yamsi grazing allotment project ea consideration of public …a123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 ›...

Yamsi Grazing Allotment Project EA

Consideration of Public Comment

The opportunity to comment on the Yamsi Grazing Allotment project was provided in accordance with 36 CFR 218. The comment period began when the comment notice was

published in the Herald and News on April 8, 2014. A complete EA was mailed to one individual. Ten others also received a notification letter announcing the availability of the EA, as

it was posted to the Forest Service website. During the public comment period, two responses were received.

Letter

#

Postmark Author, Title Organization/Agency Email Address Mailing Address

1 Richard Nawa,

Staff Ecologist

Klamath Siskiyou

Wildlands Center

[email protected] Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 950 SW 6th Grants Pass, Or 97526

2 Terry Simpson and Jane Goodwin

[email protected]

[email protected]

Terry Simpson and Jane Goodwin P.O. 92 Crescent, OR 97733

mailto:[email protected]

The comments received are identified as being “Substantive” or not. To meet the definition of being a “Substantive Comment,” the comment must meet the following:

1. be within the scope of the proposed action, 2. be specific to the proposed action, 3. have a direct relationship to the proposed action, 4. include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.

Some rationale for determining comment status, as not substantive, is as follows:

1. The issue has been addressed with existing project design features to eliminate or reduce effects on a resource. 2. The issue is just a comment, opinion, or position statement with no specific concerns noted about adverse effects of the Proposed Action on a resource. 3. The issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision. 4. The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action. 5. The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made. 6. The issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific evidence.

Responses in the following table may be labeled with codes indicating their status as substantive or not substantive (e.g. NS – 4, not substantive, rational 4) and the corresponding reason code.

COMMENT # COMMENT Response TOPIC

1.1 We are disappointed that you did not collaborate with us over the

past year to develop a restoration alternative as described in our May

24, 2013 comment letter. We continue to assert that woody riparian

vegetation (willows, aspen, spirea, vaccineum species), stream

channel condition (headcutting, gullying, erosion, streambank

stability, proper functioning condition), lodgepole pine

encroachment, and wildlife habitat (e.g. elk, neotropical migrants,

willow flycatcher, Oregon spotted frog, wolf) need to be identified

as “issues” warranting a restoration oriented alternative (hereinafter

“Restoration Alternative”).

Previous scoping comments and comment period comments have been reviewed and used to help guide the analysis of this project. NS-4 - Restoration is outside the purpose and need for this project. Comments regarding restoration activities unrelated to the livestock grazing NEPA analysis for the AMP, being completed at this time, can be provided to the District Ranger.

NEPA

1.2 The poor and deteriorating watershed and wildlife habitat conditions

on the Yamsi Grazing Allotment demonstrate to us clear conflicts

with authorized livestock grazing and a serious lack of compliance

with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. We believe a Restoration

Alternative with substantive riparian improvement to stream

channels draining into the Williamson River would complement

ongoing public/private restoration in the upper Williamson River

watershed as described in EA pages 77-78.

NS-2, the environmental assessment analyzes the actions and compliance with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines in chapter 3.

See comment 1.1

NEPA/Hydro

1.3 We recommend that improvements to Bottle Springs and

Williamson River be implemented immediately with the

programmatic restoration EA (items 2,3,4,5 E p.10-11). There is no

need to further delay implementation of these small scale projects

by including them in the cumbersome AMP planning process. We

will seek every possible solution to bring these public lands into

acceptable ecological condition and in compliance with the Winema

Forest Plan. The proposed action (Alternative 2) does neither and

fails to meet the purpose and need for the EA.

Thank you for your comment regarding the potential to use the programmatic EA adopted from the USFWS.

NS-2. See comment 1.2

NEPA

1.4 We request a field trip to the Yamsi Allotment to better understand

the scientific basis for assertions in the EA of expected improvement

of wildlife habitat and stream channel condition with proposed

grazing. Our primary interest is to visit sites in the allotment where

scientific data has been collected with respect to woody riparian

vegetation, stream channel condition, lodgepole pine encroachment,

wildlife habitat evaluations, and sensitive wildlife species

detections. Secondarily we would be interested in viewing sites

where wildlife or watershed conditions are in poor condition and in

need of improvement for development of a Restoration Alternative.

Lastly we would be interested in viewing areas where livestock

utilization exceeded Forest Plan standards in 2010 and 2011 as

documented in Range Report.

You may contact the District Ranger regarding your request for a field trip to the Yamsi Allotment.

NEPA

1.5 I. Field Assessment of Wildlife Habitat, Springs, and

Stream Channel Condition and Predicted Trend at Easily

Accessed Sites on Yamsi Allotment.

Jayne Goodwin, Terry Simpson and Richard Nawa (KS Wild)

evaluated wildlife/ecologic condition and apparent trend at 16

riparian areas and 11 surface water sites (primarily at springs) on

May 15-16, 2013 (see attached KSWild Tables 1, 2, and Photo

attachment with 55 photos).1

Our field review revealed significant long-term downward trend,

poor/fair wildlife habitat condition, poor streambank vegetation, and

extremely poor vigor of key woody riparian vegetation (e.g., willow,

aspen) in nearly all riparian areas visited. Preferred herbaceous

forage species for livestock and elk appear to have been replaced

with low forage quality species due to decades of livestock grazing.

Production of forage appeared far below potential for the sites

visited due to poor vigor from past livestock grazing and below

average precipitation (i.e. 2013 drought). Unsatisfactory vegetative

conditions were exacerbated by livestock trampling damage,

postholing, pedestaling and streambank erosion due to inappropriate

and heavy livestock use in wet and moist meadows.

Information provided in commenters’ attachments from field reviews represent a snapshot in time. Additionally, the information collected was collected using monitoring methodology or approved protocol.

NS-2. We would welcome data that support your comments to determine consistency with data collection standards in range science.

Range/

Responsible Official

1 We used “Plant Associations of the Central Pumice Zone” R6-ECOL-104-1985 to assist with condition and trend assessments. At each site we searched for

evidence of woody riparian vegetation and its current ability to function as wildlife habitat and watershed protection, e.g. “willows high lined and decadent”.

1.5 cont. The natural morphology and hydrology of several springs had been

significantly altered with mechanical soil removal to create watering

areas (ponds) for livestock. Natural habitat and vegetation

previously used by wildlife species at these springs was severely

reduced and in need of restoration. The only riparian areas found

with satisfactory woody riparian condition were in 3 very small

areas where livestock grazing has been excluded: Bathtub Spring,

Buckhorn Spring, and Head of River Campground. Wildhorse

Spring and its outflow channel were also in good condition due to

exceptionally light grazing.

Hydrology

1.6 II. The April 2014 EA Fails to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The EA misrepresents current conditions in riparian areas and fails

to provide supporting data or informative photographs. We found

that generalizations in the EA about satisfactory or improved

riparian conditions with ongoing deferred grazing are false and

unsupported with field data representative of the riparian areas we

visited. The principal flaw in the EA/Proposed Action is that

“range” objectives and “range” data for condition and trend were

used to support current grazing permit with no systematic

integration of wildlife, stream channel, and ecological parameters

(e.g. assessment of woody riparian vegetation, particularly willow

and aspen cover in meadows and along stream channels).

NS-2.

Determinations of current condition were made following collection of data using agency study protocols (EA pg. 18)

Environmental Assessments for Range allotments determine whether or not to authorize grazing (FSH 2209.13 chapter 90, 92.23). If authorized through a grazing permit, various management practices are utilized to ensure standards and guidelines are met. Standards and guidelines for grazing consider other resources such as wildlife and riparian conditions. Failure to meet standards and guidelines (determined through monitoring) require adjustments in management which could include reduced AUM’s, deferred rotation or resting to name a few (EA page 10)

Range

1.7 1. The EA failed to quantify wildlife condition and trend

for MA8 (riparian) acres and stream miles. Based on

qualitative statements of deteriorated condition and

trend for MA8 acres, we provide quantitative analysis to

demonstrate the significant adverse impacts from Alt. 2. Based on our field data (KS Wild Tables 1, 2, and 55 photos) and

our considerable professional experience, we have estimated

current condition and trend as well as predicted condition and

trend (KSWild Tables 3,4). We found that 10 of 12 randomly

sampled meadows with deferred grazing were in poor wildlife

condition (83%) and two were in fair (17%). We extrapolated

these proportions to the estimated 2,271 acres of riparian habitat

(EA:22) and report results in KS WildTable 3. Our quantitative

assessment is consistent with qualitative statements in the EA,

Wildlife Report, and Fisheries Report.

See response to comment 1.5

Wildlife

1.8 We strongly disagree, however, with the following EA:71

statements: Changes in grazing practices in the last several

years, along with the easing of drought conditions, have allowed

many of these channel segments to recover…. Even though heavily

grazed in most years, ephemeral channels are seen to be largely

well vegetated and show only minor areas of intermittently

exposed bare soil or headcutting. This statement is not true for

Bull Pasture (see KS Wild photos 38-41) and likely not true for

portions of Telephone Draw and Haystack Draw. The EA

provides no data that these channels are “well vegetated” which

would mean well vegetated with woody riparian vegetation that is

needed to prevent erosion and headcutting as has occurred in Bull

Pasture. Drought conditions have increased in 2013-2014 not

decreased.

With regard to cumulative effects, the following statements

(EA:67) is consistent with our observations and experience: “The

habitat types most impacted by livestock grazing are meadows

and other riparian areas. These habitats are very limited in size

and scope, but provide some of the most important habitats for

wildlife.”

NS-2.

Vegetation along riparian sites is dependent on site potential. Woody vegetation is not supported by all riparian sites.

(EA page 81 refers to EUI ‘s). The Range Report pages 5-7 shows the Plant Associations, and therefore the site potential of each area.

Hydrology/

Soils

1.9 But we strongly disagree that “Continuing use of the allotment

at current levels is not likely to substantially impact the species’

current habitat. Design Criteria that favor the maintenance and

re-establishment of riparian plants would likely improve habitat

in the future.” The EA provides no empirical data from the

allotment to support this conjecture. The only areas with

measurable improvement for wildlife are areas which have been

excluded from livestock (e.g. Bathtub Spring exclosure,

Buckhorn exclosure). Similarly the “expected effects” in Table 5

(EA:19) are based on “range” parameters that do not reflect the

wildlife habitat conditions we observed with the ongoing

eradication and high lining of woody riparian species with the

deferred rotation grazing. The EA provides no empirical data

from the allotment to support the expected riparian improvement

asserted in Table 5. The only areas with measurable

improvement for wildlife or good wildlife habitat are areas which

have been excluded from livestock(e.g. Bathtub Spring

exclosure, Buckhorn exclosure, Head of River Campground).

(see table on page 5 of comment letter)

NS-2, see response to 1.5

The expected effects will result in a static or upward trend of grazing to standards. Recent years EA page 18 standards have not been met in 2010 and 2011. Commenter provides no empirical data that riparian improvement would not be met if standards are met. The 2013 end of season standards were in compliance despite drought conditions (project record).

The specific quote is confusing and the species question cannot be determined, in the context of the wildlife comments and the reference to table in the EA.

Wildlife

1.10 1. The EA lacks a reasonable range of alternatives. The single

action alternative 2 does not accomplish resource objectives by

reducing cattle numbers, reducing grazing duration, developing

alternative grazing systems, or substantially increasing grazing

exclusion for degraded meadows, springs, and streamside areas

(MA 8).

We recommend that a Restoration Alternative be developed to

accomplish resource objectives in a more timely manner (4-10

years) with active restoration management. The Restoration

Alternative would be a mid-point alternative between no

grazing and the proposed action with respect to grazing

exploitation and resource recovery/protection and would not

require an Environmental Impact Statement to implement.

Please see response 1.13

NS-4, see response to comment 1.2. Permit administration is the tool used to address herd numbers and grazing season duration, and other actions. See EA pages 13-14 for potential adjustments to grazing systems and strategies to meet utilization standards, in design criteria.

NEPA

1.11 a. Restoration Alternative. The proposed action has only 2

projects designed to improve riparian conditions on a very tiny

portion of the allotment (Williamson River, Bottle Spring).

None of these projects would satisfactorily improve the

degraded and unsatisfactory sites we visited that are

representative of many thousands of riparian acres (see KS Wild

Tables 1,2 attached). Consistent with our scoping comment (c-

h listed below), 8 page letter dated May 22, 2013, and 2 page

letter dated May 24, 2013 we propose a Restoration Alternative

where resource objectives would be accomplished in the short

term (5-10 years) by reducing cattle numbers, reducing grazing

duration, and substantially increasing riparian/meadow/spring

areas excluded from grazing.

The Restoration Alternative would exclude grazing from 40%-

70% of the highest wildlife value MA 8 acres. In comparison,

the proposed action excludes grazing from less than 1% of high

value riparian habitat. High wildlife value riparian areas

proposed for exclusion would be those associated with springs,

ponds, stream channels, and aspen/willow areas. Our

observations strongly support the need for widespread active

restoration projects in riparian areas with the exclusion of

livestock grazing to provide time for improvement and ensure

success. Subsequent to grazing exclusion, restoration projects

would be developed for these degraded riparian areas. The

Restoration Alternative would emphasize restoration activities

such as headcut stabilization, removal of encroaching pine,

restoration of willows, aspen and other woody riparian

vegetation, and possible beaver introduction. Birds, amphibians

and other riparian dependent animals would be monitored in

restored riparian areas as part of the monitoring plan. We

expect that this strategy of nograzing/restoration would allow

renewed livestock grazing in some riparian/meadow areas (but

at a much lower intensity) in 5-10 growing seasons.

NS-4, see response to comment 1.2

Point of clarification, the date of the letter that the commenter refers to is from a comment period comment, not from a scoping period comment.

There is no Forest Plan requirement to quantify riparian acres excluded from grazing.

NEPA

1.12 b. Anticipated Forest Service assertions and rebuttals that reduced

cattle numbers and increased grazing exclusion is somehow

analyzed with the no grazing alternative are wrong due to

extreme differences of grazing intensity for the entire allotment,

It would seem prudent to provide the decision maker with a

more balanced Restoration Alternative with respect to partially

reduced livestock numbers/aums and spatially explicit increased

grazing exclusion. The Restoration Alternative would be more

responsive for ongoing reduced forage due to chronic drought

(2013,2014 and beyond), ongoing conifer encroachment, and

large areas of Riparian Management Area 8 in poor or fair range

and or wildlife condition and not meeting Forest Standards. In

addition it appears the permittee cannot control the large herd as

demonstrated by exceeding utilization standards in 2010 and

2011.

NS-2 and NS-4. See response to comment 1.2

Range

1.13 c. The Forest Service was arbitrary and capricious for concluding

that “there were no key issues that would lead to development

of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.” EA p. 8.

The Forest Service considered all scoping comments. If a comment brings up an issue that would become a “key issue” and drive an alternative, it must meet the purpose and need for the project, otherwise it will be considered, but eliminated from detailed study. 40 CFR 1501.7

During the scoping period for this project, two requests for additional information were received. No other comments were received from the public.

Two comments were received from the Klamath Tribes. The Director of Culture and Heritage noted that the project area “…has been used by the Klamath Tribes for thousands of years…Without a complete cultural survey of the entire grazing allotment area we cannot know how, when, or where impacts to culturally significant sites and materials will occur.” The Wildlife Biologist for the Klamath Tribes expressed concern about the duration of the management document and that using a 20-year plan could preclude the ability to incorporate new information as it becomes available, such as a mule deer study currently underway, and climate change effects. (EA page 11-12)

In addition, there was a scoping comment that the Forest Service did not receive during scoping from KS Wild that was received during the 2014 comment period dated July of 2010 (the original scoping period). Regretfully, the Forest Service did receive these comments during or around the scoping period, and was unable to determine why this letter was not received. The Forest Service took a hard look at this scoping letter to determine if any of the comments within it would generate key issues that would drive an alternative to the proposed action. Because either the comments would be covered by the no-action alternative, or they would not meet the purpose and need for the project, no further action was taken.

NEPA

1.14 d. The EA failed take a hard look at issues raised in July 16, 2010

scoping letter to Joe Robson (attached) which identified well

known grazing conflicts with overgrazed riparian areas and

meadows that has resulted in gullying and loss of woody

streamside vegetation. The proposed action proposes only two

small riparian areas be protected from grazing (Williamson

River, Bottle Springs) while many thousands of riparian acres

continue to be overgrazed causing the loss of woody vegetation

(e.g. willow, aspen).

Previous scoping comments have been reviewed and used to help guide the analysis of this project.

Please see response to 1.13

NEPA

1.15 e. Soils damage from grazing was identified as an issue in our

scoping letter. Loss of soil structure, soil compaction, and

damage or loss of vegetative cover contribute to an increase in

the rate and erosive force of surface runoff. Grazing related

gullying is a chronic source of severe soil erosion. Our field

review found several areas where bare ground was greater than

the 10% forest standard (see Photo Attachment.

Previous scoping comments have been reviewed and used to help guide the analysis of this project. Soil disturbance is based upon the project scale. The cumulative total area of detrimental soil conditions in riparian areas shall not exceed 10 percent of the total riparian acreage within an activity area. Detrimental soil conditions include compaction, displacement, puddling and moderately or severely burned soil. (Hydro and Soils Report page 4)

Please see response to comment 1.13

Please see response to comment 1.5

Soils

1.16 f. We identified suitability as an issue needing evaluation but

suitability was not identified as an issue even though many

areas of the allotment show degraded conditions from decades

of grazing. Instead of taking a hard look at suitability in

riparian areas and allotment additions, the EA simply assumed

all areas were suitable since they had been previously grazed.

A capability and suitability analysis is conducted as part of all grazing allotment analysis and is used to determine proper stocking levels on the allotments being analyzed. It also includes disclosure of and comparison to the Forest Plan level analysis. The analysis also addresses ability to sustain the amounts of grazing identified in the proposed alternatives.

In addition, see response 1.13

Range/NEPA

1.17 g. We identified economic analysis as an issue with a full

accounting of trade-offs when wildlife habitat is degraded or

grazing results in costly stream rehabilitation.

Please see response to 1.13 NEPA

1.18 h. In our scoping letter we stated: “[r]ubber stamping past

livestock management as the model for future management

is not only irresponsible but it very well may be unlawful, as

agencies have the obligation under NEPA to provide the

public a reasonable range of alternatives that are fully

analyzed and effects accurately disclosed.” Contrary to our

scoping comment demanding change, the Yamsi EA simply

promoted the existing grazing regime as the only action

alternative.

NS-2

In addition, please see response 1.13.

The range of reasonable alternatives includes both alternatives that warrant detailed analysis and alternatives that are considered but eliminated from detailed study. In cases where the design and configuration of the proposed action can mitigate resource concerns to acceptable levels, or includes management features proposed in alternative approaches, the proposed action may be the only

viable action alternative. (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 14)

The Modified Proposed Action is also consistent with direction in FSH 2209.13, Chapter 90, 92.31 direction

NEPA

1.19 i. Drought. The proposed action alternative is not responsive

to ongoing 2013-2014 drought. Drought conditions would

be expected to cause Forest Plan utilization standards to be

exceeded as occurred in 2010 and 2011. Alternative 2 cannot

prevent serious damage with recurring droughts.

The proposed action EA page 10 addresses the utilization standards which are applicable regardless of climatic conditions

Terms and Conditions of the Grazing Permit specify administrative actions for compliance of utilization standards.

Range

1.20 j. The April 2014 Yamsi EA failed to develop an action

alternative to address degraded watershed and wildlife

conditions documented in a 8 page letter dated May 22,

2013 from R. Nawa (Ks Wild), Doug Heiken (Oregon

Wild) and George Wuerthner (Western Watersheds Project)

to Kelly Lawrence (Forest Service). We now provide the

conceptual basis for a Restoration Alternative as a

compromise between unacceptable proposed action and no

grazing.

The PA includes design criteria that allow latitude in adjustment to grazing systems and strategies to meet utilization standards. This should lead to improved resource conditions affected by livestock grazing.

NEPA

1.21 2. The 2014 EA fails to assess the consequences of drought as it

pertains to meeting Forest Plan utilization standards,

desirable riparian wildlife habitat condition, and proper

functioning condition stream channels. The EA fails to

disclose that the proposed action cannot meet Forest Plan

standards due to anticipated recurring drought conditions

during next 20 years.

The EA:91states that “Downcut channels in these areas are

believed to be due to a combination of heavy grazing use,

vehicle traffic in the meadows, drought, and heavy runoff or

high-intensity storm events. Changes in grazing practices in the

last several years, along with the easing of drought conditions,

have allowed many of these channel segments to recover.

(emphasis added). This statement fails to acknowledge drought

conditions in 2013 and expected extreme drought for 2014 and

beyond. Klamath County has declared drought conditions for

2013 and 20142 This statement is also false because no data or

observations are provided that would indicate recovery of

stream channels (see KSWild Photos attachment). Assertions

that drought would not affect utilization because cattle would be

moved when utilization standards are exceeded is also false.

Utilization was exceeded in 2010 and 2011. Cattle were not

moved when 55% utilization standard was exceeded. The EA

fails to disclose that the proposed action (Alt 2) cannot meet

Forest Plan standards due to anticipated recurring drought

conditions during next 20 years.

See response to 1.19

Droughts, vegetation conditions, weather events are environmental factors. Monitoring utilization and range conditions that affect use, are grazing management (permit administration) decisions requiring actions to comply with standards and guidelines. (FSH 2209.13, Ch 90, 98.2) Term Grazing Permit, part 3, Management Practices

Range

2 http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/02/klamath_county_declares_drough_1.html

1.22 3. The EA/Proposed Action fails to adequately discuss or

address the cumulative effects of 80 years of fire suppression

and 100+ years of livestock grazing that has greatly

exacerbated conifer encroachment into meadows with

subsequent reductions in livestock forage and wildlife

habitat. The EA:39 states: “Estimates made during studies of the local

area show that approximately half of the forage value that was

present in the 1950s is currently present (Peek et al. 2001).”

And on p. 80 states: Observations on July 25 (North Pasture)

and August 1 (South Pasture), 2013 confirm that meadows in the

project area have a fair amount of lodgepole pine encroachment

and that forage is limited outside of these meadows.

The EA/Prosed action fails to explain why the Yamsi allotment

AUMS have not been decreased due to significant and ongoing

forage reductions over the past 50 years. The EA/Proposed

action failed to adequately consider and reduce the effects of

livestock grazing on the fire regime. Livestock grazing shifts the

plant community composition from palatable grasses and forbs

toward unpalatable conifers. This is contrary to current policy

goals related to forest. Livestock decrease the abundance of fine

fuels which are necessary to carry periodic, low intensity surface

fires. This appears particularly relevant to meadows where fuels

(i.e. thatch) are not allowed to accumulate. This reduces the

frequency of fires, but increases their severity. See Kirsten Stade,

MS, and Mark Salvo, JD. 2009. Ponderosa Pine in Peril:

Assessing Public Lands Livestock Grazing in Ponderosa Pine

Forests. Wild Earth Guardians.

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/Portals/0/support_docs/report

-ponderosa-pine-08-09.pdf; Belsky, A.J., Blumenthal, D.M.,

“Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in

Upland Forest of the Interior West,” Conservation Biology,

11(2), April 1997.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030409094020/http://www.onda.or

g/library/papers/standdynamics.pdf. See also Wuerthner, George.

Livestock Grazing and Fire. January, 2003.


g/library/papers/Livestock_Grazing_and_Fire.pdf; and Michael

H. Madany, and Niel E. West. Livestock Grazing-Fire Regime

Interactions within Montane Forests of Zion National Park, Utah.

Ecology: Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 661-667..

Cumulative effects for the entire project area are covered under the various resource specialist effects analysis. (EA Chapter 3) Conifer encroachment is discussed throughout this chapter.

NS-4, Reductions of AUMs is a Term and Condition on the Term Grazing Permit or Annual Operating Instructions and outside the scope of the NEPA analysis.

Winema National Forest Fire Direction 8-1 “All wildfires shall received an appropriate suppression response”(page 4-59 LRMP1990)

Cumulative Effects

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/Portals/0/support_docs/report-ponderosa-pine-08-09.pdf


http://web.archive.org/web/20030409094020/http:/www.onda.org/library/papers/standdynamics.pdf


http://web.archive.org/web/20040107135236/http:/www.onda.org/library/papers/Livestock_Grazing_and_Fire.pdf


1.22 Cont. .

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/Portals/0/support_docs/report

-ponderosa-pine-08-09.pdf; Belsky, A.J., Blumenthal, D.M.,

“Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in

Upland Forest of the Interior West,” Conservation Biology,

11(2), April 1997.


g/library/papers/standdynamics.pdf. See also Wuerthner, George.

Livestock Grazing and Fire. January, 2003.


g/library/papers/Livestock_Grazing_and_Fire.pdf; and Michael

H. Madany, and Niel E. West. Livestock Grazing-Fire Regime

Interactions within Montane Forests of Zion National Park, Utah.

Ecology: Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 661-667..

1.23 The EA/Proposed Action fails to estimate the amount of forage

reduction since the 444 cow calf permit was established in 1980

(EA :2) and fails to propose needed reductions due to decreased

forage (See attached photos 47-50).

The proposed action is to determine if grazing should continue to be authorized within the analysis area. Estimating forage production is outside the scope of the proposed action as production is weather dependent and varies widely year to year. The modified PA starting on page 9 of the EA allows for adjustments in season of use and livestock numbers to address annual monitoring to meet standards. There is no requirement to do a capacity analysis while analyzing grazing within an allotment. See response to comment 1.22

Proposed Action

1.24 4. The EA/Proposed Action fails to assess cumulative impacts

with the addition of 9,809 acres to the allotment. Specifically the EA/Proposed action fails to analyze trade-offs

from adding these acres to the allotment. What are the specific

benefits and environmental costs from this action? The EA:4

states that “Use of this area has no doubt always occurred,

prompting its addition to the project area for this analysis.” This

logic is disingenuous since it could be used to make allotment

adjustment for any historic trespass use: e.g., “The permittee has

been grazing that meadow for decades [in trespass] so let’s just

make it a part of the allotment”.

Direct, indirect and Cumulative effects for the entire project area are covered under the various resource specialist effects analysis. The adjustment to the allotment boundary is not part of the PA but is an administrative adjustment of the allotment boundaries through the permitting authority.

The area west of the current administrative allotment boundary is included in the analysis area so as to realign the existing Allotment boundaries. This will reflect the historic use patterns of the permitted livestock for the Yamsi cattle allotment and the adjacent Applegate sheep allotment due to the lack of division fencing.(EA pg 4)

Cumulative Effects







1.25 5. The EA/Proposed Action fails to quantify the acres of

Management Area 8 (riparian) that are currently excluded

from grazing and proposed exclusion MA 8 acres. It appears

that less than 1% of Riparian Management Area 8 are

proposed for exclusion (KSWild Tables 3,4). This low amount

of protection for needed restoration of critical wildlife habitat is

not acceptable.

There is no requirement to quantify riparian acres excluded from grazing or to exclude an area from grazing without an established need based on scientific evaluation conducted to standard.

NEPA

1.26 6. The EA/Proposed Action fails to analyze the trade-offs

between “economic diversity” for private individuals and

the costs for restoration, mitigation and administration

shunted to taxpayers. Explicitly, for this allotment what is the estimated subsidy for

each AUM grazed? The check dams installed in stream channel

in the Bull Pasture area are expensive and a direct result of

excessive riparian livestock grazing (Photo 41).

NS-2.

Economic analysis begins on EA pg 93. There is no requirement that an Environmental Assessment have an economic analysis.

Economics

1.27 7. The EA/Proposed Action:6 fails to estimate the size of the

proposed exclosure at Bottle Springs.

Specifics for mitigations will be determined when implemented. The size of the enclosures will be determined during implementation to meet the objective from the EA.

Range

1.28 8. The EA/Proposed Action:6 fails to estimate the size of the

exclosure for the Williamson River. Please see response to 1.27 Range

1.29 9. The EA/Proposed Action (p. 6) fails to identify conditions

or reasons that would cause the Forest Service to

discontinue grazing on the Yamsi Allotment. The EA is biased because it appears to have been crafted so as

not to provide any reason whatsoever to support increased

grazing exclusion in the no action alternative. The EA appears to

have been written to support the current number of AUMs by

adding a large area into the and only making minor riparian

protection fencing.

AMP NEPA analyzes whether or not to authorize grazing; Decisions to discontinuing livestock grazing are a term and condition of the Term Grazing Permit and are an administrative decision. If the no action alternative is chosen, grazing would be eliminated. (EA page 9)

Proposed Action

1.30 10. The EA/Proposed Action fails to identify ongoing grazing in

specific riparian areas (MA8) that are in violation of the

Forest Plan. Quantifying riparian areas in poor condition

and downward trend would provide a decision maker with

environmental reasons to discontinue the permit or make

major modifications (see Photo Atta1.31chment and KS

Wild Tables 1-4). We have provided KSWild Tables 3 and 4 that compare riparian

habitat condition and trend for the two alternatives. These tables

or similar quantitative analysis need to be provided to the

decision maker and the public.

Effects analysis of grazing was conducted from data collected from 12 plots all in riparian areas. (Range Report p 8-12).


MA-8

1.31 11. The EA/Proposed Action is defective because it did not

identify the ongoing loss of woody riparian vegetation in

meadows and along stream channels as a key issue. The Forest Service was wrong for determining that “there were

no key issues that would lead to development of reasonable

alternatives to the proposed action.” EA p. 8. We observed dead

and dying willows in meadows and along streams that is leading

to gully erosion. This ongoing degradation warrants an

alternative to address this key issue. Livestock impacts to

riparian areas is routinely identified as a key issue in NEPA

analysis for grazing EAs. At a minimum, the Forest Service

would need to explain why degraded riparian areas were not a

key issue in this analysis. Furthermore, the Forest Plan requires

that MA8 lands be specifically identified during AMP planning

and each meadow managed in the AMP. Thus, the assertion that

“[n]o unresolved conflicts or key issues were received during the

scoping period that would have driven the development of

additional alternatives.” is irrelevant because the Forest Plan

requires site specific planning for MA 8 land allocation.

NS-2

No issues with loss of woody riparian vegetation in meadows and stream channels was identified from scoping and IDT meetings. The PA starting on page 9 of the EA addresses riparian shrubs utilization. The Range Report page 13-15 discusses removal of cows from riparian areas if utilization standards are exceeded as an administrative action.

For Management areas, please see page 5 of the EA. The LRMP does not require what the commenter states. Please see LRMP page 4-136 to 4-143.



NEPA

1.32 12. The EA/Proposed Action (p. 10) fails to identify utilization

standards for specific meadows as required in the Forest

Plan. Our observations strongly suggest that rest with “0”

livestock utilization (EA p. 10) is a necessary condition for

active restoration of functioning woody vegetation in MA 8

areas (e.g. willow reproduction supplemented with shrub and

broad leaf plant species planting).




Riparian Standards

1.33 13. The 9 actions (EA:10-11) to “improve livestock

management” would not remedy the widespread ongoing

impacts to meadow vegetation identified in the EA and

widespread poor conditions we documented with

observations and photos (KS Wild Tables 1,2, and photo

attachment). In other words, the impacts to riparian vegetation

are systemic throughout the allotment and not limited to as few

as 2 known sites (Williamson River and Bottle Springs).

NS-2

The nine actions do improve livestock management for other affected resources. The other 26 design criteria along with the utilization tables will remedy the ongoing impacts upon implementation.

Design Criteria

1.34 14. The EA/Proposed Action failed to consider less intrusive

and environmentally preferable methods to “control cattle

from drifting north prematurely in T33S, R11E, Section

27.“ EA:10. We recommend that the permittee in the AOI be

required to physically herd the animals as mitigation for

“premature drifting north”. Apply Design Criteria 7:

“Distribution with range riders is encouraged to discourage

livestock from riparian and seep/spring areas.” The EA fails to

analyze the trade-offs of herding with range riders (no cost to

government) versus constructing a mile of expensive drift fence

that creates additional problems with maintenance, wildlife, and

cultural resource clearances.

The specific action #1 on page 10 of the EA best addresses the need to management for livestock in this area.

Adaptive Management actions allow for the use of different techniques for addressing management issues. If fencing does not work, adjustment can be made through the Adaptive management process that may require more active management techniques like herding.

Range Unauthorized

Use

1.35 15. The EA/Proposed Action (p. 13) failed to “[d]sign grazing

systems to limit utilization of woody species.” (EAp. 13) Our

documented observations strongly suggest that deferred rotation

does not effectively limit utilization of woody riparian species

on this allotment. In addition, our observations (KS Wild

Tables 1 and 2; Photo Attach.) indicate that design criteria 6,7,8,

and 9 have been largely ineffective on this allotment in

preventing ongoing destruction of woody riparian vegetation.

The EA/Proposed Action needs to consider using the more

stringent protection measures for cultural sites (Design Criteria

14 and 15) to protect areas with woody riparian vegetation and

those capable of developing woody riparian vegetation. The

exclosure at Buckhorn Springs is an example where both

cultural resources and riparian resources coincide with benefits

to both with a single exclosure. Our recommended Restoration

Alternative would identify many other locations where both

cultural and riparian resources can be dually protected (see

attached KS Wild Riparian Tables and photos for possibilities).

NS-2, and NS-4, see response to comment 1.1


Range Standards

1.36 16. The EA failed to disclose adverse impacts to birds and cite

publications that have found reduced bird numbers due to

heavy livestock use of riparian shrubs. For example

Alexander et al. 2008 states “Bird communities associated with

high grazing utilization had significantly fewer shrub-nesting,

foliage-gleaning, and long-distance migrant species than those

associated with low grazing utilization.”

For information on the impacts to birds from livestock use of woody species, please see the wildlife report page 67-77.

Wildlife

1.37 17. We disagree with Table 4 (EA:15). Alternative 1 does

comply with Congressional intent because most riparian

areas where grazing occurs are in poor condition and

downward trend, rendering them unsuitable for Range

Resource Management Level C: “Livestock management to

achieve full utilization of allocated forage”. EA:p.9. Resting

portions of the allotment for 5-10 years with appropriate

restoration actions (i.e. Restoration Alternative) would also be

consistent with Congressional intent.

NS-2, NS-4

Congress has not intended grazing be eliminated from riparian areas, but has given the intent to provide for grazing of public lands under various acts. (EA p 6)

Alternative 1

1.38 18. We disagree with the biased speculation about the dire

economic effects of the no grazing alternative. EA p. 95 states: “The elimination of all grazing within the

Yamsi Allotment would result in the loss of 30-50 percent

(estimated) of the permittees’ primary income source, with some

additional part-time or seasonal jobs also being eliminated. Their

cattle herd would have to be reduced, or additional summer

pastures would have to be leased at an increased rate per AUM.

A reduction in herd size could cause a ripple effect to the entities

that support cattle grazing in the local communities, such as feed

purchases and veterinarian services. The elimination of all

grazing on the Yamsi Allotment would likely cause a negative

impact to local communities, if operations cease and income-

producing people move away.”

The EA:95 then more accurately states that “There would be a

limited social effect by the loss of ranchers and their employees,

and economic effects would likely be minimal because of the

loss of only one ranch involved. (emphasis added).

One could also speculate that the ranch is losing money with

Yamsi federal grazing and alternative 1 would save income in the

long run. The no grazing alternative would end a costly federal

subsidy that damages public resources. The Restoration

Alternative would have a mix of economic impacts in that it may

fit better with the permittees’ fishing business that could be

expanded to provide improved hunting and wildlife viewing

opportunities for clients. For example, improved elk habitat

management by removing livestock could result in quality

hunting opportunities and wolf pack establishment.

NS-2. NS-4

Economics

1.39 19. Table 4 (p.15) provides false and misleading information

about Cultural Plants. The comparison misleads by stating

that 10 species would increase with Alt. 2 but fails to state that

19 cultural plants would decrease with Alt 2. livestock grazing.

EA p. 29.

For a complete list of plant species analyzed, please see the Botany Report, Appendix A.

Botany

1.40 20. Grey Wolf and Oregon spotted frog habitat is present in the

Yamsi Allotment. The EA:36 falsely states that the “The Yamsi

Allotment does not have suitable habitat for any terrestrial

wildlife species that is federally listed or a candidate for federal

listing.” Gray wolves west of Hwys 395-78-95 in Oregon

remain protected by the federal ESA and a radio collared wolf

has been known to pass areas in the vicinity of Yamsi

Allotment. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/ The presence of

elk in the allotment means the allotment is habitat for predatory

wolves. The small section of the Williamson River in the

allotment is potential habitat for Oregon Spotted Frogs that are

known to occur in upper Williamson River.

The presence of prey species does not mean there is suitable habitat for predator species; there are other factors other than just prey that make habitat suitable. For more information on effects to wolves, please see the addendum to the wildlife report.

The Oregon Spotted Frog is discussed in the wildlife report on page 31. There is no effect to Oregon Spotted Frog.

Wildlife

1.41

21. The EA/Proposed Action fails to disclose that the

cumulative effects of heavy grazing in riparian areas has

largely eliminated willow habitat for willow flycatchers and

other shrub nesters. Past and ongoing loss of willows due

livestock grazing in this allotment will contribute to the need for

listing willow flycatchers. The EA provides no data

demonstrating that willow habitat improves or increases with

deferred grazing in this allotment. Our documented observations

indicate that large amounts of willow have been lost due to

livestock grazing.

Willow flycatchers are addressed on page 77 of the wildlife report. Cumulative effects to the riparian habitats used by willow flycatchers are addressed on page 78. Commenters provides no evidence that a potential loss of willows within the project area would lead to listing of this species, or that it is livestock that have caused the loss of willows within the allotment. (NS-2)

Wildlife

1.42

22. None of the tributary streams have any current water

quality monitoring data EA p. 83-84. The small tributaries in

the allotment likely have elevated sediment levels in those

places where the stream is incised, has bare banks, and where

the wet spring areas have lots of trampling and compaction.

Sedimentation and incision may be exacerbating the loss of

surface flow.

Streams in the project area are ephemeral, therefore water quality data is not required, since there is only water in them during run off periods. (Hydrology and Soils Report page 9 and 14)

From EA Page 73, Fisheries and Aquatics Report; “Peak and annual flows in the allotment are snowmelt driven and these streams go completely dry each summer shortly after the annual snowpack is gone. Observation of these channels indicates they have surface flow only during periods of rapid snowmelt and runoff in the late winter and early spring. The short runoff season coupled with the high permeability of the pumice soils is the major cause for the ephemeral nature of most of the stream channels.” From EA page 75 “Overall, erosion rates from ephemeral channels in the project area are considered to be very low, and likely are immeasurable. Due to the low water volume and limited time water flows in the ephemeral channels, there is little to no stream channel development.”

Hydrology/Soils

1.43

23. The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) fails to identify BMP

EA:91 “Use permit authorities to change operations to

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water

quality, and riparian resources when special circumstances

(e.g., drought) occur. The EA has no discussion of how to

mitigate or prevent resource damage when persistent

drought occurs (e.g. 2013-2014).

Seasonal adjustments to grazing systems is a Term and Condition of the Term Grazing Permit or Annual Operating Instructions, and are applied each year regardless of weather conditions.

Hydrology/Soils

1.44

24. The 2014 EA provides no systematic or quantitative

monitoring data for grazing from the 2012 or 2013 grazing

season that would demonstrate that the proposed action is

adequate to meet Forest Plan standards or to implement

Adaptive Management in the 2014 grazing season. No

monitoring data has been collected for streams (water

quality) or riparian wildlife habitat (willow/aspen/shrubs). The April 2014 EA is stale and needs to be re-issued with analysis

of current condition and trend data (2010-2013) that address range,

riparian wildlife, and water quality criteria. The Range Report dated

August 6, 2012 has not been updated to reflect condition, trend and

utilization for 2010-2013. The 2014 EA:18 states that “Actual use

monitoring records for the past seven years indicate grazing use

levels declined below Term Grazing Permit Standards and

Guidelines in 2008 and 2009, but exceeded standards at 2 key areas

in 2010 and 4 keys areas in 2011.” (emphasis added). Up to date

(2012-2013) monitoring data is important because utilization greatly

increased in North Pasture Key Area Haystack Draw during 2010-

2011 to 82% and 73% which exceeded the Forest Plan standard of

55%. (Range Report p.10) Similarly South Pasture Key Area

Teddy Powers Meadow had greatly increased utilization during

2010-2011 to 78% and 75% which also exceeded Forest Plan

standards. A key Area Riparian Pasture had greatly increased

utilization in 2011 to an estimated 60-70% which exceeds Forest

Plan standards for Riparian Areas (Range Report p. 12).

Please see EA page 18.

Utilization levels do not effect detectable change in trend in the short term (2-3 years). There is a difference between implementation and effectiveness monitoring.

Monitoring

1.44 Cont.

The Range Report contains no data about condition and trend of

important riparian wildlife species such as willow and aspen which

have deteriorated greatly from decades of overgrazing (see KS Wild

letter dated May 22, 2013 with photos attachment). EA p. 83-84

states that “None of the tributaries have any current water quality

monitoring data. The tributaries in the allotment area likely have

elevated sediment levels in those places where the stream is incised,

has bare banks, and where the wet spring areas have lots of

trampling and compaction.”

Monitoring data for range, wildlife, and streams must be considered

available since it could have been collected and reported (as

demonstrated in our field assessment tables and photos). Our ability

to make substantive and site specific comment is greatly limited

because monitoring data from 2010-2013 has not been disclosed in

the EA or in supporting documents.


NS-2

Range

1.45

25. The AMP decision is for 20 years (EA:90). The EA fails to

adequately disclose the significant differences in woody

riparian vegetation/stream channel response between the

No Action and Proposed Action at the end of 20 years.

The EA fails to provide a quantitative assessment of acres of

improved riparian conditions for wildlife over the next 20 years as

compared to continued degradation and loss of function for key

riparian species such as willow and aspen on these same acres.

Similarly there is no quantitative assessment of improved stream

channel conditions and reduced gullying from increased riparian

vegetation over the next 20 years. There is no credible reason for

expecting any improvement from the Proposed Action grazing with

respect to riparian conditions for wildlife except for very small

acreages of grazing exclusion (estimated <30 acres). Our

observations suggest continued poor conditions and downward trend

for most of the riparian areas as qualitatively reported in the EA.


Page 10, Table 3 of the EA “Riparian forage allowable use of available forage” from the Winema Forest plan allows for recovery of MA8 areas by adjusting percent utilized from0-45% utilized depending on conditions. MA-8C for wet and Moist meadows standards and Guidelines for Range “Livestock will be controlled to maintain or improve vegetative condition of moist and wet meadows”. Controlling livestock is addressed under the Proposed Action starting on page 6 of the EA.

Proposed Action

1.46

26. The EA fails to include descriptions of methods identified in

Monitoring Plan . Best science means the technique is described as a method and can

be repeated. Methodology ensuring scientifically valid assessments

is not apparent with Monitoring Plan. For example, effectiveness

monitoring for riparian ecologic condition and trend lists “rooted

frequency”, “Greenline MIM” , “PFC”, “photo points”, “BMP”,

however, there is no description of what these are or how they are

measured. This is important. The Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) has promulgated regulations to implement NEPA, which are

binding on all federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. § 1507.1. The

information presented in an EIS (or EA) must be of high quality. 40

C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). “Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency

comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing

NEPA.” “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including

scientific integrity, of the decisions and analysis in environmental

impact statements.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. “They shall identify any

methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to

the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the

statement.” (emphasis added).

Added to references in EA:

USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDA Forest Service; USDA Natural resource Conservation Service. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas, TR 1737-15, BLM National Business Center, Denver Colorado

USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDA Forest Service; USDA . 2007. Monitoring Stream Channels and riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators MIM, Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-01, Version 3.0-2007, BLM Idaho.

USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDA Forest Service; USDA Natural resource Conservation Service. 1996. Sampling Vegetation Attributes, Interagency Technical Reference,

USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDA Forest Service; USDA Natural resource Conservation Service. 1996. Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements, Interagency Technical Reference,

NEPA

1.47

27. The EA failed to adequately disclose the significance of

adverse impacts to elk and elk calving caused by proposed

action. Adequate forage has not been allocated to elk and

grazing conflicts with elk have not been identified or

mitigated. We disagree with the EA:40 statement that “The remaining land on

Chiloquin District, east of Highway 97, is populated with scattered,

low density groups of Rocky Mountain elk.” We found elk sign and

antlers at several heavily grazed meadows suggesting elk have

increased recently, but the proposed action fails to identify forage

allocations for elk or actions to reduce calving conflicts. The EA:16

states that Alt 2 “May reduce carrying capacity, prevent deer and elk

use of preferred habitats, and disrupt fawning.” And on p.40 the EA

states that “Moderate cattle grazing discourages elk as much as

heavy cattle grazing (Skovlin et al. 1968). Where habitat

relationships exist between elk and cattle, the interactions most

likely occur where cattle use in summer-fall is followed by elk use

in winter-spring (Torstenson et al. 2006)”

Utilization Standards in Table 2 in the EA (page 10) and from the Winema LRMP page 4-63, includes cumulative annual use by big game and livestock.

Elk concentrate utilization in early spring on the previous years grazed meadows as they green up weeks before the un-grazed meadows and before livestock turnout. For more information about the effects to elk and elk calving, please see the Wildlife Report pages 60, and 65-67.

Wildlife

1.48

28. The EA fails to adequately disclose grazing impacts to

riparian areas, springs and streams that results in poor and

fair wildlife condition that do not meet Forest Plan

Standards.

The EA:8 identified 3,446 acres of Riparian Management Area 8

and 2,271 acres of riparian habitat (p.22) but the EA failed to

quantitatively assess existing condition and trend on these riparian

acres and expected condition and trend with the 2 alternatives. Table

5 (EA;19) identifies 5 Moist Meadow Key Areas with expected

effects from Alternative 2, however, these moist meadows are not

mapped or their size indicated. The cumulative damage to riparian

areas is not disclosed (e.g., no quantitative estimates of bare ground,

gullying, lowered water tables, degraded shrub habitat ).

Environmental Effects for the entire project area are covered under the various resource specialist effects analysis staring on page 18 in the EA

Field data gathered for the C&T’s and Plots are summarized in the Range Report. Data sheets are on file in the District Office.

Riparian Effects

1.49

29. The EA fails to disclose that cumulative impacts from a

century of livestock grazing are not easily reversed.

Restoration will require costly intervention in addition to

livestock exclusion or no grazing alternative. Repairing headcuts will require expensive engineering. Livestock

trails causing gully erosion will need filling. Economic analysis

fails to include the costs of restoration needed due to historic and

ongoing livestock grazing.

Cumulative effects for the entire project area are covered under the various resource specialist effects analysis.

NS-4

Hydrology/Soils

1.50

30. The Yamsi Allotment must be inventoried for all ground water

dependent ecosystems using new Forest Service guidelines in

USDA Forest Service 2012. http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/GDE_Level_I_FG_final_March2

012_rev1_s.pdf

The EA: 22 states: “Wetlands are generally absent, except at springs,

and no fen habitats have been identified in the project area.” This

statement may be true but it does not excuse the Forest Service from

inventorying the allotment with new techniques relevant to

managing ground water dependent ecosystems. Since nearly all of

the allotment will be grazed, all of the allotment must be inventoried

for springs and ground water dependent ecosystems.

The document that the commenter refers to provides

direction for the management of groundwater resources

and is broad in scope to address the varying landscapes

that occur on National Forest System lands. It is up to

each administrative unit to determine if the

recommendations provided in this document warrant

inclusion into the project or if existing information and

conditions combined with proposed land management

strategies will be sufficient to protect groundwater

resources. Consultation of this document combined with

the available data on groundwater resources/ GDE’s in

the project area, proposed grazing management

strategies, and professional judgment it was determined

that the recommendations in this document were not

needed.

GDE’s

1.51

31. The Yamsi Allotment must be inventoried using the Forest

Service Watershed Condition Framework.

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/ Range forage

conditions cannot be substituted for watershed condition. This

information must be considered available information for the

EA since the Forest Service has produced a Watershed

Condition Class Technical Guide for use on watersheds such as

those in Yamsi Allotment. (Watershed Condition Classification

Guide)

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/watershed_classific

ation_guide.pdf)

Analysis of watershed was conducted in the Hydrologist report. (please see entire report, as discussion is throughout)

Hydrology

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/GDE_Level_I_FG_final_March2012_rev1_s.pdf


1.52

32. An Environmental Impact Statement is required due to

significant impacts identified below. The rational decision

for the Forest Service is to reduce grazing distribution

impacts to “insignificance” with a Restoration Alternative

so that an EIS is not necessary.

NEPA directs federal agencies to prepare a detailed “environmental

impact statement” (EIS) for major federal actions that may

significantly affect the quality of the environment. 42 U.S.C. §

4332(2)(C). NEPA’s implementing regulations define

“significantly” to include actions which may adversely affect public

health or safety and/or unique characteristics of the geographic area

such as proximity to park lands, wetlands and ecologically critical

areas or whether the action threatens a Federal or State law or

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

40 CFR § 1508.27 (comment lists all elements of the CFR)

To reach a Finding of No Significant Impact, consider

whether the actions will have a significant effect on the

human environment (40 CFR 1508.13). The responsible

official will determine significance based on context and

intensity as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27.

Please see the Preliminary DN/FONSI. It is unclear from the comment what the commenter is describing as “significant”.

Please see response to 1.10.

NEPA

1.53

III. The April 2014 EA Proposed Action violates the

National Forest Management Act and the Winema

Forest Plan.

33. We object to the EA because project level planning for the

Yamsi Grazing Allotment failed to adequately identify the

“specific boundaries” of Management Area 8 Riparian

Areas as required in the Forest Plan.

The EA:8 identified 3,446 acres of riparian and wetland in the

Allotment classified as Management Area 8. The Winema Forest

Plan (4-136) states that “[s]pecific boundaries of this [Riparian]

management area are identified during project level planning.” The

EA:12 Fig. 2 crudely depicts Riparian Areas at a very coarse scale.

This map fails to identify small riparian areas or spatially distinguish

stream channels, springs, and wet meadows. Table 5 (EA;19)

identifies 5 Moist Meadow Key Areas with expected effects from

Alternative 2, however, these moist meadows are not mapped or

their size indicated. Failure to systematically identify all Riparian

Areas prevents effective monitoring of condition and trend for this

land allocation and fails to spatially identify specific Riparian Areas

that are in downward trend and not meeting Forest Plan standards.

The EA page 5 identified 3,446 acres of riparian areas within the project boundary. While these may not be delineated on a map within the EA, they were identified for the analysis. Riparian areas do not need to be delineated on a map in order to apply Forest Plan standards and guidelines or appropriately monitor this vegetation type nor are any riparian areas within the project area known to be in downward trend.

MA-8

1.53 Cont.

Each Riparian Management Area 8 must be identified with “specific

boundaries.” Stream reaches were not identified in the AMP as

required to assess streambank damage. The EA cannot assert

compliance with 5% stream bank damage standard (Winema

Plan:140), the 10 percent detrimental soil condition standard

(Winema Plan:137), or “the maintain or improve “ riparian standard

if the Riparian (activity) Areas are not spatially designated and

monitored as distinct entities.

(Comment references LRPM 4-136,137)

There is no requirement in the LRMP to identify specific monitoring points.

If implemented Alternative 2, No class I, ll, or lll streams will be accessible to cattle.

MA-8

1.54

34. We object to Alternative 2 because it fails to provide for: 1)

adequate monitoring of sensitive species (e.g. willow

flycatcher) and riparian habitat features, 2) grazing impact

prevention, 3)restoration of Riparian Management Areas

4) specific course of action to reduce grazing intensity in fair

and poor condition meadows and streams and 5) a schedule

for improvement. Implementation and Effectiveness

monitoring allows for unacceptable damage to Riparian

Management Areas and loss of sensitive species (e.g.willow

flycatcher) contrary to the Forest Plan and Adaptive

Management guidance.

The Forest Service Handbook (92.23b - Adaptive Management p. 8 )

states:

“2. Adaptive management utilizes the interdisciplinary planning and

implementation process that provides:

a. Identification of site-specific desired conditions;

b. Definition of appropriate decision criteria (constraints) to guide

management;

c. Identification of pre-determined optional courses of action, as

part of a proposed action to be used to make adjustments in

management over time, and

d. Establishment of carefully focused project monitoring to be used

to make adjustments in management over time.” (emphasis added)

The proposed action, if implemented as design will maintain or improve range conditions. Please see EA page 13-15 for Project Design features.

Forest Plan standards for livestock grazing, as established through the allowable use tables, determines the proper utilization standards for the condition of the key areas. These standards, when properly applied, will improve currently degraded sites and maintain satisfactory sites. (Hydrology report, page 18)

Proposed Action

1.54 Cont

Appendix C contains lengthy iteration of Forest Service Best

Management Practices relating to grazing but does not state how

these BMPs are specifically incorporated into the monitoring plan or

how they would be applied to specific meadows, springs and

streams within the Allotment except for a few grazing exclosures

that cover only a tiny proportion (estimated <1%) of the riparian

management area 8 land allocation). Figure 2 (EA:12) illustrates

that projects would only cover a tiny proportion of the riparian areas

adversely affected by grazing. Most of the riparian areas would

continue to be degraded contrary to Range BMPs (Appendix C) and

Winema Forest Plan guidance for land allocation management area 8

(meadow/riparian).

Monitoring Plan (Appendix D) is mostly about monitoring forage

for livestock and lacks interdisciplinary planning as required for

Adaptive Management. The plan does not provide for systematic

monitoring of woody riparian (e.g. willow, aspen) vegetation and

desirable herbaceous cover in management area 8 (meadow riparian)

in large grazed areas as compared to tiny areas proposed for grazing

exclusion. The specific needs of riparian species such as the willow

flycatcher have not been integrated into grazing management and

vegetative monitoring. Riparian dependent species such as the

willow flycatcher have not been identified for monitoring likely

because there has been no interdisciplinary team planning for the

monitoring plan. Similarly, the monitoring plan has no water quality

monitoring for streams and springs and no monitoring of proper

functioning condition for stream channels that have a history of

grazing induced gullying.

The monitoring plan lacks interdisciplinary input from wildlife and

hydrology disciplines. Assertions that these disciplines would

develop their own monitoring independent of Appendix D

Monitoring Plan is contrary to the Winema Forest Plan and adaptive

management regulations.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Range (LRMP 4-62 & 63) take into consideration various range conditions and appropriate utilization standards so as to maintain or improve conditions for multiply resources.

Other monitoring that may occur on the allotment in other program areas outside of range are not necessarily required to be displayed in the monitoring plan. While there is other monitoring outside of range occurring, coordination between resource areas occurs at the district interdisciplinary team level and should not be expected to be reflected in the monitoring plan for the AMP. New standards for BMP monitoring (FS-990A, April 2012) are being used.

1.55

35. We object to an AMP decision that would be for a 20 year

period when it’s obvious that current Forest Plan standards

cannot be met.

The EA:90 states that “The project decision would provide guidance

for the grazing allotment in the project area over the next 20 years.”

Severe damage to riparian and stream areas are occurring and

utilization is exceeding Forest Plan standards. Data and

observations indicate that resource damage to streams and wildlife

habitat in riparian areas cannot be corrected with current livestock

numbers and season of use. The 20 year old Winema Forest Plan

will soon be revised. The 1991 Winema Forest Plan did not

anticipate AMP decisions in 2013 that would be for 20 years during

recurring drought conditions. Locking in livestock numbers/season

of use for the next 20 years would make anticipated adjustments in

range management (i.e. flexibility) very difficult to implement.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A)) solely because more than 15 years have passed without revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest System.” January 17, 2014, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 under: FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS, SEC. 407.

Monitoring and the use of Adaptive Management allows for changes in management when necessary to correct for changes in conditions.

NS-2

NEPA

1.56

36. The proposed action can be expected to continue to violate

Forest Plan utilization standards and it fails to make

numeric livestock use reductions to be consistent with

Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 9-19.

Allotment Management Planning (Forest Plan 4-67). Standard and

Guideline 9-19: Livestock stocking levels shall be determined by

range analysis considerations, including: (1) forage condition,

suitability, and availability; (2) other resource needs as shown in 9-7

above; (3) permittee's ability to self-monitor management and

maintenance in project allotment plans; and (4) economic factors,

including development and maintenance of facilities.

The 2014 EA:18 states that “Actual use monitoring records for the

past seven years indicate grazing use levels declined below Term

Grazing Permit Standards and Guidelines in 2008 and 2009, but

exceeded standards at 2 key areas in 2010 and 4 keys areas in 2011.”

Anticipated drought conditions and the permittee’s inability to self-

monitor management for 2 consecutive years (2009. 2010)

demonstrate that the proposed action is not consistent with Winema

Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 9-19 for Allotment Management

Planning.

Livestock numbers, season of use and changes in management can be adjusted through the Terms and Conditions of the Term Grazing Permit and implemented through the Annual Operating Instructions on an annual bases dependent on the current years forage and range conditions.

EA page 12, Design Criteria #2.

Forest Plan

1.57

1. The Winema National Forest Plan Standard and

Guideline 9-23 for Allotment Management Planning (p.

4-67) is not being met for riparian areas with Proposed

Action.

The Winema National Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 9-23 for

Allotment Management Planning (p. 4-67) states:

“Allotment management plans for range shall include a

strategy for managing riparian areas for a mix of

resource uses. A measurable desired future riparian

condition shall be established based on existing and

potential vegetative conditions. When the current

riparian condition is less than that desired, objectives

shall include a schedule for improvement. The allotment

management plans shall identify management actions

needed to meet riparian objectives within the specified

time frame. Measurable objectives shall be set for key

parameters, such as shaded stream surface, stream bank

stability, and shrub cover. This process is described in

"Managing Riparian Ecosystems (zones) for Fish and

Wildlife in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington'

(1979). The plan shall address the monitoring needed to

determine if the desired rate of improvement is

occurring. Allotment management plans currently not

consistent with this direction will be developed or

revised on a priority basis under a schedule established

by the Forest Supervisor.

EA page 12, Design Criteria #1,6,8,9,10 &12. The AMP are products of the EA to manage the allotment to achieve the standards and guidelines as described in the EA within the scope of the design criteria in the proposed action.

Use of Design Criteria, and applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines are expected to fully minimize the potential for any impacts to the springs, meadows, and riparian areas from continued livestock grazing in the allotment. Forest Plan standards for livestock grazing, as established through the allowable use tables, determines the proper utilization standards for the condition of the key areas. These standards, when properly applied, will improve currently degraded sites and maintain satisfactory sites. The AMP and AOI are intended to allow grazing while meeting the set standards. (Hydrology report page 14-15)

Forest Plan Consistency

1.58

The desired percent cover and reproduction of woody riparian

vegetation needed by many riparian dependent species (e.g. willow

flycatcher) has not been established for each Riparian Management

Area. There is no schedule for improvement over the expected 20

year grazing period of the AMP. Measurable objectives have not

been set for key parameters, such as shaded stream surface, stream

bank stability, and shrub cover. Proper functioning condition class

for streams have not been established.

Streamside riparian vegetation is especially in need of monitoring

and management. The EA fails to adequately describe the existing

riparian vegetative condition or the potential riparian vegetative

condition. For example, the existing condition of woody riparian

vegetation such as willow, aspen, spirea, and vaccineum species

within proposed grazing units are not adequately described or

quantified (e.g. percent cover). Potential vegetation along streams

likely included aspen and abundant willow at one time but there is

no mention of aspen and abundant willow as being a component of

desired future riparian condition. Both of these species are

important. Willow provides streambank stability and beaver are

dependent on both of these species for food and materials for dam

construction. Beaver once occupied some streams in the Allotment

and it may be desirable to have them establish colonies to maintain

ponds through the summer.

There is no discussion of plant and animal species (e.g. beaver,

willow flycatcher) that may have been lost from specific riparian

areas or what riparian conditions would be present if the riparian

areas had never been grazed with domestic livestock (i.e. potential

vegetation).



NS-2


1.59

1. The Proposed Action is inconsistent with Winema Forest

Plan 4-137 which states, “Where stream banks or

channels are highly erodible, the stubble height at the end

of the grazing period shall exceed 4 inches. Under extreme

conditions, the area may need permanent protection or

removal of grazing for long periods (Clary and Webster

1989).” The Monitoring Plan Appendix D fails to

identify an actual stubble height (e.g. 4 inches) for

riparian areas as required in Range Standard and

Guideline 9-3

The proposed action and the Monitoring Plan fails to identify a

4 inch stubble height for Riparian Management Area 8. Stubble

height is identified in Monitoring Plan but a 4 inch standard is

not identified for monitoring and compliance. This standard is

warranted because a key Area Riparian Pasture had greatly

increased utilization in 2011 to an estimated 60-70% which

exceeds Forest Plan standards for Riparian Areas (Range Report

p. 12). The Monitoring Plan Appendix D and EA fail to

identify a stubble height for riparian areas as required in Range

Standard and Guideline 9-3: “In riparian areas, management

practices shall provide for regrowth of riparian plants after use

or shall leave sufficient vegetation at the time of grazing for

maintenance of plant vigor and stream bank protection. See

table 4-16. Allowable use is expressed as biomass, but will be

monitored as stubble height by developing stubble height

weight biomass conversion tables. Forest Plan 4-63.”

(see table, comments pg 4-63)

NS-2

Standard 9-3 on page 4-63 of the LRMP states “Allowable use is expressed as biomass, but will be monitored as stubble height by developing stubble height/biomass conversion tables”. Stubble height will be determined by the relationship between the plant height to plant weight remaining.

Stubble height method is measured along the Greenline of stream channels and is not ideal for use on meadows or ephemeral streams.


1.60

39. The proposed action fails to maintain and improve

vegetative cover, fails to maintain desirable soil

condition, and fails to prevent gullying in riparian areas

as required in Winema Forest Plan.

The Winema Forest Plan 4-136 states “Existing conditions will be

maintained or enhanced” and p.4-141 states “Maintain or improve

meadow condition and prevent gulling or dropped water tables.”

See response to 1.57 Forest Plan Consistency

1.61

40. The monitoring plan fails to establish baseline (existing)

vegetative and soil conditions in riparian areas with

quantitative data.

Current detrimental soil conditions (bare soil compaction,

displacement, puddling, burned soil, gullying) and hydrologic

conditions (water table characteristics) must be first established as

base line conditions and that grazing will not be allowed to cause

measureable increases in detrimental soil conditions or adverse

deterioration of water table (See KSWild tables 1, 2) . This is an

anti-degradation standard commonly used for maintaining high

water quality in wetlands (e.g. wet meadows, streams). Grazing

cannot be allowed to degrade existing riparian conditions as this

would be counter to Forest Plan requirements. Cattle must not be

turned out into streams and wet meadows where saturated soils

causes increases in bare soil. Our field observations and photos

indicate that the 10% bare soil standard is being exceeded near

springs and in wet meadows.

Vegetation and soil data are filed in the C&T files and are located in the district office. These Long term monitoring (effectiveness monitoring) plots/files are used to determine trends.

Information provided in commenters attachments from field reviews are not based upon any actually monitoring data collection from any monitoring methodology, they are subjective opinions and observations based upon personal opinions and lack any scientific analysis on condition.

Soil disturbance is based upon the project scale. Please see response to 1.15.

The specialist reports for this analysis discuss

current condition, potential effects of grazing,

mitigations/protections for sensitive areas and

consistency with direction in handbooks, manuals,

Forest Plans and other laws or regulations. The

adaptive management strategy being implemented

in this analysis requires livestock management to

follow all applicable standards and guides and

would prevent standards from being exceeded.

Monitoring

1.62

41. The monitoring frequency for riparian areas in the

Monitoring Plan is not frequent enough to detect short

term changes in trend needed to prevent irreversible

losses.

The Winema Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 9-23(p. 4-67)

states that “[t]he [allotment management] plan shall address the

monitoring needed to determine if the desired rate of improvement is

occurring”. The Monitoring Plan only assesses trend every 3- 5

years and would allow bare soil to increase. Any measurable

increase in “bare ground” means that the Riparian standard has been

violated whether it’s from a single season or several seasons of use.

Trend is used to determine vegetation attributes such as Frequency, cover, density, production, structure and Species composition from different points in time to detect a change. Plant phenology, site ecology, climate are not short term phenomenal and require 3-10 years to influence measurable change (trend). Short term changes are normally attributed to annual environmental variations and cannot be used to determine trend.


1.63

42. The monitoring plan fails to monitor all riparian areas

and has no systematic method for assessing trend in all

riparian areas. All Riparian Management 8 Areas that

are grazed must be monitored.

The monitoring plan and range report indicates that only a small

number riparian areas will be monitored. The Monitoring Plan will

monitor only a small proportion of riparian areas but the proposed

action will graze nearly all riparian areas. Each riparian

management “activity area” must be delineated during project

(AMP) development and monitored to establish quantitative baseline

conditions with regard to detrimental soil conditions and status of

the water table. Each riparian management area would have an

existing condition and a desirable future condition with regard to

bare soil and shrub/aspen cover. Each distinct Riparian

Management Area is identified during project level planning

(Winema Plan4-136). Each riparian area is vulnerable to degradation

from grazing. We assert that proposing grazing in riparian meadows

means that there must be monitoring of condition and trend that

includes parameters relevant to wildlife.

See response to 1.62 #41.

There is no requirement in the LRMP to monitor all MA-8 areas that are grazed. The monitoring plan that constitutes all of the measurement indicators across resources represents an interdisciplinary approach to Adaptive Management as required. Implementation (actual use, annual monitoring) and effectiveness (long term trend of forage resources) monitoring are specific to the range program and do not require an interdisciplinary team to complete. Monitoring of other key resource within the project area is the responsibility of the program areas they fall within. The appropriate measurement indicators were disclosed in the project analysis and are used to measure potential impacts from livestock grazing on those resources.

.

Monitoring

1.64

43. Implementation Monitoring for the proposed action fails

to provide for reduced grazing intensity on well-known

riparian overuse areas.

The Forest Service Handbook (92.23b - Adaptive Management p. 10

) states: “The key to development of adaptive management actions is

to focus on factors that are essential to ensure management

objectives are met.” Reduced grazing intensity is not being

implemented in riparian areas where it is needed the most. Neither

the Proposed Action nor the Monitoring Plan places adequate

emphasis on correcting overgrazing that is causing damage to

wildlife riparian habitat and stream channel function.

Implementation Monitoring determines if activities are implemented as designed. Adjustments to grazing management is determined from monitoring.

Monitoring

1.65

37. The EA lacks Forest Plan requirement to coordinate

monitoring of water quality, stream channel condition, and

wildlife that are in conflict with proposed action livestock

grazing in riparian areas. The EA lacks specific monitoring

for water quality and wildlife that are in conflict with

livestock grazing.

Monitoring for the Proposed Action grazing must integrate

monitoring needs of water quality and wildlife. The Forest Service

cannot claim that timing, frequency, and duration of monitoring for

wildlife, stream channel function, and water quality are the decision

of the corresponding “program areas” and are not part of this grazing

decision. Such an assertion is contrary to Forest Plan Standard and

Guideline 9-20 which stipulates Allotment Planning will have

“Coordination requirements with other resource operations shall

include: (1) threatened, endangered, and Sensitive plant and animal

species; (2) riparian area conflicts; (3) livestock and wildlife

conflicts;” (emphasis added) The Forest Service failed to

coordinate this AMP with wildlife and hydrology to provide an

adequate monitoring plan in the EA for streams and species

impacted (e.g. willow flycatcher). The Forest Service failed to

conduct up to date surveys to determine proper functioning

condition of stream channels.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Range (LRMP 4-62 & 63) take into consideration various range conditions and appropriate utilization standards so as to maintain or improve conditions for multiple resources.

While there is other monitoring outside of range occurring coordination between resource areas occurs at the district id team level and should not be expected to be reflected in the monitoring plan for the AMP.

Forest Plan Consistency/

Monitoring

1.66

38. “Decision criteria” are not explicitly stated in the

Monitoring Plan or Proposed Action as required by the

Forest Service Handbook. (92.23b - Adaptive Management

(p. 8 ).

Adaptive management requires “definition of appropriate decision

criteria (constraints) to guide management”. Grazing management

changes are not being incorporated into ongoing Annual Operating

Instructions to address known violations of utilization standards.

Utilization greatly increased in North Pasture Key Area Haystack

Draw during 2010-2011 to 82% and 73% which exceeded the Forest

Plan standard of 55%. (Range Report p.10) Similarly South Pasture

Key Area Teddy Powers Meadow had greatly increased utilization

during 2010-2011 to 78% and 75% which also exceeded Forest Plan

standards. A key Area Riparian Pasture had greatly increased

utilization in 2011 to an estimated 60-70% which exceeds Forest

Plan standards for Riparian Areas (Range Report p. 12).

The Monitoring Plan provides a column header: “variability

indicating action.” This does not meet the requirement for “decision

criteria”.

Proposed action has not been implemented, Design Criteria (management constraints) is stated in the PA on Pages 13-15 of the EA.

Design Criteria

1.66 Cont.

The Forest Service Handbook (92.23b - Adaptive Management p. 10

) states: “The key to development of adaptive management actions is

to focus on factors that are essential to ensure management

objectives are met.” As explained previously, data in the EA

already indicates that utilization standards are not being met. This

should have produced an adaptive management response for the

2012 Annual Operating Instructions but none is described in the EA.

It appears that “Adaptive Management” is being misused in this

allotment planning as a technique to delay instead of implement

needed management actions to improve riparian management areas

as required in the Forest Plan.

Quantitative measurements of detrimental soil damage and

deteriorated shrub cover are needed in all riparian areas to detect

downward trend that would not meet Forest Plan standard to

“maintain” Riparian Areas. Decision criteria need to be developed

that do not allow any measureable decline in Riparian Management

Area 8 quality (i.e. measurable downward trend).

See response to 1.66 Adaptive management

1.67

39. The Monitoring Plan does not meet Forest Plan

standards because it allows for riparian area damage to

continue beyond Forest Plan standards.

Adaptive management provides for “identification of pre-

determined optional courses of action, as part of a proposed action

to be used to make adjustments in management over time.” The

Monitoring Plan allows grazing to exceed Forest Plan standards

before action is taken. Implementation will not maintain riparian

habitat quality for wildlife and stream channel function. Neither the

Monitoring Plan nor Proposed Action provide site specific

management action for riparian areas outside of exclosure that

would improve these damaged areas to good condition by a

specified date. It appears that “Adaptive Management” as

implemented in this allotment is merely a paper exercise with no

substantive changes to reduce known grazing damage to riparian

management areas.

Monitoring indicators are derived from the LRMP. Forest Plan Consistency/

Monitoring

1.68

40. We object to Alternatives 2 because it does not effectively

incorporate required desired improved condition, upward

trend and enhancement objectives for riparian acres where

most livestock grazing will occur.

Inventory, monitoring, and a mechanism for eliminating harmful

livestock grazing of Riparian Management Area 8 has not been

identified.

Use of Design Criteria, and applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines are expected to fully minimize the potential for any impacts to the springs, meadows, and riparian areas from continued livestock grazing in the allotment. Forest Plan standards for livestock grazing, as established through the allowable use tables, determines the proper utilization standards for the condition of the key areas. These standards, when properly applied, will improve currently degraded sites and maintain satisfactory sites. The AMP and AOI are intended to allow grazing while meeting the set standards. (Hydrology Report page 14-15)

MA-8

1.69

41. Alternatives 2 fails to provide protection and monitoring to

meet INFISH and Winema National Forest standards for

stream channels.

Stream channels have not been inventoried for habitat or proper

functioning condition class. The EA fails to demonstrate that

INFISH Riparian Management Objectives are being met. The EA

fails to identify any recent biological ( animal population),

distribution, or habitat surveys for streams. Head-cutting and

incision on stream channels likely exceed Forest Plan standards. The

Monitoring Plan has no items identified for monitoring stream

channels.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Range (LRMP 4-62 & 63) take into consideration various range conditions and appropriate utilization standards so as to maintain or improve conditions for multiply resources.

Hydrology/Fish

1.70

New References (New Information) not in Yamsi EA

USDA Forest Service 2012. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems:

Level I Inventory Field Guide Inventory Methods for Assessment

and Planning Gen. Tech. Report WO-86a

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/GDE_Level_I_FG_final_March2012_

rev1_s.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification

Technical Guide. FS-978

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/watershed_classificatio

n_guide.pdf


Hydrology

2.0

We submitted comments during the previous 30-day comment

period in April-May 2013. The current EA not only doesn’t mention

there was a previous 30-day comment period but also does not

acknowledge the commenters and comments received either under

the Public Involvement heading, the Issues heading or throughout

the EA. In fact, the 2014 EA appears very nearly the same as the

2013 version except for addition of a Hydrologic and Soils

Resources section (not shown in EA table of contents) and deletion

of a sentence. The Forest website doesn’t display a hydrologist and

soils specialist report. None of the specialist reports are dated more

recently than 2012.

Please see EA page 7. NEPA

2.1

Simpson and Goodwin, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center et. al.,

and The Klamath Tribes all described issues and concerns that

should have lead to the development of an alternative(s) to the

proposed action. Because of the EA’s apparent failure to consider

our comments of May 22, 2013, we are submitting an updated

version of our previous comments which remain relevant.

Point of clarification- comments received May 22, 2013 were comment period comments, and they were addressed in the comment response table from that time. (project record)

NEPA



2.2

The 30-day comment EA is virtually silent on the impacts that

grazing is having on groundwater dependent ecosystems

(GDEs). On May 15-16, 2013, we explored seven GDEs on the

Yamsi Allotment- at Bottle Springs (off the end of the 4650-030

Rd), mitigation site #6 above Teddy Powers Meadow (from

proposed action map), Wild Horse Meadow (north of the 4465-500

Rd), Wild Horse Spring near the 4500-720 and 4592 Rd junction,

John Smith Road area west of the 4584-070 junction, Bathtub

Spring (a quarter mile west of the 4586-150 and 4586 Rd junction),

and Buckhorn Springs near the 4582 and 4582-282 Rd junction.

We saw numerous alterations (as described in GTR WO-86b, March

2012, pages 50-51) 1 at each GDE visited. Hydrologic alterations

observed included water diversion, downgrade and upgrade capture

of surface water at wetlands and springs, water extraction at springs

and wetlands, and pollution. Soil alterations observed include

channel erosion, headcuts, compaction, debris flow, sediment

deposition, soil displacement, general erosion, excavation, ground

disturbance, gully erosion, pedestals created by livestock, rill

erosion, ruts, sheet erosion, slumps, soil mixing/churning, and cattle

trails. Other alterations include spring boxes, underground tanks,

pipes, troughs, rock pads, enclosures, roads, tree cutting and camps.

Plant community species composition has shifted to more xeric site

plants than hydric dependent plant species associated with properly

functioning GDEs indicating springs are drying out. See photos

below.

1 Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level II Inventory Field Guide, Gen. Tech. Report WO-86b, USDA-Forest Service

In both watersheds, there is potential for reduced sub-surface water availability resulting from riparian grazing. There is no practical way to measure such a minor, incremental change or even prove it is occurring. Therefore, consistency with the current management requirements for surface water resources (e.g. wetlands, springs) will determine whether any adverse effect is likely to be realized. (Hydrology report page 15)

Hydrology/Soils

2.3

This EA fails to use the best available science in the management of

the highly valuable and unique groundwater dependent ecosystems

of this allotment. Relying on a 1990 Forest Plan to provide the

necessary standards and guides is insufficient to protect GDEs. You

must complete the national protocol for GDEs (Gen. Tech. Report

WO-86b) and incorporate appropriate protection measures.

The Forest Service used best available science to prepare this document.


Hydrology/

NEPA

2.4

EA page 17 mentions disturbance induced seral stages associated

with grazing occur in some areas of the Yamsi Allotment. Range

Report page 18 states that “Recovery of disturbance-induced seral

states associated with past levels of heavy grazing would be very

slow or non-existent (Winward 1991).” The EA should identify

these areas and discontinue grazing on them. How is continued

grazing consistent with MA 8 standards and guidelines?

This statement from Winward 1991 is not a direct quote and is referring to sagebrush steppe ecosystems and is not pertinent to the Yamsi EA. These references will be removed from the EA.

Standards and guidelines for Range in MA 8 are consistent with the Forest Plan.

MA-8

2.5

May 15, 2013. Excavation, impoundment and diversion of Bottle Spring. Livestock trampling, bare soil, erosion and pollution are readily apparent. Plant species composition is highly altered. Green rabbitbrush, dandelion, Baltic rush, bluegrass, muhly and a variety of drier site forbs are the dominant vegetation. These species are not associated with springheads, but much drier sites. This type of livestock water development is common on the Yamsi Allotment and other allotments around the Fremont-Winema. Although this particular development was done several years ago, the Fremont-Winema range program still uses this type of water development in other areas (e.g. Rock Springs, Cannon Meadow on the Chemult Ranger District).

NS-2, NS-6 Site Conditions

2.6

May 15, 2013. Abandoned spring box about 50 yards below the Bottle Spring impoundment. It is a common Fremont-Winema range practice to abandon a spring livestock development once it stops working without attempting to remove piping or collection devices. Often, the remnant structures are partially functional and divert some water away from the damaged springhead further dewatering the site (Simpson personal observations). See also following photo and discussion on abandoned development at Wild Horse Meadow.

NS-2, NS-6 Hydro/Soils

2.7

May 15, 2013. Pedestals, churning and bare soil from livestock hooves in wetland adjacent to Bottle Spring.

NS-2, NS-6 Page 10, Table 3 of the EA “Riparian forage allowable use of available forage” from the Winema Forest plan allows for recovery of MA8 areas by adjusting percent utilized from 0-45% utilized depending on conditions. MA-8C for wet and Moist meadows standards and Guidelines for Range “Livestock will be controlled to maintain or improve vegetative condition of moist and wet meadows”. Controlling livestock is addressed under the Proposed Action starting on page 9.

Soils

2.8

May 15, 2013. Dug out pond and impoundment for livestock water at mitigation site #6 above Teddy Powers Meadow. Please see response 2.7 Site Conditions

2.9

May 15, 2013. Cattle trails, bare soil and pedestals in wet meadow near livestock water development at mitigation site #6 above Teddy Powers Meadow.

Please see response 2.7 Site Conditions

2.10

May 15, 2013. Unnamed, undeveloped spring in Wild Horse Meadow used for livestock watering and forage. Livestock trample springheads, create pedestals, churn soils, create bare soil and contribute pollution. Note the dandelions coming in that are uncharacteristic of a springhead in proper functioning condition.


2.11

May 15, 2013. Abandoned spring development for livestock water at Wild Horse Meadow about 50 yards northwest of the previously described undeveloped spring. Note the water bubbling out of the broken pipe in the foreground and the mudhole around it where cattle come in to drink.

Water only flows though this development during high periods of run-off during the springtime. (EA page 67)

NS-2, NS-6

Site Conditions

2.12

May 15, 2013. Dug out pond and impoundment livestock water development at unnamed spring in Wild Horse Meadow about 180 yards northwest of abandoned spring development.


2.13

May 15, 2013. Wild Horse Spring complex near the 4500-720 and 4592 Rd junction that receives very little livestock use. Springheads and outflow zone support a variety of riparian hardwood species including willows, aspen, huckleberry, blueberry, and spirea. Lodgepole encroachment is extensive. There is a pumper chance near the uppermost springhead used for watering roads and firefighting. Sediment from several road crossings is washing into this complex.

NS-4 Site Conditions

2.14

May 16, 2013. Protection fence around Bathtub Spring livestock water development a quarter mile west of the 4586-150 and 4586 Rd junction. Note the willow and aspen inside the fence compared to outside the fence.


2.15

May 16, 2013. Close up of the buried spring collection device within the Bathtub Spring livestock water development. Water is piped to a trough in the riparian zone downstream. Excess water gathered at this springhead is piped downstream about 100 yards before re-entering the riparian zone. This type of spring development severely dewaters the springhead. Note that the water no longer expresses at the surface and the shrub community includes currant and bitterbrush which are species not associated with springheads, but much drier sites. Buckhorn Spring livestock water development is another example of this type of development. ‘Tanking and piping’ the entire springhead is a common practice at many livestock water developments on the Fremont-Winema (Simpson, personal observation).


2.16

May 16, 2013. Rather than the Bathtub Spring livestock water

trough being sited in the upland, the trough is located in the wet

meadow. Gravel was brought in to fill the wetland and ‘harden’

the site so cattle don’t get mired in mud. This practice of ‘hardening’

the site around the trough instead of moving it to the uplands is a

common practice at many livestock water developments on the

Fremont-Winema (Simpson, personal observation).

Hardening livestock troughs is used on troughs in all locations and not subject to only low areas. The EA page 10 of the proposed action dose allows for modification of range improvements.

Site Conditions

2.17

May 16. 2013. This is a slump along a seep zone about 70 yards below the Bathtub trough. NS-2, NS-6. Site Conditions

2.18

May 16, 2013. Pedestals in the wet meadow about 50 yards above Bathtub spring development. NS-2, NS-6 Site Conditions

2.19

May 16, 2013. Outflow zone about 200 yards from spring (UTM 622115 E, 4735941N, NA83/WGS84) in T32S, R10E, section 27, west Bull Pasture Tributary about 0.1 miles west of Bottle Springs tributary. Note slumping, pedestals, bare soil, churning and heavily browsed or absent willows. The following four photos show how this riparian zone progresses over a half mile stretch from wet meadow with heavily grazed outflow zone to a dry meadow with headcuts and deeply incised channel.


2.20

May 16, 2013. Heavily browsed willow at same location as previous photo (Outflow zone about 200 yards from spring, UTM 622115 E, 4735941N, NA83/WGS84). Willows ranged from 4” to 12” high.


2.21

May 16, 2013. Failing erosion control structure in the spring outflow channel downstream from Bottle Spring in T32S, R10E, section 26. Again note severely browsed willows along the channel.


2.22

May 16, 2013. Same channel as the previous picture, but another 0.3 miles downstream in T32S, R10E, section 26. Channel crosses into Bull Pasture private property about 50 yards downstream. Note rock check dam to aggrade incised channel. Other rock and log structures are also being used to check head cutting and aggrade the incised channel. The continued hoof action disrupting vegetative stability and absence of riparian shrubs are working against the artificial erosion control structures. In recent years it has become a common practice on the Fremont-Winema to heavily graze and destabilize channels with erosion control structures and ignore the history of issues at these damaged sites.


2.23

May 16, 2013. T32S, R10E, section 26. Riparian vegetation has shifted to dry meadow species where the channel enters private into Bull Pasture, T32S, R10E, section 26.


2.24

May 15, 2013. Meadow by Bottle Springs. Forbs, Baltic rush and muhly are dominant. Kentucky blue grass is most common grass. Very little litter. Bare ground visible. These species indicate heavy grazing has pushed vegetation to early seral species. Is this one of the meadows you indicate

cannot be recovered?

This area of Bottle Springs is outside of the project area.

Site Conditions

2.25

May 16, 2013. Meadow across from 4582 and 4582-200 junction. Meadow is dominated by yarrow, clover, strawberry and other forbs, Baltic rush. Bluegrass is subordinate. No native grasses observed. Bare ground visible and very little litter. Again, these species indicate heavy grazing has pushed vegetation to early seral species. This meadow needs to be rested indefinitely. Is this one of the meadows you indicate cannot be recovered?


2.26

May 16, 2013. Meadow quarter mile west of 4582 and 4582-361 junction. Forbs, muhly and Baltic rush dominant. Bluegrass is the most common grass species. Bare ground visible and very little litter. Cowpies are taller than most of the vegetation in this meadow. See also the next photo taken in a swale in this meadow.


2.27

May 16, 2013. Swale in meadow quarter mile west of 4582 and 4582-361 junction. Forbs, muhly and Baltic rush dominant. Bluegrass is the most common grass species. Several heavily browsed willows were observed in this meadow with the tallest under a foot tall. The vegetation in this moist meadow also indicates it is in great need of rest from grazing.

NS-2, NS-6


Site Conditions

2.28

May 15, 2013. Teddy Powers utilization cage at key area. This is another moist meadow dominated by forbs and Baltic rush. This meadow needs rest from grazing.

NS-2, NS-6, please see response to 2.7 Site Conditions

2.29

May 15, 2013. Moist meadow near key area #6 along the 44 Rd. See also the next photo close-up. Note the height of the vegetation compared to sticks 1” to 6” in diameter. Most vegetation is in the 2” height range on May 15, the date that turnout may occur. Are you going to turn out in these conditions?

Range readiness indicators will determine turnout. Site Conditions

2.30

May 15, 2013. Second photo of moist meadow near key area #6 along the 44 Rd. Baltic rush, forbs and muhly are dominant. Bare ground visible and non-woody litter very sparse. Overgrazed and in poor condition.

Range readiness indicators will determine turnout. See response to 2.7.

NS-2, NS-6

Site Conditions

2.31

May 15, 2013. Meadow along 44 Rd about a third mile southwest of key area #6. Baltic rush is the tallest vegetation. See the next photo close-up in the swale shown here.

See response to 2.7.

NS-2, NS-6

Site Conditions

2.32

May 15, 2013. Swale in Meadow along 44 Rd about a third mile southwest of key area #6. Meadow heavily dominated by forbs, muhly and Baltic rush. Most vegetation in this meadow is less than 1” tall. Again, very poor condition and needs rest from grazing.

NS-2, NS-6, see response to 2.7 Site Conditions

2.33

May 15, 2013. Wet area in the middle of Wild Horse Meadow. Note the pedestals from grazing on wet soil conditions in the lower right side of the photo. At the same time notice forbs, muhly and Baltic rush are as prevalent as grasses and sedges. This is a site where sedges and grasses should heavily dominate vegetation when in good condition. Instead, the high prevalence of forbs, Baltic rush and muhly indicate overgrazing. 8” tall Baltic rush is the tallest vegetation in this area. See also next photo close up of Wild Horse Meadow.

NS-2, NS-6, see response to 2.7. Site Conditions

2.34

May 15, 2013. Area in the southeastern third of Wild Horse Meadow. Note bare organic soil visible indicating soils formed under moist to wet conditions. Yet the vegetation is dominated by forbs and bare soil. In good condition this site should be heavily dominated by sedges and grasses with no bare soil visible.

NS-2, NS-6, see response to 2.7. Site Conditions

2.35

May 16, 2013. Wet meadow site below Bathtub Spring. Baltic rush and forbs as prevalent as grasses and sedges. Bare soil visible. Very little litter. Willows present but grazed to less than 10” high. This is a meadow site that should be heavily dominated by sedges, grasses and willows with an obvious litter layer and no bare soil. Current vegetation indicates this area is being overgrazed.

NS-2, NS-6

See response to 2.7.

This meadow will be mostly excluded from grazing following implementation of the DN. (EA page 6)

Site Conditions

2.36

May 16, 2013. West end of the Bull Pasture, section 26, on National Forest. Bare ground and forbs heavily dominate this area. No fence was found on the westernmost half mile of private land on Bull Pasture. Where is the fence the EA talks about?

The EA refers to the fenced private lands along the NE portion of the allotment (the Yamsi Ranch). Most of the Bull Pasture is privately owned and fenced out of the allotment. It is still grazed annually, often below the standards applied to the NFS lands. (EA page 69)

Forest Service Policy requires private land owners to fence their lands to keep permitted cows out.

Site Conditions

2.37

As you can see from the photos above, we found species

composition in these meadows to be in terrible condition. These

meadows were bluegrass moist meadows that were dominated by

forbs, muhly and Baltic rush. This is classic bluegrass moist

meadow in poor condition (Volland, 1988, pp 22). You must stop

grazing until these meadows are recovered and then lower cattle

numbers and utilization levels to insure recovery.

The potential of these areas to produce 200 lbs/acre forage when transient range makes them capable livestock range. The use of upland bitter brush is common for livestock in this allotment. Conservative estimate @ 10 lbs/acre in the uplands could support 665 AUMS. (EA page 18)

Range

2.38

The EA and Range Specialist Report are filled with conflicting

statements about meadow conditions. For instance, on page 17, the

EA states “The majority of rangeland cover types in the project area

are at mid to late ecological status. Disturbance-induced seral states

associated with past levels of heavy grazing exist in some areas

within the project area. These are evident in the dominance of such

species as rabbitbrush, Kentucky bluegrass, or other seeded non-

native grasses.” On Range Report page 8 “C022, C023 and C026 are

in Moist Meadows, Kentucky Bluegrass vegetation types”, and on

page 10 “7 Paced Transects that were established in 1991 were

reread in 2009. These transects are located in Tufted Hairgrass,

Kentucky Bluegrass and Cusick Bluegrass meadow communities

throughout the pasture”. The majority of rangeland cover types in

riparian areas are in highly disturbed Kentucky bluegrass

communities that are not mid or late seral, but early seral. The range

report identifies them and we saw them on our field trips. This is a

fatal oversight for this EA. You must incorporate complete

protection from grazing for a time period long enough to regain

plant species health and composition for all meadows in poor shape

in every alternative proposed in order to meet Forest Plan riparian

management standards. There is great danger of irreparable harm

and irretrievable loss of riparian habitat with the proposed grazing

system that continues to graze at utilization levels for healthy,

productive meadows, unlike what actually exists in this allotment.

Transect Data sheets available in the District office indicate vegetation types as indicated in the Range Report and were evaluated using “Guidelines for Forage Resource Evaluation within Central Oregon pumice Zone, (Volland 1985).

Range

2.39

The EA makes unsupported statements on critically important forage

issues. For instance, in the Condition and Trend section on page 18,

the EA states “The allotment was evaluated to determine the

proportion that is capable and suitable for livestock management.

Areas with less than 35 percent slope and vegetation types that

produce more than 200 pounds per acre of forage were considered

capable/suitable. Over 99 percent of the allotment meets these

criteria.” On page 17, the EA states “The primary vegetation types in

the allotment include ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/needlegrass,

lodgepole pine/bitterbrush/needlegrass, moist meadows, and dry

meadows.” In the botanical section on page 22, the EA states “The

majority of the allotment consists of forested uplands. Ponderosa

pine forests with bitterbrush and needlegrass are found on the lower

slopes. Lodgepole pine, bitterbrush, needlegrass forests dominate the

colder flats and basins. White fir mixed conifer occurs on the upper

slopes and tops of buttes and ridges. The upland forests in the

project area generally have excessively well-drained pumice soils,

low plant species diversity, and limited forage for livestock. Use of

upland forests by livestock mainly consists of trailing between

riparian habitats. Grazing and loafing occur along the trails and in

upland forest adjacent to riparian areas and water sources. A small

amount of non-forested upland habitat (257 acres) is also present.

These habitats consist of scablands with low sage, and/or

bunchgrasses. Although forage is sparse, these areas likely receive

some livestock use because of their proximity to riparian habitats.”

EA page 18 state that “Acres with less than 35% slope and vegetation types that are capable of producing more than 200lbs per acres of forage were considered capable/suitable.

Range

2.40

However, when looking at the summary of forage productivity data

by forested types (Volland, pages 82 and 842), the ponderosa

pine/bitterbrush/needlegrass forest community produces an average

of 27 lbs/acre of above ground air dried herbaceous plant material.

The lodgepole pine/bitterbrush/needlegrass forest community

produces an average of 11 lbs/acre of above ground air dried

herbaceous plant material. How do you explain the discrepancy

between your statement on 200 lbs/acre in the current

management section on EA page 18 when compared to the

botany comment on page 22 (above) and Volland’s productivity

data? How many AUM’s are expected to come from upland

forage? We are very familiar with the upland conditions in the

lodgepole and ponderosa pine communities of this area and they

do not grow anywhere near 200 lbs/acre herbage. Cattle put

added pressure on riparians when there is no upland forage.

You must complete an accurate forage assessment and reduce

the number of cattle permitted to address the overestimate of

forage production on this allotment that is destroying riparian

habitat.

See response to 2.37 Range

2.41

One possible explanation for this 200 lbs/acre discrepancy is that the

bitterbrush is being included as available forage. This raises yet

another conflict not discussed. The mule deer section on EA page 39

states “Locally, the summering deer herd peaked in the mid-1960s at

approximately 7,000 animals, and has declined substantially since

then, initially because of both heavy hunting pressure and a large

winter die-off in 1968 (cited in Frazier 1995). Later causes for the

decline include, low-quality diets in spring and early summer that

negatively influence fawn survival (Peek et al. 2001), a change in

the predator component negatively influencing overall survival

(ODFW memo), and loss of habitat from development and land

conversion (Collom 2005).” Deer effects discussion on EA page 39

state “Outside of the meadows and riparian zones, most of the big

game forage within the allotment is limited to decadent and woody

bitterbrush, which is not as palatable or as nutritious as younger

growth.” Deer effects discussion on EA page 65 state “Continued

grazing under Alternative 2 would probably exert a negative

influence on the carrying capacity of big game seasonal ranges in the

Yamsi Allotment, with seasonal reductions in the kinds, quality, and

amounts of forage available to big game.” The above mule deer

discussion identifies three very relevant trends. The first is the

significant decline in the mule deer population due to degraded and

decreased habitat. This population decline is tied in part to forage

decline. The second relevant trend is the significant decrease in the

shrub/forb/grass understory identified in Peek, 2001. The third trend

is that proposed grazing would negatively influence big game

forage. Forest Plan management direction as stated in the EA on

page 38 allocates forage first to health and vigor of the vegetation,

secondly to wildlife and excess to livestock. Please resolve this

discrepancy. There is already a shortage of shrub understory to

support mule deer. There can be no cattle utilization on shrubs until

mule deer habitat is improved. You must reduce the number of cattle

grazing on this allotment to protect mule deer habitat.

This discrepancy will be addressed by allotment management measures that include utilization standards for maintaining adequate amounts of forage for big game.

Suggestions for accomplishing this were included in the Recommended Management Plan Features starting on page 80 of the Wildlife Report.

Wildlife

2.42

EA Table 1, page 5 says 3,446 acres of riparian management and on

page 81 the riparian and meadow acres add up to 2,746 acres; the

botanical section on page 22 says 2,271 acres, and the range report

identifies 2,595 acres. Did the botanists failed to analyze 1,175 acres

of riparian habitat? Please complete the botanical analysis and

incorporate findings into this EA.

MA-8 layers as described in the Winema Forest Plan page 4-136 include adjacent non-riparian lands and are not as precise as the TEUI inventory layers used in the Botany analysis.

Botany/GIS

2.43

We ran the numbers on 444 cow/calf pairs and 2,351 AUMs. Given

that the uplands are not capable of producing 11-27#/acre, it is not

capable and all forage must come from riparian units identified on

EA pages 81-82. Every single riparian area would have to produce

above average forage for meadows in good condition and be

uniformly grazed at 45% utilization to produce 2,351 AUM’s. The

EA, the range report and our own field visits tell us that meadows

are at best in fair condition and grazing is far from uniform, so

setting AUMs for above average forage production on riparian areas

in good condition with at best limited rider success in managing

cattle is wrong. Reduce the AUMs to reflect conditions on the

ground.

EA page 9, “The Forest Service proposes in Alternative 2 to continue to authorize livestock grazing up to the current stocking level of 444 cow/calf pair, 2,351 AUM’s from June 1 through September 30 each year.” Also on page 9 the EA states “Alternative 2 would continue to provide sustainable forage in the allotment, while meeting Forest plan objectives for range and other resources.” Reduction of AUM’s is a tool of adaptive management.

Range

2.44

It appears that 444 cow/calf pairs is based on decades-old tradition

rather than resource conditions. Note State Emergency declared

droughts in Klamath County for the years 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996,

2001, 2004, 2010, 2013 and 2014. The EA states that drought

conditions are easing and that is the extent of discussion, even

though drought has a huge impact on riparian forage production.

Riparian areas are at best in fair condition, we are in extended

drought that greatly decreases forage production and there is no

upland forage production as claimed in this EA. You must reduce

the numbers and AUMs in order to begin to meet riparian standards.

See response to 2.43 Range

2.45

The EA on page 18 states, “The current livestock management

strategies (deferment, riding/herding, salt and water locations)

require adjustments to consistently meet Forest Plan Goals and

Objectives.” The design criteria on page 14 and alternative 2

description on page 86 refer to adaptive management. The EA on

page 86 states “The AMP and AOI identify adaptive management

techniques that allow for grazing while meeting the FP S&Gs.”

These statements lead the public to believe that the required

adjustments needed to meet Forest Plan Goals and Objectives will

be identified in an adaptive management strategy for this allotment.

Yet there are no adaptive management thresholds or triggers

identified in this EA, nor is there an adaptive management

monitoring strategy identified. The EA must disclose this

information rather than rely on some future development in another

document.

Please see the adaptive management plan in the project record.

Range

2.46

Instead of identifying specific adaptive management criteria, this EA

relies on utilization monitoring on 20% of key meadow areas

annually and ecological trend every 5-10 years based on these

annual measurements. This is inadequate and inappropriate for

several reasons. Key areas must represent the full range of

conditions and issues, and must be monitored on an annual basis. It

is not appropriate to proxy forage utilization in a moist meadow for

soil conditions or big game browse or condition of GDEs or for

stream channel condition. Key areas at degraded sites need to be

monitored every year and the Forest must have triggers to take

action within the season of use.

Please see the adaptive management plan in the project record.

Monitoring

2.47

The project design criteria are inadequate to reduce grazing impacts

and meet Forest Plan riparian standards as claimed in this EA. In

fact, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are completely unattainable because there is no

upland forage to help take pressure off grazing riparian areas and

your own analysis says that riders cannot control cattle in this very

large, heavily wooded, open pasture.

NS-2

2.48

How can you expect the permittee to be successful in meeting the

project design criteria (EA page 13) listed below when virtually all

the forage and all the water sources are in the riparian zones? You

must take concrete, measurable actions that allows for a reasonable

chance of success, especially with resource damage approaching

irreparable harm and irretrievable loss. That means fences, reduced

cattle numbers, and intensive monitoring of all key areas annually. If

you can’t afford to do the monitoring, then shut this allotment down.

-“7) Distribution with range riders is encouraged to discourage

livestock from riparian and seep/spring areas.”

-“8) Avoid season-long grazing in riparian areas and wetlands.

Apply deferred rotation grazing/riding-herding as feasible to provide

greater opportunity for re-growth and to avoid over-utilization of

woody species.”

Permittee is required to follow the Terms and Conditions of the Grazing Permit of which the AMP is intricate part of. AMPs are the plans developed from the NEPA decision. See response to 2.37

Range

2.49

On page 4, the EA states “Lack of interior and exterior fences

resulted in the consistent use of an area west of the allotment

boundary extending to Yoss Ridge. Use of this area has no doubt

always occurred, prompting its addition to the project area for this

analysis.” This is a convenient but inexcusable proposal to

legitimize a grazing problem rather than fix it. By simply extending

the allotment boundary west without fences puts cattle in the upper

riparian stringers that will draw cattle into the Skellock Draw

complex. Fix the unauthorized use problem, don’t expand it. The

same strategy was suggested for the Antelope C&H Allotment

trespass issue. If you don’t have the resources to fence effectively,

then shut down this allotment.

Adjustments of allotment boundaries are within the authority of the deciding officer the same as excluding areas from grazing. The analysis of the area west of the current administrative allotment boundary includes a few areas that have been part of the old allotments (Haystack and Buckhorn allotments) prior to establishment of the Yamsi Allotment. Analysis of these areas and adjusting the administrative boundary best addresses the issue.

Range

2.50

In summary-

Based on our field observations of riparian conditions, discrepancies

found in the EA, unsupported conclusions and a lack of discussion

on relevant resource conditions, there is no basis for 2,351 AUMs,

or for permitting 444 cow/calf pairs. Incorporate the best available

science. Re-analyze and fully disclose resource conditions before

making any decisions. Rest/ rotation, GDE protection and

restoration, and reduced numbers and duration must be

considered in your range of alternatives. As this proposal

currently exists, the permittee will have significant difficulties

meeting the required standards and they may experience

unanticipated economic effects when the allotment fails to support

the 444 cow/calf pairs. Overall this EA sets the permittee up for

failure.

Please see response to 1.10 Range

yamsi grazing allotment project ea consideration of public …a123.g.akamai.net › 7 › 123 ›...

Documents