interest Appendix A groups as a starting point. Individuals representing key interests of conservationists, recreationists, sports- men, ranchers, timber industry, and government agencies were invited to identify preliminary issues that could be expanded or refined by a broader au- dience. These key interest groups met with the Forest Interdisciplinary Planning Team (ID Team) at six meetings held during the period of September 27 to October 2,1980. A total of 56 people attended Issues, Concerns, these meetings. From the meetings, 125 preliminary issues, con- and Opportunities cerns, and opportunities (ICO’s) were identified. TheID Team then consolidated theseICO’s into 60 issues and submitted this list to the public alongwith a request for response. A total of 338 copies were mailed to addresses on the Forest’s mailing list, 450 copies were distributed from our oEces, and an- other 2,000 were distributed through bulk mailings Introduction to the rural areas around Bums and Prinenlle, Oregon. This appendix covers the major steps taken to iden- In addition, public involvement was requested through tify public issues, management concerns and re- various news media. Newspapers, radio, and televi- source opportunities considered during the plan- sion participated as listed below: ning process. The appendix IS organized into five Media Title Origin sections: 1) the process used to identify the issues, Newspapers The Newspaper Prineville concerns and opportunities, 2) contacts and consul- The Central Oregonian Prinede tationswithothers, 3) thecriteriaused toscreen the The Burns Herald Burns issues down to the few selected to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 4) The Madras Pioneer Madras changes in the issues between the Draft and Final The Bulletin Bend EIS, and 5) a discussion of the issues and how they The Redmond Redmond were used to formulate alternatives. Spokesman Radio KRCO Prinevdle KBND Bend KICE Bend KZZR Burns Issue Identification Television KTVZ Bend During the Fall of 1980, the Forest began to identify The ID Team also conducted six public meetings to the principal issues to be addressed in the Draft gather additional public comment. These meetings Forest Plan. TheForest Management Team (Forest werein Prineville (two meetings) 11/12/80, Dayville Supervisor, District Rangers, and Forest Staff Offi- 11/13/80, Paulina 11/13/80, and Burns (two meet- cers) decided to try a fresh approach, without a ings) 11/24/80. Five other meetings were held for rehash of old issues from former Unit Plans. The Forest Service employees. previous issues were reviewed but not established as a base. A-1 FElS Appendix A Response from mailings and attendance at themeet- 10. To what extend should off-road vehicle use be ings was as follows: controlled? Mailing Responses - 164 11. Towhat extent should firewood be provided to Attendance at Public Meetings - 52 meet demand? Attendance at Forest Service Employee Meetings - 12. Howmuchhabitatshouldbeprovided forwild- 121 life species dependent on dead trees? 13. To what extent should the Forest and Grass- The ID Team used the information that was gath- land provlde for an expanded trail system? ered to consolidate the issues into resource or land ~ use topics. Seventeen issues were developed from 14. To what extent should the Forest provide for this exercise. Comments that were not clearlyrepre- winter sports activities? sented in these 17 issues were also evaluated by the The interdisciplinary team developed alternative ID Team. managementstrategiesbasedon theseissues.As the In January 1981, these 17 issues were submitted to alternatives were developed two of these issues the public for verification and ranking by intensity. were removed from the preceding list. They were Ranking the issues was useful initially, however, the the off-road vehicle use issue and the trail issue rankings were later dropped when they no longer (numbers 10 and 13). proved meaningful in developing the alternatives. The off-road vehicle use issue, as initially identified The 17 issues were condensed to 14 as a result of the in the public involvement process, was primarily an analysis of the public responses. These 14 issues are issue on the Crooked River National Grassland. It listed below. appeared at the time that the issue could be negoti- 1. What should be the level of timber produc- ated at the local level, outside the Forest and Grass- tion? IandPlans. During thevalidation effort between the Draft and theFmal, the publicandagency interest in 2. Howcan activitieson theForest and Grassland ORV use has increased. The Henderson Flat area benefit social and economic wants and needs of local communities? on the Grassland continues to a controversial area. In addition, some of the local citizenry has voiced 3. What is the appropriatelevel of livestockgraz- concern over resource damage by ORV's on other ing and intensity of range management? areas of the Forest and Grassland. 4. Howshould riparian areas be managed to meet The trail issue was also dropped as a separate issue. various resource needs? As the proposed trail system is closely tied with the 5. What road system should be provided to meet allocation of roadless areas, the two issues were public, commercial and administrative access closely related. On those trails (existing or pro- needs? posed) not part of the roadless area allocation issue, only minor resource interactions were identified, 6. Shouldhabitatbe provided for increased popu- with little affect to the overall management of the lations of big game? Forest and Grassland. 7. How much roadless recreation opportunity In April 1984, three public meetings were held to should be provided? update the issues and acquire additional informa- 8. Should the Forest and Grassland limit the em- tion on unroaded areas. The meetings were held in phasis placed onvisual resources to those areas Prineville (on April 2, 3, and 4) with 29 people of high scenic value? attending. 9. How much old growth habitat should be pro- vided? A-2 After those meetings, the Forest continued to use a ments received on the DEIS did result in the devel- variety of activities to keep its employees and the opment of a new alternative, Alternative I. In addi- local communities informed of the planning proc- tion, Alternatives B and C were modified. ess. We published periodic articles and special edi- A Supplement to the DEIS was prepared in re- tions in our Forest and Grassland report. We pre- sponse to two appeals that took issue with some of pared and distributed a Forest Plan Report. During themethodsusedinForest planningbythe National the summer and fall of 1985 we had multi-resource Forest in the Pacific Northwest. The appellant was media coverage, providing information and educa- concerned with how the “No Action” Alternative tion on Forest management. Through a networking was described, and the methods used to address process, each Management Team member has been Forest planning management requirements. The contacting key individuals in our local communities Supplement described a new alternative, Alterna- and informally