USDA APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

USDA •

APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Introduction

This appendix is a summary of public comments received on the Environmental Assessment(EA) for the Oak Knoll Range Project. The Klamath National Forest (KNF) published anannouncement of availability of the EA for review and public comment on July 13, 2010.Comments were requested within 30 days of publication of the legal notice in the SiskiyouDaily News and Ashland Daily Tidings. All comments received during the 30-day periodhave been reviewed and responses are included herein.

Method of Analysis on Public Comments

Ten comment letters and emails were received in response to the EA, including one letterconsisting of joint comments from three environmental groups, one letter from privateindustry, two letters and one email from Native American tribes, letters and emails fromseveral individuals, and one form letter with 112 email respondents and 66 hard copy letters.The letter numbers, names of respondents, and information on attachments to commentsletters are displayed in Table 1.

Comment documents were tracked upon receipt to assure all relevant comments werecaptured. Individual comments from within each document were categorized based on thecomment topic. The exact wording of comments was used, rather than summaries.

Table 1 Respondent Correspondence and any Attachments Received

CommentNumher Date Nairn(' 0 Respondent and Organization

Affiliation if GivenAttachmentInformation

1 08/12/10 submittedvia electronic inbox

Crystal BowmanEnvironmental DirectorQuartz Valley Indian ReservationFort Jones, CA

la 8/12/10 Submittedvia electronic inbox

Ken FetchoAssistant Director- Water DivisionYurok TribeKlamath, CA 95548

Same comment as1, but send bydifferentindividual.

2 08/06/10postmarked andsubmitted via mail

Michael KisselLisa KisselL & M Timber CompanyElk Grove, CA


Felice PaceVolunteer Citizen ActivistKlamath Forest AllianceKlamath, CA

— Oak Knoll Range Project Decision Notice and FONSI —Page 21 of 67

USDA

Kayla BakerKlamath Forest AllianceKlamath, OR

Scott GreacenNational Forest Program CoordinatorEPIC — Environmental Protection InformationCenterEureka, CA

Joseph VaileCampaign DirectorKS WildAshland, OR


Don DaySite Protection SpecialistConfederated Tribes of Grand Ronde


Gene KochAshland, OR

6 07/23/10submitted viaelectronic inbox

Bruce CampbellSanta Monica, CA


Rex WilsonRedding, CA


Richard SpottsSt. George, UT

9 Submitted viaelectronic inbox

Jo Peterson 08/05/10Jan Clarridge 08/02/10Mike Bress 07/28/10Beth Levin and John Carlson Levin 07/27/10Kathryn Soneshine 08/08/10Kati Tomlinson 07/23/10David Calahan 07/28/10Donna Dove 07/30/10Brian Hudgins 07/30/10Jim Oxyer 08/02/10Frances Dunham 07/29/10Jared Parmer 08/06/10Jeff Thompson 07/23/10Marc Anderson 07/28/10Janet Glassberg 08/02/10Melissa Kraemer 08/04/10Valentine Jones 08/01/10Mark Motyka 08/04/10Gayla Barrows 08/01/10Juliette Hedgecock 07/24/10Michael Connor 07/24/10Russell Anthes 07/24/10Stu Phillips 07/27/10Lee Pettenger 07/25/10Clarence Hagmeier 07/25/10Brian Hilden 07/27/10Mimi Farley 07/25/10

Form letter/email

— Oak Knoll Range Project Decision Notice and FONSI —2 of 67

USDA

Amber Gayle Thalmayer 07/26/10Judy Wolfe 07/26/10Teri Manley 07/26/10Geraldine Bish 07/26/10Kent Sutherlin 07/24/10Harriet Miller 07/26/10Gaylene Hurley 07/25/10Michael Nacrelli 07/25/10Fred Hall 07/25/10Louis Smith 07/24/10Donald Barnhart 07/25/10Claudette Dobins 07/24/10John and Susan Hawksley 07/24/10Matt Riley 07/24/10Allan Peterson 07/27/10Michael G Smith 07/24/10John Bauer 07/24/10Judith Schlacter 07/26/10Dennis Honkomp 07/24/10Jason Margulis 07/24/10Spencer Lennard 07/24/10Melba Dlugonski 07/24/10Carole Davis 07/24/10D. Cooke 07/24/10Fred Lifton 07/24/10Jim Fety 07/23/10Jeff Alford 07/23/10Arnica Montana 07/24/10Gabriel Sheridan 07/24/10Eva Thiemann 07/23/10Shelley Elkovich 07/23/10George Lescher 07/24/10Paul Moss 07/24/10Rael Nidess 07/24/10Dakota Otto 07/23/10Mark Egger 07/24/10Oceanah D'amore 07/23/10Joe Dworkin 07/23/10Jim Lockhart 07/24/10Heidi Wolfe 07/24/10Robert Mumby 07/24/10Paul Howard 07/23/10Leona J. Wobbe 07/23/10Steve Thomas 07/23/10Clifford Fountain 07/23/10Erika Giesen 07/23/10Steve Thomas 07/23/10Ginger Buchannan 07/23/10Renee Razzano 07/23/10John M. Sully 07/23/10Tony Brussat 07/23/10Edith Montgomery 07/23/10Nina Council 07/23/10


USDA •

Mila Valenta 07/23/10Merridy Cross 07/23/10Sue Mendelson 07/23/10Kathryn Shanti Ariel 07/23/10Shahan Jon 07/23/10Frank Wetmore 07/23/10Dia Paxton 07/23/10Alan Bowes 07/23/10Dorothy Decker 07/23/10Eileen Chieco 07/23/10Nancy Doyle 07/23/10Susan Menanno 07/23/10Stu O'Neill 07/23/10Marcus Humus 07/23/10William Howald 07/23/10Blair Parrott 07/23/10Paul Torrence 07/23/10Mervin Witt 07/23/10Justin Rohde 07/23/10Melissa Schweisguth 07/23/10Kyle Haines 07/23/10Karen Sinclair 07/23/10Pamela and Sherman Lucas 07/23/10Philip Gremaud 07/23/10Steve Rouse 07/23/10Margery Winter 07/23/10George and Frances Alderson 07/23/10Jonathan Spero 07/23/10Mary Camp 07/23/10Ellen Singer 07/23/10Mac Sutherlin 07/23/10Theresa Bush 07/23/10

9a Submitted via mail Christie Barshat Form letter/emailRichard McDanielMark E. GibsonLaurel GerberLenny & Julie MayJorden MerrellMary Ann DevineSarah WillisReid SepulvedaLynne BirimisaJohn L. GoogrusKathy CaseyMelissa RiddellLinda DulliberTrisca HaltermanTricia L.Loha HeapRobert A. Bun D. C.Jenna FeehanCarolyn LyonTatiana Diakoff


USDAgiwo

Rene HenryRoslyn McCoyDonna BrugubyLoree SimsDavid KuhnRich EdwardsHauey, Arm, and Dail KillingsworkCamenen CattanachJan ClaridgoCarl MarsakJennifer TibbittsMattie LurkaJeremy AllenVhirisa S. ClardySpencer W. SaffordHelen June FitzgeraldKaren MorhizukiJack AziasBeau LeonhartEdward DavisKaren MendozaDick BraineadKrista Miller HahLynn HugginsChenelle PincinceRichard PellPhilip CanesMichael VickersOmaranJuliane TinsmanAdriena CouiphusLeslie V. ForcenSam H. W. SepnighTammy RenateClaire HoltRAArie DancerDilyana AleksandrovaLarry VanderleindAlexandra ColemanPamela ScottSean & Jenny WilsonAndru RothenbergKam KingMargeret McGuire

All comments received during the 30-day period have been reviewed and responses areincluded herein. There were numerous letters that were received after the scheduled deadline(Table 2). These were not included in analysis.


USDA •

Table 2 Respondent Correspondence Received after the 30-day Period

Date Name of Late Respondent and OrganizationAffiliation if Given

AttachmentInformation

08/13/10 submitted via Greg Clevengeremail Ashland, OR8/13/10 Joseph Vailesubmitted via Campaign Directorelectronic inbox KS Wild

Ashland, OR

Kimberly BakerForest and Wildlife CoordinatorKlamath Forest AllianceOrleans, CA

Scott GreacenNational Forest Program CoordinatorEPIC — Environmental Protection Information CenterEureka, CA

submitted via Opie Heyerman 8/20/2010electronic inbox Tim Fitzpatrick 8/20/2010

Kate Cleland-Sipfle 8/20/2010Gaylene Hurley 9/9/2010John and Susan Hawksley 9/9/2010Lee Pettenger 9/15/2010Kathleen Page 9/8/2010Debbie Levy 9/19/2010

8/23/10 postmarked Clovis Xenelisand submitted via mail Sva L. Dillard

Eric Shina

Summary Results

The following tables display the specific comments made, identifies the respondent(s) by letternumber (refer to Table 1 above), and categorizes the concerns. Key passages which best represent

public comments are included in the tables.

The following five responses were used to respond to comments as per guidance provided by theCouncil of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations:

Modify alternatives, including the proposed action

Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given consideration

Supplement, improve, or modify the analysis

Make factual corrections

5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response


USDA

In the below table, issues from comments have been assigned to one of the five categories above andis listed prior to each response.

Specialist reports referenced below in responses may be found at the KNF websitehttp://fs.usda.gov/klamath. Click on 'Land and Resource Management" and then click on "Projects"to navigate to the Oak Knoll reports.

General Comments on Proposal—Issues of Concern and Disposition

Comment LetterNumber Response

Purpose and Need:

1) The FS is under no obligation toauthorize grazing in Beaver Creek.

3 5. The option to not authorize grazing was examinedin the No Action alternative.

Proposed Action:

2)...Standards and Guidelines (6-1) in theLRMP require maintenance of "thestructure, composition, and function offorest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystemswithin the range of natural variability."The reduction in riparian vegetationstructure (e.g. willow thickets) associatedwith grazing...runs counter to thisobjective.

1, la 5. Alternative 2 includes monitoring and mitigationmeasures that will maintain or improve rangelandresource conditions on the allotments in a manner thatis consistent with Forest Plan objectives (includingStandard and Guideline 6-1) and other laws andstatutes. Alternative 2 is consistent and compliant withthe ACS as described in Section 3.3.3 on p. 30 of theEnvironmental Assessment (EA), and in the WaterResources Specialist Report (Section 4.2.1.5, p.23-25)(ERG 2010h). As described in the WaterResources Specialist Report (Section 4.2.15,p.22)(ERG 2010h) and in the Wildlife SpecialistReport (Section 2.6.2, p.8 and Section 4.2.5,p.24)(ERG 2010j), in terms of riparian vegetationstructure, there is no evidence that grazing hasmeasurably reduced the coverage of willows orresulted in the loss of the willow cover type in theproject area. Photo documentation over severaldecades suggests that cattle have not affected riparianshrub cover (willows), as shrub cover has notappeared to have changed except where tree cover(from fire suppression) has encroached onto wetmeadow/shrub communities. Since grazing stockingrates have declined significantly from historic periods,it is presumed that the risk of losing willowcommunities to grazing is minimal. As a result ofimproved cattle distribution with the advent of thenew corrals, there may be a slight increase in shrubcover in riparian areas and associated stream shadingand filtering.

3) KNF's EA methodology, findings andconclusion... doesn't justify or support

2 5. Nothing specifically is mentioned in this statementabout how the project is indefensible and insufficient.


USDA11


KNF's Alternative 2 - Proposed Action. The Klamath National Forest (KNF) is complyingThis EA and Proposed Action Alternative with all applicable laws and regulations for the Oak2 are publically, environmentally, and Knoll project. Alternative 2 includes monitoring andlegally indefensible and environmentally mitigation measures that will maintain or improveinsufficient. KNF's justification of resource conditions or mitigate resource impacts toissuance of this permit is the assumption insignificant levels on the allotments in a manner thatthat it will not be used, and cattle grazing is consistent with Forest Plan objectives and otherwill not occur in this area, supports laws and statutes.Alternative 1 - No Action not Alternative 2- Proposed Grazing Action.

The KNF has received public comments on the EAfrom several interested and affected parties withdiffering points of view regarding which alternativeshould be chosen. The National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) process is used to inform the public andthe responsible official (Decision Maker) of theenvironmental consequences of each alternative. Inconjunction with the EA and specialists' reports, eachrespondent's comments will be taken intoconsideration.

NEPA requires a range of reasonable alternatives thatrespond to significant issues and meet the purpose andneed for action. Agency Implementing Regulations forNEPA at Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 state thata range of reasonable alternatives be developed whichrespond to significant issues and meet the purpose andneed for action. Six alternatives are within the rangeof alternatives considered for this proposed action.Three alternatives are considered in detail in the EA.These alternatives range from no grazing (Alternative

grazing with monitoring and corrals (Alternativeand grazing under current management

(Alternative 3). All these alternatives were consideredin the planning process and are part of the range ofalternatives. The reasons the other three wereeliminated from detailed study is discussed in Section2.1.4 of the EA.

As a point of clarification, Alternative 2 is to continueto authorize commercial livestock grazing on Forestgrazing allotments in order to meet the stated purposeand need of providing available forage to qualifiedlivestock operators on lands determined to be suitablefor grazing and supporting local sustainableagriculture. Issuance of a permit is a separateadministrative action.


USDA


Encourage KNF to adopt Alternative 1 -No Action (No Grazing). Alternatively wewould support a KNF proposedAlternative 4 that would allowconstruction of the corrals, allow grazingon the East Beaver and HornbrookAllotments, and prohibit grazing on theAsh Creek Allotment.

2 5. Please see response to comment 3.

KNF dismissed our administrative andgrazing suitability objections to this EA atthe time it was scoped, because weacknowledged we have observed "noimpacts" as a result of current permit overthe past 10 years. [There are no impactsbecause] there has been no grazing [duringthat time.] Therefore, this EA is flawedbecause it justifies issuance of this cattlegrazing permit under the assumption thatthe permit will not be used.

2 5. Grazing is authorized within all of the currentallotments. As described in the EA (see Section3.2.1.1 p. 25), there is suitable rangeland within eachof the allotments. The Ash Creek and Hornbrookallotments provide early season and transitory rangeas is described in the Rangeland Specialist Report(ERG 2010e) in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.3. Thesouthern portion of the Ash Creek allotment does notreceive much use, if any at all in recent years, butother areas of the allotment are utilized annually.

NEPA Compliance:

6) The Draft EA does not meet NEPArequirements for use of "best availablescience" in decision making. There are nodata presented to support any of theconclusions drawn in the document and themethods that were used to assess priortrends in rangeland health and those to beused for future "adaptive management" arevague and inadequate. Consequently, theDraft EA falls short of any scientificstandard (Walters 1997, NRC 2004) forthe use of adaptive management.

1, 1 a 5. The KNF has used the best available informationand science in preparing the Oak Knoll EA. There ismuch qualitative and quantitative data presentedthroughout the EA in the affected environment andenvironmental consequences sections. Inclusion of alldata used in analyses and disclosures in an EA isinappropriate for the level of analysis anddocumentation required for an EA. Specialist reportsand other relevant, more detailed information isincorporated by reference in this EA.

Prior vegetation trends and the methods used todetermine them are described in further detail in theRangeland Specialist Report (ERG 2010e). Nine long-term plots have been established in the East Beaverallotment for the Region 5 rooted frequencymonitoring project. The results of the monitoring aredetailed in Table 2-11 of the Rangeland SpecialistReport. Details of monitoring used in the AdaptiveManagement System (AMS) are described in detail inSection 2.1.2.4 of the EA. In that section, indicators tobe measured are discussed and references formethodologies are included. For example, referencesare provided for rooted frequency monitoring andMultiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) (see pp. 13-15of the EA).


USDA •

CommentLetter

NumberResponse

A finding of no significant impact in thefinal Decision Notice would be arbitrary

1 5. As described in the EA and specialist reports,significant impacts to resources are not expected

and capricious if it allows continued under Alternative 2. Note that at the time thisgrazing in the allotments despite the comment was received, a Finding of No Significantrecognized associated degradation and Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice (DN) have notabsent a clear plan to prevent the pattern of yet been completed. Comments in the EA commentcontinued environmental damage. phase pertains to the EA and not to the FONSI or DN.

Public participation after the FONSI and DN areissued are subject to a separate appeal process. Thatprocess will be outlined and described in thosedocuments.

To clarify, existing protocols for allotmentadministration allow for monitoring and somemanagement options to reduce or avoid resourceimpacts. Under Alternative 2 additional monitoringand management options are proposed as part of theAMS under both implementation and effectivenessmonitoring (see discussions on MIM in Section 2.1.24of the EA (pp. 12, and 14-16).

The Draft EA appears to be arguing thatalthough riparian conditions within areas

1, la 5. As described in the EA and Specialist Reports,Alternative 2 will maintain or improve resource

of the allotment actually used by grazing conditions on the allotments in a manner that iscattle are impaired, that it is alright to consistent with Forest Plan objectives and other lawsreauthorize the grazing permit because and statutes. This includes consideration of severalthese impacts occur in only a small portion land management units protecting rare areas, such asof the KNF. Special Habitat, Special Interest Areas, and Riparian

If such reasoning were applied to everyReserves.

KNF decision the cumulative effect would Direct and indirect impacts from grazing on waterbe even greater large-scale degradation of quality are likely too small to measure (Section 3.3.2.2KNF land and water resources. Theapplicable laws, including the CWA andthe NFMA, require that standards for themaintenance of resources in good

p.28, Section 3.3.3.2 p.30, and Section 3.3.4.2 p.31).

NEPA requires the analysis of cumulative effects, orthe impacts of the alternatives considered when

condition do not simply apply in general,but apply to each and every area of the

considered in combination with any past, present, orreasonably foreseeable activities. Cumulative effects

Forest and to special habitats, even if suchare addressed under each separate resource area within

habitats are rare or occupy only a small Chapter 3of the EA.

percent of the landscape. The list of actions considered for cumulative effectsanalyses can be found in Appendix B of the EA.Resource specialists considered all of the listedactions but may have used only a subset of the listedactions in their effects analysis based on the potentialeffects to their resource. While the appendix lists allactions, every resource is not affected by every action.For example, a future project may affect wildlife butnot affect water quality.

Past actions are often accounted for, at least in part,


USDA.1111 •


through incorporation into baseline data for affectedenvironment. In order to understand the contributionof past actions to the cumulative effects of theproposed action and alternatives, this analysis relieson current environmental conditions as a proxy for theimpacts of past actions. Existing conditions areconsidered to reflect the aggregate impact of all priorhuman actions and natural events that have affectedthe environment and might contribute to cumulativeeffects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt toquantify the effects of past human actions by addingup all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. Thereare several reasons for not taking this approach. First,a catalog and analysis of all past actions would beimpractical and unduly costly to compile. Currentconditions have been impacted by innumerableactions over the last century (and beyond), and tryingto isolate the individual actions that continue to haveresidual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second,providing the details of past actions on an individualbasis would not be useful to predict the cumulativeeffects of Alternatives 2 and 3. In fact, focusing onindividual actions would be less accurate than lookingat existing conditions, because there is limitedinformation on the environmental impacts ofindividual past actions, and one cannot reasonablyidentify each and every action over the last centurythat has contributed to current conditions.Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past humanaction ignores the important residual effects of pastnatural events which may contribute to cumulativeeffects just as much as human actions. By looking atcurrent conditions, we are sure to capture all theresidual effects of past human actions and naturalevents, regardless of which particular action or eventcontributed those effects. Third, public scoping forthis project did not identify any public interest or needfor detailed information on individual past actions.Finally, the CEQ issued an interpretive memorandumon June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions,which states, "...agencies can conduct an adequatecumulative effects analysis by focusing on the currentaggregate effects of past actions without delving intothe historical details of individual past actions." Pastactions are treated similarly in the recently publishedForest Service Regulations for implementing NEPA.For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in thisEA is based on current environmental conditions.


USDArad

Comment LetterNumber

Response

The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is alsoconsistent with Forest Service National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(0)(July 24, 2008), which state, in part:

"CEQ regulations do not require the consideration ofthe individual effects of all past actions to determinethe present effects of past actions. Once the agencyhas identified those present effects of past actions thatwarrant consideration, the agency assesses the extentthat the effects of the proposal for agency action or itsalternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate thoseeffects. The final analysis documents an agencyassessment of the cumulative effects of the actionsconsidered (including past, present, and reasonableforeseeable future actions) on the affectedenvironment. With respect to past actions, during thescoping process and subsequent preparation of theanalysis, the agency must determine what informationregarding past actions is useful and relevant to therequired analysis of cumulative effects. Catalogingpast actions and specific information about the directand indirect effects of their design and implementationcould in some contexts be useful to predict thecumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQregulations, however, do not require agencies tocatalogue or exhaustively list and analyze allindividual past actions. Simply because informationabout past actions may be available or obtained withreasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant andnecessary to inform decision-making (40 CFR1508.7)."

9) We recommend KNF take steps to 1, la 5. The specialist reports were available at the KNFincrease public access to its monitoring offices by request during the EA comment period, asinformation and reports. For example,KNF staff (e.g. hydrologist, range, and

required (CEQ 1506.6(0). Prior to or at the time ofdecision, all specialist reports and other relevant

fisheries scientists) prepared a series of reports will be posted and available on the KNF"Specialist Reports" regarding the website http://fs.usda.gov/klamath . Click on 'Landproposed project. These Specialist Reports and Resource Management" and then click onwere cited and briefly summarized in the "Projects" to navigate to the Oak Knoll reports.Draft EA, but the full content of these Relevant monitoring information is summarizedreports were not included within the Draft within the specialist reports. Key material in theEA or posted on the website for the specialist reports is summarized in the EA andproject. Instead, they remain at KNF incorporated where appropriate by reference (40 CFRoffices, accessible only through Freedomof Information Act (FOIA) requests. Thesereports should be compiled and included asan appendix to the final EA, anddistributed along with the EA. All

1502.21).

Forest-wide monitoring information is also availableon the KNF website. To access those monitoringreports, go to the main KNF webpage, click on "Land

Specialist Reports produced by KNF staff and Resources Management," then "Planning," then


USDA

Comment LetterNumberLetter

regarding upcoming future projects shouldbe included as appendices to the EA or EISthat the y apply to.

"Forest Plan Monitoring Reports."

The EIS/EA content of future projects is out of scopethe Oak Knoll Range Project.

EA does not contain analysis sufficientto determine if authorization and operationof these grazing allotments is incompliance with the Klamath TMDLClean-Up Plan and other CWArequirements. The EA does notdemonstrate that the Clean-Up Plan'sprohibition on discharge ofwaste/pollutants directly to streams andwet areas will be met. This is afundamental NEPA violation.

3 5. Compliance with the Klamath Total MaximumDaily Load (TMDL) and the water quality objectivesof the Basin Plan is achieved through the Waiver ofWaste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint SourceDischarges Related to Certain Federal LandManagement Activities on National Forest SystemLands (NCRWQCB Order No. R1-2010-0029).Compliance with the conditions of the waiverconstitutes compliance with all sediment, temperature,dissolved oxygen and nutrient requirements of theTMDL. The waiver was not mentioned in the DraftEA because the waiver program was not adopted untilJune 2010. However, the Forest Service has began allnecessary efforts for waiver compliance prior to thisdecision, with the exception of those items thatspecifically take place after decision, according toprocesses outlined in the Waiver. The staff from theNCRWQCB has conducted field reviews of theproject, and the project is expected to meet all of theconditions for coverage under the waiver.

Resource Concerns—Issues of Concern and Disposition

Comment LetterNumber Disposition

Impacts to wildlife & fish habitat:

There are no quantitative baseline data 1, la 5. See the first paragraph of comment 6 for aprovided with which to interpret trends inaquatic or riparian health, nor in populations ofsensitive species that could be disturbed bygrazing, such as neotropical song birds oramphibians like the Cascade frog.

discussion on data.

Several of the physical attributes mentioned inthis comment are described in the main bodyand in Appendix C of the Fisheries BA/BE(ERG 2010a) and the Water Resource

Valid scientific methods of stream condition Specialist Report (ERG 2010h) associated withassessment need to be employed, such as crosssections, longitudinal profiles, fine sediment inspawning gravels, median particle size or othermetrics from the USFS Aquatic and Riparian

this project.

Several documents with more detailedinformation are incorporated in the EA by

Ecosystem Monitoring Protocols (Gallo et al.2002).

reference. Information about surveys,populations, habitat associations, and trend forsensitive and other wildlife species are providedin the Wildlife Specialist Report, Migratory


USDA •

CommentLetter

NumberDisposition

We recommend the following additions to Bird Report, Wildlife BA/BE, and the MISmonitoring: Report (ERG 2010c; ERG 2010d; ERG 2010i;

Measure cross sections and long profiles ofERG 2010j).

stream channels impacted by grazing. While the monitoring that is proposed in

Place automated water temperature probes inAlternative 2 will include methods that will

key locations throughout each grazing allotment.address the resource concerns mentioned, the

Data should be collected from May 15 toAMS designed for this project does not include

October 15 with sensors located in grazed andthe list of monitoring included in this comment.

ungrazed riparian zones within or near theAlthough some of the listed measurements are

allotment.routinely taken as a part of ongoing monitoringprograms, their application in grazing

Measure aquatic invertebrate diversity(EPT/Richness) above and below grazed areas as

management may not be direct. For example,measurements of stream temperature are

well as in an ungrazed control stream. directly related to riparian vegetation cover, but

Collect bulk gravel samples (fines <0.85 mm)stream temperature is influenced by several

in grazed streams and in controls.other variables unrelated to grazing. On theother hand, forage utilization and browse are

Compare the volume of sediment in pools directly related to grazing.(V*) in grazed streams and in controls. While several suggestions are given in this

Measure bird abundance, richness and trends comment, KNF monitoring programs need to bein grazed and ungrazed riparian zones. designed in a focused manner that more

efficiently collects information which providesMeasure and compare Cascade frog meaningful input for direct use in adaptive

abundance and distribution in grazed and management. Most of the recommendedungrazed meadows and riparian zones. monitoring methods would be expensive and

Measure soil compaction in meadows and time-consuming and would not likely provideriparian zones. helpful information for grazing management.

The best variables in monitoring are those thatMeasure water table depth in meadows and

track changes over time.are directly affected by grazing.

Measure E. coli levels in streams above andbelow grazed meadows.

Use electrofishing to measure standing cropsof fish species in meadow streams and repeat fortrend monitoring over time.

The discussion of Management Indication 1, la 5. See response to comment 11 for a discussionSpecies (MIS) in the Draft EA says that a suite of information on wildlife that is incorporatedof species associated with streams within theallotments were chosen as indicators. No dataare supplied for these species other than notingwhich species are known to be present within the

by reference.

For MIS, monitoring populations at the site ofindividual projects is not required. Forest Plans

allotments. "developed, amended, or revised" under the1982 state: The responsible official maycomply with any obligations relating to MIS byconsidering data and analysis relating to habitatunless the plan specifically requires populationmonitoring or population surveys for thespecies. Site-specific monitoring or surveying


USDA •Comment

LetterNumber

Dioposition

of a proposed project area is not required.Concerning MIS, the KNF Forest Plan directsthe use of "Species Associations...the mostcurrent research information, Wildlife HabitatCapability Models or Wildlife HabitatRelationships Models to assess landscape andproject-level impacts to habitat conditions"(Forest Plan S&G 8-21, p. 4-30). This analysisis discussed in the MIS Report, Parts I and II.Population data was used where available. Site-specific effects of the proposed project onhabitat elements and MIS are analyzed in theMIS Report and the effects to individual speciespopulations are also discussed.

Surveys for many sensitive species have beenconducted on or near the Forest for severalyears. Requirements for monitoring andevaluation for the Forest (Forest Plan, Chapter5) are required to occur at the Forest-level,rather than project level. In addition, the ForestPlan (Forest Plan S&G 6-8, p.4-22) notes that"Project areas should be surveyed for thepresence of Sensitive species before projectimplementation. If surveys cannot beconducted, project areas should be assessed forthe presence and condition of Sensitive specieshabitat."

Species-specific surveys have been conductedat several scales in the vicinity of the projectarea: within the project area, Forest-levelcooperative surveys, and California Departmentof Fish and Game (CDFG) surveys/otherforests/research (including Monitoring AvianProductivity and Survivorship bird bandingstations). Data collected from KNF surveyshave been used to assess population distributionand habitat associations (Wildlife BA/BE,Wildlife Specialist Report, MIS Report, and theEA). Survey and trend information (whereavailable) are summarized in the WildlifeSpecialist Report and the Wildlife BA/BE,which are incorporated by reference into theEA.

13) The Draft EA ignores available information 1, la 5. The KNF has used the best availableconcerning neotropical song bird use of Marble information and science in preparing the OakMountain riparian zones (Alexander and Knoll EA. Conclusions regarding migratoryJohnson, 2001) that demonstrates the effects of birds are based on field review of habitatgrazing on song birds. Alexander and Johnson suitability, professional judgment, and District


USDA.101171


(2001) found that there was a significantpreference of song birds for riparian forestsversus upland forests and that this was reflectedin both species abundance and in the number oftaxa present.

bird survey records.

There is no known or available evidence thatgrazing has measurably reduced riparian habitatfor migratory birds and willow flycatcher in theproject area, as the coverage of willows remains

Statements in the Draft EA that the limited heavy and there is not a documented loss of theextent of grazing somehow limits damage to willow cover type in the project area (seesensitive bird species do not square with theavailable science. More importantly, the DraftEA ignores the finding of Alexander and Johnson(2001) that "that bird abundance, speciesrichness and the abundance of species of concernis higher in basins where grazing had been

response to comment 2).

In addition, possible threats to riparian healthand therefore riparian bird habitat as a result oflivestock grazing will be identified through theAMS for these grazing allotments in

reduced or eliminated." It is important to noteAlternative 2. These strategies define limits of

that this study was conducted relatively recentlyand thus reflects the effect of current grazingpractices in the Klamath National Forest, not the19th and early 20th century when livestock

what is allowed such as timing, intensity,frequency, and duration of livestock grazing.These limits and the ACS set standards arechecked through BMP and MIM monitoring in

numbers were much higher than present. Alternative 2. If monitoring identifies astandard is not being met, then a management

Alexander and Johnson (2001) specifically action would be taken to move the resourcesuggest monitoring bird presence and abundance towards the standard. This strategy is consistentas a tool for trend monitoring in conjunction with riparian reserves standard and guidelinewith adaptive management of grazing MA 10-73 (Forest Plan, p.4-114). By meetingallotments. No data on birds was provided in the these standards and applying adaptiveDraft EA, nor is bird monitoring proposed. management actions, Alternative 2 should

result in minimal negative effects to migratorybird species.

The reports offered in the comment discussimpacts of grazing to migratory birds that aregenerally recognized by science and by theKNF. With the current survey information (seeresponse to comment 12 regarding surveys),field review, professional judgment, and withthe ability to respond to potential impacts toriparian habitat discussed in the aboveparagraph, it has been determined that effects tomigratory birds are not expected underAlternative 2 (see Migratory Birds Report).

14) The association of Cascade frogs with the 1, la 5. Effects to Yellow-legged and Cascade frogswet meadows of the Siskiyou Crest is not wellstudied; therefore impacts to this species from

are addressed in the Wildlife Specialist Report,Wildlife BA/BE, and MIS Report (ERG 2010c;

grazing are unknown. Grazing in wet meadows ERG 2010i; ERG 2010j). These documents areof the Lassen National Forest has lead to asubstantial decline in this species (Dr. HartwellWelsh, personal communication) and it isrecognized as declining on USFS lands in theSierra Nevada Mountains (Welsh et al., 1991).

incorporated into the EA by reference.

Cascade frogs are closely associated with water,particularly areas of standing water or streamchannels. While there will be some directeffects to Cascade frog habitat and while


USDA


individuals may be impacted, these effects willnot affect the populations of Cascade frogs inthe project area because: riparian conditiontrends as reflected by comparison to shrubcover in historic photos are stable or improving,monitoring will be performed at a sufficientintensity to detect changes in riparian health,and adaptive measures are in place to modifygrazing as needed to ensure that riparianconditions remains in an overall stable orimproving trend (Wildlife BA/BE, Section5.7.4, p.32).

The AMS is designed to manage riparianvegetation and habitat, thereby providingprotection and management to frog habitat.

...the Klamath /Siskiyou is a biologically 65. The region's ability to act as a wildlife

diverse gem of a region and... the Siskiyou Crest corridor is not expected to be impacted by

is an extremely important wildlife corridor.grazing.

Pollution from grazing should be abated to 1, la 5. While standing crops were not used as anassist the recovery of the at-risk anadromous indicator, aquatic health and fish habitat aresalmonids in Middle Klamath tributaries... the described by numerous indicators includingstanding crop of trout within the grazing chemical contamination from grazing, asallotments is one measure of aquatic health. detailed within the Fisheries BA/BE (ERG

2010a)(Section 5.6.3, p. 41-58) and theFisheries Specialist Report (ERG

No data were provided on the use by fish of the 2010b)(Section 4, p.13-23). These documentsstreams within the allotments. are incorporated into the EA by reference.

Regarding chemical contamination, because theProject involves a relatively small number of

Standing crops of fish should be estimated using animals that are unconfined (except when inelectro-fishing as part of any adaptive corrals which are not near water bodies) and domanagement. not spend considerable time in the stream, there

is low probability that bacteria from wasteswould accumulate in streams. KNF earthscientists determined that chemicalcontamination due to the Project is of lowconcern. Because of the proximity of CH to theareas of potential nutrient inputs, the lowmagnitude of probable nutrient input, and themixing and dilution that occurs in the steepstreams, there is no probability that anadromousfish and their habitat, including SONCC cohosalmon and CH, could be directly or indirectlyaffected by detectable nutrient or bacteriacontamination from the Project (FisheriesBABE, Section 5.6.3, p.48).

In terms of use by fish, fish occurrence in the


USDA

CommentLetter

Number Disposition

streams within the allotments was described inthe Fisheries BA/BE (Section 4.1 p.15-22) andthe Fisheries Specialist Report (Section 2.2.1,p.4). KNF GIS fish distribution data, CriticalHabitat, and Essential Fish Habitat are based onfield reviews of habitat suitability, professionaljudgment, District fish survey records, andCDFG information. The BABE concludes thatthis project may affect, but is not likely toadversely affect SONCC coho salmon or theirdesignated Critical Habitat.

The adaptive management program is designedto manage riparian vegetation and habitat,thereby managing fish habitat.

Impacts to water quality/watershed health:

The QVT views State and federal CleanWater Act compliance as a key means forassuring the future of the Klamath basin'ssalmon and the Tribes' 10,000-year reliance onthis vital fish resource. Although the grazing inthe East Beaver, Hornbrook, and Ash Creekallotments considered in this Draft EA may notbe highly injurious to Pacific salmon, it willdegrade water quality and does not, therefore,comply with the CWA.

1, la 5. Please see response to comment 10 regardingwater quality and response to comment 16regarding fish.

The bank erosion, riparian vegetationdecrease, and deposit of cattle waste into streamsare inconsistent with the State of California'sKlamath River TMDL (NCRWQCB 2010a) anddo not comply with the North Coast RegionalWater Quality Control Board's Basin Plan(NCRWQCB 2007).

1, 1a 5. See response to comment 10.

... unless there are substantive changes in themanner in which the allotment is managed and inthe manner in which the permittees meet theirresponsibilities, re-authorization of grazing in theAllotments will constitute violation of the CleanWater Act.

1, la 5. Compliance with the Clean Water Act isdescribed in detail in Section 3.3.3, p. 29 andSection 3.3.4 on p. 30 of the EA.

It is clear from reading through the 2001-2009 Forest Monitoring and BMP Reports fromthe Klamath National Forest that the effects ofgrazing on riparian vegetation and streambankstability is not being adequately monitored(examples of this are included in the comment

1, la 5. The KNF is always striving to improveinformation to assist in land managementdecisions and management. The materialreferenced in this comment is included in asection titled, "Practices to Consider forPossible Modification at the Forest Level," and


USDAaw"


letter). it relates to guidance within the Forest Plan andconsistency in methods across the Forest for theupcoming Forest Plan Revision. Such languagedoes not necessarily imply that adverse impactsare occurring or that monitoring in the studyarea is inadequate. Guidelines do exist in thecurrent Forest Plan and permits in theallotments for recommended riparian vegetationutilization. That information would be formallyincorporated into the AMS process underAlternative 2 (see Table 2-4 on p. 12 of theEA). Note that there are other types ofmonitoring currently being conducted(Alternative 3) or that are proposed in .Alternative 2 which are not specificallymentioned in the BMP report such as rangereadiness implementation monitoring whichconsiders soil moisture levels. MIM monitoringas proposed in Alternative 2 would increaseboth the frequency and intensity of riparianvegetation and streambank stability monitoring.

The Draft EA states that "Permanent plots on 1, la 5. It is true that permanent plots are notkey areas have been established in the East specifically located in, or designed to measureBeaver allotment to provide long-term long-term trends in riparian areas. Comparisonsmonitoring of range condition." (page 15) and with historic photos and BMPEP measurements"Long-term rangeland vegetation monitoring of currently provide the best information forkey areas indicates a continued stable or riparian vegetation. As part of the MIMimproving trend." (page 17); however, it is monitoring, greenline vegetation compositionimportant to note that these permanent plots plots are proposed along with streambankpresumably represent site vegetation as a whole,not the riparian and streambank areas.

stability and cover measurements.

The Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM) 1, 1 a 5. The two DMAs identified were locatedproposed in section 2.1.2.4 would provide some because historic use shows that these areas areuseful information regarding how grazing is used more heavily than other areas with theaffecting riparian areas, but the proposed allotments. As this comment notes, grazingmonitoring needs to be expanded. Grazing impacts can be unevenly distributed. Theseimpacts are often unevenly distributed across the DMAs were selected to capture the heaviest uselandscape, with little to no impact in some areas areas. The selection of additional DMAs is notbut major impacts in other areas. For this reason,monitoring that focuses on only two Designated

precluded by this analysis should additionalhigh use areas be identified in the future.

Monitoring Areas (DMAs) may miss the areaswith the most acute impacts.

23) An informative, simple, and cost-effective 1, 1 a 5. The KNF appreciates the input to helpway to monitor a larger geographic area would improve the effectiveness and efficientbe to walk along streams with a GPS-enabled monitoring. Long-term plots have beencamera and take hundreds of photos. This geo- established using Forest-wide standardlocated photographic record would be an protocols. Geo-referenced photo documentation


USDA

nComment Letter

Number Disposition

extremely valuable monitoring tool for tracking has long been part of the KNF monitoringchanges in the landscape over time, and program (particularly with Parker 3-step plotsidentifying potential problem areas. Given that which documented monitoring of rangelandthe primary range areas in the allotments are condition and trend going back 50 years). Theonly 998 acres, it should be possible to photo-monitor a substantial portion of the streams in

KNF has a large number of photo records,including aerial photographs for the project

the primary range areas where the majority of the area. Photo documentation has been and willgrazing occurs. Such photo monitoring should be continue to be an important part of theconducted annually. These photos should bearchived in the project files and also madeavailable on the Internet.

ecological record within the allotments.

24) The FS asserts in the EA that "Based on 3 4. It is true that past BMP informationmonitoring data from KNF, there is no documents streambank erosion. The EAdocumented streambank erosion in the project document has been modified to reflect this.area." The FS reached this conclusion based Presenting older data does not necessarily bestonly on "recent" monitoring. The FS must describe the affected environment and may inevaluate and consider all available monitoring fact provide inaccurate and confusingdata in order to reach conclusions about information. Therefore, language in the EA hasenvironmental impacts. Selective analysis andselective disclosure is a NEPA violation.

been modified to be more specific.

BMP sampling was completed in Ash Creek in2003 and in East Beaver in 2008. The mostrecent BMP information prior to these samplingperiods was from 1998. Note that monitoring in2008 provides more recent and better data fordescribing present conditions. Some streambankerosion was noted here, but the erosion was notdetermined to be due to current cattle grazingpractices and it was determined that all ACSobjectives were being met or exceeded. As isnoted on p. 46, streambank vegetation in shrubcomplexes appears to be stable or increasing.

25) The KNF must employ standard monitoring 1, la 5. The monitoring methods identified with bothmethods and recognize specific targets orpopulation levels as surrogates for properly

action alternatives do recognize specific targets,though under Alternative 3 the targets are

functioning ecological conditions. Data limited to those identified under the terms of thecollection should be annual or scheduled when permit. Monitoring for Alternative 2 describedneeded, if some conditions only change in repose in Section 2.1.2.4 includes annual datato periodic meteorological events. Water quality collection which allows management to adapt toreference values should be similar to those meteorological trends or events. Monitoring foremployed in the Scott River TMDL this project does not specifically measure(NCRWQCB, 2006). The data resulting from populations of plants or animals, but rangelandmonitoring could then be used for construction health is assessed through long-termof a model that would be useful in predicting monitoring. Monitoring has been designed toecosystem response to grazing. measure vegetation impacts that are directly

attributable to grazing use. Maintenance orenhancement of vegetation communities willbenefit Sensitive and other species. The NorthCoast Regional Water Board has approved the


USDA •


Klamath National Forest Sediment andTemperature Monitoring Plan (USFS 2010)which meets all Forest Service monitoringrequirements of the Scott River TMDLincluding methods, targets, and schedules.

26) The Draft EA does not mention the affects ofgrazing on bacteria such as E. coli, or otherhuman pathogens. ... This is a potentially seriousconsequence of grazing and needs to beevaluated in the KNF grazing allotments EA.

Measuring for E. coli above and below meadowsand at the KNF boundary downstream would bea suitable monitoring approach, if a moreauthentic adaptive management program ispursued.

1, 1 a5. Chemical contamination from grazing, aswell as other aquatic health and fish habitatindicators, are described in detail within theFisheries BA/BE (section 5.6.3, p. 41-58)(ERG2010a) and the Fisheries Specialist Report(section 4, p.13-23) (ERG 20 10b).

A US EPA (1993) report stated that, unlessfecal material is directly deposited into streams,the risk of nutrient enrichment under andsummertime conditions is low, particularly forunconfmed cattle grazing. Cattle may depositurine and fecal material directly to streams inkey areas where it is possible for animals tomove down into stream channels to forage orcross the stream. Since the only areas wherecattle will most likely directly deposit feces tostreams is in flat meadows, the waste probablysettles to the stream bottom near where it wasdeposited. Because the Project involves arelatively small number of animals that areunconfmed and do not spend considerable timein the stream, there is low probability thatbacteria from wastes would accumulate instreams.

Active management by permittees (herding) toreduce the time when cattle can access streamsand to control the number and location of cattlestream crossings (there are approximately fourcrossings in the Upper Cow Creek high usearea), and also the natural behavior of cattle toavoid walking over rocky substrates minimizesdirect fecal input to streams. Because manystream reaches are not accessible to cattle, thefecal input to meadow reaches is minor and isnot expected to be detected at the 7th fieldwatershed scale (Fisheries BA/BE, p.47-48).

The AMS is designed to maintain or improveriparian vegetation and fish habitats.


USDA •


Disposition

There are no data presented to support water 1, la 5. There are several data presented to supportquality assertions. The BMP monitoring' report findings regarding water quality (please refer toacknowledged that the current monitoringprotocols for assessing stream bank stability and

the Water Resources Specialist Report,Fisheries BA/BE, and Section 3.3 of the EA)

riparian vegetation are inadequate. There is no (ERG 2010a; ERG 2010h). The number ofassessment in the EA of the amount of nutrients cattle and area of acreage of primary range areadded by cattle to allotment streams. Cattle reported. Please see comment response 20excrete up to 500 times more bodily waste per relating to BMP adequacy. Please see commentday than humans (Derlet et al. 2010) and thus response 26 relating to chemical contaminationthere is potential for substantial pollution. from cattle.

As part of AMS, the KNF should place 1, la 5. Stream temperature surveys have beenautomated temperature sensors above and below performed on numerous Critical Habitat streamsmeadows to demonstrate that there is no thermal (see Fisheries BA/BE p.43)(ERG 2010a).loading resulting from cattle grazing on Effects to stream temperature from grazing arestreamside vegetation. disclosed in the EA (Section 3.3.2.1, p.28,

Section 3.3.3.1, p.29, Section 3.7.3.1 p.49), theFisheries Specialist Report (section 4.2, p.13,section 4.2.1.2. p.16)(ERG 2010b), and theFisheries BA/BE (pp. 42-44, 59-60, and 62).Stream temperatures may be reduced under NoAction, and no changes in stream temperatureare expected under Alternative 2 or underAlternative 3.

The direct measurement of stream temperatureabove and below meadows would likely beundetectable. Temperature changes can bedirectly linked to vegetation cover. The healthof vegetation cover and relationship to watertemperature is discussed in Section 3.3 of thisEA and in the Water Resources SpecialistReport (ERG 2010h).

Use and impacts in riparian areas has beenincluded in the AMS through monitoringdescribed in Section 2.1.2.4 on p. 11.

Of the limited stream miles within the projectarea that are open and accessible to grazing, twoof the most heavily used streamside areas wouldreceive annual and long-term MIM. Adaptivemanagement activities will be implemented,based on the results of monitoring, to continuethe trend toward desired conditions.

29) The basic assertion regarding cumulative 1, 1a 5. The cumulative effects analysis refers to thewatershed effects (CWE) in the Draft EA is that relative impacts of grazing as compared tothe effects generated by grazing are so small,when compared to those of logging and road

logging and road building: impacts are notdismissed because of their relative impact

building, that they are insignificant. In fact, the Their relative impact compared to other sources


USDAloW11111


effects of grazing should be considered in of impairment is important for understandingconjunction with these other sources of the context and contribution of this projectpollution, and recognize the basin's very relative to other activities towards cumulativedegraded watershed condition. These conditionstriggered the listing of the Klamath River and itstributaries under the CWA as impaired forsediment and water temperature and led to thepollution abatement measures prescribed by the

impacts.

Please see response to comment 8 regardingcumulative effects requirements and NEPA.

TMDL process (NCRWQCB 2010a). Thediscussion of CWE in the Draft EA actuallyserves as a diversion from the real question: whatare the effects of grazing at a watershed andlandscape scale in Middle Klamath tributaries?

The Draft EA acknowledges that the 1, la 5. See response to comment 10 relating to waterKlamath River and its tributaries are listed as quality and TMDL. Please see response toimpaired under the Clean Water Act, but does comment 26 relating to chemical contaminationnot include any discussions of the Klamath River from cattle.TMDL (NCRWQCB 2010a) nor the recentlyadopted Waiver of Waste DischargeRequirements for USFS activities(NCRWQWCB 2010b). The re-authorization ofgrazing allotments is one of the activitiesdiscussed in the waiver, so it seems odd that thewaiver is not mentioned in the Draft EA. Is KNFintending to comply with conditions specified inthe TMDL and waiver?

For example, the TMDL requirements for shadeare "The shade provided by topography and fullpotential vegetation conditions at a site, with anallowance for natural disturbances such asfloods, wind throw, disease, landslides, and fire."The continuation of grazing within theallotments would retard the recovery of shade-providing riparian vegetation, and thus will notcomply with the TMDL.

The input of cattle manure into streams throughrunoff or direct discharge into streams wouldcontribute nutrient load to streams and thus isalso not in compliance with the TMDL.

Specifically with regard to grazing, the 1, la 5. This project is compliant with AquaticNorthwest Forest Plan (FEMAT 1993) makes Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives as isthe following recommendation: "Adjust grazing documented in Sections 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.1, andpractices to eliminate impacts that retard orprevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation

3.2.4.1.

Strategy objectives. If adjusting practices is noteffective, eliminate grazing." To comply with theforegoing mandate, grazing would have to be


•USDAway

CommentLetter

NumberDisposition

eliminated on the allotments.

EA does not identify water quality as asignificant issue. But the main watershedinvolved – Beaver Creek – is admittedlyimpaired and the whole Klamath River Basin isimpaired and subject to a TMDL and CWAClean Up Plan. The FS – including KNFmanagers – are required to comply with theBasin Plan – including the Klamath TMDL andClean-Up Plan. That makes water quality asignificant issue. The EA's failure to recognizethe significance of the water quality issue is aviolation of NEPA.

3 5. The definition of significant issues isexplained in detail in Section 1.7 on p.6 of theEA.

Because of the design of the AMS andmonitoring to address potential riparianimpacts, water quality was determined to not bea significant issue. See response 14 inDisposition of Scoping Comments, Appendix Afor further details.

EA discloses that required monitoring hasnot been done on the Ash Creek and HornbrookAllotments due to "access, capable/suitablerangeland, and ownership". The EA does notexplain how this failure to conduct requiredmonitoring will be remedied...Unless the FS candemonstrate that it can fulfill its monitoringresponsibilities on the Ash Creek and HornbrookAllotments it can not legally approve/authorizegrazing in these areas. Under thesecircumstances, the decision to authorize grazingwill violate the CWA/Basin Plan as well asviolating agreements between the State andRegional Water Boards and the Forest Service.The FS should honor its commitments and NOTreauthorize these two allotments.

3 5. The KNF is performing adequate monitoringon the Ash Creek and Hornbrook allotments.The Hornbrook and Ash Creek allotments aremonitored yearly for range readiness. There is82 acres of primary/secondary range or 8% inthe Ash Creek allotment and 5 acres or 2% inthe Hornbrook allotment. The Hornbrookallotment is 81% privately owned and 42% ofthe Ash Creek is privately owned.

These allotments function primarily as early-season transition range as cattle are moving upto higher elevations. In other words, the USFSlands within these allotments are generally usedto cross to other sections of the allotment ownedby timber companies. Because grazing impactsare so light in these allotments, monitoring isnot as rigorous as more heavily used areas suchas those in the East Beaver Allotment. BMPmonitoring was performed for the Ash CreekAllotment in 2003 (Section 3.2.1.2, p. 24.).

34) The Draft EA and ... provide evidence thatthe following ACS objectives are not being metand will remain unmet if grazing is continued onthe allotments without substantial changes inmanagement:

Maintain and restore the physical integrity ofthe aquatic system, including shorelines, banks,and bottom configurations. Although there hasbeen only very limited monitoring of bankstability in the allotments, the 2008 BMPeffectiveness monitoring report noted that in theWest Long John area of the Beaver Allotment,"Several active headcuts exist in this unit... In

1, 1 a 5. There is no information contained within themonitoring report (USDA 2008) to attribute theheadcuts directly to grazing. In fact, the reportindicates that the "cause of headcuts was notidentified." Headcuts can be initiated by othercauses. Also note that headcuts do notnecessarily mean that there is active streambankerosion occurring. The monitoring report alsonotes heavy willow cover present in the WestLong John Unit, which is important inmaintaining stability. Monitoring proposedunder Alternative 2 would help to maintain thisstability.


•

USDA


spite of the presence of headcuts, the"streambank alteration guidelines were met"because the cut-off for receiving the highestgrade only requires that >80% of thestreambanks be stable, a very low performancestandard. The Draft EA states that "Based onmonitoring data from KNF, there is nodocumented streambank erosion in the projectarea." (page 27); however this appears to becontradicted by the headcuts identified in the2008 BMP report. Without requiring moresupervision such as range riding, it is difficult toprevent cows from impacting sensitive riparianareas.

• Maintain and restore water quality necessary tosupport healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetlandecosystems. Water quality must remain withinthe range that maintains the biological, physical,and chemical integrity of the system and benefitssurvival, growth, reproduction, and migration ofindividuals composing aquatic and ripariancommunities.

This objective parallels those of the Clean WaterAct described above. ..As noted above, the EApresents no data regarding how grazing in theallotments affects water quality parameters suchas temperature, pathogens, or nutrients.

Both herding and salting are used to move cattleaway from riparian areas and monitoring asdescribed in the EA would ensure that riparianareas are meeting standard and guidelines.

The AMS designed for this project moreefficiently addresses resource concerns withoutperforming the expensive monitoring describedin this comment. Monitoring directly assessesimpacts due to grazing and cattle use. Someother measurements are routinely taken as aresult of ongoing programs (e.g., streamtemperature for fisheries). Please see commentresponse 10 and 26 relating to water quality andchemical contamination from cattle.

EA contains a discussion of "cumulativeeffects" but no analysis to determine what theactual cumulative watershed effects of thepreferred alternative are likely to be and noanalysis to determine if cumulative watershedimpacts are in compliance with CWArequirements — including the Klamath TMDLand Clean-Up Plan. This is a NEPA violation.

3 5. See response to comment 10.

FS managers have admitted (privatecommunications) that the cumulative watershedimpacts from the logging on private industrialownership in the Beaver Creek watershed are sogreat that the FS can not manage vegetation therebecause that would add still more impacts. Sowhy is it OK to add more impacts via grazing?The law is clear: when unacceptable watershedimpacts can not be addressed or mitigated FSmanagers CAN NOT make a decision to addmore watershed impacts. The FS is legallyprevented from authorizing grazing in the Beaver

3 5. The impacts from CWE modeling arereported in detail in the Water ResourcesSpecialist Report (ERG 2010h). There arecalculated risk ratios that are higher than theinference point where watersheds are at risk ofcumulative effects. The major cause of elevatedrisk ratios is road building and timber harvest.Stable or increasing trends in vegetation coverwill prevent significant increases in landslidepotential and sediment delivery to streamswhich could contribute to risk of cumulativeeffects. Soil compaction is minimized in this


USDA

CommentLetter

NumberDisposition

Creek Allotment because unacceptablecumulative watershed impacts can not beavoided.

project through the use of range readinessmonitoring which prevents grazing fromoccurring until soils are dry enough to preventdamage. KNF soils personnel have noted infield visits to glacial till sites that there is onlyvery minimal detrimental disturbance tosensitive soils. Therefore, risks of cumulativeeffects from landslides, sediment delivery tostreams, and soil compaction are negligible anddo not measurably increase risk of CWE.

... Whether grazing has "minimal effects" isasserted but not demonstrated with analysis (aNEPA violation)...When past and anticipatedfuture impacts result in unacceptable watershedimpacts, the FS may not add additional impactseven if/when these additional impacts are"minimal." The proposal to authorize grazing forten years in Beaver Creek Watershed thereforeviolates the federal and state CWA anti-degradation policies, the "no furtherdegradation" policy of the Basin Plan and theKlamath TMDL and Clean-Up Plan.


The project is consistent with the no furtherdegradation" policy of the Basin Plan as none ofthe alternatives propose increases or moreintensive land uses.

The analysis of the impacts of thealternatives considered addresses the 303d list ofimpaired waterbodies but does not addressrequirements of the North Coast Basin Planincluding the Klamath TMDL and pollutionclean-up plan.


...Since the existing condition ofstreambanks is "unknown" there is nothing inthe EA to back up the conclusion that therewould be no change in direct impacts under thepreferred alternative. The fact is there is noassessment of riparian condition in the watershednor of the impact of grazing on that condition. Inthe absence of "direct evidence" the FS must relyon research on how much time unrestricted cattlespend in riparian areas. The EA fails to do thatwhich is a NEPA violation.

3 5. Streambank stability and riparian impacts arerecorded as part of BMPEP monitoring. TheWater Resources Specialist Report (ERG2010h) does acknowledge that there may beundocumented areas of erosion since one cannotconclude from any systematic sampling thatthere is not any bank erosion. However, fieldobservations in even the most heavily usedareas and BMPEP monitoring note heavywillow and shrub cover in riparian areas. MIMwould intensify measurements within riparianareas, further reducing changes for adverseriparian impacts in Alternative 2. The use ofvegetation utilization is a valid method formonitoring riparian areas (USEPA 1993).

...The EA acknowledges that the other twoalternatives considered will have negativewatershed impacts but it classes those impacts as

3 5. Current vegetation monitoring and BMPEPsampling provide the best sources ofinformation and certainly do not characterize


•

USDArim= 1.Trii •


"minor". There is no analysis presented onwhich the "minor" conclusion can be based.Under the ACS (NFMA) and the CWA (BasinPlan) these minor impacts MUST beavoided/eliminated where possible. Therefore, asa result of fmding/admitting grazing impacts inthe EA, FS managers are obligated to make adecision to NOT authorize grazing in the BeaverCreek Watershed. The fact that an area is alreadytrashed does not justify or allow FS managers todecide to add more impacts which are avoidable.A decision to authorize grazing in Beaver Creekwould therefore violate NMFMA and the CWA.

the project area as "trashed." On the contrary,vegetation is stable or increasing and riparianshrub communities in monitoring reports aredescribed as "heavy." It is anticipated thatimpacts under Alternative 2 would be less thanthat under Alternative 3 (current condition).

These data from BMPEP monitoring includemeasurements of vegetation, meadowhydrology, stream morphology, soilcompaction, and erosion potential, and are allfactors that directly affect water quality.

... by not making the need for regular rangeriding and herding explicit - and because KNFmanagers have a "pattern and practice" of NOTrequiring the level of range riding and herdingnecessary to prevent direct deposition of waste tostreams and wetlands - we can only concludethat FS managers have no intention of requiringthat level of range riding and herding necessaryto prevent violation of the CWA (Basin Plan)

3 5. The assertion that the Basin Plan will beviolated without riding and herding is notsupported by factual evidence. There is noevidence that deposition of waste in streams andwetlands is occurring to the extent that it isinconsistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA)and the Basin Plan. See responses to comments10 and 26 for further details.

... The FS has not conducted studiesnecessary to reach that conclusion or referencedsuch studies including:

What percentage of time unherded cows willspend in riparian, stream and wetlandenvironments, how much waste they willdeposit during that time and how much banktrampling and riparian cover removal willoccur during that time.The watershed-wide and forest wide amountof waste, bank trampling and riparian coverremoval that results from poorly herdedgrazing in the Klamath Mountains.

Nor does the FS cite other studies on which tobase its conclusion. This is a violation of NEPA.

3 5. The percentage of time that unherded cowsspend in riparian areas is directly related toutilization of vegetation and streambankerosion. Vegetation utilization design criteriahave been designated to maintain vegetationcommunities. Maintaining stubble heights will minimize introduction of nutrients to waterwaysthrough overland flow. Alternative 2 includesthe construction of corrals that will allowpermittees to better distribute cattle and likelyreduce potential for concentrated riparianimpacts.

43) The FS in this EA has failed to acknowledgeand consider significant new scientificinformation documenting the impacts whichcattle grazing on NF lands in California has onwater quality. That scientific informationincludes the peer reviewed paper "Reducing theimpact of summer cattle grazing on water qualityin the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California: aproposal" by Robert W. Derlet, Charles R.

3 5. The Forest Service takes potential threats towater quality seriously and wants to pursuefurther research to determine the extent andsignificance of potential threats from grazing onNFS lands. In response to concerns raised bythe recent studies regarding grazing and waterquality on FS lands in Region 5 – acollaborative comprehensive study has beeninitiated between the FS and rangeland


USDA


Goldman and Michael J. Connor, Journal of watershed scientists and epidemiologists at UCWater and Health, 2010...(excerpts are included Davis to investigate potential sources andin the comment letter). solutions to livestock and microbial water

Nowhere in the EA are threats to human healthassociated with the alternatives and related to theabove facts analyzed and disclosed....another

quality related impacts. The KNF willparticipate in this study and results incorporatedinto management on these allotments through

NEPA violation.adaptive management as needed. The studyincludes water quality sampling using bestavailable science, grazing use and managementpractices, rangeland and riparian condition andtrend. Our emphasis will be to determine ifthere are problems and pursue managementsolutions to address them. Details of the studycan be found here:

httb://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu/main/bublic_grazing water.htm

There are some issues with the sciencepresented in the comment. Derlet et al. fail todiscuss literature showing that many ofmicroorganisms found in cattle or sheep appearto not be infectious for humans. For example,much of Giardia in Assemblage E, and much ofthe Cryptosporidium shed by beef cattle is notreadily infectious for humans (Hunter andThompson 2005). By closer examination of thisissue through the UC Davis study, the KNFhopes to use the best information to help guidegrazing management.

Impacts to water quality are analyzed using theForest CWE model and implementation ofBMPs. BMPs were developed to comply withSection 208 of the CWA. BMPs have beencertified by the State Water Quality ResourcesControl Board and approved by the EPA as themost effective way of protecting water qualityfrom effects stemming from non-point sourcesof pollution. These practices have been appliedto forest activities and have been foundeffective in protecting water quality within theForest. Specifically, effective application of theRegion 5 Forest Service BMPs has been foundto maintain water quality that is in conformancewith Water Quality Objectives in theNCRWQCB Basin Plan.

The Forest Service and California's State WaterResources Control Board are workingcollaboratively to develop a Water QualityManagement Plan for NFS lands. The plan will


USDA


set forth best management practices to be usedfor controlling nonpoint source pollution likethat produced by grazing cattle. The abovestudy will be included in the monitoring portionof the plan. The KNF will use these processes tocomply with provisions of federal and statewater quality statutes and regulations, and bothagencies are in agreement that propermanagement is the key to protecting waterquality.

KNF managers consistently misapply or failto fully apply BMPs:

♦ BMP 7.8 – Cumulative Off-Site WatershedEffects: The EA admits that there will beeffects but concludes (without basis in dataand analysis) that these impacts will be"minimal". No matter, as we have pointedout above even were the impacts "minimal"the FS would be obligated under the CWAto eliminate those impacts which are clearly"controllable".

3 5. BMP 7.8 is fully described in Appendix C ofthe EA. The project as designed will maintainsoil productivity, minimize erosion, sediment,and nutrients.

Impacts to soil health & productivity:

The absence of data concerning soilcompaction, water table depth and other physicalfactors may well be masking the risk of potentialcatastrophic change, such as gully formation orchannel straightening through meadows duringflood events.

1, 1 a 5. Soil compaction and other physical factorsare detailed within the Soils Specialist Report.

Meadows are protected by several designfeatures including MIM monitoring and rangereadiness (which accounts for previous season'suse and soil content among other attributes)(Section 2.1.2.4, p. 11). In addition, forageutilization levels specific to wet meadows isprovided (Section 2.1.2.4, p. 12). Permanentvegetation plots have been installed in meadowsto ensure that vegetation health is maintained inthe long term (Section 2.1.2.4, p. 15).Utilization standards and permanent plots willhelp to ensure that adequate vegetationcoverage is maintained to protect againstaccelerated erosion. Historic photo comparisonsindicate that riparian woody vegetation is stableor increasing. Concerning soil compaction, theKNF soils scientist visited the most heavilyimpacted sites and field observations confirmthat detrimental soil disturbance (including soilcompaction) comprises less than 5% of the mostheavily used areas (even less when areasoutside of primary and secondary range is


USDA


considered). This level is consistent withRegional Soil Quality Analysis Standards whichstates that detrimental soil disturbance shouldbe no more than 15% of an activity area. Watertable depth is directly related to vegetation andstream health. Rooted depth provides anindication of depth water table and plant vigor,and it is part of the long-term monitoring.Direct measurements of water table depth arenot necessary to move towards desiredconditions.

Impacts to plants:

The Draft EA also states that "Vegetation 1, 1a 5. The language referred to in this comment isCommunity Type are meeting or moving toward from a section of the EA titled "Desireddesired conditions as described in Table 2-7" but Condition." It is the intent to move toward thosedoes not present any data to support this claim,nor does it describe the methods used to

conditions. In planning documents it is typicalto have standards and guidelines that provide

determine the improving trend. The Draft EA 's management approaches to achieve desireddescriptions of the methods used in thepermanent plot monitoring and utilizationmonitoring suggest that such methods would notbe sufficient to support such a claim.

conditions.

Note that the presence of vegetation utilizationin itself does not necessarily indicate a declinein long term health trend. Permanent vegetationplots have been installed in meadows to ensurethat vegetation health is maintained in the longterm (Section 2.1.2.4, p. 15). There are 12monitoring sites along the crest in wet meadowsand on dry sites that are used to determine theutilization and condition of the rangelands.These sites are in key areas chosen to berepresentative of areas of interest/grazing useand overall condition of primary rangelands.Details of this monitoring are available in theproject record.

The Draft EA incorrectly takes the position 1, la 5. The EA repeatedly acknowledges potentialthat because grazing has damaged riparian for negative impacts, even in the passage quotedvegetation, and that riparian vegetation has by this commenter. Negative impacts do notpartially recovered in recent decades due to necessarily indicate significant impacts.reduced grazing pressure, that continuation of Individual willow plants may be impacted, butgrazing will not have negative impacts. In fact,grazing is inhibiting the recovery of riparian

trends in recent decades suggest that willowcomplexes are stable or increasing. See

vegetation, and that is, in itself, a negative response to comment 45 regarding protection ofimpact. wet meadows and riparian areas.

The Forest Plan has developed utilization levelsthat represent the percentage of the currentyears' growth that is allowable for removalduring a single grazing year. The approximate


•

USDA •Comment Letter

Number Disposition

height of vegetation that remains on site isestimated based on a general knowledge of site-specific herbaceous species and their growthrates. Utilization levels for the project are basedon these standards. A suitability analysis hasbeen conducted for the allotments. Thisinformation is provided in Table 3-5 of the EAon p. 23. Please see response to comment 46 interms of monitoring sites.

Impacts caused by grazing:

The KNF should be devising models basedon physical and biological measurements fromits grazing allotments with specific targets forrestoration of ecosystem function (e.g., finesediment particles less than 0.85 mm in diametershould make up less than 14% in spawninggravels, there should be successful recruitment ofCascade frogs, etc.). However, no field data arepresented in the Draft EA and the only modelsreferred to are those for upland cumulative

1, 1 a 5. The restoration of ecosystem function is notthe purpose and need for this project. Severalproject design features and the AMS have beenincorporated into the project to avoid significantresource impacts. The restoration of habitats isout of the scope of this project. MIM protocolfrom Alternative 2 includes pebble counts totrack sediment and streambank alteration. TheCWE mentioned in the Water Resources andSoils Specialist Reports (ERG 2010g; ERG2010h) has implications for water quality and isnot limited to upland effects.

effects.

There is no indication in the Draft EA thatKNF will be implementing adaptivemanagement in fact. Rather, Forest staff appearsto be using the adaptive management rubric todefer management decision for some indefinite

1, la 5. Adaptive management as used by this projectis consistent with the definitions provided inForest Service Handbook 2009.13, Chapter 90 -Rangeland Management Decision Making,Section 92.23b-Adaptive Management. TheAMS proposed in Alternative 2 does not deferdecisions for an indefinite period; it outlinesreactive management options which are to beused during the grazing season.

period pending the collection of additional data.

50) ... object to issuance of a cattle grazingpermit within the Ash Creek Allotment becauseit is not suitable for grazing at any time due tosteep topography, limited forage, limited waterdevelopment, and that Ash Creek is a potablewater source used for human consumption. Forthese and other reasons the current permit holderhas elected not to graze cattle in the Ash CreekAllotment from the Cottonwood Peak Divide,south to the Klamath River for the past 30 years.This EA makes the false and misleadingstatement that this area has been grazed since the1860, when KNF knows that it has not beengrazed under the permit for the past 30 years.

2 5. The range suitability analysis used by theKNF shows there are 709 acres ofcapable/suitable rangeland within the AshCreek Allotment (See Table 3-5 on p. 23 of theEA). The Ash Creek and Hombrook allotmentsprovide early season and transitory range as isdescribed in the Rangeland Specialist Report inSections 2.4.1 and 2.4.3(ERG 2010e). Thesouthern end of the Ash Creek near Highway 96does not receive much use, if any at all in recentyears, but other areas of the allotment areutilized annually.


USDA •

CommentLetter

NumberDisposition

... However, construction of corrals will notkeep cows from hanging out in the Cow CreekArea. The only action that can accomplish that isregular range riding and herding. But the EAdoes not even discuss this as the cause for theproblems in the Cow Creek Area nor does itdisclose how management practices – as opposedto construction of corrals – will be changed toaddress the violations of the CWA which occuron a regular basis at Cow Creek. The failure toprovide/disclose how management practices willchange to address environmental impacts is aviolation of NEPA.

3 5. It is true that construction of the corrals alonewill not reduce use in the Cow Creek Area. Theproper use of corrals by holding cattle andmoving them elsewhere will make herding andriding much more effective in distributing cattlethroughout the allotment and reduce theconcentrated use which has occurred in CowCreek in recent years. AMS and additionalMIM monitoring combined with the betterdistribution of cattle will result in reducedimpacts to riparian areas, specifically in CowCreek.

EA relies heavily on "pers. corn" withgeologist Snavley to conclude that "impacts willbe minimal". There are several problems withthis reliance:

It is used in place of data and analysis whichis a NEPA violation.Mr. Snavely is not qualified to evaluate theimpacts of grazing.Mr. Snavely has a history of approvingactivities which later are shown to have adevastating impact on water quality...

3 5. Qualitative monitoring and professionaljudgment calls can be sufficient in making suchdeterminations. Mr. Snavely is a KNFHydrologist. Additionally, the report has beensubsequently reviewed and accepted by KNFstaff, including an additional ForestHydrologist.

53) KNF managers consistently misapply or failto fully apply BMPs:

BMP 8.1 – Range Analysis and Planning:"KNF managers have demonstrated a patternand practice of unwillingness to citepermittees when they fail to comply withBMPs, allotment plans and annual operatinginstructions...

3 5. Action has been taken by the KNF regardingpermittees. In 2009 the Forest issued a letter ofnon-compliance for utilization levels at CowCreek. Although utilization levels have beenexceeded at one site this does not mean thatdesired conditions are not being met. The long-term monitoring using the rooted frequencymethod indicates that this site is stable. Thiscomment in particular, refers specifically toBMP 8.1 which relates to water quality affectedby grazing. Note that permit administrativeactions can be taken at any time if conditionswarrant. No grazing use has been observed thataffects water quality to the point ofnecessitating the administrative action againstthe permittees.

54) Please remember that livestock grazing issimply one of many possible multiple uses. It isnot and should not be a dominant use. The healthand quality of other resources, and recreationalopportunities, must be factored into themanagement equation. In short, the Forest

8 5. Grazing is not exclusive to other uses.Recreational and other opportunities are notexcluded by grazing activities. This is incompliance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C.528-531).

After analysis as described in the EA and


USDA


Service must stop giving preferential or unduedeference to ranchers and the use of livestockgrazing.

Specialist Reports, significant impacts toresources are not expected under Alternative 2.Alternative 2 will maintain or improve resourceconditions on the allotments in a manner that isconsistent with Forest Plan objectives and otherlaws and statutes.

No significant direct or indirect effects torecreation are expected from discontinuation ofgrazing in Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2,recreation settings and experiences areanticipated to remain the same and capable ofmeeting current and anticipated future demand. 'Since no recreational activities will be modifiedas a result of this project, Alternative 2 willhave no significant direct or indirect effects ondispersed recreational activities available in theproject and surrounding area, including anyrecreation activities within the designatedspecial interest areas (Recreation and ScenerySpecialist Report (ERG 20100 Section 4.1.1and 4.2.1, p.8, and EA Section 3.8, p.50-51).

...continued degradation of springs, steamsand creeks on public lands by the overgrazing ofcows. While the East Beaver allotment is 84,644acres, only 4% of the allotment is suitable rangeand much of that area are high elevationmeadows where grazing is doing damage to rareplants and sensitive meadow ecosystems. Cowsare also commonly found in wet areas, and havebeen known to pollute springs and seepsimportant to forest visitors such as Pacific CrestTrail hikers.

6, 8, 9,9a

5. There is one spring (Sheep Camp Springs)near the crest with a developed outlet for hikersto get clean water. The majority of springs inthe East Beaver Allotment are far removed fromthe Pacific Crest Trail.

See response to comment 2 regarding theproject's compliance with standards, guidelines,and laws; comment 10 regarding water quality;comment 42 and 51 regarding cows spendingtime in water bodies; and comment 45, 46, and47 regarding protection of wet meadows andriparian areas.

...management on the area should bereconsidered, such as in the form of a SiskiyouCrest National Monument.

6, 8, 9,9a

5. The proposed National Monument is outsidethe scope of this grazing allotmentreauthorization project.

Impacts to private inholdings:

57) As personal property owners of 130 acres oftimber and range land in Section 3, T46N, R7Win the Ash Creek Allotment we have advisedKNF in two previous written letters dated 15December 2009 and 30 December 2009 (letters)that KNF is expressly prohibited from issuing agrazing permit. Furthermore, we notified KNF inthese letters that issuance of the proposed

2 5. The analysis for this EA included only USFSlands. Private lands that are intermingled withforest lands were identified as such on planningmaps but no analysis was done for those acres.There are some private lands that have beenleased for grazing within the analysis areaboundary; however, they were not included inthis analysis. As was discussed in the


•USDAre'l11111

CommentLetter

Number Disposition

grazing permit will be the sole cause of negativephysical, environmental, financial, and real harmand impacts on our real and personal propertyholdings. Yet KNF continues to include ourprivate land holdings within the scope of this EAwithout taking responsibility to mitigatedamages to our real and personal propertyholdings.

...are no mitigation measures to ensure cattlegrazing will be limited to only KNF lands. Wespecifically requested and were denied thismitigation measure to protect our holdingswithout satisfactory explanation or legal standingor environmental justification by KNF. Withoutthis mitigation measure, there can be noassurance that issuance of this permit will notphysically, environmentally, or financially(impacts) our private and personal property.

Disposition of Scoping Comments, AppendixA, Siskiyou County has an open range lawwhich places the burden of fencing onlandowners that wish to exclude cattle fromtheir property.

There are no plans in Alternative 2 to changethe use patterns in this particular area from whathas occurred in recent years. If use isanticipated to change, a new NEPA documentwould need to be prepared.

KNF's reliance on county open rangeordinances to escape its legal, environmental andmoral obligations is indefensible becausewithout issuance of this KNF permit, therewould in fact be no grazing. Therefore, issuanceof this permit will be the sole cause of impactson our private and real property holdings withinthe Ash Creek Allotment. Furthermore, KNF hasno legal right to include our holdings withingeographic limits of this permit and nor to relyon our private resources to establish stockinglevels proposed by this KNF EA. ...EA mustmitigate permitted grazing impacts on ourholdings whether or not the permitted party

chooses to graze or not.


Impacts caused by excess use

Cows from the East Beaver allotment havefor many years been the subject of documentedtrespass. In late summer, cows from thisallotment trespass onto the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and can impactresources outside allotment boundaries.

6, 8,

9, 9a

5. Cattle drift outside of the allotment wasdetermined to be a significant issue as a resultof public comment and documentation of driftoccurring. However, the extent of any resourceimpacts is anticipated to be minimal because ofthe limited amount of time that cattle actuallydrift over before they are collected andredistributed on the KNF. The corrals inAlternative 2 are designed for use to moreeffectively distribute cattle and address the driftissue. Fencing along the Siskiyou Crest wasconsidered as an alternative but dismissed from


USDA'111'1-111


further analysis (see Section 2.1.4.1 of the EA).

In response to cattle drifting between the RNFand KNF, the Siskiyou Crest RangelandManagement Strategy was developed as aworking draft in 1994 and was updated inOctober of 2004 and in June of 2010. Theaction plan within the strategy applies todesignated key areas focusing primarily in areasthat have been identified for rest (no livestockgrazing) on the RNF. The action plan stateswhen cattle are found in any of the key areas,positive identification of livestock, location oflivestock, time, and date will be noted andphotos taken if possible. The followinginformation will be verified: ear tag, brand,breed/color of livestock and other informationfor positive id. The appropriate Range staff oneach forest will verify all sightings. Thepermittee will be notified and livestock must beremoved from the restricted area within 3 days.If compliance is reached within the 3 days theissue has been successfully resolved. Ifcompliance is not reached within the timeframeand/or repeated violations continue to occurthroughout the season the Forests willimplement the respective Regional GrazingPermit Administration suspension andCancellation Guidelines. The permittee hasbeen compliant whenever drift has beendocumented and they have been notified ofdrift.

Economic Concerns—Issues of Concern and Disposition


Disposition

Economic project feasibility or viability:

60) According to the Draft EA, The AshCreek Allotment has only 82 acres of"primary range" and the Hornbrook Allotmenthas only 5 acres of "primary range". Do thecosts of administering these allotments and theenvironmental costs and risks outweigh thebenefits? The EA does not contain a costbenefit analysis sufficient to answer thequestion and inform the decision. This is a

3 5. The KNF is constrained in its ability topositively affect the financial efficiency ofagency grazing projects, though financialintegrity and accountability of all resourcemanagement programs in the Forest Service is aprogram management priority. This is due to:constraints from Congress on the Forest Servicegrazing fee; inability of the agency to controlpermittee ranching operations and profit margins;


USDA

nComment Letter

NumberDisposition

fundamental NEPA violation. and the impact of climatic influences on grazingseasons and stocking rates directly affect annualgrazing receipts.

Congress has directed the Forest Service with thepassage of the 1995 Rescission Act to re-issuegrazing permits on active allotments that expirepending updated AMP development inaccordance with NEPA. All grazing permitsaffected by the Rescissions Act have alreadybeen previously issued, in accordance with thisdirection. Additionally, under NEPA, economicadversity may not necessarily be considered asignificant impact when weighed in the balanceof outputs and effects for the entire project. NoForest Service direction or other federal lawconstrains grazing authorization based onfinancial or economic efficiency.

Under current Forest Service policy, the socio-economic impacts of Forest grazing programs areanalyzed at the Forest Plan level through a FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS). TheKNF Forest Plan FEIS disclosed the projectedadministrative costs of the forest grazing programas well as the receipts received in grazing fees.(KNF FEIS p. 2-76 to 2-82, and 4-151 to 4-154).

A cost-benefit analysis can be done when it isrelevant to the choice among environmentallydifferent alternatives being considered for theproposed action (CEQ 1502.23). A qualitativecost-benefit analysis has been added in anaddendum to the Rangeland Specialist Report.

However, the economic impact for fencing as analternative was examined, and the high costswere too prohibitive to take that action.

Note also that there are additional privateinholdings which likely contribute suitable range.These allotments also have additional privatetimberlands which are permitted.


USDA APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents

Transcript of USDA APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...