US Forest Service
San Francisco, CA.
Steve Bishop-R-5-Range Specialist
July 17, 1998
Here are the answers to your questions from my perspective and knowledge of the bill as I know it.
Question: "What is your opinion of how the Quincy Library Group Legislation will affect State adjudicated water rights?"
Response: After carefully reading the bill, I do not see any affect on anyone's State adjudicated water rights. State officials with responsibilities of water rights would be the best persons to answer this question.
Question: " What is your interpretation of how the QLG legislation could affect other resource uses on National Forest lands? Recreation, grazing, firewood cutting, mineral extraction, road building, etc.?"
Response: The focus of the bill is on fuelbreak construction, timber harvest (group selection and individual tree selection) and riparian management. So at first glance it appears there would be little affect on other activities, such as, recreation, grazing, firewood cutting, mineral extraction and road building. But under Sec., 2(c),(2)(C)- Limitation: It states that if livestock grazing occurs in an area where the SATguidelines are being applied than the SAT guidelines would take precedence. I assume that would be true for nay other activities, too. so there is potential for some affect on these other activities. I would think the change from current standards and guidelines would be minor if any at all. But each Forest Plan is a little different and so you would need to evaluate it for each plan. Basically each plan has similar objectives with the SAT guidelines for the protection of riparian areas and that's why I think there would be little change from current practice.
Question: "What has been the affect of the President's Forest Plan in the Pacific Northwest-Option 9 since implementation of the SAT guidelines in 1994 to grazers in the affected forests in northwestern California? And how would those compare to foreseeable changes on the Plumas, Lassen and Sierraville Ranger Districts grazers by implementing the same guidelines?"
Response: There seems to be little difference between what the permittees are being required to do up there compared to permittees on the Lassen , Plumas and Tahoe. However, when it comes to planning the Northwest Forest Plan Forests are having do a great deal more in planning. They have what they call "Survey and Manage" species, which has extended the number of species they are surveying for before implementing projects. This has increased their cost of planning. Plus the additional species they are managing for have increased the number of management requirements. Since this is still new and they are just now beginning to survey for this new list of species, they have not yet felt the effect of managing for them yet and what that might mean for the permittees.
Question: "Will the USFS integrate the SAT guidelines with the current data this is in the Sierra Conservation Framework priority issues-aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems: (3) grazing synopsis, should the pending legislation pass and become law?"
Response: I'm not in a position to answer that question. Others will decide.
Question: " How to you view the SAT guidelines impacting in the QLG landbase area?"
Response: If there is an impact, it would be minimal with little change to what is being required under today's Forest Plans in regards to grazing.
Question: "Do you foresee any permit or established legal document allowing use of the federal lands within the QLG landbase area becoming null an void should the QLG legislation become law?"
Response: Speaking on the subject of grazing permits, no. Can't say for any other contracts, permits, etc.
Stephen F. Bishop Regional Range Program Manager
Sunday, January ,(, /),( 0(:,(:,( AM