issues, concerns, and opportunities and

A 13.9'?. ?
Si 3/ZaoP./v.I>
Hyr iuulure
Forest Serba
Pacific
Northwest
Region
1987
Appendices- Volume I
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
pro 1-1Ai i 7"ip \/
Proposed Land and Resource
Management Plan
Siskiyou National Forest

LIST OF APPENDICES
VOLUME I
APPENDIX A
ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES AND
PLANNING PROBLEM DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS
APPENDIX C
ROADLESS AREAS
APPENDIX D
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES THAT DIFFER
FROM THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A
P
P
E
N
D
I
x
A
ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES AND
PLANNING PROBLEM DEVELOPMENT

i -s- , .,
.40' - _
i -
I
APPENDIX A
ISSUES. CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES AND
PLANNING PROBLEM DEVELOPMENT
__m
I
I ~~~~~~I
An.;
s

APPENDIX A
ISSUES. CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES AND
PLANNING PROBLEM DEVELOPMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Page
INTRODUCTION A-1
IDENTIFICATION PROCESS A-1
ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES A-2
Public Issues A-2
Timber Management A-2
Use of Herbicides on Forest Lands A-3
Old-Growth Forest A-3
Residue Management A-3
Departure from Nondeclining Evenflow A-3
Wildlife Habitat A-4
Soils A-4
Wild and Scenic Rivers A-5
Sensitive Plants A-5
Fisheries A-5
Visual Resources A-5
Roads A-6
Minerals A-6
Recreation A-6
Water A-7
Wilderness and Unroaded Areas A-7
Hardwood Conversion A-7
Management Concerns A-8
Opportunities A-9
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANNING
PROBLEMS A-13
Planning Problems A-14
Issues Not Addressed by the Planning Problems A-17
A-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Title
ABILITY TO RESOLVE PLANNING PROBLEMS
AND KEY INDICATORS OF RESOLUTION
Planning Problem 1
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 2
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 3
Ability to Resolve
Ability to Resolve
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 4
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 5
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 6
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 7
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 8
Ability to Resolve
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Planning Problem 9
Ability to Resolve
Key Indicators
Ralationship Betwee
- Fish Habitat
- Water
- Soil Productivity
- Wilderness
- Unroaded
n Planning Problems
CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS
Other Agencies and Indian Tribes
Other Interest Groups
Page
A-18
A-18
A-18
A-19
A-19
A-19
A-19
A-20
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-22
A-23
A-23
A-23
A-24
A-24
A-24
A-24
A-24
A-25
A-25
A-25
A-26
A-26
A-27
A-27
A-27
A-27
A-27
A-28
A-28
A-30
A-30
A-35
A-i.

INTRODUCTION This appendix discusses: 1) the process used to identify the
issues, concerns, and opportunities (ICO's); 2) the list of ICO's
identified; 3) development of the Planning Problems to be
addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); 4)
the Forest's ability to resolve the Planning Problems including
the indicators used to measure resolution; and 5) the consultation
with other agencies, groups, and individuals.
The different preferences of individuals and groups, and the
physical, biological, and legal limits of Forest management are
present in the issues and concerns which guide the Forest planning
process. A public issue is a subject or question of widespread
public interest relating to management of the National Forest
System Land (NFS).
A management concern is an issue, problem, or a condition which
constrains the range of management practices identified by the
Forest Service in the planning process.
A third component influencing alternatives comes from the various
resource use and development opportunities suggested by both the
public and the Forest Service. These resource use and development
opportunities are the basis of many of the issues and concerns
identified here. The opportunities to preserve or develop and use
the resources of the National Forest are the focus of many of the
Agency's programs, and are the principal focus of the management
alternatives presented in the DEIS.
The ICO's have been further analyzed and grouped or restated in
the Planning Problems, posed as questions relating to resource
outputs or conditions that can be used to guide the development
and evaluation of alternatives. The Forest's ability to resolve
the Planning Problems depends on the relationships of the outputs
and conditions and responses to various management options.
Measurable outputs or conditions have been identified for use as
key indicators of the Forest's potential, and of the degree of
problem resolution under each alternative.
IDENTIFICA-
TION PROCESS
The information needed to identify the ICO's was collected and
refined throughout the entire planning effort. The process
started in the spring of 1979 when a list of potential ICO's was
developed from previous public comments on Forest management
problems. Several meetings with Forest Service employees and the
public contributed to the further development of these ICO's.
These meetings took place in the Oregon communities of Grants
Pass, Brookings, Gold Beach, Cave Junction, Port Orford, Coquille,
and Powers. On January 15, 1980, the ICO's were published as a
Forest Plan Report and sent to a wide variety of interested
citizens and groups; and state, county, and Federal agencies in
Oregon and California.
Following the distribution of this list of ICO's, additional
meetings were held and contacts made to allow for review and
discussion. Using all of the information gathered, the ICO's were
A-I

ISSUES,
CONCERNS,
AND
OPPORTUNITIES
PUBLIC
ISSUES
modified and semi-finalized in June 1980. Starting with this
tentative list, all of the potential ICO's and modifications were
screened, using the following criteria, to determine their
applicability for address during the Forest planning process:
1. Is the potential ICO within the authority of the Forest
Service to resolve, or does it belong to another agency?
2. Is the potential ICO covered by laws and regulations which
block Forest Service Action?
3. Is the potential ICO of such a nature that changing Forest
Service Management Direction will affect it?
4. Is the potential ICO of a nature that it should be addressed
in a separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or
Environmental Assessment (EA)?
5. Is the potential ICO of a short-term nature that will be
resolved through normal management and, therefore, does not
need to be addressed in the Forest planning process?
On December 1, 1980, a slightly modified list of ICO's was adopted
for Forest planning purposes and released to the public.
Following the pause in Forest Planning, the ICO's were reanalyzed
in October 1983. Two new issues were subsequently added. One is
the issue concerning wilderness and the management of unroaded
areas which resurfaced following the Court decision that the RARE
II analysis was inadequate. The other deals with the conversion
of hardwood stands to conifers which received more attention due
to the energy shortage and recognition of the potential to utilize
the hardwood volume under future markets and technology. Only
minor revision and editing has occurred since.
1. How should the Forest manage its timber lands? Should current
management practices be intensified, relaxed, or maintained?
Many individuals and several interest groups feel that the Forest
has an obligation to sustain regional and local economies by:
1) maintaining or increasing annual Forest timber harvests;
2) conserving the commercial forest land (CFL) base; and, 3) using
intensive timber management practices to maximize timber yields.
Timber
Management
Conversely, there is concern about the potential effects of
intensive timber management on other resources and the ability of
the Forest to maintain plant and animal species diversity,
reforest harvested timber lands, and reach predicted timber
harvest levels in the future. To benefit wildlife and recreation
resources, many feel that the Forest should reduce the amount of
timber harvested each year and thus reduce the rate of forest
change.
Associated concerns are: (1) that lands with relatively low
productivity should not be included in the Forest CFL base, and
A-2

Use of
Herbicides on
Forest Lands
(2) that economic criteria and analysis should be incorporated in
the evaluation of timber harvest and other management options.
The economic feasibility of using optimum silvicultural methods
and requiring superior logging systems has also been questioned.
2. Should herbicides continue to be used on the Siskiyou National
Forest? Some people are concerned about the entry of herbicides
into the forest environment and potential effects on human
health. There is demand for consideration of alternative methods
of vegetation management. There are also potential social and
economic impacts to consider that would result from possible
reductions in yields in the absence of herbicide use. The debate
includes numerous other variables which are addressed in Regional
and Forest vegetation management program documents.
Old-Growth
Forest
3. How much old-growth acreage should be preserved? Controversy
over harvesting old-growth trees has risen sharply over the last
few years. The reduction in old-growth acreage affects: the
suitable habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife and plant
species, opportunities for recreational enjoyment of old growth,
and the ecological diversity associated with old-growth stands.
Preserving old-growth stands would reduce the volume available for
timber harvest. There is also concern that potential volume
production is lost due to slow growth or decay and mortality in
the mature or old-growth stands. Some people suggest that these
stands should be regenerated at an even faster rate to avoid these
losses.
Residue
Management
4. At issue are: 1) What are the acceptable limits of residue
abatement?; and, 2) What are the methods of disposal of timber
harvest residues to meet these limits economically, without
damaging other resources or exceeding air and water quality
constraints? The large amount of residue remaining after timber
harvest has many potential uses. Many people prefer to more fully
utilize this material through providing firewood or other
miscellaneous products. Disposal of these harvest residues can
impact other resources and affect land productivity.
Some people feel that the hazard of a catastrophic fire may be
greatly increased if forest managers do not sufficiently treat
residues because of difficulties in complying with economic and
environmental guidelines. Others believe that the risks
associated with the activity fuels do not pose as serious a risk
in many instances as has been suggested.
Departure
from
Nondeclining
Evenflow
5. Should the Siskiyou National Forest depart from a nondeclining
evenflow harvest schedule? If so, how much, and what would be the
effects of such a departure on Forest resources and on local
communities now and in the future? State and local industry
projections indicate approximately a two decade period when
harvestable volume available on private forest lands will be at a
low level. Departure on Federal land has been suggested as a
A-3

means to fill this void. Secondly, departure could be used to
maintain historic Forest harvest levels for the next two decades,
even though additions to the Wilderness System within the last ten
years have reduced the land base available for timber management
(departure could be used similarly for alternatives that allocate
additional land to other uses). There is also the opportunity to
increase the level of timber production by regenerating the mature
stands at a faster rate.
Departing from nondeclining evenflow would set up an inevitable
decline in harvest levels in the future. Many feel that the
Forest should not be managed to provide present benefits at the
expense of the future. There is also concern among some that
second growth stands will not be available for harvest as early as
projected and the falldown in the future could be greater than
expected. Some also feel that accelerating the harvest schedule
by departure would increase the risk of adverse environmental
impacts.
Wildlife 6. The issue of management of wildlife habitat on the Siskiyou
Habitat National Forest is two-fold: 1) How to preserve and manage a
diversity of wildlife habitats enough to maintain self-sustaining
populations of all native animal species (endangered, threatened,
or sensitive species being especially important); and, 2) how to
manage big-game habitat to provide quality experiences for an
increasing number of big-game hunters (100 percent increase since
1960). There is particular concern for species, such as the
spotted owl, which are dependent on specific seral stages.
Management of lands for timber production has the potential to
reduce some seral stages or create an imbalance of habitats that
would be detrimental to some species. There is also concern for
species with specific habitat requirements such as snags, meadows,
and rock cliffs or talus.
There is also interest in providing habitat for big game species
to support populations capable of supplying the demand for hunting
opportunities. Considerations are for maintaining a balance of
forage and cover habitats through time as various management
activities are carried out.
Soils
7. What are the impacts management activities can have on Forest
soils? The soils on the Siskiyou National Forest are developed
from complex geologic material of the Klamath Mountain and Coast
Range Geologic Provinces. Many highly unstable geologic
formations and steep, rugged topography typifies this mountainous
area. Management activities can affect soils through compaction,
displacement, disruption of nutrient cycles, movement of unstable
or high rock fragment soils, reduction in available soil moisture
for plant growth, and increased erosion and sedimentation.
A considerable portion of the available timber land base has been
classified as unsuitable due to extremes of the above conditions.
Intensive inventory and evaluations by specialists in project
activity and application of numerous Best Management Practices
A-4

(BPA), accompanied by constraints in planning, layout, and design,
have added to the cost of managing these sensitive lands.
Wild and
Scenic
Rivers
8. How can conflicts between users on the Rogue and Illinois Wild
and Scenic Rivers be minimized? Should the inventoried Chetco and
North Fork Smith Rivers be recommended for additions to the
National Wild and Scenic River System?
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act sets management direction and may
limit some previously unregulated uses. Concerns of users can be
categorized as follows: 1) The levels of recreation use, 2) the
allocations of use, 3) power boats in the "Wild" segment, 4) need
for use regulations on other segments, and 5) allocation of
viewsheds outside the corridor to meet visual quality objectives.
The second part of this issue deals with the two inventoried
rivers in the extreme southwestern part of Oregon. The North Fork
Smith River is a Wild and Scenic River in California; but upriver,
the Siskiyou National Forest segment of this river has not been
designated. The Chetco River is also included in the National
Park Service Nationwide River Inventory. Both rivers require a
suitability evaluation to determine whether they should be
recommended for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
Sensitive
Plants
Fisheries
Visual
Resources
9. How can the habitat of sensitive plants be protected from
damage or loss resulting from management activities, such as
timber harvest and road building? The unique geologic and
climatic history of the Siskiyou Mountains of southwest Oregon and
northwest California has resulted in the evolution of a number of
unusual plants, either not found elsewhere, or occurring here at
the limits of their range. Many sensitive plants occur within the
Siskiyou National Forest boundary. The range of some of these
plants lies almost entirely within the Forest. Many of these
plants occupy fragile ecosystems which may not be restorable once
altered by Forest activities.
10. How can the Forest prevent or minimize fish habitat
degradation resulting from management activities and maintain or
improve current fish production levels? Fish habitat on the
Siskiyou National Forest supports one of the most economically
valuable fisheries in the United States. Segments of the public,
including sport and commercial fishermen, are worried that
spawning, rearing, and migration habitat is being adversely
affected by timber harvest and road building, and fear that fish
production from the Forest will decline as a result of these
activities.
11. Issues are: 1) How should Forest scenic values be protected,
and to what degree?; and, 2) What costs and impacts to other
Forest management activities are acceptable to protect these
values? As timber harvest and road construction activities enter
new areas, changes in the scenic resource become more apparent.
The visual resource management issue revolves around the degree of
A-5

protection scenic values should be given and the costs and impacts
of visual resource management on other Forest activities; in
particular, reductions in the annual timber harvest and associated
costs of implementing visual management activities.
Roads 12. There is little public understanding and support of road
management objectives of the Forest road system, the economic
rationale behind Forest road construction, and the diversity of
road standards and the purposes of each. The array of road
management objectives may be confusing to the public. Some users
see all roads to, or within, the Forest as "forestry roads"
available for their use at their convenience. The differences in
standards of width, surfacing, grades, safety, and comfort are
confusing. Road closures may protect one resource, while
conflicting with or restricting use of another. Logging traffic
may create hazards for recreation traffic, and vice versa. The
economics of road construction often appear unreasonable. Some
road users see the standards of the roads as either too high or
not sophisticated enough for their particular purposes.
As management of the road system is intensified and some roads are
closed to meet specific objectives or reduce maintenance costs,
public concern will increase.
Minerals 13. How should Forest lands with mineral potential be
allocated? How should the environmental impacts of mining on
other Forest resources be mitigated? Utilization of mineral
resources is increasing in importance. The issue raised by the
mining industry is the allocation of lands with mineral potential
to uses which prohibit or severely limit mining. They also fear
environmental constraints imposed by work and restoration plans.
To other segments of the public, environmental impacts associated
with mineral extraction, processing, and reclamation are the
issues. Some groups are apprehensive about the potential social
change in communities as the mining industry grows, and of the
potential for degradation of air and water quality.
Recreation 14. How should the Forest provide a wide spectrum of recreation
opportunities ranging from developed facilities to primitive
experiences? The public is concerned about the impacts of other
management activities on recreational opportunities. There is
particular interest in maintaining, restoring, and expanding the
trail system; both day-loop trails close to population centers,
and trails with more primitive settings in the wilderness or
unroaded areas.
Availability of land contributing to the primitive spectrum of
recreation experience is limited in Oregon. While the Forest has
a sizeable block of land offering a very primitive experience,
some of this area is subject to change from timber harvest and
roading activity. Concern has been expressed as to the uniqueness
of this type of remote experience and the essentially irreversible
nature of the decision once development has occurred.
A-6

Water 15. How should the Forest maintain a sufficient quantity of
clean, cool water for domestic use and fish and wildlife needs?
The development, management, and use of other forest resources may
degrade water quality through increased siltation, water
temperature, and potential for chemical contamination. Timber
harvest, road construction, mining, and other activities have the
potential to adversely affect water quality.
Forest management practices can also affect the quantity and
timing of water leaving the Forest through alterations in
vegetative cover and subsequent changes in ground water recharge
and release. Some people dependent on water supply or residing
within floodplains affected by upslope activities are concerned
about both flow being diminished during critical low flow periods
and the potential for increased flooding during winter storms.
Wilderness
and Unroaded
Areas
16. How much wilderness should be preserved on the Siskiyou?
What should be the degree of development (such as trails and
campsites), and how should wilderness values be protected? How
should the presently unroaded areas outside of the Wildernesses be
managed; how much and which parts of these areas should be
developed for timber or mineral production?
Some people feel that additions should be made to the existing
Wildernesses. Even though the Oregon and California Wilderness
Acts of 1984 preclude designation of additional wilderness during
this planning period, the issue still remains as to the
appropriate management direction for the unroaded areas of the
Forest. Many people feel that all or part of the areas should be
allocated to uses that would not allow road construction, thus
preserving their primitive nature. Others are concerned with the
effects that such designations might have on the Forest's ability
to provide other resources and sustain timber harvest levels.
Hardwood
Conversion
The public also wants the Forest Plan to address management of
existing Wildernesses. There is concern for the management of
recreation opportunities through trail construction and
reconstruction, and for the role of fire in wilderness
management.
17. Should the Forest convert areas of available suitable timber
land that are occupied by hardwoods (primarily tanoak) to conifer
production? This issue has surfaced because many people are
concerned with the amount of hardwood volume that is lost in the
conversion process. They feel that this material could provide a
useful product in the future, and that it is wasteful to convert
the acres to conifer production. Others disagree, feeling that
the economic benefits - now and in the future - resulting from
increased commercial conifer production are important enough to
warrant conversion of these stands, even though much of the
hardwood material may not be utilized.
A-7

Many people are also concerned about the role of hardwoods in the
ecosystem; providing vegetation diversity, wildlife habitat, and
aesthetic variety. The value of these areas for wildlife has been
receiving increasingly more attention. There is also concern
about soil and watershed impacts resulting from disposing of the
heavy fuels created by the conversion projects.
MANAGEMENT
CONCERNS
The identified Management Concerns are as follows:
1. Provide goods and services efficiently.
2. Produce a sustained timber and wood fiber output.
3. Manage and utilize range resources and improve range grazing.
4. Manage fire to improve and protect resources.
5. Protect resources from disease, pests, and similar threats.
Of special concern is Phytophthera lateralis root rot in
Port-Orford-cedar.
6. Enhance water quality and quantity, soil productivity, and
restore optimum watershed conditions where degradation has
occurred.
7. Adjust land ownership as needed to support resource
management goals.
8. Provide various recreation opportunities.
9. Maintain or improve fish and wildlife habitat.
10. Maintain or improve critical and essential habitats of
endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant and animal
species.
11. Assess probabilities of mineral exploration and development
for immediate and future needs, and consider nonrenewable
resources in the management of renewable natural resources.
12. Construct, operate, and maintain transportation facilities in
a cost effective way while minimizing impacts on other
resources.
13. Identify, maintain, and enhance visual quality.
14. Require corridors, to the extent practicable, to minimize
adverse impacts caused by the proliferation of separate
rights-of-way.
15. Discover, manage, protect, and interpret cultural sites that
are in, or may qualify for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historic Places.
A-8

16. Identify typical examples of important botanical, aquatic,
and geologic types; and protect them through establishment of
Research Natural Areas, other special area designations, or
through management prescriptions.
17. Provide for various wilderness management options.
OPPORTUNITIES The following opportunities have also been identified.
1. The Forest has the opportunity to increase timber growth and
harvest levels through intensive management and timber
harvest scheduling.
Also, through intensive timber management, the Forest has the
opportunity to improve the visual qualities of the Forest and
to improve the habitat and distribution of some kinds of
wildlife.
Use of integrated pest management methods is an opportunity
to minimize the impact of dwarf mistletoe, root rot, and
other diseases on timber, and thereby extend the available
timber supply.
2. Through the use of herbicides, the Forest has the opportunity
to maintain and increase timber growth and harvest levels at
least cost.
Through development and use of other than chemical treatments
in vegetation management, the Forest may have opportunities
to reduce herbicide use and create more employment where
costs and effectiveness are comparable.
3. Forest managers have the opportunity to maintain adequate
habitat for old-growth-dependent wildlife, and maintain
opportunities for recreational enjoyment of old-growth
stands. Opportunities exists for preservation of old-growth
stands near roads for public enjoyment.
4. Forest residues which remain after harvesting and hardwood
conversion projects may provide an energy source for either
private or commercial use. Increasing firewood demands
should improve utilization while reducing dependency on
fossil fuel sources.
The use of advanced logging techniques, such as directional
felling and lining of trees, is an opportunity to improve the
utilization of the standing timber. Reductions in the amount
of residue created and better utilization of that residue
could result in less need to dispose of residues by burning,
and consequently reduce air quality impacts.
5. Increased timber harvests might simultaneously help supply
the Nation and world market needs while increasing annual
growth through conversions to managed stand conditions.
A-9

Increased timber harvest might increase local employment and
improve local economic stability at a time when the timber
supply from private lands is declining.
6. The opportunity exists to work more closely with the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife to improve management of fish
and wildlife habitat on the Forest.
Management can increase opportunities for viewing wildlife
(nature trails, habitat manipulation, nest boxes, etc.)
Within available budgets, maintenance of improvements and
development of new improvements for wildlife habitat can be
more actively pursued.
a. Specific habitat improvement practices can be further
evaluated and implemented, i.e., topping live wildlife
trees to prevent blowdown; leaving some brush piles in
areas where harvest residues are handpiled.
b. With careful planning, the opportunity exists to
maintain or improve some wildlife habitat through timber
harvesting, reforestation, and hardwood conversion
projects.
c. Special areas can be managed for specific wildlife
needs.
d. Temporary or permanent road closures can be used to
minimize disturbance of wildlife habitat by timber
harvesting, reforestation, and hardwood conversion
projects.
e. With careful planning, future shortfalls of specific
seral stages/habitat types, such as brushfields, can be
avoided.
f. The opportunity exists to cooperate with Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and private landowners
in managing elk habitat.
g. Low intensity wildfires can be allowed to burn under
controlled conditions in key wildlife habitat areas to
increase grass, forb, and shrub production.
h. Undisturbed areas can be connected by corridors of
suitable habitat that is needed for species that are
dependent on mature and old-growth timber.
i. Range management and range rehabilitation practices can
be implemented to better balance livestock- and
wildlife-use range areas.
A-10

j. Habitat improvement projects can be implemented in
Wildernesses, providing that they maintain the natural
character of the area and meet Wilderness Preservation
Act requirements.
7. Fertilizers can be used to improve the nutrient status and
productivity of soils. Additionally, nitrogen-fixing plants
can be interplanted with timber species to increase
fertility.
Bare soil areas can be revegetated with native plant species
to decrease erosion, logging slash could be chipped and used
as a soil mulch to cover bare soil areas.
8. River management opportunities are limited to those allowable
under direction of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Management plans may establish varying degrees of protection
and development, based on the special attributes of the
area. The Forest could nominate other rivers for possible
addition in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system.
9. In cooperation with acknowledged scientific and research
groups, a long-range plan can be developed to inventory
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants on Federal and
State lists. On a continuing basis with the same groups, the
Forest can assess the threats to endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species in areas proposed for timber harvesting,
other developments, chemical use, or mining.
The Forest can develop programs which inform the public about
the values and needs of endangered, threatened, or sensitive
plants. These plants can be further protected from
collectors. In some cases, this may be accomplished by
restricting vehicle access.
The Forest has the opportunity to identify critical areas of
endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants, and set aside
additional Botanical areas or Research Natural Areas for
these species. Training of Forest personnel can aid in
protecting these plants through being alert for certain
indicator species and habitat types, and in prescribing
appropriate measures to provide protection.
10. Fisheries habitat maintenance opportunities involve: 1)
managing habitat to reduce the adverse impacts of water
temperature increases and sedimentation, 2) managing further
water withdrawal from Forest lands to provide for fish
habitat needs, and 3) assuring that proposed stream crossings
will not obstruct upstream fish passage, or create
unacceptable alterations of the riparian habitat.
Habitat improvement opportunities exist for 1) spawning, 2)
rearing, and 3) migration.
A-l1

Habitat assessment opportunities exist for 1) completion or
updating of Forest stream surveys for determination of
fishery potentials of both fish and habitat, and 2) working
with the State fish and wildlife agencies and local sportsmen
during establishment of instream flow needs for salmonid fish
species and development of long-range fish habitat
improvement plans.
11. The Forest can maintain and/or rehabilitate the scenery in
selected areas that have been impacted. Existing visual
impacts that are determined unacceptable can be rehabilitated
to meet resource objectives. The opportunity exists to
enhance landscapes, where warranted, by creating or retaining
variety.
12. Informing the public of Forest Service road management
objectives and implementation can reduce user conflicts and
gain an appreciation for the services provided by a well
thought out system.
The Forest can identify, develop, and implement alternatives
to minimize the need for construction of more roads by
careful integration of logging and transportation systems.
13. Eden Ridge coal deposits can contribute to meeting energy
needs of the local area and the nation.
Rehabilitation of mining areas for other resource purposes,
such as wildlife and recreation, is an opportunity. Mining
spoils can be used for road construction and maintenance
needs. Administrative withdrawals can be actively pursued
when needed to protect sensitive areas or resources.
14. More trails may be nominated to the National Recreation Trail
System. There is an opportunity to provide a trail guide or
directory.
More information on possible recreation opportunities can be
made available through various means. Self-guided tour
routes, development of water-oriented recreation sites, and
developing recreation facilities for the handicapped provide
other avenues for dealing with increased recreation demands.
Information can be coordinated with Oregon State Parks. A
number of additional recreation sites can be developed.
Trails within the Wildernesses can be proposed; many can be
upgraded. Local interest groups can be utilized in proposing
trail projects and priorities. Timber Sale Area Improvement
funds can be used to relocate and rehabilitate trails
affected by harvest activities. The trail system can be
expanded - including day-use trails.
A-12

15. Increasing demand for clean water of sufficient quantities
presents opportunities to:
a. Assess feasibility of developing upstream reservoirs to
meet low-flow and temperature regulation demands.
b. Increase efforts to stabilize and revegetate slides,
eroding streambanks, and roads.
c. Rehabilitate streams and fish habitat through debris
removal.
d. Develop guidelines to regulate the rate of cutting in a
given watershed to reduce cumulative impacts on water
quality and quantity.
e. Develop water production goals for specific drainages to
lessen impacts of water withdrawals on instream flows
and aquatic life.
DEVELOPMENT The ICO's and their different elements described above were
OF THE
analyzed to determine how they could best be addressed in the
PLANNING planning process, or if they should be deferred for resolution
PROBLEMS elsewhere. Three possible approaches to the resolution of each
element are:
1. Deferring resolution to a separate EIS.
2. Developing appropriate Standards and Guidelines that would
satisfy the concerns and resolve the issue through
implementation of any alternative.
3. Treating the element differently in various alternatives and
measuring the effects to provide the basis for identifying
the alternative which best resolves the issue.
The first method is appropriate for issues that are, or will be,
dealt with in separate EA's and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) documents. The second method is appropriate for ICO's that
do not involve land allocation or scheduling decisions, or where
choices do not exist. Where this is not the case, the ICO's are
best addressed by using the third method, i.e., developing various
alternatives which provide choices about the provision of various
quantities of each resource over time. Often, resolution can best
be reached by using both methods two and three.
Many of the elements in the ICO's are closely related. To
facilitate addressing these items, they have been grouped or
restated in the following Planning Problems, posed as questions
regarding resource management options. These questions can be
used to guide the development and evaluation of alternatives, and
to aid in the establishment of Standards and Guidelines.
A- 13

PLANNING 1. How Much Timber Should the Forest Produce?
PROBLEMS (addresses Issues 1, 4, 5, and 17)
This Planning Problem involves allocation of forest land to timber
production, and the selection of management intensities including
harvest schedules and treatments such as commercial thinning and
site preparation. Potential timber production of lands allocated
to management that emphasizes other uses is also considered.
This problem encompasses the question of whether the Forest should
harvest timber on an NDY schedule, or harvest at a higher level in
the near future and plan for a decline in harvest volume in future
decades.
Resolution of this problem also involves the consideration of
opportunities to convert shrub and hardwood stands to timber
producing conifer stands.
Another element in this Planning Problem is the cost, hazards,
utilization factors, and environmental impacts of treating
residues created by timber harvest or stand conversion.
2. How Much Old-Growth Forest Should be Preserved?
(addresses Issue 3)
This problem deals with the amount and location of old growth to
preserve for various reasons including: providing habitat for
certain species of wildlife, maintaining the aesthetic quality of
large old trees and forests, and retaining portions of the Forest
in these older stages as part of the natural ecology of the area.
3. How Can the Forest's Fish Habitat, Water Quality and Soil
Productivity be Maintained or Improved?
(addresses Issues 7, 10, and 15)
Fish habitat depends on water quality. Water temperature and
sedimentation are critical to maintenance and protection of the
Forest fisheries habitat. Soil erosion and vegetative cover along
streams are extremely important aspects in providing for fisheries
and other riparian values. Management of the soil and water
resources (termed watershed management) are closely tied with
fisheries management on this Forest. These interrelated resources
are considered in the same Planning Problem.
This problem deals with the potential impacts of timber
harvesting, and roading activities on fish habitat, soil, and
water resources. In addition to management practices to avoid
sedimentation and provide high quality water, there is also
concern for maintaining or enhancing soil productivity.
Capital expenditures for fish habitat improvement (principally
rearing pools) are also considered.
A-14

4. How, and to What Extent, Should Lands In and Adjacent to River
Corridors Be Managed to Protect, Preserve, and Enhance Wild and
Scenic River Attributes?
(addresses Issue 8)
Parts of two rivers that flow through the Forest have received
designation as National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Two other rivers
included in the Inventory of Wild and Scenic River candidates will
be studied in this DEIS and a recommendation for management will
be made.
This Planning Problem includes three elements in this analysis:
1) What management direction for the Recreation, Scenic, and Wild
sections of the two National Wild and Scenic Rivers, the Rogue and
Illinois, needs to be established or reaffirmed?; 2) Will the
Forest recommend designation of either of the inventoried rivers,
the North Fork Smith or Chetco as Wild and Scenic?; and, 3) What
should land management direction be for lands adjacent to the
corridors of the inventoried and classified Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
This problem considers the effects activities such as timber
harvest and road construction could have on the recreational
setting if these practices are allowed within sight and sound of
the rivers. Land management decisions for areas within the
viewshed of, or directly adjacent to, inventoried and classified
rivers must take into account possible repercussions on the values
for which each river segment is identified.
Levels of permissible use and the distribution among various user
groups will not be addressed in this analysis. A five-agency
management group, including the Forest Service, is responsible for
determining use capacities on the Rogue to sustain the values for
which it was nominated. Capacities, and distribution among users,
for the Illinois were determined through the development of a
River Management Plan completed in 1985.
For this analysis, land management decisions within the actual
river corridors are limited to the assignment of visual management
objectives for site-disturbing activities, trail development
schedules, and the specification of standards and guidelines.
Development of the DEIS for the Forest Plan (particularly Appendix
E) will provide the suitability evaluation for the Chetco and
North Fork Smith Rivers'. Determination of suitability is the
final step in the river assessment process. It provides the basis
for the recommendation of designation or nondesignation of each
river. If the preferred alternative contains a recommendation for
National designation, a Water Resource Council's Principles and
Standards analysis will be prepared for the legislative Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to be sent to Congress.
A-15

5. How Should Sensitive Plant Resources be Managed?
(addresses Issue 9)
This Planning Problem involves the consideration of designating
various sites as Botanical areas or Research Natural Areas.
Sensitive plants and their habitat will also be addressed though
standards to guide project design that will apply to all
alternatives.
6. How, and To What Degree, Should Forest Scenic Values Be
Protected Through Visual Resource Management?
(addresses Issue 11)
This Planning Problem considers the degree of protection scenic
values are given and the costs and impacts of visual resource
management on other activities. The Forest has been inventoried
according to the visual management system and stratified by
potential Visual Quality Objectives (VQO's) based on the character
and variety of the landscape, viewer sensitivity, and distance
from the viewer. The inventoried VQO's are used as a guideline
for current management. This planning analysis considers options
of adopting these inventoried objectives as standards for
management on all or part of the Forest. The Forest has been
stratified into viewsheds of contiguous areas that are viewed from
specific travelways or viewpoints and would be logically managed
to meet consistent objectives. This problem involves the question
of how many and which viewsheds should be allocated to meet the
inventoried VQO's.
7. How Should Wildlife Habitats on the Forest be Managed?
(addresses Issue 6)
The controversy in the wildlife question is not found in the
desirability of maintaining diverse and healthy populations, but
in the management actions needed to accomplish this objective.
Vegetation altering activities such as timber harvest change the
character of the habitat and its ability to provide for various
species. Activities are often beneficial for some species and
detrimental for others. Populations, such as big game, benefit
from increased forage produced in harvest units; while populations
of species dependent on mature or old-growth forest may decline.
Cavity nesting species are also impacted by removal of snags and
hollow trees.
Several wildlife species groups have been identified to address
their habitat needs. These groups include: 1) species dependent
on specialized habitat conditions, such as cavity nesting bird
populations; 2) species requiring a particular seral stage, such
as grass/forb or old growth; 3) popular game species; and 4)
endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. Eight indicator
species have been selected to represent critical habitat needs.
The problem is to identify the appropriate balance of habitats
that should be maintained, and the acceptable level of effect on
A-16

timber production resulting from wildlife management
prescriptions.
8. How Will Management Direction Affect Recreation Opportunities
in the Wilderness and Unroaded areas?
(addresses Issues 14, and 16)
This Planning Problem deals with management of the existing
Wildernesses, and with the allocation and management of remaining
unroaded areas.
Wilderness and unroaded areas provide the only Primitive and
Semi-primitive Non-motorized recreation experiences on the
Forest. Under current management direction, all presently
unroaded areas are expected to be developed within the next two
decades leaving existing Wildernesses to supply Primitive and
Semi-primitive Non-motorized recreation. Based on projected
increases in use, by the year 2020 demand is expected to exceed
the capacity of the Wildernesses to provide these forms of
recreational experience.
Management options in Wildernesses range from closure of existing
trails and campsites to actions that increase capacity and
disperse users. Trail development, maintenance, or improvement;
and the use of fire as a management tool are the principal
mechanisms for changing the use and capacity while maintaining
opportunities for quality experiences.
This problem considers the management direction and capital
investment schedules for Wildernesses. It also considers the
location and number of acres of unroaded areas allocated to
management that would maintain their undeveloped status.
9. How Should Mineral Resources of the Forest be Developed in
Coordination with Management of Other Resources?
(addresses Issue 13)
This problem deals primarily with the amount of acres allocated to
uses that include, or preclude, road access that would affect the
efficiency of mineral exploration or extraction. Future options
could be limited by the amount of the Forest remaining unroaded,
and by the areas allocated to other uses that would not be
complimentary to mineral development.
ISSUES NOT 2. Herbicide Use.
ADDRESSED
BY THE
This issue will not be considered for resolution in this
PLANNING analysis. It has been and will continue to be dealt with in
PROBLEMS separate EA and NEPA documents at the Regional level. Any
additional consideration of this issue would be through similar
processes at that level, or through environmental assessments
tiering to these documents. The estimated timber outputs with or
without the availability of chemical release will be calculated
A-17

and the harvest level adjusted appropriately during implementation
and monitoring.
12. Roads.
This issue is not dealt with as a Planning Problem. General
direction for road standards and road closures are incorporated in
each alternative to be consistent with the theme of that
alternative. The Forest will continue to strive to build and
maintain roads at the lowest cost, subject to meeting the
management objectives for the particular road. Management
direction, including closures, for specific roads will be
determined at the project implementation level.
ABILITY TO The following sections describe, by Planning Problem, the Forest's
RESOLVE ability to respond to the problem identified. The outputs, uses,
PLANNING or conditions that can be measured or described to gauge the
PROBLEMS response of the various alternatives are identified here. These
AND KEY are referred to as the key indicators and are displayed in Table
INDICATORS OF A-1 along with the minimum and maximum values that could be
RESOLUTION achieved as identified in the Benchmarks and associated analyses.
PLANNING
PROBLEM 1
Ability to
Resolve
How Much Timber Should the Forest Produce?
This Planning Problem involves the questions of 1) allocation of
forest land to timber production, and 2) the selection of
management intensities including harvest schedules and treatments
such as commercial thinning and site preparation. An associated
issue involves timber management policies that depart from the
current nondeclining evenflow policy.
Land allocations provide the primary means of resolving this
issue. From zero to 570,000 acres are available and suitable for
timber production when Minimum Management Requirements (MMR's)
are installed. Running the Forest plan model (FORPLAN) with a
timber objective function can increase initial timber output by as
much as 3 percent with minor reductions in economic efficiency.
Departures from NDY harvest schedules can substantially increase
timber outputs in early decades, but make reductions in later
decades inevitable. Shortening the rotations to less than 95% of
culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) could also
substantially increase timber outputs, but may not meet National
Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements. Minor increases in
annual harvest can also be realized by converting hardwood stands
to conifers, or by intensifying management on lower site class
lands. Maximum first decade allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is 33.4
million cubic feet (MMCF) with the NDY and CMAI constraints, or
56.4 MMCF without these constraints.
A- 18

Key
Indicators
Selected Suitable Area. This is the total number of acres
allocated to management emphases that include timber production as
part of the prescription.
First Decade Volume. The programmed ASQ for the first decade of
the planning horizon displayed in MMCF.
Fifth Decade Volume. The programmed ASQ for the fifth decade
displayed in MMCF. This is only different from first decade
output in departure alternatives, but shows the lower level of
outputs that would be achieved in future decades under each
departure.
Long-Term Sustained Yield (LTSY). The long term average annual
timber production achieved by the combination of all the land
allocations and management intensities. This level of outputs
would generally not be achieved until the tenth decade or beyond.
PLANNING
PROBLEM 2
Ability to
Resolve
How Much Old-Growth Should be Preserved?
The Siskiyou contains 443,000 acres of old growth. Approximately
150,000 acres are preserved in areas unavailable or unsuitable for
timber harvest, including 26,000 acres of old-growth habitat on
CFL areas tentatively designated to meet MMR's for wildlife.
Other areas of old growth can be allocated under any management
alternative considered in this DEIS.
Land allocations are the primary tool for resolving the Planning
Problem. Dedicated areas such as Wildernesses, Wild and Scenic
Rivers, Research Natural Areas, and Botanical areas, contain
old-growth trees and provide old-growth habitat.
Alternative allocations considered in this analysis such as
Custodial (Roadless), Research Natural Areas, Botanical areas,
Supplemental Resource areas, Riparian areas, visual resources with
VQO's of Retention and Partial Retention, Special Wildlife Sites,
and enclaves for mature/old-growth indicator species would
continue to provide old-growth habitat.
Old-growth timber is also contained in a significant number of
areas deemed unsuitable for timber management (irreversible soil
damage or nonreforestable five years after harvest).
Key
Indicators
Standards and Guidelines. Road building activities can be
constrained to meet wildlife objectives, and protect old-growth
stands; roads could be closed to meet wildlife needs.
Total Dedicated Area. Total number of old-growth acres allocated
to management prescriptions that do not program activities that
would change the old-growth character.
Available Habitat Fifth Decade.
remaining after the fifth decade
habitat for old-growth dependent
Total number of old-growth acres
that would provide suitable
wildlife.
A-19

PLANNING
PROBLEM 3
How Can The Forest's Fish Habitat, Water Quality and Soil
Productivity be Maintained or Improved?
FISH HABITAT
Major aspects of concern include riparian and up-slope activities,
such as timber harvesting, road management, and mineral
development, as they affect water temperature and stream
sedimentation. Off-Forest water withdrawal and its impact upon
Forest fish habitat is also a major concern.
The Siskiyou National Forest ranks highest in the production of
wild (nonhatchery) salmonids within Region Six (Oregon and
Washington). Presently, more than 1,147 miles of river and
streams habitat are utilized by salmonids, with at least 609 miles
used by both resident and anadromous species. The health and
productivity of this fish habitat depend on good watershed
management. The quantity and quality of rearing habitat are the
most critical habitat factors of survival for juvenile salmonids,
as well as of the maintenance of the carrying capacity in each
Forest stream.
Low summer flows are inherent to the Forest's low elevation.
Naturally low flows, combined with off-Forest water withdrawal,
currently limit salmonid capability in several Forest basins.
Current Forest stream water temperatures are at or near the
temperature tolerance limits of salmonids. This situation allows
few, if any, options for the reduction of streamside canopy cover
if salmonid habitat capability is to be maintained or improved.
Ability to
Resolve -
Fish Habitat
Forest stream water quality and salmonid fish habitat are
protected and enhanced in a variety of ways.
Land Allocations. Riparian Management Prescriptions: One of the
most significant impacts upon salmonid fish habitat capability is
the influence of water temperature. Through streamside management
options, salmonid habitat capability would be maintained, or could
be improved by approximately ten percent. Management that would
increase stream temperatures and degrade fish habitat would not
meet the MMR's. Riparian prescriptions considered viable in this
analysis are: Prescription B which is designed to maintain the
present quality of fish habitat, Prescription C which is designed
to decrease water temperatures and improve fish habitat, and
Custodial, or Minimum Level, which would not allow vegetation
disturbing activities in the streamside areas.
Special Areas. Forty-eight candidate special areas have been
identified. Of these, fourteen have been identified as having
high fisheries values; they are capable of maintaining the
productive capability of major salmonid production streams.
A-20

Supplemental resource areas in high fisheries value watersheds can
be allocated to protect salmonid habitat. These areas preclude
other resource activities that might be detrimental to fisheries
habitat.
Standards and Guidelines. The Forest has adopted standards that
are intended to minimize soil compaction, soil exposure, and the
use of pesticides. These standards protect fisheries habitat from
pollutants and sedimentation.
Capital Investments. Through capital investments, salmonid
habitat capability could be improved. Improvements would consist
primarily of installing structures to develop rearing pools, and
removing barriers to improve migration routes.
Basin Harvest Constraints. Constraints on the amount of timber
harvest allowed per decade from each Planning Basin could reduce
the potential risk of adverse impacts to fish habitat from
landslides and sedimentation.
WATER
A central public issue is the maintenance of a sufficient quantity
of cool, clear water for domestic use and fish/wildlife use.
Water Quantity. The Siskiyou yields about 8.2 million acre-feet
of water annually. This yield, however, is unevenly distributed
throughout the year. As much as 80 percent of the total annual
water yield runs off during the winter rainfall season (December -
March), resulting in a seasonal drought during the growing
season. Water produced on the eastside of the Forest is
essentially withdrawn for irrigation during the summer. Summer
flows on the westside are necessary to maintain suitable fish and
wildlife habitat and to supply domestic needs.
Sufficient water exists to supply the Forest's programs for dust
abatement, road construction, recreation and livestock watering.
Water rights have been filed for all Forest uses that are not
covered by the reserved rights doctrine.
Water Quality. The water flowing from the Siskiyou is generally
of exceptional quality. Timber harvesting and road construction
have the potential to degrade water quality. Warm water
temperatures may result from harvesting nearstream conifers which
shade the streams. Soil-disturbing activities (logging, road
construction) often cause an increase in soil erosion and stream
sedimentation.
Ability to Water Quantity. Little opportunity exists to measurably increase
Resolve - the quantity of streamflow by vegetative manipulation. The Forest
Water
Service could, however, promote the development of reservoirs,
purchase water rights, and help establish minimum instream flows
to respond to the issue of increasing summer flows.
A-21

Water Quality. Water quality can be protected by the restriction
of nearstream timber harvesting through the designation of
Riparian and Supplemental Resource areas (described under FISH
HABITAT above). Restrictions are currently placed on soil
compaction, soil exposure, and the use of pesticides, which also
protect water quality. Timber harvesting can be distributed
throughout the Forest by the use of drainage basin constraints
that distribute the effects of timber harvesting when they occur.
SOIL PRODUCTIVITY
A primary concern for the soil resource is the maintenance of
long-term soil productivity. Steep slopes, thin litter and duff
layers, and a high annual rainfall affect the natural fragility of
Siskiyou soils. Management activities which expose bare mineral
soil with these characteristics greatly increase erosion and
decrease the ability of the soil to absorb and store water. Other
threats to the soil resource include:
1. Intense slash fires, which detrimentally affect the soil
nutrient status and biological potential.
2. Use of heavy equipment on fragile soils, which increases soil
density and reduces soil porosity and root growth.
3. Logging and road building on unstable soils, which increases
mass wasting.
Ability to Most mitigation measures employed to protect water quality and
Resolve - fish habitat will concurrently maintain soil productivity. The
Soil
retention of organic matter or duff on the soil surface during
Productivity site preparation burning is a key measure to protect soil erosion,
water quality and site productivity.
Numerous opportunities exist for improving soil properties on both
disturbed sites, and those exhibiting natural conditions. Soil
improvement efforts should focus on avoiding disturbance
initially, rather than attempting the restoration of degraded
sites later. Currently used preventive measures relating to
timber management include: one-end suspension of logs during
timber harvest, the avoidance of soil compaction by the use of
low-ground-pressure skidding equipment, and excluding
landslide-prone areas from harvest.
An inventory of sites in need of restoration is maintained and
updated annually. Restoration work is accomplished as funding
permits.
Key Supplemental Resource Areas. Candidate Supplemental Resource
Indicators areas that would be designated under each alternative.
Riparian Prescriptions. Allocation of Planning Basins to Riparian
Prescription B, C, or Minimum Level.
A-22

Capital Investments. The level of capital investments scheduled
for fish habitat improvement projects.
Harvest Dispersion. Basins with specific constraints on maximum
acres of timber harvested per decade.
Anadromous Sport Fish. Number of anadromous sport fishing
recreation visitor days (RVD's) displayed in thousands of wildlife
and fish user days (M WFUD's).
Commercial Fish. Commercial fish catch attributable to Forest
production displayed in thousands of pounds.
Sediment.
tons.
Total Forest sediment output displayed in thousands of
PLANNING
PROBLEM 4
How, and to What Extent, Should Lands In and Adjacent to River
Corridors be Managed to Protect, Preserve, and Enhance Wild and
Scenic River Attributes?
Public concerns range from the desire for the application of a
full level of protection within the designated Wild and Scenic
River corridors and on lands affecting the rivers, to the
impression that management policies are too restrictive.
Both the Chetco and the North Fork Smith Rivers meet the
preliminary requirements for Wild and Scenic designation. The
question now is whether or not one or both of these rivers should
be recommended for National designation.
Ability to
Resolve
Key
Indicators
Tools of resolution include: 1) Land allocation decisions with
varying resource emphasis on lands adjacent to the Wild and Scenic
Rivers, 2) the use of VQO's to maintain the character of the
landscapes adjacent to the river corridors, and 3) decisions
affecting vegetative management within the corridors of the
Recreation and Scenic sections of the Rogue and the Illinois
Rivers.
Part of the analysis will also be the suitability study to provide
the basis for recommending, or not recommending, designation of
the North Fork Smith or Chetco Rivers.
Rivers Recommended For Designation.
Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers.
Recommendations for North
Allocated Viewsheds. Viewsheds adjacent to the river corridors
allocated to meet the full inventory of VQO's.
A-23

PLANNING
PROBLEM 5
Ability to
Resolve
How Should Sensitive Plant Resources be Managed?
The Siskiyou provides habitat for at least 71 sensitive plant
species, and an additional 39 may occur here. Twenty-five
potential Botanical areas have been identified on the Forest;
three old-growth sites and twenty-two sensitive plant sites. The
Forest contains three existing Botanical areas. At least three of
the four proposed Research Natural Areas contain sensitive plant
species.
There are three ways of resolving the Planning Problem.
Land Allocations. Allocating land to Botanical areas, or Research
Natural Areas would protect habitat for sensitive plants.
Standards and Guidelines. Standards can be designed to either
protect small areas of sensitive plant habitat in nondedicated
areas; or to mitigate the impacts of timber management, road
building, cattle grazing, or mining activities.
Management direction for protection of sensitive plants is
contained in the Forest Service Manual, section 2670. The
Endangered Species Act provides further guidance. Information on
sensitive plants is stored and protected in the Forest's Total
Resource Information (TRI) system.
Capital Investment. There are some opportunities to rehabilitate
sensitive plant habitat through capital investment projects.
Key
Indicators
Botanical Areas. Areas allocated to Botanical areas displayed in
thousands of acres.
Research Natural Areas. Area allocated to Research Natural Areas
displayed in thousands of acres.
PLANNING
PROBLEM 6
How, and To What Degree, Should Forest Scenic Values be
Protected Through Visual Resource Management?
VQO's have been identified and delineated for all lands within the
Forest boundary. These inventoried objectives identify the
apparent aesthetic quality of Forest lands and provide a level of
protection necessary to maintain the desired level of visual
quality. In some cases, the objectives seek to restore an area to
a desired level of visual quality if a management activity has
gone awry. In all cases, VQO's seek to maintain a defined quality
level, from natural to highly modified, throughout the Forest.
Ability to
Resolve
A full scale of visual resource management possibilities exists on
the Siskiyou National Forest. Opportunities range from
maintenance of the Forest in its existing state, or actually
rehabilitating some areas, to the conversion of all Forest land to
an intensive timber management scheme (with the exception of those
areas designated for other uses such as Wilderness or Research
Natural Areas). It should be noted, however, that the conversion
A-24

of all Forest lands to timber production would not mean the loss
of the visual resource; rather, it would imply the maintenance of
the resource at a minimum level.
The Forest has several methods, or "tools", with which to resolve
the issues that relate to the management of the Forest's visual
resources. As with most resource values, the most effective tool
of resolution is the allocation of appropriate Forest lands to the
achievement of inventoried VQO's. Another effective tool is the
development of management standards and guidelines that are
designed to insure the achievement of these objectives. Other
tools include: 1) corridor studies, these include extensive
analyses and assessments of the impacts of off-Forest (private
land) harvest activities on Forest visual resources; 2) the use of
extended harvest rotations; 3) the use of harvest dispersal
techniques; and, 4) the use of capital investment for planned
mitigation techniques.
Key Allocated Viewsheds. Viewsheds allocated to meet full inventoried
Indicators VQO's.
Allocated VQO's. Acres allocated to meet Preservation, Retention,
and Partial Retention VQO's.
PLANNING
PROBLEM 7
How Should Wildlife Habitats on the Forest be Managed?
This Planning Problem encompasses habitat management for all
Forest wildlife, including endangered, threatened, or sensitive
species. Management of habitat (including its change over time)
for big-game animals, primarily black-tail deer and Roosevelt elk,
is important to the public and to State Fish and Wildlife
agencies. (Also see PLANNING PROBLEM 2 above).
Maintenance of long-term habitat diversity on the Siskiyou can be
achieved under any management alternative that meets MMR's for
wildlife. Habitat capability for many wildlife species would vary
through time by alternative. Consequences for each indicator
species are used to assess the effect an alternative would have on
the species group.
Ability to
Resolve
There are three approaches to addressing the distribution of
habitats.
Land Allocations. Management Areas such as Wilderness, Wild and
Scenic Rivers, Research Natural Areas, Botanical areas,
Supplemental Resource areas, Riparian, visual resources with VQO's
of Retention and Partial Retention, Special Wildlife Sites, and
enclaves for mature/old-growth indicator species provide
old-growth habitat. Old-growth timber is also contained in a
significant number of areas deemed unsuitable for timber
management (irreversible soil damage or nonreforestable five years
after harvest).
A-25

Areas managed for timber provide forage for big-game animals, as
well as habitat for other wildlife species which inhabit early
seral stages.
Standards and Guidelines. Many techniques are used to manage
wildlife habitat. Size, shape, and scheduling of timber harvest
units are manipulated to insure that vegetative stages are well
distributed throughout the Forest. Habitat standards have been
established for deer and elk, and cavity nesting or denning
animals inhabiting old-growth stands (Westside Deer and Elk
Standards and Siskiyou Snag Standards, respectively).
Road building activities can be constrained to meet wildlife
objectives, and protect old-growth stands; roads can be closed to
meet wildlife needs.
A prescription has been developed to insure the rehabilitation and
perpetuation of meadow habitat.
Capital Investment. Habitat capability can be enhanced through
funding of habitat improvement projects. Each year, a minimum of
$56,000 could be utilized to improve wildlife habitat (450
acres/190 structures and 7,400 WFUD's).
The development of old-growth timber stands can be hastened
through the manipulation of mature and old-growth stands.
Key Spotted Owl Pairs. Projected number of pairs of spotted owls
Indicators remaining over the long term (at the end of the planning horizon).
Woodpecker Habitat. Projected percent of woodpecker habitat
remaining over the long term (at the end of the planning horizon).
Wildlife.
Wildlife user days displayed as M WFUD's.
Capital Investments.
improvement projects.
Capital investment dollars for wildlife
Special Areas.
acres.
Wildlife special areas allocated in number of
PLANNING
PROBLEM 8
How Will Management Direction Affect Recreation Opportunities in
the Wilderness and unroaded areas?
WILDERNESS
The questions related to Wilderness management center on the level
of development (such as trail construction), and the methods to be
utilized to protect wilderness values. A broad range of
management alternatives for all existing Wildernesses will be
examined during this planning effort.
A-26

Ability to
Resolve -
Wilderness
The "tools" of resolution relating to wilderness management
include trail development, trail closure, trail maintenance,
standards and guidelines, capital investments, and the use of
prescribed fire.
UNROADED AREAS
This part of the problem centers around the disposition of the
Forest's roadless areas and the continued availability of
Non-motorized recreation opportunities outside of the designated
Wildernesses.
Ability to
Resolve -
Unroaded
Areas
Key
Indicators
The Forest has several methods or "tools" with which to resolve
recreation related issues within roadless areas. The most
effective tool is the allocation of land to a Non-motorized
recreation use with no timber harvesting or road construction
within the area. Other tools would include: capital investment
for trail construction and mitigation of any past human-related
impacts to these areas, and management standards and guidelines
that would enable Forest managers to maintain primitive
characteristics and associated recreation opportunities.
Areas and acres allocated to remain unroaded for this planning
period.
Recreation.
capacity.
Primitive and Semi-primitive Non-motorized RVD's of
PLANNING
PROBLEM 9
How Should Mineral Resources of the Forest be Developed in
Coordination With Management of Other Resources?
The minerals issue has been restated as a Planning Problem which
focuses on what the Forest Service can do to resolve resource
coordination needs.
Ability to
Resolve
The potential to resolve the facets of the minerals issue involves
two options. One is the allocation of mineral lands in a way that
emphasizes the differences between accessibility to mineral lands
and other resource values. The second option involves changing
management direction and guidelines.
Land Allocations. Land allocations could affect the efficiency of
mineral exploration or extraction, or even preclude mineral
development.
Standards and Guidelines. Through various laws, regulations, and
inter-agency agreements, the Forest Service can initiate some form
of protection for the resources associated with mineral lands.
The options available to the Forest Service include: 1) the
typical application of surface resource use regulations, 2) the
identification of special considerations needed in operating plans
and permits, and 3) requesting withdrawal of land from the mining
and leasing laws.
A-27

Key
Indicators
Accessible Acres.
development.
Acres available for mineral exploration and
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
PLANNING
PROBLEMS
Resolution of one Planning Problem often means intensifying
another. The greatest competition is between Planning Problems
1 and 2; Planning Problems 1 and 6; and, Planning Problems 1 and
8. To a lesser degree there are tradeoffs between Planning
Problems 1 and 3, although impacts can be somewhat offset by
increased capital investments. There is a minor tradeoff between
Planning Problems 1 and 4 and between Planning Problems 5 and 9.
These competitive relationships are addressed through the tradeoff
analysis presented in the DEIS, Chapter II.
A-28

Table A-1.
Key Indicators of Planning Problem Resolution
Range
PLANNING PROBLEM Unit of Achieved
Outputs or Effects Measure Maximum Minimum
TIMBER PRODUCTION
Selected Suitable Area
First Decade Volume
Fifth Decade Volume
Long-Term Sustained Yield
OLD-GROWTH FOREST
Total Dedicated Area
Available Habitat Fifth Decade
M Acres
MMCF
MMCF
MMCF
M Acres
M Acres
570.6
56.4
33.4
58.5
0
0
0
0
443.0 150.6
405.1 212.1
SOIL, WATER, AND FISHERIES
Supplemental Resource Areas
M Acres
Riparian Prescript. C (or Min Level) M Acres
Fisheries Capital Investment M $
Harvest Dispersion Constraint M Acres
Anadromous Sport Fish User Days M WFUD's
Commercial Fish
M LBS.
Sediment
M Tons
48
19
350
18
76.5
1084
737
0
1
0
0
58.9
880
671
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Rivers Recommended for
Allocated Viewshed
SENSITIVE PLANTS
Botanical Areas
Research Natural Areas
VISUAL RESOURCES
Allocated Viewshed
Allocated VQO
Designation
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Spotted Owl
Woodpecker Habitat (Long-Term)
Wildlife User Days
Capital Investments
Special Sites
WILDERNESS AND UNROADED
Unroaded
MINERALS
Area Available for Minerals
M Acres
M Acres
M Acres
M Acres
M Acres
M Acres
Pairs
Percent
M WFUD's
M $
M Acres
M Acres
M Acres
2
4
39
5
44
369.1
150
92
91.9
350
25.0
0
0
4
2
0
8.9
55
58
45.6
0
0
314 0
824 509
A-29

CONSULTATION
WITH OTHERS
Consultation with other agencies, local government, interest
groups, and individuals has been constant throughout the planning
process. In addition to numerous individual discussions, the
Forest held a number of public meetings and workshops to discuss
various aspects of the Plan's development. These took place in
Grants Pass, Brookings, Gold Beach, and Port Orford, Oregon.
Contacts were so frequent that several interest groups tracked our
progress on a monthly basis.
Specific contacts were made with county officials and planners in
Del Norte County, California, and Josephine, Curry, and Coos
Counties, Oregon. The tentative ICO's were also discussed with
Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development,
California's Natural Resources Department, the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game, and
Oregon and California Departments of Forestry.
The contacts with special interest groups included timber industry
representatives, environmental groups, commercial and sports
fishing interests, major private landowners adjacent to the
Forest, representatives of the Klamath Indian Tribe, and members
of the Rogue (Takelma) Indian Tribe from the reservation lands at
Siletz, Oregon.
Several meetings were held to discuss specific concerns about
technical aspects of planning data. Representatives from the
Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, a local Sierra Club Chapter, and local timber industry
most frequently attended these technical discussions. Specific
information on meeting dates and places, those in attendance, and
the topics discussed can be found in the Planning records.
The following list details contacts made with other agencies,
Indian Tribes, and interest groups; and the plans reviewed. In
addition to those listed, there have been innumerable contacts
through phone conversations and visits.
OTHER
AGENCIES
AND INDIAN
TRIBES
Bonneville Power Administration - 1 contact
Review Power Sales Contract EIS
Bureau of Indian Affairs - 1 contact
Tribal contacts
Bureau of Land Management, Medford - 13 contacts
Eight Dollar mountain
Understanding of Forest planning process
Agency areas and topics of concern
Identify planning strengths and weaknesses
Fish and wildlife concerns
Riparian concerns
Review management prescriptions
California Department of Fish and Game -2 contacts
Discuss interstate concerns
A-30

California Department of Conservation -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
California Department of Water Resources -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
California Boating and Water Resources Agency -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
California Energy Commission - 1 contact
Discuss interstate concerns
California Regional Water Quality Control Board -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
California Air Resources Board -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
California Department of Forestry -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
California Office of Planning and Research -
Discuss interstate concerns
1 contact
Cal-Trans District 1 - 1 contact
Review areas and topics of concern
Coos County Planning Department - 5 contacts
Areas and topics of concern for Forest planning
Review of Comprehensive Plan
Coos County Roadmaster - 1 contact
Discuss areas and topics of concern
Coos-Curry Council of Governments - 1 contact
Reviewed North Bend Comprehensive Plan
Corps of Engineers- 1 contact
Reviewed Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Curry County Commissioners - 7 contacts
Discuss land allocations
Impacts on private lands
Impacts on cities
Wilderness areas
Roadless areas
Recreation
Fisheries
Numerous information requests concerning Siskiyou planning
A-31

Curry County Planning Department - 3 contacts
Reviewed Curry County Land Use Plan
Discuss areas and topics of concern for Siskiyou planning
Curry County Roadmaster - 1 contact
Discuss areas and topics of concern
Del Norte County Engineering Department -
Discuss areas and topics of concern
1 contact
Del Norte County Planning Department - 2 contacts
Agreement to work together on the planning process
Discuss areas and topics of concern for Siskiyou planning
Intergovernmental Relations Division - 3 contacts
Review Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Review and discuss land use Plans
Josephine County Planning Commission - 18 contacts
Established communication process
Reviewed draft goals and policy statement for Josephine
County
Reviewed implementation chapter of Draft Comprehensive Plan
Areas and topics of concern for Siskiyou National Forest Plan
Information sharing
Eight Dollar mountain Coordination
Review of Josephine County land allocation map
Review of rural zoning ordinances
Review Openspace Reserve Zoning District
Josephine County Roadmaster - 1 contact
Discuss areas and topics of concern
Klamath National Forest - 1 contact
Discuss areas of the planning process needing coordination
Office of Federal Highway Projects - 1 contact
Review Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Office of Governor, State of California -
Review issues for Forest planning
1 contact
Office of Governor, State of Oregon - 1 contact
Established communication process and designated contacts
Oregon Department of Energy - 1 contact
Pacific northwest rivers study
A-32

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - 10 contacts
Review and discuss land use Plans
Share Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
of 1974 (RPA) Program alternatives
Discuss areas and topics of concern for Forest planning
Share information
Help understand Forest planning process
Identify planning strengths and weaknesses
Share project planning process
Oregon Department of Forestry - 7 contacts
Discuss alternative development
Discuss local areas and topics of concern for Forest planning
Discuss assessment of the management situation
Status of planning process
MMR's
Forestry Program for Oregon
Current direction
TREES projections
Decision criteria
Land suitability
Roadless areas.
Cumulative effects
Prescriptions
Monitoring
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development - 9 contact
Informing Forest of Plan Reviewers
Discuss areas and topics of concern with Curry County
Comprehensive Plan
Discuss County Planning on federal Forest lands
Availability of Comprehensive Plans
Report on Josephine County's acknowledgement of compliance
Discuss need for zoning permits
Oregon Office of State Forester - 10 contacts
Formal contacts established for State office
Review Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss areas and topics of concern for Plan
Review and discuss assessment of the management situation
State forest economy
MMR's
Land allocations
Land suitability
Rotation ages
On-going research and research needs
Age class gaps
Share TREES projections and assumptions
Oregon State Division of Highways - 3 contacts
Discuss areas and topics of concern
A-33

Oregon State Marine Board - 1 contact
Review management prescriptions
Oregon State Project Notification and Review System
(Clearinghouse) - 2 contacts
Review DEIS/Forest Plan (previous draft)
Review land use Plans
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office - 1 contact
Share analysis of the management situation
Oregon State Joint Legislative Committee-Trade and Economic
Development - 1 contact
Discuss planning process
Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 1 contact
Discuss areas of the planning process needing coordination
Six Rivers National Forest - 1 contact
Discuss areas of the planning process needing coordination
U.S. Department of Commerce - 1 contact
Review Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
U.S. Department of Interior - 3 contacts
Review of the Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
U.S. Department of Transportation - 1 contact
Review of the Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss review of Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 4 contacts
Reviewed Revised Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discuss Review of Revised Timber Resource Plan
U.S. Fish and Wild Service - 4 contacts
Discuss desire to be involved in planning and share names of
contacts
Discuss threatened and endangered species
U.S. Geology Service - 1 contact
Discuss areas and topics of concern, particularly minerals
U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service -
Reviews decision criteria for Forest planning
1 contact
U.S. House of Representatives, Jim Weaver, Tom Foley and
Robert Smith - 3 contacts
Discuss areas and topics of concern for Forest planning
Minerals exploration and production
A-34

U.S. Senate, Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood - 2 contacts
Discuss areas and topics of concern for Forest planning
OTHER
INTEREST
GROUPS
(Interest or affiliation was determined by statements in the
communication or by the letterheads.)
Adjacent property owners - 5 contacts
Interested in status of planning process
Interested in Alternative development
Concerned with consequences of Wild and Scenic Rivers
Conservation and Environmental - 125 contacts
Review and discuss Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Discusses Forest Plan appeal procedure
Desire to be informed and involved
Review and discuss Plan information
Expresses concern with herbicides
Expresses concern for old growth timber
Expresses concern for Wildernesses, clean water and
recreation
Roadless areas
Cultural resources
Eight Dollar mountain
Review planning process, RPA and NFMA
Concern with visuals and air travel
Alternative review and development
Standards and guidelines
Special and Botanical areas
Wild and Scenic rivers
Port-Orford-cedar management
Reviewed assessment of the management situation
Concern for timber projects in Roadless areas
Economic Development - 12 contacts
Status of planning process
Alternative review and development
Forest Industries - 96 contacts
Review and discuss Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Express concern for lack of time for in-depth review
Review and discuss Forest planning process
Desire to be informed and involved
Review and discuss Plan information
Discuss NFMA as it pertains to wildlife
Expresses concern for southwestern Oregon forest industry
and economic situation
Expresses concern for riparian management
Share cost-study data
Expresses concern for status of planning progress
Alternative review and development
Visual objectives
Review assessment of the management situation
A-35

Handicapped - 1 contact
Review and discuss Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Express need to leave and provide access for handicapped
Medical - 1 contact
Concern for Roadless areas
Concern for Wild and Scenic rivers
Concerned with riparian management
Mining - 15 contacts
Express desire to be informed and involved
Eight Dollar mountain
Discuss known mineral locations
Minorities - 4 contacts
Discuss need to be involved in Forest planning process
Discuss Coos tribe territory in Coos County
Discuss Tolowa Tribe territory near Chetco
Review planning documents
Concerns for rivers, fish and habitat, game, Wilderness, and
Roadless Areas
News Media - 4 contacts
Discuss needs to increase public awareness of Forest planning
effort and
Establish contacts
No identified Membership or Affiliation - 263 contacts
Forest practices
Reviews of land use Plans
Expresses concerns with herbicides
Expresses concern with Eight Dollar Mountain area
Desire to be informed and involved
Concern for mining opportunities
Concern of more wilderness
Concern for suitability determination
Old growth concerns
Roadless areas
Soils, visuals, air quality and slash burning
Interest in special and Botanical areas
Alternative review and development
Concerned about timber projects going on in Roadless areas
Port-Orford-cedar management
A-36

Petitions (3) - Signatures: (1) 4096; (2) 35; and (3) 21
Concerns for:
Research Natural Areas
Botanical areas
Special areas
Retention of old growth
Riparian and other wildlife habitat
Fisheries
Roadless areas
Visual quality
Wild and scenic rivers
Petroleum - 3 contacts
Concern for restrictions on oil and gas exploration and
development
Concerned with Roadless areas and Wilderness
Ranching or farming - 1 contact
Concern for Botanical areas
Control of public access
Recreation - 12 contacts
Review and discuss Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Express concern for government restrictions, permits and
economic well-being
Concern for riparian management
Provide for adequate off-road opportunities
Expresses concern with Wilderness, Wild and Scenic rivers
Roadless areas
Desire to be informed and involved
Scientific and Education - 23 contacts
Review and discuss Draft Timber Resource Management Plan
Offers to get involved by conducting door-to-door interviews
Wants to be informed and involved
Reviews and discusses Old Growth Situation
Eight Dollar mountain
Concerned for Research Natural Areas
Desire to follow the dynamics of the planning process
Utilities - 2 contacts
Review Oregon 21 Coos Borrowers Environmental Report
Discuss transmission corridors and substations
Discuss VQO's
Discuss cultural locations
Reviewed numerous windpower environmental studies
A-37

A
P
P
E
N
D
I
x
B
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS

p
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS

APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Page
INTRODUCTION B-1
Planning Situation B-1
Planning Process B-1
Inventory Data and Information Collection B-2
Analysis of the Management Situation B-2
Formulation of Alternatives B-2
Estimation of Effects of Alternatives B-3
INVENTORY DATA AND INFORMATION
COLLECTION B-4
Resource Development B-4
Capability Areas B-4
Analysis Areas B-4
Production Coefficients B-5
Suitability Analysis B-5
Allocation and Scheduling B-8
Monitoring B-8
Plan Implementation Specifications B-8
Sources of Data B-8
FOREST PLANNING MODEL B-12
Overview B-12
The Analysis Process and Analytical Tools Used B-12
Identification of the Analysis Areas B-14
Level 1 Criteria - Basins B-14
Level 2 Criteria - Development Status B-15
Level 3 Criteria - (Not Wsed) B-15
Level 4 Criteria - Productivity Classes B-15
Level 5 Criteria - Plantation Age B-16
Level 6 Criteria - Condition Class B-16
Identification of Prescriptions B-16
Purpose, Criteria, and Assumptions for
Prescriptions B-18
B-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Title
Page
Development of Timber Harvest Option Intensities B-24
Most Efficient Intensities B-26
Separate Suitability Component (SSC) B-26
Development of Yield Coefficients B-27
Recreation B-27
Visual Resources B-28
Wildlife B-29
Fisheries B-30
Timber B-33
Sediment B-33
Roads B-34
Analysis Done Outside FORPLAN B-42
Water Yield B-42
Roads B-43
Fire Management B-44
COST EFFICIENCY AND NET PUBLIC BENEFIT B-52
Net Public Benefit (NPB) B-52
Present Net Value (PNV B-52
Economic Parameters overning PNV B-52
Benefits and Costs Used in the PNV Calculation B-53
PNV Calculations (Budget Costs) B-54
Opportunity Costs B-55
Determination of Economic Values B-55
Benefit Values B-55
Costs B-59
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS B-72
Overview B-72
Population B-72
Demographics B-72
Employment and Industry B-77
County Revenues B-87
Area Lifestyle B-88
Plans, Policies, and Controls of Other Agencies B-93
Social and Economic Summary B-94
Sources of Data B-97
Economic Impact Model B-97
Information Generated From the Social and
Economic Impact Analysis B-102
B-ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Title
Page
ANALYSIS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF
ALTERNATIVES B-104
Introduction B-104
Development of Management Requirements B-105
Minimum Management Requirements B-105
Timber Policy Requirements B-116
Benchmarks and Constraint Analysis B-116
Benchmark Levels B-116
Constraints and Minimum Management
Requirements (MMR's) B-117
Benchmark Descriptions B-118
Max Present Net Value B-118
Max Timber B-118
Max Visuals B-118
Max Unroaded B-118
Max Recreation B-118
Max Fish/ Watershed B-118
Max Wild life B-118
Min Level B-118
Current Direction B-118
Benchmark Results B-127
Min Level Benchmark B-127
Max Present Net Value (B30-1) B-128
Max Timber (B11-3) B-132
Max Visuals (B12-1) B-135
Max Unroaded (B20-2) B-138
Max Recreation (B19 -2) B-142
Max Fish Watershed (B16-1) B-145
Max Wild life (B13-3) B-148
Constraint Anal sis B-152
Opportunity ost of Minimum Management
Requirements (MMR's) B-152
Opportunity Cost of Timber Policy Constraints B-154
Qpportunity Cost of Maximum Production,
Min Level and Current Direction Benchmarks B-156
Sensitivity Analysis B-159
Economic Assumptions B-160
Harvest and Roading Patterns B-161
FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES B-163
Introduction B-163
Common Constraints B-165
B-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Development
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Title
of the Alternatives
NC
A
A-Departure
B
C
DD1
E
G
K
K-Departure
L
M
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
Overview
Process for Evaluating Significant Constraints
Economic Efficiency Analysis of Alternatives
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
Costs
Net Cash Flows, Economic Benefits and Costs
Payments to Counties
Related Employment and Income Changes
Community Effects
Opportunity Costs
Major Tradeoffs Among Alternatives
National, Regional, and Local Overview
Economic Values and Responses to Major
Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Constraint Analysis
Page
B-168
B-168
B-169
B-170
B-172
B-173
B-174
B-175
B-177
B-178
B-179
B-180
B-182
B-184
B-186
B-186
B-186
B-187
B-187
B-191
B-192
B-193
B-194
B-196
B-197
B-198
B-198
B-199
B-217
LITERATURE CITED B-231
B-iv

INTRODUCTION One of the primary responsibilities of the Forest Service is to
decide how best to manage National Forest lands to produce the
PLANNING goods and services the public desires. These lands must be
SITUATION managed to provide adequate levels of resources and services for
both current and future uses. Because National Forest lands and
the natural resources they contain are valuable to society,
commitments to various uses represent significant and far-reaching
decisions.
The Siskiyou National Forest is located in southwestern Oregon and
contains 1,092,302 acres of diverse land forms and vegetation.
The wide variety of seral and climax-type vegetation communities
that exist support a rich and varied wildlife community. The
timber industry is important to the local economy. In addition,
the Forest provides an attractive setting for recreationists who
spend money for supplies and services.
Planning under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (36 CFR
219) responds to the increasing complexity and social significance
of the Forest and magnitude of the analysis and management
decisions. The Forest's major planning goal is to provide enough
information to help decisionmakers determine which combination of
goods, services, and land allocations will maximize Net Public
Benefit (NPB) (discussed later in this appendix). The regulations
(36 CFR 219) developed under NFMA provide the analytical framework
within which these decisions are made.
The NFMA and its regulations also state that the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its regulations
(40 CFR 1500-1508) must be applied in this analysis process. The
NEPA regulations require that the environmental effects of a
proposed action and alternatives to that proposed action must be
disclosed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
PLANNING
PROCESS
The planning and environmental analysis process brings a new
outlook and a new technology to National Forest land management,
principally: (1) land management planning requires that processes
formerly used to make individual resource decisions must be
combined into integrated management decisions, and (2) new
mathematical modeling techniques are used to represent the
elements of the land allocation problem and to help identify the
most efficient pattern of land management. This is discussed in
the NFMA regulations and Chapter I of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) as a 10-element planning process. This
appendix is concerned with describing the analysis phase of this
process which are elements 3, 4, 5, and 6. The judgement phases,
elements 1, 2, 7, and 8, are described in Chapter's I and II and
in Appendix A of the DEIS. The execution phases, elements 9 and
10, are presented in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).
The analytical elements are as follows:
B-1

Inventory
Data and
Information
Collection -
(Step 3)
Analysis
of the
Management
Situation -
(Step 4)
Formulation
of Alternatives
-
(Step 5)
The interdisciplinary team (IDT) determined what data was
necessary, based on the issues and concerns. Data collection is
part of normal Forest operations. Existing data were used
whenever possible and supplemented with new data where required to
help resolve sensitive issues or management concerns. Data,
including information on resource capability areas and acreages;
resource supply and demand; and expected outputs, values, and
costs resulting from management prescriptions, are needed for
formulation of the models used in the analysis of the management
situation, formulation of alternatives, monitoring, and other
phases of the planning process. Much of the data and background
documentation are on file in the Planning Records.
This analysis brings existing information together, puts it into a
total Forest perspective, and examines the range of possible
solutions to resource issues. It examines supply potentials,
market assessments for Forest outputs, and determines suitability
and feasibility for meeting needs. A model (FORPLAN) was built to
represent Forest resources and assist in allocation and scheduling
to address a number of questions regarding potential outputs of
goods and services and Forest conditions. This part of the
analysis includes the development of benchmarks designed to
establish the outputs and conditions that could be expected from
specific management scenarios. They include a) the projection of
the Forest's current management program, b) determining the
Forest's ability to produce a range of goods and services, from
minimum management to maximum production, c) evaluating the
feasibility of reaching the national production goals Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) targets
and social demands identified as issues and concerns, and d)
monetary benchmarks which estimate the output mix which maximizes
Present Net Value (PNV) of resources having an established market
value or an assigned value. This analysis provides the
information necessary to formulate a range of reasonable
alternatives.
The information gathered during the first four planning action
elements is combined and analyzed to formulate alternative plans
suitable for evaluation and presentation in the DEIS. The
alternatives reflect a range of resource management direction.
Each identified major public issue and management concern was
addressed in one or more alternatives. The programs formulated
represent the most cost-efficient way of attaining the objective
set forth for each alternative. This process provides a basis for
identifying the alternative that comes nearest to maximizing the
priced component of NPB, consistent with the resource integration
and Minimum Management Requirements (MMR's). This is then
considered along with the subjective value of nonpriced outputs to
determine NPB.
B-2

Estimation
of Effects
of Alternatives
-
(Step 6)
The physical, biological, economic and social effects of each
alternative were estimated including how each responds to the
range of goals and objectives assigned by the RPA Program. The
FORPLAN model estimates many of the anticipated consequences of
changes in the flow of goods and services from the Forest in terms
of resource output levels. Other effects examined outside the
model include ecological and social considerations. Specifically,
the analysis includes: 1) direct effects, 2) indirect effects, 3)
coordination with other Federal, State, and local land use plans,
4) other environmental effects, 5) energy requirements and
conservation potential, 6) natural or depletable resource
requirements and conservation potential, 7) urban quality,
historic and cultural resources and, 8) means of mitigation.
B-3

INVENTORY
DATA AND
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
Capability
Areas
This is the first step in the analysis phase of the planning
process. Inventory data are needed for developing the planning
model used in the analysis of the management situation, the
formulation and evaluation of alternatives, and monitoring of
accomplishments. The IDT collected and assembled the data
necessary for making management decisions. Some data existed
prior to initiation of the NFMA Forest planning effort while other
data were collected to supplement information needed to resolve
management issues and concerns. The land base was stratified
into capability areas defined by physical and biological
attributes, and further delineated by political boundaries.
Capability areas represent lands delineated to estimate
responsiveness to various management practices, resource values,
output coefficients, and multi-resource or joint production
functions.
The compilation of the various inventories into the mapping system
resulted in more than 40 layers of land attribute and management
opportunity delineations. These include:
Ownership
Soil Resource Inventory (SRI)
Ecoclass
Geology
Special Resource Areas
Slope
Aspect
Elevation Zones
Stream Class
River Basin
Visual Quality Objective (VQO)
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
Unroaded
Lands Unsuitable for Timber Production
Wildlife Habitat Areas
Analysis
Areas
Overlaying all of the identified layers would result in thousands
of unique strata. Grouping and stepwise analyses were used to
aggregate and condense these into the minimum number of areas that
still retain sufficient site specificity to analyze resource
allocation and scheduling options along with issues and concerns
related to specific resources. The result is the stratification
of the Forest into 317 analysis areas. The land represented in an
analysis area need not be contiguous and generally is not. Each
analysis area is composed of similar sites, with similar
vegetation, representing similar opportunities; and can be
expected to respond in similar ways and amounts to various
management activities.
B-4

Production
Coefficients
Specific resource outputs and uses such as timber harvest and
wildlife are analyzed in the planning process in response to the
issues and concerns. The resource data for each capability area
in the analysis area was combined to form the basis for a number
(production coefficient) that serves as a measure of a physical
property. Major production coefficients used on the Siskiyou are
expressed in the following units:
Thousand Cubic Feet (MCF) of timber per acre
Miles of Road per acre
Tons of Sediment per acre
Sport Fishing - Fish and Wildlife User Day (WFUD) per basin
Thousand Pounds Commercial Fish per basin
Wildlife - WFUD per acre
Acres of Seral Stages
Recreation Visitor Days (RVD's)
Suitability
Analysis
The Forest used empirical data to determine the acres that are
tentatively suitable for management practices. All areas are
considered available for some form of recreation and some type of
wildlife use.
Lands were considered through the following step-wise analysis to
determine if they would be included in the inventory of land
tentatively suitable for timber production. Results are
summarized in Table B-1 and the unsuitable/unavailable lands for
timber production are displayed in Figure B-1.
1. Lands with less than ten percent conifer stocking were
identified as nonforest.
2. Lands withdrawn from timber production by law or regulation
were identified as unavailable.
3. Lands where the technology is not available to prevent
irreversible resource damage were identified as unsuitable.
4. Lands where there is not reasonable assurance that adequate
restocking can be attained within five years after final
harvest were identified as unsuitable (regeneration
difficulty).
To complete this analysis, several sources of data were utilized
in concert. The SRI, Timber Inventory, reforestation records, and
available stand examinations were compiled and evaluated by ranger
district personnel most familiar with the land and resources.
Unsuitable lands were mapped based on the interpretation of this
data with the aid of aerial photographs and with the benefit of
first hand knowledge and experience. This was followed up with
additional field reconnaissance and review by Forest and Regional
Staff, as well as interested members of the public.
B-5

Table B-1.
Land Suitability Summary
Acres
Not Suited Separate
for Timber Suita-
Land Status Production bility Totals
Total National Forest Area
1,162,030
Other Ownerships
69,728
Net National Forest Area
1,092,302
Water
Non-Forest (not stocked with 10% tree cover)
Lands developed for purposes other than
timber production (Admin. Sites/Roads)
1,570
36,412
16,950
Forested Lands 1,037,370
Withdrawn from Scheduled Timber Production
Wilderness (Total Acres 232,495)
Kalmiopsis
(179,850 Acres)
Wild Rogue
Grassy Knob
(26,708 Acres)
(17,200 Acres)
Red Buttes
(3,414 Acres)
Siskiyou
(5,323 Acres)
Research Natural Areas (Tot.Net Acres 1,957)
Coquille River Falls
(501 Acres)
Port Orford Cedar
(1,120 Acres)
Wheeler Creek
(336 Acres)
Other Total (Tot.Net Acres 3,110)
Botanical Areas (Tot.Net Acres 1,067)
Big Craggies
(3,803 Acres)
Babyfoot
York Creek
(352 Acres)
(320 Acres)
Wild Rivers (Tot.Net Acres 2,043)
Rogue
(5,226 Acres)
Illinois
(9,275 Acres)
SubTotal 237,562
Lands Growing Less than 20 cu/ft/acre/yr
Classified as Separate Suitability Component
18,713
Irreversible Soil Damage
Regeneration Difficulty
22,206
Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 605,527 + 18,713 = 624,240
Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production
Land Status Under Current Timber Management Plan
413,130
227,142 574,602
B-6

UNSUI TABLE /UNA
SI SKI YOU
VAI LAB
NAT I ONAL
LE
FOREST
FOR
TIMBER
Powers
0...,.
0 n
Figure B-1.
Unsuitable/Unavailable
Timber Production Map
B-7

Maps and rationale for the classification of specific areas are
available in the Planning Records.
The monitoring plan and standards and guidelines in the LRMP will
provide for continual refinement and updating of inventory
information, with provisions for modifying outputs or revising the
plan if significant changes are warranted.
Allocation
and
Scheduling
Monitoring
Plan Implementation
Specifications
SOURCES
OF DATA
With the economic values and relationships used in this analysis,
allocations of land to other resource uses could not compete with
allocations to timber management. To evaluate the effects of
specific resource needs and to examine a full range of
alternatives, land allocations were developed to meet resource
objectives or to follow the theme of a particular alternative, and
then the FORPLAN model was used for scheduling and estimating the
outputs and effects. Productivity Class and Condition class
(existing vegetation) data were used along with yield and economic
coefficients within the model for scheduling of management
activities over time.
Forest planning data used to develop the key production
coefficients will also be used to help monitor implementation
activities. Forest planning data provides a base or standard from
which changes that result from implementation of the LRMP can be
measured.
The Forest planning data base (in planning records) provides
biological and physical data that will help develop subsequent
programs for plan implementation. As more information is
available, the data base will be updated and improved.
Siskiyou National Forest Cultural Sample Survey Design, 1983
Siskiyou National Forest Cultural Resource Overview, 1978
Siskiyou National Forest Cultural Site Inventory, 1980 to present
Siskiyou National Forest Cultural Resource Management Annual
Accomplishment Reports, 1981 to present
Region Six Cultural Resource Management Guidebook, 1983
Fuelwood Volumes in the the DEIS, Chapter IV, Energy section
from Annual Accomplishment Reports, Siskiyou National Forest
Siskiyou National Forest Water Rights Inventory [2541.11], 1983
Siskiyou National Forest Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring
Plan [2532.5], 1986
Siskiyou National Forest Water Quality Monitoring for Pesticides
[2532.5]
Siskiyou National Forest Elk-Sixes Watershed Study [2531]
B-8

Siskiyou National Forest Streamside Management Unit (SMU)
Inventory [2526.1]
Siskiyou National Forest water quality data stored in the
Environmental Protection Agency's STORET system [2531.11]
Siskiyou National Forest Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) [2531.11],
1979
Soil Conservation Service Erosion Inventory [2512.1]
Siskiyou National Forest Soil Monitoring [2554]
Siskiyou National Forest Watershed Improvement Needs (WIN)
Inventory [2522.21], 1983
Siskiyou National Forest Hydrometeorological Monitoring [2531.11]
Siskiyou National Forest Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS)
data
Cooperative Snow Surveys [2534.5]
United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Data, published
annually.
Water, Land, and Related Resources, North Coastal Area of
California and Portions of Southern Oregon. Appendix No. 2.
Sediment Yield and Land Treatment. June 1972. Prepared by the
United States Department of Agriculture River Basin Planning
Staff, and Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the
California Department of Water Resources.
State of Oregon Water Resources Department Drainage Basin Reports
Oregon's Statewide Assessment of Nonpoint Source Problems, August
1978, State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water
Quality Program
The streams and rivers were inventoried using the Region Six,
USDA, Forest Service, Stream Classes I-IV
Timber data regarding stand locations, volumes and growth were
based on the Siskiyou National Forest Timber Inventory, 1979
Road construction and reconstruction costs were developed from the
Forest cost records for the period 1975 through 1984 on 305
timber sales. Some adjustments were made to the costs to
reflect current conditions. Road reconstruction mileage factors
were developed using timber sales programmed from Fiscal Year
1978 through Fiscal Year 1984.
B-9

Road Maintenance costs were determined from timber sales appraised
in 1981 and 1982 and checked against 1983. Allocated road
maintenance were based on 1982 and 1983 program averages with
some adjustments for inflation and the addition of new mileage
to the road system.
Capital Investment costs for roads were based on timber harvest
volumes with adjustments to meet the themes of the alternatives
or other mitigation needs.
Road density factors for road construction were developed by
modeling four representative planning basins with logical road
systems and then applying these factors the other basins with
some allowance to compensate for known differences.
Timber stand data from the Forest Total Resource Information (TRI)
system, 1972-1985
Preliminary Plant Associations of the Siskiyou Mountain Province,
Atzet and Wheeler, 1984
Managed Yield Tables for the Siskiyou National Forest, Craig, 1984
Timber Sale Information, Siskiyou National Forest; Fort Collins
Computer Center, National Timber Sale Accounting Program (NTSA)
R2MAP-Land Inventory Mapping (LIM) layers, Fort Collins Computer
Center
The Forest's recreation potential was identified through the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) inventory completed in
1981
Recreation Information Management (RIM) data
The visual resources of the Siskiyou were inventoried prior to
starting the planning process and was updated in 1978
Information was available on Wild and Scenic Rivers based on an
inventory published by the Park Service, United States
Department of the Interior (USDI), in 1982
Fish habitat inventory from existing stream survey records as
collected by Siskiyou National Forest and Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) personnel, 1939-1986
Fish harvest data derived from ODFW salmon-steelhead catch
statistics, 1972-1982
Habitat requirements of salmonids taken from General Tech
Report-96, Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on
Anadromous Fish Habitat In Western North America, United States
Forest Service ,1979
B-10

Documentation of Existing Sport and Commercial Fish Harvest
Attributable to Siskiyou Forest Streams and River Habitat,
King, 1985
Fisheries Habitat Evaluation Handbook, FSH 2609.23 (Monitoring),
July 1985, Amendment 1, Region Six
Manual for Fish Manangement, ODFW, August, 1977
Winchuck Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Plan, Johnson, 1985
Regional Guide for the Pacific Northwest Region was used to
calculate demand (hunting)
Hunting use figures from ODFW Annual Wildlife Reports
Inventory of wildlife and sensitive habitat from Forest TRI System
B-11

FOREST
The planning model consists of information and various analytic
PLANNING techniques combined to address planning questions and issues. The
MODEL
major analytic model is called FORPLAN.
OVERVIEW
FORPLAN is a linear program that assigns unique sets of management
activities to specific areas of the Forest to compare the
productivity of measurable goods and services towards a specific
goal called an "objective function." The management activities
are combined into compatible sets representative of the multiple
uses that could apply to the analysis areas. These sets of
management activities are called "management prescriptions."
FORPLAN assigns only those management prescriptions to the
analysis areas which produce the goods and services that achieve
the objective function in an optimal way given the objective
function and constraints used. It also schedules the production
of the goods and services over time.
Alternatives are generated by applying constraints to produce a
specified range of goods and services, to allow only a specified
range of goods and services, or to allow only a specified set of
management prescriptions to be assigned to specific analysis
areas. These constraints are designed to achieve or maintain a
situation considered necessary to meet the overall goal of the
alternative. The conditions set by the constraints are satisfied
before the objective function is optimized. The final solution of
all alternatives had the objective function to maximize PNV. In
other words, after meeting all constraints, the FORPLAN model
allocated remaining economic choices to maximize PNV.
THE ANALYSIS Preliminary analyses leading to the use of FORPLAN included
PROCESS AND predictions of resource production (timber, wildlife, fish,
ANALYTICAL recreation, and sediment). A social impact assessment study and
TOOLS USED the identification of base line socio-economic conditions were
also used.
Analysis leading up to FORPLAN included designing management
prescriptions, assigning practices to prescriptions, developing
management costs for each practice and predicting resource
outputs, and benefits. Outputs predicted include timber yield,
big game forage, sediment, roads, fisheries, costs, and benefits.
FORPLAN was then used to determine optimal allocations and
scheduling of management prescriptions for each analysis area.
This overall process is key to cost efficient resource
allocation. Cost efficiency was considered by the IDT while they
were developing a realistic and flexible set of management
prescriptions. This combination of identifying cost efficient
prescriptions, and then using FORPLAN to identify the mix of
prescriptions and scheduling that will produce the highest PNV,
provides a method by which the alternative results portrayed
represent economically efficient ways of achieving the goals for
that alternative.
B-12

Decisions that resulted from the preliminary analysis include the
following that apply to all prescriptions:
All roads will be built and maintained to Forest-wide
Standards and Guidelines at the level appropriate to the
goals of the alternative. Road construction design standards
were developed to minimize impacts on soil and water
resources and anadromous fisheries habitat.
Timber sales are planned and will be administered according
to Standards and Guidelines, including coordination with
cultural, visual, wildlife, fisheries, soil, and water
resources. All harvesting is planned to ensure meeting
prescription objectives, including MMR's.
Timber slash disposal and reforestation activities will take
place in all prescriptions which include timber harvesting.
Wildlife habitat management includes practices to ensure
adequate browse production and habitat dispersion for big
game; the production and protection of habitat for
woodpeckers and other cavity nesting birds; and the
protection and enhancement of wildlife niches.
Baseline socio-economic conditions were identified for the local
area. In addition, economic (cost) efficiency analysis was used
to determine the benefits, costs, and tradeoffs associated with
varying levels of goods and services produced on the Forest.
These are discussed in future sections of this appendix.
B-13

IDENTIFICA- The rationale for deflineating the analysis areas follows:
TION OF
THE ANALYSIS Analysis Area Level Identifier Reason for Delineation
AREAS
Basin
The Forest was divided into
Planning Basins that coincide
with the major watersheds to
allow analysis of effects by
watershed for various resources,
water and fisheries in
particular. Predictions for
roads are basin specific.
Development Status
Timber Productivity
Plantation Age
Condition Class
2 Identification of unroaded areas
and separate
unavailable/unsuitable lands.
Predictions for roads.
Recreation opportunity analysis.
4 Predict timber outputs over the
long term.
5 Stratify plantations by age for
timber output predictions.
6 Condition of existing vegetation
for predicting timber outputs on
the short term.
Level 1
Criteria -
Basins
The Forest was divided into twenty (later reduced to 19) major
watershed areas for the purposes of planning. These planning
basins serve as geographic locators in the model to predict fish
and water production, schedule timber harvest and estimate road
construction costs. The boundaries were usually placed along
major watershed divides. The current total of 19 basins resulted
from the split of the old Basin 18 into Basins 15 and 19. A small
area of suitable land was remapped from Basin 14 and included in
Basin 13. Basin 14 is now entirely Kalmiopsis Wilderness and
classified as unavailable for timber production. Utilization of
watershed areas in the FORPLAN model is more responsive to the
issues of fisheries, soil and water resources, and the effects of
timber harvest and road construction on these resources. The
following data lists the basin label, the Level 1 identifier and
the total acreage.
B-14

Identifier Label Description Acreage
01 ELKSIX Elk and Sixes Rivers 68,043
02 COQUIL South Fork Coquille River 70,743
03 LOBSTR Lobster Creek 29,228
04 UP-ROG Upper Rogue River 78,852
05 LO-ROG Lower Rogue River 44,843
06 INDIGO Indigo Creek 49,326
07 SILVER Silver Creek 42,446
08 GALSLA Galice and Slate Creeks 41,724
09 LO-ILL Lower Illinois River 67,382
10 UP-ILL Upper Illinois River 84,549
11 BRIGGS Briggs Creek 41,319
12 PISTOL Pistol River 42,229
13 L-CHET Lower Chetco River 78,416
14 U-CHET Upper Chetco River 93,802
15 R&R-JO Rough and Ready/Josephine Creeks 62,141
16 WNCHUC East Fork Winchuck River 32,481
17 SMITH North Fork Smith River 57,429
19 EF-ILL East Fork Illinois River 45,557
20 SUCKER Sucker Creek 61,791
Level 2
Criteria -
Development
Status
Level 3
Level 4
Criteria -
Productivity
Classes
This criteria was used to delineate between roaded (RD) and
unroaded (UR) areas on the Forest. This classification was
necessary to aid in predicting resource outputs for dispersed
recreation, road construction, and management costs. It is
responsive to issues regarding the development of roadless areas
on the Forest, the types of recreation opportunities that will be
available, and the degree of timber development that is responsive
to local, regional, and national needs. Unavailable and
unsuitable lands (NA) are also identified in this level.
(Not Used)
This criteria was used to define the biological potential of
varying land groupings on the Forest, and to link this potential
to the response coefficients for timber as a result of treatments
performed in the prescriptions. This criteria is responsive to
issues concerning levels of timber harvest and future potential.
The following Level 4 identifiers were used:
Identifier Label Description
MN MIN Minimum Site (lands capable of producing
less than 20 cubic foot per
acre per year)
LS LOW Low Site
MS MED Medium Site
HS HIGH High Site
B-15

Level 5
Criteria -
Plantation
Age
Level 6
Criteria -
Condition
Class
This level was used to define the ages of the existing
plantations. Identifiers are P1 through P4 to indicate ages 10,
20, 30, or 40 at the midpoint of the first FORPLAN period (1990).
This could have been incorporated in Level 6, but it was not
included in the original inventory and it was more convenient to
insert it here.
This criteria was used to identify existing vegetation conditions
on the Forest. This information was used to predict response
coefficients for timber, wildlife habitat, old growth, and
management costs. It is responsive to timber, and wildlife
issues. Condition, size, and stocking classes were aggregated
into the condition classes shown below:
Identifier Label Description
MT MATURE Mature Conifer Stands
IE I/MS/E Immature Medium Size Sawtimber - Excess
Stocking
IP I/MS/P Immature Medium Size Sawtimber and Poles
IS I/S&S Seedlings and Saplings (primarily
plantations)
HD HRDWDS Brush and Hardwood Areas Nonstocked With
Conifers
SS SSC SSC Land (MIN Site from Level 4)
PR PVTLND Private and Other Government Lands
IDENTIFI-
CATION OF
PRESCRIPTIONS
The NFMA regulations define management prescriptions as
management practices selected and scheduled for applications on
a specific area to attain multiple use and other goals and
objectives" (36 CFR 219.3). Generally, a multiple use or dominant
use management prescription is a set of practices to conserve or
preserve resource outputs on any one Management Area.
The Forest IDT constructed the prescriptions by reviewing legal
direction, researching appropriate questions, and consulting
existing policy direction. The IDT then applied professional
judgement to develop multiple-use resource management
prescriptions.
These prescriptions represent a range of management direction,
intensity, practices, standards, and guidelines. The IDT included
the necessary mitigation measures and resource coordination
measures that are required to satisfy economic, legal, and social
constraints when implementing these prescriptions. The
documentation of these measures are found in the management
Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan.
B-16

Completed prescriptions received full review, discussion, and
revision by the IDT. Each IDT member evaluated the prescriptions
to ensure management direction could be implemented, and that the
planning issues, concerns, and opportunities were adequately
addressed.
Fourteen different Management Area themes were considered in the
planning process. The following fourteen Management Areas are
represented by a unique management prescription emphasis.
No.
Management Area
Name
1 Wilderness
2 Wild River
3 Research Natural Area
4 Botanical
5 Unique Interest
6 Custodial (Roadless)
7 Supplemental Resource
8 Designated Wildlife Habitat
9 Special Wildlife Site
10 Scenic/Recreation River
11 Riparian
12 Retention Visual
13 Partial Retention Visual
14 General Forest
The IDT then assigned different prescriptions to different areas
of the Forest based on the following criteria:
1. Legal obligations such as wilderness designation
2. Ecological characteristics such as riparian zones, unique
plant associations, meadows, and old growth timber.
3. Administrative and social obligations such as Research
Natural Areas and cultural interest areas.
4. Biological capacity for production such as supplemental
resource areas and timberland.
5. Need for wide range of alternatives
6. Need for cost efficiency.
Three different groupings of prescriptions were formulated to 1)
explore the biological and economic limits of different management
strategies (benchmarks), 2) compare with current management
(current direction), and 3) implement feasible multiple use
applications. These groupings permitted the study of the
production limits of each resource prescription given minimal
B-17

attention to other resources, significant changes from current
outputs, and cost efficiency of any one alternative compared to
maximum outputs or to another alternative.
The IDT then formulated three different hierarchies of
prescriptions to further ensure cost efficient solutions. Some
areas were designated for simultaneous use with compatible
resources, some areas had a single emphasis output, and some areas
of land had a minimal level of management. Different alternatives
had different amounts of these allocations. This process provided
a wide range of prescriptions and cost efficient solutions
pursuant to the intent of 36 CFR 219.14(b) and (c).
Subsequent use of the FORPLAN model ensured cost efficient
prescriptions by providing solutions to maximize the PNV within
given constraints.
A brief discussion of the prescription categories follows.
detailed explanation is presented in the LRMP.
A more
Purpose, Each prescription emphasis has driving issues, concerns, and/or
Criteria, and opportunities that provide its purpose, criteria, and assumptions.
Assumptions
for
Wilderness.
Prescriptions
Purpose: To preserve wilderness
Criteria: Any activity will provide an environment essentially
unaltered and undisturbed by humans.
Assumptions: Recreational demand will increase, but use will
remain within the carrying capacity for the first five decades.
Cost Efficiency: Different management plans for wilderness were
assessed to determine meeting recreational demand at least cost.
Potential Activities: Trail construction, trail maintenance, and
natural fuels improvements.
Wild River.
Purpose: To maintain the river environment in a natural state
while providing for recreational opportunities
Criteria: Any activity will provide an experience of a free
flowing, free of impoundments river with high quality water
inaccessible except by trail.
Assumptions: Recreational use will increase over time with
potential impacts.
Cost Efficiency: Different management strategies were assessed to
meet demand at different levels with different costs.
B-18

Potential Activities: Trail construction, trail maintenance, and
natural fuels treatment.
Research Natural Area.
Purpose: To preserve examples of naturally occurring ecosystems
for research and education.
Criteria: Any activity will ensure the baseline conditions, gene
pool preservation, and natural processes in relatively undisturbed
environments will not be altered.
Assumptions: The experiment station and universities associated
with the RNA's will continue to provide direction. The need for
lands in a natural state will remain constant over the planning
period.
Cost Efficiency: Other values, such as minerals, which are
foregone in this management prescription, are minimized in the
site selection. RNA values are assumed to exceed opportunity
costs.
Potential Activities:
Research projects and educational projects.
Botanical.
Purpose:
To protect unusual botanical features of the Forest.
Criteria: Any activity will ensure that endangered, threatened,
or sensitive plant species, and other unique biological features
will not be adversely affected.
Assumptions: The demand for protecting rare plants from
disturbance and value of those plants will not decrease within the
planning period.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different areas
allocated to this Management Area for providing an economic
comparison and a wide range of alternatives.
Potential Activities: Natural fuels improvement, road
maintenance, and road construction.
Unique Interest.
Purpose: Protect significant cultural sites and outstanding
geologic features of the Forest.
Criteria: Any activity in this category of land will maintain or
protect historic structures or locations of historically
significant events, and prominent or unusual rock buttes or
waterfalls.
B-19

Assumptions: Other uses such as recreation, range, minerals,
lands, and facilities may occur if they are subordinate to the
purpose of this area. The values of these features will not
decrease in time.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different
allocations of this Management Area providing for examination of
economic efficiency.
Potential Activities: Road maintenance, road construction,
natural fuels improvement, and activity fuels improvement.
Custodial (Roadless).
Purpose: To provide a full range of options for future
management.
Criteria: Any activity will retain the natural state of this land
in this classification.
Assumptions: Recreation, minerals, and trail construction may be
compatible uses subordinate to the purpose of this area.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives had different land
allocations for this area providing a wide range of alternatives
and a basis for comparing economic efficiency.
Potential Activities: Trail construction, trail maintenance, and
natural fuels treatment.
Supplemental Resource.
Purpose:
habitat.
To protect or enhance critical wildlife and fisheries
Criteria: Any activity will maintain high quality watershed
conditions, and maintain or improve water quality.
Assumptions: Recreation, wildlife and fish habitat improvements,
soil and water restoration projects, mineral extractions, and
facility construction may occur provided the area's purpose is
met.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different areas
allocated to this Management Area for providing an economic
comparison and a wide range of alternatives.
Potential Activity: Trail construction, trail maintenance,
wildlife habitat improvements, fish habitat improvements,
watershed improvements, road maintenance, road construction, and
natural fuels improvements.
B-20

Designated Wildlife Habitat.
Purpose: To preserve old-growth habitat to maintain populations
of old-growth-dependent species.
Criteria: All activities will protect mature and old growth
habitat in sufficient amounts to maintain viable populations of
indicator species (spotted owls, pine martens, and pileated
woodpeckers).
Assumptions: The amount and distribution of old growth habitat in
this category is sufficient to maintain viable populations of
indicator species.
Cost Efficiency: Two different options of providing the mature
and old growth habitat were examined for economic efficiency.
The first option provided for rotating areas and rotation lengths
to obtain the desired habitat. The second option set aside areas
to maintain the desired habitat.
Potential Activities: Wildlife habitat improvements, fish habitat
improvements, trail construction, trail maintenance, road
maintenance, road construction, and natural fuels improvements.
Special Wildlife Site.
Purpose:
Protect or enhance unique wildlife habitat.
Criteria: Designated meadows, wet sites, lakes, tanoak sites,
Roosevelt elk sites, band-tailed pigeon sites, osprey nest sites,
rock sites, and small botanical sites will have only activities
that maintain or enhance their value for wildlife habitat.
Assumptions: Other uses may be compatible in this area if the
area's purpose is met. Timber harvest would not be programmed.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different areas
allocated to this Management Area for providing an economic
comparison and a wide range of alternatives.
Potential Activities: Wildlife habitat improvements, fish habitat
improvements, trail construction, trail maintenance, natural fuels
improvements, activity fuels improvements, road maintenance, and
limited road construction.
Scenic/Recreation River.
Purpose: To provide high quality scenery along a largely
undeveloped shoreline and to provide a wide range of river
oriented recreation.
Criteria: All activities will provide or maintain the aesthetic,
scenic, archeologic, recreational, and water quality attributes of
these areas.
B-21

Assumptions: Coordination with the five agency group for river
management will allocate uses for these areas.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different areas
allocated to this Management Area for providing an economic
comparison and a wide range of alternatives.
Potential Activities: Wildlife habitat improvements, fish habitat
improvements, recreational improvements, trail construction, trail
maintenance , road maintenance, road construction, timber sale
preparation, timber harvest, reforestation, and timber stand
improvements.
Riparian.
Purpose: Maintain integrity and water quality of the riparian
ecosystem.
Criteria: All activities will maintain the vegetative,
terrestrial, and aquatic habitats associated with riparian areas.
Other objectives such as timber harvest will be secondary to the
primary criteria.
Assumptions: If unresolvable conflict occurs, preferential
consideration is given to riparian values.
Cost Efficiency: Different prescriptions for managing riparian
areas are examined to determine economic efficiency and a range
of biological responses. Opportunity costs of forgoing secondary
benefits are examined.
Potential Activities: Wildlife habitat improvements, fish habitat
improvements, timber sale preparation, timber harvest,
reforestation, timber stand improvements, trail construction,
trail maintenance, watershed improvements, natural fuels
improvements, activity fuels improvements, road maintenance, and
road construction.
There are three options for management of the riparian vegetation
in areas available and suitable for timber management. These are
referred to as riparian management option B, riparian management
option C, and minimum level. These prescriptions differ in the
amount of vegetation that can be removed in management
activities. Application of any of the prescription options will
provide flexibility to retain large organic debris in the riparian
areas for long-term input to stream systems.
Prescription option B allows a moderate level of vegetation
removal from the riparian area. A maximum of 70 percent and 30
percent removal of the basal area from Class III, and Class I and
II streams are allowed. The actual average harvest used for the
FORPLAN model was 50 percent and 20 percent removal because the
maximum amount of wood could not be removed in all cases. The
B-22

prescription is designed to maintain existing water temperatures
within the Planning Basin as regrowth of shade in past activity
units balances removal associated with new projects. It must be
remembered that these prescriptions are applied to a basin as a
whole and the expected results are viewed as net change over
time. Prescription option B is considered the MMR for riparian
area management because any net increase in the critical summer
water temperature would cause an unacceptable adverse impact to
the fisheries resource.
Prescription option C allows minimal removal of the shade
providing vegetation and is estimated to have a net effect of a
two degrees Fahrenheit reduction in the summer water temperature
over time. The maximum amount of basal area removed for Class I
and II, and Class III streams are 20 percent and 40 percent
respectively. The average harvest used in the FORPLAN model are
10 percent and 20 percent since the maximum amount of wood could
not be removed each time. This prescription would improve the
quality of the habitat for salmonids over the present condition in
the basin taken as a whole. Prescription C reduces risk of
activity impacts on Class III streams and may offer greater
long-term protection of the riparian ecosystem. Greater
availability of woody debris and density of overhead canopy would
be provided.
The minimum level option does not allow removal of shade providing
vegetation through timber harvest. Improvement in stream
temperatures beyond option C are not projected, but this option
would provide additional security by minimizing risks of impacts
in the riparian areas.
Retention Visual.
Purpose:
To maintain area in near natural condition.
Criteria: Any management activity will be subordinate to the
landscape character and not evident to the casual visitor.
Assumptions: The value of high quality scenery will not decrease
over the planning period.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different areas
allocated to this Management Area for providing an economic
comparison and a wide range of alternatives. This allows the
examination of forgone benefits.
Potential Activities: Wildlife habitat improvements, fish habitat
improvements, timber sale preparation, timber harvest,
reforestation, timber stand improvements, watershed resource
improvements, natural and activity fuels improvements, recreation
improvements, trail construction, road construction, trail
maintenance, and road maintenance.
B-23

Partial Retention Visual.
Purpose: To maintain area in a near natural state such that human
activities are subordinate to the landscape character.
Criteria: Activities may be evident to the casual visitor, but
such activities blend with the landscape.
Assumptions: The values of high quality scenery will not decrease
over the planning period.
Cost Efficiency: Different alternatives have different areas
allocated to this Management Area for providing an economic
comparison and a wide range of alternatives with different
opportunities.
Potential Activities: Refer to the potential activities permitted
in the Retention Visual Management Area.
General Forest.
Purpose: To provide a full range of activity with conservation of
renewable resources.
Criteria: To produce timber within the reasonable constraints of
other resources and the capability of the land.
Assumptions:
Many uses of these areas are compatible.
Cost Efficiency: Different timber management options were
examined (intensive, moderate, and extensive) to obtain economic
efficiency and a full choice of activities. The projected yields
for these options were obtained from analysis using DP-DFSIM to
choose rotation lengths, thinning regimes, and other silvicultural
practices. The FORPLAN model then was used to allocate these
options on high, moderate, and low sites using economic criteria.
Potential Activities: Refer to the potential activities permitted
in the Retention Visual Management Area.
DEVELOPMENT
OF TIMBER
HARVEST
OPTION
INTENSITIES
The site specific selections of silvicultural systems and harvest
methods are discussed in DEIS Appendix G. The FORPLAN modeling
with the exception of Riparian Management Areas, is based on
evenaged systems and the clearcut harvest method. This is the
predominant system currently in use, and has available yield
models. Following the analysis process of Appendix G for site
specific conditions of the Siskiyou, the evenaged system is
expected to be the most common used in the implementation of the
Forest LRMP. Application of other systems in some site specific
cases is not expected to significantly affect the ability to
produce Forest-wide outputs.
Timber harvest options and management intensities were developed
to portray a range of investment levels and management practices,
B-24

and to evaluate the yield and economic consequences. The
management practices outlined in Standards and Guidelines 4-1 of
the Regional Guide are used in various combinations to derive
silviculturally sound management regimes for the Siskiyou National
Forest.
Regimes that are not feasible on a broad scale are; those that
plan for reforestation to be accomplished by natural regeneration,
and those that would program commercial thinning without planning
precommercial thinning to achieve stocking control. These regimes
are rejected due to the uncertainty of natural regeneration, and
the unpredictable nature of natural fill in following planting.
Both of these factors are complicated by vegetative competition.
The intensities developed evolve from three basic schemes:
extensive, moderate, and intensive. All of the management
intensities plan for artificial regeneration of cut over acres and
include all management practices necessary to establish future
stands, i.e., site preparation, animal control, and release.
Variations of the three basic intensities include reforestation
with or without genetically improved stock. The basic intensities
are described as follows:
Extensive:
Moderate Intensity:
Intensive:
Following satisfactory reforestation, no
further treatment would be planned until
final harvest.
Following satisfactory reforestation, stands
would be precommercially thinned as needed
to achieve early stocking level control;
then no further treatment would be planned
until final harvest.
Management practices would include all
reforestation treatments, precommercial
thinning, and commercial thinnings as needed
to cost efficiently optimize timber
production.
Allowable entry dates (minimum rotation length) for timber stands
not constrained by other resource requirements are set at the age
when the yield prediction for that particular regime reaches 95
percent of Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI). All
existing stands classified as sawtimber are at or beyond the
minimum rotation ages and are considered available for entry
beginning in the first decade. Existing seedling and sapling
stands are assigned to the managed yield tables depending on
productivity class and management intensity; the timing is then
dependent on the starting ages of the young stands.
As part of the benchmark analysis, rotations were also identified
at the ages when stands first reach the minimum merchantability
standards. These rotations are used for analyses where the 95
percent of CMAI constraint is dropped.
B-25

Most
Efficient
Intensities
Analysis of the individual management intensities has identified
the intensity with the highest PNV for each category of land as
required by 36 CFR 219.14(b). Extensive management produces the
highest PNV for Low Site and Moderate Intensity produces the
highest for Medium and High Sites. The timing of harvests and the
PNV's are displayed below:
Economically Efficient Management Intensities By Land Category
Land
Managed
Produc- Existing Inventory Rotation Total
tivity Condition Year of PNV Harvest PNV PNV
Class Class Harvest ($/Acre) Year ($/Acre) ($/Acre)
LOW Mature 0 2,056 140 -818 1,238
SITE Existing
Plantation - - 125 45 45
Hardwoods 0 -388 140 -818 -1,206
MEDIUM Mature
SITE Immature
0 6,217 85 -20 6,197
Fully Stocked
Immature, Not
0 6,516 85 -20 6,496
Fully Stocked 0 1,634 85 -20 1,614
Existing
Plantation - - 60 1,482 1,482
Hardwoods 0 -388 85 -20 -408
HIGH Mature 0 12,373 75 166 12,539
SITE Immature
Fully Stocked 0 6,516 75 166 6,682
Immature, Not
Fully Stocked 0 1,634 75 166 1,800
Existing
Plantations - - 50 1,817 1,817
Hardwoods 0 -388 75 166 -22
Separate
Suitability
Component
(SSC)
The SSC lands are lands previously delineated which produce less
than 20 cubic feet per acre per year. This category contains
18,713 acres for which inventory data is not available.
Assignment of these acres to Low Site yield tables would greatly
misrepresent yield capabilities from the SSC. The average growth
potential is estimated to be 14 cubic feet per acre per year.
Considering the extraction and reforestation costs, on the average
all entries in this component would have negative PNV's. Since
this component is not allowed to interact with other lands, there
could not be allowable cut effects, or scheduling advantages
associated with these lands. Modeling any harvest on these lands
would reduce the Forest-wide PNV; they would not be selected by
FORPLAN. Given this plus the projection that their maximum output
would be less than one percent of the timber output of any
B-26

enchmark or alternative, timber harvest prescriptions for the SSC
lands were not entered in the FORPLAN model.
DEVELOPMENT
OF YIELD
COEFFICIENTS
Recreation
This section describes how the yields of each resource were
calculated. Additional information regarding each resource can be
found in the respective background papers on file in the Forest
planning records.
The recreation yield coefficients for the Siskiyou National Forest
express potential capacity in RVD's per acre. Capacity
coefficients were derived directly in RVD's by considering the
specific activity mixes occurring on the Forest. This process
requires the application of capacity standards for each activity
by ROS class, such as hikers per mile of trail per hour, and
summing the individual capacities to obtain one total maximum
capacity for an area. The process for determining capacities was
derived from the USDA publication, ROS Users Guide.
In general the process worked as follows:
Activities and outputs were determined for each ROS class. The
physical characteristics of land were identified that would affect
its capacity to support recreation use. Factors were identified
that would affect recreation use, such as useable days per year,
length of stay, numbers of people per mile of trail, etc. Finally
total capacities were determined for each activity and these were
combined to reflect the capacity coefficient for each ROS class on
the Forest. The final coefficients fell within the range suggested
for Region Six for each ROS class.
The capacities arrived at by applying the coefficients do not
reflect use or demand. They are gross averages and are useful
primarily for comparing the potential capacity to provide
recreation outputs in a relative sense under different management
emphasis.
Complete documentation for all capacity coefficients is on file at
the Supervisors Office, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass,
Oregon.
Projected Use.
Developed Recreation. Developed recreation was not an issue in
this analysis; capacity exceeds use and potential capacity far
exceeds projected demand. Developed recreation outputs were
expressed as current use and a projected demand based on current
use. It was assumed that once projected demand reached or
exceeded supply, developed sites would be constructed or existing
sites expanded to accommodate the demand.
Demand was projected by applying a one-half percent per year
increase to the 1980 RIM use data.
B-27

Current supply was based on 1980 RIM data and is expressed as
maximum optimal capacity or approximately 30 to 40 percent of
theoretical capacity.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation includes Wilderness
and general Forest on the assessment output tables. Use was
evaluated by ROS class and is based on 1980 RIM data. For all ROS
categories, use was projected at the rate one-half percent
increase per year over the planning horizon. Capacity
coefficients were applied to inventoried acreage to identify the
apparent capacity.
It was assumed that all Primitive or Semi-primitive Non-motorized
acres in areas allocated to management that included timber
harvest would shift to the roaded natural end of the spectrum by
the end of the first decade.
It was assumed that administrative restrictions on motorized use
could be placed on appropriate trail systems in roadless areas and
ROS classifications changed accordingly.
Visual
Resources
The yield coefficients developed for the VQO's on the Siskiyou
National Forest are expressed in terms of the percentage of the
landscape in disturbed openings at any one time. The coefficients
were developed with consensus among Region Six Landscape
Architects and were based on the study; Scheduling Timber Harvest
to Meet Visual Objectives, (DeWerff et al, 1981).
Basically, the study process involved the following:
Definition: A visual coefficient as applied to this Forest can be
defined as the percentage of commercial Forest land that can be
harvested over a given period and still allow the attainment of
the Retention, Partial Retention, and Modification/Maximum
Modification VQO's.
Two methods were used to generate the visual coefficients. The
first utilized the Existing Visual Condition (EVC) inventory that
was completed in 1981 on the Forest. The second utilized the HP
9845 perspective plot computer system and allowed the graphic
assessment of visual impacts of timber harvest over time with the
ability to adjust harvest percentages up or down and evaluate the
results graphically.
The study resulted in the definition of the following coefficients
by VQO.
Retention Visual
0-4 percent Harvested each decade
250-300 year rotation
1-5 acre openings
8 percent of the total area disturbed at anyone time
B-28

Partial Retention Visual
5-8 percent harvested each decade
130 year rotation
5-10 acre openings
16 percent of the total area disturbed at anyone time
Other Visual-Modification/Maximum Modification
9-13 percent harvested each decade
80 year rotation
10-60 acre openings
27 percent of the total area disturbed at any one time
For Forest-wide modeling, the percent harvested per decade and the
rotation length were used as constraints on the timber harvest
schedule, when and where VQO's were assigned.
Wildlife Woodpeckers (Snags). Coefficients for wildlife trees (snags) are
described in Managed Yield Tables for Siskiyou National Forest,
Craig, 1984. The following discussion is excerpted from this
publication. Production of wildlife trees is planned to provide
foraging and nesting habitat in future rotations for species
dependent on snags. The basal areas of snags required to sustain
various population levels are shown in the table below. The
mortality projected by DFSIM would supply the needed snags during
the older ages of the stands, however, allowances need to be made
for the period between final harvest and the time when regenerated
stands begin to produce mortality, and also for periods following
commercial thinning. The period following final harvest until the
future stand will produce snags is approximately twice the length
of the average snag life. The basal area representing two sets of
wildlife trees will be subtracted from the final harvest to
provide snags during this period. For example, to provide for the
40 percent population level, 1.54 square feet of basal area (.77 x
2) would be subtracted from the final harvest. To provide for
snags following commercial thinning, the basal area equivalent to
one set of snags would be subtracted for the thinning harvest.
The table below displays snags required to sustain woodpecker
populations.
B-29

Snag Life
DBH 1/ TPA 2/ BA 3/ (Years)
20 Percent Population Level
10 .06 .03 20
12 .38 .30 25
.33
40 Percent Population Level
10 .50 .27 20
12 .24 .19 25
20 .14 .31 35
.77
60 Percent Population Level
10 .93 .51 20
12 .24 .19 25
20 .14 .31 35
1.00
jj DBH = Diameter Breast Height
V/ TPA = Trees Per Acre
V/ BA/a = Basal Area Per Acre in square feet
Black-tailed Deer/Roosevelt Elk. Yield coefficients developed for
deer also represent elk. Coefficients were not developed
specifically for elk because this species continues to expand its
range on the Forest and changes in population size would be
difficult to attribute to environmental changes caused by Forest
management practices. Fluctuations in deer herd size should
mirror habitat capability for elk (but not necessarily the number
of animals). Acre per deer constants were assigned to various
seral stages and habitat types. These constants were multiplied
by the total acres within each habitat grouping to produce
population figures, which were then added together. This resulted
in a potential Forest-wide winter (April) deer population of
approximately 26,000. A more detailed description of deer yield
coefficients is on file at Siskiyou National Forest headquarters.
Fisheries Fish Distribution. The determination was made in cooperation with
ODFW biologists through review of State and Forest stream survey
records. From these records, existing distribution of salmonids
on the Forest was placed at 609 miles from anadromous salmonids
(salmon, steelhead sea-run cutthroat trout), and 1,147 miles from
resident rainbow and cutthroat trout.
Habitat Quality and Capability. The following basic assumptions
were arrived at by the Forest Biologist and Region Six Fisheries
Biologist, Gordon Haugen for the Siskiyou National Forest.
B-30

1. Each of the Forest drainages has an adequate escapement
potential for adult fish.
2. Spawning gravel quantity and quality are sufficient to
provide for incubation and emergence of enough fry to fully
stock existing rearing habitat.
3. The quantity and quality of rearing habitat are the most
critical components for the survival of juvenile salmonids.
Known limiting habitat factors on the Siskiyou consist of
high summer water temperatures, lack of summer rearing pool
depths, lack of sufficient instream fish cover, and low
summer stream flows. Existing habitat condition was
evaluated against limiting factor ranges for salmonids at
various life stages as described in the following literature:
Reiser, D. W. and T. C. Bjornn, 1979. Influence of
Forest and Rangeland Management on Anadromous Fish
Habitat in North America: Habitat Requirements of
Anadromous Salmonids USDA.
Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 54 pp.
ODFW, 1977.
Manual of Fish Management. 218 pp.
State of Oregon, 1977. Regulations Relating to Water
Quality Control in Oregon. Sections from Oregon
Administrative Rules, Chapter 340. Department of
Environmental Quality. pp 1-22, 155-296, 455-456.
Coefficients for projecting pounds and WFUD's from capability
value for anadromous fish. Coefficients were developed by a
three-Forest Coastal Zone Group consisting of the Siskiyou,
Siuslaw and Umpqua National Forests. Factors used by the Siskiyou
Forest from this effort included; smolt to adult survival, catch
to escapement ratios, average weight of adult fish, etc.
Salmonid Harvest Determination Process. Working with biologists
of the ODFW, determination of existing Forest fisheries output was
made. This process involved review of annual salmon catch
statistics in the offshore commercial fishery for Oregon,
Washington and California, plus inland and offshore sport
fisheries success for the three States.
Division of Catch (Commercial, Offshore Sport, Inland Sport). For
those salmon attributed to Siskiyou National Forest habitat
production, a catch division of 66 percent commercial, 27 percent
offshore sport, and 7 percent inland sport was made after review
of Oregon catch records and information compiled by Pacific
Fisheries Marine Council.
B-31

Sport Harvest Rate (Angler Days/WFUD's). Sport harvest records as
reported by the ODFW are expressed in Angler Days while the Forest
Service reports angler effort in terms of WFUD's. Relationship of
these two terms is shown in Documentation of Existing Sport and
Commercial Fish Harvest Attributable to Siskiyou Forest Stream and
River Habitat, January 1985. This document is on file at the
Siskiyou Forest Supervisor's Office.
Salmonid Harvest Attributable to Forest. Average inland sport
catch records for 1972-1982 were used as a basis for determination
of Forest habitat contribution for each of the 19 Planning
Basins. Percent of wild fish attributable to Forest habitat was
assigned for each major river system involving Forest administered
habitat. This work was done in cooperation with the ODFW.
Average annual sport and commercial harvest attributable to
Siskiyou Forest habitat, under present situations, was determined
as shown below:
Species Pounds WFUD's
Total Anadromous
Adult Steelhead (Winter and Summer) - 16,430
1/2 lb. Summer Steelhead - 10,345
Fall Chinook 375,075 11,250
Spring Chinook 484,950 18,954
Coho 19,888 843
Sea-run Cutthroat 1,024
Total Forest Contribution 879,913 58,946
Total Resident
Rivers and Streams - 4,984
Lakes and Ponds - 1,132
Total Forest Contribution - 6,116
Total Forest Average Annual =
879,913 (lbs) + 65,062 (WFUD's)
Fishery Value
Dollars
Average Annual Fishery Value =
Anadromous (WFUD's) 1,945,218
Anadromous (lbs) 923,908
Resident Trout (WFUD's) 91,740
Total Annual Average 2,960,866
B-32

Fisheries Yield Projections. Fisheries output projections were
developed based on application of the A, B or C management
prescription to Riparian areas. Considering present stream
temperatures and salmonid tolerance limits, projections were made
and modeled as follows:
1. Application of the A prescription was modeled as raising
existing temperature of Class I and II streams by an average
of two degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the third decade.
Based on salmonid temperature tolerances, anticipated
competition from nongame fish, existing high water
temperatures, and loss of long term large woody debris input
to stream channels, application of the A management
prescription was modeled to decrease salmonid habitat
capability by 50 percent in Class I and II streams. It was
determined that this prescription did not meet minimum legal
requirements and it was dropped from further consideration.
2. Application of the B prescription was modeled to maintain
current habitat conditions and fisheries outputs of Class I
and II streams. For the B prescription, average width of
riparian was modeled at 150 feet on each side of Class I and
II streams, and 100 feet on each side of Class III.
3. Application of the C prescription was modeled to decrease
existing water temperatures by two degrees Fahrenheit within
Class I and II streams and improve salmonid habitat
capability an average of ten percent by the end of the third
decade.
Timber
Yield tables for existing timber stands were developed through
statistical analysis of inventory data. Stand volume and growth
were projected for each combination of Productivity Class and
Condition Class.
Yield tables for future stands and existing plantations under
management were developed using the stand simulation model for
Douglas-fir, DFSIM. Yield projections were made for the various
combinations of Productivity Class, Prescription Emphasis, and
Management Intensity. Additional analysis of thinning and
fertilization regimes was done with the aid of the dynamic
programing - DFSIM model (DP/DFSIM).
Yield tables for existing and managed stands, and the supporting
data and processes used in their development, are part of the
Planning Record. Development of future yield projections are
documented in Managed Yield Tables for Siskiyou National Forest
(Craig 1984).
Sediment
A sediment yield model was developed to predict sediment
production by management activity (harvest, thinning, road
building), by soil type and eventually by alternative. The
following table presents the methods and data sources used in the
development of the model.
B-33

Natural
Accelerated
Source/Activity Undisturbed Roads Harvest Burning
Mass Movement Landslide Landslide Landslide Landslide
Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory
Surface-Channel Geomorphic Literature Literature Literature
Indicies Values Values Values
Natural sediment rates for surface and channel erosion were
predicted by geomorphic indices (Maxwell and Marston 1980), while
natural landslide activity was predicted from an actual inventory
of Siskiyou National Forest slides (Amaranthus). Accelerated
surface and channel erosion was predicted by literature values
reported from western Oregon and California, northern Rockies and
the Idaho Batholith (Megahan 1974, 1975; Megahan and Kidd 1972;
Megahan and Molitor 1975; Rice, Rothacher and Megahan 1972; Platts
and Megahan 1975; Anderson 1975; Andre and Anderson 1961;
Wischmeier and Smith 1958, 1965, 1968), and local data (Hansen and
Amaranthus 1979). The literature was used to document the
magnitude of impact and its consequences rather than directly
applying a numerical value. Accelerated landslide activity was
estimated by the actual Forest-wide inventory.
A set of 53 sediment yield tables were compiled from representing
the various soil types on the Forest and Forest management
activities. Coefficients that comprise the yield tables were
prepared to numerically simulate the erosional processes of mass
movement and surface-channel erosion. Estimates were made for
these erosional processes under natural conditions and as the
result of Forest management.
Coefficients for sediment yield key on acres clearcut but include
a weighted average for anticipated road building. For each
alternative, by Planning Basin, the accelerated sediment yield
above background (natural plus existing road system) is displayed
in Chapter IV of the DEIS. The total sediment yields (natural
plus existing plus accelerated) are displayed in Chapter II of the
DEIS. These data are used to make relative comparisons and
indicate trends between alternatives.
MMR's will be met by implementing the Best Management Practices
(BMP's) outlined in the Standards and Guidelines; the Riparian
Management Prescriptions; and the harvest dispersion constraints.
Roads Main Access Roads (Arterial and Collector Roads). The arterial
road system was considered to be in place with no additions
expected. If there are arterial additions in the future, it is
expected that they will be designated from collector roads with
reconstruction to upgrade the road standard at that time.
B-34

Most of the collector road system is in place. Eighty-seven miles
are varied in alternatives to represent collector road additions
to the system. This mileage was determined from estimated needs
with the completed road system. These collector road additions
consists of ten miles of existing private road to be acquired,
forty-four miles of new timber sale roads to access primarily the
remaining unroaded lands, and thirty-three miles of existing local
roads which could change to collectors. The existing local roads
extend existing collector roads to new collector roads or join two
collectors together to form new loop systems. The additional
collectors are added to the system by the end of the fifth decade
at rates which correspond generally with timber harvest levels in
the alternatives. All costs for the collector roads were placed
in the FORPLAN model at the same rate as the local roads. Where
the model did not cost the collector construction adequately, a
preroading or supplemental amount is added in the capital
investment program for each alternative in the decade estimated to
be needed. This supplemental funding affected three roads which
are included if the area is accessed for timber harvest in the
alternative. The primary intent of using supplemental funds was
to assure that costs for these three roads were adequately
represented in the road costs.
Local Road Construction. The density coefficients for all roads
were determined by modeling four representative basins with a
logical road system and applying these models to the other
fourteen basins with roads. These basins represented four
different Ranger Districts, four different basin sizes, two
essentially westside and two eastside basins, and all are
approximately equal distance from each other. On maps, the basin
boundaries were identified, the roaded area was separated from the
unroaded area, the commercially unharvested areas were identified,
and helicopter logging areas were identified. A map wheel was
used to measure the mileage. After comparing the outcome with
other data previously determined, it was felt that this data best
represented the roading for each of the four basins. The other
fourteen basins with roads were then grouped with one of the four
basins most like it, and a factor used to compensate for known
differences. Using the acres in each basin of mature, immature,
and pole timber (these timber stands are the ones that will
develop the road system), the miles per acre for new development
in each basin were determined. These coefficients were used in
the FORPLAN model to determine the new road construction on timber
sales at the time an acre is cut. The coefficients used are:
B-35

Roaded Area (New Roads)
Unroaded Area
Miles/
Miles/
Miles/ Square Miles/ Square
Basin Acres Acres Miles Acres Acres Miles
1 21,249 .00255 1.63 10,912 .00491 3.14
2 44,740 .00268 1.72 1,355 .00517 3.31
3 15,089 .00255 1.63 A/
4 20,013 .00241 1.54 15,248 .00465 2.98
5 16,925 .00330 2.11 6,811 .00456 2.92
6 9,664 .00324 2.07 22,459 .00648 4.15
7 2,190 .00378 2.42 19,200 .00756 4.84
8 18,136 .00360 2.30 11
9 10,868 .00363 2.32 13,115 .00502 3.21
10 6,182 .00396 2.53 11,120 .00792 5.07
11 14,780 .00360 2.30 4,480 .00720 4.61
12 19,520 .00330 2.11 4,139 .00456 2.92
13 19,722 .00330 2.11 11,189 .00456 2.92
14/
15 2,019 .00340 2.18 3,696 .00713 4.56
16 13,600 .00330 2.11 6,000 .00456 2.92
17 2,985 .00340 2.18 5,259 .00713 4.56
19 17,310 .00347 2.22 859 .00680 4.35
20 25,259 .00309 1.98 3,856 .00648 4.15
1/ Basin contains no designated unroaded area.
A/ Basin contains all wilderness acres.
The economic objective of the FORPLAN model tended to set back the
higher cost road construction into later decades by selecting
acres with high timber volume in relation to the volume per acre.
This did not represent feasible solutions due to the spatial
limitations that are not represented in the model. A constraint
on the Purchaser Credit funding was placed on the first six
decades to provide a more realistic distribution of the road
construction in this period. This constraint did not permit these
funds to increase over the previous decade amount, thus forcing
the model to distribute the road costs and harvest of some low
site land into earlier decades.
Another situation with the FORPLAN model is that miles per acre or
MMBF harvested tended to not fully recognize construction miles
needed to reach the initial stands. The harvesting of the later
stands can often be accomplished on roads previously built to
enter the area. The result is to underestimate the new
construction in the early decades and overstate the mileage in
later decades. The total miles of new roads would be accounted
for once the stands are all initially harvested. No logical means
was determined to adjust the miles and costs either in the FORPLAN
model or outside the model.
B-36

The road construction costs were developed from actual Forest cost
records for the period of fiscal year 1975 to 1984 on 305 timber
sales. A study was then made to assess the accuracy of the costs
to meet current design and construction methods resulting in lower
cost roads. On the basis of this study, adjustments were made on
the costs for most basins to represent current costs expected to
be used in the coming years. Costs were adjusted for inflation to
the base year of 1982 and then increased 2.4 percent for contract
changes based on 89 recently completed timber sales. The
following are the road construction costs used in the FORPLAN
model.
The following data displays timber sale new road construction:
Mil1e/$
Planning Basin Roaded Unroaded
1 115,668 133,000
2 86,199 94,800
3 78,317 NA
4 78,342 82,300
5 72,802 80,100
6 83,078 87,200
7 52,473 73,500
8 52,107 NA
9 74,873 86,100
10 54,153 65,000
11 45,856 45,900
12 71,506 71,500
13 69,825 76,800
15 48,580 55,900
16 77,601 81,500
17 87,040 87,040
19 50,953 63,700
20 65,040 74 800
Road Reconstruction - Reconstruction densities for all roads were
developed from all timber sales programmed from fiscal years 1978
through 1984. The miles of road reconstructed and the acres of
harvest were compared by basin to determine the miles per acre
resulting in the following data displayed along with dollars per
mile of reconstruction and miles per MCF of commercial thinnings
discussed below.
B-37

(Commercial
Planning
Thinning)
Basin Mile/Acre $/Mile Mile/MCF
1 0.03773 39,515 .004339
2 0.03417 29,105 .004339
3 0.02079 38,750 .003792
4 0.03696 36,683 .003792
5 0.01888 18,717 .003792
6 0.01145 22,660 .002310
7 0.00744 31,794 .002310
8 0.01209 20,561 .002310
9 0.04775 21,930 .003792
10 0.00800 27,644 .002526
11 0.00800 38,877 .002310
12 0.03556 21,010 .003792
13 0.03270 21,604 .005653
15 0.04962 10,407 .002526
16 0.02559 37,896 .005653
17 0.00904 36,526 .005653
19 0.00827 20,708 .002526
20 0.00966 19,783 .002526
The cost for road reconstruction was determined on the same basis
as the cost for road construction, using the same timber sales.
The costs were adjusted to the 1982 base year and increased 2.4
percent for contract changes.
Two additional corrections were made which affected the
reconstruction costs. The benchmark runs identified sufficient
reconstruction mileage in commercial thinning which could affect
cost data. Since commercial thinning harvests tend to have a much
smaller per acre volume, a new set of criteria was set up to
better represent these reconstruction costs. Using Forest data on
sales sold from Fiscal Year 1977 through Fiscal Year 1984, the
volume per acre was determined by District and correlated to
thousand cubic feet per acre by basin. The new figures were used
to determine the miles per thousand cubic feet of harvest for use
with commercial thinnings.
The second correction came about when the percent of road miles
closed was varied by alternative. The reconstruction costs from
past sales included work required on some closed roads, but
significant increases in road closures would not be adequately
represented in the costs. Normally a closed road would have
higher reconstruction costs to open, brush and log out, and shape
the surface. To use the same costs when large mileages of roads
were considered closed was in effect no expense if not adjusted.
To account for added reconstruction costs where needed for
increased road closures, the amount of closures were considered
for each alternative in choosing a multiplying factor of 1.00,
B-38

1.05, or 1.08. The factor chosen for each alternative was used in
the FORPLAN model as shown.
Alternative
Factor
NC 1.00
A 1.00
A-Departure 1.00
B 1.00
C 1.00
D 1.00
Dl 1.00
E 1.08
G 1.05
K 1.08
K-Departure 1.08
L 1.08
M 1.00
Road Maintenance - Road maintenance mileage considered in Forest
planning is based on the Forest inventory as of 1982 and adjusted
to March 1984 for total miles and maintenance level of the roads.
The costs for maintenance were determined and modeled separately
for timber sales and for allocated funds.
The timber sale road maintenance was determined from sales
appraised in the period 1973 through 1982. The total road
maintenance allowed in the appraisal was divided by the sale
volume for a cost per unit volume. It was noted that the last two
years differed significantly from the other years, due largely to
an updating of maintenance costs to better reflect actual
experienced costs. These updated timber sale road maintenance
costs better represented the expenses expected for the future, so
they were used. As a check, the timber sale maintenance costs for
all sales in 1983 were compared with the first FORPLAN benchmark
runs and found to be in close agreement. The following are the
timber sale road maintenance costs used in FORPLAN.
B-39

The following data displays timber sale road maintenance cost:
Planning Basin
$/MBF
1 13.00
2 13.00
3 21.50
4 21.50
5
6
21.50
21.50
7
8
17.00
17.00
9 21.50
10 17.00
11 17.00
12 13.00
13 13.00
15 13.00
16 13.00
17 13.00
19
20
13.00
13.00
The budget for allocated maintenance funds were based on the 1982
to 1984 program average adjusted for inflation. These cost
figures were used to calculate the constrained funding base and a
sequential cost of each mile of road added to the system by
alternative for use in the FORPLAN model. The base cost was
determined by the percent of miles in each maintenance level at
the start of decade one for each alternative. The sequential cost
was determined by the percent of new miles added by maintenance
level. A higher allocated maintenance of about 125 percent of the
current budget was used for an unconstrained funding base and the
sequential cost of each mile added to the system by alternative.
The following is the allocated road maintenance funding by
alternative.
B-40

The following data displays allocated road maintenance funding:
$ $/Mile
Alternative Base Amount Sequential
NC 984,000 269
A 984,000 269
A-Departure 984,000 269
B 1,152,000 269
C 1,012,000 214
D 1,019,000 296
D1 1,019,000 296
E 1,125,000 273
G 864,000 115
K 1,064,000 253
K-Departure 1,064,000 253
L 1,064,000 253
M 981,000 0
Road Capital Investment - A study of the Forest past capital
investment program could find no rational method on which to base
a funding level. After several efforts, the decision was made to
base the funding primarily on timber harvest volumes with
additions as needed to meet the theme of alternatives. This
decision was made on the concept that about 80 percent of the
Forest capital investment funding is timber haul related. The
funding level does not include repairs to the road system caused
by catastrophic events from major floods and wind storms. Even
though the Siskiyou National Forest has a history of major floods
and storms, these events are too difficult to determine with any
accuracy.
The capital investment program funds were originally calculated on
only timber harvest volumes prior to the FORPLAN runs based on
data from the benchmark runs. The formula used in the benchmark
runs was:
CI = $225,000 + $10,000/MMBF
The figures from this formula reasonably agreed with past Capital
Investment funding except when the Forest timber cut increased
significantly from the second growth stands. Various methods were
tried to keep the funding from increasing to an unreasonably high
figure. By graphing the results from methods which best
represented Forest funding, the following formula resulted in
representative funding levels:
$/Decade = $4,000(Decade MMBF) - $2,000,000
with a minimum funding of $250,000/decade since the formula could
give a negative value. This formula gave values close to the
Fiscal Year's 83 and 84 average and assured that any given harvest
volume would always have the same value.
B-41

ANALYSIS
OUTSIDE
FORPLAN
Water Yield
Since most alternatives are on the basis of no budget constraint,
another method was used to increase funding from the constrained
budget. The benchmark FORPLAN runs resulted in funding levels for
the latter decades which were unreasonably high. After several
attempts to find a method which represented a reasonable
unconstrained funding level, the following formula was used:
($/Decade = $5,000 x Decade MMBF).
This formula had a reasonable increase from the constrained budget
figure and represented funding amounts the Forest would properly
invest for support of the timber harvest activities.
Additions to the above capital investment program figures based on
harvest volumes were used to represent mitigation or increased
efforts on improving water quality and fish habitat impacted by
roads, to increase the miles of road open to passenger cars for
roaded recreational use and keep these roads repaired to
standards, and for accessing three unroaded areas in which the
FORPLAN model did not adequately cover the costs. The funding
added was based on the alternative theme and on how roads open to
the public were varied. Mitigating efforts and increasing roads
open to passenger cars were varied on estimates which represented
levels of high, medium, low, or no additional funding to meet the
alternative theme. The unroaded area access funds varied by
alternative and by decade to represent areas entered for timber
harvest in the alternative and the timing of the entry.
DONE This section describes how the yields for resources were adjusted,
modified, and calculated outside of the FORPLAN model. Additional
information regarding these analyses can be found in the
respective background papers on file in the Forest planning
records.
The average annual water yield from the Forest was computed using
a linear regression between mean annual basin precipitation and
streamflow. Streamflow gauging stations are operated on seven
rivers draining the Siskiyou National Forest by the U.S.
Geological Survey and the Oregon Watermaster's Office. Therefore,
actual runoff data is available for seven of the 19 FORPLAN Level
1 basins. A rainfall isohyetal map was constructed from all
precipitation measurement stations distributed around the Forest.
Because precipitation varies greatly within the FORPLAN planning
basins, a basin weighted average was computed using mass balance
techniques. A simple linear model was developed regressing
rainfall (weighted by basin) as the independent variable, and
runoff as the dependent variable. The water yield from ungauged
basins was predicted from mean basin rainfall using the
rainfall-runoff equation:
Annual Water Yield = 1.5 (Mean Basin Rainfall) -
units are in inches and r 2 =0.98.
71 where
B-42

This equation predicts the existing water yield from each planning
basin and therefore the Forest.
The effect of clearcut harvest was predicted using the results
from five clearcut watersheds in Western Oregon (Harr, 1979).
Each clearcut acre was estimated to yield an additional 20 inches
of water in the first year after harvest and return to preharvest
yields in 20 years. The decay of water yield was assumed to be
logarithmic in shape (Harr, personal communication). A computer
program was written (process records) to numerically simulate the
interaction of thousands of clearcut acres in various stages of
water yield decay. The program was run outside of FORPLAN but
utilized final harvest acres generated within the model by decade.
Harvest clearcutting in fog prone areas in known to decrease water
yields (Harr, 1982). Since fog prone areas (similar to the Bull
Run Watershed where this phenomenon was reported) represent a
small proportion of this Forest, we conclude that harvest
clearcutting on the Forest will predominantly increase water
yield.
Roads Classification of Road Type. The classification of collector or
local roads was done by alternative based on specific roads
representing probable collectors. The theme of each alternative
identified areas to be roaded, the extent of emphasis on roaded
recreation, and helped determine which extensions of existing
collectors and connector roads to include for loop roads in the
collector system. These specific roads which fit the alternative
theme, both new and existing, were classed as collectors and the
balance were local roads. Distribution of the new collector roads
varied by decade in each alternative, with all collector roads
built by the fifth decade. The arterial road system did not vary.
Classification of Roads Open to Public Use. The classification of
the Forest road system open to passenger cars, open to high
clearance vehicles, or closed was determined outside the FORPLAN
model. The miles of road open to passenger cars was figured as
all maintenance Levels 3 and 4 roads plus a percentage of the
Level 2 roads. The Level 2 roads open to passenger car use are an
estimate of the mileage at any period of time in which the surface
is graded for timber haul or other project work and the road is
suitable for passenger car use during the project operations and
for a while afterward.
Maintenance Levels 1, 2, and 3 varied by alternative, to represent
the theme of the alternative. A percentage of miles of Levels 1
and 3, both existing and new roads, was used to represent the
alternative theme according to a high, medium, or low amount. The
balance of the miles were classified as Level 2.
An additional fifty miles of road not built by timber sales were
added to represent other roads built and included on the Forest
transportation system. These are roads built under special use
B-43

permits by miners, to administration sites such as weather or
radio sites, for added recreation sites, and private roads added
to the system by rights-of-way acquisition. The mileage and
distribution of these miles varied out to the fifth decade,
depending on the alternative theme. The private roads acquired
were added to the collector system and the balance were local
roads.
Fire
Management
Fiscal Trends in Fire Management. The fire management budget for
the Forest has been decreasing steadily since its peak in the mid
1970's. The base fire planning period budget (Fiscal Year 1978)
for the Forest's prevention, detection and presuppression programs
was $585,500 or $794,500 in 1982 dollars. A presentation of
program expenditures is presented in the following data:
Fire management program expenditures for the Siskiyou National
Forest base fire planning period in actual fiscal year dollars as
follows:
Fiscal Year/$
Functional Area 1977 1978 1979
Consolidated Functional Costs
Forest Resources 787,900 585,500 623,800
Shared Resources 1,224,200 606,900 521,000
Fuels - 164,100 52,700
Approximate Functional Cost for Forest Resources
Prevention (111)
Detection (112)
63,100
57,800
112,500
88,000
114,000
58,800
Attack (113) 627,000 348,000 372,300
Air (114) (40,000) (37,000) 36,600
Support (115)
Fuels (115)
248,600
-
236,200
164,100
-
52,700
Period
Fire Program Costs 1/
Expenditure
1 Jul 74 - 30 Jun 75 1,964,385
1 Jul 75 - 30 Jun 76 2,391,496
1 Jul 76 - 30 Sep 76 (mini-year) 1,302,680
1 Oct 76 - 30 Sep 78 1,634,922
1 Oct 77 - 30 Sep 78 1,452,730
1 Oct 78 - 30 Sep 79 1,689,544
1/ Includes costs for emergency fire fighting and the
construction of fire facilities.
B-44

The funds spent to treat fuels created by management activities
have increased steadily over the decade in response to both
inflation and the need to mitigate impacts on other resources.
Average treatment costs on the Forest in fiscal year 1982 dollars
are presented below.
Base Fire Planning Period Fuels Management Costs for the Siskiyou
National Forest in 1982 Dollars follows:
Size (Acres) $/Acre Size (Acres) $/Acre
Average Total Fuel Treatment Costs for Activity Fuels
1-5 916 1-15 776
5-10 727 5-20 753
10-40 576 20-45 679
Activity
$/Acre
Average Costs for Typical Treatment Activities
Broadcast burning 241
Underburning 196
Pile burning 93
Handpile and burn 345
Burning hardwood conversion areas 71
National Fire Management Analysis and Planning. The Fire Planning
Process used on the Siskiyou National Forest followed FSH 5109.19,
Fire Management Analysis and Planning. This handbook provides the
basic steps followed in developing the fire management program, to
include a level of protection, responsive to management direction
and resource objectives stated in the Forest Plan.
Two levels of planning were completed to bring the fire planning
process to this juncture: Level 1 which was a general fire
management analysis; and Level 2, which was a technical fire
management analysis that evaluated fire management program mixes
and program levels, and estimated the costs and effects of each
through a detailed analytical process.
The following is a summary of the process followed and some of the
key assumptions made in completing the Level 1 and Level 2
analysis.
B-45

The first step in the Level 1 process was to compare the master
fire occurrence file with the individual fire reports for the 1970
decade and correct any errors in the master file. From this file
fires not to be used in the planning process were identified.
Typically, these fires were far enough outside the Forest boundary
that the Forest Service would no longer respond. The 510 fires
shown in the master file were reduced to 495 fires for the 1970
decade. These 495 fires burned a total of 2,884 acres.
The next step was to gather all available 1970 decade fire
weather data for the Forest. This information was collected
primarily from the National Fire Weather Data Library.
After gathering the weather data, fuel models and weather stations
were assigned to each of the 495 fires. This was accomplished by
utilizing the planning basins established by the IDT for analysis
purposes. National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) fuel models
were then identified for each basin. A basin could be represented
by one fuel model or a combination of two models. A weather
station was assigned to each basin after consultation with
National Weather Service Fire Weather Forecasters.
When this step was completed, the daily fire weather data was
matched against fire occurrence days in each weather station's
zone of influence to see if there was weather data for the day of
the particular fire. Missing days were identified and then
corrected by either using interpolated values for a missing day
from the FPL-MOIST fire planning computer file, data from nearby
stations, or "best estimates" developed after a review of seasonal
climatic data for the station in question. With matching weather
data for all fire days, it was then possible to develop tables
which reflected the number of fires and acres burned by intensity
level and size class for each of the basins. This information,
plus other data generated by the FPL-FREQUENCY fire analysis
computer program, was documented in the Planning Records as part
of the analysis of the management situation.
The planning basin approach was not conducive to fire management
planning; therefore, the basins were collapsed into five Fire
Management Analysis Zones (FMAZ's) (see map in Chapter III of the
DEIS). These zones were based on fuel types, fire weather
climatology and resource management direction. The zones utilized
in the process were:
Zone 1:
Zone 2:
Zone 3:
Zone 4:
Zone 5:
Powers Ranger District
Chetco and Gold Beach Ranger Districts
Illinois Valley and Galice Ranger Districts
Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Wild Rogue Wilderness
B-46

Each FMAZ was assigned an NFDRS fuel model or pair of fuel models
and a key fire weather station. The process of matching fire
weather data to each fire was repeated, and a new set of fire
frequency tables was generated for each FMAZ.
In the Level 2 analysis, only the data generated in the FMAZ
portion of the Level 1 analysis was used. The first step in the
Level 2 analysis was to generate the fiftieth and ninetieth
percentile rates of spread for each of the fire FMAZ. This data,
along with the number of fires by size class, and intensity level
developed in Level 1, were utilized later in the process to
calibrate the Initial Attack Analyzer computer model.
The selection of representative fires was the next step in the
Level 2 analysis. In this particular analysis, fires in each FMAZ
were analyzed to determine attack type and mix by attack time.
This data was then used to define the character of the fire
workload in each FMAZ in the Initial Attack Analyzer model.
Next, the 1978 base fire organization was identified and a
dispatch philosophy developed for each of the 13 representative
fire situations, which when combined, represented the fire
workload in the five FMAZ's. The dispatch levels were then
combined with data developed in Level 1 to calibrate the Initial
Attack Analyzer model.
In calibrating the Initial Attack Analyzer model, the rate of
spread was increased or decreased, the number of fires by
intensity level shifted slightly up or down, and the weighting of
the representative fires varied as the 1978 organization fought
the fires in the computer. The various inputs, excluding the
organizational dispatch level, were manipulated until the numbers
of fires and acres burned by size class in the model matched
closely the actual number of fires and acres burned by size class
as experienced in the 1970 decade. After the Initial Attack
Analyzer was calibrated, the fire workload in each FMAZ was
analyzed in detail.
The suppression costs for each representative fire situation were
calculated and weighted against the annual frequency to determine
an annual expected suppression expenditure. Costs for escaped
fires were based on actual large fire costs experienced on the
Siskiyou National Forest. The Pistol Basin Fire (1972) at 1,088
acres; Quail Creek Fire (1970) at 683 acres; and the Shasta Costa
Fire (1975) at 471 acres were used for the development of the
large fire costs. These costs were equated to 1980 dollars and
weighted against the annual frequency to determine an annual
expected expenditure.
B-47

Resource value change was calculated for each representative fire
situation in each zone that exceeded ten acres. These
calculations included an estimate of maximum loss per acre in
immature timber stands; both seedling and sapling, and pole
stands, an estimation of mature timber value loss, damage to
improvements, as well as changes in dollar values of commercial
forage, new water, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreation
resources (Table B-2).
In calculating timber losses in the "General Forest Zones" (FMAZ
1, 2, and 3), each FMAZ was first analyzed to determine what
percent of the area represented old-growth timber, pole timber,
seedling and sapling stands, as well as brush. Once these values
were determined, a weighted timber dollar value for each zone was
developed which represented the diversity of the timber stands.
Damage to improvements in each zone was based on a best estimate
of improvements that could be lost in a large fire. Dollar values
for commercial forage were not calculated in the analysis as
grazing was of only minor value. Inputs of dollar values for new
water, fish habitat, and wildlife habitat were obtained from the
appropriate resource specialists and geared to fire intensity
levels and fire size classes. Recreation resources were handled
in much the same way.
Dollar value changes were totaled and summarized by FMAZ and then
further combined into total Forest value tables. An assessment
for shared resources; air tankers, smokejumpers, repellers, and
light helitack was also developed using guidelines developed by
the Region. This assessment was included in the calculation of
the Fire Management Effectiveness Index (FMEI).
Once the FMEI for the 1978 base organization (C10) was calculated,
the detailed analysis was repeated for five other program level
and program mixes. These included:
K10: The 1978 base budget level decreased by 30 percent with
a light helicopter located at Merlin, Oregon.
K20: The 1978 base budget level decreased by 45 percent with
no helicopter located at Merlin, Oregon.
K30: The 1978 base budget level increased by 15 percent with
a rappel helicopter (Bell 212) located at Merlin,
Oregon.
K41: The 1978 base budget level decreased by 15 percent with
a light helicopter located at Merlin, Oregon.
K42: The 1978 base budget level decreased by 15 percent with
a rappel helicopter (Bell 212) located at Merlin,
Oregon.
B-48

In each of the five other detailed analyses, an organization was
developed which reflected the dollars available in the various
program levels analyzed, and those organizations fought the same
fires in the Initial Attack Analyzer as did the 1978 base
organization. When all the detailed analyses were complete, the
respective FMEI's were compared to identify the most cost
efficient organization--the organization with the least cost plus
net value change, as well as the organization management felt
would best meet the new management direction outlined in the LRMP.
The K42 option (Table B-3) was selected by the Forest Supervisor
as the organizational level that would most realistically meet the
direction provided in the Forest Plan. Although this option was
$0.02 per acre more costly in respect to cost plus net value
change than the most cost efficient option, it was felt that the
budget levels displayed were more realistic, and the expected
annual acres burned were more attainable than those generated in
the cost efficient option (K30).
After the desired level of protection was selected by the Forest
Supervisor, the costs associated with protection (111 to 114
Dollars), fuels management support (115 Dollars) and the shared
resource assessment were combined to represent the estimated
annual budgetary needs of the fire management program in FORPLAN
for the first ten years of the planning period in 1982 dollars.
B-49

Table B-2. Summary of Resource Values by Fire Management Analysis Zone Used to Calculate Net Value Change for
Representative Fires Over Ten Acres
Resources Zone I Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Remarks
Regen MBF 41.9 34.1 26.2 N/A N/A $345 per MBF
Acre
Timber Poles S 4766 4095 3429 N/A N/A
Acre
Seed S 944 1574 1500 N/A N/A
and Sap Acre
New Water Acre/Foot 11.5 11.5 10.0 10.0 11.5 $1.50 Per Acre/Foot
U,
0
Fish Habitat Lbs/Acre 6.40 4.00 1.60 1.6 0.0 $1.61 per Pound
RVD/Acre 5.92 4.78 1.97 2.0 2.8 $56.60 per RVD
Size in Acres at FIL3
$/User Day (10-100) (100-300) (300+)
Wildlife Big-game 16.80 16.80 16.80 4.20 4.20 15 RVD 8 RVD 4 RVD
Habitat Other Game 23.42 23.42 23.42 5.85 5.85 6 RVD 3 RVD 2 RVD
Nongame 29.00 29.00 29.00 7.25 7.25 21 RVD 11 RVD 2 RVD
Recreation $/RVD 15.31 15.31 15.31 20.19 14.25
RVD/Acre .31 .31 .31 .11 7.89
Improvements $/Acre 50 50 50 N/A N/A

.
Table B-3. Expected Siskiyou National Forest Fire Management Program, Annual
Options Analyzed for Fire Planning Process for the First Decade 1/
Costs, and Acres Burned for Program
Level Of
Protection Total Fuels Support
Program (111-114 Suppression Net Value Shared And Projects
Option Dollars) Cost Change Resources (115 Dollars)
Cost Plus
Net Value
Change
FEMI
Acres
Burned
C10 795,000 445,000 254,000 630,000 216,000
2,340,000
2,140 215
K10 635,000 476,000 274,000 505,000 76,000
1,965,000
1,798 232
K20 478,000 649,000 555,000 393,000 91,000
2,165,000
1,981 394
1K30 879,000 255,000 81,000 412,000 288,000
1,915,000
1,752 73
K41 671,000 470,000 269,000 479,000 264,000
2,171,000
1,986 228
K42 671,000 410,000 176,000 421,000 264,0000
1,942,000
1,776 171
1/ Dollar values shown are 1982 dollars. Fire Management Efficiency Index (FE:MI) calculated on a protection base
of 1,093,000 acres.

COST
EFFICIENCY
AND NET
PUBLIC
BENEFIT
NET PUBLIC
BENEFIT (NPB)
PRESENT NET
VALUE (PNV)
This section describes how the efficiency criterion of PNV, which
is one of the components of NPB was formulated and modeled
for the benchmark analysis and evaluation of alternatives. This
analysis is required by NFMA regulations and has played an
important part in the development and comparison of alternatives
in Forest planning.
NPB is the overall value to the nation of all outputs and positive
effects (benefits) less all the associated Forest Service inputs
and negative effects (costs) of producing priced and nonpriced
outputs from National Forest System Land (NFS) (36 CFR 219.3).
Thus, NPB represents the net value of priced outputs PNV plus the
net value of nonpriced outputs. NPB cannot be expressed as a
numeric quantity because PNV cannot be numerically added to
qualitatively valued nonpriced outputs. Maximization of NPB is a
goal of the Forest planning process.
PNV is the quantitative component of NPB. PNV represents the
dollar difference between the discounted value of all priced
outputs and all Forest Service costs over the 150-year planning
period. All costs and benefits are expressed in 1982 dollars.
The GNP Implicit Price Deflator was used to adjust values from
other years to this base.
Each benchmark and alternative was designed to achieve goals and
objectives in a manner that produced the greatest PNV. This was
accomplished by solving FORPLAN with the objective function of
maximizing PNV, while meeting the specified constraints of the
benchmark or alternative. PNV is used to assess the economic
efficiency of the alternative or benchmark. This section
describes how the prices and costs which make up PNV were
calculated, and how they are used within the model.
Economic
Parameters
Governing
PNV
Discounting. A discount rate of 4 percent was used to solve
FORPLAN and to calculate the economic consequences of the
benchmarks and alternatives (36 CFR 219.3). The 4 percent rate
approximates the real return on corporate long-range investments
above the rate of inflation. Inflation is not included in the
discount rates, benefits, and costs due to the difficulty of
estimating future inflation rates and because inflation is assumed
to equally affect both costs and prices. This rate was used to
solve FORPLAN in all cases to date. A second rate, seven and
one-eight percent, was used to determine the sensitivity of
solutions to a higher discount rate. All costs and benefits were
discounted from the midpoint of each planning period.
Timber Demand Curves. No local demand curve for timber was used
in the FORPLAN model. None of the available techniques for
developing Forest level demand functions has a strong enough
theoretical basis that it can be suggested for use in Region Six.
Available evidence also indicates that if a reliable Forest level
demand function could be calculated, the elasticity would be such
that the use in FORPLAN would not be significant.
B-52

Real Price Increases. A one percent per year price trend was
incorporated in the FORPLAN model for timber values. This trend
reflects the assumption of scarcity, ie. that future demand
increases and, or supply restrictions will increase national
product prices. This trend was chosen based on the work of
Harold J. Barnett, and Chandler Morse ("Scarcity and Growth",
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, p.213.) No other price or
cost trends are used in the analysis.
Benefits and Two types of outputs (benefits) are valued in the model; outputs
Costs Used in which can be valued with market prices, and those which have no
the PNV market prices, but can be assigned a proxy value. Timber and
Calculation commercial anadromous fish are the market valued outputs in the
FORPLAN model. Willingness to pay values for recreation were
derived in the 1980 RPA assessment, and represent what consumers
would be willing to pay for a recreational experience rather than
forego the opportunity.
Other uses which remain fixed among the benchmarks and
alternatives are valued within the model. These are not used to
make resource scheduling decisions. They include fuelwood,
special uses, river use fees, power and minerals, campground, and
grazing fees. Fuelwood is valued at the 1980 RPA benefit value
for Region Six, the remaining benefits were valued from 1984
Forest receipts reports.
Costs. Four types of costs are valued in the FORPLAN model:
Variable costs, fixed costs, resource capital investment costs,
and logging costs:
Variable costs include: Costs incurred as a result of program
activities for controllable outputs or controlled use. Costs
which vary between benchmarks and alternatives. Examples of
variable costs are silvicultural exam and prescription, and road
construction and reconstruction.
Fixed costs include: Nondeferrable activities for insuring public
safety and environmental protection. Activities to protect
natural resources on adjacent lands. Costs to keep existing
capital assets at agreed levels of service and availability.
Long-term management planning and resource inventories. Costs of
general administration. Costs that cannot be assessed on a per
unit basis. Examples of fixed costs are timber management
planning and inventory, and coop law enforcement.
Resource capital investment costs are costs of implementing
resource-specific mitigation or enhancement projects. Decisions
to implement these projects are made outside of FORPLAN, for each
alternative and benchmark, based on the emphasis and objectives.
Project costs and benefits are additions to FORPLAN generated
solutions. Examples of these projects are wildlife enhancement
(meadow rehabilitation) and recreation enhancement (construction
of additional campgrounds).
B-53

Nonforest Service costs of production are costs incurred by
producers other than the Forest Service. The Siskiyou model
incorporates logging costs.
All costs but logging costs are components of PNV. Variable costs
are linked with prescriptions for Analysis Areas. They and
logging costs are the only costs which influence scheduling
decisions within FORPLAN. Fixed costs occur as a lump sum per
period, regardless of the prescriptions chosen. They are equal
for all benchmarks and alternatives. Resource capital investment
costs are entered uniquely for each alternative or benchmark.
The variable costs for timber related activities are specific to
the management areas and type of treatment where significant
differences could be identified. Costs were derived from
empirical data as much as possible. The costs for Retention,
Partial Retention, and General Forest Management Areas are based
on even-aged silvicultural systems and the clearcutting harvest
method. Costs for Riparian areas are based on partial removal and
harvest of these areas in conjunction with the treatment of
adjacent areas. This categorization is in line with experienced
management practices for these types of areas, and the assumption
of a similar pattern for the future is supported by the analysis
in Appendix G. This assumption simplifies the modeling and allows
the straightforward use of local empirical data for many of the
activities. As indicated in Appendix G, individual sites may vary
from this pattern, however, the variation is not expected to
effect the evaluation of the alternatives nor the Forestwide
economic parameters.
The compilation and analysis of data used to determine cost and
benefit information for the alternatives and benchmarks involved
two distinct procedures. First, those costs and benefits which
contributed to the scheduling of prescriptions in FORPLAN were
compiled and entered into the model through the use of common
economics tables. These tables relate costs and output values to
management prescriptions associated with Analysis Areas. The
tables allow FORPLAN to assign the most cost efficient
prescription to any given Analysis Area to meet the constraints of
the alternatives or benchmarks.
The second procedure in the analysis involved determining the
costs and benefits that were not associated with prescriptions,
but which were also affected by alternative formulation. These
include the costs and, or benefits of the resource capital
investment programs. Estimation of these costs and benefits were
entered as direct yields in FORPLAN to be included in the PNV
totals.
PNV Calcula- Budget costs consist of the estimated appropriated costs of
tions (Budget management for each alternative and benchmark. These costs were
Costs) reported as average annual. Budget costs were stratified into the
following categories:
B-54

Fixed costs
Operation and maintenance costs
Capital investments
Purchaser credit road costs were added to show the cost of
constructing purchaser credit roads for timber harvests. This
cost was not included in the total budget costs, but was added to
the total agency cost estimates used to calculate PNV. Budget
costs were calculated similarly to the method used to determine
cost data by resource component. Variable or allocation costs
along with fixed costs were summarized from the FORPLAN economic
reports by planning period for each alternative and benchmark.
Opportunity
Costs
DETERMINATION
OF ECONOMIC
VALUES
In order to determine the relative cost efficiency of the various
alternatives and benchmarks, opportunity costs were derived to
show the difference in PNV between FORPLAN runs. Opportunity
costs are defined as the value of a resource's foregone net
benefit in its most economically efficient alternative use. In
relation to the economic analysis, it represents the difference in
PNV between the Maximum PNV Benchmark or alternative with the
highest PNV and subsequent runs. Opportunity costs measure both
the change in PNV value for priced resource outputs, and can be
used to measure the relative value of nonpriced benefits included
in NPB.
The timber values listed below were developed from a Timber Sale
Statement of Account data base for 1973-1982. They are cut
values, computed at the time that the timber is actually harvested
and paid for, adjusted to 1982 dollars with the GNP Implicit Price
Benefit
Values
Deflator.
Timber.
They were developed using the following methodology.
1. Determine species composition from data base of 2400-17's,
1975 - second quarter 1980.
2. Develop weighted average stumpage value. jJ
Percent of Total
Stumpage Value
Species Volume Sold (1982 $/MBF)
Douglas-fir 83 241
Port-Orford-cedar 7 851
Pine ?/ 6 284
White fir 3 174
Hemlock A/ 2 150
A/ Weighted average value = $285/MBF
A/ Based on 75 percent sugar pine at $316/MBF, and 25 percent
ponderosa pine at $187/MBF.
A/ Value is for a mixture of species including incense cedar,
Shasta red fir, noble fir, Engelmann spruce, and western hemlock.
B-55

3. Develop selling value by adding logging and manufacturing
costs to stumpage value. Costs were derived from the data
base of 2400-17s, 1973-1982.
$285 Stumpage value
$150 + Logging costs
$200 + Manufacturing costs
$635 Selling Value 1982 $/MBF
4. Convert $/MBF to $/MCF with average board foot/cubic foot
conversion ratio for existing stands of 5.41.
Selling value = $3,435/MCF
This represents the average selling value for currently
harvested old-growth stands.
5. Estimate selling value for smaller diameter future stands and
commercial thinning opportunities. This was done with
indicies developed by Cahill and Snellgrove, PNW,
"Young-Growth Douglas-fir Tree Value Indicies - Region Six",
according to direction from the Regional Office.
The current average diameter is estimated to be 30" dbh, by a
survey of each Ranger District's TMA. 30" dbh and Selling
Value of $3,435/MCF were used as the base values. The
indices were applied to this to develop selling values for
other diameters.
6. Pond values were developed by subtracting manufacturing costs
from selling values. Average manufacturing cost = $200/MBF *
5.41 BF/CF conversion ratio = $1,082/MCF.
Pond values are used in the FORPLAN model. They will be
trended to increase at one percent per year.
B-56

The follow data displays the computation of timber values:
DBH Relative Selling Values Pond Values
(Inches) Value (1982 $/MCF) (1982 $/MCF)
8 .62 2,130 1,048
9 .62 2,198 1,116
10 .67 2,301 1,219
11 .70 2,404 1,322
12 .72 2,473 1,391
13 .74 2,542 1,460
14 .76 2,611 1,529
15 .79 2,714 1,632
16 .82 2,817 1,735
17 .84 2,885 1,803
18 .86 2,954 1,872
19 .88 3,023 1,941
20 .90 3,092 2,010
21 .92 3,160 2,078
22
23
.94
.95
3,229
3,263
2,147
2,181
24 .96 3,298 2,216
25 .96 3,298 2,216
26 .97 3,332 2,250
27 .97 3,332 2,250
28 .98 3,366 2,284
29 .99 3,401 2,319
Base 30 1.00 3,435 2,353
31 1.00 3,435 2,353
32 1.01 3,469 2,387
33 1.01 3,459 2,387
34 1.01 3,469 2,387
35 1.02 3,504 2,422
36 1.03 3,538 2,456
37 1.01 3,572 2,490
38 1.05 3,607 2,525
39 + 1.06 3,641 2,559
Other Forest Service Receipts. The outputs that follow are
tracked on an annual, fixed basis. The data source for items 1-5
is the 1984 Forest Receipt Reports adjusted to 1982 dollars with
the GNP Implicit Price Deflator. The data source for grazing fees
is 1984 grazing fee permits (adjusted to 1982 dollars) on file in
the Forest Supervisor's Office.
B-57

Total Value
Activity (1982 $)
Special Uses 3,178
River Recreation
Outfitter (Commercial) Use 20,464
Private Use Application Fees 25,497
Power Uses 493
Minerals
Campground Fees
245
28,308
Grazing Fees 1,728
Fuelwood 49,600
Fuelwood is valued at its RPA benefit value of $31/MCF. It is
valued up to its current level of consumption of 1,600 MCF (16,000
cords). Presently Forest production of fuelwood and per acre
material = 6,400 MCF (64,000 cords). (Source: Assistant Timber
Staff)
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Recreation.
follows:
Activity
Recreation
Wilderness
Dispersed (Nonwilderness)
Primitive
Semi-primitive Non-motorized
Semi-primitive Motorized
Roaded Natural
Developed Use
Includes Camping and Picnicing
Wildlife
Big-game Use
Small Game Use
Nongame Use
Fisheries
Anadromous Sport Fishing
Anadromous Commercial Fishing
Resident Sport Fishing
Assigned RPA values are as
Value($)/
Unit
17.50/RVD
11.25/RVD
13.25/RVD
12.13/RVD
9.38/RVD
6.00/RVD
30.00/WFUD
19. 00/WFUD
25.00/WFUD
33.00/WFUD
1.05/LB
15.00/WFUD
Range.
$5.90/AUM *
1980 RPA Value
1.18 = $7/AUM 1982 $
GNP Implicit Price Deflator
$7/AUM * 3,000 AUM's per year = $21,000 per year.
This value is tracked on an annual, fixed basis.
B-58

Costs Fixed Costs and Variable Costs. There are two types of costs
incurred in FORPLAN, fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs
are incurred, in a lump sum, regardless of the land management or
resource scheduling regime chosen (with the exception of the
"minimum level" alternative). Variable costs, as the name
implies, vary by prescription emphasis and/or management
alternative.
Fixed costs include nondeferrable activities for insuring public
safety and environmental protection. Activities to protect
natural resources on adjacent lands. Costs to keep existing
capital assets at agreed levels of service and availability.
Long-term management planning and resource inventories. Costs of
general administration. Costs that cannot be assessed on a per
unit basis.
Variable costs include road construction and reconstruction.
Costs incurred as a result of program activities of controllable
outputs or controlled use. Costs which vary between alternatives.
Source: Interim Directive No. 10, September 16, 1981.
1970 Economic and Social Analysis,
U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C.
Fixed Costs.
The following data displays Fixed Costs:
Fixed Costs (Annual Costs in 1982 dollars)
Activity 1982 $
Developed Recreation Management
Dispersed Recreation Management
Cultural Resource Management
Wilderness Management
Fish and Wildlife Planning and Maintenance
Range Planning and Inventory
Timber Management Planning and Inventory
Genetic Forest Tree Improvement
Soil and Water Planning and Inventory
Administration of Minerals and Mining
Lands
Transportation Planning and Inventory
FA and 0 Facility Maintenance
Fire Management Planning and Analysis
Fire Prevention, Detection, and Fighting
Coop Law Enforcement
Fixed Program Management
General Administration (GA)
(Line Management and Common Services)
191,309
150,218
13,879
15,118
84,913
2,775
15,677
718,000
227,410
32,943
822,500
345,341
246,517
673,000
377,000
57,820
481,461
1,947,866
Variable Costs. Costs for the following activities were collected
from the five Ranger Districts for the years 1975 to 1980, when
available.
B-59

Forest-wide average costs were developed from 1980 costs by
weighting the District's costs by volume of timber or number of
acres treated. Program management costs, obtained from the 1980
unit summary reports, are included. All costs have been converted
to 1982 dollars with the GNP Implicit Price Deflator.
Costs were verified with the Supervisor's Office timber staff
personnel and with data from the Forest budget unit summary and
attainment reports. Costs have also been reviewed by economists
from the Umpqua and Rogue River National Forests and the Regional
Economist.
Silvicultural examination and prescription involves selected
timber stands, visual description on aerial photographs and maps,
establishing data files, and recommending appropriate management
activities.
District's Costs = $ .26 MBF
Program Management = $ .06/MBF
$ .32/MBF
Converted to a per acre cost using 30 MBF/acre (Forest average
volume per acre derived from District TMA data).
= $10/acre for Clearcuts
District timber sale planning personnel estimate that
silvicultural exam and prescription will be approximately twice as
costly for commercial thins, on a per acres basis, because of the
need for more intensive field exams.
= $19/acre for Commercial Thins
Timber sale preparation includes sale area planning and design,
tree marking, sale value determination, appraisal, environmental
assessment preparation, advertisement, auction, and sale award.
District's Costs = $8.26/MBF
Program Management = $1.04/MBF
$9.30/MBF
Converted to a per acre cost using Forest average volume/acre of
30 MBF = $279/acre for Clearcut
It is estimated by District timber sale planning personnel that
timber sale preparation will be approximately twice as costly for
commercial thins, on a per MBF basis. The per MBF cost was
doubled, and converted to a per acre cost using the weighted
average volume per acre for current commercial thins of 8 MBF/acre
= $149/acre for commercial thins.
Timber harvest administration includes the supervising and
administering of sales, includes activities such as scaling and
B-60

check scaling, management of sale accounts, contracts
modifications, rate redeterminations, and breach actions.
Districts' Costs = $2.83/MBF
Program Management = $1.18/MBF
$4.01/MBF
Converted to a per acre cost using Forest average of 30 MBF/acre =
$120/acre.
It is estimated by District timber sale planning personnel that
timber harvest administration will be approximately twice as
costly for commercial thins, on a per MBF basis. The per MBF cost
was doubled and converted to a per acre cost using the weighted
average volume per acre for current commercial thins of 8 MBF/acre
= $64/acre for Commercial Thins
Reforestation.
Planting.
planted.
It is assumed that every acre clearcut will be
Districts' Costs = $290/acre
Program Management = $ 4/acre
$294/acre
Replanting. The same per acre cost ($294/acre) is used for
replanting as for planting. Replanting is assumed to occur
on 25 percent of all harvested acres. (Estimate of Forest
Silviculturist).
Animal Damage Control.
of all planted acres.
It is assumed to occur on 10 percent
District' Costs = $ 91/acre
Program Management = $ 1/acre
$ 92/acre
Precommercial Thinning is assumed to occur on 65 percent of all
planted acres as determined from Forest Silviculturist review of
TRI data.
Districts' Costs = $242/acre
No Program Management
Release costs (displayed below) were obtained from the analysis
done for the 1983 Vegetation Management Program. They include all
of the costs of the vegetation management program planning through
project preparation, contract bid and administration and
concluding with post treatment evaluation.
B-61

Cost/Acre
Type (1982 $)
Commercial Aerial 52
Chemical Ground 117
Manual 196
A 1981 review of TRI data revealed that 43 percent of all planted
acres were released with chemicals aerially, 2 percent with
chemicals on the ground, and 3 percent manually. These are the
proportions used for Forest Planning. It is assumed that each
released acre is treated twice (Source: Forest Silviculturist).
Fertilization costs were derived from a Regional Office study of
five Forests with fertilization programs. The Siskiyou has no
experienced costs for fertilization.
A weighted average cost for aerial and hand application was
developed for 1983. This was $56/acre. 1982 costs were
approximately 1/3 higher at $75/acre. These costs were used.
An additional $10/acre was added for project layout and EA
preparation, this equaled $85/acre.
An additional 10 percent allowance for increased costs due to
fertilization not having been done on the Siskiyou was added, this
equaled $94/acre.
Brush Disposal (BD) costs (treatment of activity fuels) following
timber harvest were derived by computing weighted averages from
1980 experience cost data from each of the five Ranger Districts.
This data was disaggregated into three unit-size categories for
use with the General Forest and visual management prescriptions.
Costs were updated to 1982 with the GNP Implicit Price Deflator.
Brush Disposal Costs
Unit-Size
Prescription Emphasis (Acres) $/Acre
Retention 1- 5 916
Partial Retention 5-10 727
General Forest 10-40 576
These costs include those incurred by the Forest Service and the
purchaser and reflect the average costs per acre of activities
such as yumming, fire line and fuel break line and fuel break
construction, manpower (including overtime), helicopter rentals,
etc. Costs were verified with a Forest average estimate derived
from timber Sale Report forms for 1980; average BD cost was
B-62

$23/MBF, average MBF/Acre = 30, average total cost/acre equaled
$690.
Costs for BD for partial cuts were obtained from three Ranger
Districts (Galice, Gold Beach, and Illinois Valley). Little
actual data was available, thus costs are based on the
specialists' judgment and reflect the necessity for more hand
piling and other manual techniques and less line construction.
Information was also obtained from the Rogue River, Umpqua, and
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests. Per acre costs are shown
below. Costs are assumed to occur on 40 percent of thinned
acres. (Forest Timber and Fire Management Staff Officers.)
BD Costs for Commercial Thinning
Unit-Size
Prescription Emphasis (Acres) Cost/Acre
Retention 1-15 776
Partial Retention 15-20 753
General Forest 20-45 679
The cost for BD for riparian areas was obtained from a Westside
Fuel Treatments Cost Study undertaken by the Wenatchee National
Forest (and including data for nine other Forests). It is assumed
that the only fuel treatment method to be undertaken in the
riparian areas is hand piling, at a cost of $345/acre.
All costs reflect fuels treatment to MM (medium resistance to
control and medium rate of spread), as directed by National policy
(Forest Service Manual 5150).
Species Type Conversion. Costs for species type conversion were
developed from 1980 data from the Chetco Ranger District, where
most of this activity occurs. Costs were adjusted to 1982 dollars
with the GNP Implicit Price Deflator.
Type Conversion Costs
Activity
Cost/Acre
Stand Exams thru Burning 371
Road Construction jA 17
TOTAL 388
j/ Cost for road construction was developed by 1) computing a
weighted average road construction cost per acre, 2) developing a
coefficient to reflect the proportion of conversion acres that
have associated roading costs by dividing the number of acres with
associated road costs by total number of acres of conversion 3)
multiplying (a) average costs per acre accessed by (b) proportion
B-63

of accessed acres with associated road costs. $157/acre access *
.11 access with road costs/total conversion acres = $17 per all
conversion acres.
Reforestation costs, following removal, are the same as those for
clearcuts.
Release costs are also the same as those for plantations following
clearcuts with the exception that three applications (instead of
2) are necessary.
Other Resource Support, Mitigation, and Enhancement Costs Related
to Timber Production. Specialists in Cultural Resources, Visual
Management, Fish and Wildlife, Soils, and Water Quality all
provide input to timber sales. This input ranges from review of
timber sale Environmental Assessments to field examinations and
writing proposals to mitigate the impacts of timber management, or
enhance the quality of their resource. These costs are charged
against final harvest timber prescriptions.
Support Costs for Timber Activities follow:
Activity
Cultural Resources
Visual Management
Soil and Water
General Forest
Riparian Prescription B
Riparian Prescription C
$/Unit
11/Acre
11/Acre
6/MCF
35/MCF
10/MCF
Mitigation and Enhancement Costs follow:
Activity
Cost ($/Acre)
Soil and Water 24
Fish and Wildlife 8
The data source for cultural resources and visual management
support costs was the 1985 RPA estimate of dollars spent divided
by total acres of planned timber harvest.
Cultural Resources = $60,700/5,600 Acres planned = $11/acre
Visual Resource = $62,800/5,600 Acres planned = $11/acre
The data source for soil and water support costs was the Fiscal
Year 1980 soil and water support program, also divided by program
acres. This information was updated to 1982 dollars and converted
to a cost per MCF with the average board foot/cubic foot
conversion ratio for existing stands. It was adjusted for
management in the riparian areas.
B-64

The data source for soil and water and fish and wildlife
mitigation and enhancement was a sample of forty 1980-1981 timber
sales. Total costs for these activities was divided by total
volume harvested to develop a cost/MBF. This was multiplied by
the average volume per acre (30 MBF) for existing stands, to
develop a cost per acre.
Logging Costs -
Existing Stands/Clearcut
Logging costs for existing stands were developed from 2400-17 data
for 1973-1982. They represent a Forest-wide weighted average, by
volume, by year, adjusted to 1982 dollars. The following costs
are included:
Activity
$/MBF
Fell and Buck 13.10
Skid and Load 39.88
Haul 28.62
Overhead and Dep 29.24
Erosion Control 2.64
Miscellaneous Amount 1.51
TOTAL 114.99
Road maintenance, temporary road costs and slash disposal are not
included in logging costs. They are dealt with elsewhere in the
model.
The average board foot/cubic foot conversion ratio for existing
stands was used to convert the cost from a MBF to a MCF cost for
use in FORPLAN.
$115/MBF * 5.41 average BF/CF conversion ratio = $622/MCF
Logging costs were adjusted for cost increases for harvest in
Riparian, Retention Visual, and Partial Retention Visual
Management Areas.
Logging Costs -
Riparian
The additional cost of harvest in riparian areas is directional
felling (Forest Logging Systems Specialist). Thirteen Siskiyou
National Forest sales with directional felling were sampled. The
average cost for tree lining for these sales was $28/MBF. Average
cost for conventional felling for the same sales was $10/MBF,
therefore, costs increase for directional felling is employed
(Forest Logging Systems Specialist), thus the net cost increase
for directional felling is $13/MBF. This was converted to a cost
increase per MCF with the Forest average BF/CF conversion ratio of
5.41 = $70/MCF.
B-65

Logging Costs -
Visual Resource Areas
Additional harvest costs in Retention and Partial Retention Visual
Management Areas result from additional equipment moving because
of smaller unit size (Forest Logging Systems Specialist).
The assumptions used to derive the costs are:
Average Sale = 142 acres
Average Sale Unit Size = 20 acres
Average Volume/Acre = 30 MBF
Compute number of moves for average sale.
142 acres f 20 acres/unit = 7 units = 7 moves
Compute acreage move in and set up cost per sale.
Regional average move in and setup = $3.43/MBF
Average sale volume = 30 MBF/acre * 142 acres = 4,260 MBF
$3.43/MBF * 4,260 MBF/sale = $14,612 move in and setup/sale
$14,612 total move in move out and set up f 7 moves =
$2,087 for each move and set up.
Partial Retention Visual
Same average volume/sale = 4,260 MBF
Same average sale size = 142 acres
Smaller unit size = 7 acres/unit
142 acres/sale t 7 acres/unit - 20 units - 20 moves
20 moves/sale * $2,087/move = $41,740 sale
$41,740/sale f 4,260 MBF/Sale = $9.80/MBF
$9.80/MBF converted to $/MCF with Forest average BF/CF
conversion ratio of 5.41 = $53/MCF additional logging costs.
Retention Visual
Same average volume/sale = 4,260 MBF
Same average sale size = 142 acres
Smaller unit size = 4 acres/unit
142 acres/sale ! 4 acres/unit = 35 units = 35 moves
B-66

35 moves/sale * $2,087/move = $73,045 sale
$75,045/sale i 4,260 MBF/Sale = $17.15/MBF
$17.15/MBF converted to $/MCF with Forest average BF/CF
conversion ratio of 5.41 = $93/MCF additional logging costs.
Existing Logging Costs ($ Per MCF)
General Forest Riparian Retention Partial Retention
622 692 715 675
Logging Costs -
Managed Stands and Commercial Thins
Logging costs for future (managed) stands and commercial thins
were estimated using two sources: equations from the research
paper entitled "Logging costs for Young-Growth Management Planning
for Coastal Douglas-fir;" Fight, Roger D. et. al. 1984; and Forest
experience cost data.
Equations from the paper were used to estimate yarding and
changing yarding corridors, felling, bucking and limbing,
branding, and loading.
The equations are:
Yarding.
Small Diameter (6 to 16" DBH) (VOAC 0.4-15 MCF/acre)
Cost = 491.4 - 40.48 (DBH) + 0.8886 (DBH) 2 + 0.1205 (SYD) +
16.1/VOAC
Large Diameter (18 to 24" DBH) (VOAC 0.4-15 MCF/acre)
Cost = 737.4 - 61.90 (DBH) + 1.2926 (DBH) 2 + 0.1497 (SYD) +
52.7/VOAC
Yarding Delay (Percent of time that equipment is idle)
Clearcuts and VOAC greater than 5.4 MCF/acre
Percent delay = 9 percent
Partial cuts and VOAC 0.4 -
Percent delay = 22.9 -
5.4 MCF/acre
2.61 (VOAC)
Changing Yarding Corridors (for 300 to 3000' SPAN).
Cost = 43 + 0.0001271 (SPAN) 2
B-67

Delay
Percent delay = 4.9 + 0.0052 (SPAN for 300 to 1950' SPAN
Felling, Limbing, and Bucking (for 6 to 24" DBH).
Cost =
Delay -
-17.4 + 876/DBH
Clearcut and VOAC greater than 4.3 MCF/acre
Percent delay = 4
Partial cut if VOAC 0.4 -
4.3 MCF/acre
Percent delay = 18.3 -
3.33 (VOAC)
Branding.
Loading.
Cost = (-47.9 + 1678/DBH) (0.15)
Cost = -9.8 + 545/DBH
(for 6 to 24" DBH)
Where:
Percent delay = -4.0 + 104/DBH
Percent delay = 4
(for 6 to 13" DBH)
(for DBH greater than
13")
DBH = Arithmetic mean diameter breast height of trees
harvested.
VOAC =
SYD =
SPAN =
Volume per acre harvested in thousands of cubic feet.
Average yarding distance measured along the slope.
Horizontal length of span in feet.
DBH and VOAC vary as shown in columns 1 and 2, respectively,
in the following table. Forest Average values, developed by
the Logging Systems Specialist, were used for SYD and SPAN.
They are:
SYD = 939 Feet
SPAN = 1,047 Feet
The costs estimated by the above equations are in 1983 $. They
were adjusted to 1982 $ with the GNP Implicit Price Deflator
(Factor = .94).
B-68

Forest experience costs from 2400-17 data, 1973-1982, in 1982
$/MBF were converted to dollars per MCF with the average BF/CF
conversion ratio for managed stands of 4.5 and added to the costs
obtained from the equations. These costs are:
Experienced Costs
$/MBF BF/CF $/MBF $/MBF
Commercial Thins
Projected Costs
Haul = 30.00 * 4.5 = 135.00 = 135.00
Erosion Control = 2.64 * 4.5 = 11.88 = 11.88
Misc. Amount = 1.51 * 4.5 = 6.80 = 6.80
Move in and Setup jj = 3.43 * 4.5 = 15.44 * 2 = 30.87
Total 169.00 185.00
Aj
Regional Average Cost
The solutions of the equations, plus the additional experience
costs result in logging costs for General Forest managed stands
and commercial thins. These are listed in Column 3 of the
following table. Riparian, Retention Visual, and Partial
Retention Visual logging costs are listed in Columns 4, 5, and 6.
They reflect the General Forest logging costs of Column 3, plus
the appropriate additions as described in the documentation for
existing stands logging costs. The additional costs per MBF were
multiplied by 4.5, the average BF/CF conversion ratio for managed
stands.
B-69

Logging Costs ($/MCF) -
Managed Stands and All Commercial Thins
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3
$/MCF
Col 4 Col 5 Col 6
Visuals
General
Partial
DBH VAOC Forest Riparian Retention Retention
Clearcut
7.5 - 9.6 .022 - .099 877 935 954 921
10.1 - 12.0 .318 - .999 774 832 851 818
10.1 - 12.1 1.00 - 2.90 738 796 815 782
12.2 - 14.0 .514 - 1.400 706 764 783 750
12.2 - 14.2 1.400 - 4.125 673 731 750 717
14.1 - 16.7 .600 - 15.30 640 698 717 684
16.0 - 18.0 .80 - 1.50 657 715 734 701
16.0 - 18.2 1.500 - 12.70 612 671 690 657
18.3 - 20.9 2.070 - 14.70 585 643 662 629
21.0 - 16.4 2.50 - 16.4 556 614 634 600
24.1 + above 556 614 634 600
Commercial Thin
10.0 - 10.8 1.00 - 1.900 820 878 897 864
12.0 - 13.2 1.80 - 2.200 732 790 809 776
13.2 - 17.0 1.00 - 3.400 682 740 759 726
19.0 - 21.5 2.100 - 3.400 625 683 702 669
Roading Costs. Roading projections
the section on Development of Yield
presented in this appendix.
and costs are documented under
Coefficients previously
Capital Investment Costs. The capital investment programs for
recreation, wildlife, and fisheries are developed outside of the
FORPLAN model. The Forest derives each series of investments as
follows:
Recreation. The cost of developed recreation sites is derived
from a survey of potential sites, examination of experienced
costs, and adjustment of costs related to standards of
construction due to anticipated trend of use. These yearly costs
range from $4,000 to $92,000 for the first decade representing a
wide range of investment strategies.
The cost of constructing and maintaining trails is based on recent
historic costs in similar terrain. These costs are $17,000/mile
for construction and $300/mile for maintenance. District
personnel with experience in managing the maintenance program
formulated the maintenance cost.
B-70

Fisheries. The cost of fisheries improvements is derived from
existing basin action plans. These plans indicate the amount of
work planned. Historic costs and professional experience are the
basis for costs to accomplish the annual work load. The level of
investment varies by alternative ranging from $175,000 to
$350,000. The range represents different intensities of fish
management.
Wildlife. Costs shown in the alternatives are derived from the
Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Plan. If all the wildlife (and
sensitive plant) projects listed in the plan are spread out evenly
over a teb year period, the maximum cost per year is $56,200.
This amount could also be sustained in subsequent decades because
most of the projects deal with meadow improvement projects. These
projects are scheduled to be repeated at ten year intervals (they
only produce benefits for ten years). Some of the projects
scheduled for the first decade are nonrecurring, but are only a
small portion of similar projects. Therefore, for each decade
throughout the life of the plan, the same level of one-time
opportunities exist as for the first decade. This dollar amount
represents (annually) 449 acres of habitat improvement and 191 new
structures.
B-71

SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
OVERVIEW
Social and economic impact analysis examines the relationships
between National Forest activities and the people within the
Forest's area of influence. Social and economic impacts
resulting from Forest decisions do not occur in a vacuum. These
impacts are, in part, determined by other forces operating within
an area. Social and economic forces change over time, many of
which are independent of National Forest actions and policies.
The Siskiyou National Forest's area of primary influence is Coos,
Curry, Jackson, and Josephine counties, in Oregon. Chapter III
of the DEIS presents an in-depth description of this area, and
its major social and economic features. The Planning Problems,
described in Chapter I of the DEIS, and Appendix A also provide
valuable insights into the important issues.
Population
Demographics
Population statistics are important to the selection of
alternatives. The total population of the four-county area is
approximately 271,500. County populations range from a high of
132,456 in Jackson County to a low of 16,992 in Curry County
(Table B-4). Historically, all of the counties have been rural,
and population growth has been slow. The decade of the 1970's,
however, witnessed rapid increases in the growth rates of the two
eastern counties.
Between 1950 and 1970, the median age of Oregonians steadily
declined (Figure B-2). In the Siskiyou National Forest
four-county area, only Jackson County exhibited a trend similar
to this. Median age declined from 1950 to 1960 and then even
more rapidly from 1960 to 1970. The median age in Coos and Curry
Counties was lower in 1970 than in 1950, but had risen during the
decade of the 1960's. Only in Josephine County did the median
age increase consistently during this 20-year period. The
percentage of the population over 65 rose from 9.4 percent in
1950, to 12.3 percent in 1960, to 15.5 percent in 1970. The
State average for 1970 was 10.8 percent. The reason for the age
disparity is a large influx of retired people to the county (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1960 and 1970).
Race. The population in the area as a whole is 96 to 97 percent
Caucasian. From all indications, it is likely to remain so in
the foreseeable future.
B-72

Table B-4.
Population jI
Year
State County/City 1960 1970 1980
% Change
1970-1980
The State 2,091,533 2,632,663 25.9
Coos County 54,955 56,515 63,200 11.9
Bandon 1,832 2,311 26.1
Coos Bay 13,466 14,424 7.1
North Bend 8,553 9,779 14.3
Coquille 4,437 4,481 1.0
Eastside 1,331 1,601 20.3
Myrtle Point 2,511 2,859 13.9
Powers 842 819 -2.7
Curry County 13,923 13,006 16,992 30.6
Brookings 2,720 3,384 24.4
Gold Beach 1,554 1,515 -2.5
Port Orford 1,037 1,061 2.3
Jackson County 73,963 94,533 132,456 40.1
Ashland 12,342 14,943 21.1
Talent 1,411 2,577 82.6
Butte Falls 358 428 19.6
Eagle Point 1,241 2,764 122.7
Jacksonville 1,611 2,030 26.0
Medford 28,973 39,603 36.7
Phoenix 1,287 2,294 78.2
Rogue River 841 1,286 52.9
Gold Hill 603 904 49.9
Central Point 4,004 6,357 58.8
Josephine County 29,917 35,746 58,820 64.5
Cave Junction 415 1,023 146.5
Grants Pass 12,455 14,997 20.4
I/ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of The Census,
1980 Census of Population and Housing, Oregon, Final Population
and Housing Unit Counts, March 1981.
B-73

Figure
coos
...........
B-2 Median Age, By County and the State
1950-1980
CURRY JACKSON JOSEPHINE OREGON
- - -.--
40
MEDIAN AGE
38
36
34
32
------------. ,>
30
28
.... - . . ......
_ .... ..
26
24
1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

The following table displays the distribution of population by
race; 96 to 97 percent of the area is White; 0.1 percent,Black;
1.5 percent, Native American; 0.5 percent, Asian; and 2 percent,
Hispanic. Coos County contains the largest nonwhite population
at 3.6 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980).
Percent of Population, by Racial Type, 1980 jJ
Percent
American
Indian, Asian and
Eskimo, Pacific Spanish /
County White Black and Aleut. Islander Other Origin
Coos 96.4 .1 2 .7 .8 2
Curry 97.1 .1 2 .3 .6 1.3
Jackson 96.7 .1 .9 .6 1.7 3
Josephine 96.7 .1 1 .4 .6 2
jJ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of The Census,
1980 Census of Population and Housing, Oregon.
?/ This is a unique category which overlaps several of the others
and should not be added with the other categories to form the
total.
American Indians. During the prehistoric period (pre-1840's) the
native population living within lands now administered by the
Siskiyou National Forest included the Takilma Indians and the
Athabascan Indians. The Takilma resided along the Upper Rogue
and Illinois Rivers. The Athabascan people lived along the
southern Oregon coast and along the lower Rogue River. Pockets
of Athabascan villages, within the general Takilma territory,
were located at Galice Creek and along the Applegate River.
During 1855 to 1856, clashes between the Indians and immigrating
non-Indians led to the outbreak of the Rogue River Indian Wars.
The results saw the demise of the native culture in southwestern
Oregon. Survivors of the battles were forcibly relocated to
reservations at Siletz and Grande Ronde in the northwestern part
of the state.
Today, two federally recognized Indian Tribes occupy lands
adjacent to the Siskiyou National Forest and have been consulted
regarding their interests and concerns in management of its
lands. The Tolowa are located out of Smith River, California and
the Coos, Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua are centered in Coos Bay,
Oregon.
The Siskiyou National Forest recognizes their treaty rights and
respects their interests in its land management planning.
Contacts have been established between representatives of these
Indian tribes and the Forest to provide communication and
understanding among all interested parties. The Siskiyou
B-75

National Forest lands do not overlap lands within the territorial
boundaries of the Tolowa or Coos/Siuslaw/Lower Umpqua Indians, to
our present knowledge. The service area of the Coos tribe,
however, does include all lands within Coos and Curry counties
and this does overlap Siskiyou National Forest lands.
The contemporary Indian population within the Siskiyou National
Forest accounts for 1.5 percent of the total population. These
individuals are not descendents of the original Takilma or
Athabascan Indians, rather of peoples from northern California or
elsewhere. No Indian groups within the Forest have federal
recognition as tribes.
Sex. The male/female ratio in the four-county area is somewhat
higher than the State average and that for the Nation as a
whole. In the past (1940 to 1960) this difference was even more
pronounced. This was, most likely, due to the relatively recent
settling of the area and the predominance of male-typed, forest
products employment. However, the number of women has been
increasing in recent years, particularly in the larger, more
service-oriented, east side communities.
Urban-Rural Distribution. The U.S. Bureau of the Census
considers an urban place to be a location with 2,000 or more
inhabitants. The following table presents population data by
urban and rural residence, according to this definition.
Preliminary census figures shown an increase in the urban
population in 1980 in Coos County to 53 percent, with little
change in Curry County. The Josephine County Plan (1980)
estimated that 78 percent of the county population resided within
eight miles of Grants Pass in 1978. It should be remembered that
urban population is derived according to different criteria
here. Although it is likely that the urban/rural ratio has
increased, the change is probably overstated when comparing the
1970 and 1978 estimates. The census definition undoubtedly
underestimates urban population in Josephine County, due to the
large number of people who live near Grants Pass but outside of
the city limits. More recent information for Jackson County was
not yet available.
In 1970, more than half the population of three of the
four-counties in the area of influence resided in urban areas
(Coos, Jackson, Josephine), and, from all indications, this trend
toward increasing urbanization will continue. Curry County is
the one exception; its population is about 80 percent rural and
has been so for the last two decades (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1980).
B-76

Percentage of Urban and Rural Populations
Percent
County Urban
1960
Rural Urban
1970
Rural
Coos 47 53 51 49
Curry 19 81 21 79
Josephine 34 66 52 48
Jackson 45 55 55 45
Employment
and Industry
Employment. Percent of average annual employment, by sector, for
the four-county area of influence is shown in the following
table. Data is shown for 1960, 1970, 1978, and projected for
1986. The most important industries for employment are lumber
and wood products, wholesale and retail trade, services industry,
and government agencies. Lumber and wood products manufacturing,
which includes logging, is still the largest employer inthe
area, ranging from a low of 13 percent of total employment in
Jackson County to a high of 25 percent in Curry County. Lumber
and wood products have declined in importance during the past
several decades. Concurrently, other sectors have grown.
Covered employment, by economic sector in each of the
four-counties, for 1978 and 1983 is displayed below.
Medford, in Jackson County, is the major trade and services
center for the Southwestern Oregon area. Industries in these
sectors have grown in recent years. In addition, in-migration
has served to promote growth in finance, insurance, and real
estate.
Josephine County has also experienced in-migration and growth in
the trade and service industries. Other industries which have
provided basic employment growth include apparel, fiber glass,
and electronics manufacturing.
Curry County
and the most
agriculture,
is the least economically diversified of the group
dependent upon natural resources (timber,
and fisheries) for its economic base.
Coos County is also below the average in the trade and service
sectors. Its most noticeable difference from the other counties
in the area of influence is in the transportation, communication
and utilities sector; primarily due to the shipping industry at
Coos Bay.
B-77

Covered Employment by County, by Sector, 1978 and 1983 jj
No. of Jobs
Coos Curry Jackson Josephine
Sector 1978 1983 1978 1983 1978 1983 1978 1983
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
332 406 154 155 838 74 133 207
Mining
27 46 -- 15 88 74 66 52
Contract Construction
803 418 170 166 2,128 1,024 684 314
Manufacturing
6,262 4,547 1,492 1,147 7,854 7,585 3,979 3,579
Lumber and Wood Products
5,177 3,395 1,188 1,010 5,593 4,701 2,807 2,187
Food 464 550 184 71 412 347 70 60
Other 621 602 120 66 1,849 2,537 1,102 1,332
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
1,733 1,351 137 170 1,917 2,052 565 483
Wholesale and Retail Trade
4,425 3,903 985 959 12,034 11,441 3,514 3,351
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Service
708
2,600
634
2,506
122
503
152
489
1,400
6,637
1,696
7,587
493
2,388
550
2,738
Government /
4,412 4,016 1,239 1,105 8,546 7,609 2,946 2,719
Total 21,296 17,826 4,797 4,358 41,436 39,864 14,762 13,993
jj Source: Oregon Covered Employment and Payrolls, By Industry and
County, 1960, 1970, 1978; Occupational Employment Trends in the
Governor's Administrative Planning District, Districts 7 and 8.
All publications prepared by Research and Statistics Section, State
of Oregon, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources.
?/ Includes Education and Social Services.
B-78

Percent Average Annual Covered Employment, by Sector for the
Four-County Study Area 1/
Average Percent
Sector 1960 1970 1978 1986
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries .6 .7 1.8 V/
Mining .2 .2 .2 .1
Contract Construction 4.7 3.6 4.6 4.0
Manufacturing Total 45.5 37.9 23.8 15.8
Lumber V/ and Wood Products 40.0 29.9 17.9 10.7
Food and Other 2.0 2.8 1.4 1.1
Transportation, Communication,
and Utilities 8.9 7.9 5.3 4.4
Wholesale and Retail Trade 23.1 27.2 25.5 23.0
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2.6 3.5 3.3 4.3
Services 8.7 12.4 14.7 15.3
Government 4/ 5.7 6.4 20.8 18.9
1/ Source: Oregon Covered Employment and Payrolls, By Industry
and County, 1960, 1970, 1978; Occupational Employment Trends in
the Governor's Administrative Planning District, Districts 7 and
8. All publications prepared by Research and Statistics Section,
State of Oregon, Employment Division, Department of Human
Resources.
g/ Data not available.
A/ Includes logging.
A/ Includes Education and Social Services.
Lumber and Wood Products is the most important manufacturing
industry in the area as a whole; however, the relative dependence
of each of the counties on this sector varies widely. Curry
County is the most highly timber dependent, followed by
Josephine, Coos, and lastly, the more diversified Jackson
Counties.
Estimates of log flows from the Siskiyou National Forest lands to
mills in these counties are shown below. In addition to being
the most timber dependent of the four-counties, Curry County is
also the most dependent on the Siskiyou, receiving more than half
of its timber supply from this source. Josephine County mills
obtain about one-fourth of the timber they process from Siskiyou
lands. Relatively minor proportions are processed in Coos and
Jackson counties.
Although lumber and wood products are still the most important
industry in the area, it has made adjustments to remain
competitive in the marketplace. These adjustments mainly are
increases in efficiency with corresponding reductions in labor
requirements.
B-79

Log Flows to Mills within Zone
National Forest iJ
of Influence from the Siskiyou
Total No. of Logs Consumed by Mills
1972 1976 1982
County MBF Percent MBF Percent MBF Percent
Coos 49,797 6 37,136 6 33,278 6
Curry 148,390 73 83,364 54 17,845 25
Jackson - - 573 - 10,673 3
Josephine 75,612 26 44,300 26 28,282 28
j/ Source: 1972 data derived from Schuldt, 1974. 1976 data
derived from Howard, 1978. 1982 data derived from Howard, 1984.
Figure B-3 graphically portrays the decline in the local timber
employment, which was most pronounced in Curry County where
employment in this industry fell from 65 percent to 21 percent of
total employment over the period.
The reason for this adjustment was due to reduced demand for wood
products and increasing mechanization in the industry which has
resulted in a shift toward more capital and less labor intensive
production processes (Wall and Oswald, 1975). The modernization
resulted from increased competition from the southern region of
the United States and western region of Canada. As the South and
Canada deplete their supplies of mature timber, the Northwest
area including the area of influence surrounding the Siskiyou
National Forest will experience less competition. Depending on
the amount and cost of raw material, the area may experience an
increased demand for wood products (Schallau and Maki, 1986). A
slow steady increase in demand for wood products due to increased
housing starts as the first children of the baby boom generation
enter the housing market is predicted.
Agriculture and Fisheries are important to the area's economy
much more than covered employment statistics show. This sector
is considered to be second or third in importance. Many workers
in these fields are self-employed and do not appear in the data,
but this sector brings in considerable revenue and is important
in supporting the food processing industries. Eighty-eight
percent of the employment in the food processing industry in Coos
and Curry Counties was in seafood processing in 1977
B-80

Figure B-3 Lumber & Wood Products Employment*
By County and for the State, 1960-1983
COOS CURRY JACKSON JOSEPHINE OREGON
.......... ----------..... i_
8o
X OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
70
60
co
1P ~~~50
4.0
30
20-
10 …--------
0
YEAR
* As a Percent of Total Employment

Coos and Curry Counties ranked second and fourth, in terms of
total commercial fish landings, in the State in 1979. They
accounted for 26 percent and 12 percent of total commercial fish
and seafood landings in the state in that year. Commercial
fishing also supports jobs in the food processing industry, which
is the number two industry, following wood products, in the
manufacturing sector of these counties. The industry is located
in the coastal communities of Port Orford, Gold Beach, and
Brookings in Curry County, and Bandon and Charleston in Coos
County. It is estimated that anadromous fish reared on the
Forest support approximately 20 local, commercial fisheries
related jobs per year. Forest fisheries habitat also provides
sport fishing opportunities for local residents and tourists,
this contributing to the area's tourism-related employment.
Agriculture is also important to communities in Coos and Curry
Counties. Dairy farming is a large industry in each, and the
specialty crop of Easter lily bulbs is a major cash crop and
tourist attraction to Brookings (located in Curry County).
Jackson County contains over 10,000 acres of pear orchards, which
account for its primary agricultural crop and food processing
industry. Josephine is the only county in the Siskiyou's area of
influence which has little cropland; 80 percent of the land area
is mountainous.
Tourism is a key industry in all of the counties.
growing in importance during the last decade.
It has been
Since tourism is not a homogeneous, or strictly-defined industry,
measurement of its economic contribution is less precise than for
other sectors. Economic support through tourist expenditures
shows up in the trade and service sectors, primarily from the
purchases of food, lodging, gasoline, and souvenirs.
Jackson and Josephine Counties are heavily visited by
out-of-state tourists. Both of these counties are transected by
Interstate-5, the main north-south route through Oregon.
Jackson County has the highest proportion of employment in
wholesale and retail trade and services in the four-county area,
even higher than in the State. This is primarily due to the
nature of its two largest cities. The city of Medford is a major
shopping and service area for the region and consequently
benefits from the secondary benefits of tourism and wood
processing. Ashland is the home of the Oregon Shakespearean
Festival, which draws vacationers from all over the western
United States.
Josephine County also has nonmanufacturing strength in trade and
services. Tourism along with indirect benefits from the wood
products and food processing industries, and the large amount of
transfer payments due to social security and retirement
incomes,account for this strength. The county shares the Wild
and Scenic Rogue River with Curry County. The Rogue is a
B-82

National attraction, drawing recreationists to its excellent
fishing and whitewater opportunities.
The coastal counties, Coos and Curry, are also supported by this
industry. Tourists are attracted to the miles of bluffy, scenic
coast along U.S. Highway 101, and the many types of recreation
that they provide.
The Forest contributes to tourism-related employment in a rather
minor way, mostly through the attraction of the Rogue River for
boating, fishing, and hiking. Many of the area's features that
draw tourists are not located on the forest.
Employment Projections. Projecting future employment trends is
tricky, especially now, when trends from the 1970's point in one
direction and the occurrences of the last several years point in
quite another.
Employment gains have occurred in the trade, finance and service,
and government sectors, and these trends are expected to
continue. The important point to consider is that employment
projections, like population projections, are only as valid as
the methods and assumptions used to arrive at them. For the most
part, projections are linear extrapolations of historic trends.
They cannot foresee and account for different future
developments. For example, radical change in wood processing
technology or a prolonged energy crisis could profoundly change
the structure of the economy in southwestern Oregon.
Unemployment. Average annual rates of unemployment for the
four-counties and the State are shown below. The average
unemployment rate in the four-counties is generally two to six
points higher than the State, which is generally several points
higher than the U.S. This is common for undiversified, rural
economies. The area is also sensitive to national and regional
economic cycles, primarily because of its dependence on the wood
products industry. A significant portion of recent unemployment
has resulted from adjustments in the wood products industry and
resulting slowdowns in other related industries.
Seasonal fluctuations in unemployment are high, dropping to low
points in late summer and early fall and reaching peaks in
midwinter months. Seasonal variations reflect the constraints of
the winter season on the basic industries of logging and wood
products, agriculture, fishing, and tourism. As would be
expected, Jackson County, with its more diversified and less
seasonally-oriented economy, has lower and more stable levels of
unemployment.
Josephine County experienced the highest unemployment during the
late 1970's, but during the 1980's, the coastal counties fared
somewhat worse. This was particularly true in the winter of 1981
to 1982, when the coastal counties experienced the highest
unemployment since 1958.
B-83

Average Annual Unemployment Rates by the Four-Counties. The
State of Oregon and the United States - 1977 to 1982 (Projected)
Percent of Unemployment
Year U.S. Oregon Coos Curry Jackson Josephine
1977 7.0 7.3 8.7 8.6 7.9 11.0
1978 6.0 6.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 9.0
1979 5.8 6.8 8.8 10.2 8.9 10.1
1980 7.1 8.2 13.9 12.6 10.4 13.0
1981 7.5 9.1 15.9 15.9 11.0 14.6
1982 9.3 11.3 15.2 20.5 13.5 15.4
All of the counties in the area of influence were designated as
"labor surplus" for the period of June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982.
This designation applied to areas which experienced unemployment
at 1.2 times the national rate (in excess of 7.9 percent) for two
calendar years. Coos and Curry Counties are recent additions to
this list; Jackson and Josephine Counties were classified as
"labor surplus" in prior years. This is a federal designation,
giving the counties preference in bidding for federal contracts.
Coos and Curry Counties were also identified as economically
lagging areas effective April 1981 to April 1983. This is a
State designation, and is based on high unemployment, low per
capita income, closure or anticipated closure of major employers,
or out-migration due to lack of economic opportunity. Josephine
County was considered to be such an area until September 1981.
State policy is to encourage economic and community development
in these areas by providing tax relief for investments in
job-producing projects.
Income. The four-county area of influence has traditionally had
lower levels of income than the State as a whole, and incomes in
Oregon are below the National average. The following table
displays that information. This is, again, not unusual for a
rural, undiversified, resource-based economy.
The residents of Coos County have traditionally had the highest
incomes; those of Josephine, the lowest. Residents of Josephine
County earned the lowest income in the state in every year but
one from 1977 to 1982. Josephine is also the county with the
highest proportion of below-poverty population and food stamp
recipients. From 1974 to 1979, 58 percent of the total income
for Josephine County was income paid to labor and proprietors,
compared with a state average of 72 percent. This is one measure
of economic health, as this is the type of income occurring to
goods or services-producing segments of the population. The
other two income types, property income and transfer payments, do
not reflect the creation of any economic product. Transfer
payments, which are generally government assistance of some sort,
accounted for 24 percent of total income in Josephine County in
B-84

1979. These payments generally comprise only about 11 percent of
a county's total income.
A 1982 State of Oregon publication, Josephine County Economic
Review, examined real income growth--or increases in income that
remain after inflation is adjusted out--for Josephine County.
Incomes increased at an average rate of 5.8 percent a year from
1975 to 1977, then actually declined 2.7 percent in 1979 and 6.9
percent in 1980. Similar declines have probably occurred in the
other counties, though probably smaller in magnitude.
Future trends in income in this area, like trends in population,
employment and unemployment, depend on local and external
factors. National economic recovery, the attraction of new
industries, the adjustment of existing industries to remain
competitive, and increase in transfer payments will provide any
appreciable gains in real income.
Per Capita Income, Oregon and the Four-Counties 1976 to 1980
$ Per Person
Year Oregon Coos Curry Jackson Josephine
1976 6,368 5,722 5,675 5,452 4,926
1977 6,982 6,418 6,256 6,035 5,503
1978 7,800 7,183 7,042 6,800 5,935
1979 8,615 7,974 7,662 7,461 6,424
1980 9,296 8,093 8,192 8,102 6,972
The following table (Table B-5) displays payrolls by economic
sector, for 1978 and 1983. Lumber and wood products comprises
the largest share of payrolls in all counties except Jackson.
It is 40 percent of Curry County payrolls, and 34 percent and 28
percent of Coos and Josephine County payrolls, respectively. The
proportion of total income in each sector, not surprisingly, is
closely allied with employment by sector. Wood products also
ranks high for individual employee income. It is the
highest-paying sector in all but Coos County, where it is second
to fisheries. Coos County has the highest overall payroll levels
(in agreement with the other income information). Curry County
is below average in many of the sectors.
Distribution of Income. The distribution of income is an
indicator of a region's economic health and social structure.
The following table displays the proportions of population in
five income categories. Coos County has the lowest proportion in
the lowest income category and is slightly ahead of the State in
all but the highest income group. All of the other counties have
higher proportions of low-income residents. Josephine County,
again, is the least well-off, with a full 38 percent of its
residents earning less than $8,000 a year and only 9 percent
earning above $25,000 (Kohl 1980).
B-85

Table B-5. Payrolls by County, by Sector, 1978 and 1983 j/
Sector
County/Year (M $)
Coos Curry Jackson Josephine
1978 1983 1978 1983 1978 1983 1978 1983
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
3,450 5,223 1,060 2,072 2,250 7,467
Mining
380 626 -- 205 1,366 1,314
Contract Construction
12,045 7,485
Manufacturing
1,927 2,300 32,773 17,420
113,172 94,066 22,368 22,206 122,763 152,488
Lumber and Wood Products
3,299 4,426 916 477 5,286 6,419
Food
99,901 78,332 20,429 21,179 92,826 103,962
Other
9,972 11,308 1,024 550 24,651 42,107
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities
29,466 33,131 1,640 3,333 31,698 44,206
Wholesale and Retail Trade
37,561 42,023 468 7,972 105,528 131,511
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
7,260 8,997 1,064 1,828 14,743 24,609
Service
23,456 30,778 2,812 4,547 57,236 101,752
Government /
51,078 67,076 13,231 16,644 99,620 133,835
1,066
914
3,382
55,936
798
44,097
11,041
8,288
28,789
5,347
17,424
32,585
1,999
800
5,040
66,847
916
45,579
20,352
7,736
32,586
8,033
29,439
43,603
Total
269,230 289,405 51,431 61,107 471,229 614,602 158,731 198,083
A/ Source: Oregon Covered Employment and Payrolls, By Industry and
County, 1960, 1970, 1978; Occupational Employment Trends in the
Governor's Administrative Planning District, Districts 7 and 8. All
publications prepared by Research and Statistics Section, State of
Oregon, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources.
/ Includes Education and Social Services.
B-86

Effective Buying Power Percent of Population in Each Income Class,
1978
Percent of Population
Income ($) Coos Curry Jackson Josephine State
0- 7,999 24 27 28 38 25
8,000- 9,999 6 6 7 8 6
10,000-14,999 20 17 19 22 17
15,000-24,999 35 34 32 23 33
25,000-+ 15 16 14 9 19
Josephine County also contains the greatest proportion of poverty
population with 16.6 percent of its population below the poverty
level, as opposed to the State average of 11.2 percent. Almost
12 percent of its population receives foodstamps as shown below.
Indicators of Poverty
Percent
Poverty Food Stamp A/
Population / Recipients
County/State/Nation (1970) Rank (1979)
Coos 10.1 32 7.6
Curry 13.2 14 5.4
Jackson 12.2 20 8.9
Josephine 16.6 2 11.7
State 11.2 -- --
Nation 13.0 -- --
j/ Kohl, Don C., Department of Human Resources, State Community
Services Program, Social Accounting for Oregon, Socio-Economic
Indicators, 1980.
A/ 1970 Census of population and census definition of poverty.
County
Revenues
The Siskiyou
Coos, Curry,
California.
contributes to revenues for four-county governments:
and Josephine in Oregon, and Del Norte in
The counties receive two types of payments.
Oregon and California (O&C) payments were established in 1937 to
provide in-lieu-of-taxes revenue from lands repossessed by the
Federal Government following a breach of contract by the Oregon
and California railroad in 1916. Funds are generated by timber
harvest on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as well as National
Forest lands. Counties involved receive 50 percent of
sustained-yield timber revenues from all O&C lands in western
Oregon. O&C funds are also used by the agencies, in cooperation
with the respective counties, for resource improvements on the
O&C lands within their jurisdiction.
B-87

National Forest Fund (NFF) payments remand 25 percent of total
Forest revenues to the States in which Forests are located. The
payments are then delivered to the counties containing the
National Forest lands and must be used for schools and roads as
prescribed by the State.
The following table displays the NFF payments received by the
counties from 1972 through 1983. The amount of these payments is
determined by the bid price, and the amount of timber actually
harvested in any given year. Since both bid price and cut volume
are highly variable, payments to counties are also highly
variable.
Payments increased throughout the 1970's, when timber bid prices
were high and much timber was being cut. Since 1979 they have
fallen off dramatically. This is due to the decline in bid
prices, and slowdown in timber harvest activity resulting in a
decrease in timber revenues received by the Forest. Future
payment trends depend, again, on resumed activity in the national
housing market and the resultant creation of demand for stumpage.
Payments to Counties (NFF) in 1982 Dollars
County (M $)
Year Coos Curry Josephine Del Norte
1972 224,659 2,666,297 1,354,134 161,731
1973 297,263 3,543,566 1,789,668 213,905
1974 272,223 3,247,592 1,638,918 195,966
1975 223,087 2,661,412 1,343,098 160,595
1976 219,054 3,807,664 1,920,861 229,678
1977 430,007 5,133,715 2,588,924 309,556
1979 677,079 8,036,590 4,045,243 479,756
1980 383,768 4,555,403 2,292,841 271,922
1981 277,116 3,726,819 1,655,641 196,353
1982 85,040 1,009,452 508,078 60,256
1983 135,134 1,604,009 807,372 95,750
Area
Lifestyle
This section is a discussion of the lifestyles, values, and
interests of the people living in southwestern Oregon.
The land manager is involved in reconciling and balancing social
groups' demands and needs. An understanding of the underlying
forces which give rise to these needs and expectations can be a
very valuable tool. Conflict over natural resources is social
conflict. The forest land manager can and does have a profound
effect on people as well as the land. The use pressures on our
natural resources are increasing. Social conflict over this use,
and the need to recognize and deal with it, is here to stay.
The social climate of southwestern Oregon can be described as
extremely diverse, with some social cohesion at the local, city
level, but little for the area as a whole.
B-88

Curry County can probably be considered the most socially uniform
of the four-counties in the area of influence. It is rural and
conservative, with a majority of its residents conforming to
traditional values and lifestyles. Coos County is somewhat more
economically developed and diverse, and its residents tend to be
slightly more socially diverse and liberal in their attitudes.
Both Jackson and Josephine Counties are composed of a number of
very different groups of people. Each has significant
alternative lifestyle communities, religious communities, and
survivalist groups. Grants Pass, in Josephine County, hosts a
very large population of retired people, who tend to be fiscally
and socially conservative. Ashland, in Jackson County, is the
home of Southern Oregon State College, the Oregon Shakespearean
Festival, the State Ballet, and a large number of people aged
under 40.
While the residents of southwestern Oregon are extremely.diverse
in terms of values, attitudes, and beliefs, there is one
underlying lifestyle that is common to much of the area. This
lifestyle is outdoor, natural resource-oriented. It is pursued
in a variety of forms; for example: large scale wood products
work, traditional and alternative forms of agriculture, forest
products gathering, fishing, and commercial and noncommercial
whitewater boating. Despite the variety of pursuits, there is a
common theme that unites those involved. All are intimately
connected with the outdoor environment and its resources for
their economic well-being and/or leisure enjoyment. In order to
appreciate exactly what the relationship between the Forest and
local lifetypes and values are, however, it is necessary to
consider a number of factors.
Despite its location, the Siskiyou is a relatively isolated
Forest. The only major transportation route to pass through it
is U.S. Highway 199, the Redwood Highway, for less than five
miles. There are no direct north-south routes. The only
east-west route, the Bear Camp Road, is used primarily by Forest
Service personnel and Rogue River guides and floaters. It is
closed during the winter months, due to snow.
The Forest is similarly isolated from the local communities. BLM
and private lands buffer the Siskiyou from populated areas on all
sides. Thus, few community viewsheds are impacted by the
Forest's management activities. Firewood, berries, ferns, and
other products from the woods are generally available on other
lands that are more convenient than the Siskiyou.
Terrain on the Siskiyou tends to be rocky and steep; many areas
are covered with brush species that render off-trail hiking a
near impossibility. The Forest contains few lakes, loop trails,
or other day-hike destinations. Short duration recreational
opportunities are much more abundant on the neighboring Rogue
River National Forest. Because of its terrain, accessibility,
and the availability of substitutes, the Kalmiopsis Wilderness is
B-89

one of the least-used Wildernesses in the Nation. Most
recreation takes place on or near the major rivers, which are
rather unique in terms of white water experience. Another unique
feature of the Siskiyou is its array of rare and unusual plants
which provide an excellent opportunity for the area's
surprisingly high number of professional and amateur botanists.
The Forest also has large unroaded areas which are valued by
many.
While southwestern Oregon residents exhibit a myriad of different
lifestyles, one in general appears common to many residents and
is particularly relevant to National Forest management. It is
what can be called a seasonal, outdoor lifestyle. It is subject
to infinite variations, but essentially involves paid employment
for part of the year--generally, the late spring-summer-early
fall months--and involuntary idleness or living off the land in
the remaining cold-weather months. During these months, many
residents fill their time and supplement their lowered incomes
with outdoor activities such as woodcutting, hunting, fishing, or
crabbing. This lifestyle is related not only to the natural
environment of the area, but to social forces, such as the
economy and social heritage of the region.
Employment in the area has been previously examined. Four of the
most important industries, i.e., timber, agriculture, commercial
fishing, and tourism, rely primarily on the mild weather and
growing season months. The rural tradition is a primary cultural
factor which reinforces the seasonal, outdoor lifestyle. This
tradition, with its general orientation toward the land and the
outdoors, make it seem natural to turn to the land and its
resources to satisfy needs.
The seasonal, outdoor lifestyle has elements that crosscut
different, sometimes opposing, groups of people; while many
different people feel a commitment to the land and the outdoors
in southwestern Oregon, they do so in different ways.
Major Values Relating to Resource. Values are very general,
underlying beliefs or orientations toward objects, ideas,
relationships, goals, etc. Since one's values are learned
through social interaction with others from early childhood on,
they tend to be held both widely and deeply within a given
culture, and are very resistant to change. Because they are held
so widely and deeply, they are often difficult to pinpoint. They
are usually expressed only as themes cutting across specific
attitudes and actions, and may not even be apparent to those
holding them.
These underlying values are expressed in specific attitudes and
opinions which change with the movement of events and the passage
of time. While by no means wishing to downgrade the importance
of public opinion on the specific issues, it should be remembered
that public opinion is very issue-specific, and that the issues
change over time. If a social overview is to remain valid for a
B-90

5- or 10-year planning period and be applied to a succession of
changing issues, it must dig to a deeper level, i.e., the
underlying orientations, or values, of the people. Nevertheless,
specific issues and controversies are valuable. It is in them
that the deeper orientations and values are reflected. A more
thorough discussion of this topic may be found in Peterson
(1980).
At the very root of many conflicts regarding resource management
are two fundamentally different conceptions of the relationship
between humanity and nature. The human-centered view, assumes
that mankind is the central reference point and that nature
exists for his/her use. Any part of nature that is not used is
considered either irrelevant or wasted.
Those holding this view would be likely to favor intensive timber
management and the liquidation of old-growth forests, and would
be opposed to the expansion of wilderness (perceived as producing
nothing for people).
The opposite perspective assumes that Nature has inherent value
in its own right. From this perspective, people are responsible
for wisely using, conserving, and protecting the natural
environment. The proponent of this view is more likely to favor
preserving stands of old-growth for their own sake, eliminating
use of chemical herbicides because of potential dangers to the
environment, and protecting fish and wildlife habitat at the cost
of reduced timber production.
This portrayal is necessarily over-simplified. Rarely is either
perspective consistently applied; rather, many intermediate views
exist between the extremes. However, identifying two
essentially-distinct views enables us to follow them as themes
that cut across many resource-related issues which are important
to the economy and lifestyle of the area--and, hopefully can lead
to a better understanding of the basis of many conflicts.
Changing Values. No one can predict with accuracy what a
population's values will be for the next twenty years. However,
there are some trends in evidence that are likely to continue,
barring unforeseen change. There are two ways in which the basic
value orientations of an area's population can change: the same
people may change over time, or new people may bring in new
values. Both of these are taking place in southwestern Oregon.
Environmentalism, as a movement, has been gaining strength
nation-wide for the last decade; southwestern Oregon is no
exception. This trend will likely continue. Concurrent with the
growth in environmentalism, there is developing what can be
called a backlash. Timber industry and other more
business-oriented groups and individuals are becoming more
focused and vocal regarding their interests. As these issues
sharpen and more people realize that there are ever greater
B-91

pressures on public lands, there could be even further
polarization.
This greater pressure on public lands stems in part from
increased population pressure, due to in-migration. There has
been no work done on the value differences between in-migrants
and the indigenous population, but several characteristics can be
inferred. First, in-migration is accompanied by a decline in
timber sector employment. In addition, no statistical
relationship could be established between harvest levels and
employment in this sector and in-migration (Owen 1979).
In-migrants then, are finding work in other sectors, and
proportionately fewer people have a direct interest in timber
production.
Another aspect of in-migration that may have important
consequences for the Forest Service is the location of population
growth. If it takes place in rural areas, more people will
develop an interest in "what goes on in their own backyards."
Forest management objectives and activities will acquire much
more than an abstract significance. On the other hand, a
concentration of migrants in urbanized areas may result in
increasing demand for local outdoor recreation experiences.
In sum, it is unlikely that the Forest Service will enter a
period of calm. If present trends continue, there will
undoubtedly be a continuing increase in the diversity of values,
lifestyles, and demands for forest resource use.
The Community Stability Issue. Forest planning has long
recognized the issue of "community stability," although this
phrase has never been specifically defined. The NFMA regulations
continue this tradition by requiring that alternative management
strategies be analyzed in terms of their impacts on affected
communities.
In Region Six, most affected communities have generally been
synonymous with a timber-dependent community. A timber-dependent
community relies on the harvesting and processing of wood,
especially National Forest timber, for much of its economic base.
It follows that community stability is assured by providing a
consistent, sustained supply of National Forest timber.
Essentially, community stability has been equated with timber
industry stability.
Employment in the lumber and wood products sector, as previously
shown, has been declining for the past several decades.
Coincident with the employment decline in this sector has been
the growth in population, employment, and incomes from other
sectors of the local economy, including industries that benefit
from resources such as clean water, scenic vistas, and
recreational opportunities.
B-92

In-migrants in the survey conducted by Stevens (1980) found such
things as recreational opportunities and air and water quality to
be important in their decisions to move to this area.
The communities and counties in the Siskiyou's area of influence
are economically dependent on the Forest for much more than its
timber resource. The resource values of air and water quality,
visual resources, and diverse recreational opportunities are,
increasingly, economic, as well as social, values which are
important to community stability.
Sustained growth in the area will depend on the quality of
resource conditions as well as the supply of timber. The
Siskiyou National Forest is in a position of contributing to
community stability with all resource outputs.
The Forest interacts with its surrounding area economically by
providing commodities (timber and fish) and an appealing
environment to draw outdoor recreation-oriented tourists. It is
one of many suppliers in this area. Demand for these goods and
services is affected primarily by nation-wide phenomena, such as
conditions in the housing market, people's preferences for
recreation, and the price of gasoline. Therefore, the Forest's
economic effects on its area of influence are also indirect.
Changes in national economic factors cause a much more profound
impact on the economy of southwestern Oregon than do changes in
Siskiyou National Forest policies and programs.
Plans,
Policies,
and Controls
of Other
Agencies
County Comprehensive Plans. In 1973, Oregon instituted a
State-wide land use planning system. The process of implementing
this system was directed by a state commission - the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). LCDC was
directed to develop and adopt State-wide Goals and Guidelines for
management of lands, air, and water resources. Nineteen goals
were developed and adopted and they have formed the foundation
for all of the County Comprehensive plans prepared in the state.
LCDC oversees the operations of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development which, in turn, was responsible for
working with all of the counties in the State to ensure that the
State-wide goals were consistently applied.
All of the counties which include Forest land have either
completed their comprehensive planning or have plans in the draft
stage. These plans have been reviewed and the zoning
designations on adjacent and intermingled non-Federal lands
inspected for compatibility with the actions proposed in the
alternatives. In most instances, the zoning designations on
adjacent and intermingled non-Federal land is for forest or
agricultural management. These are broad designations which
cover a wide variety of uses. None of the activities proposed in
the alternatives are incompatible with these designations.
B-93

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). In 1972, Congress passed,
and the President signed, the CZMA. The CZMA requires "Each
Federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly
affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those
activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent
practicable, consistent with approved state management
programs." (Subsection 307(c)(1) of the CZMA of 1972, as
amended). Although Federal lands are excluded from the
boundaries of the coastal zone, the "directly affecting"
provision necessitates a consistency review be performed if the
Federal action has significant off-site effects. The
significance of the Federal action must be reviewed in terms of
the primary, secondary, and cumulative effects on the Coastal
Zone.
The LCDC has administered the Oregon Coastal Management Program
(OCMP) since 1975. The Federal Government officially recognized
and approved that program in 1977. The OCMP is based on the 19
State-wide Planning Goals, particularly the four coastal goals
adopted by LCDC in December 1976. They are: Goal 16, Estuarine
Resources; Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands; Goal 18, Beaches and
Dunes; and, Goal 19, Ocean Resources. These goals form the basis
of County Comprehensive Plans, and the Coastal Zone Management
Program in Oregon is implemented through these county plans.
Portions of Oregon's coastal zone in Curry and Coos counties have
the potential to be directly affected by activities included in
the alternatives. The activities are: silvicultural activities;
road construction; fish habitat improvement; wildlife habitat
improvement; recreation development; land acquisition; and,
mineral resource development. These actions can affect water
quality, water quantity, living resources of water, water
aesthetics, and water surface area (page 17 of the OCMP). The
alternatives include all of the above actions and effects.
The coastal compliance portions of the Comprehensive Plans in the
two counties have been acknowledged by the Oregon LCDC. These
plans have been reviewed and the actions and effects predicted
for the alternatives compared with them. At the programmatic
level the alternatives are consistent with the coastal portions
of the county comprehensive plans. Some site-specific actions
may have to be examined in more detail before a final consistency
determination can be completed. Project implementing actions
will be examined to determine if they have the potential to
directly affect Oregon's Coastal Zone. If the directly affecting
test is met, a site specific consistency determination will be
made. This approach is consistent with the OCMP (page 44 of the
Program).
Social and The primary zone of influence of the Siskiyou National Forest
Economic consists of Coos, Curry, Jackson, and Josephine Counties. The
Summary area is primarily rural in character, although urbanization has
been increasing and, most likely, will continue. The population
is currently at approximately 270,000, and could reach 420,000 by
B-94

the year 2000. Jackson County, with the city of Medford, is the
most populous county; Curry County, the least.
In-migration has become a dominant force in the area's growth.
It accounted for more than 90 percent of the population growth of
Josephine County during the first eight years of the 1970's.
In-migrants favor the area because of its high amenity and
quality of life characteristics, i.e., clean air and water, the
pace of daily life, and outdoor recreation. A significant
proportion are retired persons. Employment opportunities and
incomes are not the counties' main attractions.
The dominant employer in the area is still the lumber and wood
products industry, (with the exception of Jackson County which is
more diversified and service-oriented). This industry accounted
for 24 percent of total employment in 1978. Other important
industries are agriculture and fisheries, in the coastal
counties, and tourism. The area presently operates on a largely
seasonal cycle, with the three primary industries most active
during the summer months. Unemployment, which tends to be
several points above the state average, worsens during the
off-season. The trade, finance, communications, and
transportation sectors have been gaining in importance and appear
to be the region's keys to economic growth in the future.
Incomes in the four-county area tend to be low. Coos County
leads the group in this parameter, just slightly below the State
average. Josephine County exhibited the lowest median effective
buying power in the State in 1978, and almost the highest
proportion of population below the poverty line in 1970.
A predominant, though far from the only, lifestyle in
southwestern Oregon can be categorized as "seasonal-outdoor."
Many residents work part of the year and depend on outdoor
activities, fishing, wood cutting, and gardening, to name a very
few, for income or leisure time supplements.
This lifestyle is relatively dependent on natural resources and
fosters two distinct and strongly-held value structures, which
are of relevance to the forest manager. The human-centered view
holds that man's relationship to nature is one of dominance,
i.e., natural resources exist for man's use alone; to not fully
utilize them is wasteful. The humanity-in-nature view holds that
the natural environment has value apart from human use. These
highly-polarized views, and the nearly infinite intermediate
views, result in conflicting opinions on forest resource
management issues.
Further pressure on resources, and increasing diversity of
values, is likely to result from the in-migration of people who
are either more economically aligned with amenity-based
resources, or are retired-and are, therefore, not reliant on
economic growth at all.
B-95

The traditional, implicit Forest Service equation of community
stability with health in the timber industry has expanded to
include fisheries and tourism which require high quality
resources such as water, air, visuals resources, and recreation.
This formerly timber-dependent community is rapidly becoming
forest-dependent, in a multiple-resource sense. The Siskiyou
National Forest is in a position of being able to contribute to
local community stability by responding to economic and social
needs for a supply of many goods.
The largest employers in the four-county area are the
manufacturing industry (primarily wood and food processors),
government, wholesale and retail trade industries, and the
services industry. These industries provide 86 percent of the
employment in the four-county area.
Economic activity in the Coos, Curry, Jackson, and Josephine
County areas is affected by activity on the Forest. Some
communities rely on a variety of Forest outputs for a significant
portion of their economic activity.
Economic activities which affect local areas include logging,
wood processing, Port-Orford-Cedar timber exports, river rafting,
commercial fishing, sports fishing, hunting, camping,
backpacking, and other forms of tourist activity. Employment and
income data for these areas of the economy are summarized.
Comparison of Economic Sectors in the Area of Influence
Total
Total
No. of Average Payroll
Aggregate Sector Firms Employment (M $)
Forestry/Woods Products 404 12,100 274,500
Fishing/Hunting/Trapping 106 200 3500
Eating/Dining/Hotel/Lodging/
Amusement and Recreation 731 8,100 49,000
Mining 34 200 3000
(Transfer Payments/Social
Security Payments, etc.) (563,100)
(Siskiyou National Forest/
Total Forest Budget) (15,800)
The most important industries affected by the Forest are the
forestry and wood products industry, the fishing, hunting, and
trapping industry, the eating/dining industry, hotel and lodging,
amusement and recreation industry, and mining industry. These
industries employ approximately 21,000 people in the four-county
area which represents 28 percent of the employed labor force.
The forestry/wood products industry employ the largest number of
people (12,100) and pay about 80 percent of the wages of the
listed categories.
B-96

Transfer payments, including such items as social security
payments, retirement incomes, and disability payments, are about
double the amount of wages paid by all the listed categories.
Most of this income is due to the large percentage of retired
citizens who have moved into the area due to its attractions.
These attractions are a low cost of living, low population
densities, mild climate, and opportunities for outside activities
such as gardening, fishing, firewood cutting, and motorized
recreation. Primitive recreation opportunities such as
backpacking and hiking are not major attractions for this
expanding group of citizens.
The Forest itself impacts the local economy with its employees,
wages, and contracts. This impact is most dramatic in rural
isolated towns adjacent to the Forest. A good example is the
town of Powers, Oregon. Here, the Forest Service is the largest
employer in town and provides additional income through
silviculture, recreational facilities, and resource enhancement
contracts. The community stability provided by this income is an
important consideration.
One other major industry is affected by the Forest - Marijuana.
It is purported to be the largest cash crop of southwestern
Oregon bringing in more dollars to the area than the timber
industry. This illegal crop is grown on public land where the
risk of punishment due to discovery of growing plants is limited.
SOURCES OF
DATA
Economic
Impact Model
Economic and social characteristics of communities and areas are
related, but also exist somewhat independently, and are best
examined through different means. Forest-related economic
impacts are derived quantitatively, through use of IMPLAN (an
input-output model) and FORPLAN, a linear programming model.
Effects on local employment and incomes, are estimated with
IMPLAN using outputs generated by the FORPLAN model and other
predictive tools. Effects on local government revenues are also
estimated, but this is done outside of the IMPLAN model.
Forest-related social impacts are in part caused by these
economic impacts. The latter are considered, along with other,
more qualitative information on local lifestyles, attitudes,
beliefs, values, and social organization in the social impact
analysis.
Overview. The IMPLAN input-output model was used to estimate the
employment and income impacts of Forest outputs and activities on
the local area. Direct, indirect, induced and total impacts
were calculated.
Economic input-output (I-0) analysis is a procedure for
describing the structure of inter-industry and labor force
relationships, and predicting short-term impacts that result from
changes in product supply or demand in one or more of these
sectors. I-O analysis is based upon the interdependence of the
production and consumption sectors in the impact area.
Industries must purchase inputs from other industries, as well as
B-97

primary sources, (i.e. natural resources) for use in the
production of outputs which are sold either to other industries
or to final consumers. A set of 1-0 accounts can be thought of
as a numerical "picture" of an impact area's economic structure.
Flows of industrial inputs can be traced via the I-O accounts to
show linkages between the industries composing the economy. The
accounts are also transformed into a set of simultaneous
equations that permit the prediction of economic effects
(employment and income) resulting from changes in Forest outputs
and activities.
The National Model. The IMPLAN model has a data base consisting
of two parts: (1) a national level technology matrix, and (2) a
county-by-county file of estimated activity levels for total
gross output, six components of final demand, three components of
final payments, and employment for 466 industrial/business
sectors.
The national technology matrix is based on a 1972 U.S. Department
of Commerce I-O model that was converted to an "industry by
industry" basis and updated to 1977 using the RAS procedure
(Clopper, Almon, et al., 1983. The county level information is
based on a 1977 data set constructed by Engineering Economics
Associates of Berkeley, California. The end product is a model
that represents the structure of the economy in 1972, but uses
actual data for prices and product output levels for 1977.
National Data Base Reduction to Impact Area. Utilizing the
national technology matrix and the control totals for the local,
multi-county impact area, a data reduction method was employed to
develop a regional input-output table. The method used
incorporates the property of "openness" displayed by regional
economies in comparison with the National economy (Richardson
1972. Smaller, regional economies are less self contained, and
hence are more "open" to import and export than the national
economy. Based on the assumption that trade balances are the
principal difference between national and regional purchase
patterns (i.e, industry production functions are identical but
regional imports and exports make local inter-industry
transactions different), the supply-demand pool technique
Schaffer, W.A. and K. Chu. 1969) for data reduction was adopted.
Region Six Adaptation - Final Demand Expenditures. The I-O model
translates NFS outputs and activities into employment and income
impacts. An intermediate step in this process is the translation
of NFS outputs (timber, range, recreation, etc.) into final
demand dollars. Final demand expenditures are different from the
"values" used in the cost efficiency analysis. Final demand
expenditures represent the dollars spent by consumers to purchase
the finished products that are made from NFS outputs. For
instance, timber (a Forest output) is processed into lumber which
is sold, as a final product, to consumers. The consumers' final
demand expenditures represent the amount of new money that is
B-98

directly input to the local economic impact area (under the
assumption that most of the lumber is purchased by buyers who
reside outside of the impact area).
This modeling step is accomplished by applying a final demand
expenditure per unit of output to total outputs and linking the
resulting dollar amount to the sectors in which the direct
expenditure takes place. This process determines the direct
impact that can be expected to take place in the economy. The
IMPLAN model, through the inter-industry and labor force
linkages, uses this information to compute the indirect, induced,
and finally, the total impacts predicted to occur in the area.
Final demand expenditures for Oregon and Washington were
developed by the Regional Economist and a team of Forest
Economists, in 1984. Expenditures were developed by RIM activity
and then allocated to each individual sector impacted, based on
patterns established in studies specific to the activity, or
assumptions about similar activities. Expenditures are reported
by RVD, using Region Six estimations of activity durations.
Expenditure information is contained in the planning records on
file in the Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, and in
the office of the Regional Economist.
One important assumption of the model is that consumption occurs
as predicted and that the other segments of the economy are
static. Examination of this assumption with regards to timber
outputs is revealing.
The amount of trees harvested on the Siskiyou National Forest is
correlated with the number of jobs that is connected with harvest
and processing. Though the nature of that relationship is
evolving due to technological changes, a relationship still
exists. However, examination of the historic sale amount reveals
no apparent relationship between the Forest's allowable sale
quantity and employment in the wood products' sectors. Due to
the projected lack of timber available on private ground
(Peinecke and Ralph 1986), an assumption is made for future
employment projections that the allowable sale quantity will be
harvested at an average rate equal to its amount.
Base Year Alternative and Benchmark - Related Employment and
Income. Forest outputs for the existing conditions and current
direct alternative were determined and run through the I-O model
to provide a base situation from which employment and income
changes can be measured.
Returns to Local and Federal Government. Predicted returns to
the U.S. Treasury and local governments were calculated for each
alternative and benchmark. These returns illustrate the impact
of management on both Federal Government receipts collected as a
result of revenue-producing programs on the Forest, and the
Forest's payments to local governments.
B-99

Returns to the U.S. Treasury were calculated by deriving the
revenue of income producing programs on the Forest which
correspond to FSM 6531.12b "Annual Collections Statement," or the
NFF. Total Treasury returns include revenues from timber,
grazing, fuelwood sales, recreation, special uses, power, and
mineral fees. Timber returns were calculated for each FORPLAN
run from the net value of timber revenues. All other returns are
assumed to be constant at their base year level.
Base Year Estimates - Returns to the U.S. Treasury 1982
U.S. Treasury
Resource Returns (1982 MM $)
Timber 49.0200
Range .0017
Fuelwood .0496
Recreation .0743
Special Uses .0032
Power .0005
Minerals .0002
Returns to local governments are Treasury funds paid to the
States of Oregon and California and passed on to local county
governments. There are two types of payments to counties: NFF
and O&C payments. The NFF payments were assumed to be 25 percent
of all commodity receipts except minerals where 50 percent of the
receipts were paid to counties. The O&C payments were assumed to
be 75 percent of gross revenues on the percentage of O&C lands
managed on the Forest. These funds are paid to the State of
Oregon who distributes them to the counties. Both funds are
commonly referred to as payment in lieu of taxes.
Social Measures. Social impact analysis is the estimation of how
Forest Service policies and actions affect the quality of life or
social well-being. The analysis is accomplished by projecting
future social conditions in an area influenced by Forest Service
actions if current management were unchanged, then comparing this
projection with conditions likely to occur as a result of
implementing management alternatives.
Social measures include two aspects of social impact analysis:
social variables and social zones of influence. Social zones of
influence identify who is affected by Forest Service activities,
and social variables define how people are affected and the
relationship between people and the natural environment. The
following describes the social measures and how they are used.
Social Zones of Influence. The following is a description of the
groups of people or communities within the impact analysis area.
B-100

Local Zone. The local social impact area was divided into four
types of communities. The first type of community is the urban
service and government centers including Grants Pass, Coos Bay,
and Medford. These cities, although still highly dependent on
wood products-related employment, have other industries which are
well developed and have been expanding. Industries such as
electronics, other light manufacturing, wholesale and retail
trade, and service sectors, provide nonresource oriented basic
employment and incomes. They offer county and regional business,
medical, and social services.
The interests of the urban community are diverse. Forest issues
which may affect different interests of the urban community are
timber outputs, primitive recreation opportunities, Wild and
Scenic River recreation opportunities, motorized recreation
opportunities, Botanical areas, hunting and viewing wildlife,
mining opportunities, and interest in old-growth wildlife
species.
Two predominant types of rural communities exist in the area.
Eastside rural communities are scattered throughout Jackson,
eastern Coos, and Josephine Counties. They include such towns as
Selma, Kerby, Powers, and Myrtle Point, which are highly
dependent on wood products and farming, and generally offer few
other employment opportunities and limited retail trade and
services. Residents tend to travel to the more urban centers for
shopping, entertainment, medical care, and government services.
The interests of the rural eastside communities are timber
outputs, motorized recreation, wildlife habitat primarily dealing
with big-game hunting, and mining.
The westside rural communities, such as Brookings, Gold Beach,
Port Orford, and Bandon are larger and more diversified than the
eastside towns. Wood products are important, but tourism,
fishing, and agriculture also play major roles in their economies
and lifestyles. These communities are located along the coast
and are bordered by mountains to the east. Tourism and the
relative isolation of these communities have promoted economic
diversification and the development of retail, medical, and
entertainment services.
The interests of the westside rural communities are related to
timber outputs, river recreation, motorized recreation, primitive
recreation, fisheries outputs, wildlife hunting and viewing,
old-growth habitat, and mining opportunities.
Alternate lifestyle areas are found in the Illinois and Applegate
Valleys of Josephine and Jackson counties. These areas,
particularly the communities of Takilma and Ruch, were resettled
primarily by younger people during the 1960's. Many of the
residents gain income in nontraditional ways. Takilma contains a
cooperative forestry corporation which engages in tree planting
and labor-intensive silvicultural management. Several organic
B-101

food and herb growing and processing industries operate in the
Applegate Valley.
The interests of the alternate lifestyle communities are
projected to be related to timber production, primitive
recreation opportunities, river recreation opportunities, botanic
areas, old-growth preservation and habitat, and mining
opportunities.
National Zone. The national zone of influence is not
significantly affected in terms of response to changes in Forest
outputs for a given level of management. For instance, a change
in timber output would not significantly vary supply or demand on
a national scale. However, changes in policy affecting resource
values such as scenic quality, timber production, water quality,
wildlife and fisheries management, and similar values will
continue to draw attention from special interest groups at the
state and national levels. This is evidenced in the presently by
these interest groups' involvement in issues regarding
allocations of roadless areas.
Social Variables. The following social variables are considered
for each local social group. Disruptions due to change from the
current situation result in economic dislocation and/or social
change. This change can be estimated by examining changes in
lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, values, social organization, and
land use patterns.
INFORMATION
GENERATED
FROM THE
SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
Chapters II and IV of the DEIS present the summary of the
social/economic effects of alternatives. A more detailed
narrative of the findings is presented here. The modeling of
economic impacts was derived from the generated changes in
planned outputs compared to the current direction Alternative A.
These changes were used as inputs into the IMPLAN model to
determine relative (not absolute) changes in the economy due to
direct, indirect, and induced effects. For example, a decrease
in 1 MMCF of wood harvest would result in an estimated reduction
of 91 jobs and $2,149,000 of income in all segments of the
economy. One must emphasize these figures are only to be used
for comparison between alternatives and should not be interpreted
as absolute numbers of jobs and wages. The actual number of jobs
affected and income generated would depend on the economic
adjustments needed in response to national markets, local labor
supply conditions, and fluctuations in the local and national
economy at one time and place.
B-102

Employment and Income Response Coefficients by Resource
Change in Change in
Unit of Employment Income
Output Measure (Jobs) (M $)
Roaded Dispersed Recreation M RVD 1.3 20.9
Unroaded Dispersed Recreation M RVD .99 14.5
Softwood Timber M MCF 90.67 2,149.3
Big Game M WFUD 1.1 18.8
Small Game M WFUD 1.5 23.9
Nonconsumptive Wildlife M WFUD 3.24 54.9
Freshwater Fisheries M WFUD 1.23 19.6
Saltwater Fisheries M WFUD 3.64 51.8
In general, alternatives which emphasize timber outputs tend to
produce the most jobs, income, returns to the U.S. Treasury, and
payments to local governments. Timber receipts are the largest
source of returns to the Treasury, local governments, and local
economy. Recreational values tend to be constant from
alternative to alternative due to the excess capacity of the
Forest to supply present-day use.
The anticipated social impacts of the alternatives can be
compared by examining the degree of change from current outputs
of commodities and amenities. In general, those alternatives
which produce a large decrease in commodity outputs negatively
affect the lifestyles, social organization, and attitudes of
those who perceive the area as serving humankind's needs. Those
alternatives which produce decreased outputs of nonmarket derived
goods such as old growth, wildlife, and esthetically pleasing
landscapes negatively affect the lifestyles, social organization,
and attitudes of those who generally perceive nature as being
preserved for its own value and economic benefits. Conversely,
increased outputs of desirable products would affect each group
in a positive manner. The views are not mutually exclusive, as
many people understand and accept both opinions.
B-103

ANALYSIS
PRIOR TO
DEVELOPMENT
OF
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
This analysis process included compiling data (i.e., issues,
concerns, demand projections, the current situation assessment,
etc.), and using the FORPLAN model to process and/or develop
information on Forest output production capability, economics,
and resource interrelationships.
During the analysis of the management situation, resource supply
potentials were determined by establishing minimum and maximum
production levels called benchmarks. A point of reference was
also defined (Base Runs) from which the costs and effects of
applying regulation and policy constraints were measured.
Production capabilities were determined for single resources as
well as for sets of multiple resource outputs produced in the
most cost efficient way. This analysis established the benchmark
levels required by National planning direction. Those benchmarks
served as references from which the costs and effects of various
objectives and constraints used in developing alternatives were
evaluated.
The benchmark analysis was performed prior to the formulation of
alternatives and used the FORPLAN model. The purpose of the
benchmark analysis was fourfold:
1. Estimate the schedule of management activities, resource
outputs, effects, discounted benefits and costs, PNV, and
acreages of prescription assignments appropriate to
achieving the purposes of the benchmarks;
2. Define the resource production levels associated with
maximizing single resource outputs;
3. Analyze the implications of legal and policy constraints.
4. Comply with the analysis of MMR's of 36 CFR 219.27.
In order to fulfill these requirements, the Forest developed
three types of benchmarks. These are:
1. Max PNV Benchmark. Maximizes PNV for the Forest and
displays the associated resource outputs.
2. Resource Benchmarks. Defines the maximum potentials for
timber production, fisheries, visuals, wildlife, recreation
and unroaded areas.
3. Min Level Benchmark. Defines the minimum outputs associated
with custodial management of the Forest and the unavoidable
costs and benefits of public ownership.
Several variations of the PNV and Resource benchmarks were run to
determine the opportunity cost and resource tradeoffs of meeting
specific constraints, objectives, regulations, and policies. In
addition to these requirements, all benchmarks were designed to
be approximately implementable, were not constrained by budget,
B-104

and used a maximization of PNV as the objective function to
obtain comparable solutions.
DEVELOPMENT
OF
MANAGEMENT
REQUIREMENTS
In order to perform the stepwise analysis in the benchmarks,
various sets of management requirements were modeled in FORPLAN
to insure that the purposes of the benchmark analysis could
be achieved. These management requirements were divided into
three categories: 1) MMR's; 2) timber policy requirements; and,
3) maximum resource output constraints. The management
requirements were incorporated into FORPLAN in two ways. First,
many of the standards and guidelines for prescriptions were
developed to include specific management requirements. These
requirements are included in FORPLAN as cost and yield table
variations reflecting management under these assumptions.
Second, various management requirements were incorporated into
FORPLAN by imposing constraints on the linear program. These
constraints were used to insure that outputs, effects, and Forest
conditions will be produced in the proportions required to
achieve the particular purposes of a benchmark.
In linear programming analysis, constraints override the
objective function. Thus, if a predetermined level of outputs or
minimum physical condition is entered as a constraint, it is
always achieved (or no feasible solution is found). In the
design of the benchmarks, care was taken to insure that the
various constraints or sets of constraints used constituted the
most cost efficient method for attaining the desired results.
Following is a discussion of the management requirements used in
the Siskiyou FORPLAN model.
Minimum
Management
Requirements
The MMR's are designed to meet the requirements of applicable
laws and regulations, specifically those of 36 CFR 219.27.
A February 9, 1983 Regional Office memo on "Regional Guidelines
for Incorporating MMR's in Forest Planning" fostered consistency
among different Forests in the implementation of MMR's.
Treatment of wildlife indicator species was further described by
the Regional Office in a 1920 memo on April 16, 1984:
Clarification of Wildlife MMR Direction. And finally, two
documents were issued by the Regional Office in June 1986: A
Report on Mininum Management Requirements for Forest Planning on
the National Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest
Service; and A Background Document on the Development and Review
of Minimum Management Requirements for Forest Planning on the
National Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest
Service.
The MMR's included in this analysis are those that impose
substantive standards, can be incorporated in the analysis, and
are likely to have an impact on the analysis. There are many
other requirements that the Forest must meet which are not
discussed here including substantive requirements that do not
have significant impacts when viewed on a Forest scale, as well
as procedural requirements. Examples of substantive requirements
B-105

that are not included in the modeling include those for cultural
resources, and those for threatened and endangered species.
These requirements are part of the Standards and Guidelines in
the LRMP; while significant in themselves, they do not have
significant affects on the Forest-wide analysis and are not
discussed here. Specific requirements and how they were modeled
through cost and yield adjustments in the prescriptions, or
constraints on the linear program, are discussed below.
Conservation of Soil and Water Resources. The basic soil, water
quality, and water yield resources were protected by the
application of: 1) specific management standards, guidelines,
and practices integrated within management prescriptions, and 2)
area harvest dispersion constraints in the FORPLAN model. This
methodology provides a baseline necessary to protect the physical
integrity of the land and water systems. Soil resources were
protected by employing standards, guidelines, and practices
within the management prescriptions, particularly those which
allow ground disturbing activities (i.e., timber harvesting and
road construction). Costs developed for the prescriptions allow
for these mitigating practices.
Water quality resources were protected by a combination of
standards, guidelines, and practices within the management
prescriptions, and area harvest dispersion constraints in the
FORPLAN model. These measures were taken to minimize stream
sedimentation, maintain stream water temperatures and minimize
the occurrence of landslides. Costs and yields developed for the
Riparian Management Area prescriptions allow for these
practices. Area harvest constraints were also used to distribute
timber harvest and road building activity around the Forest using
Planning Basins as geographic locators within the model. Timber
harvest was limited to 20 percent of the suitable land base per
decade by Planning Basin. These area constraints limit the acres
of final harvest by basin to avoid concentrating landslides,
hillslope erosion, and stream sedimentation inordinately within
some drainages. These measures will also protect minimum viable
fisheries populations on each watershed available for timber
harvest on the Forest, and meet the general harvest dispersion
requirements.
Minimize Hazards from Flood, Wind, Wildfire, Erosion, or Other
Natural Physical Force. The Forest-wide management standards and
guidelines incorporated in management prescriptions include the
necessary mitigation and protection from the above hazards. A
floodplain assessment including a flood hazard analysis is
required for any construction within the 100 year floodplain of
streams and rivers. Specific requirements are included which
prevent the compaction and bare mineral exposure of the soil from
timber harvest activities. Erosion control measures, such as
grass seeding or mulching, are implemented on highly erosive
sites. Costs developed for the prescriptions include allowances
for such measures.
B-106

Reduce Hazard from Pest Organisms. Activities to prevent
conditions favorable to pest organisms are included in management
prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines.
Protection of Riparian Areas. Riparian areas are protected by
specific management standards, guidelines, and practices within
the management prescriptions (see the Riparian Management Area
Prescriptions described previously in this appendix). All
identified Riparian areas are managed to avoid stream water
temperature increases, and protect riparian ecosystem resources.
Riparian Prescription option B is the MMR since vegetation
removal above this level would result in detrimental changes in
water temperature which are not allowed (36 CFR 219.27(e)).
Timber harvest in Riparian areas is also dispersed in time and
space by constraining first entry harvest to 11 percent per
decade by Planning Basin.
Diversity. Animal and vegetative diversity is currently very
high and is well distributed on the Forest. Diversity is
maintained through Standards and Guidelines and a combination of
old growth maintenance in some areas with harvesting in others to
regenerate the younger seral stages. A minimum of 15 percent of
the Forest is maintained at any one time as old growth. This is
modeled by constraining harvest on specific habitat areas in the
FORPLAN model.
Adequate Fish and Wildlife Habitat to Maintain Viable Populations.
Fish. Requirements for fish habitat to maintain minimum viable
populations is met by the application of requirements for
Riparian areas and requirements for soil and water described
above, and by application of the Riparian Prescription option B
which does not allow detrimental changes in water temperature.
Wildlife. One or more selected indicator species are used to
represent wildlife species that have similar biological
requirements. Eight species were selected as indicator species.
Species selected are either impacted by management direction,
emphasized in Forest management, or endangered, threatened or
sensitive species. For instance, osprey, a species which could
be affected by Forest management, was used as as indicator for
riparian habitat along major river courses. Osprey nests are
located and monitored to detect population changes. Maintenance
of minimum viable populations of wildlife was a part of the
design for management prescriptions. As a result, all
alternatives and benchmarks, except the No Change Alternative,
maintain at least those minimums.
In the case of cavity nester habitat, we analyzed the snag data
collected during our 1979 timber inventory. Natural background
snag levels were calculated, and the values generated were used
to estimate percent habitat capability for cavity nester
populations in unmanaged stands. Information in the Blue
B-107

Mountain and Westside Wildlife Habitat Guidelines (Thomas 1979,
Brown 1985) were used in determining habitat needs and rating
habitat capability for woodpecker populations on the Siskiyou
(and therefore for cavity nesters in general). Averaged plot
data from the Siskiyou's 1979 timber inventory showed that
unmanaged stands contain approximately 2.65 snags per acre,
regardless of whether the stand is immature or mature/old growth
(counted snags were at least 10 inches DBH and 15 feet tall).
The present Siskiyou Wildlife Tree (Snag) Guidelines are designed
to maintain woodpecker populations at 60 percent of maximum
habitat capability in managed stands. The MMR level to maintain
viable populations of the indicator species-group (woodpeckers)
for this habitat is 20 percent of maximum habitat capability.
Application of the snag guidelines (60 percent level) reduces
timber yields of managed stands by less than one percent and has
even less effect on current harvest levels. The minor reduction
in yield expected from managed stands is built into the timber
yield tables used in FORPLAN.
Three wildlife indicator species, spotted owl, pine marten, and
pileated woodpecker, have optimum habitat in old growth
ecosystems; an involved procedure was used in the development of
their MMR's. A series of Washington (WO) and Regional Office
(RO) documents have guided our interpretation of MMR's for these
species:
1. February 24, 1982. WO 2620 Wildlife and Fish Viable
Populations in Forest Planning, by J. B. Hilmon.
2. February 9, 1983. RO 1920 Regional Guidelines for
Incorporating MMR's on Forest Planning, by J. Sirmon.
3. April 16, 1984. RO 1920 Clarification of Wildlife MMR
Direction, by J. Sirmon. (Based in part on results of
Westside Cascades Wildlife Zone Coordination meeting in
Eugene, December 5-6, 1983.)
4. June 1986. A Report on Minimum Management Requirements for
Forest Planning on the National Forests of the Pacific
Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service.
5. June 1986. A Background Document on the Development and
Review of Minimum Management Requirements for Forest
Planning on the National Forests of the Pacific Northwest
Region, USDA Forest Service.
These documents form the basis for the Siskiyou's approach to
providing well distributed habitat for old-growth indicator
species. For each species, the scheme provides enough well
distributed habitat to maintain the Siskiyou's portion of a
Region-wide viable population (western Washington and Oregon,
plus northwestern California).
B-108

The objectives for our approach were: 1) provide enclaves of
old-growth habitat throughout the Forest for indicator species,
and 2) minify the effect of the scheme on commercial forest
land. A composite habitat grid was developed for spotted owls,
pileated woodpeckers, and pine marten. Three steps were used in
the selection of required habitat areas. First, dedicated areas
were used as the initial building blocks (Wildernesses, RNA's,
Wild and Scenic River corridors). Second, additional old-growth
sites were located in areas unsuitable for timber harvest (Forest
regeneration or soil stability problems). As the last step,
remaining required habitat enclaves were selected from commercial
Forest land; whenever possible, we utilized sites with other
current or proposed land assignments (such as visuals, RNA's,
Botanical areas, etc.).
In February 1984, a "first cut" mockup map of potential habitat
enclaves for spotted owls, pileated woodpeckers, and pine marten
was put together. The map was shown to various Forest Service
personnel; they agreed that the concept was sound and met the
intent of Washington/Regional Office direction. Concurrently, a
prescription was developed to provide management direction for
these old-growth habitat areas. In March 1984 the MMR map was
presented at our annual meeting with the ODFW in Roseburg and at
a Forest staff meeting. In April three news releases were
prepared on old-growth indicator species and the MMR concept.
During May 1984 the Forest Wildlife Biologist coordinated with
district personnel in selecting actual habitat enclaves for the
grid. Habitat areas were selected which had the least impact on
commercial forest land and the five year timber action plan, and
still met the requirements of the grid. During July through
September 1984 the grid map was revised to take into account
site-by-site concerns of district personnel. Copies of the grid
(MMR) map have been given to representatives of forest industry,
environmental groups, and others who requested them.
The Siskiyou's grid of old-growth habitat enclaves established to
meet wildlife MMR's has been closely coordinated with managers of
adjacent public lands: Rogue River National Forest, Klamath
National Forest, Six Rivers National Forest, Medford District
BLM, Coos Bay District BLM. Our habitat enclaves interlock with
theirs.
A minimum grid for old-growth indicator species on the Siskiyou
requires approximately 85,000 well dispersed acres; this includes
29,363 acres of commercial forest land. An additional 67,862
acres of mature/old-growth habitat not needed for the minimum
grid exists in Wildernesses; this means that approximately
153,400 acres are actually available to the three indicator
species as part of the MMR grid.
B-109

The following data show mature or old-growth Forest habitat acres
needed to meet MMR's for spotted owls, pileated woodpeckers, and
pine martens on the Siskiyou National Forest. It does not
include mature/old-growth habitat present in Wildernesses
(habitat which is not actually required for a minimum grid).
Indicator Species 1/
Pileated
Land Category 2/ Spotted Owl Woodpecker Pine Marten
Total
No. of Pairs 40 61 96 -
Supported
Acres:
Unavailable 19,000 5,700 3,882 28,582
Unsuitable 5,478 13,263 8,851 27,592
Tent. Avail./Suit. 18,219 5,573 5,571 29,363
Total 42,697 24,536 18,304 85,537
Percent of Total:
Tent. Avail./Suit.
Tent. Avail./Suit.,
2.9 0.9 0.9 4.7
but Under Other
Land Assignments as
Per Current
Direction-Estimated 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
j] Pileated woodpeckers utilize spotted owl habitat. Pine martens
utilize pileated woodpecker and spotted owl habitat. However,
acres and numbers of pairs are not double-counted in this table.
V/ Unavailable = Wildernesses, RNA's, Wild Rivers; Unsuitable =
Areas unmanageable for timber production because of soil
instability or Forest regeneration problems; Tent. Avail./Suit. =
Areas otherwise tentatively available for timber harvest. Many
acres in this category have restrictions in land use (VQO's,
recreation sites, etc.).
B-l11

The following data also shows the combined mature or old-growth
Forest habitat acres needed to meet MMR's for spotted owls,
pileated woodpeckers, and pine martens; and the additional habitat
(Mature/Old-Growth) in Wildernesses not actually needed for a
minimum grid.
Indicator Species 1/
Pileated
Land Category 2/ Spotted Owl Woodpecker Pine Marten
Total
Number of Pairs 55 75 96 -
Supported
Acres:
Unavailable 72,905 19,657 3,882 96,444
Unsuitable 5,478 13,263 8,851 27,592
Tent. Avail./Suit. 18,219 5,573 5,571 29,363
Total 96,602 38,493 18,304 153,399
Percent of Total:
Tent. Avail./Suit. 2.9 0.9 0.9 4.7
Tent. Avail./Suit.,
but Under Other
Land Assignments
as Per Current
Direction-Estimated 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
jJ Pileated woodpeckers utilize spotted owl habitat. Pine martens
utilize pileated woodpecker and spotted owl habitat. However,
acres and numbers of pairs are not double-counted in this table.
2/ Unavailable = Wildernesses, RNA's, Wild Rivers (not all of this
habitat is needed to meet MMR's, but total acres of this land
category are shown); Unsuitable = Areas unmanageable for timber
production because of soil instability or Forest regeneration
problems; Tent. Avail./Suit. = Areas otherwise tentatively
available for timber harvest. Many acres in this category have
restrictions in land use (VQO's, recreation sites, etc.).
Two options were considered for managing enclaves of old-growth
habitat in commercial forest land: designation (allocation) and
rotation. Habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature or
old-growth Forest can be provided through two modeling methods:
1. Designation of suitable habitat areas where timber harvest
will not be allowed, or
2. Projection of long rotations on enough acres to maintain the
necessary habitat through time, with all areas being rotated.
For this
rotated)
planning
planning period, habitat areas will be designated (not
for the three indicator species. For the current
effort on the Siskiyou National Forest, designation of
B-1il

suitable areas would have the least impact on the timber harvest
schedule and would be the most efficient for implementation and
record keeping. The following provides the rationale supporting
the designation conclusion.
The Siskiyou is a deficit inventory Forest. Per acre volumes
projected for managed stands are higher than the volumes
inventoried in existing stands. To manage habitat on a rotated
basis, existing stands would be protected until replacement areas
could provide suitable habitat. The minimum time required to
produce mature Forest habitat is 100 years. At that time the
replacement area would contain more volume than the original
habitat area, according to our yield estimates. Rotating the
areas would result in less timber yield than harvesting the
replacement area and leaving the original area to continue
providing habitat. This is demonstrated by the following
comparison of the empirical yield table volumes after 100 years
with the volumes from the intensive managed yield tables at age
100:
Volumes After 100 Years
Site Empirical (MCF) Managed (MCF)
High 9.226 11.830
Medium 5.049 9.704
Low 3.687 3.225 1/
j/ Low site would not provide mature Forest habitat at this age.
The implications for LTSY present a different picture in that the
mean annual increment (MAI) would be higher for the areas managed
for mature forest habitat. The following figures present the
MAI's for the intensive General Forest at 95 percent of
culmination, Spotted Owl Areas at age 300, and mature forest
habitat at age 140. Also presented are per acre PNV's for General
Forest and mature habitat regimes:
MAI's (Cubic Feet)
(100) (300) (140)
Site General Forest Owl Mature Habitat
High 127.5 76.4 141.4
Medium 114.3 57.9 124.0
Low 34.3 19.6 37.9
Per Acre PNV (bare land):
High -142.84 -386.30
Medium -214.09 -427.70
Low -331.94 -457.25
B-112

In the case of spotted owl sites, long run timber yields would be
impacted the least by dedicating existing habitat areas (no
designated replacement areas). This is because more volume could
be produced if the acres planned for replacement areas (two acres
per each existing habitat acre) are allocated to General Forest
(100 year rotation), than if these acres plus the existing habitat
are allocated to a rotation for spotted owls (300 years). In the
case of mature Forest habitat, the long run timber yields would be
higher if the areas are rotated. However, per acre PNV suffers a
170 percent loss relative to General Forest while yields increase
only 11 percent. The key points here are:
1. Modeling these areas as designated for this planning period
does not preclude future planners from identifying replacement
areas as substitution opportunities can be identified (i.e., some
existing pole stands could be substituted for originally
designated area by the 5th decade).
2. Whether areas are modeled as designated or rotated, there is
essentially no difference in implementation for the first planning
period.
3. With the volume projections higher in the managed stands than
the existing, the timber outputs will be as great or greater for
the first 8 or 9 decades if areas are designated, instead of
rotated.
Designation concurrently results in savings in mapping, record
keeping, monitoring, and FORPLAN analyses.
The word "designated" carries the connotation of permanency, i.e.,
as with Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, RNA's, etc. designated
by the Chief or higher authority. Although these habitat enclaves
are allocated to Designated Wildlife Habitat Management Area, it
should not be assumed that these areas cannot be adjusted, or
substitutions made in future planning efforts.
Forest Service wildlife biologists realize that perceived habitat
needs for mature/old-growth species may change based on research
now in progress. For the next 10 to 15 years the Siskiyou will
maintain the option to increase the size and number of habitat
enclaves for spotted owls. At the present time the Siskiyou has
approximately 375,000 acres of old-growth habitat suitable for
spotted owls; under most alternatives, the Forest would probably
not cut much over 50,000 acres of old growth in the next ten
years. The Forest will have a monitoring plan in place which will
be used to evaluate the influence of the Forest Plan on habitat
for indicator species; adjustments in the Plan can be made if
necessary.
B-113

Road Construction Standards. Access roads are necessary for
efficient timber harvest and management of the Forest. Road
standards are determined from several sources to ensure that they
are appropriate to the planned uses, considering safety, cost of
transportation, and effects upon lands and resources. Costs
commensurate with these standards are included in the roading
costs of the prescriptions, and capital investments scheduled for
each FORPLAN run depending on the objective of the run (or theme
of the alternative) and the level of activity projected.
The purpose or objective identified for the road determines the
amount and type of traffic expected or to be managed and the
safety requirements for planned users. Economic considerations
help identify standards for lowest construction, user costs, and
maintenance of the road. Resource prescriptions identify
standards such as avoiding meadows for wildlife or special water
protection needs to meet the prescription or to mitigate adverse
effects on the resource. The known physical land and weather
features help set standards such as road surfacing depths and
subsurface drains to protect the road structure both during use
and when not being used.
Specific road standards involve the clearing width, the width of
the driving surface, the sharpness of curves, road grade, cut and
fill slope steepness, surface drainage and cross drain
requirements, and amount and type of surfacing.
Clearing limits are normally five feet beyond the top of the road
cut to the toe of the road fill. Special project or site
requirements may adjust these requirements.
The width of road and sharpness of curves is primarily determined
by the type, amount, and speed of planned traffic. The minimum
single lane driving width is ten feet; however, equipment
requirements usually dictates a minimum twelve foot width with
fourteen feet being the common width for safety. Turnouts of six
to ten feet width for passing are added as required for safety.
The minimum curve is a fifty foot radius with larger radii
designed for special equipment and for higher speeds. The minimum
curve radius is used as a check since the free flow alignment
design being used does not result in true geometric curves. Curve
widening is designed as needed based on approximate radius,
equipment needs, and length of curve.
The grades of the road vary by planned future use. Roads
maintained for passenger cars have a maximum 12 percent sustained
grade with pitches to 18 percent. Roads not planned for use by
passenger cars have maximum grades up to 18 percent and may exceed
this when justified. Pitches over 18 percent are exceptions. The
steeper grades are used to reduce costs, but the resulting shorter
road can benefit wildlife and reduce visual impacts. The impact
of steeper grades can adversely affect soil and water if not
properly mitigated.
B-114

Surface drainage and cross drain designs, along with revegetation
measures and control of the construction period, help to maintain
water quality and reduce damage to fisheries by limiting the
amount of sediment that enters the streams. Paving, additional
riprap in ditches and slopes, energy dissipation at culvert
outlets, pit run or larger crushed rock surfacing, and additional
culverts are procedures used to reduce erosion and sediment
movement. A major part of road maintenance is to assure that
drainage features are operating as designed or to improve on the
drainage designs.
Surfacing of rock or asphalt is placed on the driving road width
for various reasons. Some of these reasons are to provide access
when the ground is saturated with moisture or provide support to
heavy machinery on soils with low bearing strength, to protect the
road surface from erosion caused by surface water flow, and to
provide a cushion on very rough subgrade materials.
Temporary Roads. Temporary roads are short term (normally less
than one year) structures used to harvest timber, control fires,
or complete a project activity. Permanent structures such as
retaining walls, and materials not easily removed such as asphalt
pavement, are normally not proper for these roads. Following use,
the roads are treated to, as much as practical, return the land to
the original condition. The treatment normally includes removing
culverts and establishing water bars, ripping the surface to
loosen the soil, and establishing vegetative cover by seeding or
planting. The costs developed for the prescriptions include these
activities.
Maintaining Air Quality. This requirement was handled outside of
FORPLAN. The Regional Guide directs the Forest to work through
cooperative agreements with the States to manage smoke emissions.
Scheduling the time and number of prescribed burns is done outside
the FORPLAN model and in cooperation with the State of Oregon.
Reforestation. In order to have reasonable assurance of
regeneration in five years, seedlings are planted on most
harvested areas. Planting occurs because of the long periods
between cone crops, insect effects on seed viability and
seedlings, and the intensity of competition that occurs if the
seedlings are preceded by other species of vegetation. The
stocking rate varies to provide flexibility for establishing the
optimum stocking level needed to capture the growth potential over
widely varied site conditions. Site preparation is required in
most cases because native conifer species cannot grow efficiently
if existing vegetation competes for soil nutrients, water, and
sunshine. Reforestation is included in the prescriptions with
timber harvest as a management practice.
Sixty Acre Clearcut Limit. Clearcutting is one silvicultural
system used on the Forest for even-aged timber harvest. The
Regional Guide establishes that the openings created by even-aged
silviculture normally will be 60 acres or less. Costs and
B-115

practices used with clearcutting are based on units of 60 acres or
less and are included in the management prescriptions.
Timber
Policy
Requirements
Nondeclining Yield (NDY). A constraint on timber outputs which
limits the per period harvests to levels greater than or equal to
the preceding period level, and less than the LTSY level.
Sequential Upper and Lower Bounds and Harvest Floors. In lieu of
the NDY constraint on timber outputs, Sequential Upper and Lower
Bounds and Harvest Floors were used to constrain the fluctuation
of harvest to reasonable levels in specific benchmark runs.
Floors were to establish a lower limit on timber harvests which
would invoke substantial change in local consumptive patterns.
The initial floor was calculated at 80 percent of the base harvest
level (190 MMBF), or approximately 150 MMBF. This is equivalent
to the floor of 28 MMCF used in the model. A ceiling or upper
limit on harvest level was not used because the market area for
the Siskiyou National Forest has the capacity to absorb any level
of outputs expected from the FORPLAN model.
Long-term Sustained Yield (LTSY). For departure runs, LTSY was
constrained to be equal to or greater than the LTSY of the base
run.
Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI). 36 CFR 219.16 (2)
(iii) directs the Forest Service to timber rotation lengths based
on the time required for stands to reach the culmination of net
growth. Unless specifically analyzing an exception to this
requirement, all prescriptions are constrained to not allow final
harvest prior to stands reaching 95 percent of CMAI. This sets
the minimum age when harvests could occur.
Timber Rotation Lengths Based on Utilization Standards. In order
to evaluate the effects of timber rotation lengths constrained by
CMAI, rotation lengths based on Regionally proposed utilization
standards were used to determine what, if any, change in timber
harvest levels or PNV could be attributed to the more constraining
CMAI levels.
BENCHMARKS
AND
CONSTRAINT
ANALYSIS
Benchmark
Levels
Resource supply potentials were determined by establishing
minimum and maximum production levels called benchmarks. A
level (Base Run) was also established from which the costs and
effects of applying regulation and policy constraints were
measured. Production capabilities were determined for single
resources and for a set of multiple resource outputs that
maximized PNV. This analysis established the benchmark levels
required by NFMA (36 CFR 219.12(e).
Nine benchmark levels were developed to define resource supply
potentials and economic relationships on the Forest. Production
capabilities were determined for a minimum level, for single
resources and for a set of multiple resource outputs that maximize
PNV. A level was also established from which the costs and
effects of applying regulation and policy constraints were
B-116

measured. The FORPLAN model was used to determine the resource
supply potentials.
The benchmark levels and results are summarized
A detailed discussion of benchmark descriptions
follows in the next section of this chapter.
in this section.
and results
Constraints
and Minimum
Management
Requirements
(MMR's)
Regulation and policy constraints applied to benchmarks have, in
most cases, the effect of reducing the maximum resource supply
potential. NFMA (36 CFR 219.27) specifies that certain MMR's
be included in the planning process. The methods to meet these
MMR's include developing standards, guidelines, and appropriate
management practices for inclusion in multiple-use management
prescriptions; assignment of management prescriptions and
intensities containing specific practices to analysis areas in
FORPLAN; and applying specific constraints in FORPLAN.
The MMR's used in this analysis are designed to:
- conserve soil and water resources.
- minimize serious or long-lasting hazards from flood, wind,
wildfire, erosion or other natural physical forces.
- reduce serious, long-lasting hazards or damage from pest
organisms.
- protect Riparian areas.
- maintain diversity of plant and animal communities.
- provide adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable
populations.
- conform with multiple-use laws.
- prevent the destruction or adverse modification of critical
threatened and endangered species habitat.
- provide for utility and transportation rights-of-way
corridors to avoid adverse resource impacts.
- ensure roads are designed to standards appropriate to planned
uses.
- revegetate temporary roads within ten years.
- maintain air quality.
- restock within five years after final harvest.
- adhere to clearcut size limits.
Except for the Min Level Benchmark, the resource supply potential
benchmarks described below were constrained as follows:
- all benchmarks complied with NFMA MMR's.
- an ending timber inventory constraint was used so that the
timber inventory in 150-years will equal or exceed the volume
that would occur on a regulated forest.
- timber rotation length was based on 95 percent of CMAI
determination.
- a timber harvest flow constraint of NDY was used.
- an objective function of maximizing PNV was used.
- a minimum level of the existing Wildernesses was maintained
in all benchmarks.
B-117

the Min Level Benchmark was constrained to produce no
management outputs such as timber harvest and livestock
grazing to determine the basic cost of Federal ownership.
BENCHMARK
DESCRIPTIONS
Max
Present Net
Value
Max
Timber
This benchmark established the mix of resource uses and schedule
of outputs and costs that maximized PNV using market and nonmarket
assigned values. It is displayed in order to provide a reference
point to compare other benchmarks and alternatives to the maximum
PNV potential considered, and thus to assess opportunity
costs.
The maximum legal capability of the Forest to produce timber was
determined by this benchmark. Timber production was maximized in
the first decade; for fifteen decades; then "rolled over" under a
"Maximum PNV" objective function.
Max
Visuals
The purpose of this benchmark was to analyze the potential for
producing other resource outputs and services while meeting all
the inventoried VQO's on the Forest.
of
Max
Unroaded
Max
Recreation
Max Fish/
Watershed
Max
Wildlife
Min
Level
Current
Direction
This benchmark was designed to analyze the potential for producing
other resource outputs and services while maintaining all
presently unroaded areas in their unroaded condition.
This benchmark determined the potential for utilizing all of the
primitive ROS classification on the Forest. Recreation was
maximized by assigning all inventoried roadless areas to an
unroaded status and allocating 25 Supplemental Resource Management
Areas to a dispersed recreation emphasis.
The purpose of this benchmark was to establish the highest
reasonable level of anadromous fisheries outputs. Management that
was designed to improve overall watershed conditions was also
included in this benchmark.
This benchmark was designed to
attempt to achieve a desirable
benchmark emphasizes a balance
maximize biotic diversity in an
mixture of wildlife habitats. This
of all habitat types.
This benchmark defined the minimum costs of public landownership
and the resource outputs which are incidental to Forest
management. This benchmark served as a reference point to develop
and/or test alternative outputs and costs which result from Forest
Service management activities. This benchmark is displayed in
this DEIS when a comparison of alternatives is made in order to
provide a reference to the minimum level considered.
This benchmark defined the level of goods and services that the
Forest could produce if current management direction is followed
with no budget constraint, and the most likely amount of goods and
services expected in the future.
Tables B-6 and B-7 summarize the
developed in the analysis of the
results of the eight benchmarks
management situation.
B-118

Table B-6.
Land Assignments by Management Area for Benchmarks
Management Area (Acres)
Wild/
Partial Designated Research Scenic/ Supple- Special
General Retention Retention Wildlife _/ Natural i/ Recreation mental Unique Custodial Wildlife
Benchmark Forest 1/ Visual Visual Riparian Habitat 2/ Wilderness Area Botanical Rivers 5/ Resource Interest (RoadLess) Site
Current Direction 380,272 53,207 253,585 80,003 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 23,417 22,507 0 0 0
(B06-5)
Max Present Net
Value (B30-1) 705,511 0 0 84,063 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 23,417 0 0 0 0
Max Recreation 433,119 0 0 56,547 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 27,399 37,825 0 258,101 0
(B19-2)
Max Visuals 385,051 68,092 262,035 83,318 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 14,495 0 0 0 0
(B12-1)
Ico
~O
Max Unroaded 450,139 0 0 58,907 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 20,700 0 0 283,245 0
(820-2)
Max Fish/Watershed 697,538 0 0 64,563 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 22,976 27,914 0 0 0
(816-1)
Max Wildlife 576,235 0 0 65,424 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 20,913 0 0 89,114 61,305
(B13-3)
Max Timber 705,511 0 0 84,063 56,270 220,036 1,938 1,067 23,417 0 0 0 0
(B11-3)
1/ Recreation/Administrative sites and road acreage are included in General Forest.
2/ Wildlife MMR's in Unavailable (i.e. Wilderness) lands are 96,602. Total acres Forest-wide are 153,400.
3/ Wild River acres not included are 12,459 with 3,280 acres Botanical included. Total Wilderness acres are 232,495.
4/ Botanical acres in Wilderness and Wild River are 3,408. Total Botanical acres are 4,475.
5/ Botanical acres included in Wild River acres (128). Unavailable acres in designated rivers total 17,758; (14,495 in Wild, 386 in Scenic and 923 in
Recreation rivers). Wildlife MMR acres in Scenic are 1,255 available suitable (454 unsuitable) and 225 available suitable (20 unsuitable) in Recreation
rivers. Wildlife MMR's, visuals, etc. areas reduce acreage of tentatively available/suitable/unsuitable acres in Scenic/Recreation rivers from run to run.
Total designated River acres are 26,680.

Table B-7.
Quantitative Resource Outputs, Environmental Effects, Activities, and Costs by Benchmark
BENCHMARK
Units of Current Max Max Max Max Max Fish/ Max Max
Outputs/Effects Measure Direction PNV Recreation Visuals Unroaded Watershed Wildlife Timber
w
r'3
CD
Developed Recreation Use
Decade 1 1/
Decade 2
Decade 5
Non-Wilderness Dispersed
Recreation Use
Roaded
Natural
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Semi-Primitive Motorized
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Unroaded
Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Primitive
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Wilderness Use
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Wild and Scenic River Use
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Trail Construction/
Reconstruction 2/
Developed Site
Construction/
Reconstruction
Visual Quality Objectives
Retention
Decade 1
Partial Retention
Decade 1
Modification/Max-Mod.
Decade 1
000 RVD's
000 RVD's
1000 RVD's
1000 RVD's
1000 RVD's
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
121.6
127.8
148.4
388.1
408.0
473.9
72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.3
76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0
88.2 88.2 88.2 88.2 88.2 88.2 88.2 88.2
12.1
6.2
6.2
12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1
6.2 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 6.2
6.2 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 6.2
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.0 0.0 0.8
0.0 0.0 0.9
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7
23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6
27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4
122.8
129.7
152.6
122.8
129.7
152.6
122.8
129.7
152.6
122.8
129.7
152.6
122.8
129.7
152.6
122.8
129.7
152.6
122.8
129.7
152.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
122.8
129.7
152.6
4i les 23.0 23.0 134.7 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
PAOT
Acres
Acres
Acres
1,850.0 1,850.0 3,145.0 1,850.0 1,850.0 1,850.0 1,850.0 1,850.0
87,747.0 87,747.0
300,215.0 300,215.0
8,910.0 87,747.0
0.0 300,215.0
8,910.0 8,910.0 87,747.0
0.0 0.0 300,215.0
8,910.0
524,534.0 524,534.0 591,019.0 524,534.0 591,019.0 903,586.0 524,534.0 903,586.0
0.0

Table B-7 (Cont'd).
Quantitative Resource Outputs, Environmental Effects, Activities, and Costs by Benchmark
BENCHMARK
Units of Current Max Max Max Max Max Fish/ Max Max
Outputs/Effects Measure Direction PNV Recreation Visuals Unroaded Uatershed Wildlife Timber
Unroaded Areas Assigned to
Roaded Management
Prescriptions, but Which
Have No Development
Activities Planned for
the Next 15 years
Unroaded Areas Assigned to
Unroaded Management
Prescriptions
Fish Use
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Anadromous Fish
Commercial Harvest
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Management Indicator Species
SteeLhead
Chinook Salmon
Searun Cutthroat Trout
Spotted Owls
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Deer
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Osprey
Decade 1, 2, 5
Wildlife
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Habitat Improvement
Decade 1, 2, 5
Habitat Improvement
Decade 1, 2, 5
Range-Permitted Grazing
Decade 1, 2, 5
Acres
Acres
1000 WFUD's
1000 Pounds
Smolts
SmoLts
Smotts
Pair
Deer
Pair
1000 WFUD's
Acres
Structures
1000 AUM's
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 314,000.0 0.0 314,000.0 0.0 133,000.0 0.0
69.0 65.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 71.0 69.0 69.0
73.0 65.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 77.1 73.0 73.0
73.0 65.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 79.3 73.0 73.0
934.0
988.0
988.0
19,726.0
20,738.0
25,747.0
880.0
880.0
880.0
21,162.0
21,681.0
30,404.0
934.0
988.0
988.0
16,535.0
16,964.0
22,570.0
934.0
988.0
988.0
934.0
988.0
988.0
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
20,077.0 16,900.0
21,171.0 17,342.0
26,360.0 23,307.0
958.0
1,038.0
1,072.0
20,160.0
22,390.0
23,194.0
934.0
988.0
988.0
18,698.0
18,443.0
27,087.0
934.0
988.0
988.0
28,897.0
26,152.0
30,127.0
18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
72.4 68.8 63.8 73.3 64.8 73.6 69.6 97.1
75.1 70.2 64.9 76.2 66.0 79.6 68.8 89.6
88.6 93.4 80.0 90.2 82.0 81.7 92.2 100.4
449.0
191.0
0.0 449.0 449.0 449.0 449.0 449.0 449.0
0.0 191.0 191.0 191.0 191.0 191.0 191.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Table B-7 (Cont'd).
Quantitative Resource Outputs, Environmental Effects, Activities, and Costs by Benchmark
BENCHMARK
Units of Current Max Max Max Max Max Fish/ Max Max
Outputs/Effects Measure Direction PNV Recreation Visuals Unroaded Watershed Wildlife Timber
Selected Suitable
1000 Acres
General Forest
1000 Acres
Long-term Sustained Yield Million CF
Timber Offered
Million CF
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Timber Offered
Million BF
Decade 1
Final Harvest
Acres
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Commercial Thinning
Million CF
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Commercial Thinning
Acres
co Decade 1
, Decade 2
Pa Decade 5
Fuelwood
1000 CF
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Reforestation
Acres
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Timber Stand Improvement Acres
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Timber Growth in Year 2030 Million CF
Reforestation Backlog
Acres
Reforestation Backlog
Million S
Water Yield
1000 Acre Foot
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Sediment
Tons
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Improved Watershed Condition Acres
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
532.8
38,072.0
51.0
549.4
705,511.0
52.0
397.6 549.8 411.1 539.6
433,119.0 385,051.0 450,139.0 697,538.0
39.0 53.0 40.0 50.0
460.4
576,235.0
44.0
570.6
705,511.0
59.0
29.6 32.4 22.3 30.5 23.1 29.1 25.8 33.4
29.6 32.4 22.3 30.5 23.1 29.1 25.8 33.4
29.6 32.4 22.3 30.5 23.1 29.1 25.8 33.4
160.1 175.3 120.6 165.0 125.0 157.4 139.6 180.7
3,782.5
4,440.8
6,241.6
0.0
0.1
6.6
0.0
64.7
4,357.9
4,444.6
4,734.3
8,364.3
0.0
0.0
2,401.0
2,899.2
3,384.8
4,748.7
3,871.1
4,559.8
6,469.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.1
3.7 5.3 6.6
0.0
0.0
3,649.5
0.0
64.5
4,339.7
3,011.3
3,485.4
4,970.0
0.0
0.0
3,701.4
4,047.8
5,211.5
5,211.5
3,656.9
3,683.5
5,220.3
4,733.8
6,084.0
8,169.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7
5.4 5.7 4.9 5.2
0.0
0.0
3,882.1
0.0
0.0
3,340.4
0.0
1,216.4
3,537.3
47.8 52.5 36.4 49.3 37.6 48.7 42.5 53.0
47.0 51.8 35.7 48.4 37.0 47.9 41.5 50.0
37.1 46.8 27.4 38.6 28.6 37.5 30.3 46.0
5,387.1
6,665.1
9,136.5
7,103.4
6,617.0
10,339.1
35.7
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,183.8
8,185.4
689.8
704.2
725.8
378.2
444.1
638.1
6,219.9
7,060.3
11,760.0
7,147.8
7,276.1
12,270.2
37.3
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,184.2
8,186.3
702.5
707.5
749.5
444.5
473.4
847.9
4,032.4
5,027.3
7,817.9
6,619.9
5,394.2
8,191.0
29.5
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,183.4
8,184.6
671.3
686.2
712.6
289.9
338.5
559.8
5,503.0
6,842.1
9,400.7
7,145.9
6,725.5
10,623.3
36.4
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,183.9
8,185.5
691.1
706.6
728.5
387.1
456.0
659.2
4,212.2
5,170.5
8,171.8
6,698.3
5,570.7
8,448.6
30.4
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,183.4
8,184.7
674.0
687.4
716.0
301.1
348.5
588.1
5,059.7
6,514.4
6,514.4
6,387.1
6,645.3
9,275.7
34.7
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,184.0
8,184.9
696.3
724.7
696.2
404.8
521.2
521.2
4,978.9
5,406.2
10,325.8
6,859.4
6,254.1
10,551.0
32.8
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,183.8
8,185.4
686.5
690.2
722.0
365.7
368.4
739.0
11,587.6
8,861.2
11,646.1
7,499.8
13,798.3
11,496.1
46.3
0.0
0.0
8,183.0
8,186.1
8,185.7
737.2
738.6
748.5
834.8
616.7
838.8

Table B-7 (Cont'd).
Quantitative Resource Outputs, Environmental Effects, Activities, and Costs by Benchmark
BENCHMARK
_ Outputs/Effects
Units of Current Max Max Max Max Max Fish/ Max Max
Measure Direction PNV Recreation Visuals Unroaded Watershed Wildlife Timber
Energy Minerals
Non-Energy Minerals
Arterial and Collector Road
Construction
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Timber Purchaser Road
Construction/
MilLes/Decade
Reconstruction
Mii les/Year
Decade 1
Decade 2
110.6
125.5
105.2
134.9
Decade 5
234.4 305.1
Roads Suitable for Public Use
Passenger Car
Miles
Decade 1
Decade 2
1,547.0
1,593.0
1,558.0
1,602.0
Decade 5
1,752.0 1,791.0
High Clearance Vehicle Only Miles
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Fire Management
Effectiveness Index
927.0
924.0
1,183.0
S/10C00 Protected Acres
932.0
980.0
1,255.0
Decades 1, 2, 5
1,535.0 1,535.0
Fuel Treatment
Acres
Decades 1, 2, 5
400.0 400.0
Operational Costs
MMillion S
Decade 1
Decade 2
17.9
19.4
18.8
19.9
Decade 5
24.9 27.0
Capital Investment Costs Million S
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Returns to Government
Decade 1
Decade 2
Decade 5
Changes in Jobs
Decade 1
Changes in Income
Decade 1
Payments to Counties
Decade 1
)per Plans
)per Plans
Mil.lion S
Number
Million S
Million S
1
335
20.0 28.0
20.0 18.0
7.0 8.0
4.2
4.9
8.6
54.3
59.9
66.4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
335 335 150 150 150 335 335
4.0
5.0
10.8
60.0
66.2
79.6
24.0 18.0
3.0 19.0
0.0 7.0
83.1
86.6
195.8
1,656.0
1,675.0
1,739.0
506.0
536.0
654.0
114.3
130.9
240.9
1,488.0
1,524.0
1,642.0
821.0
852.0
988.0
24.0 19.0 25.0 40.0
3.0 17.0 15.0 40.0
0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0
84.5
90.7
202.4
1,583.0
1,606.0
1,679.0
860.0
896.0
1,034.0
119.9
168.1
187.9
1,570.0
1,605.0
1,706.0
601.0
633.0
752.0
92.4
115.8
199.2
1,305.0
1,328.0
1,381.0
1,006.0
1,038.0
1,222.0
133.9
176.6
295.1
1,576.0
1,670.0
1,887.0
816.0
917.0
1,306.0
1,535.0 1,535.0 1,535.0 1,535.0 1,535.0 1,535.0
400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0
15.2 18.1 15.4 17.5 16.6 22.7
16.5 19.7 16.7 19.6 17.3 23.1
21.1 25.4 21.7 22.3 23.5 27.6
2.8
3.1
6.6
4.3 2.8 4.4 3.1 5.2
5.1 3.2 6.1 4.1 6.4
8.9 6.7 6.8 6.8 10.6
41.4 55.9 42.9 54.0 47.8 60.7
45.7 61.7 47.4 59.6 52.8 65.5
48.3 68.9 50.4 66.8 53.5 79.4
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
Not Estimated
1/ These decades represent an average annual output or effect for their
2/ Total miles completed by the end of Fifth Decade or sooner.
10-year periods.

The following tables display PNV's and discounted benefits and
costs for the benchmarks by major resource. Timber is the main
component of PNV and discounted costs and benefits. Recreation is
the next major component of all three economic variables. The
fisheries resource contributes the next greatest amount to PNV and
total discounted costs and benefits. Wildlife is approximately 5
percent of PNV in all benchmarks. Wilderness accounts for less
than 2 percent of all three variables in all of the benchmarks.
PNV, Discounted Benefits, Discounted Costs, by Major Resource, by
Benchmark i/ (MM $, Discounted at 4 percent for 15 periods)
Discounted Benefit (MM $)
Recre- Wild- Wilder-
PNV Timber ation Fish life ness
Current Direction 1,170 1,536 175 83 50 10
PNV 1,300 1,716 175 75 48 10
Recreation 918 1,178 175 83 44 10
Visuals 1,205 1,582 175 83 51 10
Unroaded 954 1,221 175 83 45 10
Fish/Watershed 1,209 1,562 175 88 52 10
Wildlife 1,041 1,354 175 83 48 10
Timber 1,276 1,732 175 83 59 10
Discounted Costs (MM $)
A/ Recre- Wild- Wilder-
Timber Roads ation Fish life ness
Current Direction 349 121 10 4 2 1
PNV 383 133 9 1 1 1
Recreation 268 87 12 4 2 1
Visuals 357 125 10 4 2 1
Unroaded 276 90 10 4 2 1
Fish/Watershed 338 125 10 4 2 1
Wildlife 308 108 10 5 2 1
Timber 425 144 10 4 2 1
i/ Direct comparisons of benefits and costs displayed for
individual resource outputs provide general indications of
relationships. However, many activities of multiple-use forestry
have common costs and benefits, and cannot be exclusively
separated and attributed to individual resources.
V/ Cost for roads includes Forest Service and purchaser costs for
road construction and reconstruction. No costs for maintenance
are included.
B-124

Table B-8.
FORPLAN Run Specifications
Harvest Flow
Run Constraint Rotation MMR Groups
Riparian % Basin
Objective Planning Prescrip- Con-
Name Number Function Value Set Horizon NDY 95% CMAI tion straint Wildlife Other Constraints
Base
B18-3 PNV
All 150
Base w/CMAI
B17-3 PNV
All 150
x
Base w/CMAI,NDY
Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's
B22-2 PNV
B11-4 PNV
All 150
All 150
x
x
x
x
B 20 X Wild and Scenic Rivers
Timber Base
B18-2 TM/1
TM/15
PNV
All 10
All 150
All 150
N)
C."
Timber Base w/CMAI
Timber Base w/CMAI,NDY
Timber Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's
Base w/CMAI,NDY,S&W
Base w/CMAI,NDY,WL
Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's Market
Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's,7%
Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's,0%
Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's,3%
B17-2 TM/1
TM/15
PNV
B22-1 TM/1
TM/15
PNV
B11-3 TM/1
TM/15
PNV
B28-1 PNV
B29-2 PNV
B30-2 PNV
B30-3 PNV
B32-1 PNV
B33-1 PNV
All 10
All 150
All 150
All 10
All 150
AlL 150
All 10
All 150
All 150
Al l 150
All 150
All 150
All 150
All 150
All 150
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20
B 20 x
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Soil and Water MMR's
Wildlife MMR's
Market Values Only
7% Discount Rate
0% Timber Trend
3% Timber Trend

Table B-8 (Cont'd).
FORPLAN Run Specifications
Harvest Flow
Run Constraint Rotation MMR Groups
Objective Planning
Riparian
Prescrip-
% Basin
Con-
Name Number Function Value Set Horizon NDY 95% CMAI tion straint WiLdlife Other Constraints
Current Direction/Budget R13-1 PNV ALL 150
Current Direction/OLd SOMA's A07-5 PNV ALL 150
X
Current Direction/Max Timber
Current Direction Benchmark
Max Timber Benchmark
R12-1
B06-5
B11-3
B12-1
Max Visual Benchmark
c.o Ot Max Recreation Benchmark
9I Max Unroaded Benchmark
B20-2
Max Fish/Watershed Benchmark
Max Wildlife Benchmark
B19-2
B16-1
B13-3
TM/15
PNV
PNV
TM/1
TM/15
PNV
PNV
PNV
PNV
PNV
PNV
ALL 150
ALL 150
AlL 150
ALL 10
All 150
ALL 150
All 150
All 150
All 150
ALL 150
All 150
X
x
x xx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
B 20 X Current Funding by
Program
B 20 SOMA's Interim SOMA's,
Current Funding
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
B 20 X
C 9/13
B 9/13
X
Exceeded
All VQo's Achieved
ALL Unroaded to MINLVL
Unroaded to MINLVL,
Recreation Land
Assignments
Basin Constraints
60% Snag's, 6 Unroaded
Basins, Wildlife Land
Assignments
Base w/CMAI,NDY,MMR's (Max Present
Net Value Benchmark)
B30-1 PNV ALL 150 X X B 20 X

BENCHMARK Modeling assumptions and environmental consequences associated
RESULTS with each Benchmark are discussed in this section. FORPLAN
specifications for the benchmarks and runs designed to evaluate
constraints are displayed in Table B-8 which precedes this
section.
Min Level
Benchmark
Purpose.
The Min Level Benchmark is a determination of the custodial costs
and resulting incidental outputs necessary to maintain the Forest,
subject to certain environmental constraints and an obligation to
the protection of life, health and safety of the casual visitor.
The objective of this benchmark is to minimize cost while meeting
limited public ownership obligations.
Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
- the minimum management level prescription was selected for
all analysis areas.
- costs reflect the fixed costs of Federal ownership. Costs
associated with the prevention of damage to adjoining
ownerships, administration of unavoidable special uses, and
maintenance of long-term productivity are included.
- only incidental outputs and uses, such as recreation,
wildlife, and fisheries are given economic value for purposes
of this benchmark.
- transition, or "close down" costs, needed in the event this
benchmark is implemented, are not included.
Summary of Environmental Consequences.
Wildlife. The Min Level Benchmark would have major effects on
wildlife resources. The Forest land base is presently 41 percent
old-growth habitat; it would continue at this level under this
benchmark. More than four times as much old-growth habitat is
preserved indefinitely than required under MMR's constraints.
Wildlife species inhabiting mature/old-growth forest communities
will have a very adequate habitat base; this additional habitat
will provide a very good margin of safety to insure that
well-dispersed viable populations of all native species will not
perish from this Forest. This safety margin is doubly important,
given that very little mature/old-growth habitat will remain on
private lands outside the Forest boundary.
Deer herd levels will be considerably lower than at present,
especially after recently harvested areas progress into older
seral stages; WFUD's are correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters would be maintained at high
levels.
Most meadow habitat would slowly disappear as forest encroachment
slowly obliterated this valuable component of habitat diversity.
B-127

habitat diversity. No hardwood stands are converted into conifer
plantations, thereby prolonging this habitat type.
Riparian areas would not be entered and would retain their value
to wildlife.
Fish. Riparian areas would be at minimum level which would have
positive benefit to fish habitat capability. Water temperatures
would reduce and input of large organic debris would improve.
Minimum level management would allow water temperature reduction
by at least two degrees Fahrenheit at the end of the third
decade. Minimal ground disturbance would reduce input of sediment
to streams.
Water. Under a minimum level or custodial management, watershed
condition will improve generally for about eight decades (or until
the recent clearcut acreage has reforested and grown to
maturity). Sediment production is estimated to remain stable at
623 M tons per year. Slight reductions in water yield will be
evident compared to the current situation.
Max
Present Net
Value
(B30-1)
Purpose.
This benchmark provides the mix of goods and services necessary to
maximize PNV over a 150-year planning horizon at a four percent
discount rate when all resources are valued according to
specifications in the 1985 RPA DEIS. The results also provide a
basis, or reference point, for the evaluation of opportunity costs
associated with the attainment of other resource objectives, four
percent discount rate when all resources are valued according to
specifications in the 1985 RPA DEIS. The results also provide a
basis, or reference point, for the evaluation of opportunity costs
associated with the attainment of other resource objectives, as
well as evaluations concerning the impact of legal and policy
constraints.
Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
- economically efficient capital investments for fish and
wildlife improvements are included.
- no economically efficient capital investments for recreation
were identified.
- no viewshed allocations were found to be economically
efficient.
- no special areas were allocated.
Resource-specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation.
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148.4 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
B-128

approximately 172,000 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
Roaded Natural (RN). 653,283 acres of the Forest land is
currently inventoried as RN and is expected to increase to
739,333 acres in the second decade under this management
scheme. Current RN use is approximately 479,100 RVD's and is
expected to increase to approximately 614,700 RVD's by the
second decade of the planning horizon. Current capacity is
approximately 1,059,400 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 1,197,700 RVD's by the fifth decade.
Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). 115,393 acres of the Forest
land is currently inventoried as SPM and will remain the same
over the planning horizon. Current SPM use is approximately
80,500 RVD's and is expected to increase to approximately
103,200 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current capacity is
approximately 151,800 RVD's and will remain constant over the
planning horizon because of the difficulty of determining the
degree of impact necessary to distinguish between roaded
natural and semi-primitive.
Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM). 195,175 acres of the
Forest land is currently inventoried as SPNM and will
decrease to approximately 119,494 acres in the second decade
of this management scheme due to the impacts of road
construction and timber harvest. 294,181 acres will be
harvested over five decades, and 1,596 miles of road will be
constructed under this management scheme. Current SPNM use
is approximately 17,800 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 22,800 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 41,300 RVD's and will decrease to
approximately 25,000 RVD's in the second decade of this
management scheme, and can be increased slightly to 25,100
RVD's with the current capital investment program.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will decrease to approximately
114,070 acres by the second decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 13,600 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will decrease to
approximately 11,400 RVD's in the second decade and can be
increased to approximately 13,400 RVD's through the current
capital investment. Demand is expected to reach capacity in
the second decade.
B-129

Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the minimum
level under this management scheme. 8,910 acres of
Recreation/Scenic Rivers can be managed under the Retention VQO.
All other inventoried areas will be managed under the Modification
VQO.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers, the Rogue, and the Illinois. No additional rivers
will be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
Wildlife. The Min Level Benchmark would have benefits for
wildlife resources in general. The Forest land base is presently
41 percent old-growth habitat; after five decades it drops to 13
percent. A minimum 13 percent of the Forest is maintained as old
growth at all times. Twenty percent more old-growth habitat is
preserved indefinitely than required under MMR's constraints; most
of the 'extra' habitat is in Wildernesses, and dispersion of
old-growth habitat would be at minimum levels. In the first five
decades the deer herd averages 18 percent higher than at present;
WFUD's are correspondingly higher.
Forest-wide habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at
51 percent at the end of the first five decades, a fairly low
level. The proportion of mature (age 101-200) and young (age
41-100) forest fluctuates rather widely throughout the planning
period, mostly due to the Forest's uneven distribution of stand
age classes. Meadows (4,700 acres) on land classified as
nontimber are preserved, but no buffer strips around meadows are
managed for wildlife. No small "special habitat sites" are
managed exclusively for wildlife. No hardwood stands on the
Forest are converted into conifer plantations until the fifth
decade, thereby preserving this habitat type until its value as
wildlife habitat can be better understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
benchmark a maximum of 84,000 acres of riparian habitat (45
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Fish. Under this benchmark forest habitat capabilities for
anadromous and resident salmonids are enhanced through maintaining
the natural habitat plus project work primarily designed to
improve rearing capability of juvenile salmonids. Stream
temperatures are maintained by maintaining streamside canopy cover
through application of the Riparian Prescription option B. Stream
sediment input is held at current levels by basin constraints
which allow no more than 20 percent timber harvest entry per
decade, and 11 percent entry in the Riparian areas.
B-130

Timber. The annual harvest level is 32.375 MMCF during the first
decade and LTSY (51.938 MMCF) is not achieved until the tenth
decade.
Harvest is conifer except for an insignificant amount (118 acres)
of hardwood conversion in the fifth decade.
Riparian harvest ranges from about 1,800 acres in the first decade
to about 3,400 acres in the fifth decade. This gradually declines
to 1,125 acres in the fifteenth decade. There could be some
detrimental effects on stream quality and wildlife habitat during
periods of high level Riparian harvesting.
Reforestation is a high level program and will require higher than
current budget and more people than currently employed.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will improve compared to the current
direction in the first two decades. In Decades 3-5, watershed
condition will decline because of the increased levels of timber
harvest and road building.
Facilities. The new road construction in the Forest decade is
about 40 percent the mileage of the last five year period. New
construction decreases considerably in the sixth decade and is
completed in the seventh decade. The decrease takes place when
the Forest starts obtaining large amounts of the annual timber cut
from commercial thinnings and from second growth stands.
Reconstruction miles increase to a high of 265 miles per year in
the fifth decade, which is higher than the Forest has experienced
in the past (Fiscal Year 1982 had 177 miles).
The local road miles will increase 84 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 3,317 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the seventh decade. Over 95 percent of this
increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 4,242
miles, an increase of 60 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,802 miles (42 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,276 miles (30
percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 27 percent (1,164 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
B-131

Max
Timber
(B11-3)
Purpose.
This benchmark establishes the highest level of sustainable
timber production possible on the Forest under a policy of
nondeclining yield, subject to MMR's. It provides a basis for a
basis for the estimation of physical timber harvest tradeoffs when
compared to runs having other resource objectives.
Assumptions and modeling Constraints.
- no special areas are allocated to other uses.
- VQO's are not achieved except for modification and maximum
modification.
Resource Specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation.
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148.4 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 172,000 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
RN. 653,283 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as RN and is expected to increase to 739,333
acres in the second decade under this management scheme.
Current RN use is approximately 479,100 RVD's and is expected
to increase to approximately 614,700 RVD's by the second
decade of the planning horizon. Current capacity is
approximately 1,059,400 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 1,197,700 RVD's by the fifth decade.
SPM. 115,393 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPM and will remain the same over the planning
horizon. Current SPM use is approximately 80,500 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 103,200 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 151,800 and
will remain constant over the planning horizon because of the
difficulty of determining the degree of impact necessary to
distinguish between RN and semi-primitive.
SPNM. 195,175 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPNM and will decrease to approximately
119,494 acres in the second decade of this management scheme
due to the impacts of road construction and timber harvest.
294,181 acres will be harvested over five decades, and 1,596
B-132

miles of road will be constructed under this management
scheme. Current SPNM use is approximately 17,800 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 22,800 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 41,300 RVD's
and will decrease to approximately 25,000 RVD's in the second
decade of this management scheme, and can be increased
slightly to 25,100 RVD's with the current capital investment
program.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will decrease to approximately
114,070 acres by the second decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 13,600 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will decrease to
approximately 11,400 RVD's in the second decade and can be
increased to approximately 13,400 RVD's through the current
capital investment. Demand is expected to reach capacity in
the second decade.
Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the minimum
level under this management scheme. 8,910 acres of Recreation and
Scenic River can be managed under the Retention VQO. All other
inventoried areas will be managed under the Modification VQO.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers; the Rogue and Illinois. No additional rivers will
be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
Wildlife. This benchmark has major effects on wildlife
resources. The Forest land base is presently 41 percent
old-growth habitat; after five decades it drops to 20 percent. A
minimum of 15 percent of the Forest is maintained as old growth at
all times. Fifty percent more old-growth habitat is preserved
indefinitely than required under MMR's constraints. Wildlife
species inhabiting mature/old-growth forest communities will have
an adequate habitat base. In the first five decades the deer herd
averages four percent lower than at present; WFUD's are
correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at 59 percent
at the end of the first five decades. The proportion of mature
(age 101-200) and young (age 41-100) forest fluctuates rather
widely throughout the planning period, mostly due to the Forest's
uneven distribution of stand age classes. Meadows (4,700 acres)
on land classified as nontimber are preserved, but no buffer
strips around meadows are managed for wildlife. No small "special
habitat sites" are managed exclusively for wildlife. Thirty-eight
percent of the hardwood stands on the Forest are converted into
conifer plantations in the first decade, which effectively removes
B-133

a large proportion of this habitat type before its value as
wildlife habitat can be adequately understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
benchmark a maximum of 84,000 acres of riparian habitat (45
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Fish. Under this benchmark, forest habitat capabilities for
anadromous and resident salmonids are enhanced through maintaining
the natural habitat plus project work primarily designed to
improve rearing capability of juvenile salmonids. Stream
temperatures are maintained by maintaining streamside canopy cover
through application of the B management prescription. Stream
sediment input is held at current levels by basin constraints
which allow no more than 20 percent timber harvest entry per
decade, and no more than 11 percent entry in the Riparian areas.
Timber. The annual harvest level is 33.441 MMCF during the first
decade and LTSY (58.529 MMCF) is not achieved until the tenth
decade.
Harvest is conifer except hardwood conversion scheduled in the
first (3,614 acres), second (83 acres), third (3 acres), fourth 74
acres), and fifth decades (218 acres).
Commercial thinning acres are scheduled through all decades. The
quantity fluctuates but increases significantly through the tenth
to the fifteenth decade. Final harvest acres also fluctuate but
peak in the fifth decade at 8,170 acres. The combined effect of
this relatively high level of harvesting is to move more rapidly
toward a smaller product size.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will decline compared to the current
direction benchmark, especially in the first two decades. In the
third decade, sediment production will roughly equal the current
direction. Thereafter, watershed condition will further decline.
The contribution from Riparian areas is very significant in the
first decade (6,900 acres). Fluctuations in riparian harvesting
continues high through most of the planning horizon but decline to
a reasonable level in the fifteen decade.
This relatively high workload program will require significant
increases in budget and people.
B-134

Facilities. The new road construction in decade one is about 40
percent the mileage of the last five year period. The decrease in
new construction in the sixth decade is when the Forest starts
obtaining large amounts of the annual timber cut from commercial
thinnings and from second growth stands.
Reconstruction miles increase to a high of 256 miles per year in
the fifth decade, which is higher than the Forest has experienced
in the past (Fiscal Year 1982 had 177 miles).
The local road miles will increase 84 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 3,316 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the seventh decade. Over 95 percent of this
increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 4,241
miles, an increase of 60 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,802 miles (42 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,276 miles (30
percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 27 percent (1,163 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
Max Visuals
(B12-1)
Purpose.
This benchmark achieves the inventoried VQO on each acre of the
Forest.
Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
- all Retention and Partial Retention VQO acres are allocated
to their respective management prescription.
Resource-specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148.4 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 172,000 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
B-135

RN. 653,283 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as RN and is expected to increase to 724,963
acres in the third decade under this management scheme.
Current RN use is approximately 479,100 RVD's and is expected
to increase to approximately 614,700 RVD's by the second
decade of the planning horizon. Current capacity is
approximately 1,059,400 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 1,174,400 RVD's by the fifth decade.
SPM. 115,393 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPM and will be increased to 129,763 acres by
the third decade. Current SPM use is approximately 80,500
RVD's and is expected to increase to approximately 103,200
RVD's by the fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately
151,800 and will increase to 170,700 RVD's in the third
decade.
SPNM. 195,175 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPNM and will decrease to approximately
119,494 acres in the third decade of this management scheme
due to the impacts of road construction and timber harvest.
266,818 acres will be harvested over five decades, and 1,588
miles of road will be constructed under this management
scheme. Current SPNM use is approximately 17,800 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 22,800 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 41,300 RVD's
and will decrease to approximately 25,000 RVD's in the third
decade of this management scheme, and can be increased
slightly to 25,100 RVD's with the current capital investment
program.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will decrease to approximately
114,070 acres by the third decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 13,400 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will increase to
approximately 13,400 RVD's in the fourth decade when demand
will reach reach capacity.
Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the current
level under this management scheme. 87,747 acres of Retention,
300,215 acres of Partial Retention and 524,534 acres of
Modification will be allocated under this management scheme.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers; the Rogue and Illinois. No additional rivers will
be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
B-136

Wildlife. This run has major effects on wildlife resources. The
Forest land base is presently 41 percent old-growth habitat; after
five decades it drops to 22 percent. A minimum of 16 percent of
the Forest is maintained as old growth at all times. Fifty
percent more old-growth habitat is preserved indefinitely than
required under MMR's constraints. Wildlife species inhabiting
mature/old-growth forest communities will have an adequate habitat
base.
In the first five decades the deer herd averages 17 percent lower
than at present; WFUD's are correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at 63 percent
at the end of the first five decades.
The proportion of mature (age 101-200) and young (age 41-100)
forest fluctuates rather widely throughout the planning period,
mostly due to the Forest's uneven distribution of stand age
classes. Meadows (4,700 acres) on land classified as nontimber
are preserved, but no buffer strips around meadows are managed for
wildlife. No small "special habitat sites" are managed
exclusively for wildlife. No significant acres of hardwood stands
are converted into conifer plantations until after the fifth
decade, thereby preserving this habitat type until its value as
wildlife habitat can be better understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
benchmark a maximum of 83,000 acres of riparian habitat (45
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Fish. Under this benchmark, forest habitat capabilities for
anadromous and resident salmonids are enhanced through maintaining
the natural habitat plus project work primarily designed to
improve rearing capability of juvenile salmonids. Stream
temperatures are maintained by maintaining streamside canopy cover
through application of the B management prescription. Stream
sediment input is held at current levels by basin constraints
which allow no more than 20 percent timber harvest entry per
decade,; and no more than 11 percent of the Riparian area.
Timber. The annual harvest level is 30.501 MMCF during the first
decade and the LTSY (52.886 MMCF) is not attained until the
eleventh decade.
Harvest is all conifer except for an insignificant quantity of
hardwood (tanoak) conversion.
During the middle of the planning horizon, around the tenth decade
final harvest acres are low (1,920 acres) and commercial thinning
acres are quite high (8,694 acres). This will cause a decrease in
B-137

future product size.
fifteenth decade.
This tends to come into balance toward the
Low site is the primary source of final harvest acres in future
decades. The high occurs about the tenth decade. An improved
blend of High Site, Medium Site and Low Site begins to occur
toward the fifteenth decade.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will improve compared to the current
direction benchmark in the first two decades. In subsequent
decades watershed condition will decline as timber harvest and
road building intensify.
Facilities. The new road construction in decade one is about
one-third the mileage of the last five year period. New
construction decreases considerably in the sixth decade and again
in the ninth decade. The first decrease takes place when the
Forest starts obtaining large amounts of the annual timber cut
from commercial thinnings. The second decrease takes place when
the old-growth stands available for timber harvest are mostly
gone, the road system is largely in place, and the Forest is
harvesting the second growth stands.
Reconstruction miles increase to a high of 210 miles per year in
the eleventh decade, which is higher than the range of
reconstruction miles the Forest has experienced in the past
(Fiscal Year 1982 had 177 miles).
The local road miles will increase 83 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 3,308 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the fourteenth decade. Almost 80 percent of
this increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 4,233
miles, an increase of 60 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,801 miles (43 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,275 miles (30
percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 27 percent (1,157 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
Max Unroaded
(B20-2)
Purpose.
This benchmark maximizes the preservation of presently unroaded
areas on the Forest. In addition to designated Wildernesses, all
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II) areas that remain
unroaded are assigned to a minimum level of management.
B-138

Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
All analysis areas with an unroaded identifier are constrained to
minimum level management.
Resource Specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148,000 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 164,500 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
RN. 653,283 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as RN and is expected to remain at that level
over the length of the planning horizon. Current RN use is
approximately 479,100 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 614,700 RVD's by the second decade of the
planning horizon. Current capacity is approximately 1,059,400
RVD's and will not be increased over this planning horizon.
SPM. 115,393 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPM and will be decreased to approximately
102,593 acres in the first decade of this management scheme.
Current SPM use is approximately 80,500 RVD's and is expected
to increase to approximately 103,200 RVD's by the fifth
decade. Current capacity is approximately 151,800 and will
be reduced to approximately 135,400 RVD's by the second
decade.
SPNM. 195,175 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPNM and will increase to approximately
207,975 acres in the second decade of this management
scheme. 251,730 acres will be harvested over five decades,
and 1,849 miles of road will be constructed under this
management scheme. Current SPNM use is approximately 17,800
RVD's and is expected to increase to approximately 22,800
RVD's by the fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately
41,300 RVD's and will decrease to approximately 43,800 RVD's
in the fifth decade of this management scheme.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will increase to approximately
141,880 acres by the first decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
B-139

approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 14,600 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will increase to
approximately 16,300 RVD's in the fifth decade. Demand is not
expected to reach capacity.
Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the minimum
level under this management scheme in order to emphasize
non-motorized recreation opportunities. 8,910 acres of
Recreation/Scenic River can be managed under the Retention VQO.
All other inventoried areas outside of allocated roadless areas
will be managed under the Modification VQO.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers, the Rogue, and the Illinois. No additional rivers
will be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
Wildlife. This benchmark has major effects on wildlife
resources. The Forest land base is presently 41 percent
old-growth habitat; after five decades it drops to 27 percent. A
minimum of 24 percent of the Forest is maintained as old growth at
all times. More than twice as much old-growth habitat is
preserved indefinitely than required under MMR constraints.
Wildlife species inhabiting mature/old-growth forest communities
will have a more than adequate habitat base; this additional
habitat will provide a margin of safety which insures that
well-dispersed viable populations of all native species will not
perish from this Forest. This safety margin is doubly important,
given that very little mature/old-growth habitat will remain on
private lands outside the Forest boundary.
In the first five decades the deer herd averages 30 percent lower
than at present; WFUD's are correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at 67 percent
at the end of the first five decades.
The proportion of mature (age 101-200) and young (age 41-100)
forest fluctuates rather widely throughout the planning period,
mostly due to the Forest's uneven distribution of stand age
classes. Meadows (4,700 acres) on land classified as nontimber
are preserved, but no buffer strips around meadows are managed for
wildlife. No small "special habitat sites" are managed
exclusively for wildlife. No hardwood stands are converted into
conifer plantations until the fifth decade, thereby preserving
this habitat type until its value as wildlife habitat can be
better understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
B-140

enchmark a maximum of 59,000 acres of riparian habitat (32
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Fish. Under this benchmark, Forest habitat capabilities for
anadromous and resident salmonid is enhanced through maintaining
the natural habitat plus project work primarily designed to
improve rearing capability of juvenile salmonids. Stream
temperatures are maintained by maintaining streamside canopy cover
through application of the B management prescription. Stream
sediment input is held at current levels by basin constraints
which allow no more than 20 percent timber harvest entry per
decade, and no more than 11 percent harvest of Riparian areas per
decade.
Timber. The annual harvest level is 23.126 MMCF during the first
decade and LTSY (40.472 MMCF) is not achieved until the ninth
decade.
Harvest consists of conifer except for 911 acres of hardwood
conversion scheduled in the fifth decade.
Reforestation acres increase significantly toward the fifth decade
due to increased harvesting in Riparian areas (about 2,300
acres). The contribution from Riparian areas then decreases to
about 900 acres in the fifteenth decade.
There are no extreme fluctuations in the overall program except as
noted for reforestation.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will improve compared to the current
direction benchmark, especially in the first three decades. In
decades 4 and 5, sediment production under this alternative will
exceed current direction.
Facilities. The new road construction in decade one is about
one-fifth the mileage of the last five year period. The decrease
in the sixth decade is when the forest starts obtaining large
amounts of the annual timber cut from commercial thinnings and
from second growth stands.
The local road miles will increase 42 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 2,569 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the seventh decade. Almost 95 percent of
this increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 3,494
miles, an increase of 32 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,697 miles (49 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,082 miles (31
B-141

percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 20 percent (715 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
Max
Recreation
(B19-2)
Purpose.
This benchmark estimates the maximum capability of the Forest to
provide both dispersed and developed recreational opportunities.
Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
- developed recreation facilities are installed or upgraded to
meet anticipated future demands.
- primitive ROS demand is satisfied through the allocation of
all unroaded areas to a minimum level of management.
- both candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers are allocated.
- 25 Supplemental Resource areas are allocated to minimum level
of management.
Resource-specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148,000 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 164,500 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
RN. 653,283 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as RN and is expected to remain at that level
over the length of the planning horizon. Current RN use is
approximately 479,100 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 614,700 RVD's by the second decade of the
planning horizon. Current capacity is approximately 1,059,400
RVD's and will not be increased over this planning horizon.
SPM. 115,393 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPM and will be decreased to approximately
102,593 acres in the first decade of this management scheme.
Current SPM use is approximately 80,500 RVD's and is expected
to increase to approximately 103,200 RVD's by the fifth
decade. Current capacity is approximately 151,800 and will
be reduced to approximately 135,400 RVD's by the second
decade.
B-142

SPNM. 195,175 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPNM and will increase to approximately
207,975 acres in the second decade of this management
scheme. 251,730 acres will be harvested over five decades,
and 1,817 miles of road will be constructed under this
management scheme. Current SPNM use is approximately 17,800
RVD's and is expected to increase to approximately 22,800
RVD's by the fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately
41,300 RVD's and will decrease to approximately 43,800 RVD's
in the fifth decade of this management scheme.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will increase to approximately
141,880 acres by the first decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 14,600 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will increase to
approximately 16,300 RVD's in the fifth decade. Demand is
not expected to reach capacity.
Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the minimum
level under this management scheme in order to emphasize
non-motorized recreation opportunities. 8,910 acres of
Recreation/Scenic River can be managed under the Retention VQO.
All other inventoried areas outside of allocated roadless areas
will be managed under the Modification VQO.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers, the Rogue, and the Illinois. No additional rivers
will be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
Wildlife. This run has major effects on wildlife resources. The
Forest land base is presently 41 percent old-growth habitat; after
five decades it drops to 27 percent. A minimum of 25 percent of
the Forest is maintained as old growth at all times. More than
twice as much old-growth habitat is preserved indefinitely than
required under MMR's constraints. Wildlife species inhabiting
mature/old-growth forest communities will have a more than
adequate habitat base; this additional habitat will provide a
margin of safety which insures that viable populations of all
native species will not perish from this Forest. This safety
margin is doubly important, given that very little
mature/old-growth habitat will remain on private lands outside the
Forest boundary.
In the first five decades the deer herd averages 32 percent lower
than at present; WFUD's are correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at 67 percent
at the end of the first five decades. The proportion of mature
B-143

(age 101-200) and young (age 41-100) forest fluctuates rather
widely throughout the planning period, mostly due to the Forest's
uneven distribution of stand age classes. Meadows (4,700 acres)
on land classified as nontimber are preserved, but no buffer
strips around meadows are managed for wildlife. No small "special
habitat sites" are managed exclusively for wildlife. No hardwood
stands are converted into conifer plantations until the fifth
decade, thereby preserving this habitat type until its value as
wildlife habitat can be better understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
benchmark a maximum of 57,000 acres of riparian habitat (30
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Fish. Under this benchmark Forest habitat capabilities for
anadromous and resident salmonid is enhanced through maintaining
the natural habitat plus project work primarily designed to
improve rearing capability of juvenile salmonids. Stream
temperatures are maintained by maintaining streamside canopy cover
through application of the B management prescription. Stream
sediment input is held at current levels by basin constraints
which allow no more than 20 percent timber harvest entry per
decade, and no more than 11 percent of Riparian areas harvested
per decade.
Timber. The annual harvest level is 22.304 MMCF during the first
decade and LTSY (39.246 MMCF) is not achieved until the ninth
decade.
Harvest consists of conifer except for 850 acres scheduled for
hardwood conversion in the fifth decade.
The flow of reforestation acres increases from 4,032 acres in the
first decade to 7,818 acres in the fifth decade then declines to
4,575 and 4,226 acres in the tenth and fifteenth decades
respectfully. Final harvest makes up the bulk of these acres but
harvesting in the Riparian areas is the major contributor to the
high points in reforestation acres.
There are no unacceptable extremes in the flow of this program.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will improve compared to the current
direction benchmark. Of all the benchmarks evaluated to date, Max
Recreation produces the least sediment because the fewest acres
are clearcut and fewest miles of road are built. From a watershed
standpoint, this benchmark produces the fewest detrimental
effects.
B-144

Facilities. The new road construction in decade one is about
one-fifth the mileage of the last five year period. The decrease
in new construction in the sixth decade is when the forest starts
obtaining large amounts of the annual timber cut from commercial
thinnings and from second growth stands.
The local road miles will increase 40 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 2,537 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the fifteenth decade. Almost 95 percent of
this increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 3,462
miles, an increase of 31 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,693 miles (49 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,073 miles (31
percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 20 percent (696 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
Max Fish/
Watershed
(B16-1)
Purpose.
Improved fish habitat and watershed conditions are maximized in
this benchmark.
Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
- timber yield in Riparian areas is limited to incidental
harvest associated with skyline corridors and other
operational considerations.
- harvest flow constraints are limited to between nine and 13
percent per watershed basin per decade.
- 27 Supplemental Resource areas are allocated to minimum level
of management.
- fish habitat improvement projects are maximized.
Resource-specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148.4 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 172,000 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
B-145

RN. 653,283 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as RN and is expected to increase to 739,333
acres in the second decade under this management scheme.
Current RN use is approximately 479,100 RVD's and is expected
to increase to approximately 614,700 RVD's by the second
decade of the planning horizon. Current capacity is
approximately 1,059,400 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 1,197,700 RVD's by the fifth decade.
SPM. 115,393 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPM and will remain the same over the planning
horizon. Current SPM use is approximately 80,500 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 103,200 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 151,800 and
will remain constant over the planning horizon because of the
difficulty of determining the degree of impact necessary to
distinguish between roaded natural and semi-primitive.
SPNM. 195,175 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPNM and will decrease to approximately
119,494 acres in the second decade of this management scheme
due to the impacts of road construction and timber harvest.
248,938 acres will be harvested over five decades, and 1,546
miles of road will be constructed under this management
scheme. Current SPNM use is approximately 17,800 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 22,800 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 41,300 RVD's
and will decrease to approximately 25,000 RVD's in the second
decade of this management scheme, and can be increased
slightly to 25,100 RVD's with the current capital investment
program.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will decrease to approximately
114,070 acres by the second decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 13,600 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will decrease to
approximately 11,400 RVD's in the second decade and can be
increased to approximately 13,400 RVD's through the current
capital investment program. Demand is expected to reach
capacity in the second decade.
Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the minimum
level under this management scheme. 8,910 acres of
Recreation/Scenic River can be managed under the Retention VQO.
All other inventoried areas will be managed under the Modification
VQO.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
B-146

Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers, the Rogue, and the Illinois. No additional rivers
will be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
Wildlife. This run has major effects on wildlife resources. The
Forest land base is presently 41 percent old-growth habitat; after
five decades it drops to 22 percent. A minimum of 16 percent of
the Forest is maintained as old growth at all times. Sixty
percent more old-growth habitat is preserved indefinitely than
required under MMR's constraints. Wildlife species inhabiting
mature/old-growth forest communities will have an adequate habitat
base.
In the first five decades the deer herd averages 20 percent lower
than at present; WFUD's are correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at 63 percent
at the end of the first five decades. The proportion of mature
(age 101-200) and young (age 41-100) forest fluctuates widely
throughout the planning period, mostly due to the Forest's uneven
distribution of stand age classes. Meadows (4,700 acres) on land
classified as nontimber are preserved, but no buffer strips around
meadows are managed for wildlife. No small "special habitat
sites" are managed exclusively for wildlife. No hardwood stands
are converted into conifer plantations until after the fifth
decade, thereby preserving this habitat type until its value as
wildlife habitat can be better understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian Areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
benchmark a maximum of 66,000 acres of riparian habitat (33
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Uneven-aged Riparian areas will be managed under Riparian
Prescription option C, which maximizes the value of the habitat
for wildlife.
Fish. Through application of the Riparian Prescription option C
to 18 basins and minimum level management to one basin, water
temperatures are projected to decrease by two degrees Fahrenheit
by the end of the third decade within Class I and II streams.
This situation is projected to improve salmonid habitat capability
by 10 percent by the third decade. Inclusion of 27 Supplemental
Resource areas will maintain the high production capability of
streams involved. Application of the Riparian Prescription option
C also provides for long-term input of large organic debris which
is essential to good stream stability and salmonid rearing
capability. Nine to 13 percent basin specific harvest dispersion
constraints provide additional protection against adverse effects
from sediments.
B-147

Timber. The annual harvest level is 29.063 MMCF during the first
decade and LTSY (50.071 MMCF) is not achieved until the ninth
decade.
Harvest consists of conifer except for 3,971 acres of hardwood
conversion scheduled in the sixth decade. About 47,000 acres of
hardwoods are available for conversion.
Except for the lack of hardwood conversion scheduling, there are
no significant fluctuations in this program.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will improve compared to the current
direction benchmark, especially in the first decade. Watershed
condition will also improve due to the application of Riparian
Prescription option C and the area harvest constraints.
Facilities. The new road construction in decade one is about
one-third the mileage of the last five year period. New
construction decreases in the sixth decade and again in the eighth
decade. The first decrease takes place when the forest starts
obtaining large amounts of the annual timber cut from commercial
thinnings. The second decrease takes place when the old-growth
stands available for timber harvest are mostly gone, the road
system is largely in place, and the forest is harvesting the
second growth stands.
The local road miles will increase 81 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 3,266 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the thirteenth decade. Over 75 percent of
this increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 4,191
miles, an increase of 58 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,794 miles (43 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,262 miles (30
percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 27 percent (1,135 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
Max Wildlife
(B13-3)
Purpose.
This benchmark is designed to maximize biotic diversity in an
attempt to achieve optimum wildlife habitat without jeopardizing
the viability of any one species.
B-148

Assumptions and Modeling Constraints.
- habitat for spotted owls is adequate for 80 pairs (twice the
minimum requirements).
- habitat capability for cavity nesters is at the 60 percent
level.
- riparian habitat disturbance is limited to 35 percent of the
total.
- 6 unroaded watershed basins are allocated to minimum level of
management (no harvest)
- meadows, including 200 foot buffer strips, and other special
habitat sites are managed for the benefit of wildlife.
- habitat improvement projects are planned at maximum levels.
Resource-specific Environmental Consequences.
Recreation
Developed Recreation. Current use is approximately 115,700 RVD's
and is expected to increase to approximately 148.4 RVD's by the
fifth decade under this management scheme. Current developed
capacity is approximately 157,600 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 172,000 RVD's through the capital investment program
by the fifth decade under this management scheme.
Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is presented by ROS
classes. The discussion includes Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River use in the capacity totals and demand projections. Each of
these categories will be summarized individually in addition to
the information presented in this section.
RN. 653,283 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as RN and is expected to increase to 739,333
acres in the fourth decade under this management scheme.
Current RN use is approximately 479,100 RVD's and is expected
to increase to approximately 614,700 RVD's by the fifth
decade of the planning horizon. Current capacity is
approximately 1,059,400 RVD's and can be increased to
approximately 1,197,700 RVD's by the third decade.
SPM. 115,393 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPM and will remain the same over the planning
horizon. Current SPM use is approximately 80,500 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 103,200 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 151,800 and
will remain constant over the planning horizon because of the
difficulty of determining the degree of impact necessary to
distinguish between roaded natural and semi-primitive.
SPNM. 195,175 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as SPNM and will decrease to approximately
123,495 acres in the third decade of this management scheme
due to the impacts of road construction and timber harvest.
259,372 acres will be harvested over five decades, and 1,143
B-149

miles of road will be constructed under this management
scheme. Current SPNM use is approximately 17,800 RVD's and
is expected to increase to approximately 22,800 RVD's by the
fifth decade. Current capacity is approximately 41,300 RVD's
and will decrease to approximately 25,000 RVD's in the third
decade of this management scheme, and can be increased
slightly to 26,000 RVD's with the current capital investment
program.
Primitive. 128,440 acres of the Forest land is currently
inventoried as Primitive and will decrease to approximately
114,070 acres by the third decade, and will remain constant
over the planning horizon. Current Primitive use is
approximately 11,400 RVD's and is expected to increase to
approximately 13,600 RVD's by the fifth decade. Current
capacity is approximately 13,100 RVD's and will increase to
approximately 13,400 RVD's in the third decade and can be
increased to approximately 13,600 RVD's through the current
capital investment. Demand is expected to reach capacity in
the third decade.
Visual Resource. Visual resources will be managed at the minimum
level under this management scheme. 8,910 acres of
Recreation/Scenic River can be managed under the Retention VQO.
All other inventoried areas will be managed under the Modification
VQO.
Wilderness. 232,495 acres of Wilderness will be carried. No
additional areas will be proposed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest has two designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers, the Rogue, and the Illinois. No additional rivers
will be considered for evaluation under this management scheme.
Wildlife. This benchmark has major effects on wildlife
resources. The Forest land base is presently 41 percent
old-growth habitat; after five decades it drops to 26 percent. A
minimum of 21 percent of the Forest is maintained as old growth at
all times. More than twice as much old-growth habitat is
preserved indefinitely than required under MMR's constraints.
Wildlife species inhabiting mature/old-growth forest communities
will have a more than adequate habitat base; this additional
habitat will provide a margin of safety which insures that
well-dispersed viable populations of all native species will not
perish from this Forest. This safety margin is doubly important,
given that very little mature/old-growth habitat will remain on
private lands outside the Forest boundary.
In the first five decades the deer herd averages 22 percent lower
than at present; WFUD's are correspondingly reduced.
Habitat capability for cavity nesters is maintained at 77 percent
at the end of the first five decades. The proportion of mature
(age 101-200) and young (age 41-100) forest fluctuates rather
B-150

widely throughout the planning period, mostly due to the Forest's
uneven distribution of stand age classes. Meadow habitat is
maximized at 6,500 acres, with associated 200 foot buffer strips
managed for the benefit of wildlife species utilizing this type of
habitat. A variety of small "special habitat sites" are managed
exclusively for wildlife (2,200 acres). No hardwood stands are
converted into conifer plantations until the fifth decade, thereby
preserving this habitat type until its value as wildlife habitat
can be better understood.
As unmanaged timber stands are harvested and brought into
rotation, associated Riparian areas are converted from even-aged
(mainly old growth) to uneven-aged timber stands; in this
benchmark a maximum of 65,000 acres of riparian habitat (35
percent of the Forest total) are ultimately converted to this type
of forest management; the rest of the riparian habitat will not be
entered and will essentially remain in its present condition.
Fish. Under this benchmark, Forest habitat capabilities for
anadromous and resident salmonid is enhanced through maintaining
the natural habitat plus project work primarily designed to
improve rearing capability of juvenile salmonids. Stream
temperatures are maintained by maintaining streamside canopy cover
through application of the B management prescription. Stream
sediment input is held at current levels by basin constraints
which allow no more than 20 percent timber harvest entry per
decade, and no more than 11 percent of Riparian areas harvested
per decade.
Timber. The annual harvest level is 25.771 MMCF during the first
decade and LTSY (43.848 MMCF) is not achieved until the ninth
decade.
Harvest consists of conifer except for hardwood conversion
scheduled in the fourth decade (166 acres), the fifth decade
(2,170 acres) and the fifteen decade (2,044 acres).
The contribution to harvest is significant in regard to Riparian
area acres. Riparian harvesting increases from 1,322 acres in the
first decade to 5,106 acres in the fifth decade, then declines to
1,380 acres and 946 acres in the tenth and fifteenth decades
respectfully.
Reforestation acres double from the first decade (4,979 acres) to
the fifth decade (10,326 acres). This will require significant
increases in budget and people.
Soil and Water. Forest watershed condition (as indicated by total
sediment production) will improve compared to the current
direction benchmark, especially in the first decade. In
subsequent decades this alternative will be very comparable to the
current situation.
B-151

CONSTRAINT
ANALYSIS
Opportunity
Cost of
Minimum
Management
Requirements
(MMR's)
Facilities. The new road construction in decade one is less than
one-third the mileage of the last five year period. The decrease
in new construction in the sixth decade is when the forest starts
obtaining large amounts of the annual timber cut from commercial
thinnings and from second growth stands.
Reconstruction miles increase to a high of 210 miles per year in
the fourth decade, which is higher than the forest has experienced
in the past (Fiscal Year 1982 had 177 miles).
The local road miles will increase 58 percent, from an existing
1,807 miles to an estimated 2,863 miles, when the system is
complete sometime in the seventh decade. Nearly 95 percent of
this increase is in the first five decades.
The existing road system of 2,645 miles will expand to 3,788
miles, an increase of 43 percent. The road system open to
passenger cars will increase from 1,504 miles (57 percent)
existing to 1,739 miles (46 percent) with the completed system.
At the same time, 883 miles (33 percent) of the road system now
open to high clearance vehicles will increase to 1,158 miles (31
percent) of the completed system. The remaining 10 percent (258
miles) of the current road system and 23 percent (891 miles) of
the completed system will be closed to vehicles except for
intermittent project use.
Additional FORPLAN runs were made to evaluate the impacts and
costs of various constraints and objectives. Runs were also made
to test the sensitivity of the solutions to changes in certain run
parameters. The opportunity costs and initial sensitivity
analysis are documented below.
Concerns raised after the formulation of alternatives have
resulted in additional sensitivity analysis being done on the
effects of MMR's in the alternatives. This analysis is documented
in Appendix J of the DEIS, Sensitivity Analysis of Significant
Forest MMR's.
Tradeoffs associated with MMR's were analyzed by comparing Base
Runs having no provisions for MMR's with runs that incrementally
added the various components of MMR's until the entire MMR package
was incorporated. MMR's that have significant timber and
economic tradeoffs fall into two categories; those necessary to
meet the distribution of minimum viable fish and wildlife
populations, and those necessary to meet soil productivity and
water quality standards. Opportunity costs are defined as the
difference in PNV between the Base Run (B22-2) and the runs that
include MMR's. This reduction in PNV represents the opportunity
cost of managing the Forest for optimum market and nonmarket
resource outputs, while continuing to provide for MMR's.
Each component of the MMR package was evaluated in separate
FORPLAN runs with timber harvest activity controlled by NDY and
CMAI.
B-152

Soil, Water, and Fish Objectives.
Runs compared: B22-2 (PNV 1,645.10 MM $)
B28-1 (PNV 1,394.72 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
250.38 MM $ (15.2 percent reduction)
The analysis showed that when applied separately, MMR's for soil
and water (B28-1) reduced average annual first decade timber
harvest to 34.6 MMCF (13 percent reduction) and LTSY to 55.0 MMCF
(5 percent reduction). PNV fell 15 percent (250 MM $), while
total discounted costs declined 9.6 MM $ (-1 percent). The major
response of applying these MMR's was to limit harvest in Riparian
areas to 50 percent reduction in basal area during the first
commercial entry on Class III streams and 20 percent on Class I
and II streams. Created openings were also limited to no more
than 20 percent per watershed basin per decade.
Fish MMR's require maintenance of existing habitat conditions.
Soil and water MMR's form the basis for current management
direction on the Forest. No additional constraints were necessary
to meet fish requirements, since existing fish habitat is the
result of implementing soil and water MMR's.
Wildlife Objectives.
Runs compared: B22-2 (PNV 1,645.10 MM $)
B29-2 (PNV 1,508.48 MM $)
Opportunity Cost: 136.62 MM $ (8.3 percent reduction)
Application of the wildlife MMR's (B29-2) reduced average annual
first decade timber harvest to 37.1 MMCF (7 percent reduction) and
LTSY to 56.0 MMCF (-3 percent). PNV was reduced 137 MM $ (-8
percent), while total discounted costs declined 10 MM $ (-1
percent). Wildlife MMR's are principally attained through the
maintenance of 1,000, 300, and 160 acre old-growth/mature blocks
of timber distributed for spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, and
pine marten, respectively.
All MMR's with NDY and CMAI.
Runs compared: B22-2 (PNV 1,645.10 MM $)
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
344.55 MM $ (20.9 percent reduction)
When all MMR's are applied (B30-1), average annual first decade
timber harvest is reduced to 32.4 MMCF (19 percent reduction) and
LTSY to 52 MMCF (-10 percent). PNV is reduced 345 MM $ (21
percent)), while total discounted costs decline 38.5 MM $ (5
percent). The opportunity cost resulting from the simultaneous
application of both constraints is less than the sum of the two
B-153

parts, which indicates wildlife requirements help satisfy soil and
water requirements.
All MMR's in the Absence of NDY and CMAI.
Runs compared:
Opportunity Cost:
B18-3 (PNV 1,909.08 MM $)
B31-1 (PNV 1,449.04 MM $)
460.04 MM $ (24.1 percent reduction)
The effect of all MMR's was also evaluated in the absence of
timber policy constraints. Sequential upper and lower bounds,
with a harvest floor of 80 percent of current (28 MMCF), were
substituted for the NDY constraint and rotations based on
utilization standards were used in lieu of CMAI to model the Base
Run. Refer to Table B-8 for the FORPLAN specifications.
Average annual first decade timber harvest declined 24 percent (18
MMCF) and LTSY by 10.5 percent (6 MMCF), relative to the base
without NDY or CMAI, when all MMR's were applied. PNV declined 24
percent while total discounted cost were reduced 81 MM $ (-8
percent).
Opportunity costs for MMR's are higher in the absence of NDY and
CMAI than those associated with comparable evaluations which
include timber policy constraints. The presence of NDY and CMAI
effectively control the rate of access which simultaneously
contributes to the satisfaction of the water quality requirements.
Opportunity
Cost of
Timber
Policy
Constraints
Rotation ages determined by the general (95 percent) attainment of
CMAI and decadal harvest rates that can increase or remain
constant, but never decline (NDY) comprise the timber policy
constraints that are evaluated in this section. Opportunity
costs are determined by applying these constraints to the FORPLAN
model and comparing the results with Base Runs that represent the
"without condition". Timber policy constraints were evaluated
when MMR's were installed and in their absence to show what
tradeoffs, or opportunity costs, might be masked by the presence
of other model parameters such as MMR's.
Nondeclining Yield Constraint (NDY).
Runs compared:
Opportunity Cost:
B31-1 (PNV 1,449.04 MM $)
B27-1 (PNV 1,340.03 MM $)
109.01 MM $ (7.5 percent reduction)
A Base Run with upper and lower sequential bounds and rotations
based on Regional utilization standards, governed by MMR's (B31-1)
was compared to a run with the same specifications except NDY
replaced sequential upper and lower bounds (B27-1). Average
annual first decade timber yield declined 35 percent (20.1 MMCF)
under the NDY scenario while LTSY fell 2 MMCF (4 percent).
B-154

Replacing sequential bounds with NDY reduced PNV 109 MM $,
total discounted costs declined 103 MM $.
as
Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI).
Runs compared: B31-1 (PNV 1,449.04 MM $)
B30-4 (PNV 1,386.14 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
62.9 MM $ (4.3 percent reduction)
The same Base Run referenced above (B31-1) was compared against a
run with identical FORPLAN specifications, except rotations based
on the general attainment of CMAI were substituted for rotation
determinations based on utilization standards (B30-4). Average
annual first decade timber yield declined 8 MMCF (14 percent),
while LTSY increased 4 MMCF (7.8 percent) because harvest
generally occurred at CMAI which produces the greatest amount of
wood in the long-term. PNV declined 63 MM $ (4 percent), as total
discounted costs fell 98 MM $ (10.8 percent). As CMAI tends to
produce more wood, the extra time (about 20 years) does not
produce enough extra value to compete with the 4 percent discount
rate used to calculate present value. Opportunity costs would be
zero if no discount rate were used to make present value
calculations; however, as the discount rate is increased,
opportunity costs become greater.
Combination of NDY and CMAI.
Runs compared: B31-1 (PNV 1,449.04 MM $)
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
Opportunity Cost: 148.49 MM $ (10.25 percent reduction)
The net effect of NDY and CMAI applied in concert was determined
based on a comparison of the Base Run with a run having both
policy constraints installed (B30-1). Average annual first decade
timber yield was reduced 24 MMCF (43 percent) when both
constraints are applied in unison. LTSY, however, increases 1
MMCF (2 percent) due to the longer rotations. The net loss in PNV
(148 MM $) is less than the sum of the two parts, which indicates
that one of the two policies helps satisfy the objectives of the
other.
CMAI in the absence of MMR's.
Runs compared: B18-3 (PNV 1,909.08 MM $)
B17-3 (PNV 1,834.99 MM $)
Opportunity Cost: 74.09 MM $ (3.9 percent reduction)
The effect of CMAI relative to rotation determinations using
Regional standards was also evaluated in the absence of MMR's to
determine whether tradeoffs (opportunity costs) were being over or
understated. Percentage reductions in PNV are less in the absence
B-155

of MMR's, but only by a marginal amount. Average annual first
decade timber harvest declines 8 MMCF (11 percent) with CMAI in
the absence of MMR's which is identical to the reduction
experienced with MMR's. LTSY increases in the absence of MMR's by
6 MMCF (11 percent) as opposed to the 4 MMCF increase realized
with MMR's in place. The impact of CMAI is essentially the same
with, or without MMR's.
Combination of NDY and CMAI in the absence of MMR's.
Runs compared:
Opportunity Cost:
B18-3 (PNV 1,909.08 MM $)
B22-2 (PNV 1,645.10 MM $)
263.96 MM $ (13.8 percent reduction)
The combined impact of CMAI and NDY, applied simultaneously in the
absence of MMR's was also evaluated. Percentage reductions in PNV
are greater in the absence of MMR's than opportunity costs
calculated with MMR's by approximately 4 percent. Average annual
first decade timber yield is reduced 34.6 MMCF (47 percent) when
both timber policy constraints are applied, which is greater than
the impact associated with MMR's. The impacts on LTSY are
identical to those experienced in the presence of MMR's (i.e.,
plus 1 MMCF, or a 2 percent increase).
Opportunity
Cost of
Maximum
Production,
Min Level
and Current
Direction
Benchmarks
An analysis of benchmarks was conducted to ascertain opportunity
costs associated with the resolution of ICO's. These evaluations
were completed using a common constraint set to localize the
effect directly attributable to achieving specific resource
objectives. Except for the Minimum Level Benchmark, all
benchmarks are bound by the following constraints:
- all benchmarks complied with NFMA MMR's.
- an ending timber inventory constraint was used so that the
timber inventory in 150-years will equal or exceed the volume
that would occur on a regulated forest.
- timber rotation length was based on 95 percent of CMAI
determination.
- a timber harvest flow constraint of NDY was used.
- an objective function of maximizing PNV was used.
- a minimum level of the existing Wildernesses was maintained
in all benchmarks.
- the Min Level Benchmark was constrained to produce no
management outputs such as timber harvest and livestock
grazing to determine the basic cost of Federal ownership.
Min Level Benchmark.
Runs compared:
Opportunity Cost:
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
MINLVL (PNV 4.99 MM $)
1,295.56 MM $ (99.6 percent reduction)
B-156

The Min Level Benchmark defines the costs and benefits of
operating the Forest in a custodial fashion with no production of
controllable goods and services such as timber, developed
recreation, etc. Management under this benchmark reduces PNV by
99 percent (1296 MM $) and essentially terminates all market
outputs with the exception of anadromous fish for commercial
harvest. Total discounted cost of .67 MM $ represent the
administrative costs necessary to maintain the Forest in public
ownership and fulfill public safety and resource protection
obligations.
Current Direction Benchmark.
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B06-5 (PNV 1,170.34 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
130.21 MM $ (10.0 percent reduction)
Land assignments in this benchmark are identical to those of the
"No Action" Alternative, except that NFMA MMR's are substituted
for the interim direction of 300 acre spotted owl management areas
(SOMA's). Budget constraints associated with the No Action
Alternative are also relaxed in this benchmark. The mutiple-use
orientation of this benchmark reduces average annual first decade
timber harvest 2.8 MMCF (9 percent), and LTSY 1 MMCF (2 percent),
relative to Max PNV. PNV declines 130 MM $ to meet the resource
objectives specified in existing management plans.
Max Timber Benchmark.
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B11-3 (PNV 1,276.24 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
24.31 MM $ (1.87 percent reduction)
Land assignments selected by FORPLAN to maximize timber production
(568,000 acres) are essentially identical to those selected to
maximize PNV (546,000 acres). This is primarily due to timber's
significant contribution to PNV, relative to other resource
values. Opportunity costs associated with maximizing timber
production occur because less efficient acres (principally
hardwood stands) are brought into solution earlier in the planning
horizon than would occur under Max PNV (22,000 acres of hardwoods
go to custodial management). PNV declines 2 percent (24 MM $)
while total discounted costs increase 8 percent (59 MM $). Average
annual first decade timber production increases 3 percent (1
MMCF), while LTSY increases 13 percent (7 MMCF).
B-157

Max Unroaded Benchmark.
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B20-2 (PNV 953.92 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
346.63 MM $ (26.65 percent reduction)
All presently unroaded land (258,101 acres) was placed under
custodial management in this benchmark which reduced the
available/suitable timber base by 100,198 acres, relative to Max
PNV. Average annual first decade timber yield is reduced 9 MMCF
(29 percent), while LTSY falls 12 MMCF (23 percent). A similar
reduction in PNV (27 percent) occurs with the reduction in timber
harvest as the increased recreational use is not sufficient to
offset the loss in timber revenues. Total discounted costs also
decline 144 MM $ (20 percent) with the reduction in available
timber land.
Max Recreation Benchmark.
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B19-2 (PNV 917.60 MM $)
Opportunity Cost: 382.95 MM $ (29.4 percent reduction)
In addition to the assignment of all unroaded lands to custodial
management, 25 areas with high dispersed recreation potential were
allocated to Supplemental Resource areas. The two inventoried
Wild and Scenic River candidates were also treated as classified
in this benchmark. Available/suitable timber acreage was reduced
28,437 acres, in addition to the 101,000 acres removed for
custodial management in unroaded areas. Average annual first
decade timber yield declined 10 MMCF (31 percent), while LTSY fell
13 MMCF (25 percent). PNV was reduced 347 MM $ because increased
recreational use could not offset the foregone timber values.
Max Visuals Benchmark.
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B12-1 (PNV 1,205.55 MM $)
Opportunity Cost:
95.0 MM $ (7.3 percent reduction)
Inventoried VQO's were achieved on all acres of the Forest in this
benchmark. The reduced average timber yield necessary to meet
retention and partial retention VQO's reduced average annual first
decade timber harvest 1.9 MMCF (6 percent), and dropped LTSY 1
MMCF (2 percent). PNV fell 95 MM $, while total discounted costs
declined 28 MM $ (4 percent).
B-158

Max Fish/Watershed Benchmark.
Runs compared:
Opportunity Cost:
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B16-1 (PNV 1,170.34 MM $)
130.21 MM $ (10.0 percent reduction)
High levels of capital expenditures for habitat improvement, a
reduced level of riparian disturbance, and the allocation of 27
valuable fishery streams and rivers to custodial (roadless)
management, are utilized to maximize fish production in this
benchmark. Average annual first decade timber yield is reduced
3.3 MMCF (10 percent), while LTSY declines 2 MMCF (4 percent).
The increased fish production does not yield enough value (both
sport and commercial) to offset the loss in timber revenues,
resulting in a net loss of 130 MM $.
Max Wildlife Benchmark.
Runs compared:
Opportunity Cost:
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B13-3 (PNV 1,040.61 MM $)
259.94 MM $ (19.98 percent reduction)
Land assignments required to achieve optimum habitat diversity for
all wildlife species left an available/suitable timber base of
414,809 acres; 91,342 acres less than the base governing Max PNV.
Average annual first decade timber harvest declined 6.6 MMCF (20
percent), while LTSY fell 8 MMCF (15 percent). Reductions in PNV
(20 percent) are primarily due to the land required to maintain 80
pair of spotted owl (twice the MMR level) and custodial management
in six unroaded watershed basins.
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
Structuring the FORPLAN model to produce solutions that represent
reality is the challenge facing analysts with the responsibility
of running and interpreting FORPLAN. The degree of data
reliability needed to foster confidence in FORPLAN solutions can
be determined by examining the sensitivity of FORPLAN solutions to
incremental changes in various model parameters. Changes that
have little or no effect on the solution indicate that a high
degree of data reliability is not necessary, nor would greater
precision improve the solution. Those parameters that have a
significant impact on solutions deserve special attention during
the preparation of the data and in the interpretation of results.
A thorough understanding of the model components, their
interrelationships, and recognition of their ability to affect the
solution is essential to correctly interpret results during
implementation.
Sensitivity analysis is a procedure used to respond to concerns
about data reliability, modeling assumptions, and the
effectiveness of measures employed to achieve management
objectives. It is an effective means of evaluating "what if" type
questions. Sensitivity analysis was used on the Siskiyou to
B-159

evaluate economic assumptions, and timber harvest and roading
patterns.
Economic
Assumptions
A level of uncertainty surrounds literally all economic
assumptions concerning projections of the future. Economic
parameters such as unit values, trends in time, and the discount
rate used to express dollars in present (1982) terms can exercise
considerable influence on a mathematical model driven by an
economic selection criterion. In particular, the relative
economic merits of different land types may change significantly
as economic parameters are varied. The following evaluations were
made to apprise the responsible official of the consequences
should the future prove the economic assumptions in error.
Market Verses Nonmarket Values.
Runs Compared:
Sensitivity:
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B30-2 (PNV 1,300.36 MM $)
-.19 MM $ (.015 percent reduction)
Both runs have identical FORPLAN specifications, with NDY, CMAI,
and MMR's governing the solutions. Values for goods and services
not necessarily traded in the open market are suppressed, however
in B30-2, leaving economic value for those goods and services for
which a market exists. Because of the consistently high
contribution of timber to total PNV (averages between 85 and 90
percent), very little change occurs in PNV. Reductions in WFUD's
were the most significant difference between the two runs.
Average annual wildlife benefit values declined 41 M $ in the
first decade, bringing big-game, and nongame use down 3 and 2
percent, respectively.
Long-term Stumpage Value Trends (O Percent).
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV
B32-1 (PNV
1,300.55 MM $)
960.41 MM $)
Sensitivity: -340.14 MM $ (26.25 percent reduction)
The maximum FORPLAN specification (B30-1) was reoptimized without
the benefit of a 1 percent per annum projected increase in timber
stumpage value (B32-1). Significant reductions in PNV occur in
the absence of a timber price trend. Average annual timber yield
remains constant in the first decade, but LTSY suffers a 3 MMCF
loss (6 percent) relative to Max PNV. Selected suitable timber
land assignments drop from 546,000 acres to 535,000 acres.
B-160

Long-term Stumpage Value Trends (3 Percent).
Runs compared:
Sensitivity:
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B33-1 (PNV 2,482.80 MM $)
+1,182.25 MM $ (90.9 percent increase)
The 3 percent per annum timber price trend substituted in B33-1
significantly increased PNV, relative to Max PNV. Average annual
harvest activity remained unchanged until the tenth period where
it increases 6 percent. LTSY increases 3 MMCF (6 percent) as a
result of the higher discount rate. Selected suitable timber land
assignments increase to 566,000 acres.
Discount Rate (7.125 Percent).
Runs compared:
Sensitivity:
B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
B30-3 (PNV 1,292.85 MM $)
-7.7 MM $ (.59 percent reduction)
Lands that are economically marginal with respect to timber
production should become even less attractive (economically) as
the discount rate increases. To determine which, if any, lands
might fall out of solution under such a scenario, a 7.125 percent
discount rate was substituted for the standard 4 percent
assumption used in other runs. As illustrated above, the change
in discount rates reduced PNV 8 MM $ (less than 1 percent).
Average annual timber production declined .2 MMCF (1 percent) in
the first decade, while LTSY remained unchanged. Selected
suitable timber land was 560,000 acres.
Harvest and
Roading
Patterns
The feasibility of implementing the timber management part of the
FORPLAN solutions was examined with respect to the acres of
commercial thinning (CT) programmed for future decades; the
distribution of harvest on low, medium, and high site lands
through time; and the trend of road construction and
reconstruction.
Constraining CT acres to only 4,500 per decade resulted in a
reduction in first decade timber production from 32.4 MMCF to 31.4
MMCF (3 percent). Because this extreme constraint resulted in
only 3 percent change, and the acres of CT in future decades has
little or no effect on current implementation, constraints for CT
acres were not included in the data sets for future runs.
Examination of the distribution of harvests over the productivity
groups indicated that FORPLAN would harvest only high and medium
sites for the first few decades and then harvest most low sites in
the fifth through the seventh. A more realistic schedule for
implementation would include some of all site groups in each
decade. A constraint was installed to force harvest of a minimum
of 3,000 acres of low site per decade in the early decades. This
B-161

esulted in no appreciable change in timber outputs and was
installed in all future runs.
Initial FORPLAN runs selected acres for harvest that had lowest
road costs in the first decades and then those with higher costs
in subsequent decades resulting in a trend of increasing road
costs over decades one through six after dropping well below the
current level in the first. This is not realistic for
implementation as acres with low cost per volume could not be
singled out in a logical harvesting pattern. A constraint was
installed to prevent increasing roading costs over the first six
decades. This resulted in no appreciable change in the timber
outputs and was used in future runs.
In addition to these constraints, there was also some minor
refinement of the economic data for road construction,
reconstruction, and maintenance to be used in future analysis.
The net effects of the changes in the model for these
implementation feasibility constraints and the data refinements
can be seen by comparing the following runs. These changes will
be carried into the analysis of alternatives.
Runs compared: B30-1 (PNV 1,300.55 MM $)
A09-1 (PNV 1,276.25 MM $)
Change:
-24.3 MM $ (1.87 percent reduction)
Timber production for these runs was nearly identical with first
decade harvest going from 32.4 MMCF to 32.3 MMCF, and LTSY going
from 53.2 MMCF to 51.9 MMCF. Since these data refinements and
feasibility constraints resulting from the knowledge gained during
the benchmark analysis are carried into all of the alternatives,
Run A09-1 will be used for the Max PNV Benchmark in the tradeoff
analysis done with the alternatives.
B-162

FORMULATION A Forest planning alternative is a mix of management prescriptions
OF
applied in specific amounts and locations to achieve a desired
ALTERNATIVES management emphasis as expressed in goals and objectives. To be
viable (NFMA, 36 CFR 219.12f), the alternative must:
INTRODUCTION
- exist between maximum and minimum resource potential of the
Forest.
- facilitate analysis of opportunity costs and of resource use
and environmental tradeoffs among alternatives.
- facilitate evaluation of PNV, benefits, and costs of
achieving various outputs as well as values that are not
assigned monetary values.
- show a different way to address and respond to major public
issues, management concerns, and development (ICO's).
- represent the most cost efficient combination of management
prescriptions that can meet the objectives of the
alternative.
- state the condition and uses that will result from
implementation.
- state what goods and services will be produced including
timing and flow of outputs and the costs and benefits
generated.
- state the resource management standards and guidelines used.
- state the purpose of the management direction used.
Formulating alternatives was step five in the Forest planning
process following the analysis of the management situation.
During the analysis of the management situation a determination
was made of the ability of the Forest to supply goods and
services. Maximum and minimum output levels were established
based on the composite results of benchmarks and constraint
analyses. These levels form the range within which the
alternatives were developed. Five specific alternatives are
required. Alternative A was developed to reflect the expected
level of goods and services that could be produced should current
management be continued (the "No Action" alternative).
Alternative B was developed to respond to and incorporate the RPA
program tentative resource objectives. Goods and services that
have value, as determined in the open market, are emphasized in
Alternative D. Alternative E was developed to favor the
production of goods and services that do not necessarily have
market determined values, such as dispersed recreation use.
Alternative E also satisfied the fifth requirement retaining the
unroaded portions of the Forest in an undeveloped status while
continuing commodity production at a high level in those areas
already roaded.
The process for formulating alternatives can best be explained in
a series of steps.
Step 1. Major public issues were identified through public
involvement. Internal management concerns were added to the list
of issues (further explained in Appendix A of the DEIS). These
B-163

issues and concerns were reviewed by an IDT and consolidated into
a set of planning problems to be addressed.
Step 2. A comprehensive multi-resource data base was formed based
on the identified issues and concerns and stored in a computer
retrieval system.
Step 3. Land analysis areas with similar physical and biological
attributes were identified and mapped. The capability,
suitability, and management opportunities of specific areas of the
Forest were considered in this step.
Step 4. A set of management prescriptions was prepared to
represent a variety of possible ways and intensities to manage the
Forest.
Step 5. The 317 analysis areas identified in Step 4 were assigned
management prescriptions that could be applied optionally to build
the alternatives. Analysis areas, except those allocated by
higher authority (e.g., previously designated Botanical areas),
were assigned at least two prescriptions including minimum level.
Most of the lands available and suitable for timber production
were assigned a variety of prescriptions that could be applied.
Step 6. Resource outputs and the associated costs and dollar
values that would result when a prescription was implemented were
calculated and entered into the computer model FORPLAN.
Step 7. Demand was estimated for the resources involved in the
planning problems.
Step 8. Supply potentials were determined. Various assumptions,
constraints, and objectives were used to establish benchmarks for
supply potentials of each resource. Benchmarks were established
for the minimum, maximum, and constraint analysis levels and
maximum PNV. Existing resource supply and projected demand were
compared to supply potentials of each benchmark. Opportunities to
resolve issues and management concerns were identified for each
resource by comparing existing and projected demand to potential
production levels. These potentials, when compared to the Current
Direction, indicate opportunities and/or need for change. This
step concluded the analysis of the management situation -
benchmark analysis.
Step 9. Alternative objectives were established to provide a
broad range of options for future management of the Forest.
Selected benchmarks were used to define upper and lower limits for
the production of each resource. These upper and lower limits
outlined the decision space boundaries for the resources
involved. The IDT considered expected use, supply potential
(upper and lower limits), and evaluated public input to establish
the range of alternatives within the decision spaces.
Descriptions were written to define the resource management intent
for each alternative.
B-164

Step 10. The FORPLAN model was again used to estimate the outputs
and costs for each alternative by reflecting the theme of the
alternative through a given set of objectives and constraints.
Step 11. The results of the FORPLAN analysis for each alternative
were evaluated to assure conformance with laws, policies, and
guidelines, and to assure that each alternative could be
implemented.
The IDT incorporated cost efficiency at several steps in the
planning process. Prescriptions were developed using least cost
methods that would meet the objectives of the prescription. For
the timber resource additional analysis was done to develop a
range of management intensity levels within each timber
prescription. The IDT developed a range of alternatives and
identified the necessary constraints to address specific
objectives and planning problems. The prescriptions were combined
with the land assignments and constraints to form alternatives
that would most efficiently accomplish the goals and objectives
for the specific alternative. Each alternative was analyzed
through FORPLAN to identify the most efficient prescriptions and
intensities for the given objectives and constraints, and to
project the stream of anticipated priced and nonpriced outputs.
The feasibility of satisfying the package of constraints for each
alternative is also checked with FORPLAN. All constraints must be
satisfied or a feasible solution will not be reported. Using this
combination of least cost prescriptions, FORPLAN analysis of
prescription options with the PNV objective function, and
efficient design of land assignments and constraints; cost
efficient solutions in accordance with the themes of individual
alternatives are assured.
COMMON
CONSTRAINTS
The constraints developed in the analysis of the management
situation formed the basis for constraints applied to all
alternatives. The development of these constraints culminated in
FORPLAN run A09-1, Max PNV with the alternative data set. The
result is somewhat different than the Max PNV benchmark due to the
constraints that were developed during the benchmark analysis to
assure that alternatives would be implementable. Throughout the
benchmark and tradeoff analysis common constraints were developed,
examined, and tested to see how well they addressed their stated
purpose. They also represent the most cost efficient approach to
meeting the intended purpose. These constraints were discussed
previously in this appendix. The following constraints are common
to all alternatives, and to run A09-1. The tradeoff information
presented is from comparisons of applying the constraints
individually; synergistic or compensating effects are not
evaluated.
B-165

1. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
2. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
All alternatives except departures require
nondeclining yield for timber harvests (NDY).
Provides a sustained yield of timber harvests.
Assumes a constant supply or upward trend in
timber supply.
PNV reduced 7.5 percent, first decade ASQ
reduced 35 percent.
Insure an appropriate level of timber
inventory at the end of the planning horizon
(LTSY link).
To assure that harvestable timber will be
available in the decades immediately following
the end of the planning horizon.
Assure a future sustained yield of timber
harvest.
Not evaluated.
Minimum timber rotations are based on 95
percent of the CMAI for existing and
regenerated stands (except Alternative DI).
Assure that timber stands generally reach
their maximum mean annual growth rate prior to
harvest.
Provide rotation ages that maintain high
productivity and meet the requirements of 36
CFR 219.16(a)(2)(iii).
PNV reduced 4.3 percent, first decade ASQ
reduced 14 percent, LTSY increased 7.8
percent.
Limit created openings to 20 percent, or less,
of watershed basins per decade. (Except some
alternatives which have more stringent
constraints.)
Disperse harvest among the basins to assure
that basic soil productivity, water quality,
fisheries objectives, and legal size of
opening requirements are maintained.
Soil, water, and fisheries resources must be
maintained at legally defined levels.
Not evaluated independently; applied in
concert with the following riparian area
constraint (5).
5. Constraint: Riparian zones are protected by limiting
timber harvest to 11 percent of the riparian
area acres per decade by planning basin; and
by reducing projected timber yield to 50
percent of inventoried volume per acre on
Class III streams, and 20 percent on Class I
and Hs (Riparian Prescription option B).
B-166

Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
6. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
7. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Tradeoff:
8. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Protect the areas that are most critical to a
wide range of resources including timber,
wildlife and fish, recreation, and water.
Riparian ecosystems require special attention
to assure that no practices will cause
detrimental changes in water quality.
(Riparian Prescription option B affords the
minimum legal protection.)
Not evaluated independently. In combination
with the created openings constraint above
(4), PNV reduced 15.2 percent, first decade
ASQ reduced 13 percent.
All alternatives except No Change require a
minimum of 26 M acres of mature and old-growth
habitat maintained on the suitable timber base
Forest-wide.
Maintain viable wildlife populations of
species dependent on mature and old-growth
habitats.
These habitats would not be maintained with
the dispersion needed to maintain minimum
viable populations without this constraint.
PNV reduced 8.3 percent, first decade ASQ
reduced 7 percent.
Low Productivity Group harvest in early
decades.
Force harvest of some Low Productivity Group
acres in early decades.
The model would put off all harvest in low
site until later decades without this
constraint. The productivity groups are
somewhat interspersed and logical project
layout will occasionally include some low
site. This constraint forces a mix of
productivity groups in all decades
representing a more logically implementable
solution.
No appreciable effect.
Roading costs are constrained to not increase
from decade to decade for the first six
decades.
This produces more implementable solutions.
Without this constraint, the model selects
acres for harvest in early decades that have
low road costs in proportion to the volume
harvested. Given the distribution of these
acres, this was not feasible to implement.
This constraint forces a better balance of
road costs and volume outputs spread over the
decades when road development would occur.
B-167

Tradeoff Timber outputs are not affected. PNV is
reduced by 1.9 percent.
DEVELOPMENT
OF THE
ALTERNATIVES
Following the definition of the alternatives, the criteria and
assumptions of each were translated into the land assignments,
capital investment schedules, and modeling objectives and
constraints necessary to represent the alternative in the FORPLAN
model. Complete descriptions of the alternatives, including the
objectives, land assignments and capital investment schedules, are
found in Chapter II of the DEIS. The modeling constraints
specific to each alternative are presented in this section.
Each alternative was formulated and run in the FORPLAN model as a
package. Iterative runs to quantify the effects (tradeoffs) of
individual constraints within the alternative formulation were not
made. The greatest differences among the alternatives are
generally associated with the land assignments which were modeled
by applying constraints requiring a minimum number of acres to be
assigned to Partial Retention, Retention, Riparian, or Minimum
Level prescriptions. Management Area 10 (Scenic/Recreation River)
acres are assigned to the Retention FORPLAN prescription for
alternatives that allow programmed timber harvest from these
areas. The Minimum Level FORPLAN prescription was used for all
acres that would not have programmed timber outputs (i.e.
Management Areas 1 through 9 and unsuitable lands). Differences
in other resource yields associated with these assignments that
were not a function of timber activity or age were directly
entered for each alternative. Unconstrained suitable timber acres
were allowed to go to the General Forest prescription. In all
cases, the Minimum Level option was allowed for all acres.
Alternative
NC
Goals. The goals of this alternative are to continue management
direction as set out in previous plans, and that included in
existing policies, standards, and guidelines. It does not include
all MMR's developed for old-growth indicator species (pileated
woodpeckers and pine martens). The spotted owl MMR areas are
limited to 300 acre SOMA's. This is the "no change" alternative.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production is increased over time, not to exceed the
LTSY. Timber merchantability standards, yield tables, and
inventory data are updated to current and/or proposed
standards. Tentatively suitable timber land inventory was
updated according to Regional direction.
2. Wildlife MMR's, developed for old-growth dependent species,
are not included.
3. The entire complement of inventoried VQO's from the land use
plans are included.
B-168

4. Management options for candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers will
be maintained as per current direction.
5. Riparian areas will be managed under Prescription option B
(current Siskiyou riparian policy).
6. A moderate rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints.
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level 46,850
Retention
Partial Retention
33,115
145,019
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to those of current plans.
Represent the no action alternative with
current direction land assignments.
3. Constraint: Hardwood conversion not to exceed 7,500 acres
in any decade.
Purpose: Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
Rationale: When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Alternative
A
Goals. The goals of this alternative are to continue management
direction as set out in previous plans, and that included in
existing policies, standards, and guidelines. It also includes
the MMR's of current laws and regulations. This is the "No
Action" alternative required by NEPA.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production is increased over time, not to exceed the
LTSY. Timber merchantability standards, yield tables, and
inventory data are updated to current and/or proposed
standards. Tentatively suitable timber land inventory was
updated according to Regional direction.
2. Wildlife MMR's, which were not required by law when previous
plans were completed, are included.
3. The entire complement of inventoried VQO's from the land use
plans are included.
4. Management options for candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers will
be maintained as per current direction.
B-169

5. Riparian areas will be managed under Prescription option B
(current Siskiyou riparian policy).
6. A moderate rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints.
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
46,850
33,115
145,019
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to those of current plans.
Represent the no action alternative with
current direction land assignments.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 7,500 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Alternative
A-Departure
Goals. The goals of this alternative are similar to Alternative
A. It would continue management direction as set out in previous
plans, and that included in existing policies, standards, and
guidelines. It also includes the MMR's of current laws and
regulations. In addition, it would maintain the current level of
timber outputs for the next two decades.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production must equal 31.2 MMCF ASQ for the first two
decades. It is allowed to decrease in the third and fourth
decades, then holds steady or increases over following
decades. Timber merchantability standards, yield tables, and
inventory data are updated to current and/or proposed
standards. Tentatively suitable timber land inventory was
updated according to Regional direction.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The entire complement of inventoried VQO's from the land use
plans are included.
4. Management options for candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers will
be maintained as per current direction.
B-170

5. Riparian areas will be managed under Prescription option B
(current Siskiyou riparian policy).
6. A moderate rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except 1 NDY released first and fifth
decades.
2. Constraint:
Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level 46,850
Retention 33,115
Partial Retention 145,019
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
5. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
6. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to those of current plans.
Represent the no action alternative with
current direction land assignments.
Harvest volume equal to 31.2 MMCF decades 1
and 2, and 30.3 decade 3.
Produce current timber outputs for two decades
and then provide transition to floor described
below
Releasing NDY without these constraints would
result in a more radical departure. These
constraints provide the moderate departure and
smooth transition desired for the alternative.
Floor of 29.4 MMCF.
Avoid fluctuating harvest schedule following
the departure.
This level was determined from the base run as
that which could be maintained following the
departure until the swing up toward LTSY.
Minimum LTSY set at 52.7 MMCF.
LTSY of departure must be equal to or greater
than LTSY of the base run.
Satisfy requirement.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 7,500 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
B-171

Alternative
B
Goals. This alternative is formulated to meet RPA targets.
Timber and fish outputs are the hardest to achieve so this
alternative is built from a land assignment which emphasizes
timber and fisheries management. Targets for other resources are
met coincidentally without additional emphasis, or are achieved
through increasing capital investments. Fisheries also has a high
level of capital investment programmed. In addition to the land
assignment, it is also necessary to depart from NDY to achieve the
timber target for the first two decades.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production must equal 36.8 MMCF ASQ for the first two
decades. It is allowed to decrease in the third, fourth, and
fifth decades, then holds steady or increases over following
decades.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's would only be allocated
in the highest priority viewsheds.
4. Six Planning Basins with high fisheries potential would be
allocated to Riparian option C.
5. A high rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #1 NDY released decades 1 - 5.
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
47,078
6,817
77,969
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas
allocated for fisheries and minor allocations
to other Management Areas which do not allow
timber management. Also to constrain harvest
on the areas with allocated VQO's.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Harvest volume equal to 36.8 MMCF decades 1
and 2, 33.0 decade 3, and 28.0 decade 4.
Produce timber outputs at the RPA target level
for two decades and then provide transition to
floor described below
B-172

Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
5. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
6. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
7. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
These constraints provide the target timber
outputs and smooth transition to the floor
level.
Floor of 25.0 MMCF.
Avoid fluctuating harvest schedule with
extreme low points following the departure.
This level is 80 percent of the current output
and it was determined from the base run that
it could be maintained following the departure
until the swing up toward LTSY.
Minimum LTSY set at 54.8 MMCF.
LTSY of departure must be equal to or greater
than LTSY of the base run.
Satisfy requirement.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 14,000 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Riparian areas constrained to Prescription
option C in Basins 01, 04, 05, 07, 13, and
16. Also limited created openings to Basin
specific constraints (9 to 13 percent) in
these Basins in lieu of common constraint #4.
Increase fish production capability in these
Basins to achieve RPA fish targets.
Affording more habitat protection through the
prescription option and harvest dispersion
results in increased fish outputs as well as
increased benefits from the capital
investments.
Alternative
C
Goals. Alternative C is designed to provide the highest
sustainable level of timber outputs from the Forest. It includes
minimal allocations for other resources beyond MMR's.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production will be relatively unconstrained beyond
MMR's, general multiple use considerations and NDY.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. Only the highest priority viewsheds have VQO's allocated and
in these areas the Retention acres are reduced to Partial
Retention. The only acres managed for Retention would be the
Scenic/Recreation Rivers.
B-173

4. Riparian areas will be managed under Prescription option B.
5. A high rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints.
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level 39,523
Retention 3,361
Partial Retention 67,657
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to meet MMR's and minimal allocations to other
resource emphasis.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
3. Constraint: Hardwood conversion not to exceed 14,000 acres
in any decade.
Purpose: Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
Rationale: When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Alternative Goals. This alternative is formulated to emphasize the production
D of goods and services that have market values. It is similar to
the RPA alternative (B) except that it has NDY (actually the base
run for Alternative B).
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be at a high level under NDY.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's would only be allocated
in the highest priority viewsheds.
4. Six Planning Basins with high fisheries potential would be
allocated to Riparian Prescription option C.
5. A high rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
B-174

1. All common constraints.
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
47,078
6,817
77,969
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas
allocated for fisheries and minor allocations
to other Management Areas which do not allow
timber management. Also to constrain harvest
on the areas with allocated VQO's.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 14,000 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Riparian areas constrained to Prescription
option C in Basins 01, 04, 05, 07, 13, and
16. Also limited created openings to Basin
specific constraints (9 to 13 percent) in
these Basins in lieu of common constraint #4.
Increase fish production capability in these
Basins.
Affording more habitat protection through the
prescription option and harvest dispersion
results in increased fish outputs.
Alternative
DI
Goals. This alternative is very similar to Alternative D. It
also emphasizes the production of goods and services that have
market values. It differs in that it further emphasizes
short-term timber outputs by allowing rotations shorter than 95
percent of CMAI.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be at a high level under NDY, with
short rotations allowed.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's would only be allocated
in the highest priority viewsheds.
B-175

4. Six Planning Basins with high fisheries potential would be
allocated to Riparian Prescription option C.
5. A high rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except 3, minimum timber rotations at
95 percent of CMAI.
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
47,078
6,817
77,969
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
5. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas
allocated for fisheries and minor allocations
to other Management Areas which do not allow
timber management. Also to constrain harvest
on the areas with allocated VQO's.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 14,000 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Riparian areas constrained to Prescription
option C in Basins 01, 04, 05, 07, 13, and
16. Also limited created openings to Basin
specific constraints (9 to 13 percent) in
these Basins in lieu of common constraint #4.
Increase fish production capability in these
Basins.
Affording more habitat protection through the
prescription option and harvest dispersion
results in increased fish outputs.
Minimum timber rotations are set at two
decades prior to reaching 95 percent of CMAI.
Allow a higher rate of harvest.
This approach would allow the Forest to
produce more timber in the early decades
without a decline in yield in future decades.
It provides another way of addressing the
timber supply issue without departing from
NDY.
B-176

Alternative
E
Goals. This alternative emphasizes aesthetic and other
nonmarket values. All of the unroaded areas would remain
undeveloped.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be subordinate to other resource
allocations.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's would be allocated in all
viewsheds.
4. Riparian areas would not have programmed timber harvest.
5. No hardwood conversion would be allowed.
6. Areas with special resource values, such as sensitive plants,
wildlife habitat, and supplemental fish and watershed
protection zones, would not have programmed timber harvest.
7. Candidate rivers would be recommended for Wild and Scenic
River designation.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #4 and #5. (#4 is made more
stringent below and #5 is made unnecessary by the land
assignment.)
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
318,470
16,973
94,202
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas,
areas with special resource values, Wild
Rivers, and wildlife habitat areas which do
not allow timber management. Hardwood stands
and riparian acres are assigned to Minimum
Level. Also harvest is constrained on the
areas with allocated VQO's. Scenic and
Recreation River acres are included in
Retention.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Created openings limited to Basin specific
constraints (9 to 13 percent) in lieu of
common constraint #4.
B-177

Alternative
G
Purpose:
Rationale:
Provide better dispersion of harvest
activities across the Basins.
Lessen the risks to soil, watershed and
fisheries resources by evening out peaks in
ground disturbing activities.
Goals. This alternative emphasizes the protection and enhancement
of the Forest's nontimber resources, particularly the water
related resources associated with the rivers and streams. It
favors unroaded recreation and a high level of visual quality
management.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be at a high level for those areas
not allocated to other management emphases.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's would be allocated for
all viewsheds.
4. All Planning Basins would be allocated to Riparian
Prescription option C.
5. A low rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
6. Some areas with special resource values, such as sensitive
plants, wildlife habitat, and supplemental fish and watershed
protection zones, would not have programmed timber harvest.
7. Candidate rivers would be recommended for Wild and Scenic
River designation.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #4 and #5. (#4 is made more
stringent below and #5 is changed to Riparian Prescription
option C.)
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Purpose:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
177,519
19,085
115,040
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource areas,
areas with special resource values, Wild
Rivers, and wildlife habitat areas which do
not allow timber management. Also harvest is
constrained on the areas with allocated
B-178

Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
VQO's. Scenic and Recreation River acres are
included in Retention.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Created openings limited to Basin specific
constraints (9 to 13 percent) in lieu of
common constraint #4.
Provide better dispersion of harvest
activities across the Basins.
Lessen the risks to soil, watershed and
fisheries resources by evening out peaks in
ground disturbing activities.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 4,000 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Alternative
K
Goals. This alternative is designed to produce a wide range of
resource outputs. It produces a moderate level of timber outputs
with some land assigned to other resource emphasis.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be at a moderate to high level under
NDY.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's
in the highest priority viewsheds.
priority viewsheds have allocations
would only be allocated
Some of the moderate
to Partial Retention.
4. Planning Basin 01 would be allocated to Prescription
Option C.
5. A moderate rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
6. Some areas with special resource values, such as sensitive
plants, wildlife habitat, and supplemental fish and watershed
protection zones, would not have programmed timber harvest.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #4. (#4 is made more stringent
below.)
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
B-179

Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
72,531
7,155
97,253
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
5. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas,
areas with special resource values, and
wildlife habitat areas which do not allow
timber management. Also harvest is
constrained on the areas with allocated
VQO's. Scenic and Recreation River acres are
included in Retention.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Created openings limited to Basin specific
constraints (9 to 13 percent) in lieu of
common constraint #4.
Provide better dispersion of harvest
activities across the Basins.
Lessen the risks to soil, watershed and
fisheries resources by evening out peaks in
ground disturbing activities.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 7,500 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Riparian areas constrained to prescription
option C in Basin 01.
Increase fish production capability in this
Basin.
Affording more habitat protection through the
prescription option results in increased fish
outputs.
Alternative
K-Departure
Goals. This alternative is identical to Alternative K except that
it departs from NDY to produce the current level of timber outputs
for the first decade.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be at the current output level (31.2
MMCF) for the first decade, then decline slowly to a floor of
25.0 MMCF ASQ in decades 4 and 5 before climbing toward LTSY
in the sixth and following decades.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
B-180

3. The full range of inventoried VQO's
in the highest priority viewsheds.
priority viewsheds have allocations
would only be allocated
Some of the moderate
to Partial Retention.
4. Planning Basin 01 would be allocated to Prescription Option
C.
5. A moderate rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
6. Some areas with special resource values, such as sensitive
plants, wildlife habitat, and supplemental fish and watershed
protection zones, would not have programmed timber harvest.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #1 and #4. (#4 is made more
stringent below.)
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
72,531
7, 155
97,253
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas,
areas with special resource values, and
wildlife habitat areas which do not allow
timber management. Also harvest is
constrained on the areas with allocated
VQO's. Scenic and Recreation River acres are
included in Retention.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Created openings limited to Basin specific
constraints (9 to 13 percent) in lieu of
common constraint #4.
Provide better dispersion of harvest
activities across the Basins.
Lessen the risks to soil, watershed and
fisheries resources by evening out peaks in
ground disturbing activities.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 7,500 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
5. Constraint: Riparian areas constrained to Prescription
option C in Basin 01.
B-181

Purpose:
Rationale:
6. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
7. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
8. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Increase fish production capability in this
Basin.
Affording more habitat protection through the
prescription option results in increased fish
outputs.
Harvest volume equal to 31.2 MMCF decade 1,
30.8 MMCF decade 2, and 28.1 MMCF decade 3.
Produce current timber outputs for first
decade and then provide transition to floor
described below.
Releasing NDY without these constraints would
result in a more radical departure. These
constraints provide the moderate departure and
smooth transition desired for the alternative.
Floor of 25.0 MMCF.
Avoid fluctuating harvest schedule with
extreme low points following the departure.
This level is 80 percent of the current output
and it was determined from the base run that
it could be maintained following the departure
until the swing up toward LTSY.
Minimum LTSY set at 48.8 MMCF.
LTSY of departure must be equal to or greater
than LTSY of the base run.
Satisfy requirement.
Alternative
L
Goals. This alternative is designed to achieve a blend of
resource management that will satisfy the resolution of the
Planning Problems with the emphasis on resources other than
timber. Allocations to other emphases are made judiciously to
minimize the tradeoff with timber production.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be at a low to moderate level under
NDY.
2. Wildlife MMR's are included.
3. The full range of inventoried VQO's would only be allocated
in seven viewsheds. Nine of the remaining viewsheds have
allocations to Partial Retention.
4. Planning Basins 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10, 13, 16, and
19 would be allocated to Prescription Option C.
5. A moderate rate of hardwood conversion would be allowed.
B-182

6. Many areas with special resource values, such as sensitive
plants, wildlife habitat, and supplemental fish and watershed
protection zones, would not have programmed timber harvest.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #4. (#4 is made more stringent
below.)
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Purpose:
Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
5. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Allocated Minimum Level
Retention
Partial Retention
134,026
8,666
95,088
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas,
areas with special resource values, and
wildlife habitat areas which do not allow
timber management. Also harvest is
constrained on the areas with allocated
VQO's. Scenic and Recreation River acres are
included in Retention.
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Created openings limited to Basin specific
constraints (9 to 13 percent) in lieu of
common constraint #4.
Provide better dispersion of harvest
activities across the Basins.
Lessen the risks to soil, watershed and
fisheries resources by evening out peaks in
ground disturbing activities.
Hardwood conversion not to exceed 7,500 acres
in any decade.
Limit conversion acres to a level consistent
with the theme of the alternative.
When not constrained, FORPLAN sometimes
scheduled large blocks of hardwood acres in a
single decade.
Riparian areas constrained to Prescription
Option C in Basins 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09,
10, 13, 16, 19.
Increase fish production capability in these
Basins.
Affording more habitat protection through the
prescription option results in increased fish
outputs.
B-183

Alternative Goals. This alternative emphasizes preservation rather than
M human use of the resources. All unroaded areas would remain
undeveloped. Areas not accessed by current roads would not be
managed for timber production. Areas selected for timber
production would be managed on a long rotation to mimic natural
stands.
Criteria and Assumptions. The criteria and assumptions underlying
the development of this alternative are:
1. Timber production would be subordinate to other resource
allocations. Minimum rotation length is 250 years.
2. New access roads would not be built.
3. Wildlife MMR's are included.
4. The full range of inventoried VQO's would be allocated in all
viewsheds.
5. Riparian areas would not have programmed timber harvest.
6. No hardwood conversion would be allowed.
7. Areas with special resource values, such as sensitive plants,
wildlife habitat, and supplemental fish and watershed
protection zones, would not have programmed timber harvest.
8. Candidate rivers would be recommended for Wild and Scenic
River designation.
The constraints used to meet the criteria and assumptions are:
1. All common constraints except #4 and #5. (#4 is made more
stringent below, and #5 is made unnecessary by the land
assignment.)
2. Constraint: Constrained available suitable acres:
Purpose:
Allocated Minimum Level 371,438
Retention 105,004
Constrain acres with timber management options
to allow for the Supplemental Resource Areas,
areas with special resource values, Wild
Rivers, and wildlife habitat areas which do
not allow timber management. Hardwood stands,
acres not accessible by existing roads, and
riparian acres are assigned to Minimum Level.
Also, harvest is constrained on the areas with
allocated VQO's. Scenic and Recreation River
acres are included in Retention.
B-184

Rationale:
3. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
4. Constraint:
Purpose:
Rationale:
Represent the land assignment designed to
accomplish the goals of the alternative.
Created openings limited to Basin specific
constraints (9 to 13 percent) in lieu of
common constraint #4.
Provide better dispersion of harvest
activities across the Basins.
Lessen the risks to soil, watershed and
fisheries resources by evening out peaks in
ground disturbing activities.
All acres with timber management allowed are
assigned to the Retention prescription in
FORPLAN.
Access the Retention yield tables with minimum
rotations of 250 years.
This provides for the long rotation required
by the definition of this alternative.
B-185

SUMMARY OF
EFFECTS
OVERVIEW
A comparative analysis between alternatives and benchmarks is the
basis for evaluating alternatives and selecting a preferred
alternative. This section displays the differences between
alternatives, their outputs, constraints, foregone opportunities,
and economic efficiencies. For additional information, refer to
the previous sections of this appendix and Chapter IV of the DEIS.
First, the process for evaluating constraints is discussed. Then,
the different responses of alternatives to the Planning Problems
are compared. Last of all, the explanations for different
economic benefits among alternatives are presented and compared
with the differences in outputs and effects.
PROCESS FOR
EVALUATING
SIGNIFICANT
CONSTRAINTS
Management objectives of benchmarks and alternatives were achieved
by constraining the FORPLAN model as described in previous
sections. The opportunity costs of individual objectives were
determined by calculations comparing the FORPLAN solution which
achieves a specific objective with a solution which does not
(usually the Max PNV Benchmark). When all other objectives are
the same, the difference in outputs and effects are the
opportunity costs of achieving the objective when both solutions
have the same choice of prescriptions.
Opportunity costs were not determined for individual elements of
alternatives using FORPLAN because of the prohibitive costs of
analyzing every constraint used to develop alternatives. However,
the economic tradeoffs of sets of constraints were determined by
comparing alternatives, benchmarks, and sensitivity analysis
runs. This information was then used to identify the opportunity
costs associated with land allocations, objective functions, and
riparian prescriptions (see tables at end of section).
Incremental changes in PNV and the timber production opportunities
are displayed for each alternative. The opportunity costs for the
recreation, fisheries, and wildlife programs are calculated using
the PNV benchmark and the alternative with the next highest PNV
for comparison. For the recreation program, changes in the budget
directly affect the opportunity costs since recreation benefits
change little between the alternatives. The fisheries opportunity
costs are a result of capital investments and riparian
prescriptions. The foregone timber harvest due to riparian
prescriptions is displayed under the timber program. For the
wildlife program, the opportunity costs are associated with the
wildlife capital investments and the benefits derived from the
amount of seral vegetation produced by the Forest.
The effects of each change in the constraints are then displayed
in order of decreasing PNV by alternatives with the nondeclining
harvest constraint.
All alternatives, including the departures (Alternatives B,
A-Departure, and K-Departure) and those with the different
rotation lengths (Alternatives Dl and M), were then examined in
order of decreasing PNV. The constraints associated with the
B-186

departure alternatives are the residual opportunity costs after
all other previously discussed opportunity costs have been
calculated. Selected suitable acres also change due to the
departure scheduling and are displayed. The opportunity costs and
selected suitable acres associated with the change in rotation
length were calculated using the same technique. The selected
suitable acres change for the departures due to the increased
flexibility when the nondeclining flow constraint is relaxed and
outputs are allowed to drop in decades 3 through 6. Allowing
shorter rotations also allows greater flexibility resulting in
fewer acres being selected. These opportunity costs and changes
in selected suitable acres associated with these variations in
harvest flow and rotation constraints are also displayed.
ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY
ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES
Comparison
of Costs and
Benefits
The purpose of this section is to display and compare the
differences in economic costs and benefits of the alternatives,
and to discuss the general reasons for these differences. More
complete discussions of the relationship between economic values
and net public benefits appear in Chapter II of the DEIS.
Table B-9 displays PNV and total discounted costs and benefits
for the alternatives and the Max PNV Benchmark. PNV is the
primary measure of economic efficiency used by the Forest
Service. It is the sum of priced benefits minus the sum of costs
for the 150-year planning horizon, discounted to the present at
the rate of four percent per year. An additional sensitivity
analysis has been completed using a discount rate of 7 1/8 percent
per year. Results of the analysis are documented in this
appendix.
The alternatives are listed in order of decreasing PNV.
Generally, both discounted costs and discounted benefits decrease
as PNV decreases. All three variables are directly related to the
level of timber harvest. As the amount of timber harvested
increases, PNV, discounted benefits, and discounted costs all
increase (and conversely decrease as timber harvest declines).
Benefits generally decline faster than benefits. PNV and level of
timber harvest range from their highest in Alternative B to their
lowest in Alternative M.
Exceptions to the relationship described above occur in
Alternatives NC, B, C and DI. Alternatives B and C were modeled
to maximize timber production. They achieve higher timber outputs
by including lands and management regimes that are less
economically desirable than those selected for alternatives
designed to maximize PNV. Alternative NC operates on the largest
suitable land base, but does not maximize timber production as do
Alternatives B and C. Alternative DI has a shorter rotation
length which increases harvest levels of existing old-growth, but
provides less benefits in the future due to the smaller diameter
of timber harvested.
B-187

Table B-9. PNV, Discounted Costs and Discounted Benefits, with
Incremental Changes between Alternatives and between Benchmarks
(MM $ discounted at four percent for 15 periods) (Alternatives and
Benchmarks are ranked in order of decreasing PNV)
Alternative
PNV
Change
Costs
MM $
Change
Benefits
Change
Max PNV
Benchmark
B
DI
NC
C
D
A-Departure
A
K-Departure
K
L
G
E
M
1,278
1,241
1,214
1,214
1,197
1,160
1,160
1,150
1,120
1,083
951
844
679
272
-37
-27
0
-17
-37
0
-10
-30
-37
-132
-107
-165
-407
785
800
792
732
817
780
743
736
718
709
639
577
517
330
+15
-8
-61
+85
-37
-37
-7
-18
-9
-70
-62
-60
-187
2,062
2,041
2,006
1,946
2,013
1,940
1,903
1,885
1,838
1,792
1,589
1,421
1,196
602
-21
-35
-61
+68
-73
-37
-18
-47
-46
-203
-168
-225
-594
Benchmark
Max PNV jj 1,301
-25
727
59
2,028
34
Max Timber 1,276 786 2,062
-67 -105 -172
Max Fish/ 1,209 681 1,890
Watershed -4 18 14
Max Visuals 1,205 699 1,904
-35 -11 -46
Current 1,170 688 1,858
Direction -129 -55 -185
Max Wildlife 1,041 633 1,673
-88 -50 -136
Max Unroaded 953 583 1,537
-35 -8 -44
Max Recreation 918 575 1,493
j/ Change in PNV Benchmark as described in this appendix under
Analysis Prior to Development of Alternatives.
B-188

Benefits associated with nonmarket goods, such as recreation, do
not vary as much between the alternatives as do the timber
benefits. Recreational benefits are very similar between
alternatives due to existing excess capacity compared to present
and near-future use. Fisheries benefits increase with increased
capital improvements and increased protection due to riparian
prescriptions. With increased vegetative diversity, wildlife
benefits also increase. Benefits associated with minerals
production are presently not quantified except for recreational
mining and mineral use fees. The mineral benefits could become
greater in the future if the demand for minerals increases.
Table B-10 displays PNV and discounted benefits for the major
resources, and Table B-li displays discounted costs. Timber is
the main component of PNV, discounted costs and discounted
benefits. Wilderness accounts for less than four percent of all
three variables in all of the alternatives.
Direct comparisons of benefits and costs displayed for individual
resource outputs provide general indications of relationships.
However, many activities of multiple use forestry have common
costs and benefits, and cannot be exclusively separated and
attributed to individual resources. For example, clearcut
harvests produce additional forage while decreasing cover which
changes the population of big-game animals with subsequent effects
on wildlife benefits.
B-189

Table B-10. PNV and Discounted Benefits by Major Resource, by
Alternative (MM $ discounted at four percent for 15 periods)
(Alternatives and Benchmarks are ranked in order of decreasing
PNV)
MM $
Discounted Benefits
Wild- Wild-
Alternative PNV Timber Recreation Fish life erness Misc.
Max PNV
Benchmark
B
DI
NC
C
D
A-Departure
A
K-Departure
K
L
G
E
M
1,278
1,241
1,214
1,214
1,197
1,160
1,160
1,150
1,120
1,083
951
844
679
272
1,712
1,691
1,666
1,614
1,674
1,601
1,572
1,554
1,499
1,454
1,262
1,092
871
286
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
106
104
96
90
92
96
90
90
101
101
92
98
97
98
55 10 3
58 10 3
55 10 3
53 10 3
59 10 3
54 10 3
53 10 3
52 10 3
50 10 3
50 10 3
46 10 3
43 10 3
39 10 3
29 10 3
Benchmark
Max PNV A/
Max Timber
Max Fish/
Watershed
Max Visuals
Current
Direction
Max Wildlife
Max Unroaded
Max Recreation
1,301 1,716
1,276 1,732
1,209
1,205
1,170
1,041
953
1,562
1,582
1,536
1,354
1,221
918 1,177
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
75 / 48 10
83 59 10
88 52 10
83 51 10
83 50 10
83 48 10
83 45 10
83 44 10
ji Max PNV Benchmark changed as documented in this appendix under
Analysis Prior to Development of Alternatives.
A/ Fish production changed as new information on large woody
debris became available.
B-190

Table B-11. Major Resource Discounted Costs by Alternative, (MM $
discounted at four percent for 15 Periods) (Alternatives are
ranked in order of decreasing PNV) j/
Discounted Costs (MM $)
Rec- Wild- Wild- Fixed & Misc
Alternative Timber Roads 2/ reation Fish life erness Costs
Max PNV
Benchmark 378 195 12 13 2 2 181
B 415 181 12 10 3 2 177
DI 404 181 12 7 2 2 183
NC 358 162 11 7 2 1 190
C 428 187 11 8 2 3 177
D 405 172 12 7 2 2 179
A-Departure 373 162 11 7 2 1 187
A 366 162 11 7 2 1 185
K-Departure 354 153 12 9 2 2 186
K 345 153 12 9 2 2 187
L 296 135 12 5 2 2 185
G 251 107 13 8 2 1 195
E 211 88 12 7 2 1 195
M 90 16 13 8 2 1 199
A/ Costs for roads includes Forest Service and purchaser costs for
road construction and reconstruction but not maintenance.
?/ Direct comparisons of benefits and costs displayed for
individual resource outputs provide general indications of
relationships. However, many activities of multiple use
forestry have common costs and benefits, and cannot be
exclusively separated and attributed to individual resources.
Costs
Two types of costs are included in Forest management:
1) operation and maintenance, and 2) capital investment.
Operation and maintenance costs are the costs of activities
required to plan and manage outputs, and maintain existing capital
assets at standard levels. These include fixed costs such as
general administration, and variable costs which vary with
different levels of outputs. The fixed costs are constant across
all of the alternatives, whereas the variable costs differ among
alternatives. The major determinant affecting variable costs is
the quantity of timber produced; timber production generates the
analyses and project support needed to assure quality management
of the fisheries, wildlife and watershed resources.
Capital investment costs are the costs of creating or enhancing
capital assets, such as roads, trails, or fish habitat improvement
structures. Road construction costs are the main component of
capital investments; they are also a direct function of timber
harvest activity. Other capital investment costs such as fish and
wildlife vary independently of the timber program. Total costs
B-191

for alternatives vary both above and below the Current Direction
budget level of $21 MM per year.
Net Cash
Flows,
Economic
Benefits and
Costs
The following table displays average annual net cash flows, total
receipts, total costs, and noncash economic benefits, by
alternative, for the first and fifth decades. The fifth decade
is shown because it represents the RPA planning horizon, and
captures most of the changes within the alternatives that occur in
later decades. The table is interpreted below.
Average Annual Net Cash Receipts, Total Costs, Total Cash Receipts,
and Noncash Benefits for First and Fifth Decades (MM $)
MM $/Decade
Net Cash Total Total Noncash
Receipts Cost Receipts Benefits
Decade Decade Decade Decade
Alternative First Fifth First Fifth First Fifth First Fifth
B 43.0 25.0 24.9 26.0 67.9 51.0 8.8 10.8
DI 38.2 29.8 23.1 27.0 61.3 56.8 8.6 10.4
NC 36.0 41.1 21.0 27.1 57.0 68.2 8.6 10.2
A-Departure 35.8 35.4 21.6 27.3 57.4 62.7 8.6 10.2
K-Departure 34.5 27.0 22.4 24.4 56.9 51.4 8.7 10.5
A 34.1 37.8 21.1 27.1 55.3 64.9 8.6 10.2
C 32.1 45.3 26.3 27.9 58.4 73.2 8.6 9.9
D 31.6 42.0 24.2 26.2 55.8 68.2 8.5 10.3
K 29.0 35.8 21.6 24.5 50.6 60.3 8.7 10.5
L 24.2 26.7 19.4 22.5 43.6 49.2 8.6 10.2
G 20.1 20.5 17.8 20.7 37.9 41.2 8.6 10.5
E 13.2 12.6 16.7 18.4 29.9 31.0 8.7 10.4
M -1.4 -0.9 12.2 13.0 10.8 12.1 8.7 10.5
Annual net cash receipts are total Forest receipts minus total
Forest costs. This economic indicator, like the others discussed
earlier, varies directly with the level of timber outputs. Net
cash flow is positive for all of the alternatives with the
exception of Alternative M. In this alternative the costs of
operating and maintaining the Forest are greater than the receipts
from selling timber and other outputs.
The alternatives are listed in order of decreasing first decade
net cash flows. The ranking of the alternatives is somewhat
different than under the decreasing PNV ranking. The primary
difference is that the departure alternatives have higher first
decade net cash flows because they harvest more timber in the
first decade. Alternatives C and D (which have higher PNV for 15
decades than Alternatives A-Departure and K-Departure) are modeled
somewhat differently than the other alternatives. They have
higher costs because they include less economically desirable
lands and practices in order to increase overall timber outputs.
Net cash flows for the other alternatives follow the same pattern
as that for PNV.
B-192

Economic benefits are reported in two columns: As total receipts
and as noncash benefits. Total receipts are money that the Forest
receives from the sale of products and uses. They include timber,
fuelwood, developed recreation, river permit fees, range fees,
special use permits, and power and minerals use fees. Commercial
timber sales represent approximately 99 percent of total receipts
across the alternatives, with the exception of Alternative M,
where they comprise approximately 50 percent because of reduced
harvests due to longer rotations and no additional roading.
Changes in the amount of timber sold also account for virtually
all of the differences in total receipts among the alternatives.
The other components of total receipts remain relatively constant
through all alternatives.
Noncash benefits are economic values that have been assigned to
uses of Forest resources that have value, but have not been
generally traded in a marketplace where money is exchanged. They
are based on research on individuals' willingness to pay for
certain types of experiences. The noncash benefits included in
the Siskiyou's planning model are Recreation Visitor Day (RVD) use
values for various types of wildlife, fishing, and general
recreation experiences. General recreation use does not vary much
between the alternatives due to excess capacity over existing
use. The increase shown in future decades is the result of
projections of increased demand for outdoor recreation on the
Forest. The RVD values for fishing experiences depend on the
fisheries outputs. As more fish are produced as a result of
capital investments or more restrictive riparian prescriptions,
more use is predicted. Wildlife use is modeled by projecting
increasing use with increased habitat capability for big game and
game birds.
Payments
to Counties
National Forest Funds (NFF), which comprise 25 percent of all
Forest receipts to the U. S. Treasury, are distributed to counties
based on the amount of Forest land in each county. O&C funds,
which are 50 percent of funds generated from O&C lands, are
distributed on the basis of a percentage established by Federal
law. The returns for each alternative vary (see the figure which
follows) due to the level of allowable sale quantity and land
allocation.
B-193

($NM)
18
16
14
12
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
I
NC A Ad B C D DI E 6 K Kd L M
I
ALTERNATIVES
6.8
8.8
12.4
13.9
Predicted Payments to Counties
Related
Employment
and Income
Changes
Projected changes in timber harvest, recreational use, and fish
harvest would result in changes in employment and income for the
four-county area of influence. The total employment and income
for the four-county area in 1983 was 76,000 jobs and $1.163
billion, respectively. The estimated changes in employment are
calculated using Alternative A (Current Direction) as the basis
with two base conditions for timber outputs: the last ten years'
average annual historic harvest of 128.1 MMBF and the sale
quantity for Alternative A, 162.8 MMBF. The variation among
alternatives in projected employment and income changes (see the
figures which follow) is primarily due to timber harvest related
activities. The figures represent direct, indirect, and induced
effects of producing outputs.
B-194

Predicted Effects on Jobs
Predicted Effects on Income
B-195

Alternative B has the highest projected gain in jobs and income,
while Alternatives NC, A, A-Departure, C, D, Dl, and K-Departure
project sizable increases (greater than 500 jobs and greater than
$13 MM income). Moderate increases in jobs and income are
projected for Alternative K. Alternatives G and L project
moderate decreases in jobs and incomes (less than 350 jobs and
greater than $7 MM), while Alternatives E and M have sizable
decreases in projected jobs and incomes.
Community The previous discussion has considered only the economic programs
Effects of the Forest. The social effects of the alternatives including
the effects on community stability, lifestyles, and community
cohesion are also important considerations.
Community stability is defined as minimal economic disruption due
to decline or increase in the number of jobs or income. Slow
steady growth is the desired condition for economic and social
stability. It allows for limited economic displacement of jobs
due to sudden change with steadily increasing opportunities.
Sudden economic booms are also avoided. An acceptable range for
change will be defined as a predicted increase of less than two
percent in jobs or income in the area of influence due to changes
in Forest outputs. Any decrease in present jobs or future outputs
is deemed less desirable. Within this range, the communities
would be able to readily adjust to the changes brought on by an
increase in jobs and income. If economic stagnation is prevalent,
a loss of jobs, now as in the future may require significant
community adjustment.
Of course, these communities do not operate in a vacuum and forces
other than Forest outputs influence the economic climate.
However, for this analysis, these other forces are assumed to be
constant. In general, Alternatives NC, A, C, D, DI, and K are
classified as being more desirable for community stability.
Alternatives E, G, L, M, A-Departure, B, and K-Departure are
labeled as being less desirable for community stability due to
decreases in present jobs or future outputs.
Lifestyles are a result of the economic climate and local
environment. The freedom, individualism, and security associated
with the existing local lifestyles are affected little by any
alternative except perhaps Alternative M which greatly reduces
Forest-related employment. Increases in Forest outputs could
increase personal incomes, which might provide additional security
to individuals in their chosen lifestyle, provided the economic
climate is not favoring development to the point of encroaching on
individual freedom. Alternatives NC, C, D, and Dl have the
potential to increase incomes significantly (greater than one
percent of total income in the area). Alternatives A-Departure,
B, and K-Departure would also boost income significantly in the
first decade, but would have decreased outputs in the future.
Alternatives A and K will not tend to affect incomes very
significantly (less than one percent total change in income) and
B-196

Alternatives E, G, and M have potential to decrease incomes
significantly (greater than three percent decline in total income
in the area of influence). Alternative L will have the least
effect on income as compared to the income generated by historic
harvest levels.
Community cohesion is defined as the absence of serious internal
conflicts over Forest management. As with lifestyles, community
cohesion is not affected significantly by different alternatives
due to the amount of conflict already present. The many different
opinions about Forest management can only be resolved by the
participation and communication of the parties with conflicting
opinions. Alternatives that emphasize timber production at the
expense of preservation of old-growth and unroaded areas, or favor
the preservation of old-growth and unroaded areas at the expense
of timber production may tend to accentuate the conflict over
Forest management. Alternatives NC, A-Departure, B, C, D, Dl, G,
E, L, and M then may aggravate conflict in those communities where
conflict already exists. Alternatives A, K, and K-Departure,
because they tend to continue present direction, will not solve
conflict, but should not encourage conflict beyond its present
evolution.
Opportunity
Costs
Opportunity cost is the value of the opportunity lost or foregone
when implementing an alternative instead of the Max PNV
Benchmark. It is calculated as the difference in total PNV
between the PNV benchmark and the alternative. Most of the
opportunity costs (see the following figure) for each alternative
are related to foregoing timber harvest due to unroaded
designation, riparian prescriptions, suitable wildlife habitat,
quality visuals management, and/or old-growth preservation.
(eo OPPORTUNITY COST
($NlM)
1006
1000
K
800
600
400
200
0
Opportunity Costs
128 118 118
599
434
195 158
- ~III
Max NC A Ad B C D DI E S K Kd L M
PNV
ALTERNATIVES
Compared to Max PNV Benchmark
327
B-197

MAJOR
TRADEOFFS
AMONG
ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes the relationships among the economic
values and community effects discussed in the previous section,
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES, and the differing
responses among alternatives to the selected Planning Problems
discussed in Appendix A of the DEIS. The purpose is to highlight
major economic and noneconomic tradeoffs or combinations of
differences that can be quantified as indicators of response to
the Planning Problems. However, a complete understanding of the
differences among alternatives requires reading all of Chapters II
and IV, and this appendix of the DEIS.
To provide a partial framework for assessing these tradeoffs, the
long-term resource demands or needs of the Nation, region, and
local communities are briefly summarized; then selected economic
values and quantified indicators of responsiveness to the Planning
Problems are tabulated. Finally, differences and similarities
among individual alternatives are summarized in terms of major
tradeoffs among competing objectives or responses to expressed
public issues, management concerns, or resource use and
development opportunities.
National,
Regional,
and Local
Overview
National (RPA) planning estimates that total National demands will
rise for outputs from all the National Forests. At the same time,
there is a strong demand to protect and enhance the quality of the
environment. Demands and prices for production are generally
determined in National markets and the Nation benefits most when
supplies are provided using the most efficient sources of
production.
The demands for outdoor recreation uses and wildlife uses are
mainly local and regional, although the Rogue River does attract
National attention. Recreationists on-Forest generally come from
southwestern Oregon and northern California. Total recreation
growth is predicted to increase by one-half percent per year.
The 1980 population in the four-county area was 271,500. This was
an increase of approximately 35 percent from 1970 and at least
moderate growth is predicted for the next ten years. In 1980,
total employment was about 76,000 for the area of influence with
approximately 3,500 of those jobs coming from direct, indirect,
and induced effects of Forest outputs. Approximately 70 percent
of the Forest-dependent jobs are due to consumption of timber
outputs. Recreation, wildlife, and fisheries activities generate
the rest of the Forest-derived employment. (For more information,
refer to this appendix and Chapter III of the DEIS.)
B-198

Economic Alternatives differ so that each responds to the Planning Problems
Values and identified for this Forest in a different way. This section
Responses to summarizes many of these differences in response by defining
Major Issues, quantitative indicators for gauging the resolution of the Planning
Concerns, and Problems. It also discusses indicators of central concern to the
Opportunities Nation as a whole. Appendix A fully discusses each of the
Planning Problems and the linkages between the Planning Problems
and indicators. The Planning Problems which incorporate the major
issues, concerns, and opportunities are:
1. Indicators for timber production
-Selected suitable area for timber production (acres)
-First decade volume (MMCF)
-Long-term sustained yield (MMCF)
2. Indicators for old-growth preservation
-Total dedicated area (acres)
-Old-growth habitat in fifth decade (acres)
3. Indicators for maintaining or improving the Forest's fish
habitat, water quality, and soil productivity
-Wildlife and Fish User Days (WFUD's)
-Total Forest sediment output (tons)
4. Indicator for management of lands in and adjacent to river
corridors to protect, preserve, and enhance Wild and Scenic
River attributes
-Recommendations for North Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers
5. Indicators for sensitive plant resource management
-Area Allocated to Botanical reserves (Acres)
-Area Allocated to Research Natural Areas (Acres)
6. Indicators for management of Forest scenic values
-Area allocated to meet Preservation, Retention, and
Partial Retention Visual Quality Objectives (acres)
7. Indicators of Wildlife Habitat Management
-Wildlife and fisheries user days (WFUD's)
-Old-growth habitat in fifth decade (acres)
8. Indicator of recreation opportunities in the wilderness and
unroaded areas
-Areas allocated to remain unroaded (acres)
9. Indicator of mineral resources development
-Area with high mineral potential that would be
restricted by land allocations emphasizing other
resources (acres)
Indicators of local economic and social stability
-First decade payments to counties (MM $)
-First decade changes in employment (jobs)
-First decade changes in income (MM $)
B-199

-r Ah 1 R- 12 I nf1 -i; A - .rc - ..f -M -
cnn - - - DI [ Ann -o i na -C D-, Up rnh I - I. t _-rnA-
i-VPC ' n ra - o i Un -r UT A AA f -A
--- - I - ..... I- I .- 11.1- - _-.- - -- - Dm-ea5inq rriv.
National Indicators
Local Indicators
-'4 .~ ~ ~~4
1
Planning Probtlae
2 3 4
* , Z * .
9, 0 '- ~~Z
* .'*-2 *.
*
i * * * * .3*
I
I
4-- 4'--
* ,
. - I q°
4"*'" ' 'R '' t ZT-/'
X X + * . .
_I (,
Q ,,
I I I I
Max.PNVI 1,278 37.8 48.1
,-*r~
.99. .1~ -,
I I I
8.8 10.71 N/C N/C N/C
N/C
0 69.0 20.7 263 820
B
1 ,241
43.0 25.0
8.8 10.81 16.4 1,230 650
28.7
558 36.8 54.8
170 20.5
72 990 27.0 5,648 3,349
350 18 106
474 83.6 20.5 263 820
Dl
1,214
38.2 29.8
8.6 10.41 14.8 880 300
20.7
550 33.2 49.0
171 20.4
69 944 27.0 5,648 3,349
350 18 106
474 80.8 20.4 263 820
NC
1,214
36.0 41.1
8.6 10.21 13.8 660 80
15.7
576 31.0 54.2
132 21.5
67 966 45.6 1,067 3,249
319 72 259
650 177.1 21.5 269 825
C
1,197
32.1 45.3
8.6 10.21 14.2 830 250
18.2
566 31.8 57.0
169 21.5
68 1,076 27.0 5,648 3,349
342 10 98
450 95.8 21.5 263 819
I
D
1,160
31.6 42.0
8.5 10.11 13.5 640 60
15.0
560 30.4 54.8
171 22.1
69 968 27.0 5,648 3,349
350 18 106
474 76.8 22.1 263 820
0~o A-Dep
1,160
35.8 35.4
8.6 10.21 13.9 680 100
16.1
558 31.2 52.7
173 22.2
67 962 45.6 1,067 3,249
354 66 247
667 77.6 22.2 268 824
A
1,150
34.1 37.8
8.6 9.91 13.4 580 0
13.8
557 30.1 52.7
175 22.2
67 942 45.6 1,067 3,249
354 66 247
667 76.5 22.2 268 824
K -Dep
1,120
34.5 27.0
8.7 10.51 13.9 690 110
16.3
530 31.2 48.8
189 22.6
71 796 27.0 7,296 4,704
402 15 145
562 75.5 22.6 271 817
K
1,083
29.0 35.8
8.7 10.31 12.4 380 -200
9.0
529 27.8 48.8
189 22.9
71 800 27.0 7,296 4,704
402 15 145
562 75.3 22.9 271 817
L
951
24.2 26.7
8.6 10.21 10.3 *30 -610
-0.7 -
461 23.5 43.3
236 25.4
66 714 27.0 7,296 4,704
501 17 134
654 70.8 25.4 325 699
G
844
20.1 20.5
8.6 10.51 8.8 -300 -880
-6.4 -
406 20.5 38.7
263 27.3
70 618 45.6 35,658 4,693
585 31 165
781 66.4 27.3 342 657
E
679
13.2 12.6
8.7 10.41 6.8 -700 -1,280
15.3
287 16.2 32.2
326 31.7
70 510 45.6 24,262 4,693
705 26 116
847 60.1 31.7 352 509
M
272
-1 .4 - 0.
8.7 10.51 2.7 -1,650 -2,230 *
1/ Located outside of Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
2/ Alternative M includes 98,000 acres of General Forest which was not selected suitable for timber harvest.
Full titles of planning problems:
1: How Much Timber Should the Forest Produce? 6: How, and to What Extent, Should Forest Scenic Values be Protected
2: How Much Old-growth Forest Should be Preserved? Through Visual Resource Management?
3: How Can the Forest's Fish Habitat, Water Quality, and Soil Productivity 7: How Should Wildlife Habitats on the Forest be Managed?
be Maintained or Improved? 8: How Will Management Direction Affect Recreation Opportunities
4: How, and to What Extent, Should Lands in and Adjacent to River Corridors in the Wildernesses and Unroaded Areas?
be Managed to Protect, Preserve, and Enhance Wild and Scenic River Attributes? 9: How Should Mineral Resources of the Forest be Developed in
5: How Should Sensitive Plants Resources be Managed? Coordination with Management of Other Resources?
Abbreviations: Ben. = Benefits; Dec. = Decade; Devel. = Development; Hab. = Habitat; Mgt. = Management; N/C = Not Calculated; VQO = Visual Quality Objective

Indicators of National interest
-PNV (MM $ - discounted at 4 percent - 150-year period)
-Net cash flow (MM $)
-Noncash economic benefits (MM $)
In Table B-12, the indicators identified above are used to suggest
the degree of response of each alternative to these Planning
Problems. Other displays in Chapter II and discussions in Chapter
IV and and this appendix of the DEIS provide more detailed
information about specific effects and tradeoffs.
Max PNV Benchmark
PNV: $1,278 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
None
The Maxi PNV Benchmark identifies the mix of goods and services
with market and assigned values that results in the largest excess
of discounted benefits over discounted costs. It meets MMR's for
resource protection and produces a high level of timber harvest on
a nondeclining yield schedule. It is summarized here for
informational purposes only.
The Max PNV Benchmark provides 32.4 MMCF of timber the first
decade with an LTSY of 51.9 MMCF. Protection of old-growth
vegetation amounts to 164 M Acres, while 74 M WFUD's for
fisheries, 69 M WFUD's for wildlife uses, and 735 M RVD's occur
each year in the first decade.
All unroaded areas outside designated Wildernesses are developed.
Allocations to Botanical and Research Natural Areas are 1 M Acres
and 2 M Acres, respectively. At the fifth decade 20.5 percent of
the Forest is in old-growth habitat and 263 M Acres remain in an
unroaded condition. A total of 820 M Acres are available for
mineral development.
The PNV is $1,278 MM. Average net receipts are $37.8 MM with
noncash benefits of $8.8 MM for the first decade. In the fifth
decade, the net receipts increase to $48.1 MM with noncash
benefits of $10.7 MM.
Alternative B
PNV: $1,241 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$37 MM
Incremental Change Compared to Max PNV Benchmark
Alternative B has the highest PNV of any alternative, mainly
because the first decade timber outputs are high. The timber
departure from nondeclining harvest yield increases the PNV by
$75 MM. A reduced land base results in approximately a $13 MM
reduction in PNV. The production of the maximum amount of timber
given the land base reduces the PNV by approximately $35 MM.
B-201

Other opportunity costs are reflected in reduced harvest levels in
riparian areas and General Forest areas in six basins (which
reduces PNV by $21 MM). The additional allocation of visual
management areas reduces the PNV by $26 MM. The remainder of the
changes compared to the PNV Benchmark are due to wildlife,
recreation, fisheries, and other miscellaneous programs (-$17 MM).
Returns to the U. S. Treasury in the first decade are increased by
$5.2 MM in the first decade. The returns decline in the third
decade due to reduced timber harvests. By the fifth decade, the
federal receipts drop by $23.1 MM. Noncash economic benefits, for
which no fees would be collected, would stay relatively constant,
averaging about $8.8 MM per year in the first decade and
increasing to $10.8 MM in the fifth decade.
High timber harvests and a large road construction program would
lead to the largest contributions to community employment (more
than 1,220 jobs), income (more than $28.7 MM) and to the largest
payments to counties ($16.4 MM annually) for the first decade
leading to increased economic growth assuming demand for wood
products is high enough to result in consumption of all timber
offered.
The acreages of old-growth timber, Botanical areas, and Research
Natural Areas are increased. Old-growth habitat in the fifth
decade is less due to the departure scheduling (-0.2 percent).
The amount of scenic vistas is increased while the area allocated
to Custodial (roadless) is constant. The projected demand for
primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities exceeds
capacity in later decades and primitive recreation opportunities
would be limited to designated Wilderness and Wild River areas by
the second decade.
Fisheries values are increased due to an intensive capital
investment program. Though timber harvest from riparian areas
would be implemented in all planning basins, six basins have more
restricted timber harvest constraints in riparian areas and more
restrictive scheduling constraints in General Forest areas. The
least restrictions on mineral accessibility exist of any
alternative.
Increased Benefits Compared to Max PNV Benchmark
1. First decade sell quantity (+3.6 MMCF)
2. LTSY (+2.9 MMCF)
3. Botanical areas (+5 M Acres)
4. Research Natural Areas (+1 M Acres)
5. Wildlife (+14.6 M WFUD's)
6. Visual areas (+132 M Acres)
7. Amount of protected old growth (+6 M Acres)
National Indicator:
8. First decade annual net receipts (+$5.2 MM)
B-202

Decreased Indicators Compared to Max PNV Benchmark
1. Selected suitable area for timber production (-9 M Acres)
2. Fisheries (-2 M WFUD's)
3. Old-growth habitat fifth decade (-0.2 percent of Forest)
National Indicators:
4. Fifth decade annual net receipts (-$23.1 MM)
5. PNV (-$37 MM)
Alternative DI
PNV: $1,214 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$27 MM Compared to Alternative B
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative B
This alternative is second to Alternative B in PNV, net receipts,
payments to counties, jobs, and income for the first decade.
The major difference between Alternative DI and Alternative B is
the shorter timber rotation and the nondeclining yield timber
harvest constraint. The nondeclining yield constraint results in
lower first decade timber outputs. This accounts for most of the
opportunity costs ($75 MM reduction in PNV). The shorter rotation
increases PNV by $54 MM. The fisheries capital investment program
is also reduced with a reduced PNV for the fisheries program
(-$5 MM). Other benefits and costs do not substantially change.
The old-growth timber and unroaded areas, the Botanical areas, the
area managed for visual resources, and the designation of Wild and
Scenic Rivers for this alternative are very similar to
Alternative B. Fisheries are managed with a lower capital
investment program compared to Alternative B, but six basins are
still managed with the more restrictive timber harvest along
riparian areas and in General Forest areas resulting in slightly
lower fisheries benefits. Predicted sedimentation from the
Forest, on the average, is lower than for Alternative B. However,
sedimentation would increase in the third, fourth, and fifth
decades due to a larger area of ground harvested per year. No
substantial change would occur in mineral access.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative B
1. Increased harvest in the third through fifth decades.
2. Amount of protected old growth (+1 M Acres)
National Indicator:
3. Fifth decade annual receipts (+$4.8 MM)
B-203

Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative B
1. First decade sell quantity (-3.6 MMCF)
2. Selected suitable area for timber production (-8 M Acres)
3. LTSY (-5.8 MMCF)
a. Wildlife (-2.8 M WFUD's)
5. Old-growth habitat fifth decade (-0.1 percent of Forest)
6. Sedimentation (-46 M tons per decade)
7. Fisheries (-3 M WFUD's)
8. First decade payments to counties (-$1.6 MM)
9. First decade jobs (-350) and income (-$8.0 MM)
National Indicators.
10. First decade annual net receipts (-$4.8 MM)
11. PNV (-$27 MM)
Alternative NC
PNV: $1,214 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
None Compared to Alternative Dl
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative DI:
Although the No Change Alternative (Alternative NC) has the same
PNV as Alternative DI, there are significant differences in the
timber, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife programs.
Alternative NC has a larger land base for timber production, which
increases the PNV by approximately $33.8 MM. It also has a longer
rotation which decreases PNV by $54 MM. Because this alternative
does not maximize timber production where costs exceed benefits,
its PNV is increased by $35.7 MM compared to Alternative D1. The
increased land base allocated to visual management reduces the PNV
by $29.3 MM. Streamside management of Prescription B in all
basins increases PNV by approximately $20.8 MM. The total change
in the timber program, then, is a $7 MM increase in net benefits.
Other programs are significantly different. A decreased budget
for capital investments for recreation improvements results in a
$1 MM increase in net benefits due to surplus recreational
capacity. Lower amounts of fisheries capital investments produce
lower net benefits for the fisheries program. Last of all, the
lower amount of seral vegetation in the Alternative NC leads to
decreased wildlife benefits compared to alternative Dl.
Annual net receipts, payments to counties, and jobs are lower than
Alternative Dl in the first decade. However, due to the large
land base, the fifth decade annual net receipts are larger.
Areas reserved for botanical objectives are reduced by
approximately 4,000 acres and old-growth habitat reserves are
reduced by 39,000 acres. All old-growth habitat existing in the
fifth decade is 21.5 percent of the Forest, which is an increase
B-204

compared to Alternative Dl. This increase is due to longer
rotation on the land base for timber management.
Other changes for key indicators are noted. The North Fork Smith
and Chetco Rivers are recommended for Wild and Scenic River
Congressional designation. This alternative has the largest land
allocation for retention and partial retention visual management.
Sediment yields are increased compared to Alternative Dl,
partially due to less restrictive basin constraints on six
sensitive basins.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative DI
1. Selected suitable area for timber production (+26 M Acres)
2. Long-term sustained yield (+5.2 MMCF)
3. Old growth habitat - fifth decade (+1.1 percent of Forest)
4. Visual Management (+207 M Acres Retention and Partial
Retention)
National Indicator:
5. Annual Net Receipts - Fifth Decade (+$11.3 MM)
Decreased Benefits Compared to Alternative D1
1. Payments to counties (-$1 MM)
2. Jobs (-220) and Income (-$5 MM)
3. First Decade Annual Sell Quantity (-2.2 MMCF)
4. Old-growth Reserves (-39 M Acres)
5. Botanical Areas (-4,600 acres)
National Indicator
6. First Decade Annual Net Receipts (-$2.2 MM)
Alternative C
PNV: $1,197 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$17 MM Compared to Alternative NC
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative NC:
Alternative C has a lower PNV than Alternative NC due to a
reduction in the timber base and due to production of the maximum
amount of timber on the land base. The maximum timber objective
function has timber produced where the additional costs exceed the
marginal benefits. The change in the land base and the timber
objective function decrease PNV by $58.5 MM. A decrease in the
land base allocated to visual management offsets the decreased
land base by $35.5 MM.
First decade net annual receipts are decreased due to the
additional cost of timber management. Payments to counties and
B-205

local jobs are increased due to additional first decade sell
quantity. Fifth decade annual net receipts are increased due to
the payoff from additional investment in the timber program with
increased harvest levels.
The amount of reserved old-growth habitat, the area allocated to
Botanical Areas, and the amount of Wildlife and Fish User Days
(WFUD's) are increased compared to Alternative NC. The change in
the old-growth habitat is mainly due to increased land allocation
for Minimum Management Requirements (MMR's) for old-growth
dependent species.
Sediment yields are significantly increased compared to
Alternative NC due to increased hardwood conversion activity.
Other changes include a large decrease in the area managed for
visuals, and no recommendation for Wild and Scenic River status
for the North Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative NC
1. Increased payments to counties (+$0.4 MM)
2. Jobs (+170) and income (+$2.5 MM)
3. First decade annual sell (+0.8 MMCF) and long-term sustained
yield (+2.8 MMCF)
4. Reserved old-growth habitat (+36,000 acres)
5. Botanical areas (+4,600 acres)
National Indicator:
6. Annual net receipts - Fifth Decade (+$2.2 MM)
Decreased Benefits Compared to Alternative NC
1. Selected suitable area for timber production (-10 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (+110 M tons per decade)
3. Visual management (-223 M Acres of Retention and Partial
Retention)
National Indicators:
4. Average annual net receipts - First Decade (-$3.9 MM)
5. PNV (-$17 MM)
Alternative D
PNV: $1,160 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$37 MM Compared to Alternative C
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative C
This alternative has the next lowest PNV (-$37 MM) primarily due
to a mixed emphasis on all commodity production. Unlike
Alternative C, less intensive timber harvest in riparian zones and
more restrictive watershed harvest constraints are planned for six
B-206

asins, thus reducing timber outputs while increasing fisheries
outputs. The cumulative effect on reduced timber outputs then
reduces the net receipts, payments to counties, and other
indicators for the first decade. LTSY is less by 2.2 MMCF due to
operating on a smaller land base.
The major reason for reduction of PNV compared to Alternative C is
due to reduction in selected suitable acres (-$12 MM), an increase
in visual management areas (-$5 MM), and more restricted harvest
in riparian zones with stricter harvest constraints in six basins,
(-$20 MM). Less intensive timber management of the riparian areas
and more restrictive harvest constraints exist in six basins, so
fisheries benefits are relatively high (+$5 MM) compared to
Alternative C.
The amount of old growth that is in a preserved status is 171 M
Acres. Custodial (Roadless), Research Natural Areas, Botanical,
Wild River, and Scenic/Recreation River Management Areas are
identical to previous alternatives. There is an increase of 24 M
Acres for visual management. Sediment production is lower than
Alternative C due to less road construction in the first decade,
though still at a relatively high level. Access to lands for
mineral production changes little. Wildlife use is decreased due
to a decreased amount of seral vegetation in the first decade.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative C
1. Amount of protected old growth (+2 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (-108 M tons per decade)
3. Fisheries (+1 M WFUD's)
4. Visual areas (+24 M Acres)
5. Old-growth habitat fifth decade (+0.6 percent of Forest)
6. Area available for mineral development (+1 M Acres)
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative C
1. First decade sell quantity (-1.4 MMCF)
2. LTSY (-2.2 MMCF)
3. First decade payments to counties (-$0.7 MM)
4. First decade jobs (-190) and income (-$3.2 MM)
5. Wildlife (-9.0 M WFUD's)
National Indicators:
6. PNV (-$37 MM)
7. First decade annual net receipts (-$0.5 MM)
B-207

Alternative A-Departure
PNV: $1,160 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
None compared to Alternative D
Incremental Change Compared to Alternative D
Though the opportunity costs of Alternatives A-Departure and D are
equal, each program is different. The increase in Supplemental
Resource Area reduces the acres for timber production. This
reduces the PNV by $8 MM. The removal of the timber objective
function increases PNV (+$35 MM). The increase in areas managed
for visuals lowers the lands available for intensive timber
management and PNV (-$48 MM). Managing all basins with the least
restrictive riparian harvest prescriptions increases PNV by
$19 MM. Using Prescription B and lowering capital investments for
fisheries result in decreased fisheries benefits. Lower
investment in recreation does not significantly affect benefits,
due to surplus capacity.
The first decade outputs for net receipts, payments to counties,
jobs, and income are greater due to the departure of timber
outputs. However, by the third decade, the timber outputs are
reduced.
The amount of old-growth habitat, protected old growth, and
Custodial (Roadless) Areas are slightly increased. The land
dedicated to Botanical areas and Natural Research Areas is the
least of any alternative. The land allocated to visual management
is the highest of any alternative. The fisheries outputs are
decreased due to the implementation of Prescription B in the
riparian areas while sedimentation is somewhat lower than
Alternative D. The North Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers are
recommended for further study for Wild and Scenic River status.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative D
1. First decade sell quantity (+0.8 MMCF)
2. Amount of protected old growth (+2 M Acres)
3. North Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers candidates for Wild and
Scenic River status
4. Visual areas (+193 M Acres)
5. Unroaded areas (+5 M Acres)
6. Area available for mineral development (+4 M Acres)
7. County payments (+$0.4 MM), jobs (+40), and income
(+$1.1 MM)
8. Sedimentation (-6 M tons per decade)
National Indicators:
9. First decade annual net receipts (+$4.2 MM)
B-208

Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative D
1. LTSY (-2.1 MMCF)
2. Fisheries (-2 M WFUD's)
3. Botanical (-5 M Acres) and Research Natural Areas (-1 M
Acres)
4. Wildlife (-0.8 M WFUD's)
National Indicators:
5. Reduced sell quantity, annual net receipts, and payments to
counties in future due to departure scheduling
Alternative A
PNV: $1,150 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$10 MM Compared to Alternative
A-Departure
Incremental Change Compared to Alternative A-Departure
The only significant difference between Alternatives A and
A-Departure, which explain the $10 MM opportunity cost, is the
decrease in first decade timber outputs in Alternative A. Since A
has the nondeclining yield timber harvest constraint, the first
and second decade outputs are significantly less than the
departure alternative. Wildlife values are reduced by $1 MM due
to the decreased production of seral stages. Other factors are
equal including land allocation, program costs, and other
benefits.
The change compared to Alternative A-Departure in payments to
counties, net receipts, and social indicators of jobs and income
changes follows the same trend as the amount of timber harvest for
the first decade. Third decade outputs are higher due to the use
of the nondeclining yield constraint.
Most other indicators including mineral accessibility, do not
change significantly. However, the first decade sediment outputs
are less by 6,000 tons due to less harvest and road construction
in the first decade.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative A-Departure
1. Amount of protected old growth (+2 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (-20 M tons per decade)
National Indicators:
3. Higher sell quantities, annual net receipts, and payments to
counties in third, fourth, and fifth decades
B-209

Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative A-Departure
1. First decade sell quantity (-1.1 MMCF)
2. Wildlife (-1.1 M WFUD's)
3. First decade payments to counties (-$0.5 MM)
4. First decade jobs (-100) and income (-$2.3 MM)
National Indicators:
5. First decade annual net receipts (-$1.7 MM)
6. PNV (-$10 MM)
Alternative K-Departure
PNV: $1,120 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$30 MM Compared to Alternative A
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative A
All program costs are different for Alternatives A and
K-Departure. An increase in the land allocated to RNA's,
Botanical areas, Unique Interest areas, Custodial (Roadless)
areas, Supplemental Resource areas, and Special Wildlife Sites
reduces the land available for timber harvest. Consequently, the
selected suitable acres for timber production are reduced with a
corresponding $46 MM reduction in PNV. The departure schedule
provides high timber production in the first decade. This
increases the PNV by $37 MM compared to Alternative A. The use of
the timber objective function in Alternative K-Departure reduces
the PNV by $33 MM compared to Alternative A. A reduction in the
area allocated to visual management increases the land available
for intensive timber management. Relative to Alternative A, the
percent increase in General Forest acres corresponds with a $38 MM
increase in PNV. The implementation of more restrictive watershed
constraints for 18 basins and the change of one basin to
Prescription C reduces PNV by $30 MM.
The capital investment programs for recreation are increased over
those of Alternative A. However, all benefits remain the same due
to excess capacity for recreation and wilderness experiences in
the first decade. The capital investment program for fisheries is
increased by $2 MM and results in increased benefits of $11 MM.
Because first decade timber outputs are high, a slight increase of
jobs, payments to counties, net receipts, and incomes are
predicted.
The North Fork Smith River and Chetco River are not recommended
for Wild and Scenic status. Meanwhile, the fish outputs are
increased due to implementation of a more restrictive riparian
harvest in one basin which has been previously damaged and due to
an increased capital investment program. Sedimentation in the
first decade is higher (+9 M tons) due to the accelerated harvest
B-210

schedule. Mineral access is withdrawn or highly restricted on an
additional 2 M Acres.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative A
1. First decade sell quantity (+1.1 MMCF)
2. Amount of protected old growth (+14 M Acres)
3. Sedimentation (-146 M tons per decade)
4. Fisheries (+4 M WFUD's)
5. Old-growth habitat (+0.4 percent of Forest in fifth decade)
6. Unroaded areas (+3 M Acres)
7. Botanical areas (+6 M Acres)
8. Research Natural Areas (+3 M Acres)
9. First decade payments to counties (+$0.5 MM)
10. First decade jobs (+110) and income (+$2.3 MM)
National Indicators:
11. First decade annual net receipts ($0.4 MM)
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative A
1. LTSY (-3.9 MMCF)
2. Wildlife (-1 M WFUD's)
3. Visual areas (-105 M Acres)
4. Acres available for mineral development (-7 M Acres)
National Indicators:
5. PNV (-$30 MM)
6. Drop-off in timber harvest, annual net receipts, and payments
to counties in the third through fifth decades due to
departure scheduling.
Alternative K
PNV: $1,083 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$37 MM Compared to Alternative
K-Departure
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative K-Departure
Alternative K has the same land allocation and constraints as
K-Departure. However, the timing of road construction and timber
harvest is significantly different. The nondeclining yield timber
harvest constraint limits first decade timber outputs compared to
Alternative K-Departure resulting in decreased timber costs, road
construction costs, and timber benefits. The reduction in PNV
equals $37 MM. As with Alternatives K-Departure and B, the
capital investment program for fisheries is the highest for all
alternatives, resulting in high fisheries benefits. Other
economic programs are not significantly different.
B-211

Decreases in the annual net receipts, payments to counties, change
in jobs, and change in income occur in the first decade. However,
the nondeclining yield harvest constraint allows timber outputs to
increase in the later decades compared to Alternative K-Departure,
with corresponding changes in net revenue, county payments, jobs,
and income until both reach an LTSY of approximately 48.8 MMCF.
Alternative K has 0.3 percent more old-growth habitat suitable for
wildlife use in the fifth decade due to slower harvest of the
existing old growth. The amount of land allocated to Custodial
(Roadless), Partial Retention Visual, Retention Visual, Botanical,
Research Natural Areas, Wild River, and Scenic/Recreation River
Management Areas status are unchanged from the departure
alternative. Sediment production in the first decade is slightly
less than in the departure alternative due to the lower level of
harvest and roading, although fish production remains consistently
high due to a high level of capital investment. The accessibility
of minerals is identical to that in Alternative K-Departure.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative K-Departure
1. Old-growth habitat (+0.3 percent of Forest in fifth decade)
National Indicators:
2. Annual net receipts, payments to counties, and timber sell
increase in the third through fifth decades
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative K-Departure
1. First decade sell quantity (-3.4 MMCF)
2. Wildlife (-0.2 M WFUD's)
3. Payments to counties first decade (-$1.5 MM)
4. Number of jobs (-310) and income (-$7.3 MM) first decade
National Indicators:
5. PNV (-$37 MM)
6. Annual net receipts first decade (-$5.5 MM)
All other indicators remain relatively constant
Alternative L
PNV: $951 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$132 MM Compared to Alternative K
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative K
This alternative has a large decrease in PNV from Alternative K
with decreases in jobs, incomes, county payments, and net revenue
mainly due to a decrease of 4.3 MMCF in timber outputs. The LTSY
is significantly lower (-5.5 MMCF).
B-212

Alternative L has significant differences in the timber program.
Eleven basins have the riparian zone managed for less intensive
timber production compared to one basin for Alternative K. This
management reduces PNV by $57 MM compared to Alternative K.
Additional roadless area would be left in a custodial state with a
corresponding reduction in PNV (-$101 MM) due to decreased timber
production. Because the timber objective function is not used,
the PNV compared to Alternative K is increased by $33.1 MM.
The total amount of protected old growth is higher and the
old-growth habitat existing in the fifth decade is higher.
Changes in visual classification are evident as a much larger area
is managed for preservation. Fish production is decreased
compared to Alternative K due to a decreased capital investment
program, although 11 basins are managed less intensively for
timber harvest. Sedimentation is less than in Alternative K due
to less road construction and timber harvest. Mineral removal is
more restricted due to an additional 118 M Acres being placed in a
withdrawn or highly restricted access category.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative K
1. Amount of protected old growth (+47 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (-86 M tons per decade)
3. Fisheries (-5 M WFUD's)
4. Visual areas (+92 M Acres)
5. Old-growth habitat fifth decade (+2.5 percent of Forest)
6. Unroaded areas (+54 M Acres)
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative K
1. First decade sell quantity (-4.3 MMCF)
2. LTSY (-5.5 MMCF)
3. Selected suitable area for timber management (-68 M Acres)
4. Wildlife (-4.5 M WFUD's)
5. Acres available for mineral development (-118 M Acres)
6. Payments to counties (-$2.1 MM)
7. Number of jobs (-410) and income (-$9.7 MM)
National Indicators:
8. PNV (-$132 MM)
9. Annual net receipts (-$4.8 MM)
Alternative G
PNV: $844 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$107 MM Compared to Alternative L
Incremental Change Compared to Alternative L
This alternative has significantly lower PNV compared to the
previous Alternative (L) with spin-off decreases in payments to
counties, net revenues, jobs, and incomes.
B-213

Alternative G's increasing opportunity costs are mainly due to the
reduction of investment in the timber program. The opportunity
costs for timber riparian management are $11 MM. Additional areas
in Custodial (Roadless), Supplemental Resource, Botanical and
Designated Wildlife Habitat Management Areas reduce the investment
opportunities for timber production and PNV by $84 MM. An
increase in the visual management areas reduces the land available
for intensive timber production. The resulting decrease in
General Forest acres equals $10 MM reduction in PNV. Due to high
capital investments and the lack of harvest in riparian areas, the
fisheries benefits are high with an increased PNV (+$3 MM).
The amount of protected old growth (+$27 M Acres) increases in
connection with the unroaded areas. Sedimentation decreases
significantly in the first decade due to a decrease in road
construction and harvest. The North Fork Smith River and Chetco
Rivers are recommended for Wild and Scenic River status.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative L
1. Amount of protected old growth (+27 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (-96 M tons per decade)
3. Fisheries (+4 M WFUD's)
4. North Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers candidates for Wild and
Scenic River status
5. Botanical areas (+28 M Acres outside of Wilderness)
6. Visual areas (+127 M Acres)
7. Old-growth habitat fifth decade (+1.9 percent of Forest)
8. Unroaded area (+17 M Acres)
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative L
1. First decade sell quantity (-3.0 MMCF)
2. LTSY (-4.6 MMCF)
3. Selected suitable area for timber management (-55 M Acres)
4. Wildlife (-4.4 M WFUD's)
5. Acres available for mineral development (-42 M Acres)
6. Payments to counties (-$1.5 MM)
7. Number of jobs (-270) and income (-$5.7 MM)
National Indicators:
8. PNV (-$107 MM)
9. Annual net receipts (-$4.1 MM)
All other indicators are relatively constant.
B-214

Alternative E
PNV: $679 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$165 MM Compared to Alternative G
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative G
The PNV for Alternative E is $165 MM less than Alternative G. The
decreases in net receipts, county receipts, jobs, and incomes
occur mainly due to a decrease of 4.3 MMCF in timber outputs. The
decrease is due to fewer acres managed for timber with a
corresponding decrease in the LTSY (-6.5 MMCF).
Alternative E's emphasis on preserving unroaded areas foregoes
timber management opportunities on 302,000 acres. The increase in
unroaded areas and subsequent decrease in land managed for timber
production reduce PNV by $149 MM. Alternative E also foregoes
timber management opportunities in all riparian areas. This
management reduces PNV by $22 MM. Other economic programs are not
significantly different. The capital investment program for
fisheries is reduced. The lack of timber harvest in unroaded
areas, riparian zones, and supplemental resource areas provide
fisheries benefits (though slightly reduced from Alternative G).
The unroaded area allocation and area of preserved old growth are
increased. The old-growth habitat suitable for wildlife is
increased as are visual management areas. The area allocated to
Botanical and RNA's is decreased by 11 M Acres. Sedimentation is
decreased due to lower harvest levels and less road construction.
The areas open to mineral development are decreased by 148 M
Acres.
Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative G
1. Amount of protected old growth (+63 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (-108 M tons per decade)
3. Visual areas (+66 M Acres)
4. Old-growth habitat fifth decade (+4.4 percent of Forest)
5. Unroaded areas (+10 M Acres)
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative G
1. First decade sell quantity (-4.3 MMCF)
2. LTSY (-6.5 MMCF)
3. Selected suitable area for timber management (-119 M Acres)
4. Wildlife (-6.1 M WFUD's)
5. Acres available for mineral development (-148 M Acres)
6. Botanical areas (-11 M Acres outside of Wilderness)
7. Payments to counties (-$2.0 MM)
8. Number of jobs (-400) and income (-$8.9 MM)
B-215

National Indicators:
9. PNV (-$165 MM)
10. Annual net receipts (-$6.9 MM)
All other indicators remain relatively constant.
Alternative M
PNV: $272 MM
Total Opportunity Cost:
$407 MM Compared to Alternative E
Incremental Changes Compared to Alternative E
Alternative M has the highest opportunity costs due to the long
rotation length for timber management on a much reduced land
base. Compared to Alternative E, the longer rotation of
Alternative M reduces PNV by $239 MM. The maximum area is
allocated to an unroaded status, Supplemental Resource areas,
Botanical areas, RNA's, and Designated Wildlife Habitat areas.
The opportunity costs of the reduced area allocated to timber
production equals $161 MM compared to Alternative E. These costs
are offset somewhat because some of these acres allocated to
management not allowing programmed harvest were visual management
acres. This reduces the opportunity costs by approximately
$10 MM. No harvest is programmed from riparian areas and the
maximum amount of land is allocated to scenic vistas including
preservation status. The increased fisheries budget combined with
the lack of timber harvest in riparian areas results in high
fisheries benefits, though slightly less than Alternative G.
Other economic programs such as recreation and wilderness benefits
do not increase due to projected surplus supply of unroaded areas
compared to projected use in the near future.
The incremental decrease in county receipts, net cash flow, jobs,
and income is the greatest of any alternative. As with the other
alternatives, the amount of planned timber harvest accounts for
most of this change. The amount of area managed for timber is the
lowest for all alternatives and the planned rotation for the
Forest is the longest, resulting in a lower LTSY.
The most old growth of any alternative is preserved with
corresponding habitat for old-growth-dependent species. The
maximum amount of land of all alternatives would be allocated to
Preservation, Retention, and Partial Retention visual management.
Fish production is also high with sediment production the lowest
of all alternatives. The North Fork Smith and Chetco Rivers would
be recommended for Wild and Scenic status. Due to lack of
activities that would create forage areas and habitat diversity,
big game, small game, and nonconsumptive wildlife use would
decline.
B-216

Increased Benefits Compared to Alternative E
1. Amount of protected old growth (+63 M Acres)
2. Sedimentation (-334 M tons per decade)
3. Botanical areas (+11 M Acres outside of Wilderness)
4. Visual areas (+11 M Acres)
5. Old-growth habitat (+6.0 percent of Forest in fifth decade)
6. Unroaded areas (+94 M Acres)
Decreased Indicators Compared to Alternative E
1. First decade sell quantity (-10.1 MMCF)
2. LTSY (-10.0 MMCF)
3. Wildlife (-14.9 M WFUD's)
4. Payments to counties (-$4.1 MM)
5. Number of jobs (-950) and income (-$23.5 MM)
6. Fisheries (-1 M WFUD's)
National Indicators:
7. PNV (-$407 MM)
8. Annual net receipts (-$14.6 MM)
Constraint
Analysis
The following tables describe the constraints placed on different
alternatives and their effects on costs, benefits, and PNV. The
constraints that are discussed include the land assignment
changes, departure scheduling, rotation lengths, watershed harvest
constraints, and capital investments for watershed, fisheries,
recreation, and wildlife programs.
B-217

Table B-13.
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative B
The following constraints were
Benchmark.
different between Alternative B and Max PNV
Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Item
Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Research Natural Areas + 1,411 Ac
Botanical + 4,581 Ac
Unique Interest + 395 Ac
Supplemental Resource
+ 13,739 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites + 9,195 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Departure Schedule - 2,000 Ac +75.0 MM $
Land Assignment - 6,300 Ac -12.7 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function -35.1 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention + 7,678 Ac - 3.7 MM $
Partial Retention + 94,282 Ac -22.7 MM $
General Forest
-139,219 Ac
Riparian Prescription -20.8 MM $
B
-6 Basins
(-35,293 Ac)
C
+6 Basins
(+33,059 Ac)
Minimum Level
No Change
Watershed Harvest
9-13%°/Decade
Basin Constraints
in 6 Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -20.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood
+ 0.9 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV + 4.5 MM $ - 4.5 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) -204.0 M $
PNV + 1.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) + 53.8 M $
PNV + 1.0 MM $
Miscellaneous -14.5 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -37.0 MM $
* The departure costs were calculated by comparing Alternatives B and D.
B-218

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative D1
The following constraints were different between Alternative Dl and Alternative
B. Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. B Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Research Natural Areas No Change + 1,411 Ac
Botanical No Change + 4,581 Ac
Unique Interest No Change + 395 Ac
Supplemental Resource No Change + 13,739 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites No Change + 9,195 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
No Departure Schedule + 2,000 Ac -75.0 MM $
Shorter Rotation -10,000 Ac +54.0 MM $ - 10,000 Ac* +54.0 MM $
Land Assignment No Change 0 MM $ - 6,300 Ac -12.7 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No change 0 MM $ -35.1 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention No Change 0 MM $ + 7,678 Ac - 3.7 MM $
Partial Retention No Change 0 MM $ + 94,282 Ac -22.7 MM $
General Forest No Change -139,219 Ac
Riparian Prescription 0 MM $ -20.8 MM $
B No Change -6 Basins
(-35,293 Ac)
C No Change +6 Basins
(+33,059 Ac)
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest No Change 9-13%/Decade
Basin Constraints
in 6 Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -21.0 MM $ -41.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood + 0.2 $/CuFt + 1.1 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV No Change 0 MM $ + 4.5 MM $ - 4.5 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) -100.0 M $ -204.0 M $
PNV - 5.0 MM $ - 4.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) - 53.8 M $ - 28.2 M $
PNV - 1.0 MM $ 0 MM $
Miscellaneous O MM $ -14.5 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -27.0 MM $ -64.0 MM $
* The benefits associated with a shorter
Alternative D1 with Alternative D.
rotation were calculated by comparing
B-219

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative NC (No Change)
The following constraints were different between Alternative NC (No Change) and
Alternative DI. Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. Dl Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Research Natural Areas - 100 Ac + 1,311 Ac
Botanical - 4,581 Ac No Change
Unique Interest - 395 Ac No Change
Supplemental Resource +15,850 Ac + 29,589 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites - 2,934 Ac + 5,883 Ac
Designated Wildlife Hab. -47,803 Ac - 47,803 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Longer Rotation +10,000 Ac* -54.0 MM $
Land Assignment +16,000 Ac +33.8 MM $ + 10,000 Ac +21.8 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Obj.Fnc. +35.7 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention +43,037 Ac
(26,000 Suitable)
-12.5 MM $ + 50,715 Ac -16.2 MM $
Partial Retention +135,520 Ac 0 MM $ +229,802 Ac 0 MM $
General Forest 70,000 Ac -16.8 MM $ -139,219 Ac -39.6 MM $
Selected Suitable
Riparian Prescription +20.8 MM $ 0 MM $
B +6 Basins No Change
(-35,293 Ac)
C -6 Basins
(-33,059 Ac)
W. Change
N
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest
20%/Decade
Basin Constraints
Timber Opportunity Costs + 7.0 MM $ -34.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood - 1.0 $/CuFt + 0.1 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV -1.2 MM $ + 1 MM $ + 3.3 MM $ - 3.3 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) -23.0 M $ -227.0 M $
PNV - 3.0 MM $ - 3 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Chance No Change
PNV - 3.0 MM $ - 3 MM $
Miscellaneous 0 MM $ -14.7 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV 0 MM $ -64.0 MM $
* The benefits associated with a shorter rotation were calculated by comparing
Alternative Dl with Alternative D.
B-220

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative C
The following constraints were different between Alternatives C and NC (No
Change). Comparisons are also shown with the Max PNV Benchmark.
Change in Land Assignments
Compared to Alt. NC Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Research Natural Areas + 100 Ac + 1,411 Ac
Botanical
Unique Interest
+
+
4,581 Ac
395 Ac
+
+
4,581 Ac
395 Ac
Supplemental Resource - 28,304 Ac + 1,285 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites + 2,934 Ac + 9,477 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Land Assignment - 10,000 Ac +22.8 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function Maximum Timber -35.7 MM $ -35.2 MM $
Area in Timber Base
General Forest -177,286 Ac -117,856 Ac
Riparian Prescription 0 MM $ - 1.0 MM $
B No Diff. No Change
C No Diff. No Change
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest No 9-13% Harvest No Change
Basin Constraints
Constraints
Timber Opportunity Costs -23.0 MM $ -57.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood + 0.3 $/CuFt + 1.2 $/CuFt
Retention
Partial Retention
-
-143,251
50,715 Ac +16.2 MM $ No Change
Ac +19.3 MM $ + 86,551 Ac
0 MM $
-20.8 MM $
Recreation -,Budget PV + 0.1 MM $ - 1 MM $ + 4.6 MM $ - 4.6 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) + 10.0 M $ -194.0 M $
PNV O MM $ - 9.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) 0 M $ 0 M $
PNV + 6.0 MM $ + 3.0 MM $
Miscellaneous + 1.0 MM $ -13.4 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -17.0 MM $ -81.0 MM $
B-221

Alternative D
The following constraints were different between Alternative D and
C. Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Alternative
Compared to Alt. C Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Research Natural Areas No Change + 1,411 Ac
Botanical No Change + 4,581 Ac
Unique Interest No Change + 395 Ac
Supplemental Resource +12,454 Ac + 13,739 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites No Change + 9,195 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres - 6,300 AC -12.7 MM $ - 6,300 Ac -12.7 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No change 0 MM $ -35.1 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention + 7,678 - 3.7 MM $ + 7,678 Ac - 3.7 MM $
Partial Retention + 7,731 - 1.8 MM $ + 94,282 Ac -22.7 MM $
General Forest -21,363 -139,219 Ac
Riparian Prescription -19.8 MM $ - 1.0 MM $
B - 6 Basins - 6 Basins
(-34,758 Ac) (-35,293 Ac)
C + 6 Basins + 6 Basins
(+33,059 Ac) (+33,059 Ac)
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest 9-13%/Decade in 9-13%/Decade in
Basin Constraints 6 Basins 6 Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -38.0 MM $ -95.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood - 0.3 $/CuFt + 0.9 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV - 0.1 MM $ 0 MM $ + 4.5 MM $ - 4.5 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) - 10.0 M $ -204.0 M $
PNV + 5.0 MM $ - 4.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) - 28.2 M $ - 28.0 M $
PNV - 4.0 MM $ - 1.0 MM $
Miscellaneous 0 MM $ - 13.5 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -37.0 MM $ -118.0 MM $
B-222

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative A-Departure
The following constraints were different between Alternatives A-Departure and D.
Comparisons are also shown with the Max PNV Benchmark.
Compared to Alt. D Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers + 1,077 Ac + 1,077 Ac
Research Natural Areas - 100 Ac + 1,311 Ac
Botanical - 4,581 Ac No Change
Unique Interest - 395 Ac No Change
Supplemental Resource +15,850 Ac + 29,589 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites - 3,312 Ac + 5,883 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers + 4,116 Ac + 4,116 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Departure Schedule + 1,000 Ac* + 9.0 MM $ + 1,000 Ac + 9.0 MM $
Land Allocation - 4,000 Ac - 8.0 MM $ - 10,300 Ac -20.7 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Obj.Fnc. +34.9 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention + 38,372 Ac -18.5 MM $ + 46,050 Ac -22.2 MM $
Partial Retention +124,263 Ac -30.0 MM $ +218,545 Ac -52.7 MM $
General Forest -173,174 Ac -312,393 Ac
Riparian Prescription -18.6 MM $ - 2.2 MM $
Selected Suitable - 1,000 Ac - 1,000 Ac
B + 6 Basins No Change
(+32,548 Ac)
C - 6 Basins No Change
(-33,059 Ac)
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest
No 9-13%/Decade in No Change
Basin Constraints
6 Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs + 6.0 MM $ -89.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood - 0.1 $/CuFt + 0.8 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV - 1.2 MM $ + 1.2 MM $ + 3.3 MM $ - 3.3 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) - 23.0 M $ -227.0 M $
PNV - 5.0 MM $ - 9.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) + 28.2 M $ 0 M $
PNV - 2.0 MM $ - 3.0 MM $
Miscellaneous O MM $ - 13.7 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV 0 MM $ -118.0 MM $
* The costs and benefits associated with the departure were calculated by
comparing Alternative A with Alternative A-Departure.
B-223

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative A
The following constraints were different between Alternatives A and A-Departure.
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. A-Dep. Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers No Change + 1,077 Ac
Research Natural Areas No Change + 1,311 Ac
Botanical No Change No Change
Unique Interest No Change No Change
Supplemental Resource No Change + 29,589 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites No Change + 5,883 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers No Change + 4,116 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
No Departure Schedule - 1,000 Ac - 9.0 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Land Assignment No Change 0 MM $ - 10,300 Ac -20.7 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Change 0 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention No Change 0 MM $ + 46,050 Ac -22.2 MM $
Partial Retention No Change 0 MM $ +218,545 Ac -52.7 MM $
General Forest No Change -312,393 Ac
Riparian Prescription 0 MM $ - 2.2 MM $
Selected Suitable - 1,000 Ac
B No Change No Change
C No Change No Change
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest
Basin Constraints No Change No Change
Timber Opportunity Costs - 9.0 MM $ -98.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood + 0.2 $/CuFt + 1.0 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV No Change 0 MM $ + 3.3 MM $ - 3.3 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change -227.0 M $
PNV O MM $ - 9.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change 0 M $
PNV - 1.0 MM $ - 4.0 MM $
Miscellaneous 0 MM $ - 13.7 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -10.0 MM $ -128.0 MM $
B-224

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative K-Departure
The following constraints were different between Alternatives K-Departure and A.
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. A Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers - 1,077 Ac No Change
Research Natural Areas + 1,455 Ac + 2,766 Ac
Botanical + 6,229 Ac + 6,229 Ac
Unique Interest + 1,595 Ac + 1,595 Ac
Custodial (Roadless) +13,691 Ac + 13,691 Ac
Supplemental Resource + 9,909 Ac + 39,498 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites + 8,998 Ac + 14,581 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers -10,085 Ac - 5,969 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Departure Schedule + 1,000 Ac +37.0 MM $ + 1,000 Ac +37.0 MM $
Land Assignment -23,000 Ac -46.3 MM $ - 33,300 Ac -67.0 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Change -33.1 MM $ No Change -33.1 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention - 35,770 Ac +17.3 MM $ + 10,280 Ac - 5.0 MM $
Partial Retention - 89,222 Ac +21.5 MM $ +129,323 Ac -31.2 MM $
General Forest + 94,674 Ac -217,719 Ac
Riparian Prescription -30.4 MM $ -32.6 MM $
Selected Suitable - 5,000 Ac - 6,000 Ac
B - 1 Basin - 1 Basin
(-11,423 Ac) (-14,168 Ac)
C + 1 Basin + 1 Basin
(+ 6,161 Ac) (+ 6,161 Ac)
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest
Basin Constraints
Timber Opportunity Costs
9-13%/Decade in all Basins
-34.0 MM $ -132.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood - 0.5 $/CuFt + 0.5 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV + 1.2 MM $ - 1.2 MM $ + 4.5 MM $ - 4.5 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) +123.0 M $ -104.0 M $
PNV - 7.0 MM $ - 2.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change No Change
PNV - 1.0 MM $ - 5.0 MM $
Miscellaneous - 0.8 MM $ - 14.5 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -30.0 MM $ -158.0 MM $
B-225

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative K
The following constraints were different between Alternatives K and K-Departure.
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. K-Dep. Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers No Change No Change
Research Natural Areas No Change + 2,766 Ac
Botanical No Change + 6,229 Ac
Unique Interest No Change + 1,595 Ac
Custodial (Roadless) No Change + 13,691 Ac
Supplemental Resource No Change + 39,498 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites No Change + 14,581 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers No Change - 5,969 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Ac -67.0 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Change 0 MM $ No Change -33.3 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention No Change 0 MM $ + 10,280 Ac - 5.0 MM $
Partial Retention No Change 0 MM $ +129,323 Ac -31.2 MM $
General Forest No Change -217,719 Ac
Riparian Prescription No Change 0 MM $ -32.6 MM $
Selected Suitable No Change - 6,000 Ac
B No Change - 1 Basin
No Departure Schedule -
Land Assignment No
1,000 Ac
Change
-37.0 MM $ No Change
0 MM $ - 33,300
(-14,168 Ac)
C No Change + 1 Basin
(+ 6,161 Ac)
Minimum Level
Watershed Harvest
No Change No Change
Basin Constraints No Change 9-13%/Decade in all Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -37.0 MM $ -169.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood - 0.1 $/CuFt + 0.4 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV No Change 0 MM $ + 4.5 MM $ - 4.5 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change -104.0 M $
PNV 0 MM $ - 2.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change No Change
PNV - 1.0 MM $ - 6.0 MM $
Miscellaneous + 1.0 MM $ - 13.5 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -37.0 MM $ -195.0 MM $
B-226

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative L
The following constraints were different between Alternatives L and K.
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. K Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers No Change No Change
Research Natural Areas No Change + 2,766 Ac
Botanical No Change + 6,229 Ac
Unique Interest No Change + 1,595 Ac
Custodial (Roadless) +113,007 Ac +126,698 Ac
Supplemental Resource - 3,066 Ac + 36,432 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites - 4,245 Ac + 10,336 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers - 795 Ac - 6,764 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres - 50,000 Ac -100.6 MM $ - 83,300 Ac -167.5 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function Not Done +33.1 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention + 2,995 Ac - 1.4 MM $ + 13,275 Ac - 6.4 MM $
Partial Retention - 8,325 Ac + 2.0 MM $ +120,998 Ac -29.1 MM $
General Forest - 75,302 Ac -293,021 Ac
Riparian Prescription -57.1 MM $ -90.0 MM $
Selected Suitable - 18,000 Ac - 24,000 Ac
B - 10 Basins -11 Basins
(-48,501 Ac) (-62,669 Ac)
C + 10 Basins +11 Basins
(+30,740 Ac) (+36,901 Ac)
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest
Basin Constraints No Change 9-13%/Decade in all Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -124.0 MM $ -293.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood No Change + 0.4 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV No Change 0 MM $ + 4.5 MM $ - 4.5 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) -175.0 M $ -279.0 M $
PNV - 4.0 MM $ - 6.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change No Change
PNV - 3.0 MM $ - 9.0 MM $
Miscellaneous - 1.0 MM $ - 14.5 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -132.0 MM $ -327.0 MM $
B-227

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative G
The following constraints were different between Alternatives G and L
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. L Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers + 1,077 Ac + 1,077 Ac
Research Natural Areas - 11 Ac - 11 Ac
Botanical +28,362 Ac + 34,591 Ac
Unique Interest - 262 Ac + 1,333 Ac
Custodial (Roadless) +23,733 Ac +150,431 Ac
Supplemental Resource +21,360 Ac + 14,588 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites - 1,696 Ac + 8,640 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers + 3,201 Ac - 3,562 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres -42,000 Ac -84.5 MM $ -125,300 Ac -252.0 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Change 0 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention + 9,785 Ac - 4.7 MM $ + 23,060 Ac - 11.1 MM $
Partial Retention + 28,832 Ac - 6.9 MM $ +149,830 Ac - 36.1 MM $
General Forest -112,231 Ac -405,252 Ac
Riparian Prescription -10.9 MM $ -100.8 MM $
Selected Suitable - 13,000 Ac - 37,000 Ac
B - 7 Basins - 18 Basins
(-21,394 Ac) (-84,063 Ac)
C + 7 Basins + 18 Basins
(+ 8,311 Ac) (+45,212 Ac)
Minimum Level No Change No Change
Watershed Harvest
Basin Constraints No Change 9-13%//Decade in all Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -107.0 MM $ -400.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood - 0.5 $/CuFt - 0.1 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV + 0.5 MM $ - 0.5 MM $ + 5.0 MM $ - 5.0 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) + 85.0 M $ -196.0 M $
PNV + 3.0 MM $ - 3.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change No Change
PNV - 3.0 MM $ - 12.0 MM $
Miscellaneous + 0.5 MM $ - 14.0 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -107.0 MM $ -434.0 MM $
B-228

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative E
The following constraints were different between Alternatives E and G.
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Compared to Alt. G Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers No Change +
Research Natural Areas No Change -
1,077 Ac
11 Ac
Botanical - 11,391 Ac + 23,200 Ac
Unique Interest + 235 Ac + 1,568 Ac
Custodial (Roadless) +151,306 Ac +301,737 Ac
Supplemental Resource - 22,773 Ac + 27,680 Ac
Designated Wildlife Hab. - 31,616 Ac - 17,028 Ac
Special Wildlife Sites - 1,093 Ac + 7,547 Ac
Scenic/Rec. Rivers + 229 Ac - 3,792 Ac
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres - 74,000 Ac -148.8 MM $ -199,300 Ac -400.8 MM $
Opportunity Costs for Maximum Timber
Objective Function No Change 0 MM $ No Change 0 MM $
Area in Timber Base
Retention - 3,438 Ac + 1.7 MM $ + 19,622 Ac - 9.5 MM $
Partial Retention - 33,549 Ac + 8.1 MM $ +116,281 Ac - 28.0 MM $
General Forest - 37,764 Ac -443,016 Ac
Riparian Prescription - 22.0 MM $ -122.7 MM $
Selected Suitable - 45,000 Ac - 82,000 Ac
B No Change - 18 Basins
(-84,063 Ac)
C - 18 Basins No Change
(-45,212 Ac)
Minimum Level + 18 Basins + 18 Basins
(+35,066 Ac) (+34,681 Ac)
Watershed Harvest
Basin Constraints No Change 9-13%/Decade in all Basins
Timber Opportunity Costs -161.0 MM $ -561.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood + 0.4 $/CuFt + 0.3 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV - 1.1 MM $ + 1.1 MM $ + 3.9 MM $ - 3.9 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) - 10.0 M $ -204.0 M $
PNV 0 MM $ - 3.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change No Change
PNV - 5.0 MM $ - 17.0 MM $
Miscellaneous 0 MM $ - 14.1 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -165.0 MM $ -599.0 MM $
B-229

Table B-13 (Cont'd).
Constraint Comparisons
Alternative M
The following constraints were different between Alternatives M and E.
Comparisons to the Max PNV Benchmark are also presented.
Change in Land Assignments
Wild Rivers
Research Natural Areas
Botanical
Unique Interest
Custodial (Roadless)
Supplemental Resource
Designated Wildlife Hab.
Special Wildlife Sites
Scenic/Rec. Rivers
Cumulative Selected
Suitable Acres
Longer Rotation
Land Assignment
Opportunity Costs for Maximum
Objective Function
Area in Timber Base
Retention
Partial Retention
General Forest
Riparian Prescription
Selected Suitable
B
C
Minimum Level
Watershed Harvest
Basin Constraints
Timber Opportunity Costs
Compared to Alt. E Compared to Max PNV
Opportunity
Opportunity
Item Cost Item Cost
No Change
No Change
+11,391 Ac
- 235 Ac
+ 5,217 Ac
+ 8,464 Ac
+13,883 Ac
- 518 Ac
- 342 Ac
-80,000 Ac
Timber
No Change
- 2,143 Ac
- 6,833 Ac
+ 12,252 Ac
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
+ 1,077 Ac
- 11Ac
+ 35,658 Ac
+ 1,333 Ac
+296,520 Ac
+ 36,144 Ac
- 3,145 Ac
+ 7,029 Ac
- 4,134 Ac
+238.7 MM $
-160.9 MM $ -279,300 Ac
0 MM $ No Change
+ 1.0 MM $ + 17,479 Ac
+ 1.6 MM $ +109,448 Ac
-430,764 Ac
0 MM $
- 82,000 Ac
- 18 Basins
(-84,063 Ac)
No Change
+ 18 Basins
(+34,681 Ac)
-238.7 MM $
-562.7 MM $
0 MM $
- 8.4 MM $
- 26.4 MM $
-122.7 MM $
No Change
9-13%/Decade in all Basins
-397.0 MM $
- 958.0 MM $
Avg. Cost per unit of wood + 2.9 $/CuFt + 3.2 $/CuFt
Recreation - Budget PV + 1.1 MM $ - 1.1 MM $ + 5.0 MM $ - 5.0 MM $
Fish Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) + 10.0 M $ -194.0 M $
PNV O MM $ - 3.0 MM $
Wildlife Program
Capital Invest. (Annual $) No Change No Change
PNV - 10.0 MM $ - 27.0 MM $
Miscellaneous - 1.1 MM $ - 13.0 MM $
Total Opportunity Costs
PV -407.0 MM $ -1006.0 MM $
B-230

LITERATURE CITED
Amaranthus, Michael P., R. M. Rice, N. R. Barr, and R. R. Ziemer. 1985.
Logging and Forest roads related to increased debris slides in southwest
Oregon. Journal of Forestry, J. 83, N. 4, April 1985.
Anderson, H. W. 1975. Relative contributions of sediment from source areas and
transport processes in proceedings of the symposium of Forest land use and
stream environment. Corvallis, OR, p. 55-73.
Andre, J. E., and H. W. Anderson. 1961. Variation of soil erodibility with
geology, geographic zone, elevation and vegetative type in northern California
wildlands. Journal Geophysical Research. 66: 3351-3358
Barnett, Harold J. and Chandler Morse. Scarcity and Growth. John Hopkins
Press, Baltimore 1963, p. 213.
Brown, D. L., and J. M. Wardwell (eds.) New Directions in Urban-Rural
Migration. New York: Academic Press.
Clopper, Almon. 1983. Interindustrial forecasts of the American economy.
Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath and Company.
Craig, David W. 1984. Managed Yield Tables for the Siskiyou National Forest.
USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, OR.
DeWerff, Lloyd, Ronald Pugh, Teresa Rebagliati, and Jeffery White. 1981.
Scheduling timber harvest to meet visual objectives. USDA Forest Service,
Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, OR.
Fight, Roger D. et al. 1984. Logging Costs for Young-Growth Management
Planning for Coastal Douglas-fir.
Hansen, William J. and Michael P. Amaranthus. 1979. Erosion rates following
logging and prescribed burning on the Siskiyou National Forest. Unpublished
data.
Harr, R. D. Personal communication. January 10, 1985.
Harr, R. D. 1979. Effects of timber harvest on streamflow in the
rain-dominated portion of the Pacific Northwest. In: Proceedings of Workshop
on Scheduling Timber Harvest for Hydrologic Concerns. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region. December. 136 p.
Harr, R. D. 1982. Fog drip in the Bull Run municipal watershed, Oregon. Water
Resources Bulletin 18(5):785-789.
Josephine County Planning Department. 1981. Comprehensive plan for Josephine
County. Grants Pass, Oregon.
Kohl, Don C. 1980. Social accounting for Oregon, socio-economic indicators.
Department of Human Resources, State Community Services Program.
B-231

Maxwell J. R., and R. A. Marston. 1980. Geomorphic indices of stream flow and
sediment yield. Symposium on Watershed Management, American Society of Civil
Engineers: 1-12.
Megahan, W. F. 1974. Erosion over time on severely disturbed granitic soils:
A model. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, Intermountain Forest Range
Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. INT-156, 14 p.
Megahan, W. F. 1975. Channel sediment storage behind obstructions in forested
watersheds. Proceedings sediment budgeting and routing in Forest catchments.
Corvallis, OR.
Megahan, W. F. and D. M. Molitor. 1972. Erosion processes on steep granitic
road fills in central Idaho. Journal of the Soil Science Society of America.
42(2). p. 350-357.
Megahan, W. F., and W. J. Kidd. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on
sediment production rates in the Idaho Batholith. Resource Paper INT-23,
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain
Experiment Station.
Owen, Linda P. 1979. Migration and economic change in timber reliant
counties: an econometric analysis. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Department of
Agricultural and Resource Economics. Oregon State University.
Peinecke, Ralph. 1986. Forestry, The Pacific Northwest's Green Future.
January.
Peterson, Linda J. 1980. Socio-economic overview of the zone of influence for
the Rogue River National Forest and Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest
Service Contract.
Platts, W. S. and W. F. Megahan. 1975. Time trends in riverbed sediment
composition in salmon and steelhead spawning areas. South Fork River, Idaho.
In North American Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. p. 229-239.
Reiser, D. W. and J. C. Bjornn. 1979. Influence of Forest and rangeland
management on anadromous fish habitat in the western north America. Habitat
requirements of anadromous salmonids. USDA Forest Service. General Technical
Report PNW-96.
Rice, R. M., J. S. Rothacher, and W. F. Megahan. 1972. Erosional consequences
of timber harvest: an appraisal: In: watersheds in transition. American
Water Resources Association, Proceedings Series 14, Urbana, IL. p. 321-329.
Richardson, H. W. 1972. Input-output and regional economics. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Schaffer, W. A. and K. Chu. 1969. Nonsurvey techniques for constructing
regional interindustry models. Papers of the Regional Science Association
23:83-101.
B-232

Schallau, Con H., and Wilbur
data on the South, and the
Range Experiment Station.
R. Maki. 1986. Preliminary working papers and
Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Forest and
Corvallis, OR.
State of Oregon. 1977. Regulations relating to water quality control in
Oregon. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340. Department of
Environmental Quality. p 1-22, 155-296, 455-456.
Stevens, J. B. 1980. The Demand for Public Goods as a Factor in the
Nonmetropolitan Migration Turnaround.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Guide. USDA Forest Service
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Users
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in
Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Salmonids. Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Region. June 1985.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Advance reports 1960, 1970 and 1980 census of
population and housing, Oregon. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
Wall, Brian, and Daniel D. Oswald.
projections of employment in the
Service Research Paper PNW-189.
Station, Portland, Oregon.
1975.
Pacific
Pacific
A technique and relationship for
coast products industry. USDA Forest
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith. 1958. Rainfall energy and its relationship
to soil loss. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 3g: 285-291.
Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith. 1965. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses
from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Research Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 282.
Wischmeier, W.
Agri cul tural
H. and D. D. Smith. 1968. A guide to conservation planning.
Handbook No. 537. U. S. Department of Agriculture.
B-233