Response
08.11.2014 • Views
Share Embed Flag

Response

Response

Response

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
ePAPER READ
DOWNLOAD ePAPER
soda.sou.edu

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

START NOW

United States<br />

Department of<br />

Agriculture<br />

Fest Service<br />

Pacl ,<br />

Northwest<br />

Region<br />

1 9o<br />

r<br />

tcr-<br />

Appendix K<br />

Final Environmental<br />

Impac t Statement<br />

Land and Resource<br />

Management Plan<br />

Winema National Forest<br />

V<br />

I<br />

dI .<br />

t" ~ ~ ~ t<br />

r s<br />

-aei<br />

*i .j<br />

I f ;<br />

I 't A

Appendix K<br />

Table of Contents<br />

Page<br />

Introduction 1-i<br />

List of Respondents to the DEIS R-1<br />

Comments and <strong>Response</strong>s<br />

Air Quality K-1<br />

Fire/Prescribed Fire K-7<br />

Firewood K-1 0<br />

Klamath Tribal Lands K-i 1<br />

Lands K-1 8<br />

Minerals K-23<br />

Mountain Pine Beetle K-34<br />

Mule Deer/Big Game K-39<br />

Other Comments K-48<br />

Pelican Butte K-54<br />

Plan and EIS Content K-67<br />

Range K-81<br />

Recreation K-96<br />

Roads and Corridors K-126<br />

Society/Economics/Employment/Budgets K-135<br />

Soils K-1 50<br />

Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals K-152<br />

Timber Management K-160<br />

Water K-236<br />

Wild and Scenic Rivers K-257<br />

Wildlife Habitat Management K-261<br />

Agency Letters<br />

(From Governmental Agencies, Public Officials, and the Klamath Tribe<br />

1917 City of Klamath Falls, Oregon<br />

0844 Lane Council of Governments<br />

2736 City of Malin<br />

1327 Klamath County Commissioners<br />

3044 Klamath County Planning<br />

0835 Bernie Agrons, Oregon State House of Representatives<br />

1032 Liz VanLeeuwen, Oregon State House of Representatives<br />

1292 Oregon, Dept. of Transportation<br />

5108 Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife<br />

2747 Oregon, Office of the Governor<br />

1536 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration<br />

2743 The Klamath Tribe<br />

0456 U.S. Dept. of the Air Force<br />

2745 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<br />

0016 USDI, Bureau of Mines<br />

0440 Klamath County-Public Works Dept.<br />

5107 U.S. Department of the Interior<br />

0603 USDI, Crater Lake National Park<br />

5000 USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service

This document is printed on recycled paper to confirm our commitment to the wise use of natural<br />

resources.<br />

--Catherine Jean

Appendix K<br />

Public Comments and Forest Service <strong>Response</strong>s<br />

Introduction<br />

Purpose<br />

The purpose of this appendix is to display the substantive comments to the draft environmental impact<br />

statement (DEIS) and Draft Forest Plan and to display the Forest Service response to the comments.<br />

Included in this appendix are (1) background information on how comments were obtained, (2) information<br />

about those who commented, (3) a list of those who commented, (4) comments and responses, and<br />

(5) letters from government agencies and elected officials.<br />

Summary of Public Involvement Activities<br />

A Notice of Availability of the Winema Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Forest Plan<br />

was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1987. The documents were filed with the<br />

Environmental Protection Agency and mailed to individuals, groups, and organizations on December<br />

24, 1987. Four hundred and fifty copies were mailed. The 120-day comment period ended March 30,<br />

1988. During that time, approximately 100 more sets of documents were given to interested parties<br />

who were not included in the original mailing.<br />

During the early stages of the review period, open houses were held in Klamath Falls, Chiloquin, Chemult,<br />

Lakeview, and Medford. There was light attendance at these meetings. In addition, the Forest Supervisor<br />

and his staff attended a variety of other meetings to speak on the forest planning process. Over 50<br />

meetings were conducted.<br />

After the release of the draft documents, two interest groups issued brochures to stimulate interest in<br />

the planning process and to generate responses that were sympathetic to the concerns of their<br />

organizations. These groups were the Coalition for Wise Forest Use and a coalition of conservation<br />

groups.<br />

Information About Those Who Commented<br />

We received more than 3,100 letters and forms in response to the draft documents. A breakdown of<br />

where respondents resided follows:<br />

Location<br />

Number of <strong>Response</strong>s<br />

Oregon 2,800<br />

Washington 40<br />

California 100<br />

Other states 16<br />

Other nations 2<br />

I- 1

Ninety-four percent of the responses came from individuals. The following is a breakdown of the major<br />

categories of response:<br />

Number of<br />

<strong>Response</strong>s<br />

Federal agencies 5<br />

State agencies 3<br />

County agencies 4<br />

City governments 2<br />

Elected officials 2<br />

Organizations 47<br />

Indian tribes 1<br />

Individuals 2,913<br />

A list of those who commented is contained in this appendix. Also, letters from Federal, State, and<br />

local agencies, public officials, and Indian tribal governments are contained at the end of this appendix.<br />

Comments and <strong>Response</strong>s<br />

The Forest Service is directed to respond to public comments in the Council on Environmental Quality<br />

regulations (40 CFR 1503.4). <strong>Response</strong>s may include:<br />

1. Modifying alternatives, including the proposed action.<br />

2. Developing and evaluating alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency.<br />

3. Supplementing, improving, or modifying the analysis.<br />

4. Making factual corrections.<br />

5. Explaining why the comments do not warrant further agency response.<br />

The Forest Service has responded to all substantive comments in this appendix. A substantive comment<br />

is defined as: a comment that provides factual information, professional opinion, or informed judgment<br />

germane to the action being proposed.<br />

Comments to the DEIS have been grouped by subject matter. Each public comment is followed by the<br />

Forest Service response. Most comments are a direct quote from a letter. In cases where more than<br />

one comment on the same subject were received, one comment was selected to represent the other<br />

similar comments or the comments were grouped followed by a single response.<br />

I- 2

List of Respondents to DEIS

Businesses and Organizations<br />

ALLA MAGE SKIERS<br />

AMERICAN RIVERS<br />

ASSOCIATED OREGON LOGGERS, INC.<br />

AUDUBON SOCIETY, BLUE MOUNTAIN<br />

AUDUBON SOCIETY, KLAMATH BASIN<br />

AUDUBON SOCIETY, MT. DIABLO<br />

AUDUBON SOCIETY, ROGUE VALLEY<br />

AUDUBON SOCIETY, UMPQUA VALLEY<br />

BLUE RIBBON COALITION INC.<br />

BOISE CASCADE<br />

BRAKE BONDERS CO.<br />

BRAUNER TRUCKING INC.<br />

BURRILL TIMBER CO.<br />

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMPANY<br />

CASCADE APT. HOTEL<br />

CASCADE WOOD PRODUCTS<br />

CIRCLE DE LUMBER<br />

CITIZENS FOR RESP. GEOTHERMAL<br />

COALITION FOR WISE FOREST USE<br />

COLDWELL BANKER INC., HOLMAN REALTY<br />

COLUMBIA PLYWOOD CORPORATION<br />

CORAL SALES CO.<br />

CRATER CHAIN SAW CO.<br />

DEL NORTE TAXPAYERS' LEAGUE<br />

DOUGLAS TIMBER OPERATORS INC.<br />

DUGAN CHEVROLET CO.<br />

ELLINGSON LUMBER CO.<br />

ELLIOTT-LEDGERWOOD & COMPANY<br />

FOUR RUNNERS 4-WHEEL DRIVE CLUB<br />

FREMONT MILLWORK CO.<br />

FRIEDMANS'S MICROWAVE OVENS<br />

FRUITDALE GRANGE #379<br />

GARY W. HARGRAVE & ASSOCIATES<br />

GRAPHIC PRESS<br />

GREGORY FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.<br />

HERALD AND NEWS<br />

HIGH DESERT TRAIL RIDERS<br />

HOFER ENGINEERING<br />

INTERMOUNTAIN-ORIENT INC.<br />

IRA SPRING, PHOTOGRAPHER<br />

ISAKSON & CONE<br />

J.E. HIGGINS LUMBER COMPANY<br />

KLAMATH BASIN HOME BUILDERS ASSOC.<br />

KLAMATH BASIN SNOWDRIFTERS,INC.<br />

KLAMATH BOARD OF REALTORS<br />

KLAMATH CATTLEMEN'S ASSOC.<br />

KLAMATH CONSULTING SERVICE INC.<br />

KLAMATH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOC.<br />

KLAMATH COUNTY VISITORS BUREAU<br />

KLAMATH MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE<br />

KLAMATH ORGANIZING COMMITTEE<br />

KLAMATH YACHT CLUB<br />

KOSMATKA, DONNELLY & CO.<br />

MAZAMAS<br />

MERLIN HEALTH RETREAT<br />

MICROAGE COMPUTER STORES<br />

MIDLAND EMPIRE INSURANCE AGENCY<br />

MILLER BROS. INC.<br />

MODOC LUMBER CO.<br />

MOSS ADAMS, CRk'S<br />

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION<br />

NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF OREGON<br />

NATURE CONSERVANCY, THE<br />

NORTHWEST FORESTRY ASSOC.<br />

NOVAK'S AUTO PARTS<br />

O'HAIRS FUNERAL CHAPEL<br />

OBSIDIANS, INC.<br />

ODESSA MERCANTILE<br />

OLSON'S PIANO SERVICE<br />

OREGON BANKERS ASSOCIATION<br />

OREGON RIVERS COUNCIL, THE<br />

OREGON HUNTER'S ASSOCIATION<br />

OREGON NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE<br />

OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL<br />

PNW 4-WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATION<br />

PACIFIC LUMBER & SHIPPING CO.<br />

PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY<br />

PAPE' BROS. INC.<br />

PELICAN BUTTE PETITION<br />

PELICAN BUTTE PETITION<br />

R2 ANGUS RANCH<br />

ROBERT J. BOGATAY CONSTRUCTION<br />

ROCKY POINT RESORT<br />

ROGERS MACHINERY COMPANY, INC.<br />

ROOKSTOOL & ALTER<br />

S.P. LOGGER'S SUPPLY<br />

SIERRA CASCADE LOGGING CONFERENCE<br />

SIERRA CLUB, KLAMATH GROUP<br />

SIERRA CLUB, OREGON CHAPTER<br />

SOUTH VALLEY STATE BANK<br />

SOUTHERN OREGON TIMBER INDUSTRIES<br />

SPECIAL PRODUCTS OF OREGON<br />

SPRING CREEK RANCH MOTEL<br />

STEATITE OF SOUTHERN OREGON, INC.<br />

13TH MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, THE<br />

THOMAS LUMBER COMPANY<br />

TIMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS GROUP<br />

TOWN & COUNTRY REALTY<br />

TRENDWEST, INC.<br />

TROUT UNLIMITED OF OREGON<br />

VALLEY BOOT & REPAIR<br />

VIRGINIA FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ASSOC.<br />

VISITOR IND. ASSOC.,KLAMATH RIVERS<br />

WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY<br />

WEST PACIFIC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES C<br />

WESTERN FOREST IND. ASSOC.<br />

WESTERN WOOD PRODUCTS ASSOC.<br />

WEYERHAEUSER<br />

WHITE PELICAN INN<br />

WILDERNESS SOCIETY, THE<br />

WIND RIVER MULTIPLE USE ADVOCATES<br />

R - 1

Government Agencies and Indian Tribes<br />

CFTY OF KLAMATH FALLS<br />

CITY OF MALIN<br />

KLAMATH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS<br />

KLAMATH COUNTY PLANNING<br />

KLAMATH COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.<br />

LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS<br />

OREGON HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<br />

BERNIE AGRONS<br />

LIZ VAN LEEUWEN<br />

OREGON, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION<br />

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDUFE<br />

OREGON, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR<br />

THE KLAMATH TRIBE<br />

U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY, BPA<br />

U.S. DEPT. OF THE AIR FORCE<br />

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY<br />

U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (USDI)<br />

USDI, BUREAU OF MINES<br />

USDI, CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK<br />

USDI, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE<br />

Individuals<br />

CONSTANCE L. ABBOTT<br />

KATHLEEN E. ABBOTT<br />

R.L. ABBOTT<br />

JOHN ABELL<br />

TED ABRAM<br />

LLOYD G. ABRAMS<br />

LUPE ACOSTA<br />

FRED ACOSTA<br />

JOHN L ACREY<br />

EVERETT K ADAMS<br />

PAUL ADAMS<br />

BILL ADAMS<br />

DAN ADAMS<br />

LIZ ADAMS<br />

DAVID ADAMS<br />

JOSEPH H. ADAMS<br />

EVERETT K ADAMS JR.<br />

EILEEN ADEE<br />

DAVID & MARIE AIASSA<br />

DAVID ALACIE<br />

J.F. ALBERSON<br />

D. JEAN ALBERSTON<br />

HENRY ALDEN<br />

PATRICIA E. ALDRICH<br />

R.S. ALDSTADT<br />

ROBERT M. ALGER<br />

GORDON ALLARD<br />

LAURA ALLEN<br />

SARAH K. ALLEN<br />

HOWARD C. ALLEN<br />

JAMES E. ALLEN<br />

ED ALLEN<br />

BURL W. ALLEN<br />

DAVID H. ALLEN<br />

DALE R. ALLENSWORTH<br />

KENNETH E. ALVAREZ<br />

CLIFF AMBERS<br />

WILLIAM P. AMBROSE<br />

JOE AMICARELLA<br />

HERBERT D. AMOS<br />

TIM & CECELIA AMUCHASTEGUI<br />

KAREN AMUNDSON<br />

TERRY AMUNDSON<br />

SHERMAN D. ANDERSON<br />

ERLAND ANDERSON<br />

BRUCE H. ANDERSON<br />

ROBERT D. ANDERSON<br />

GORDON S. ANDERSON<br />

SHEL ANDERSON<br />

CHARLES H. ANDERSON<br />

MICHAEL R. ANDERSON<br />

BETTY C. ANDERSON<br />

ERIC T. ANDERSON<br />

HARRY ANDERSON<br />

MICHAEL W. ANDERSON<br />

PATRICIA ANDERSON<br />

LELAND R. ANDERSON<br />

JOHN ANDERSON<br />

RONNIE ANDERSON<br />

ROBERT ANDERSON JR.<br />

DAN A. ANDERSON SR.<br />

DARYL ANDERST<br />

LINDA ANDREWS<br />

JANE V. ANDREWS<br />

JERRY D. ANGLE<br />

MICHAEL G. APICELLO<br />

LINDA APODACA<br />

BONNIE & DAN APPLEBAKER<br />

SUSAN APPLEGATE<br />

GEORGE A. & J. APPLEGATE<br />

SHANNON AQUINAQA<br />

JOHN C. ARCHER<br />

LARRY ARCHER<br />

GILBERT G. ARCHER SR.<br />

GLENN ARCHIBALD, JR.<br />

GWEN ARMSTRONG<br />

DAVID R. ARNOLD<br />

MELVIN D. ARNOLD<br />

FRED ARNOLD<br />

ERNEST ARTHUR<br />

RODNEY T. ARTILLS<br />

ROY ARWOOD<br />

KEITH E. ASHBY<br />

MARYE J. ASHCRAFT<br />

JANET ASHKENAZY<br />

ROBERT & SALLY ASHLEY<br />

KEITH ASHLEY<br />

L C. ASHTON<br />

ELISE J. AUGENSTEIN<br />

LEE AUMET<br />

R - 2

ROBERT AURNAGUE-DESPAIN<br />

LEE R. AUSTIN<br />

JOHN D. AUSTIN<br />

ALEC J. AUSTIN<br />

GERALDINE AUSTIN<br />

ELIZABETH H. AUTLE<br />

GLENN A. AVERY<br />

JIM AZELTINE<br />

RON BABB<br />

SUSAN L. BABCOCK<br />

JIM BABIN<br />

R.A. BACCHETTI<br />

DAN & MARCI BACHTELL<br />

RITA BACKA<br />

GLENN A BACKES<br />

SUSAN BADKER<br />

KG. & ELIZABETH BAGHOTT<br />

PETER BAHLS<br />

WADE BAIL<br />

RIC BAILEY<br />

RICHARD T. BAILEY<br />

CHARLOTTE BAILEY<br />

RICHARD BAIN<br />

WILUAM A. BAIRD<br />

BILL BAKER<br />

DALE W. BAKER<br />

JOYCE & ROY BAKER<br />

HENRY C. BAKER<br />

DOUGLAS L BAKER<br />

VIRGINIA BAKER<br />

B. J. BALCOM<br />

LOU BALDOVINO<br />

LARRY BALDRIDGE<br />

JOSE F. BALDUAS<br />

LISLE & MARGARET BALDWIN<br />

C.A. BALDWIN<br />

RODNEY P. BALEY<br />

KEITH E. BALEY<br />

JEFF 0. & JOYCE BALL<br />

NORMA L. BALL<br />

LYLE E. BALL<br />

LOIS BALL<br />

BENJAMIN F. BALME<br />

JAMES E. BALSIGER<br />

SANDRA BALSIGER<br />

LARRY BALZER<br />

JUDY BAMFORTH<br />

ROBERT BANES<br />

GLENN BARBEE<br />

CHARLES W. BARBER<br />

LEELA M. BARE<br />

JESSE G. BARKER<br />

NICHOLAS P. BARNES<br />

CLOYCE E. BARNES<br />

LEONARD BARNES<br />

RICKY J. BARNETT<br />

JOE BARNEtTE<br />

PHILIP M. BARNEY<br />

ROY BARR<br />

GERALD BARRETT<br />

FAYE M. BARROW<br />

JOHN E. BARRY<br />

ROBERT BARTELL<br />

DAN BARTELL<br />

PETER BARTINDALE<br />

CELESTE M. BASSETT<br />

BOB BASSETT<br />

MICHAEL G. BATES<br />

CRAIG R. BATGALE<br />

M.G. BAUER<br />

BRIAN BAXTER<br />

CATHERINE BAXTER<br />

RICHARD D. BAYER<br />

ANDY BAYLISS<br />

BYRON L. BEACH<br />

DAN R. BEACH<br />

ROBERT H. BEACH<br />

MELVIN BEAL<br />

ROXANNE 1. BEAL<br />

CHARLES D BEAN<br />

RALPH F. BEARD<br />

MRON C. BEATY<br />

GARY BEAUCHAMP<br />

FREDERICK D. BECHDOLDT<br />

MARY E. BECHEN<br />

JOHN BECHEN<br />

ERIC R. BECK<br />

S. C. BECKER<br />

MR. & MRS. H.E. BECKLEY<br />

TIM BECKLEY<br />

JOHN G. BECKWITH<br />

STEVE A. & JANNA BEDARD<br />

ROBERT SCOT BEE<br />

ROBERT & KRISTIN M BEE<br />

ROBERT S. BEE<br />

JAMES V. BELL<br />

ROD BELL<br />

DEWARD R BELL<br />

BILL BELLAMY<br />

CHARLES BENCH<br />

REESE E. BENDER<br />

GERALD BENDIX<br />

JUDY BENDIX<br />

GERHART BENDIX<br />

MARTHA BENN<br />

RICHARD L. BENNER<br />

RONALD K BENNET<br />

LINDA BENNETT<br />

DANIEL 0. BENSON<br />

NEIL BENSON<br />

CHARLES E. BENSON<br />

GORDON I BENTSON<br />

DAVID BEOAHOM<br />

PAUL BERG<br />

JEANNE BERGER<br />

RALPH E. BERGERSON<br />

NORMAN H. BERGMAN<br />

PAUL BERNARLL<br />

DON V. BERRY<br />

KIM BERRY<br />

ALVIN L. BERRY<br />

ROGER E. BEST<br />

JUDY K. BIBLE<br />

RAY BIDEGARY<br />

KAY BIDEGARY<br />

STEVE BIEDERMAN<br />

JOHN M. BIEHN<br />

FRED W. BIEKER<br />

R - 3

ROGER BIELBY<br />

JOANNE BIGMON<br />

RICK BILES<br />

WILLIAM BILLINGS<br />

HENRY L. R. BIRCH<br />

LEO BISHOP<br />

KATHLEEN BISHOP<br />

CHARLES R. BISHOP<br />

JAMES J. BISHOP<br />

KATHLEEN M. BISHOP<br />

C. BJELLAND<br />

GREGORY E. BJELLAND<br />

VERLA BLACK<br />

SONDRA BLACKWELL<br />

BRIAN R. BLACKWELL<br />

DEL BLAIR<br />

BRADFORD L. BLAKELY<br />

CHARLES BLAKESLEE<br />

K. BLANCHARD<br />

HOWARD M. BLOCK<br />

JAN BLOXOM<br />

DAVID M. BLUHM<br />

DONALD L. BLUMERFELD<br />

VIOLA BOARDMAN<br />

LEO & MARGIE BOCCHI<br />

MR. & MRS. STEVEN BOCCHI<br />

W.S. BODDY, JR.<br />

MR. & MRS. A. BODIN<br />

JAMES R. BOEDER<br />

PAUL ROBERT BOEHNER<br />

ARTHUR BOESCHEN<br />

RICH & TONYA BOGATAY<br />

ROBERT BOGATAY<br />

MICHAEL BOHANNON<br />

LEON BOHN<br />

HARRY & ROBERT BOIVIN<br />

JOSEPH E. BOLING<br />

MELVIN R. BONNER<br />

GARY BOOD<br />

ROBERT BOOTAY<br />

ROBERT BORGHORST<br />

MRS. H.C. BORGMAN<br />

MICHAEL BORMUTH<br />

JOHN M BOSSE<br />

DANIEL C. BOTELER<br />

CASSANDRA R. BOTTS<br />

RONALD BOTTS<br />

KATHRYN M. BOULA<br />

JOSEPH A. BOVA<br />

JOHN C. BOWDEN<br />

JOE BOWDEN<br />

LINDA K BOWEN<br />

JOHN E. BOWMAN<br />

RON BOWMAN<br />

PAT BOYER<br />

PATRICIA E. BOYER<br />

ORIEL C. BOYER<br />

MARTIN BOYER<br />

PHIL J. BOYLE<br />

ESTHER BOYLE<br />

BOB BOYNTON<br />

JAMES E. BOYNTON<br />

LARRY BOYUM<br />

THE BRACES<br />

DIANA BRADSHAW<br />

RFE. BRADSHAW<br />

GENE & BARBARA BRADY<br />

A. P. BRAKORA<br />

ROBERT BRAMWELL<br />

DEANE R. BRANDON<br />

PETE BRANDSNESS<br />

RONALD BRANDT<br />

BRICE BRANDT<br />

LOUIE BRANNAN<br />

MARY BRATTEN<br />

PATRICIA J. BRAY<br />

DONNA BRAZIL<br />

ROBERT J. BREAZEALE<br />

MICHAEL A. BREEDEN SR.<br />

DON D. BREHM<br />

PAUL BRErTHAUPT<br />

PATTI BREITMAN<br />

BARRY D. BRENNAN<br />

JAMES D. BRENNAN<br />

BILL BRICKEY<br />

ANN BRIGGS<br />

MICHAEL W. BRINKLEY<br />

MATHEW BRISTOW<br />

RUBY BRIT<br />

JOANNE BRITTON<br />

JIM BRITTON<br />

ROBERT A. BROADHEAD<br />

DONALD W. BRODIE<br />

LAURENCE M. BRODLEY<br />

DALE BRONKEY<br />

ELINOR BROOK<br />

BOB BROOKS<br />

JOHN BROSTERHOUS<br />

JAMES PAUL BROWN<br />

G W BROWN<br />

G.M. BROWN<br />

R. B. BROWN<br />

JACK H. BROWN<br />

THOMAS BROWN<br />

GEORGE. E BROWN<br />

STANLEY BROWN<br />

KATRINA M. BROWN<br />

DAN BROWN<br />

JOHN K. BROWN<br />

RICHARD A. BROWN<br />

DON AND SUE ANN BROWN<br />

W.E. BROWN JR.<br />

LOUIS BROWN JR.<br />

RUSSELL A. BROWNING<br />

KIM BROWNING<br />

W. BRUMBAUGH<br />

DAN BRUMMER<br />

HOWARD BRUNER<br />

ALBERT L. BRUSH<br />

LEE E. BRYANT<br />

MAURICE E. BUCEST<br />

DONALD T. BUCK<br />

MARIAN L. BUCKMASTER<br />

DARELL A. BUELL<br />

MARDELLA BUFFINGTON<br />

DAVID D. BUMHART<br />

JIM BUNKER<br />

GENE BUNNELL<br />

R - 4

C. M. BURDUCK<br />

SID BURGDORF<br />

KATHERYN BURGER<br />

RANDY BURGER<br />

BRIAN BURGESS<br />

CHIC L. BURGESS<br />

LEO & KAY S. BURGETT<br />

REX BURGETT<br />

DOUGLAS E. & SUSAN BURK<br />

MARK BURKHALTEN<br />

KENNETH A. BURKHOLDER<br />

MICHAEL BURNS<br />

MIKE BURRILL<br />

HERBERT C. BURROW<br />

CAROLYN L. BURUM<br />

ROBERT R. BURWELL JR.<br />

CHARLES D. BURY<br />

DARCY BUSHLEN<br />

JAMES BUSKY<br />

DONALD R. BUTTERFIELD<br />

LEONARD & LEATHA BUTTON<br />

LYALL BYERS<br />

THOMAS CABLE<br />

R. CADA<br />

WILLIAM J. CADMAN<br />

CON CAHILL<br />

EARL H. CAHOON<br />

JAMES R. CALAHAN<br />

ALAN E. CALDWELL<br />

BILL CALDWELL<br />

FRED W. CALEF<br />

BOB CALHOUN<br />

A.G. CAMAILLE<br />

SANDRA E. CAMBRON<br />

STEVE CAMERON<br />

FRANK CAMMACK<br />

PAUL N. CAMPBELL<br />

ROBERT CAMPBELL<br />

LEROY H. CAMPBELL<br />

LAURA CAMPOS<br />

KEN CANEPZ<br />

STEVEN J. CANTANNI<br />

TIM CANTRELL<br />

JOE CARAHER<br />

CONNIE CARDALHO<br />

LEE CARLSON<br />

ALEXANDRA E. CARLSON<br />

C. G. CARLSON<br />

THOMAS A. CARLTON<br />

ALAN CARLTON<br />

M.E. CARMICKLE<br />

ETHEL B. CARMICKLE<br />

SEAN W. CARNAHAN<br />

JERRY R. CARNETT<br />

BLAIR H. CARPENTER<br />

GERALD L. CARPENTER<br />

HAROLD CARR<br />

JEFFREY CARRICO<br />

HEATHER CARROLL<br />

STEVE CARSON<br />

GARLAND & CHERYL CARSON<br />

W.E. CARTER<br />

TRUMAN C. CARTER<br />

STEVE CARTER<br />

MICHAEL E. CARTER<br />

DONALD CARTER<br />

FRANK CARVALHO<br />

ED CASE<br />

DEL CASE<br />

FRANCES G. CASE<br />

DEAN K CASTONWAY<br />

SANDRA CATLETT<br />

MILLIE CHADDERTON<br />

RON CHAMBERLAIN<br />

JUDY CHAMBERS<br />

WILLIAM E. CHAMBERS<br />

JAMES CHAMBERS<br />

RON CHANDLE<br />

LARRY G. CHANDLER<br />

VICTORIA CHANEY<br />

MR. & MRS. E.E. CHAPMAN<br />

DEBRA CHAPMAN<br />

STEVEN L. CHAPMAN<br />

MONTE CHAPMAN<br />

JIM CHAPMAN<br />

MR. & MRS. CHAPMAN<br />

M. EUGENE CHAPPELL<br />

RICHARD J. CHASE<br />

STEVE C CHASE<br />

RANDALL T. CHASTAIN<br />

JOHN CHAVARRIA<br />

JAMES CHENEY<br />

VAN CHESNUT<br />

THOMAS CHESTERMAN<br />

MARTIN D. CHIN<br />

WILLIAM K CHISHOLM<br />

PERRY CHOCKTOOT JR.<br />

EDWARD L. CHRISTENSEN<br />

PAUL W. CHRISTENSEN<br />

R.L. CHRISTIANSEN<br />

ALLEN D. CHRISTIE<br />

ED CHRISTIE<br />

JIM & JUDY CHRISTINA<br />

STEVE J. CHRONISTER<br />

M. ROBBINS CHURCH<br />

GARY L. CHURCH<br />

G. R. CLAFLIN<br />

CLIMPSON B. CLAPP<br />

JEANNE P. CLARK<br />

JIM CLARK<br />

GEORGE CLARK<br />

JOHN & LANETTA CLARK<br />

DONALD H. CLARK<br />

JEFF CLARK<br />

MARLA CLARKE<br />

DEREK CLAWSON<br />

JOE CLAYBORN<br />

LINDA CLIGG<br />

JAMES H. CLINE<br />

ROBERT COATS<br />

DAVID COBB<br />

RANDY R. COCHRAN<br />

GUY R. COCHRANE<br />

GARY COELYN<br />

J.N. COFFMAN<br />

GARLAND COGBURN<br />

JAMES E. COGSWELL<br />

DAVID W. COHL<br />

R - 5

JANET R. & TOM COINER<br />

KENT COLAHAN<br />

ELAINE E. COLUER<br />

ARLIE E. COLLIER<br />

WILLIAM & MAXINE COLLIER<br />

BRUCE COLLIER<br />

BARBARA & DOUG COLLIER<br />

ELBERT COLUNS<br />

JERRY L. COLLINS<br />

MARY E. COLLMAN<br />

DAVID P. COLLMAN<br />

RICHARD G. COLPITTS<br />

ARCHIE COLVIN<br />

GARY COLVIN<br />

FRANCES COMER<br />

THOMAS D. COMER<br />

GARY CONE<br />

JOY M. CONLEY<br />

DARRELL CONN<br />

JOHN CONNELLY<br />

R. CONNOR JR<br />

RICHARD A. CONRAD<br />

W.C. CONRAD<br />

WALTER E. CONRADY<br />

PAUL CONTE<br />

PATRICIA B. CONVERSE<br />

CHARLES & DEANNA CONWAY<br />

HARRY L. COOK<br />

KENNETH B. COOK<br />

GUY & CAROLYN COOK<br />

E.V. COOKE<br />

ROBERT COOL<br />

ROBERT S. COOMBES<br />

M COONEY<br />

CLIFF COONROD<br />

DAVID A. COONS<br />

PAUL W. COOPER<br />

ROMAIN COOPER<br />

DAVID COOPMAN<br />

RICHARD CORBAT<br />

CAROLYN & DONALD CORBIN<br />

PEGGY A. CORLEY<br />

R.L. CORNETT<br />

JUAN CORTEZ<br />

JOHN CORWIN<br />

CHARLES W. COSSEY<br />

CAROL A. COSSEY<br />

HENRY E. COTTER<br />

ROY E. COTTON<br />

AUSTIN COUNTS<br />

SUSAN COX<br />

RONELLE D. COX<br />

ALVIN A. COX<br />

HAROLD D./MARILYN COX I FISHER<br />

BOBBY L CRABTREE<br />

LLOYD L. CRAFT JR.<br />

RON CRAIG<br />

LINDA CRAIG<br />

WENDY M. CRAIG<br />

HOWARD M. CRAMBLETT<br />

THERESA & CURTIS CRAMER<br />

LLOYD CRAMER<br />

SUZANNA CRAWFORD<br />

PEGGY J. CRAWFORD<br />

HARRY L. CRAWFORD<br />

R.A. CRAWFORD<br />

MICHAEL CRAWFORD<br />

RICHARD L. CREASEY<br />

KAREN L. CREEL<br />

RAYMOND CREEL<br />

KENNETH R. CREEL<br />

BOB CRESAP<br />

JIM CRISMON<br />

GARY L. CRISP<br />

DAVID J. CRIST<br />

MELANIE CROCKER<br />

DOUG & MARCH CROOKS<br />

HARRY CROSBY<br />

DENNIS L. CROSS<br />

JOHN S. & SUSAN K CROSS<br />

BRUCE A. CROUDER<br />

ROBERT L.& ALISON CROWE<br />

ROBERT CROWE<br />

D.L. CROWL<br />

ROBERT CROWLEY<br />

TRACY J. CROWSON<br />

DEREK CROXFORD<br />

RONALD CROXFORD<br />

JEANNE CRUME<br />

BUTCH CRUME<br />

JANET M. CRUMP<br />

CHARLES H. CRUMP<br />

RANDY CRUTCHFIELD<br />

PEGGY A. CUMMINGS<br />

RICHARD & SHIRLEY CUNNINGHAM<br />

LORI CURLEE<br />

GEORGE N. CURNOW<br />

MICHAEL W. CURRAN<br />

MRS. HUGH B. CURRIN<br />

ALAN CURRISTON<br />

DAVE CURTIS<br />

STEARNS CUSHING<br />

KENNETH J. CUSHMAN<br />

PHYLLIS C. DAHM<br />

JAMES DAHM<br />

J. R. DALTON<br />

W. DAMES<br />

GLEN A. DAMROW<br />

DAVE DANFORTH<br />

ALFRED L. DANIELS<br />

HAROLD DANIELS<br />

CINDY DARNELL<br />

BERTIE L. & F.W, DASSLER<br />

DAVID DAVEY<br />

JAMES C. DAVID<br />

RAY DAVID<br />

E.L. DAVIDSON<br />

ROBERT H. DAVIES<br />

DORIS H. DAVIS<br />

AL DAVIS<br />

JEANNE N. DAVIS<br />

JAMES W. DAVIS<br />

TERESA A. DAVIS<br />

THOMAS F. DAVIS<br />

WILLIAM E. DAVIS<br />

ARNOLD R. DAVIS<br />

RICK DAVIS<br />

DENNIS DAVIS<br />

R - 6

ROD DAVIS<br />

WISBY D. DAVIS<br />

JOE DAVISON<br />

LARRY & DIANA DAY<br />

ROGER DAY<br />

RICHARD E. DAY<br />

JOYCE DAY<br />

MARY DE ARMOND<br />

ROBERT J. DE ARMOND<br />

LLOYD & EDNA DE CLERSIN<br />

JAN DE GROOT<br />

PAUL DE HART<br />

GERALD DE JAUVIER<br />

LUCKY DE MARCHI<br />

R.C. DE ROSIER<br />

GEORGE DE SCHWEINITZ<br />

VERA N. DE VOSS<br />

HAROLD W. DEARBORN<br />

GENE 0. DEAVAULT<br />

ROBERT M. DEAVILLA<br />

JOHN DEEGAN<br />

DON & SUZANNA DEFAZIO<br />

PAT DEFFENBAUGH<br />

BEN DEGROOT<br />

TANYA K. DEHART<br />

FRED J. DEL PIZZO<br />

DAVID A. DELANEY SR.<br />

L FAYE DELLER<br />

GEORGE DEMETRAKOS<br />

GEORGE DEMETRAKOS JR.<br />

J.M. DENISON<br />

WILLIAM N. DENNISON<br />

THOMAS DENSON<br />

PHILIP G. DERRE<br />

ELAINE & WILLIAM DEUTSCHMAN<br />

MICHAEL S. DEVLIN<br />

JOE DEVORALL<br />

JOHN W. DEY<br />

ARCH W. DIACK<br />

MRS. L DICKERSON<br />

THOMAS C. DICKERT<br />

EVA M. DICKSON<br />

ERIC DILLENBERGER<br />

PAUL T. DINGMAN<br />

TERRI DIPPEL<br />

DIANE DIRKEN<br />

JANE C. DIRKS-EDMUNDS<br />

ANDREW A. DITCH<br />

DIANA L. DITLEFSEN<br />

CRAIG B. DITMAN<br />

ROD DITRICK<br />

BILL DIVINE<br />

RON DOBROWSKI<br />

RON DOBRY<br />

CRAIG DOBY<br />

MARGARET WASCHU DOCK<br />

DOUGLAS R. DODD<br />

RODNEY & DONNALEA DODGE<br />

KATHLEEN DODGE<br />

KENNETH DOERFLER<br />

JAMES D. DOIG<br />

DOUGLAS DONNAHAO<br />

JAMES R. DONOVAN<br />

RICK DORMAN<br />

GENE DOWNEY<br />

DANIEL DOWNEY<br />

DAVE DOWNEY<br />

REBECCA J. DOWNEY<br />

JAMES R. DRAEGER<br />

JERRY L& PAMELA J DRAKE<br />

GEORGE DRANE<br />

HOLLY & NEIL DREW<br />

EVELYN DREW<br />

SYDNEY DRISCOLL<br />

RAY DRISCOLL SR.<br />

ROY DRISCOLL, JR<br />

THOMAS J. DRYDEN<br />

W.D. DRYDEN<br />

KRIS L. DRYER<br />

CORNELIA K DUBOIS<br />

DAVID DUDDEN<br />

JAMES D. DUEDE<br />

NORMAN J. DUFFY<br />

ROY DUGAN<br />

THOMAS W. DUKE<br />

DENNIS W. DUMONCE<br />

DAVID L. DUNCAN<br />

CHARLES T. DUNCAN<br />

STEPHEN L. DUNCAN<br />

R.WILLARD & GENEVA DUNCAN<br />

MICHAEL DUNCANNON<br />

CHRIS W. DUNFIELD<br />

BRUCE H. DUNN<br />

KW. DUNN<br />

GEORGE C DURAN<br />

BRUCE DURANT<br />

IRA R. DUTCHEN<br />

LOIS DUVALL<br />

GLEN H. DUYSEN<br />

TIM MITCHELL DYER<br />

WILLIAM B. EARLY<br />

WILLIAM & BETTY EASTER<br />

THE EASTLICKS<br />

NEAL & SUSAN EBERLEIN<br />

ALAN EBERLEIN<br />

F.W. EBERLIN<br />

F. EBLING<br />

RUTH C. EDEN<br />

IDELLA M. EDGAR<br />

JOHN L. EDGINGTON<br />

DOROTHEA E. EDGINGTON<br />

NILS A. EDIN<br />

CATHERINE EDWARDS<br />

SCOTT EDWARDS<br />

MARY EDWARDS<br />

LEE EDWARDS<br />

RICHARD M. EDWARDS<br />

LETHA M. EDWARDS<br />

C. A. EDWARDS<br />

DEWEY D. EDWARDS<br />

W. A. EDWARDS<br />

JEROME EGBERT<br />

ROBERT EICHER<br />

B. ELDER<br />

R.P. ELLINGSON<br />

DONALD ELLINGSON<br />

GINGER ELLINGSON<br />

HELEN M. ELLINGSON<br />

R - 7

ROBERT P. ELLINGSON JR.<br />

VIOLA ELLIS<br />

JOHN ELLIS<br />

ANNIE ELLISON<br />

HAL ELMER<br />

ROY C. ELMGREN<br />

RUBY P. ELSDON<br />

MARJORIE L. ELSEMORE<br />

ALICE ELSHOFF<br />

PAT ELWOOD<br />

DON M EMARY<br />

DEBBY J. & O.J. ENDICOTT<br />

JACK G. ENDICOTT<br />

FAY S. ENGELAGE<br />

JAY ENGLAND<br />

EUGENE ENGLAND<br />

RICHARD A. ENGSTRAND<br />

JONNA C. ENMAN<br />

JERRY ENMAN<br />

MARK ERICKS<br />

WILLIAM S. ERICKSON<br />

DAVE ERIKSON<br />

LARRY T. ERLEI<br />

LINDA ERNST<br />

ALAN & MYRA ERWIN<br />

NORMA J. ESPERANCE<br />

RAY ESQUEDA<br />

TIMOTHY R. ESTABROOK<br />

SHIRLEY 1. ESTER<br />

DONALD L. R. ESTES<br />

EILEEN E. ESTES<br />

DONALD E. ESTES<br />

W.S. ETTINGER<br />

WALLY EUBANKS<br />

MARVIN L. EVANS<br />

GREG S. EVANS<br />

JAMES M. EVANS<br />

SHEREE EVERETT<br />

FRED W. EVERSON<br />

BRADLEY A. EVERSON<br />

BRIAN EVERSON<br />

BOB EWING<br />

LORRAINE FAGANELLO<br />

BEVERLY FAGEN<br />

WADE P. FAGEN<br />

PATRICK D. FAHEY<br />

CHARLES W. FAIRCHILD<br />

JERRIE FAIRLESS<br />

VIRGINIA L. FALKOWSKI<br />

OTIS FANNING<br />

WILLIAM 0, FARBER<br />

RICHARD A. FARBER<br />

JON D. FARIES<br />

JEANETTE R. FARISS<br />

TIM FARRELL<br />

TERRY FARRELL<br />

EARL W. FEAGAN<br />

PHILIP D. FEDDERLY<br />

ROBERT L. FEDDERSON<br />

ROBERT M. FEHL<br />

SABRINA FEINLUND<br />

DUANE F. FELIX<br />

FRED & IRIS FELTER<br />

MIKEAL FENN<br />

DENZIL FERGUSON<br />

J. FERGUSON<br />

EARL E. FERGUSON<br />

MELVIN FERGUSON<br />

BARBARA J. FERGUSON<br />

DONALD M. FERRELL<br />

R.DAVID FERRIS<br />

DENNIS & BETTY FIEGI<br />

T. FIELDER<br />

BRAD FINCH<br />

STEVEN FINCK<br />

NANCY FIRTH<br />

JOHN A. FISCHER<br />

KEITH A. FISH<br />

DON FISHER<br />

NORMA FITZGERALD<br />

SANDRA FITZJARRALD<br />

MR. & MRS. EDWARD FITZPATRICK JR.<br />

DUANE FITZSIMMONS<br />

CLYDE E. FJORD<br />

TIMOTHY S. FLAGG<br />

GEORGE C. FLANAGAN<br />

MARK FLEMING<br />

JOSEPH & KATHLEEN FLETCHER<br />

EDWARD M. FLETCHER<br />

GEORGIA L. FLEURY<br />

CAROL A. FLIEHR<br />

SHARON L. FLOCCHINI<br />

DEE FLOGERZI<br />

GEORGE FLOREZ<br />

RAYMOND FLOWERS<br />

BRIAN FLYNN<br />

MIKE FLYNN<br />

NORMAN FOELLER<br />

RICHARD FORBES<br />

SHIRLEY JUNE FORD<br />

LARRY FORD<br />

JAN FORD<br />

JUDITH M. FORD<br />

DARRYL L. FORD<br />

WILLIAM C. FORD JR.<br />

DALE FORESEE<br />

CECIL FORNEY<br />

C. B. FORNEY<br />

JOHN FORTUNE<br />

CHARLES FORURIA<br />

NANCY FOSS<br />

JAMES H. FOSSEN<br />

DOUG FOSTER<br />

L. FOSTER<br />

BECKY FOSTER<br />

K FOTHERGILL<br />

JANE FOWLER<br />

WAYNE P. FOWLER<br />

TOM C. FOX, JR.<br />

NARDMAN M. FRAIN<br />

C.E. FRANCIS<br />

GAYLE P. FRANEK<br />

LEONARD E. FRANEK<br />

RUSSEL FRANKEL<br />

TY FRANKLIN<br />

BRENDA FRANSON<br />

PETER FRAZIER<br />

HARRY J. FREDERICKS<br />

R - 8

HENRY FREEMAN<br />

OLGA A. FREEMAN<br />

EDNA FREEMANTLE<br />

ROBERT F. FREESE<br />

EDWARD D. FRENCH<br />

GEORGE FRENZLD<br />

JACK FRIBERG<br />

MELVIN G. FRICK<br />

MARK F. FRIED<br />

SID FRIEDMAN<br />

J. ALAN FRIERSON<br />

ARTHUR FRIESEN<br />

ROCKY FRIMBRES<br />

MORRIS L. FRINK<br />

JOHN E. FRiTH<br />

KATHY FROEHUCH<br />

MIKE FRYE<br />

MICHAEL J. FUERSTENBERG<br />

VERNON L. FULTON JR.<br />

ROGER P. FUNK<br />

DANA FURGERSON<br />

CHARLES F. FURREY SR.<br />

JUDITH GAFFERT RICHARDSON<br />

TIM GAINES<br />

PETE GALE<br />

GEORGIA G. GALLAGHER<br />

M.H. GALLAGHER<br />

GERALD L. GALLMEISTER<br />

DANIEL E. GALLOWAY<br />

TINA L. GALLOWAY<br />

DENNIS GALLOWAY<br />

FRANK F. GANONG<br />

FRANK 0. GANONG<br />

JAMES F. GANSBERG<br />

TOM GARBER<br />

JESUS R. GARCIA<br />

HARRIET S. GARDENER<br />

LEONARD B. GARDNER<br />

LESTER GARDNER<br />

WILLIAM GARDNER<br />

DARRELL GARNER<br />

CHARLES GARNER<br />

STUART G. GARRETT<br />

GARY GARRETT<br />

CHARLES T. GARRETT<br />

ROGER C. GARRETT<br />

ROBERT GARRETT<br />

MIKE & JERRIE GARRETT<br />

J. M. GARVEY<br />

KAREN GASAWAY<br />

W. GASKINS<br />

MYRON C. GASTON<br />

MRS.LLOYD GATES<br />

JACK GATES<br />

CUFFORD T. GATES<br />

MICHAEL GAVIN<br />

JIM GEISINGER<br />

ERWIN A. GEISZLER<br />

TIM GENKER<br />

WALT GENTIS<br />

DONALD GENTRY<br />

LAWRENCE L. GEORGE<br />

CAROL B. GERL<br />

GARY E. GERL<br />

BOB & ELLEN GERL<br />

LOIS GERMAN<br />

B.C. GERMOND<br />

JOSEPH W. GERO<br />

HANS GERREMO<br />

GREG D. GESTVANG<br />

E. HOPE GETCHELL<br />

PHYLLIS & CLYDE D. GHAN JR.<br />

LARRY A. & CHERYL GIBBS<br />

WAYNE GIBSON<br />

BENJAMIN H. GILCHRIST<br />

RICHARD & DELORES GILCRIST<br />

EVELYN GILHOOLEY<br />

CATHY M GILL<br />

JAMES H. GILLAM<br />

ROLAND W. GILLER<br />

EDWIN GILMAN<br />

WILLIAM C. GILMORE<br />

JOYCE A. GISZUR<br />

MAI G. GIZER<br />

MARLENE GLASGOW<br />

KENNETH H. GLASGOW<br />

JUDITH GLAZER<br />

ROBERT & JUDY GLOVER<br />

JUDITH K GOAD<br />

HOLLY L GODBEY<br />

ARCHER GODFRY<br />

EVERETT GOETTSCH<br />

RICHARD 0. GOETZ<br />

RICHARD A. GOFF<br />

JAVIER GOINGOLFARRI<br />

ESTHER GOLDBERG<br />

ERIC GOLDBRENER<br />

DEE GOLDEN<br />

JULIE GOLDEN<br />

JENNY GOLDEN<br />

DANETH GOLDEN<br />

DENNIS GOLDEN<br />

MARVIN GOLDEN<br />

DICK GOOD<br />

BETHEL GOODING<br />

DANIEL GOODWIN<br />

MATTHEW GORDON<br />

LAWRENCE W. GORE<br />

JOHN GOTTUEB<br />

DON GOURLEY<br />

VIRGINIA & PHILIP GOVEDARE<br />

ELLEN GOVEDARE-MERRILL<br />

A.E. GRAHAM<br />

JOAN GRAHAM<br />

MILTON R. GRAHAM<br />

L.JOAN GRANT<br />

BOB GRAUL<br />

BILLY GRAVES<br />

PHIL E. GRAVES<br />

R.W. GRAY<br />

WILLIAM GRAY<br />

JOHN & MICHELE GREB<br />

DEAN & PHLEET GREEAR<br />

GERALD & GRACE GREEN<br />

ERIS GREEN<br />

RANDY GREEN<br />

THOMAS L. GREEN<br />

JOE GREEN<br />

R - 9

FRED GREEN<br />

JAMES E. GREENHAW<br />

MICHAEL GREENSTREET<br />

TERRY GREGORY<br />

V. GRENSKY<br />

CATHERINE GRIBBLE KELLOGG<br />

STANLEY S. GRIFFIN<br />

DAVID R. GRIFFITH<br />

STEVE GRIGSBY<br />

RONALD W. GRIGSLY<br />

JAMES GRIMES<br />

DONALD E. GRIMES<br />

GARY GRIPP<br />

HARRY L. GROAT<br />

THOMAS GROGAN JR.<br />

DAVID C./CAROLYN E GROSS / WRIGHT<br />

RUSS L GROVE<br />

CHERYL GROVES<br />

MIKE E. GROVES<br />

ANTHONY G. GRUBA<br />

EARL GRUELL<br />

DANIEL GUNKEL<br />

JAMES LEON GUSS<br />

JOYCE GUTHRIE<br />

RODNEY L. HADLEY<br />

CATHY HAGA<br />

STUART M HAGEN<br />

LARRY D. HAGER<br />

CHUCK HAGER<br />

HAGER<br />

ANNETTE HAGUE<br />

DELOIS HAIGWOOD<br />

WILLIAM M. HAL<br />

STEPHEN P. HALL<br />

JEFF HALL<br />

TOM HALL<br />

BONNIE HALL<br />

DAVID E. HALL<br />

LARRY G. HALL<br />

RALPH L. HALL<br />

RICHARD W. HALLEY<br />

THE HALLS<br />

JOHN 0. HALVORSON<br />

CHET HAMAKER<br />

DONALD L. HAMBLIN<br />

RAY W. HAMEL<br />

CAROL HAMLIN<br />

MELVIN L. HAMMACH<br />

WILLIAM R. HAMMER<br />

DALE HAMMERS<br />

ELMER HAMMETT<br />

ALTON W. HAMMILL<br />

JOHN D. HANE<br />

KYLE W. HANKINS<br />

MARK HANNA<br />

GARY HANNSON<br />

D. HANSEN<br />

CRAIG A. HANSEN<br />

ERICA HANSON<br />

DAVID HANSON<br />

SCOTT HARBISON<br />

MICHAEL HARBISON<br />

DAVID E. HARDEN<br />

WILLIAM HARDIN<br />

CAROL & JIM HARDIN<br />

KENNETH A. HARDING<br />

CHRIS HARDT<br />

RICHARD A. HARDY<br />

JEAN HARGROVE<br />

PAUL M. HARLAN<br />

RICHARD HARLAND<br />

ROD HARPER<br />

MERLE HARPER<br />

ROBERTA HARPER<br />

LYNN HARPER<br />

PAUL T. HARPER<br />

R.T. HARPER<br />

ARMAND HARREGUY<br />

DELLA M. HARREGUY<br />

RONALD HARRINGTON<br />

MR. & MRS S.T. HARRIS<br />

JOHN HARRIS<br />

E.M. & PAULINE HARRIS<br />

CHARLES F. HARRIS<br />

CURTIS A. HARRIS<br />

VI HARRIS<br />

KENNETH HARRIS<br />

PAT HARRIS<br />

JIM E. HARRIS<br />

DANIEL W. HARRIS<br />

JOYCE HART<br />

MARY ANN HART<br />

CARLYN HART<br />

MICHAEL HARTFIELD<br />

BRIAN HARTGRAVES<br />

CLYDE R. HARTLEY<br />

PAT HARTNELL<br />

EDDIE L. HARVEY<br />

ROBERT L. HARVEY<br />

LEONARD R. HARVEY<br />

WILLIAM A. HARVEY JR.<br />

AUSTIN A. HASEL<br />

JEWEL HASKINS<br />

DORIS L. HASSMANN<br />

JOHN S. HATCH<br />

GARY HATFIELD<br />

SENATOR MARK HATFIELD<br />

CLAUDE EARL HATHAWAY<br />

ERNEST HATMAKER<br />

JOHN H. HATTON<br />

JEFF HAUN<br />

ROBERT E. HAUSE<br />

MARJ & ROBERT E. HAUSE<br />

JANELL C. & M. HAVIRD<br />

WILMA HAWKINS<br />

ROBIN M. HAWKINS<br />

ROBERT W. HAWKINS<br />

GEORGE W. HAYES<br />

WENDELL L. HAYES<br />

RICHARD HAYES<br />

DAROLD HAYNES<br />

MITCHELL HAYS<br />

DANIEL W. HEAD<br />

WILLIAM H. HEALY<br />

DELMAR L HEALY<br />

A. COREY HEATH<br />

LORETTA HEATH<br />

LARRY C. HEATON<br />

R - 10

CHARLES HEATON<br />

JIM HEBERLEIN<br />

JOE HEBERT<br />

KEVIN HEDBERG<br />

ADRIENNE C. HEDGECOCK<br />

SUSAN S. & TOM L. HEDGES<br />

G.S. HEDIN<br />

JOHN & LYNETTE HEDIN<br />

DON & DEBRA HEEL<br />

PHILIP HEID<br />

VERA E. HEIDENREICH<br />

CARL M. HEIDENREICH<br />

RICHARD HEIDT<br />

MICHAEL H. HEINZMAN<br />

RICHARD HELFRICH<br />

ROBERT A. HELLNER<br />

KURT HELMES<br />

WES HEMMERLING<br />

BLAIR M. HENDERSON<br />

TONY HENDERSON<br />

ROBERT A. HENDERSON<br />

GLEN E. HENDERSON<br />

R.W. HENDRICK<br />

F. A. HENDRY<br />

JOSEPH M. HENLIN<br />

LAVERNE HENNING<br />

DANNY R. HENRY<br />

HAROLD HENTON<br />

DAVID HENZEL<br />

DICK HENZEL<br />

RICHARD J. HERBERT<br />

PAUL K. HERIDER<br />

ALFRED A. & VERNA HERMAN<br />

WILLIAM J. HERRON<br />

HARRY H. HERSHEY<br />

WILLIAM B. HERSHMAN<br />

HENRY L. HERYFORD JR.<br />

KURT P. HERZOG<br />

RONALD W HESSER<br />

RICHARD D. HESTER<br />

JUDY R. HEUMANN<br />

STEPHEN P. HEWITT<br />

WALLACE G. HICKS<br />

DOUGLAS S. HICKS<br />

MICHAEL S. HICKS<br />

DONNA HIGGINBOTHAM<br />

ROBERT F. HIGGINS<br />

GARY HIGHLAND<br />

BRIAN HILL<br />

LILLIAN & WILLIAM HILL<br />

B.W. HILL<br />

ARCHIE L. HILL<br />

BILLY HILL<br />

VIDA HILLS RAY<br />

CHRIS HILNER<br />

JEAN HILYARD<br />

CARLA M. HINDS<br />

BILLIE HINTON<br />

ROBERT M. HIRT<br />

COLEEN HISEY<br />

THOMAS G. HOAK<br />

R. C. HOARD .<br />

RAYMOND E. HOBBS<br />

BONITA HOBBS<br />

TAMARA HODGES<br />

TED A. HOFF<br />

JOYCE HOFFMAN<br />

ADAM HOFFMAN<br />

DALE L. HOLBROOK<br />

LESUE H. HOLBROOK<br />

HAROLD L. HOLDER<br />

BRENDA & RONALD HOLEN<br />

DONALD A. HOLLAND<br />

HENRYT. HOLMAN<br />

KERRY HOLMAN<br />

MIRYA HOLMAN<br />

ROBERT HOLMES<br />

WILLIAM & VIRGINIA HOLMES<br />

MIKE HOLMES<br />

DOTTIE HOLTZCLAW<br />

GENE HOLTZCLAW<br />

LOUIS R. HOLZGANG<br />

C.M. HOLZWARTH<br />

BRUCE HONEYMAN<br />

DREW HONZEL<br />

ENID E. & JAMES W. HOPE<br />

MARILYN HOPKINS<br />

DR. & MRS. KH. HORN<br />

LEONA HORN<br />

WILLIAM HORN JR.<br />

CHARLEEN K. HORSTMAN<br />

JOHN F. HORTON<br />

JAMES M. HOSKINS<br />

GREG HOSTITTER<br />

ROBERT N. HOUGH<br />

SHARON HOUNSLY<br />

HARVEY W. HOUSTON<br />

TASKER HOUSTON<br />

JEFFERY C. HOWARD<br />

JOHN HOWARD<br />

GLENN M. HOWARD<br />

RICH HOWARD<br />

V. M. HOWARD<br />

MICHAEL HOWE<br />

DENNIS HOWE<br />

J.L. HOWE<br />

FRED H. HOWELL<br />

GARTH S. HOWELL<br />

KEN HOWELL<br />

CECIL HOWELL<br />

C. T. HOWLAND<br />

EVELYN & FLETCHER HOYT<br />

KYLE & R.L. HUBBARD<br />

RHETT G. HUBBLE<br />

RICK M HUBBLE<br />

WALLACE F. HUBLOU<br />

TERRANCE D. HUFF<br />

HAROLD HUFFMAN<br />

RUTH ANN HUFFMAN<br />

ROBERT M. HUGHES<br />

ADRIAN HUGHES<br />

WAYNE HUGHES<br />

H.R. HULETT<br />

SCOT HULL<br />

STANLEY D. HUMANN<br />

DONALD L HUMMEL<br />

GLEN H. HUMMON<br />

CALVIN L. HUNT<br />

R-11

GARY W. HUNT<br />

LOUISE D. HUNT<br />

WAYNE HUNTER<br />

LARRY R. HUNTER<br />

LEROY G. HUNTER<br />

ROBERT A. HUNTER<br />

W.L. HUNTER JR.<br />

ED HUNTLEY<br />

CHARLIE HURST<br />

JAMES R. HURST<br />

ROY/MARGARET HURST/BOYD<br />

HAROLD E. HUSHBECK JR.<br />

GERDA & JOHN H. HYDE<br />

ELINOR HYNER<br />

MIKE IGOU<br />

GARY & GLORIA IKE<br />

H. IMIIL<br />

KENNETH G. IMMKEN<br />

ERNESTO INCLAN<br />

BRENDA INGRAM<br />

GARY L. & MARY A. IRELAND<br />

LOREN IRVING<br />

TERRY ISABELL<br />

DONALD ISENSEE<br />

ALLEN IVERSON<br />

WALLY IVERSON<br />

GERRY IVERSON STRUNK<br />

SANDY IVEY<br />

JAMES R. IVIE<br />

JESS IVIE<br />

DONALD IVIE<br />

RAY JACKMAN<br />

VERLIN JACKSON<br />

FRAN JACKSON<br />

JOYCE W. JACOBS<br />

JAKE JACOBS<br />

LORRAINE E. JACOBS<br />

ROLLAN DALE JACOBS<br />

JERRY A. JACOBSON<br />

LLOYD C. & BETHEL JACOBSON<br />

EMAN T. JAKOBSEN<br />

ALAN & JANA JAMES<br />

JIM JAMES<br />

CHUCK JAMES<br />

PHILIP R. JAMESON<br />

JAMES D. JANSEN<br />

GARY W. JANTZER<br />

JACK JANTZER<br />

MICKEY G. JANTZER<br />

GARY W. JANTZER JR.<br />

MICHAEL JARRETT<br />

RICHARD L. JAUER<br />

VIRGINIA JAYNE<br />

STEPHEN G. JAYNES<br />

CLIFFORD C. JENKINS<br />

RUBY JENKS<br />

KEN JENNINGS<br />

JERILYN G. JENNINGS<br />

BRUCE JENSEN<br />

JUDITH K JENSEN<br />

PHILIP L. & MARIAN JENSEN<br />

DONN JENSEN<br />

CAROL JENSEN<br />

MARVIN JENSON<br />

MICHAEL 0. JESKE<br />

GEORGE JIMEY<br />

RAMON JIMINEZ<br />

PEGGY JIMINEZ<br />

JEFFRY L. JISCHKE<br />

CLINTON & MARGARET JOHN<br />

VERL DWAYNE JOHNS<br />

DON B. JOHNSON<br />

MARK & GEORGEANN JOHNSON<br />

EUGENE JOHNSON<br />

CATHY JOHNSON<br />

C.E. JOHNSON<br />

TERRANCE L. JOHNSON<br />

HOWARD JOHNSON<br />

JAYNA & JOSEPHINE JOHNSON<br />

OBERT JOHNSON<br />

DON W. JOHNSON<br />

ALFRED N. JOHNSON<br />

NICK JOHNSON<br />

DEBBIE JOHNSON<br />

RAYMOND JOHNSON<br />

BRENDA JOHNSON<br />

GARY L. JOHNSON<br />

MARVIN M. JOHNSON<br />

THOMAS E. JOHNSON<br />

DANIEL JOHNSON<br />

RUSSELL JOHNSON<br />

V.T. JOHNSON JR.<br />

DANIEL H. JOHNSTON<br />

BRIAN A. JOKELA<br />

ED JOLLY<br />

CHARLES JONES<br />

RICK JONES<br />

LLOYD JONES<br />

LLOYD JONES<br />

TOM JONES<br />

BRYON D. JONES<br />

ARLIS JONES<br />

ROBIN G. JORDAN<br />

ARNOLD JUSTICE<br />

J. JUSTICE<br />

CHARLES JUSTUS JR.<br />

BRAD KANE<br />

J.W. KANE<br />

JACOB KANN<br />

NORBERT KAPP<br />

NANCY KAPPAS<br />

C.R. KARCIEN<br />

NORMAN L. KARR<br />

ALFRED H. KASMEYER<br />

LARRY KATZ<br />

RICHARD KATZENBACH<br />

KORY KAUFMAN<br />

JAMES R. KAUPPILA<br />

EUGENE M. KEANE<br />

CRESSON KEARNY<br />

DAVID D. KECK<br />

LISA K. KEEMAN<br />

JUDITH D. KEENEY<br />

MARK J. KEISER<br />

DAVID F KEISER<br />

LARRY KEITH<br />

STEPHEN J. KELLER<br />

JOE & ROSIE KELLER<br />

R - 12

TOM L. KELLER<br />

DONNA KELLER<br />

RAYMOND L KELLEY<br />

CHUCK KELLEY<br />

GERALD L KELLEY<br />

WALLY KELLISON<br />

GAYLE KELLOGG<br />

DONALD KELLOGG<br />

MAUREEN K KELLY<br />

DARREL KELLY<br />

MICHAEL R. KELLY<br />

DAVID KELLY<br />

KENT S. KELLY<br />

BRUCE E. KELSING<br />

DIANE C. KELSO<br />

DONALD KEMP<br />

ROBERT B. KENNEDY<br />

ALONZA RAY KENNEDY<br />

ERIC & IAN KENT<br />

JIMMIE L. KENT<br />

SHARON K KENT<br />

EARL B. KENT<br />

GLEN KEOWN<br />

AL KEPHART<br />

PHILLIP KEPLINGER<br />

TIM KERNES<br />

TIM KERNS<br />

JAMES KERNS<br />

BERNELL L. KERNS<br />

FRANKLIN N. KERNS<br />

JAMES H. KERR<br />

BILL R. KERWIN<br />

GARY KESTER<br />

TIM KETCHAM<br />

WILLIAM KETTLER<br />

M.L. KEYS<br />

DENNIS V. KEYS<br />

CHESTER KEZER JR<br />

HUGH KIGER<br />

HOLLIS C. KIGER<br />

ALICE G. KILHAM<br />

PHILIP R. KILLIAN<br />

BONNIE KILLIP<br />

DON KIMBALL<br />

A.K. KIMP<br />

C. R. KINCAID<br />

JAMES W. KINGSTIEN<br />

WAYNE KINNAN<br />

RICHARD D. KINNEY<br />

ROBERT KIRBY<br />

GEORGETTE KIRBY<br />

KIM M. KIRBY<br />

BARNEY RAY KIRK<br />

BARNEY 0. KIRK<br />

FRED A. KIRSCH<br />

JOHN H. KISITEST<br />

LESLIE KLEIN<br />

W.E. KLEINER<br />

DONALD KLEM<br />

KLOOS KLEYNE<br />

CLAIR N. KLOCK<br />

KIRK KLUG<br />

ROD KLUS<br />

LLOYD M. KNAPP<br />

DARRELL KNAPP<br />

JOHN P. KNAUSS<br />

LEROY A. KNIGHT<br />

MICHAEL KNOTTS<br />

GEORGE E. KNOWLES<br />

LOWELL E. KOBLER<br />

FRED W. KOEHLER JR.<br />

SUSAN KOFAHL<br />

CHARLES KOLHOW<br />

MARINUS H. KONING<br />

ROBERT H. KONS<br />

A. KONZEL<br />

JAMES 0. KOOPMANN<br />

MARIE L. KOSTENIKO<br />

MARK V. KOUNZ<br />

GREG KOZLEY<br />

KELLY D. KRAHN<br />

LEW KRAUSS<br />

JOHN KRAWEZYK<br />

MARILYN C. KRECHEL<br />

KURT S. KREMERS<br />

MARTIN KRIEGER<br />

JERRY KRUTZ<br />

ARNIE KUBIAK<br />

M.J. 'GUS' KUEHNE<br />

JACK 0. KUHN<br />

PAT KUHNERT<br />

HENRY KUNZ<br />

ISABEL KUNZ<br />

FRANK & NELL KUONEN<br />

EDGAR A. KUPILLAR<br />

STEVEN L. LA VELLE<br />

ALBERT D. LABORDE<br />

ROBIN D. LACY<br />

WAYNE LAHODA<br />

ALAN LAIRD<br />

RAYMOND LAKEY<br />

JIM LAKKE<br />

WINIFRED LAMBIE<br />

RAY LAMOREAUX<br />

MITCHEL LAMPA<br />

JANICE LANCASTER<br />

DONALD W. LAND<br />

BILL LAND<br />

WILLIAM T. LANDER<br />

DENNIS J. LANDWEHR<br />

TOM S. LANDWEHR<br />

JERRY LANE<br />

CLYDE LANG<br />

JONATHAN 1. LANGE<br />

LEWIS & SHIRLEY LANGER<br />

SUSAN LANINI<br />

VIC LANTIS<br />

W.L. LARIMORE<br />

HAL LARSON<br />

RON LARSON<br />

MIKE LARSON<br />

KATHY LARSON<br />

C. L. LARSON<br />

A.C. LARSON JR.<br />

RICHARD F. LAUBENGAYER<br />

EDITH LAVERDIENE<br />

WILBERT J.& AGNES LAWLER<br />

THOMAS A. LAWLER<br />

R - 13

H.M. LAWLESS<br />

JIM & MARGE LAWSON<br />

DOROTHY J. LAYMAN<br />

JEANET7E & MIKE LAYNG<br />

FRED LE BLEU<br />

GEOFF LE GAULT<br />

AL LE PAGE<br />

JAMES E. LE ROUX<br />

SHANA LEAGUE<br />

JAMES R. LEARD<br />

RUSSELL W. LEAVITT<br />

MICHAEL LEBERER<br />

JIM LEBO<br />

TOM LEDBETTER<br />

JOHN A. LEE<br />

JOANNA LEE<br />

VICKI LEEPER<br />

DICK LEEVER<br />

ANNE LEISER<br />

JAMES D. LEMERY<br />

VIRGINIA LEMON<br />

PATRICIA J. LENDRES<br />

JOSE R. LEQUINTA<br />

MARILYN LEROY<br />

VERN LESH<br />

DANIEL C. LESLY<br />

HENRY J. LESSARD<br />

CHARLOTTE LEVINSON<br />

ELLEEN LEVY<br />

MACK L. LEWIS<br />

CLARENCE LEWIS<br />

HAZEL LEWIS<br />

MAX E. LEWIS<br />

STEVE LEWIS<br />

MARK E. LEWIS<br />

CATHERINE C. LIGHT<br />

CHRISTINA & S.M. LIUENTHAL<br />

LARRY LIMING<br />

LON LINDROTH<br />

RANDY LINDSEY<br />

JOHN LINEBLY<br />

JASON F. LINES<br />

T.W. LINGENFELDER<br />

MARTIN LINGUS<br />

J.P. LINMAN<br />

HAROLD V. LIPE<br />

CHRISTINE K LIPSCOMB<br />

JIM LISTON<br />

JACK LIU<br />

JENNIFER LIV-COOPER<br />

LESTER D. LIVINGSTON<br />

HAROLD A. LLOYD<br />

LESTER L. LLOYD<br />

R.H. LOCKBAUM<br />

ALAN LOCKLEAR<br />

DONALD E. LODER<br />

ROBERT J. LOEFFLER<br />

BRIAN D. LOGAN<br />

MUREL LONG<br />

BUD & CHERIE LONG<br />

LOMAN LONG<br />

LINDA LONG<br />

VIRGINIA LONGHOFER<br />

D. E. LOOMIS<br />

EVELYN LOOMIS<br />

JEFFERY M. LOOPER<br />

STEVE LOOSLEY<br />

ROBERT LOPER<br />

JOSE J. LOPEZ<br />

FRANK LOSEKOOT<br />

ROBERT LOUCKS<br />

MIKE & WARREN LOUGH<br />

BETH LOVE<br />

WILLIAM R. LOVELACE<br />

PATRICIA LOVELAND<br />

STEVEN D. LOVELAND<br />

KIRK & KYLE LOVENESS<br />

RON & MARY LOU LOVENESS<br />

LOREN LOVENESS<br />

GLENN A. LOWE<br />

STEVE LOWE<br />

BRIAN LOWE<br />

LONZO L. LOWN<br />

GARY 0. LOZIER<br />

JOSEPH LU<br />

MIKE LUCHTUHERD<br />

WAYNE LUDEMAN<br />

KEN LUDERMAN<br />

MICHAEL E. LUFT<br />

STEVEN C. LUKKARI<br />

JEANNETTE F. LUND<br />

JOHN W. LUND<br />

RICHARD LUTE<br />

TERRY A. LUTHER<br />

BLANCHE D. LYMAN<br />

CINDY L. LYMAN<br />

PHILIP LYNCH<br />

DAVID W. LYNCH<br />

TONY LYNCH<br />

TONY LYNDE<br />

MICHAEL J. LYNGHOLM<br />

ROY LYON<br />

FRED P. LYTLE<br />

JEFF B. MACE<br />

RANDAL/SUZETTE MACHADO<br />

BILL MACKENSTADT<br />

FRAN MACKEY<br />

JAMES C. MADDEN<br />

DONALD C. MADDOCK<br />

BARB MAGNUSON<br />

TIPP M. MAHAN<br />

D.L. MAINARD<br />

ERIC & HELEN MAJORS<br />

WALTER MAKAROWSKY<br />

MARK R. MALCO<br />

ANNE C. MALONEY<br />

PAT MALONEY<br />

N. MANDERSON<br />

ERNEST L. MANFULL<br />

GILDA MANLEY<br />

GLADYS MANN<br />

WILLIAM C. MANN<br />

BRENT A. MARCHANT<br />

VIRGINIA MARCHART<br />

STAN MARCHINGTON<br />

LINDA & WILLIAM C. MAREAN<br />

STEVE MARK<br />

SUSAN MARKLEY<br />

R - 14

TOM MARKLEY<br />

JOHN D. MARKS<br />

RICHARD H. MARLATT<br />

PAT MARRS<br />

ROBERT R. MARRS<br />

BILL MARSCHALL<br />

HARRY B. MARSHALL<br />

NANCY P. MARTIN<br />

KAREN D. MARTIN<br />

JON MARTIN<br />

JIM MARTIN<br />

JEANNIE MARTIN<br />

SAM MARTIN<br />

SCOTT A. MARTIN<br />

ALBERTO R. MARTINEZ<br />

REX MARTINS<br />

ANDY MARTISAK<br />

MARLA MARVIN<br />

SARAH MASON<br />

LLOYD GEORGE MASTERS<br />

GEORGE A. MATHESON<br />

CLYDE E. MATHIS JR.<br />

CLYDE E. MATHIS SR.<br />

DEAN R. MATLICK<br />

DEBRA G. MATTHEWS<br />

ALLAN MATTHEWS<br />

KETURA R. MATTHIESON<br />

DENNIS MATTIESEN<br />

GEORGE MAUPIN<br />

RANDY L. MAURER<br />

GARY MAXWELL<br />

DAVID A. & CAROL A MAXWELL<br />

RUSSELL M. MAYNARD<br />

DAN E. MAYNARD JR.<br />

KIM MAYO<br />

TERRY MC ALLISTER<br />

KATHY MC ANDREWS<br />

KEVIN J. MC ANDREWS<br />

MICHAEL K MC ANDREWS<br />

QUINTON D. MC BAIN<br />

HARRY D. MC CABE<br />

BERNARD MC CLENDON<br />

EDWARD T. MC CLURE<br />

DENNIS MC CLURE<br />

MARY MC COMBS<br />

DOUG MC CORMACK<br />

A & R MC CORMACK<br />

WAYNE MC COY<br />

KENNETH M. MC CULLEY<br />

PAUL MC CULLEY<br />

KRISTEN MC CULLOUGH<br />

ROBERT S. MC DANIEL<br />

DAN MC DONALD<br />

PAULINE MC DONALD<br />

JUDY MC DOWELL<br />

MARK E. MC GILL<br />

PAT MC GILLIVRAY<br />

M.E. MC GRAW<br />

BRUCE MC GREGOR<br />

TIMOTHY 1. MC GUIRE<br />

GLEN MC GUIRE<br />

KENNETH R. MC GUIRE<br />

DONALD R. MC INTOSH<br />

THE MC KAYS<br />

A.J. & MARGARET L MC KILLOP<br />

ROBERT G. MC LACHLAN<br />

DANIEL R. MC LAREN<br />

KIM MC LAUGHLIN<br />

DAN MC LAUGHLIN<br />

JANE MC LAUGHLIN<br />

JOHN E. MC LEAN<br />

SHERRY E. MC MANUS<br />

R.L MC MILLAN<br />

TOM MC MURRAY<br />

DANNY MC NARY<br />

JAMES D. MC NEIL JR.<br />

ELAINE MC NITT<br />

TED MC PHERSON<br />

MARK S. MC QUEEN<br />

LARRY MC STRAVOG<br />

KAREN MC VAY<br />

PATRICK MCAUUFFE<br />

RICHARD C. MCCORMACK<br />

JAMES E. MCCOY<br />

EDWARD MCCULLOUGH<br />

RUSSELL MCCURDY<br />

FLOYD A. MCCURDY<br />

CRAIG & DEBORAH MCGEARY<br />

MARY A. & DON MCGEE<br />

BONNIE MCGEHEE<br />

LAWRENCE R. MCGRAW<br />

RICHARD L. MCHARGUE<br />

GARY MCLEAN<br />

MICHAEL G. MCMACKIN<br />

STEVEN R. MCMAHAN<br />

DANNY C. MCMILLEN<br />

JERRY MCNICHOLS<br />

EUGENE L. MCPHERSON<br />

ANDY MEAD<br />

JOHN MEADE<br />

EMIL MEADOWS<br />

D. W. MEADOWS JR.<br />

LOREN MECEDE<br />

MARY DIANE MEDILL<br />

WAYNE A. MEEDS<br />

BUD MEEK<br />

DAN & GREGG MEIUCKE<br />

MARK MELAHN<br />

GARVIN MELLENTINE<br />

JERRY D. MELTON<br />

RUSSELL MELTON<br />

WILLIAM MENDT<br />

LEAH C. MENEFEE<br />

MIKE MEREDITH<br />

DAN J. MERINO<br />

TERRY R. MERRILL<br />

ROBERT MESSINGER<br />

M.F. MEYER<br />

BRUNO MEYER<br />

ALAN R. MEZGER<br />

PAT & R.W. MEZGER<br />

D. W. MICHAEL<br />

ROBERT & CAROL MICK<br />

DANIEL Z. MICKEY<br />

V.'PETE' MIHAYL<br />

ELAINE/KENNETH MIKKELSEN/BISHOP<br />

MIKE A. MILANI<br />

MARK D. MILANI<br />

R - 15

MILANI & WOOLDRIDGE<br />

RICK R. MILBURN<br />

KENNETH R. MILER<br />

SHARON MILES<br />

CHARLES F. MILLER<br />

MARY MILLER<br />

MICHAEL C. MILLER<br />

LYNN MILLER<br />

JAMES C. MILLER<br />

CALVIN H. MILLER<br />

CARSON MILLER<br />

STEVEN MILLER<br />

LORETTA MILLER<br />

KERRY MILLER<br />

THOMAS L. MILLER<br />

ROLLIN 0. MILLER<br />

ORAN MILLER<br />

EARL F. MILLHOUSE<br />

JACK E. MILNER<br />

MERRflT L. MINNEY<br />

JERRY MINNEY<br />

JOHN MINTER<br />

J. D. MIROEL<br />

BUD MISCO<br />

WILLIAM E. MITCHELL<br />

STEVEN A. MITCHELL<br />

ED MITCHELL<br />

JAMES A. MITCHELL<br />

BOB MITCHELL<br />

HARLEY & JACELYN MITTS<br />

VERNON MITZEL<br />

F. MIZE<br />

DAVID MOCABEE<br />

DONNA & WALT MODEN<br />

ANGELA M. MOHR<br />

JAMES A. MOIR<br />

JERRY MOLATORE<br />

VAN MOLLISON<br />

JOHN D. & LINDA MONFORE<br />

BRANDON MONILL<br />

EDDY MONLANO<br />

CARL MONROE<br />

JAMES MONROY<br />

CHUCK MONSCHERI<br />

TYRUS MONSON<br />

JOE MONTES<br />

C.R. & DOROTHY MONTGOMERY<br />

R.F. MOODY<br />

BLAIR MOODY<br />

KEN L. MOODY<br />

ROBERT MOON<br />

RON MOON<br />

DENNY & R.L. MOON<br />

ROSALIE MOORE<br />

ROBERT C. MOORE<br />

MARTIN MOORE<br />

WARREN MOORE<br />

B. G. MOORE<br />

GREG S. MORALES<br />

KELLY D. MORAN<br />

PAT MORAN<br />

JOHN L. MORAN<br />

PAUL MOREHEAD<br />

MIKE MORENO<br />

JEFF MORESI<br />

SUSAN MORGAN<br />

KELLY MORGAN<br />

REBECCA J. MORGAN<br />

JOHN MORGAN<br />

NICK MORGAN<br />

ROBERT B. MORRIS<br />

STEPHEN D. MORRISON<br />

DAVID C. MORRISON<br />

WILLIAM C. MORROW<br />

JOANNE MORROW<br />

DAVE MORROW<br />

MARIE M. MORSTAD<br />

MICHAEL A. MORSTAD<br />

LEO B. MORSTAD<br />

LARRY J. MORTENSEN<br />

CHERYL LYNN MORTENSEN<br />

ARNOLD MORTON<br />

JOHN C. MORTON<br />

HOMER H. MORTON<br />

JAMES W. MORTON<br />

NAOMI L. MOSHBERGER<br />

BRENT G. MOULTON<br />

DICK MOULTON<br />

MELODY C. MOZINGO<br />

ALICE P. MUELLER<br />

OSGOOD H. MUNGER<br />

SIDNEY MUNJAR<br />

DENNIS C. MURPHY<br />

EVELYN MURPHY<br />

RON AND JOANNE MURPHY<br />

PETER MURRAY<br />

ROD MURRAY<br />

DIANNA MURRAY<br />

GREGORY D. MYERS<br />

RONALD W. MYERS<br />

JAMES MYERS<br />

ROBERT D. MYERS<br />

BARBARA MYERS<br />

ALLEN W. MYERT<br />

C. MYHRE<br />

SUSAN MYRICK<br />

RICHARD NANNEMAN<br />

BOB NARRAMORE<br />

EARL D NASH<br />

ROBERT NASON<br />

VINCENT J. NAUGHTON<br />

EDWARD C. NAVE<br />

PHYLLIS J. NEALY<br />

CHARLIE G. NEALY<br />

GARY E. NEEL<br />

KEN NEIDER<br />

LAWERENCE NEILSEN<br />

DENNIS NEILSON<br />

MICHAEL NEIMOYERS<br />

KAREN G. NELSON<br />

DORIS M. NELSON<br />

WILLIAM 0. NELSON<br />

VIRGIL NELSON<br />

MRS. R. D. NELSON<br />

DOYLE A. NELSON<br />

TIM NELSON<br />

LESTER NELSON<br />

DANIEL NELSON<br />

R - 16

E. & W. NEUBERT<br />

BILL NEWELL<br />

JEANNE NEWMAN<br />

BRYAN NEWMAN<br />

STEVEN R. NEWMAN<br />

JANE NEWTON<br />

FRAZIER NICHOL<br />

MARJORIE NICHOLS<br />

GARY W. NICHOLS<br />

ED NICHOLSON<br />

GAYLE R. NICHOLSON<br />

W. R. NICHOLSON JR.<br />

JERRY NIEHUSER<br />

TOM NIEMELA<br />

TOM NIEMELA<br />

BOB NISBET<br />

GEORGE H. NITSCHELM<br />

THOMAS L. NOLAND<br />

NICOLLETTE NORDQUIST<br />

NETA NORK<br />

STEPHEN NORK<br />

BERNARD G. NORK<br />

SHERMAN NORMAN<br />

DAVID G. & NADINE NORTHRUP<br />

MICHAEL NOVOSAD<br />

JOHN NOWASKI<br />

DOUGLAS L. NOYES<br />

DAVID N. NOYES<br />

TERRY NULL<br />

JAMES NUNN<br />

MARK W. NYSTROM<br />

MIKE O'BRIEN<br />

PATTY O'BRIEN<br />

BERTRUM D. O'BRIEN<br />

PATRICK S. O'CONNELL<br />

JAMES O'DONNELL<br />

ROBERT O'NEIL<br />

BRIAN J. O'NEIL<br />

ALAN D. O'NEIL<br />

BILL O'NEIL<br />

FRANK W. OBENCHAIN<br />

W.H. OBERTEUFFER<br />

THERESA OFFICER<br />

DUANE OGREN<br />

LARRY OIRATT<br />

BRUCE M. OLSEN<br />

ROBERT H. OLSON<br />

CHRIS OLUFSEN<br />

TIM OLVERA<br />

TIMOTHY J. OLVERIUS<br />

MICHAEL ORENDORFF<br />

ORFORD'S<br />

LEONARD & BARBARA ORMAN<br />

LORAINE ORR<br />

R. MARRINER ORUM<br />

DAVID OSBORN<br />

DAVE OSBORNE<br />

ROXANNE OSBORNE<br />

GEORGE & RHONDA OSTERTAG<br />

LARRY J. OSTLIE<br />

RUSS OUGARD<br />

W. OVERMAN<br />

ED OWEN<br />

MIKE OWEN<br />

MARIANNE OWEN<br />

MIKE OWEN<br />

JIM OWENS<br />

DARVIN W. PAAPE<br />

CARL E. PACE<br />

SENATOR ROBERT PACKWOOD<br />

HENRY F. PADGEHAM JR.<br />

CHRISTOPHER H. PAGE<br />

FREDERIC A. PAGE<br />

BRIAN F. PAGE<br />

HOWARD A. PAGE JR.<br />

JESSICA PALFREYMAN<br />

MRS.W.A. PALMER<br />

RA. PALMER<br />

MELVIN G. PALMER<br />

LEON A. & SALLY PALMER<br />

ROSS D. PALMER<br />

PATRICIA PALONE<br />

JIM & JINNY PARDEE<br />

FREDERICK PARIANI<br />

DOROTHY H. PARKE<br />

ERNEST PARKER<br />

BILL PARKER<br />

ROBERTA PARKER<br />

DONALD-LINDA-SETH PARKS<br />

HASKELL PARKS<br />

GENE PARRO<br />

BILL PARSONS<br />

ROBERT PARTON<br />

JERRY L. PARTON<br />

RICHARD L. PASTEGA<br />

CRAIG PATTERSON<br />

NILELETTA PATTERSON<br />

WILLIAM H. PATTERSON<br />

ARTHUR H. PATTERSON III<br />

WILLIAM J. PATTISON<br />

DENNIS R. PATTON<br />

JEAN M. PAULK<br />

PATRICIA PAULK<br />

PAUL PAULSEN<br />

MARVIN PAULSON<br />

RUTH E. PAVLAT<br />

EDWARD R. PAXTON<br />

RONALD PAYNE<br />

CAROLYN & LARRY PEACORE<br />

M. A. PEAKE<br />

EARL D. PEARCE<br />

W.G. PEARCY<br />

JUSTIN PEARLSTEIN, JR.<br />

RICK PEARSON<br />

OLIVER P. PEARSON<br />

PHILLIPS & PEARSON<br />

ANITA K PEARSON<br />

DARRELL A. PECKHAM<br />

PARI PEDERSEN<br />

KENT PEDERSON<br />

DAVID E. & MARRITA PELTON<br />

RICHARD PENDLETON<br />

MARK PENDLETON<br />

MIKE & MABEL PENTICOFF<br />

C. SUZANNE PEPIN<br />

TOM C. PERDUE<br />

JAY D. PERKINS<br />

WILLIAM PERNICKY<br />

R - 17

NORMAN PERRY<br />

GRANT PERRY<br />

STAN PERRY<br />

DANIEL PETERBOLT<br />

RAY PETERSON<br />

RUBEN & GOLDIE PETERSON<br />

JAMES PETERSON<br />

HOWARD & JEAN PETERSON<br />

RICHARD C. PETERSON<br />

B. LEANNE PETERSON<br />

GARY L. PETERSON<br />

ARLISS C. PETERSON<br />

FREELAND G. PETERSON<br />

FRANKLIN L. PETTGREW<br />

JAMES H. PETTIGREW<br />

DARIN E. PETTY<br />

KENNETH W. PHELPS<br />

BARRY PHELPS<br />

JENNIFER PHILLIPPI<br />

BEN PHILLIPS<br />

WALTER F. PHILLIPS<br />

BRYCE L. PHILLIPS<br />

BOB & SUE PHILLIPS<br />

J. A. PHILLIPS<br />

ROBERT L. PHILLIPS<br />

GILBERT J. PICKENS<br />

WILLIAM P. PICKETT<br />

LEON PICKETT<br />

RAY PIERCE,<br />

JOHN PIERCE<br />

LINDSAY C. PIERCE<br />

IME PIERRON<br />

ROBERT W. PILERME<br />

DAVID PILZ<br />

RICHEL L. PINA<br />

RAY PINARD<br />

DAVID J. & KAREN PINKSTON<br />

JAMES C. & JEAN E. PINNIGER<br />

JANE N. & MARK C. PINNIGER<br />

KENNETH R. PINTOS<br />

CURTIS A PITTMAN<br />

ROGER PITTMAN<br />

DAViD PITTS<br />

BOB PLATZ<br />

J.A. POIRIER<br />

LARRY E. POLING<br />

DON POMEROY<br />

BRET PONT<br />

MARTIN PONT<br />

MABEL POOL<br />

RON POOLE<br />

CARNEY H. & JO ANN POPE<br />

ROBERT PORTER<br />

AMOS W. PORTER<br />

ROBERT D. PORTWOOD<br />

LAWRENCE POST<br />

DONALD LYLE POTTER<br />

LINDA G. POTTS<br />

STEPHEN POTWIN<br />

FRANK POWELL<br />

JOANNE POWELL<br />

WALLY POWELL<br />

BOB POWNE<br />

JAMES S. PRATO<br />

ROBERT B. PRENTICE<br />

JILL PREWITT<br />

DAVID PREWITT<br />

TOM PREWITT<br />

DON PRICE<br />

THOMAS PRICE<br />

JOAN PRINCE<br />

CHARLES E. PRINCE<br />

KEVIN PROCTOR<br />

EARL E. PRYOR<br />

CAROLYN L PUCKET7<br />

J.S. PULLOP<br />

JACK PURINTON<br />

DENNIS L. PUTZMIK<br />

BILL PYLE<br />

BARBARA V. PYNN<br />

H. D. QUIER<br />

EDWIN / AMELIA QUINN I LIPTON<br />

KATHLEEN RACKLEFF<br />

FRANK D. RADFORD<br />

FRANK L. RADFORD<br />

CORRINE RAGO<br />

IRENE RAISEN<br />

S. RAJNUS<br />

D.A. RAJNUS<br />

ARTHUR R. RAMBO<br />

TAMMY RAMIREZ<br />

CHERYL RAMOS<br />

ERIC RAMSEY<br />

JEFFREY N. RAMSEY<br />

WC RANCH<br />

PHILLIP A. RAND<br />

GRETCHEN RANDOLPH<br />

WILLIAM C RANSOM<br />

CAROLYN S. & GARY RARDEN<br />

TIMOTHY J. RASCHKO<br />

DONALD W. RASOR<br />

PHIL RASOR<br />

WILLIS RATCLIFF<br />

RONNIE J. RATHBONE<br />

LOIS & LARRY READ<br />

GERALD D. REAVES<br />

L.E. RECORD<br />

MARY C. REED<br />

LOYD & VIRGINIA REED<br />

WILLIAM G. REED<br />

PATRICK REEDY<br />

CLEO R. REEL<br />

RICHARD T. REEVES<br />

CYNDY REIBER<br />

ROBERT REICH<br />

DWAYNE REICLLIN<br />

TOM REIL<br />

A. TROY REINHART<br />

JACK REMINGTON<br />

CLIFFORD M. REMSTAT<br />

LORRIE RENFRE<br />

ROY E. RENFRO<br />

BUD RENFRO<br />

MAXINE R. RENWICK<br />

GARY W. REPP<br />

FLORENCE RESS<br />

MELVINE REUNICK<br />

MICHAEL J. REVIS<br />

R- 18

JOHN R. REYNOLDS<br />

JUDY REYNOLDS<br />

BILL REYNOLDS<br />

PEGGY RICE<br />

MICHAEL L. RICE<br />

DAVID RICE<br />

NICKEY RICH<br />

L. RICHARDSON<br />

DONALD H. & DORIS RICHARDSON<br />

DAN RICHARTZ<br />

CHERYLE A. RICHTER<br />

DAVE RICHTER<br />

WESLEY C. RIDGLEY<br />

LARRY RIEGER<br />

JOSEPH T. RIKER III<br />

ALAN D. RILEY<br />

JAMES S. RILEY<br />

WESLEY S. RILEY<br />

GLENN D. RINGE<br />

LINDA L. RIPPEY<br />

MARTIN S. RITCHEY<br />

WALTER RIVERS<br />

DENNIS ROACH<br />

STEVE ROACH<br />

PATRICIA ROACH<br />

TIMOTHY L. ROBBINS<br />

J. HARRIS ROBBINS<br />

EARL ROBEF<br />

ALLEN ROBERT<br />

CYRUS ROBERTS<br />

DALE J. ROBERTS<br />

RICHARD 0. ROBERTS<br />

WILLIAM E. ROBERTS<br />

JAMES C. ROBERTS<br />

RANDALL P. ROBERTS<br />

MICHAEL ROBERTS<br />

JIM ROBERTSON<br />

DOUGLAS ROBEY<br />

PEGGY ROBINSON<br />

WALTER A. ROBINSON<br />

DIANA ROBINSON<br />

ROBERT H. ROBINSON<br />

BERT ROBINSON<br />

ROBERT D. ROBINSON JR.<br />

THOMAS A. ROBISON<br />

BRUCE ROBY<br />

JOHN H. RODENBERG<br />

DON RODER<br />

VIVIAN W. RODGERS<br />

B.J. RODGERS<br />

TILO RODRIQUES<br />

NANCY R. ROEDER<br />

LANE ROELLE<br />

HOWARD F. ROGERS<br />

MARVIN ROGERS<br />

RONALD L. ROGERS<br />

WARD B. ROGERS<br />

GRANT G. ROGERS<br />

KEN ROLLER<br />

DAVID ROMTVEDT<br />

RICHARD F. RONATO<br />

LES ROOKSTOOL<br />

SONYA ROOKSTOOL<br />

JACK L. ROOKSTOOL<br />

CHRIS ROOKSTOOL<br />

JOHN C. ROOS<br />

JACK ROSE<br />

TRACY S. ROSE<br />

JERRY ROSE<br />

CLYDE ROSE SR.<br />

LARRY ROSEBERG<br />

RICHARD ROSENBERG<br />

EDMUND J. ROSENDAHL<br />

RIVENES/THOMAS/ ROSS<br />

GARY L. ROSS<br />

JEANNE ROSTER<br />

SAMUEL ROWDEN<br />

LEE M. ROWDY<br />

FOREST L ROWELL<br />

ROBERT R. ROWTON<br />

GORDON K ROY<br />

ANN RUDD<br />

FRANCIS V. RUDD<br />

HELEN RUEL<br />

DELAYNE E. RUGG<br />

ORVILLE A. RUMMEL<br />

EARL RUNKLE<br />

BUFF RUNNELS<br />

KENNETH S. RUSSELL<br />

ROBERT K RUSSELL<br />

MARVIN RUSSELL<br />

MARILYN J. RUSSELL<br />

KIM RUSSELL<br />

MILDRED RUSSELL<br />

KELLY RUSSELL<br />

RHONDA RUSSELL<br />

ROBERT S. RUSSELL<br />

R.J. RUST<br />

DAVID RUTHERFORD<br />

KENNETH B. RUTLEDGE<br />

RANDY E. SABO<br />

V. E. SAGERS<br />

BYRON SAGUNSKY<br />

KAREN L. SALLEY<br />

LEROY D. SALSBERRY<br />

DENNIS R. SALYERS<br />

SALVATORE SAMPERI JR.<br />

LESTER E. SAMPO<br />

MIKE SAMPSON<br />

WILLIAM SANDBERG<br />

CAROLYN SANDERBIRD<br />

HUGH R. SANDGATLER JR.<br />

MINDY SANDLER<br />

MUNSON SANDOVAL<br />

GERALD SANTANA<br />

BARBARA SANTOS<br />

GEORGE & MARGARET SAPORA<br />

DALE H. & L. JOAN SARGEANT<br />

EDWARD SARGENT<br />

W.F. SARGENT<br />

JACK SARRETT<br />

ONNIE SARROTT<br />

GLENN SASSER<br />

DICK SAUKKO & CO.<br />

MELVIN SAUL<br />

FRED SAUNDERS<br />

CAROL SAVONEN<br />

LARRY SAXTON<br />

R - 19

DAVID L SAY<br />

ROBERT J. SAYLOR<br />

DALE SCENHOWEN<br />

BILL SCHACHT<br />

JERRY L. SCHAEFFER<br />

MRS. LOUIS S. SCHAEFFER<br />

ANN F. SCHAFER<br />

RON SCHARBACK<br />

GARY SCHEFF<br />

THOMAS A. SCHILL<br />

MICHAEL L. SCHLEGEL<br />

LARRY & JUDY SCHLOTMAN<br />

RON SCHLOTrMANN<br />

PETER SCHLYPER<br />

MICHAEL SCHMIDT<br />

ERNEST SCHMIDT<br />

ROBERT P. SCHMFT<br />

J. SCHNEIDER<br />

RICHARD SCHOFFRAN<br />

PAUL SCHRIKZE<br />

WALT SCHROEDER<br />

JOHN D. SCHUH<br />

DONALD SCHULTZ<br />

CHUCK SCHULTZ<br />

MILTON SCHULTZ<br />

FRED SCHUMANN<br />

JOANNA SCHWARZ<br />

DENNIS SCHWEIGERT<br />

WAYNE J. SCHWEIKL<br />

DENNIS F. SCOFIELD<br />

THOMAS M. SCOTT<br />

FRED & GAYLE SCOTT<br />

LIONEL SCOTT<br />

BILL SCOTT<br />

JENNIFER & KARL SCRONCE<br />

KEN SEARS<br />

SCOTT R. SEATON<br />

WILLIAM E. SEFLER<br />

KAREN M. SEIDEL<br />

RANDALL E. SEIDEL<br />

JOEY SELBY<br />

JAMESON D. SELLECK<br />

HENRY B. SELLS<br />

DAVID SELUGA<br />

STEVEN S. SENKOVICH<br />

V. SCOTT SENTER<br />

ERNIE L. SETZER<br />

DAVID SEVERSON<br />

ERIC SEWELL<br />

RICHARD SEXTON<br />

BRADLEY B. SEXTON<br />

WAYNE SHADBURNE<br />

SANDRA G. SHAPIRO<br />

WILLIAM L. SHARK<br />

JANICE SHARP<br />

CHARLES J. SHARP<br />

SKYE SHAW<br />

THOMAS M. SHAW<br />

ROBERT SHAW<br />

ROGER SHAY<br />

H. A. SHEARER JR.<br />

WILLIAM SHEDDEN<br />

LYLE J. SHELDON<br />

ALICE H. SHEPARD<br />

ROBERT SHEPARDSON<br />

JEFFERY G. SHERMAN<br />

IONA MARIE SHERMAN<br />

J.M. SHERMAN<br />

RON SHILL<br />

THOMAS R. SHIOLAS<br />

DOUGLAS & LINDA SHIPMAN<br />

MIKE SHNEENE<br />

ORVILLE SHOCKEY<br />

RONALD C. SHORT<br />

KATHLEEN G. SHORT<br />

JIM & CHERYL SHOTWELL<br />

JERRY L & LICIA SHULTZ<br />

ELDON C. SIBLEY<br />

DUANE & MIKE SICKERT<br />

BOB & DIANE SIEBERT<br />

SAMUEL D. SIEFIELD<br />

FREDICK SIEVERT<br />

JAMES T. SIKES<br />

STEPHEN SILVA<br />

ESPER C. SILVESTER<br />

BOBBIE C. & H.D. SIMMONS<br />

IRENE M.& ORTHA L SIMONS<br />

STEVE SIMPSON<br />

LEE G. SIMPSON<br />

DIANNE SIMS<br />

ELIZABETH SINCLAIRE<br />

WES & KAY SINE<br />

ROBERT B. SINIS<br />

EUGENE A. SINKS<br />

STERN SKEEN<br />

LUCIA N. SKOV<br />

JACK D. SKRIDEN<br />

R. L. SLADE<br />

LAWRENCE & LOIS A. SLAYrER<br />

DALE SLAYTER<br />

LOUIS SLEGEL<br />

IRIS F. & JOHN G. SLEZAK<br />

DEBBIE & MARK SLEZAK<br />

ELLEN & JACK W. SLEZAK<br />

DONALD E. SLUDER<br />

CLIFFORD S. SMELCER<br />

LAWRENCE M. SMITH<br />

C. MARION SMITH<br />

HELEN SMITH<br />

ALICE SMITH<br />

CY & NELL SMITH<br />

NORMA SMITH<br />

JOHN H. SMITH<br />

LYLE V. SMITH<br />

DESI SMITH<br />

DENNIS SMITH<br />

LEONARD SMITH<br />

SHIRLEY SMITH<br />

E.A. SMITH<br />

TYLER SMITH<br />

HERBERT M. SMITH<br />

LARRY R. SMITH<br />

R. SMITH<br />

WAYNE SMITH<br />

JACQUE SMITH<br />

RONALD R. SMITH<br />

H. F. 'BUD' SMITH<br />

JAMES E. SMITH<br />

R - 20

RICHARD A. SMITH<br />

CRAIG W. SMITH<br />

WALTER SMITH<br />

JAMES CRAIG SMITH<br />

JACK SMITH<br />

NEAL SMITH<br />

TIM AND JANET SMITH<br />

RON SMITH<br />

LUCRETIA SMITH<br />

CONGRESSMAN ROBERT SMITH<br />

BARBARA A. SNEAD<br />

DON SNEDDEN<br />

MERCY J. SNELL<br />

JIM SNOOK<br />

STANLEY S. SNOOK<br />

ANNETTE & HENRY SNOW<br />

ELVIN D. SNOW<br />

KENT V. SNYDER<br />

RUBY SNYDER<br />

EDWARD L SNYDER<br />

JOELIN SOLOMON<br />

ROBERT M. SORENSEN<br />

EDWIN L. SORENSON<br />

ALLAN R. SORENSON<br />

BRUCE A. SORLIEN'S<br />

HAROLD SOTO<br />

PAUL SOTOS<br />

RANDELL & CAROLYN SOUDERS<br />

RONALD G. & DAVE SOUTHWICK<br />

CURT SPARKS<br />

ALLEN F. SPARKS<br />

LINDA SPEECE<br />

LAWRENCE E. SPENCE<br />

M. SPENCER<br />

ROBERT SPENCER<br />

DONALD G. SPENE<br />

MRS. MORELAND SPEYER<br />

JAMES L. SPICER<br />

RON SPIELBUSH<br />

LEROY D. SPIKEN JR.<br />

HARRIETT SPIRA<br />

CHRISTY SPLIETHOF<br />

FRED W. SPOONER<br />

RICHARD 0. SPRING<br />

KATIE SPRINGER<br />

DONALD SPRINKLE<br />

RICHARD L. SPROUL<br />

BERT E. SQUIRE<br />

FRANK W. ST.CLAIR<br />

MARIE STAFFORD<br />

RODGER W. STAFFORD<br />

WENDELL STALKER<br />

RAYMOND STALNAKER<br />

DEBBIE STANCK<br />

J. E. STANDARD<br />

CARL D. STANDFIELD<br />

ARTHUR STANFILL<br />

STEVEN C. STANFORD<br />

THAD C. STANFORD<br />

V. STAPLEFORD<br />

PHILIP STARLING<br />

DENNY STARR<br />

ROBERT D. STARUS<br />

JOHN STATES<br />

CHRISTY STECK<br />

FRANK M. STEFANEK<br />

B. STEINER<br />

ROBERT STEINER<br />

DAVE STEMPLE<br />

DALE R. STENNOTT<br />

MARGARET & WILLIAM STEPHAN<br />

WARREN W. STEPHENS<br />

PAUL D. STEVENS<br />

PHILLIP C. STEVENS<br />

GARRY STEVENS<br />

JERRY STEWARD<br />

RICHARD STEWART<br />

L. M. STEWART<br />

MICHAEL M. STEWARTT<br />

J.A. STILES<br />

MARK STILWELL<br />

MARTIN L. STOCKDALE<br />

GENEVA STOLLER<br />

WESLEY D. STONE<br />

JOHN M. STONE<br />

DON R. STONEHILL<br />

RICHARD STONEX<br />

E. E. STOREY<br />

JEANINE L. STORK<br />

JOHN 1. STORK<br />

ROBERT M STORM<br />

STEVEN N. STORY<br />

LORRAINE M. STORY<br />

J. D. STRAUGHAN<br />

MR. & MRS. STANLEY STRAUS<br />

T.A. STRAUSBAUGH<br />

D. S. STRAW<br />

CHARLES A. STRENSRUD<br />

C.C. STRINGER<br />

MORRIS STRINGER<br />

DON STRONG<br />

KURT L. STROP<br />

TONY STROP JR.<br />

DONALD A. STROT<br />

WAYNE STRUBLE<br />

BETTY JO STRUBLE<br />

APRIL & BROCK STRUNK<br />

TOM STRUNK<br />

CECIL STRUNK<br />

NINA SULLIVAN<br />

JOHN SULLIVAN<br />

MICHAEL D. SULLIVAN<br />

DOUGLAS T. SULLIVAN<br />

PHIL SUMMERS<br />

JOHN B. SUTHERLAND<br />

HENRY N. & JUDI SUTPHIN JR.<br />

LORA SUTTON<br />

JESSE L. SWAFFORD<br />

EUGENE SWANBERG<br />

JOHN R. SWANSON<br />

STEVEN D. SWANSON<br />

CYNTHIA SWANSON<br />

LEON SWARTZBERG JR.<br />

MARY ELLEN SWEENEY<br />

CHARLES SWITZLER<br />

DENNIS SWOPE<br />

PETER SZEKELY<br />

MICHAEL SZPAK<br />

R - 21

JOHN R. TALL<br />

FRANK TALLERICO<br />

JAMES LEE TALLEY<br />

ERNIE TANKIN<br />

HAROLD TANNER<br />

BRENDA & LYLE TARESH<br />

REBA N. TAYLOR<br />

VALERIE L. TAYLOR<br />

FORREST A. TAYLOR<br />

EDWARD J. TAYLOR<br />

LARRY R. TAYLOR<br />

CHARLES E. TAYLOR<br />

DAVID TAYLOR<br />

LARRY B. TAYLOR<br />

WESLEY G. TEMPLIN<br />

A. DOUGLAS TENNANT<br />

GARY TEPFER<br />

DAVID L TERHUNE<br />

MARK THACKER<br />

BARBARA THOM<br />

JACKIE R. THOMAS<br />

M. LYNN THOMAS<br />

MR. & MRS. E.R. THOMPSON<br />

WENDELL THOMPSON<br />

TERRY THOMPSON<br />

MARY & GILBERT THOMPSON<br />

JIM THOMPSON<br />

MEL THOMPSON<br />

NORBERT J. THOMPSON<br />

JIM THOMPSON<br />

STEVE THOMPSON<br />

FREDERICK J. THOMSON<br />

MICHAEL A. THOR<br />

CLIFFORD THORBURN<br />

MARY THORP<br />

JAMES A. THRUBER<br />

R. L. THURBER<br />

HARRY W. TIANIN<br />

DUANNE TICHNOD<br />

LEONARD TIDD<br />

VERN TIDEMAN<br />

HAROLD TIEHN<br />

CAROL L. & SHAWN TIERCE<br />

BRYAN W. TINNIN<br />

JOSEPH LARRY TITUS JR.<br />

ANH VAN TO<br />

PHILIP TOBIAS<br />

DOROTHY L. TODD<br />

JAMES S. TODD<br />

KATHERINE TOFELL<br />

PATRICIA A. TOMEI<br />

MAJOR TONEY JR.<br />

JIM TONOLE<br />

LEO TORBA<br />

ANASTACIO TORRES<br />

SHERYL TORRES<br />

JACK N. TORREY<br />

ROBERT A. TORRIE<br />

LESLIE B. TOTTIN<br />

RANDY TOWNSEND<br />

JOHN J. TOWNSLEY<br />

ALAN H. TRACY<br />

NANCY LOU TRACY<br />

PAULA TRAINA<br />

HUNG CHANH TRAN<br />

MARVIE D. TRAVIS<br />

JIM TREASURE<br />

RONALD TREASURE<br />

BARBARA TREMAINE<br />

MARY TRENT<br />

JOHN & SUZANNE TRITCH<br />

ROBERT L. TROUT<br />

LARRY E. TRUMBULL<br />

WALT TRUMBULL<br />

MIKE TRUMBULL<br />

JIM TUCKER<br />

KENNETH R. TURNBULL<br />

M.R. TURNER<br />

E.C. TURNER<br />

ROBIN TURNER<br />

JODI L. TURNER<br />

PATRICIA M. TUTTLE<br />

TERRENCE J. UDELL<br />

JAMES R. UERLINGS<br />

PAMELA K. UERLINGS<br />

LOIS UGALDE<br />

DOROTHY M. UNDERWOOD<br />

ALVIN R. UNGER<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

UNSIGNED<br />

MARYA URELAND<br />

BARBARA VAIL<br />

PATRICIA A. VALLERONI<br />

KLAAS & CONNY VAN DE POL<br />

DIANNA VAN DELDEN<br />

HUGH VAN DEWALKER<br />

LEO J. VAN DIRK<br />

BOB VAN DUKER<br />

DORIS VAN ESS<br />

WARREN VAN MECHELEN<br />

JUDY VAN TIL<br />

J. GORDON VANCE<br />

BILL VANDERPOL<br />

M. VANDEVENTER<br />

LYNNE M. VANHORN<br />

MR. & MRS. CECIL VANIEL<br />

NELDA M. VARY<br />

KEITH VASILIS<br />

RANDY VASQUEZ<br />

RONALD VASQUEZ<br />

JERRY L. VASSALLO<br />

FRANK VAUGHN<br />

RICK VAUGHN<br />

RICHARD L. VAUGHN<br />

MARTIN J. VE'LEZ<br />

RONALD W. VEACH<br />

KENNETH A. VEAROTTER JR.<br />

ALICE VEITCH<br />

BRAD E. VENSEN<br />

R - 22

GERALD E. VERMILLION<br />

W. HARRY VETHER<br />

OMAR & KATHRYN VILLA<br />

DONALD & PHYLLIS VINCENT<br />

DAVID T. VINCENT<br />

HON VINZART<br />

HENRY A. VIRGA<br />

GORDON VITCH<br />

EDWARD K. VLIEK<br />

FLOYD C. VOGEL<br />

G. K. VOGET<br />

JIM VOGLER<br />

D. D. VOLLMAR<br />

SHELIA S. VOLLMER<br />

DOAN PHNONG VON<br />

DANIEL WADOSKY<br />

JOHN M. WAGNER<br />

LEE P. WAGNER<br />

JEFF WAGNER<br />

BILL WALDON<br />

LLOYD W. WALDRIP<br />

DIANA WALES<br />

JOHN R. WALKER<br />

STEVE WALKER<br />

DON WALKER<br />

EDWARD WALKER<br />

BRENT C. WALKER<br />

ROGER WALKER<br />

E. RAY WALLACE<br />

TOM WALLACO<br />

MARTHA R. WALLAUER<br />

SIGNE WALLEN<br />

ALFRED H. WALSTON<br />

C.B. WALTERS<br />

RUSSEL WALTERS<br />

MRS. A.L. WALTERSPERGER<br />

JAMES WALTHERS<br />

FRANK WALTKINS<br />

DANNY T. WALTON<br />

E. W. WALTON<br />

RONALD S. WALTZ<br />

JOSEPH WAMPLER<br />

ROBERT P. WAMPLER<br />

WILLIAM C. WAMPLER<br />

SCOTT WAMPLER<br />

ALICE M. WAMPLER<br />

MEREDITH L. WAMPLER<br />

MIKE WAMPLER<br />

ROBERT WAMPLER<br />

RICHARD WARD<br />

JOHN C. WARD<br />

ANITA WARD<br />

PATRICK WARD<br />

RAYMOND WARD<br />

BONNIE RAE WARD<br />

J. WARD<br />

GEORGE D. WARDELL<br />

JULIA B. WARNER<br />

ANTHONY D. WARREN<br />

KEN WARREN<br />

CHARLES & MARIE WARZECHA<br />

GREG WATCH<br />

WILLIAM A. WATERMAN<br />

WALLY W. WATKINS<br />

BOBBY L. WATLEY<br />

GEORGE WATSON<br />

ROBERT P. WATSON<br />

DANA J. WATSON<br />

JAMES S. WATSON<br />

JIM C. WATTS<br />

BRYAN WAYBRANT<br />

LEWIS WAYBURN<br />

JON S. WAYLAND<br />

FREDRICK G. WEARN<br />

J.M. WEATHERFORD<br />

JAMES V. WEATHERS<br />

JOYCE M. WEATHERS<br />

LAVON JANIS WEAVER<br />

JOYCE 1. WEAVER<br />

R. JEFFERY WEAVER<br />

DALE E. WEAVER<br />

MARY ARLENE WEAVER<br />

MRS. FRAN WEAVER<br />

GARY WEAVER<br />

TRACY K. WEBB<br />

KENNETH E. WEBB-BOWEN<br />

KELLIE A. WEBBER<br />

ROBERT WEBBER<br />

JANET WEBER<br />

SANDRA L. WEDDING<br />

RAYMOND Z. WEGNER<br />

KRAIG B. WEIDER<br />

LINDA L. WEIDER<br />

BEVERLE WEIDNER<br />

GEORGE R. WEIN<br />

J.L WELCH<br />

PAUL D. WELCH<br />

BARRY R. WELCH<br />

LU WELLS<br />

DAVID L. WELLS<br />

MIKE WELLS<br />

J.H. WELLS<br />

KEITH A. WELLS<br />

SALLY WELLS<br />

JOHN E. WELLS<br />

CHARLES H. WELLS JR.<br />

JEROME WENCL<br />

DAN WENGER<br />

D.W. WEST<br />

DON WEST<br />

ROGER WEST<br />

GARY L. WEST<br />

ROBERT D. WEST<br />

LAURA L. WEST<br />

CHARLENE WEST<br />

HOWARD WEST<br />

WALLACE B. WEST<br />

DONALD WEST<br />

TOMMY N. WEST<br />

LEOTA & HERMAN WESTLUND<br />

SCOTT WESTON<br />

HARRY WESTROM<br />

LEE K. WETZEL<br />

JEFFREY WHARTON<br />

LARRY 1. WHEAT<br />

JEFF WHEATON<br />

RICHARD G. WHEELER<br />

KEVIN L. WHEELER<br />

R - 23

DOROTHY WHISENHUNT<br />

DOMINIQUE WHITAKER<br />

BOB WHITE<br />

RICHARD L WHITE<br />

CHARLES WHITE<br />

DELBERT W. WHITEHEAD<br />

PAMELA WHITEHEAD<br />

IRVIN R. WHITING<br />

RICHARD WHITLATCH<br />

JIM WHITLOCK<br />

D.D. WICK<br />

SAM WICKBERG<br />

ARTHUR WIEBE<br />

KEN WIENKE<br />

ERNEST WIENSY<br />

MARK WIGG<br />

BERT G. WILCOX<br />

MIKE WILDE<br />

DAVID WILDE<br />

STEVEN E. WILDE<br />

RUTH T. WILEY<br />

PAT WILEY<br />

ROBERT WILHINSON<br />

ROBERT WILKEN<br />

ROBERT B. WILKERSON<br />

SHELLY WILKESON<br />

PAT WILKESON<br />

MIKE WILKESON<br />

BILLY R. WILLES<br />

EVERETT DALE WILLIAMS<br />

JACK E WILLIAMS<br />

TIMOTHY B. WILLIAMS<br />

ERNIE WILLIAMS<br />

PETER K WILLIAMSEN<br />

DWIGHT WILSON<br />

ALAN L. WILSON<br />

KELLY WILSON<br />

VIRGIL W. WILSON<br />

WILLIAM F. WILSON<br />

DAVID D. WILSON<br />

GLEN WILSON<br />

DEANNA WILSON<br />

LARRY S. WILSON<br />

DICK E. WILSON<br />

CARL E AND RUTH WILSON<br />

LLOYD V. WILSON<br />

RONALD F. WILSON<br />

W. TRAVIS WILSON<br />

WESLEY E. WILSON<br />

DONALD L. WILSON<br />

LARRY WILSON<br />

BARBARA C. & D. WIMAN<br />

LOIS WINCHESTER<br />

RICHARD C. WINFIELD<br />

ROYCE M. WINNER<br />

MR. & MRS. BOB WINSETT<br />

ROY WIRTZ<br />

SANDY WITT<br />

GENE WITT<br />

DONALD G. WITTE<br />

JACKIE WOBBE<br />

CAMERON F. WOGAN<br />

KENNETH M. WOLCOTT<br />

PHIL WOLD<br />

GUS WOLF<br />

J. N. WOMACK<br />

RODNEY WOMACK<br />

HERBERT WOOD<br />

NORMAN D. WOOD<br />

JEFF WOOD<br />

BRIAN WOOD<br />

BILL WOOD<br />

JAMES C. WOOD<br />

TERRY WOODARD<br />

JOHN L WOODLAND<br />

CLAYTON WORDEN<br />

RICHARD C. WORK<br />

VANCE R. WOUSER<br />

D.J. WRAY<br />

VANCE WRIGHT<br />

TERRY WRIGHT<br />

G. WRIGHT<br />

ALLEN & DEBRA L. WRIGHT<br />

WILL C. WRIGHT<br />

FRANK R. WRYN<br />

BOB WRYN<br />

RANDY WUTRON<br />

ELMER WYATT<br />

RICHARD D. WYLIE<br />

HOWARD WYNANT<br />

CLINTON W. WYNN<br />

ROBERT R. WYRICK<br />

ROBERT YAGER<br />

JIM & MADIE YARDLEY<br />

CLAY E. YATES<br />

G. M. YATES<br />

WAIHUN YEE<br />

WAIYEN YOGI' YEE<br />

CATE YOCUM<br />

KENTON EU YODER 11<br />

SCOTT YORK<br />

CAROL LYNN YORK<br />

STEVEN YOST<br />

WALLACE H. YOST<br />

EUGENE M. YOST<br />

WILLIAM R. YOUNG<br />

B YOUNG<br />

GLENN C. YOUNG<br />

LELAND E. YOUNG<br />

SHAWN YOUNG<br />

KATHY L. YOUNG<br />

DOUGLAS A. YOUNG<br />

TED YOUNG<br />

SHARON L. YOUNG<br />

T. JOE ZAROSINSKI<br />

LEONARD ZASTERA<br />

SHIRLEY ZASTERA<br />

A.E. ZENONIAN<br />

STEVEN ZIEGLER<br />

FRED ZIMMERMAN<br />

JO ANN ZIPSE<br />

JOE ZORN<br />

DONOVAN C. ZUPAN<br />

R -24

Comments and <strong>Response</strong>s

Air Quality<br />

Comment<br />

The preferred alternative includes 165,500 cords of fuelwood. There are mitigation measures that the<br />

Winema N.F. could take to reduce emissions from wood stoves. For example, the Winema N.F. could<br />

limit fuelwood collection to spring time and distribute advice on clean wood stove burning methods<br />

with fuelwood permits.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is only one of several sources of fuelwood. A limit on the season of gathering would only<br />

be effective if all sources, both public and private, would restrict the gathering period. The Forest currently<br />

encourages reduction of wood smoke emissions by encouraging people to gather their wood early,<br />

and by making pamphlets available with permit issuance that suggest ways to reduce emissions, and<br />

in the firewood handout issued with the permit. All of these supply advise and describe how to reduce<br />

emissions.<br />

Comment<br />

The discussions on wood stove and forestry burning are somewhat inaccurate. Regional haze is seasonal<br />

and has been found to be primarily due to forestry burning or prescribed burning. Wood stove burning<br />

is primarily a localized air shed issue. The Oregon wood stove regulations will slow the growth not<br />

'reduce the long-term problem.,<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See page 111-9 of DEIS. It states "should reduce the long-term problem' rather than say or imply it would<br />

'solve the problem.'<br />

Comment<br />

Smoke Management - (DEIS, page 111-9) The Winema should more clearly emphasize compliance with<br />

the Oregon Smoke Management Plan since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved<br />

Oregon's plan as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1987. Unplanned ignitions<br />

should be used as prescribed fires only if compliance with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan can<br />

be assured.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

On page IV-53, Forest Management Direction, of the *PROPOSED LANE) AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT<br />

PLAN' it is stated that the forest will comply with all applicable air quality laws and regulations and<br />

coordinate with appropriate air quality regulating agencies. Currentlyand in the future, all planned<br />

ignitions are, and will be, conducted according to the 'OPERATiONAL GUIDANCE FOR THE OREGON<br />

SMOKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM' which is administered by the Oregon State Forester.<br />

In addition the Forest will cooperate with local air pollution authorities in monitoring activities that may<br />

result in new or modified sources that may affect Class I airsheds. This is stated in Chapter 3-9, fourth<br />

paragraph.<br />

Comment<br />

Even though wildfires are random events on the forest, this summer's experience in Southwest Oregon,<br />

and especially the Rogue River Valley, indicated the extreme magnitude of the negative effects that<br />

natural fires can have on air quality. The DEIS text makes several references to the contribution of<br />

prescribed fires to airshed degradation. However, it fails to note that the management activity of prescribed<br />

burning reduces the risk of catastrophic natural and man-caused fires which can generate severe and<br />

unplanned reductions in visibility.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The use of prescribed burning in itself will not necessarily reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. It may,<br />

however, reduce the size of the catastrophic fire because of the change in fuelbed continuity. Quite<br />

K - I

often when conditions are optimum for catastrophic fires, previous prescribed burning activities will do<br />

little to determine whether there is a catastrophic fire or not.<br />

Comment<br />

The text states (page IV-7) that, 'The Klamath Basin is not a 'Designated Area' as defined in the Oregon<br />

Smoke Management Plan.' The plan should note the effects of the EPA PM 10 standards adopted on<br />

July 10, 1987, which classified all areas of the state. Klamath Falls was placed in Group I of three groups<br />

based on probability of violating the new standards. Klamath Falls has recently been in violation of this<br />

standard. The effect on compliance with these standards should be included in the evaluation of<br />

prescribed and<br />

uncontrolled fires which might threaten the Klamath Basin with smoke pollution.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Klamath Basin is still not a 'Designated Area." We do recognize that it is a smoke sensitive area.<br />

The major concern in regard to PM-1 0 particles is in the City of Klamath Falls and surrounding suburban<br />

areas. The concern for PM-1 0 particles is during the period from November 1 to April 1 when air stagnation<br />

coupled with fuelwood burning causes an unacceptable buildup of PM-1 0 particles. Klamath County<br />

Department of Health Services estimates that 83% of the PM-10 particles are the result of wood burned<br />

in home heating stoves. When there is good air circulation there is no problem. Generally, the Winema<br />

Forest conducts it's prescribed burning program in the fall before November 1 and in the spring after<br />

April 1. Therefore, the Forest generally does not contribute to the City of Klamath Falls winter air quality<br />

problem. It is estimated by Klamath County Department of Health Services that forestry-related burns<br />

from all ownerships are the source of 1% of the pollutants during the period November 1 to April 1.<br />

When the Forest does conduct their prescribed burning program it is done according to the Oregon<br />

Smoke Management Plan and the Oregon Department of Forestry's voluntary smoke management<br />

advisories which minimizes the chance of contributing to the smoke pollution problem in Klamath Falls.<br />

This is covered in the DEIS in chapters 111-9 and IV-7.<br />

Comment<br />

Regarding air quality, the DEQ's main concerns relate to impacts from prescribed burning on the Forest<br />

and from burning of the Forest's fuelwood by the public within urban areas. The Forest should address<br />

EPA's new PM- 0 standard in its discussion of air quality.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the discussions on air quality in Klamath County the problem area with PM-10 particles has been<br />

described to be the City of Klamath Falls and the surrounding suburban areas. The problem exists in<br />

the winter when there is poor air circulation. The Forest recognizes there is a air pollution problem in<br />

the City of Klamath Falls and surrounding suburban area. We also recognize that we supply a portion<br />

of the fuelwood that when burned contributes to the problem. We, however, have no control over how<br />

or when the wood is burned.<br />

The Forest's prescribed burn program generally takes place before November 1 and after April 1 which<br />

is outside of the period of concern for Klamath Falls. The areas that are burned are removed from the<br />

City of Klamath Falls. The prescribed burn program is conducted according to the NOPERATIONAL<br />

GUIDANCE FOR THE OREGON SMOKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM," DIRECTIVE 14-1-601 and<br />

according to the voluntary smoke management advisories issued by the Oregon Department of Forestry.<br />

This burning generally does not contribute to the air pollution problem in the City of Klamath Falls nor<br />

cause adverse air pollution problems in regards to PM-10 particles.<br />

K-2

Comment<br />

DEQ has become increasingly concerned about residential woodstove impacts on urban air quality.<br />

The discussion of firewood as an issue devotes little or no analysis to the impact of the Forest's firewood<br />

policy on smoke in Klamath Falls. DEQ data show severe winter air quality problems in Klamath Falls<br />

attributable to woodstove smoke, not only for short time periods as stated on page 111-9 of the DEIS.<br />

Yet, the preferred alternative results in the highest level of total suspended particulates (TSP) from<br />

prescribed burning of any alternative. Why does that occur? What is the impact of the preferred alternative<br />

on wood stove emissions in Klamath Falls?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The reason the preferred alternative results in the highest level of total suspended particulates (TSP) is<br />

because this alternative has the greatest level of timber harvest. As the level of timber harvest increases<br />

so does the number of acres that require fuel hazard reduction by prescribed burning. As the number<br />

of acres treated by prescribed burning increase there is a corresponding increase in TSP. There are<br />

50 pounds of TSP produced per ton of fuel treated(Reference DEIS, TABLE IV-1, IV-6).<br />

There is no direct correlation between the alternatives and the amount of wood stove emissions in<br />

Klamath Falls. The Forest only supplies a portion of the fuelwood used in Klamath Falls. The Forest<br />

has no control on the type of stove in which the fuelwood is burned nor the air/fuel mixture, nor the<br />

weather conditions that exist when the fuelwood is burned. All of the above listed factors in combination<br />

determine the amount of wood stove emissions.<br />

Comment<br />

You need to develop and analyze particulate levels in Klamath Falls as an indicator of responsive to<br />

the firewood issue. The discussion of air quality impacts in Chapter 4 should address the impact of<br />

each alternative on Klamath Falls air quality. Potential mitigation measures to reduce woodstove smoke<br />

impacts should be addressed. The development of this analysis should be based on the newest<br />

information and monitoring data for Klamath Falls gathered by DEQ. You should not assume, as you<br />

do on page 111-9, that the woodstove certification program will reduce the long-term problem--it will<br />

help, but it will not solve the problem.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is no direct correlation between the alternatives and the amournt of wood stove emissions in<br />

Klamath Falls. The Forest is just one source of supply for the fuelwood used in Klamath Falls. The<br />

Forest has no control on the type of in which stove the fuelwood is burned nor the air/fuel mixture, nor<br />

the weather conditions that exist when the fuelwood is burned. All of the above listed factors in combination<br />

determine the amount of wood stove emissions.<br />

There are two mitigation measures which could be implemented to help reduce the emission levels.<br />

The Forest could refrain from selling fuelwood to the people living in Klamath Falls or the Forest could<br />

limit the season of fuelwood gathering. These would be effective if all sources of fuelwood were managed<br />

to implement the same mitigation measures. The Forest is willing to work with Klamath County to implement<br />

mitigation measures if requested by the County Commissioners.<br />

Comment<br />

Regarding air quality, the Department's primary concerns are those of air quality impacts from forest<br />

prescribed burning and the burning of the Forest's fuelwood by the public within urban areas. Because<br />

of the serious nature of the air quality problem in Klamath Falls during the winter months, it is very<br />

important that the Winema National Forest Smoke Management Plan treat the Klamath Basin as a<br />

smoke sensitive area<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest does treat Klamath Falls as a smoke sensitive area. prescribed bum activities are conducted<br />

according to the voluntary smoke management advisory issued by the Oregon Department of Forestry,<br />

Salem office. The advisory is developed with the objective of keeping smoke out of Klamath Falls. In<br />

addition, the smoke from prescribed burns are monitored. If the advisory is wrong and the smoke<br />

appears to be heading for Klamath Falls the burn would be halted. It should, however, be noted that<br />

K-3

we do not normally conduct prescribed bums during the winter months when air quality is a problem<br />

in Klamath Falls.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Plan DEIS Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan (Page 111-9) indicates that<br />

prescribed fire emissions will be decreasing relative to the Forest's baseline emission rate of 131,600<br />

tons per year. This figure is not a particulate emission rate but may be tons of fuel burned. As a result,<br />

it is not clear, how the emission rates proposed under the alternatives compare to the PSD baseline<br />

period. If an alternative is selected which will result in an increase in emissions, a more detailed analysis<br />

of the environmental consequences on air quality standard attainment/maintenance, visibility protection<br />

and PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act will be required.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 131,600 tons per year is the Winema National Forest baseline for TSP/year. This figure is the Winema's<br />

portion of the amount shown in the 1984 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest<br />

Regional Guides. The emission rates shown for each alternative have been determined by using Regional<br />

Office emission factors, the type of treatment planned in each alternative and the number of acres to<br />

be treated. The projected emissions from all alternatives are significantly below the baseline. Therefore<br />

a more detailed analysis is not needed.<br />

Comment<br />

In addition, the Plan should show that the Forest Service is not subsidizing the public's use of fuelwood.<br />

Both of these issues focus on the Forest's policy of the highest and best practicable use of forest<br />

residues. The Forest Plan should work toward developing better management alternatives that will<br />

minimize prescribed burning smoke while supporting the utilization of woody residues.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest believes that based on the public's response to the Plan there is a need to continue to<br />

make fuelwood available to the public. This fuelwood will come from two sources, the residue material<br />

remaining after cultural operations such as thinnings, and commercial timber harvest and as available,<br />

from standing dead and down lodgepole pine. The charge for firewood will generally be commensurate<br />

with it's value.<br />

The Forest has in the past and will continue in the future to explore options for increased utilization.<br />

An increase in utilization will only occur when the value of the material removed is close to or exceeds<br />

the cost of removal.<br />

As the result of the Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan there will be a need to leave more<br />

material following harvest activities for the benefit of long term site productivity and wildlife. This will<br />

reduce the amount of acres requiring treatment by prescribed burning.<br />

Comment<br />

A basic requirement of all National Forest Plans is presentation of an analysis of planned prescribed<br />

burning in relation to past burning activities. If it can be shown that projected annual and daily air<br />

pollutant emissions do not exceed, or are expected to be less than that which occurred during the<br />

1976-1979 baseline period (using emission estimation methodology for baseline and future years<br />

developed by Sandberg, et al, USDA Forest Service), then issues discussed in Sections 3 and 4 are<br />

satisfied and no additional technical analysis of these issues is required.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's analysis shows that emission expected to be less than that which occurred during the<br />

baseline period. Therefore, no additional technical analysis is necessary.<br />

All prescribed burning will be conducted in such a manner as to meet the requirements set forth in the<br />

OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR THE OREGON SMOKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.' This will assure<br />

that the emission levels do not exceed acceptable levels.<br />

K - 4

Comment<br />

Management alternatives should be evaluated with respect to the Clean Air Act and Oregon Clean Air<br />

Implementation Plan requirements. The first issue that must be addressed is that of impacts on air<br />

quality standard attainment and maintenance. Table 1 lists Federal and State of Oregon air quality<br />

standards. Specifically, analysis of the alternatives should demonstrate that the proposed action will<br />

not cause or significantly contribute to air quality standard violations. Air quality impacts within attainment<br />

areas must not exceed Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments (Table 2) or cause<br />

violations of air quality standards.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's analysis shows that emissions are expected to be less than that which occurred during<br />

the baseline period. Therefore, no additional technical analysis is necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Part C of the Clean Air Act, requires the Department to insure that pollutant increments in Class I areas<br />

(Table 2) do not exceed specific limits adopted by Congress irrespective of the originating source. To<br />

assure that these increments are not exceeded due to planned increases in prescribed burning emissions,<br />

a technical analysis of the impact of planned burns on nearby Class I wilderness and Class II lands<br />

would be required. As noted above, such an analysis would not be required if it can be shown that<br />

the proposed burning activity would not exceed that which occurred during the 1976-1979 baseline<br />

period. If the analysis indicates significant impacts, specific measures designed to mitigate the impacts<br />

must be described in the Forest Plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's analysis shows that emissions are expected to be less than that which occurred during<br />

the baseline period. Therefore, no additional technical analysis is necessary.<br />

All prescribed burning will be conducted in such a manner so as to meet the requires set forth in the<br />

"OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR THE OREGON SMOKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM." This will assure<br />

that the emission levels do not exceed acceptable levels.<br />

Comment<br />

The Oregon Visibility Protection Plan requires the protection of visibility within Class I areas during the<br />

period of the July 4th weekend to. Labor Day, inclusive. During this period, the Winema Smoke<br />

Management Program must be conducted such that smoke is not intentionally transported into Class I<br />

wildernesses. The Final Forest Plan should evaluate the impact of proposed increases in prescribed<br />

burning activities on the Visibility Protection Plan to assure the continued protection of visibility within<br />

Class I areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's prescribed burn program is conducted in the spring and the fall. Rarely would a prescribed<br />

burn be conducted during the period of the July 4th weekend to Labor Day. Therefore, it is not anticipated<br />

that there is going to be an increased in prescribed burning which would have an impact on visibility<br />

within Class I areas.<br />

Comment<br />

The Department has become increasingly concerned about residential wood smoke impacts on urban<br />

air quality, especially in Klamath Falls. Fuelwood cutting programs managed on the Winema National<br />

Forest is a major and inexpensive source of fuelwood for Southwest Oregon residents. The DEIS does<br />

not discuss the serious environmental consequences of the fuelwood program or it's consistency with<br />

Federal and State environmental policies. Specifically, the DEIS should clearly demonstrate that<br />

woodcutting fees are not subsidizing the public's use of fuelwood. In addition, we would urge the Forest<br />

to distribute at the Supervisor's and District Offices, copies of the Department's public information<br />

brochures on better wood burning practices and to actively promote public education programs intended<br />

to minimize wood smoke problems.<br />

K-5

The Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan Section on <strong>Response</strong> to Public Issues (page<br />

1-22) notes that with respect to firewood availability and access, that within the past 5 years the supply<br />

of firewood on the Forest has substantially increased. The DEIS does not discuss the serious air quality<br />

and public health consequences of the fuelwood program, nor does it discuss the measures to minimize<br />

emissions from wood burning such as program to assure that only well seasoned wood is harvested<br />

for fuelwood.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The DEIS, on page 111-9 Affected Environment and IV-6 Environmental Consequences, recognizes-the<br />

problem of fuelwood burning in the City of Klamath Falls and surrounding area. The Forest's fuelwood<br />

program is primarily designed to utilize a forest resource instead of wasting it through slash burning.<br />

The fuelwood meets the public demand for a supply of wood to heat their homes and provides jobs to<br />

a few individuals who cut wood commercially. From a fuel treatment standpoint as well as a utilization<br />

standpoint it is to the Forest's benefit to have the wood removed as fuelwood. A side benefit is a return<br />

of dollars to the federal treasury.<br />

The Forest provides brochures on better wood burning and storage practices. It also encourages people<br />

to cut their wood early in order for it to be properly cured in time for winter.<br />

Comment<br />

Department policy (OAR 340-20-001) requires that highest and best practicable treatment and control<br />

be applied to pollution sources within Oregon. Since prescribed burning smoke is the largest source<br />

of fine particulate emissions within the State, the Draft Forest Plan should include consideration of an<br />

alternative that assures the highest and best practicable treatment of forest residues focusing on intensive<br />

utilization of woody residues for industrial purposes. As noted in the DEIS, it is important that the Forest<br />

Service work toward alternatives that will minimize prescribed burning smoke while continuing to support<br />

utilization of woody residues.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As part of the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines in the "Proposed Land and Resource Management<br />

Plan,' pages IV-54, 55, there are a number of standards and guidelines that encourage the utilization<br />

of woody residues. In addition, the Area IV forests have had a marketing specialist who is constantly<br />

looking for, and promoting the increased utilization of woody residues. It should be recognized that, in<br />

the end, economics will determine the amount and degree woody residues are utilized.<br />

K - 6

Fire/Prescribed Fire<br />

Comment<br />

The proposed uneven aged management of 144,000 acres of ponderosa pine forests on former tribal<br />

lands is a good starting point for maintaining vegetation diversity on this portion of the Forest but the<br />

practice needs to be coupled with a prescribed burning program to insure that the stands do not convert<br />

to pine associated or fir dominated forests. Prescribed burning should in fact be instituted across the<br />

Forest to help return the vigor to some of the stands and to assist in the control of forest pests.<br />

Re-introduction of fire into the east Cascades forests will also help return the composition of the forests<br />

to more Ponderosa pine dominated stands, which more closely simulates the natural composition of<br />

the forest and which is the preferred species by timber interests and local economics.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 144,000 acres of ponderosa pine forest that is planned for uneven aged management has ponderosa<br />

pine as the climax species. Therefore there is no need to use fire to assure maintenance of ponderosa<br />

pine. It is planned to manage some of the pine associated in uneven aged management favoring<br />

ponderosa pine. This will be accomplished through various silvicultural practices that will favor ponderosa<br />

pine.<br />

Based on some current research there is some question on the desirability of a prescribed burning<br />

program on pumice soils to maintain stocking or reduce natural fuels. There appears to be a reduction<br />

of site productivity as the result of the burning. There is a indication that the greater the intensity of<br />

the burn the greater the loss of site productivity.<br />

Comment<br />

The Department of Forestry supports a policy of applying aggressive suppression action to wildfires<br />

that threaten life, private property, public safety, improvements, or investments. Unplanned ignitions<br />

should be used as prescribed fires only if compliance with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan can<br />

be assured (protection of Class I viewsheds--Wilderness). The Winerna should more clearly emphasize<br />

compliance with this plan since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved Oregon's<br />

plan as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1987. Coordination of protection<br />

planning and suppression efforts with other protection agencies, including this Department, should be<br />

included as an integral part of these guidelines.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

On page IV-53, Forest Management Direction, of the "PROPOSED LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT<br />

PLANO it is stated that the Forest will comply with all applicable air quality laws and regulations and<br />

coordinate with appropriate air quality regulating agencies. Currently, and in the future, all planned<br />

ignitions are, and will be, conducted according to the OOPERATIONAIL GUIDANCE FOR THE OREGON<br />

SMOKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM' which is administered by the Oregon State Forester.<br />

In addition, the Forest has agreed to comply with the the voluntary smoke management advisories<br />

issued by the Salem office of Oregon Department of Forestry.<br />

Since the Forest has no approved prescribed natural fire program all unplanned ignitions will be treated<br />

as a wildfire. Each wildfire will receive an appropriate suppression response. When a prescribed natural<br />

fire program is developed it will allow for participation by the public and other protection agencies.<br />

One of the requirements will be that prescribed natural fires will be in compliance with the Oregon<br />

Smoke Management Plan. It should be noted that only one of the Forest's wildernesses is a Class I<br />

area, that is the Mountain Lakes Wilderness. On page 111-9 states that the Forest operates under the<br />

policy and standards established in Federal and State air quality rules and regulations.<br />

K - 7

Comment<br />

D-19.<br />

15. These standards and the burn intensity definitions are good. How will the Forest accomplish these<br />

standards? (App. D-19).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards will be accomplished by developing and implementing site specific burn prescriptions/plans<br />

that will assure the end product meets standards. The burn prescriptions/plans define a range of<br />

conditions i.e. temperature, relative humidity, wind, fuel moistures, and lighting sequence which will<br />

result in a burn of a certain intensity and duration. All burns require that a burn prescription/plan be<br />

developed. (Reference DEIS Appendix D, D-28, items 10 and 11.)<br />

Comment<br />

D-99.<br />

Protection No. 3. Underburning tends to diminish forest cover characteristics and browse production.<br />

The Forest has presented no data or direction on its underburning program. This information needs to<br />

be provided in order to determine the consequences of the program on wildlife habitats.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Impacts that underburning has on forest cover characteristics is a function of the type of vegetation<br />

being underburned and it's response to fire. Some vegetation can be stimulated by fire while other<br />

vegetation may be killed. The forest has no firm information as to the magnitude of the underburning<br />

program during the life of the plan. Currently the Forest is being funded to treat 1000 acres per year. It<br />

is not anticipated that this program will increase significantly over the current level. An environmental<br />

analysis to determine the environmental effects of each proposed underburn project that is undertaken<br />

will be conducted. One of the considerations will be the impact on cover and browse production. If the<br />

analysis shows that the impacts are unacceptable the project will be modified to bring the results into<br />

acceptable limits or if that is not possible the project will not be implemented.<br />

Comment<br />

Fire Suppression Objectives Are Not Clearly Stated. Fire plays an important role in the forest environment.<br />

This role, to ensure positive benefits for the economy of the Klamath Basin, needs a defined script. A<br />

suppression plan that calls for minimum action on certain acreage and types of fires cannot contain<br />

the resources and pre-planning for an aggressive control action on the remaining acreage. I support<br />

prescription burning for wildlife habitat improvement and timber stand improvement. I do not support<br />

anything less than a full control action on any wildfire, regardless of cause.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As stated on page IV-3 of the Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan the overall goal is to<br />

provide a well planned and executed fire protection and fire use programs that are cost efficient and<br />

responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives. In the final Land and Resource<br />

Management Plan Standards and Guidelines it states that 'All wildfires shall receive an appropriate<br />

suppression response. The response shall be safe, timely, and cost efficient and shall meet management<br />

objectives for the area, including objectives for biological diversity.! It also states that 'Using the lowest<br />

cost suppression option, aggressive suppression action shall be applied to control and extinguish<br />

wildfires that threaten life, private property, public safety, improvements, or investment.' The only time<br />

a wildfire will not be promptly suppressed is if the fire occurs in a wilderness area with an approved<br />

prescribed natural fire plan. If there is an approved prescribed natural fire plan the fire will be evaluated<br />

and a decision will be made on whether to let the fire continue to burn or put it out. A fire allowed to<br />

continue to burn will be evaluated each day to determine if it is still in prescription. Any time the fire<br />

gets out of prescription it will be promptly suppressed. At this time there are no approved prescribed<br />

natural fire plans for the wildernesses on the Winema. However, it is planned to develop and complete<br />

plans following the release of the final forest plan.<br />

K - 8

Comment<br />

D-19.<br />

15. These standards and the burn intensity definitions are good. How will the Forest accomplish these<br />

standards? (App. D-19).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards will be accomplished by developing and implementing site specific bum prescriptions/plans<br />

that will assure the end product meets standards. The burn prescriptions/plans define a range of<br />

conditions i.e. temperature, relative humidity, wind, fuel moistures, and lighting sequence which will<br />

result in a burn of a certain intensity and duration. All burns require that a burn prescription/plan be<br />

developed.<br />

K.-9

Firewood<br />

Comment<br />

The demand for dead wood needs to be addressed as a significant interaction for nongame wildlife<br />

habitat. The consequences to wildlife of proposed management strategies for dead wood need to be<br />

discussed in Chapter IV.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Wildlife and Fish Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan contains the direction<br />

for dead tree habitat. The Plan states that dead tree habitat will be maintained at 40% of the maximum<br />

potential population by a combination of strategies that will leave patches of snags and individual<br />

trees.<br />

The discussion in the DEIS and FEIS, Chapter IV, Effects of the Alternatives on Wildlife Communities,<br />

Woodpecker Groups shows how the alternatives varied in their ability to meet the needs of dead tree<br />

dependent species.<br />

Comment<br />

The gathering of firewood must not decrease habitat conditions for nongame species below the 60<br />

percent level.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is Forest Policy to only cut firewood from dead and down trees for all species, except for lodgepole<br />

pine. Both standing dead and dead and down lodgepole pine may be harvested for firewood. This<br />

policy is stated in the Timber Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines of the final plan.<br />

This policy has been effective in maintaining dead wildlife habitat in wood cutting area.<br />

Few people harvest the true firs for firewood in this area. This species group generally meet the needs<br />

for down material in the mixed conifer and pine associated working group areas. Once a dead ponderosa<br />

pine snag falls in the ponderosa pine areas, it also does not make good firewood and generally meets<br />

the dead and down material needs. Down lodgepole pine deteriorates very quickly and is generally<br />

not being used for firewood once it is on the ground. For the above reasons, we believe our firewood<br />

policy will maintain the non-game species population.<br />

Comment<br />

Areas with commercial fuel wood sales must meet a minimum of 60 percent of potential for dead and<br />

down woody habitats.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As stated in Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington,<br />

"There are no complete guides to the number of large logs and the amount of coarse debris that should<br />

remain on a site after timber harvest and site preparation. Defining the types and sizes of logs and<br />

other woody debris desired in managed stands is still a major research problem.,<br />

Bill Hopkins, Ecologist, has been studying what the Winema looked like before there was major influence<br />

by mankind. Around the turn of the century, the understory was totally bare of large logs and debris<br />

and early photos show very little. This is very different than what we see today.<br />

Until definitive direction is established, the Forest will generally follow the management considerations<br />

for protecting dead and down woody material stated in Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests, The Blue<br />

Mountains of Oregon and Washington, and in Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of<br />

Western Oregon and Washington. This direction is included in the Wildlife and Fish Forest-wide Standards<br />

and Guidelines.<br />

K- 10

Klamath Tribal Lands<br />

Comment<br />

Given the special emphasis on Klamath Tribal Rights and upon the well-being of tribal members, detailed<br />

surveys to determine wants and needs would seem justified. Particularly, since much of the Forest<br />

management direction is targeted towards improving their economic and social condition, surveys<br />

should be planned as a part of the monitoring effort. In the absence of specific, survey type data it will<br />

not be possible to determine whether social goals of the Forest Plan are being met.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest gives consideration to the social and economic impacts of our activities on all affected<br />

publics, not exclusively the Klamath Tribe. Tribal desires have been expressed during the development<br />

of the forest plan and the Tribe will also be contacted during project level planning. We do not believe<br />

a detailed survey is needed.<br />

Comment<br />

Draft Environmental Impact Statement states in several places that Klamath Tribal members have a<br />

treaty right to hunt. There is no mention of hunting rights in the 1864 Treaty.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This is true. The treaty only refers specifically to fishing and gathering. However, rulings of the U.S.<br />

District Court of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the treaty to include hunting<br />

[Kimball v. Callahan, 493 F. 2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1974) cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1019 (1974)]. The Consent<br />

Decree of 1981 spells out responsibilities of the Klamath Tribe, the State of Oregon, and the United<br />

States of America in the management of fish and wildlife resources on former reservation lands.<br />

Comment<br />

Cultural resources needs to be addressed more completely, which includes everything from more<br />

staffing and funding to educational displays that explain the historical and cultural activities that have<br />

and are taking place on the Forest. There are a lot of interesting cultural and historical events about<br />

this area and the Forest really should promote these events so that people can develop a greater<br />

appreciation for Klamath county and the Winema National Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (see Chapter 4 of the Final Forest Plan) for Cultural Resources<br />

provide extensive direction for management of cultural resources. This direction, which has been revised,<br />

allows for the interpretation of suitable cultural resources for the benefit of the public.<br />

Comment<br />

Food collecting activities of the Klamath Tribe should be clearly limited on RNAs to the non-destructive<br />

collection of seeds and berries. Collection of bulbs and other plant parts that are destructive to the<br />

botanical resources of the RNA should be prohibited to Indians, as well as others.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Gathering is specifically identified in the October 14, 1864 Treaty (see Appendix D of the Final Forest<br />

Plan) and in the 1986 Restoration Act, 25 USC Section 566 which states: Gathering edible roots, seeds,<br />

and berries within the limits of the Reservation.' Gathering rights apply to all former reservation lands<br />

and cannot be taken away through an administration designation by the Forest Service. The standards<br />

and guidelines state that destructive gathering will not be encouraged. Implementation plans for each<br />

RNA will address site specific coordination needs with the Tribe.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest is the product of two additional Major Acts of Congress. This puts the<br />

Winema in the unique position of having the general direction of the 1976 act requiring the preparation<br />

K-11

of the Forest plan and the compliance with all NEPA requirements. It must consider very special direction<br />

in the Klamath Reservation Termination legislation as amended, and the subsequent appropriation of<br />

funds to purchase those lands available to the government resulting from the termination process.<br />

Further congressional direction, committee intent and debate by our Oregon Senators, Congressman<br />

Wendell Wyatt, Congressman Lloyd Meeds and others when the later acquisition of land from the trust<br />

required additional committee action, including an additional major appropriation, must be considered.<br />

I believe a full review of this originating and supporting legislative action will further strengthen the<br />

uniqueness of the Winema Forest and its plan. A major thrust through the amended termination legislation<br />

and subsequent legislation as cited above strongly supports the management of those lands to provide<br />

and preserve job opportunity and to wisely use the resource.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The original 1954 Termination Act, 25 USC 564, gave tribal members the option of withdrawing from<br />

the tribe and receiving payment for their share of the tribal estate or remaining in the tribe. By 1955,<br />

when it appeared that over 70 percent of tribal members would elect to withdraw from the tribe, it became<br />

apparent that it would be necessary to sell off most of the former reservation in small economic units<br />

to pay the withdrawing members.<br />

In 1955, the management specialists hired to oversee the termination process concluded that the selling<br />

of the reservation in small units would lead to the timber on those units to be harvested at once, both<br />

ending the sustained yield that the reservation had been successfully managed under for many years,<br />

and glutting the Klamath Basin timber market. That timber glut would cause the market price for timber<br />

to be drastically reduced; thereby reducing the money available to be paid to withdrawing members.<br />

Public and congressional concern about the effects of implementing the original Termination Act on<br />

withdrawing members (reduced payments), on the Klamath Basin economy (creating a boom and bust<br />

timber cycle), and on watershed values (harvest of majority of former reservation lands in a short time<br />

period) led to the recognition of the need to amend the Termination Act.<br />

In 1956 and 1957, Congressional hearings on amending the Termination Act were held in Klamath<br />

Falls and Washington, D.C. Oregon Senator Richard Neuberger chaired the hearings and among the<br />

local people testifying were William Ganong Jr., Eugene Favell (management specialist), and Dan Brown.<br />

The need to continue to manage the former reservation on a sustained yield basis and as a single<br />

unit, was stated over and over at those hearings.<br />

The Termination Act amendment adopted in 1958 gave first choice of purchasing the former reservation<br />

lands to the timber industry, with the contingency that they would be managed on a sustained yield<br />

basis to furnish a continuous supply of timber. The amendment provided the authorization for the<br />

appropriation of funds to purchase the former reservation lands not sold to the industry (and not held<br />

in trust for the remaining tribal members) to become national forest lands.<br />

Two years after this Termination Act amendment, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 was<br />

passed declaring that all national forests be managed for multiple use and sustained yield of the several<br />

products and services obtained therefrom. This legislation did not distinguish the Winema National<br />

Forest from other Forests in the system. We believe that sustained yield in the context of this Act<br />

corresponds to the same concept that was discussed in relation to the Termination Act.<br />

Comment<br />

The legal obligations resulting from this relationship are entitled to no less deference than the agency's<br />

governing statutes. Fulfilling this obligation is not a matter of the agency's choice or a planning goal to<br />

be balanced in a trade-off among alternative actions. All Forest Service actions, including development<br />

and implementation of the Forest plan, must be consistent with its trust obligations to the tribe.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest recognizes the Klamath Tribe's treaty rights. The actions proposed in this Forest Plan and<br />

ongoing coordination with the Tribe at the project level will insure that these obligations are met. See<br />

the forest-wide standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan (Chapter 4) for additional information. These<br />

standards and guidelines have been rewritten to reflect this comment.<br />

K - 12

Comment<br />

The tribe's relationship with and dependence on Winema National Forest Lands extend beyond the<br />

exercise of hunting and fishing rights. The physical characteristics of the Forest are of great cultural<br />

importance to the tribe and affect the Klamath Tribe's ability to exercise its treaty rights. Specific sites<br />

and their surroundings are one component of the treaty right which is important for religious, cultural<br />

and historic reasons. The abundance and distribution of certain wildlife species are important culturally<br />

as is the diversity of species throughout the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

I<br />

The physical characteristics of the Forest are of great cultural and spiritual importance to the Klamath<br />

Tribe. This does not directly affect the exercise of treaty rights. Additions have been made to Chapter<br />

1 of the FEIS to reflect this concern.<br />

The Forest has provided strong recognition of the interests of the Tribe, not tied directly to any treaty<br />

requirement, in the designation and protection of Tribal cultural values and historical use areas. During<br />

the development of the Forest Plan, the Forest has worked with the Tribe to address their issues and<br />

concerns relative to the management of resources. Many changes are evident between the Draft and<br />

Final Forest Plan as a result of the continued involvement of the Klarnath Tribe. Beyond the Tribe's<br />

direct involvement in the Forest planning process, coordination with the Tribe on site specific projects<br />

will continue as the Plan is implemented. Please see the forest-wide standards and guidelines concerning<br />

the Tribe for additional information.<br />

The Consent Decree of 1981 between the United States of America, the Klamath Tribe, and the State<br />

of Oregon requires that the Forest cooperate with the Tribe in the exchange of information regarding<br />

habitat management. The parties to this agreement are not required to obtain each other's consent<br />

prior to adopting policies on resource management activities.<br />

Yhe intent of the Forest Plan is to manage habitat to provide for viable populations of all existing wildlife<br />

species distributed across the range of habitats on the Forest. Please see the Forestwide Standards<br />

and Guidelines for Fish, Wildlife, and Sensitive Plants.<br />

Comment<br />

While the extent of the Forest Service's duties as trustee to Indian tribes has not been determined by<br />

any court, it is clear that among its duties it must investigate and disclose impacts unique to the tribe<br />

of its proposed plan.<br />

In Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 ILR 3065, Civil No. 82-116-BLG (D. Mont., 1985), the court<br />

held:<br />

(0) Once a trust relationship is established, the Secretary is obligated, at the very least, to<br />

investigate and consider the impacts of his action upon a potentially affected Indian tribe.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS and Forest Plan have been expanded concerning the relationship between the management<br />

of the Forest and the Tribe's treaty rights. See Chapter IV of the FEI'S and the forest-wide standards<br />

and guidelines in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

For example, no explanation is provided for determining that ODFW population goals are an appropriate<br />

indicator of responsiveness to the tribe's subsistence needs; no analysis is included of the impacts of<br />

the plan on the tribe or the treaty rights area by sedimentation of streams, loss of fish habitat, even-aged<br />

harvest methods, the proposed lodgepole departure, the dramatic change in age and size of trees,<br />

the use of scenic management standards, the use or non-use of dispersion standards, and many other<br />

potential effects. Most anticipated effects are disclosed on a forest-wiide basis averaged over a period<br />

of a decade or more, making it impossible to determine particular effects on the tribe or the treaty<br />

rights area. Those effects purportedly analyzed with respect to former reservation lands were calculated<br />

and estimated based on the Chiloquin Ranger District acreage, rather than the former reservation.<br />

K- 13

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 of the FEIS has been revised to display the effects of the alternatives on areas of concern<br />

to the Tribe.<br />

Comment<br />

The tribe suggests that the Forest include language in the plan acknowledging its responsibilities under<br />

the consent decree, and in general, as trustee of the tribe's treaty rights.<br />

The proposed plan for the Fremont National Forest includes language acknowledging that the consent<br />

decree: placed responsibility on the Forest Service for providing sufficient habitat to supply populations<br />

of fish and wildlife for the tribe's sustenance needs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussions about the Forest's responsibilities concerning the Tribe's treaty rights and the Consent<br />

Decree in Chapters III and IV of the FEIS and the standards and guidelines in the Final Forest Plan<br />

have been revised to reflect these concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

The right also includes a continuing opportunity to participate in the acts of hunting, fishing and gathering<br />

on the tribe's aboriginal lands. The visual and other physical characteristics of the Forest determine<br />

the nature and extent of the opportunities available to tribal members to exercise this critical cultural<br />

component of the treaty right.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 of the FEIS has been revised to display the effects of the alternatives on areas of concern<br />

to the Tribe.<br />

Comment<br />

Part of the failure of the plan and DEIS to adequately analyze the effects of the plan on the tribe and<br />

the treaty rights results from the characterization of the issue: 'How should former Klamath Indian<br />

Reservation lands be managed to address the concerns of the Klamath Tribe?' The tribe suggests that<br />

the following characterization of the planning issue is more appropriate and more helpful in fulfilling<br />

the Forest Service's duty to analyze effects of its actions: 'How must former Klamath Indian Reservation<br />

lands be managed to fulfill the Forest Service's obligation to protect tribal treaty rights and address<br />

concerns of the Klamath Tribe?'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have not changed the issue statement as suggested but we have changed the standards and<br />

guidelines in the Final Forest Plan to reflect the Forest's responsibilities concerning the Tribe's treaty<br />

rights.<br />

Comment<br />

Phrased in this manner, additional and alternative indicators of responsiveness will be necessary:<br />

estimated number of catchable trout; estimated number of mule deer; percentage of former reservation<br />

lands retaining their natural scenic qualities; percentage of former reservation lands scheduled for<br />

regeneration harvests by decade; loss of fish and wildlife habitat by stream miles, acreage or decrease<br />

in habitat effectiveness; degree of protection afforded to sites of cultural or religious importance, among<br />

others. Failure to adequately analyze and disclose these effects violates the agency's responsibility to<br />

the tribe.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has selected what we believe are adequate indicators of responsiveness to the issue of<br />

management of former reservation lands. The estimated effects of the Forest Plan on the Klamath<br />

Tribe are discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the EIS. The Forest Service is responsible for providing<br />

the quality and quantity of habitat and not actual numbers of fish and animals, however, the number of<br />

K- 14

trout and deer are estimated in Chapter II of the FEIS. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the<br />

Klamath Tribe determine levels of animal and fish harvest, which directly relate to population levels.<br />

Comment<br />

Protection of Cultural and Religious Sites and Uses. The DEIS includes a section describing the 'affected<br />

environment' of the proposed plan. Part of that description relates to the Forest's cultural resources.<br />

DEIS 111-93-95. The description is notable for its complete lack of recognition of the tribal interest in<br />

cultural sites and of the tribal role in identification and assessment of sites. The DEIS states: Cultural<br />

resources, in general, are of national interest to both the public and to the scientific community.<br />

The description should include specific reference to the strong tribal interest in these sites, and the<br />

ongoing consultation with the tribe relating to known sites and newly discovered sites.<br />

An additional weakness of this description stems from the definition of cultural resource sites. The<br />

definition omits those sites currently used for cultural and religious purposes. Some currently used<br />

sites also have historic or archaeological value. All sites currently used should be protected. The<br />

management activities allowed near these sites could vary, depending on the particular use and<br />

significance of a site.<br />

The tribe suggests the Forest adopt a 'buffer zone concept for protection of these sites. The necessary<br />

size of the zone will vary depending on the use and significance of the site. For example, if the use of<br />

a site or corridor requires isolation, the buffer may need to be larger than a buffer zone around another<br />

site. Management activities may be allowable seasonably or selectively or prohibited altogether.<br />

It is critical that the Forest continue to work with the tribe to identify these areas, their uses, and the<br />

degree of protection necessary, and incorporate this information in the final plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The sections of the FEIS dealing with the Klamath Tribe and cultural resources have been revised. The<br />

Klamath Tribe's strong interest in cultural resources is recognized and direction is provided, in the<br />

Final Forest Plan standards and guidelines, for coordination with the Tribe in the long term management<br />

and protection of tribal sites.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS states that Alternative F is based on information and concerns of the Kiamath Tribe. The<br />

tribe did provide a map of important areas to Forest planning staff in 1985. However, Alternative F<br />

cannot reasonably be considered to reflect tribal concerns. The scenic management designation of<br />

former reservation lands provides no protection except from viewpoints along roads and waterways.<br />

Failure to impose dispersion standards in this area for 20 years renders any scenic management protection<br />

worthless. In addition, all of the acreage designated for uneven-aged management is scheduled for<br />

harvest the first decade. The tribe vehemently opposes both of these concepts. The DEIS states that<br />

the alternative is based on tribal suggestions. This misleading and incorrect assertion must be withdrawn.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative F was formulated to reflect the proposed management for specific land areas as suggested<br />

by a representative of the Klamath Tribe. The scenic management proposed in Alternative F is not<br />

limited to areas seen from roads or waterways; but, rather includes all lands identified for a scenic<br />

management objective by the Kiamath Tribal Representative. There appears to be a misunderstanding<br />

of the harvest dispersion requirements in Alternative F. The dispersion requirement applied in the Draft<br />

EIS was designed to limit the amount of openings created by harvest treatments. Because in Alternative<br />

F uneven-aged management would be applied to these lands with scheduled timber harvests, no openings<br />

would be created and therefore, no dispersion requirements were necessary. The uneven-aged<br />

management proposed in this alternative is implemented over a 30-year period of time and not all in<br />

the first decade.<br />

Comment<br />

Plan, p. IV-56. The standards and guidelines provide no protection of treaty rights nor any acknowledgement<br />

by the Forest Service of its affirmative obligation to protect the exercise of these rights. How are<br />

K- 15

these standards to be applied at the project level? What effect,if any, will they have? The final plan<br />

must include clear standards to protect these rights.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The forestwide standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan have been revised. They outline the Forest's<br />

obligations to the Klamath Tribe's treaty rights. A copy of the treaty with the Klamath Tribe and the<br />

Consent Decree (1981) are found in appendix G of the final EIS and in the Final Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Plan, p. IV-1 26. The Forest Service is the trustee of the tribe's treaty rights to gather traditional foods.<br />

The statement that such gathering *will not be encouraged is a telling commentary on the agency's<br />

willingness to accept and fulfill its obligations. This language is unacceptable.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have altered the standard slightly in the Final Forest Plan. Because the goal of a Research Natural<br />

Area is to preserve a natural ecosystem, we can't encourage any use that would alter the natural<br />

ecosystem. Implementation plans for each RNA will address coordination needs with the Tribe.<br />

Comment<br />

The proposed plan calls for scenic management of 19% of the former Klamath Indian Reservatidri<br />

lands. DEIS Table 11-7 p. 11-142. The tribe is very concerned with the physical characteristics of is former<br />

reservation, including the visual quality of the Forest. However, the assertion that 19% of the former<br />

reservation will retain its scenic qualities is highly misleading. Winema Forest staff has informed the<br />

tribe that acreages in scenic management include acreages in management areas 1, 3, 4, 5d and 7.<br />

These management areas do not necessarily reflect acreage that will actually retain scinshid 4lies.<br />

Acreage designated for management area 3 is subject to timber harvesting, including ciearc;it Dispersion<br />

standards do not apply to MA3 for the first two decades. DEIS Appendix B. As a reSUlt, a lahro percentage<br />

of this management area acreage will be severely altered in the next 20 years. Similrly, Attbrnative I<br />

provides for actual retention of a large area as old growth habitat, yet the plan Shows onl# 23% of<br />

former reservation lands 'managed' for scenic qualities under this Alternative. The plan mUst accurately<br />

disclose the percentage of former reservation lands on which scenic qualities will be mtiftained, not<br />

merely the acreage 'managed' for scenic qualities. Failure to do so violates the duty of the Forest<br />

Service to disclose the impacts of its actions on the tribe.<br />

An additional problem with the scenic management concept is that it relies on the proteoffon of viewsheds<br />

from heavily travelled roadways and rivers. These areas are important to protect primatliy for the general<br />

public but not necessarily for the tribe. The tribe is also concerned about the visual qul ities throughout<br />

the former reservation, and as viewed from sites of cultural importance to the tribe. Ptbtecting highway<br />

viewsheds does not respond to these tribal concerns, and to assert that it adequately Indicates<br />

responsiveness to the tribe is misleading and incorrect.<br />

The table also fails to represent effects on lands actually within the former reservation. Winema Forest<br />

staff estimated the figures shown based on the acreage of the Chiloquin Ranger District. The Forest<br />

must show that this accurately reflects effects on the former reservation lands with respect to age<br />

class, harvest level, working group, acreage, etc., or it must use the actual former reservation boundary.<br />

Estimation based on the Chiloquin District, without showing its accuracy, fails to fulfill the Forest Service's<br />

duty to disclose effects on the tribe.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is true that management areas 1, 4, 5, and 7 are not managed to retain scenery as the first priority,<br />

however, it is expected that they will achieve certain scenic quality levels compatible with scenic<br />

allocations. It is true that dispersion constraints were not applied in the first two decades in MA3 in the<br />

DEIS. In the FEIS, the maximum area created opening dispersion constraint is applied in the first two<br />

decades in even-aged management. In uneven-aged management there was no need to apply this<br />

constraint.<br />

Managing scenic quality as viewed from major travel routes, use areas and water bodies is intended to<br />

provide certain levels of scenic quality for the public at large. It is based on the National Visual Management<br />

K- 16

System applied throughout the Forest Service. P. 1-13 lists 'Scenic management on former Reservation<br />

Lands' as an indicator of the Forest Plan Alternatives by percentage of lands. This does not measure<br />

'adequacy' but rather, attempts to portray an array of options. Apart form scenic allocations, other<br />

management areas will achieve various levels of visual quality, and uneven-aged management techniques<br />

are considered to have less impact than even aged management. The comparison of figures based on<br />

Chiloquin District acreage for nonviewshed areas is a projection of appearance for larger land areas,<br />

not necessarily for former reservation lands.<br />

K- 17

Lands<br />

Comment<br />

To acquire all inholdings on all Public lands, with no disposal of any public land.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is no process in place that allows the Forest Service to acquire all inholdings on all public lands.<br />

Inholdings can be acquired through donation, purchase, or exchange. Donations are fairly rare and<br />

generally occur only when to the advantage of the inholding landowner. Purchases are more common,<br />

but currently are generally limited to specific areas for specific reasons by Acts of Congress. Exchanges<br />

are the most common way that the Forest Service has to acquire inholdings but this method necessitates<br />

the exchange of Federal lands to acquire the inholdings.<br />

Comment<br />

The timber sale areas in green stipple on Alternative E Map could be sold off to the highest bidders so<br />

as to allow the private enterprise, or timber companies to manage harvest areas. Then the Federal<br />

government would no longer be in a business, which can conflict with a capitalist orientation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

From the passage of the Organic Act (June 4, 1897) to the passage of the Multiple Use-Sustained<br />

Yield Act (June 12, 1960) the mission of the U. S. Forest Service has always been conservation and<br />

management of forested federal lands to ensure a continuous supply of all resources. Selling our Timber<br />

Lands would be a violation of our mission.<br />

Comment<br />

Wilderness and/or National Park Boundaries<br />

There is no cut and dry way of handling the identification of these boundaries mentioned in the plan.<br />

We need to make sure that the establishment of these boundaries and also the maintaining of them is<br />

mentioned in the Plan. Especially since logging, firewood cutting, bug kill, and recreational use<br />

dramatically affect how we manage the resource next to these boundaries.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A discussion and more information related to the landline program has been added to the FEIS. Also,<br />

refer to the following responses.<br />

Comment<br />

I have a few comments on the Proposed Plan.' While going through it very briefly, I did not see somethings<br />

that should be, in my opinion, mentioned or addressed in some manner. Among these are:<br />

Past, Present and Future Landline Stewardship or Landline Management.<br />

This includes where the landline program has been, where it's going and how we tie the program<br />

to all the other resources. We are under Presidential and Congressional order to establish,<br />

perpetuate and maintain the landlines as part of the on-going land stewardship responsibilities<br />

of the Forest Service. We are also mandated by the State to perpetuate and protect all original<br />

G.L.O. corners. This is required under State license.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Since initiating the landline location program in the 70's, the Winema completed identification and<br />

marking of approximately 95% of Private/FS property lines. This has been driven mainly by Forest<br />

Resource needs located near these boundaries. The Forest will now be moving into a landline<br />

management/maintenance program to insure the property lines will remain identifiable in the future. A<br />

discussion related to the past and future landline program has be added to Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Also, changes to the Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan have been made in the Land Section.<br />

K- 18

Comment<br />

Public needs to be aware that the majority of our wilderness areas do not have established boundaries.<br />

Plan needs to address identification of wilderness boundary and how we will monitor and maintain this<br />

boundary.<br />

Consequences are woodcutters and four-wheel drive vehicle owners illegally entering wilderness to cut<br />

firewood. Another is the potential of U.S. Forest Service placing a portion of a timber sale within the<br />

wilderness.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest Service Manual, 7100, Region Supplement No. 67, Dated July, 1988, establishes objectives,<br />

responsibilities, and standards for the performance of congressionally designated area boundary surveys.<br />

A discussion related to the landline program was added to Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Also, changes to<br />

the Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan have been made, in the Lands Section.<br />

Comment<br />

What process is there for mcorrecting land allocations if they are determined to be inappropriate?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Refer to Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The Division of State Lands suggests the following addition to land ownership standards and guidelines<br />

to facilitate a mutually beneficial exchange program between the Forest Service and the State Land<br />

Board. Group VI:<br />

This group includes Common School lands owned by the State of Oregon and potentially available<br />

for sale or exchange to public and private entities. It includes lands adjacent to special management<br />

areas within the Forest which could be adversely affected by sales to private parties or<br />

state-permitted leasing activities. Adjustments will be made only after careful review and<br />

consultation with the Oregon Division of State Lands, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and<br />

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.<br />

The State Land Board administers several parcels of land in and around the Winema National Forest.<br />

These lands are blocked together and actively managed and the state is not pursuing their exchange.<br />

We are concerned, though, with the effect that designating one adjacent parcel of Forest land for<br />

old-growth management will have on adjacent state lands. We also recommend that you change your<br />

land ownership standards and guidelines to facilitate potential future exchanges.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan uses standard language to provide Landownership direction for each management<br />

area The five classification priority groups cover all areas and provides maximum flexibility to accomplish<br />

land adjustment activities pursuant to Forest Service exchange and acquisition authorities. More specific<br />

adjustment plans by area or with specific ownerships may be developed by the Forest as a (supplement)<br />

to the Forest Plan.<br />

State land board lands and adjacent NF lands have been generally classified in Group II, IlIl and IV as<br />

consistent with Regional direction and Winema priority for acquisition or disposal. The Land Exchange<br />

process requires consultation with interested parties. Through this process, we would consult with<br />

State agencies.<br />

The designation of old-growth management areas will not affect management of adjacent ownerships.<br />

K - 19

Comment<br />

The plan need not be amended to reflect the State proprietary interest in navigable waters. However,<br />

to clarify this issue a section could be added to the Water, Soil and Air Forestwide Standards and<br />

Guidelines" as follows:<br />

Navigable Waters<br />

The State of Oregon holds title to the beds and banks of all navigable waters in the state. The<br />

State Land Board and the Division of State Lands enforce the state's interest in these lands. In<br />

the Winema National Forest, the staff of the Division of State Lands has recommended that the<br />

state claim ownership of Lake of the Woods, all of Crystal Creek and 10 miles of the Sprague<br />

River. The State Land Board has not acted on this recommendation and final ownership<br />

determination is let to the courts and/or legislature.<br />

Parties contacting the Forest regarding development activities in these waters shall be referred<br />

to the Division of State Lands, Salem, Oregon, for information regarding possible lease<br />

requirements. In this context, odevelopment activities' includes but is not limited to marinas,<br />

mineral extraction, hydroelectric power generation, or log raft storage.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service recognizes that the State of Oregon holds Title to the beds and banks of all navigable<br />

waters in the State. The Winema National Forest recognizes this ownership on all waters that have<br />

been adjudicated as navigable within the Forest boundaries. All other lands with such areas will be<br />

managed as National Forest System lands until adjudicated and designated as navigable.<br />

Comment<br />

The administrative problems involving management of commercial timber production, protection of<br />

amenity values and range uses on a scattered land ownership pattern can be serious. The Forestry<br />

Department encourages and supports active efforts for consolidation of these scattered parcels into<br />

major blocks through exchange. Such a program should be discussed in detail in the resource plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Land Ownership and Adjustments section in Chapter 3 has been expanded. Also, more information<br />

has been added to the Forest Plan, Chapter 4 - Lands Section, and to the Standards and Guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

It is clear that the Winema National Forest has attempted to produce a forest plan with considerable<br />

interest group and citizen involvement. The same effort, though, does not appear to have been placed<br />

on coordination with state and local planning. For example, the Winema DEIS has nothing comparable<br />

to the Umatilla Forest's depiction of county zoning districts in relation to surrounding and interspersed<br />

federal holdings and findings explaining the overall effect of the alternatives on statewide planning<br />

goals. The alternatives for each national forest should be as compatible as possible with the comprehensive<br />

plans of affected cities and Klamath county and statewide planning goals. See the Department of<br />

Land Conservation and Development suggestions for improving your coordination with local and state<br />

Planning.<br />

DLCD request that the state's response on the Winema ask the Forest to do more to demonstrate that<br />

its management alternatives are compatible with the state land use goals and with the comprehensive<br />

plans of the surrounding communities. Specifically, the Winema should attempt to obtain from local<br />

government planning authorities written indications concerning the relationships of city and county<br />

land use policies, map designations and implementing regulations with the alternatives being proposed<br />

by the Forest.<br />

Our review of the Winema's documents, however, reveals little discussion about coordination with<br />

state and local land use planning efforts except for a statement at IV-35 in the DEIS about the<br />

incompatibility of several alternatives with Klamath County's forest goal. The DEIS also fails to note<br />

that all city and county comprehensive plans affected by the Forest have been acknowledged to comply<br />

with the statewide planning goals by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission.<br />

K-20

There is nothing in the Winema's DEIS, for example, which is comparable to the Umatilla National Forest's<br />

depiction of county zoning districts in relation to surrounding and interspersed federal holdings.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Social Environment section of Chapter 3 and the Effects of the Alternatives on Society section of<br />

Chapter 4 has been revised to include the statewide planning goals and the comprehensive plans of<br />

Klamath County.<br />

Comment<br />

The new boundary (1980) between Crater Lake NP and the Winema National Forest has not been<br />

legally surveyed. Prior to any timber harvest or significant changes in the Winema National Forest<br />

lands, a legal boundary survey should be conducted to ensure that none of the National Park lands<br />

are affected. The Park staff would be willing to assist the Forest in completing a legal boundary survey.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree to the high priority need to complete the survey and posting of the park boundary at Crater<br />

Lake National Park. We have previously submitted a proposal to our Regional Office to conduct a joint<br />

cadastral survey of the Park Boundary, and this proposal has been approved. The approved proposal<br />

would provide a survey of the park boundary by 1991. As has been previously discussed, accomplishment<br />

of this would be a cooperative effort between the Winema, Rogue River, and Umpqua National Forests,<br />

and Crater Lake National Park. The Memorandum of Understanding is currently being prepared. Also,<br />

a portion of the work will be accomplished by the Bureau of Land Management under the existing<br />

FS/BLM 9800 Cooperative Cadastral Survey Program and the Current Memorandum of Agreement<br />

between BLM and the National Park Service. We have submitted our outyear budgets to reflect this<br />

need and funding request.<br />

Comment<br />

The final EIS should provide information on the location of O&C lands on the Winema National Forest,<br />

how they are allocated among the alternatives and their contribution in payments to counties.<br />

Opportunities should be explored to maximize the number of O&C acres retained in the suitable land<br />

base. A separate accounting of projected revenues from these lands was not provided in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion of the former 0 & C lands has been expanded in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Net Forest Acreage Differences - (DEIS, page 111-105) The explanation of legal acreage and mapping<br />

acreage difference is confusing and does not provide a clear accurate picture of land ownership within<br />

the national forest boundary. The DEIS states that the Forest boundaries contain 1,035,020 acres of<br />

National Forest System land and 60,131 acres of other lands for a total of 1,095,151 acres. When compared<br />

with Table 111-5 (page 111-28) federal lands have 9.6 percent more acres and private lands within the<br />

forest 37.7 percent more. This presents a difference of 22,685 acres of other ownership that is unaccounted<br />

for within the forest boundary. These differences should be better explained in the final EIS to provide<br />

the most accurate picture of federally managed timberlands on the Winema National Forest for public<br />

review.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This section has been clarified in the FEIS.<br />

K - 21

Comment<br />

Page IV-34. Wilderness Management Program. The BLM has a 334-acre wilderness study area (WSA)<br />

adjacent to the Mountain Lakes Wilderness. The latest BLM recommendation for this WSA (Supplement<br />

to the Draft Oregon Wilderness EIS, January 1987) is that it be added to the Mountain Lakes Wilderness.<br />

While only Congress can designate the WSA as wilderness, the Winema National Forest Supervisor<br />

indicated in September 1986 that addition of the WSA to the existing wilderness was a viable alternative.<br />

Thus, we suggest that the Plan consider this situation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have revised the Lands section of Chapter 3 in the FEIS to reflect the potential addition to the<br />

Mountain Lakes Wilderness.<br />

K - 22

Minerals<br />

Comment<br />

A more detailed map may be useful to show lands with locatable and leasable mineral potential and<br />

access restrictions, and to outline areas that are likely to be developed. This map would also be helpful<br />

in showing acres available by mineral potential and by access restrictions, as tabulated in Appendix F,<br />

Table F-3, page F-i1 (and Table 111-3 on page 111-16 of the DEIS).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service has no way to predict areas that are likely to be developed. Industry is generally<br />

the driving force in exploration and development of mineral resources. The lands with the most likely<br />

mineral potential are shown in Figure 3-1 that shows existing mining claim locations, and Figure 3-3<br />

that shows existing geothermal lease locations.<br />

Table 111-3 has been clarified to show which Management Areas are included in each access restriction<br />

category. The Management Areas are shown on the Forest Planning Map.<br />

Comment<br />

In the past, there has been little demand on the Forest for locatable minerals due to the low potential<br />

for economically significant deposits. However, with new technology in extracting precious metals from<br />

low grade deposits, land use planning must anticipate increased minerals activity.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We anticipate increased minerals activity in the future, however, at this time we cannot forecast the<br />

degree of activity. To our knowledge, the only activity on the mining claims has been assessment work.<br />

Comment<br />

In our opinion, the Winema Draft EIS lacks the specificity in addressing potential adverse impacts of<br />

geothermal development which we have found in other Environmental Impact Statements. In particular,<br />

we feel that the EIS needs to take cognizance of the potential for land subsidence which can occur<br />

with geothermal development. Such subsidence is evident in the local Klamath Falls area. Structural<br />

damage to Ponderosa Junior High School and several residences in the area have a close correlation<br />

with increases in geothermal usage in Klamath Falls. The Winema EIS and plan need to ensure that a<br />

monitoring system for detecting land subsidence is in place, as well as providing for prevention and/or<br />

mitigation of adverse effects associated with geothermal exploitation.<br />

Enclosed are some extracts from the geothermal segment of the EIS prepared in 1976 for the Breitenbush<br />

Hot Springs in the Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon. CRGD (Citizens for Responsible Geothermal<br />

Development) would suggest that much of the material in this EIS should be incorporated in the Winema<br />

EIS.<br />

As you know, the Winema National Forest is a member organization of the Klamath Geothermal Advisory<br />

Committee. This group is charged with advising state, local and federal agencies on geothermal regulation<br />

and activity in Klamath County. It is highly recommended that the Winiema seek a comprehensive review<br />

of the EIS by the Geothermal Advisory Committee.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema DEIS is an umbrella document for mineral activities and identifies the areas of the Forest<br />

that are available for mineral activities, and is not intended to be a Site Specific EIS. Site specific<br />

environmental analysis will be made as mineral projects are submitted to the forest. The Breitenbush<br />

Hot Springs EIS is an example of an analysis of a specific project.<br />

It is premature to address subsidence in the DEIS. Land subsidence will be addressed through<br />

environmental analysis on specific proposals and projects as they occur. Even if a geothermal reservoir<br />

is discovered and produced and leads to subsidence, the requirements of Geothermal Resources<br />

Operational (GRO) Order No. 4, dealing with subsidence, would have to be observed. Requirements<br />

include the establishment and monitoring of leveling networks, and monitoring of geothermal production<br />

pressures and quantities.<br />

K - 23

Comment<br />

Since the State Highway system is crucial to the economy, it must continually be maintained and improved.<br />

There is a continuing need for mineral resources (i.e., rock, gravels, and common fill material) and<br />

waste areas. The west areas are necessary to dispose of material removed from slides, rock falls and<br />

ditches. The material sources are necessary to provide aggregate for construction and maintenance.<br />

Your Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan appears to recognize the importance of mineral<br />

resources. Your Standards and Guidelines (Appendices DEIS) are so restrictive, however, that only<br />

Management Area 12 appears to allow the use outright.<br />

Material sources, when used for highway work, many times need to be opened up and left open for<br />

many years as construction and maintenance materials are produced. This is particularly true of sanding<br />

material sources. Section Xl "Use of Material Sources and Haul Roads,' paragraph B of the Memorandum,<br />

addresses this area.<br />

The Forest Plan should recognize the need for waste areas. If a slide should occur in a snow zone in<br />

winter, for example, maintenance crews are unable to haul the material any appreciable distance from<br />

the highway because of the snow depth.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

1. Standards and Guidelines comment: We have reviewed the standards and guidelines for each<br />

management area and feel that they are appropriate for the objectives and goals of the management<br />

area, and not overly restrictive, for the following reasons.<br />

a. Some of the management areas are small in comparison to the total forest acreage, and the<br />

numbers of acres restricted is minor. See Table IV-13 on Page IV-63 of the Proposed Plan, which shows<br />

the management area acreages<br />

b. All of the management areas have specific management goals and intents and the development<br />

of Materials Sources would not be consistent in some Management Areas. For example, Management<br />

Area 1 is Semi-Primitive Recreation, Management Area No. 2 is within Developed Recreation<br />

Sites(Campgrounds), Management Area No. 4 is Special Interest Areas.<br />

c. In certain management areas, development of Material Sources and Haul Roads is prohibited<br />

or discouraged for example: Management Area No. 6, Wilderness, Management Area No. 4, Special<br />

Interest Areas, and Management Area No. 13, Research Natural Areas.<br />

d. Development of Material Sources in some Management Areas is not prohibited, but certain<br />

restrictions or coordination needs for material source development are required to meet the goal and<br />

intent of the area. Example is Management Areas No. 3, Scenic Management, and Management Area<br />

No. 10, Big Game Winter Range.<br />

e. Management Area 12, which is minimally restricted, consists of a large percentage of the<br />

forest land area.<br />

2. Waste Area Comment: The location of waste areas and agreements on use can be done. Location<br />

and use would have to been in accordance with management area goals and objectives. This topic<br />

will be brought up at the next annual meeting with the State Highway Department.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest should be withdrawn from appropriation under mining or mineral leasing laws.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Mineral resources are a major resource and are treated on an equal basis with other resources.<br />

Withdrawals from mineral entry are made only where there are sensitive unique surface resources that<br />

cannot be adequately protected under current public laws and Federal regulations.<br />

Comment<br />

BPA has transmission facilities located in the Winema National Forest. They are identified in the draft<br />

EIS, but not in the Plan. The Plan needs to identify BPA and other utilities existing and planned facilities<br />

and whether they have been designated as utility corridors. Plan must recognize that some areas may<br />

require restricted public access in order to protect the operation of existing utility facilities and/or the<br />

safety of the general public.<br />

K -24

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The significance and designation of existing transportation corridors, which is presented in Chapter 3<br />

and 4 of the Draft EIS, has been incorporated into the Forest Plan, In Chapter 4 - Forest Management<br />

Direction. The concept of restricted Public Access, would be noted in the Road Management Objectives<br />

for those roads accessing the utilities.<br />

Comment<br />

Transmission corridor must consider factors other than residual capacity. We suggest the standard be<br />

reworded as follows: 'To avoid proliferation of rights-of-way, the use of existing utility corridors must be<br />

considered first in determining the best location for a new utility proposal. A utility application for use<br />

of an existing (designated) corridor will require less time for processing and will be considered for<br />

categorical exclusion from NEPA. New corridors will be subject to Forest NEPA procedures including<br />

preparation of an EA or EIS.'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Standard has been revised in accordance with your comment. The intent to utilize residual capacities<br />

and avoid proliferation of separate rights of ways was also discussed in Chapter 3, Page 112, of the<br />

DEIS. The Revised Standard is in accordance with Page 112 and your comment, and is contained in<br />

Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Page IV-54 - IV-55 - Minerals, Energy, and Geology Forestwide Standards - This section does not address<br />

potential hydro and small hydro sites and the availability of biomass for generation. It is our understanding<br />

that the FS is responsible for issuance of ROW permits for hydro sites. Accordingly, the Plan should<br />

recognize potential sites and identify standards and guidelines for dealing with them.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There are no inventoried potential hydro or small hydro sites within the Forest. The potential on the<br />

Forest is low with few possible sites, on a limited number of streams.<br />

The FEIS has been be revised to add a discussion of hydro and biomass.<br />

Comment<br />

Page IV-57 (6) - Lands Forestwide Standards and Guidelines - Standard 6 infers that corridors should<br />

be located on private land. It has been BPA and utility practice to locate transmission corridors based<br />

on minimum environmental impact and engineering suitability, irrespective of land ownership. Most<br />

Forests have agreed to this practice. We suggest that this standard be revised.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This standard applies to all types of special uses. The location of utility corridors would be based upon<br />

an environmental assessment and would consider environmental impacts, engineering suitability,<br />

economics, land ownership, etc.<br />

Comment<br />

Page IV-57 (11) - Lands Forestwide Standards and Guidelines - Crossing transportation corridors at<br />

right angles may not always be the best method of reducing visual impacts. It is recommended that<br />

the February 1970 "Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems' published by the<br />

Departments of Interior and Agriculture be referenced for other methods that can be used to reduce<br />

visual impacts from transportation corridors as well as other sensitive viewer locations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This standard is revised to reflect your comment and is contained in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

K - 25

Comment<br />

Page IV-60 (22) - Facilities Forestwide Standards and Guidelines - It is not technically or economically<br />

feasible to bury transmission lines of 69-kv or higher voltage. This standard should be revised to include<br />

only distribution lines of 34.5-kv or less.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standard is revised to note the technical and economic limitations of burying higher voltage lines.<br />

This was the intent of the wording 'unless special conditions warrant other methods.' The revised standard<br />

is in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Page IV-60 (26) - Facilities Forestwide Standards and Guidelines - BPA and other utilities need access<br />

to their facilities at all times for maintenance and emergency repairs. This is essential in maintaining<br />

safe and reliable service to the public.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This standard, as is noted, deals with existing roads 'not needed for continuous access.' When considering<br />

the need for a road, the road management objectives consider the needs of the public, forest<br />

administration, commercial special use, and the needs of other agencies. Reference Page IV-57 and<br />

58, of the Proposed Forest Plan. Therefore, we feel the standard is correct as written.<br />

Comment<br />

In particular, we found inconsistencies between the use of avoidance and exclusion under the lands<br />

and facilities sections. We also suggest that the Forest consider the establishment of a corridor or<br />

facility management area. Many Forests have established a management area specifically dedicated to<br />

utility facilities, (including corridors) with its own management standards and guidelines. The Gifford<br />

Pinchot National Forest in Washington, has taken this approach. We feel this is appropriate since the<br />

land resources within or immediately adjacent to a corridor should be managed for corridor use.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

1. Comment on Inconsistencies: The phrasing in the Lands Section 'will normally not be allowed'<br />

will be changed to either excluded or avoided, as defined in the DEIS. The definitions will be included<br />

in all Glossaries.<br />

2. Comment on addition of a management area for Utility Corridors: In the process of developing<br />

the proposed forest plan, we originally did have a separate management area for Utility and Transportation<br />

Corridors. For a variety of reasons, such as; mapping difficulties due to width of corridors, the limited<br />

number of existing and proposed corridors on the forest, and the fact that corridors exist within other<br />

management areas, a separate Management Area was not continued. We recognize that these corridors<br />

and facilities are of high importance and significance. The discussion of significance, and corridor<br />

designations presented in Chapter 4 of the DEIS will be incorporated into a separate section on corridors<br />

in the final Forest PLAN. We feel that the standards and guidelines for corridors should continue to be<br />

contained within each of the Management Areas, so that the tie between each management area and<br />

corridor management is visible and specific. For the above reasons, we did not continue with a separate<br />

Management Area for Corridors<br />

Comment<br />

Page IV-70 and 71 - Management Area 2: Developed Recreation - Utility lines are excluded under the<br />

lands section and considered avoidance in the facilities section. Since exclusion areas are lands restricted<br />

to corridor development by legislation, the exclusion requirement described under the lands section<br />

should be revised to an avoidance area requirement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

1. Comment on Inconsistencies: As noted, this should be an avoidance area. This has been corrected<br />

in the Forest Plan.<br />

K - 26

Comment<br />

Page IV-1 10 - Management Area 9: Bald Eagle Habitat - The discussion in the facilities section address<br />

distribution lines and not transmission lines. Transmission lines have much greater electrical clearances<br />

and are not normally an electrical hazard for roosting and nesting birds. Nesting platforms can also be<br />

used to mitigate the loss of habitat that may occur with Right-of-way clearing.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This standard was revised to reflect your comments.<br />

Comment<br />

Right of Facility Access - Utilities must have access to their facilities at all times for maintenance and<br />

emergencies. This should be recognized in the Forest Plan. Please contact BPA's Area Maintenance<br />

Superintendent to discuss actions, such as land transfers, proposed construction of buildings/structures<br />

near BPA facilities that could affect access to or their reliability.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

When considering the need for a road, the road management objectives consider the needs of the<br />

public, forest administration, commercial special use, and the needs of other agencies. These needs<br />

are recognized in the transportation management standards and guidelines in the Proposed Forest<br />

Plan, Page IV-57 and 58. Coordination with others for project development and management is discussed<br />

in many areas of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-10 to 18 - Minerals and Energy - This section provides good coverage of geothermal, solar,<br />

and wind generation. However, it has failed to address hydro, small hydro, and biomass energy sources<br />

found on the Forest. It is important that the potential of these resources be addressed and the impacts<br />

of Forest Plan alternatives on them identified.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 3 and 11 of the FEIS has been revised to include hydro and biomass.<br />

Comment<br />

However, we suggest that a map be added to illustrate the corridors or facilities described on tables<br />

111-38 and 111-39. We have attached a BPA facility map which illustrates the BPA facilities found on the<br />

Forest. It also includes the important physically suitable corridors identified by BPA and the Forest<br />

Service in the 1970 East-West Regional Corridor Study. The Forest should be aware that BPA owns<br />

only the Yamsay (switching station) to Klamath Falls portion of the 230-kv Redmond-Kiamath Falls<br />

transmission line. PP&L owns the southern portion.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The facilities shown in the tables have been presented in map form in the final Forest Plan, and the<br />

ownerships corrected, as requested.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-112 - Utility and Transportation Corridors - The second paragraph mentions providing for new<br />

or expanded facilities within existing rights-of-way to avoid the proliferation of rights-of-way. BPA agrees<br />

with this goal, however, the electrical needs for each project must be evaluated to determine if it is<br />

possible. For example, it may not be possible to rebuild, in place, a transmission line that is the only<br />

source of power to important loads. To do so would require taking the line out of service. In this case,<br />

it may be necessary to build a second line parallel to the first, requiring additional right-of-way.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree the determination of technological and economic feasibilities would be part of the project<br />

environmental analysis.<br />

K -27

Comment<br />

Page IV-10 - Effects of the Alternatives on other Energy Sources: Solar and Wind Generation - As previously<br />

mentioned, the effects on hydro, small hydro, and biomass should be identified.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 of the FEIS has been revised to include hydro and biomass.<br />

Comment<br />

Page IV-96 - Effects of the Alternatives on Transportation and Utility Corridors - The first paragraph<br />

should identify which facilities are being considered for designation. It would be extremely helpful to<br />

have them shown on a map as previously requested. We also recommend that additional right-of-way<br />

width (at least double) be included for right-of-way expansion. An additional 125 feet of right-of-way<br />

should be designated for the BPANPP&L Klamath Falls-Redmond 230-kv transmission line. This will<br />

keep facilities in the designated corridor while also allowing for expansion where replacing the existing<br />

power line is not feasible.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Please refer to the first paragraph, which does identify the designations. They are identified in the FEIS<br />

and Forest Plan. As requested, a map is also included. Additional right of way widths can not be allocated<br />

until a project proposal is received and evaluated.<br />

Comment<br />

Appendix D - Page D-3 (10) - We suggest that the first sentence be reworded as follows: RDesignate<br />

corridors for important transportation and utility corridors allowing for right-of-way expansion where<br />

determined compatible."<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This standard and guideline is from the National Forest Management Act Regulations, 1976, as noted<br />

on Page D-2, 1st Paragraph.<br />

Comment<br />

We suggest that the following sources of information may be useful in the preparation of the Final Plan<br />

and Final Environmental Impact Statement if they have not already been consulted.<br />

The Pacific Northwest Hydropower Data Base and Analysis System: This data base contains<br />

detailed, site-specific information on over 2,000 individual hydro project applications submitted<br />

to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Data include physical location, institutional status,<br />

hydrologic characteristics, cost, and planned power output.<br />

The Pacific Northwest Rivers Study: The Rivers Study, conducted with participation by the Forests<br />

in Regions 1, 4, and 6, resulted in a data base containing an inventory and assessment of the<br />

region's rivers for their resident fish, wildlife, natural and cultural features, and recreation values,<br />

as well as existing institutional constraints.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These references were consulted.<br />

Comment<br />

If and when geo-thermo is developed near Crater Lake, Oregon, I believe it would be a travesty. Stop<br />

this action now!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We do not know if a geothermal resource will be developed near Crater Lake, Oregon. To our knowledge,<br />

a developable geothermal resource has not been discovered. Before any geothermal development can<br />

be developed on National Forest System lands, an environmental analysis as required by the National<br />

Environmental Policy Act must be conducted. During this process, the concerns of the public and all<br />

who participate in the process must be considered.<br />

K - 28

Comment<br />

Save Crater Lake from any more drilling and cap the holes or wells or restore to former conditions Let<br />

us not encourage a few well-drillers under the monetary guise of development destroy our beautiful<br />

landscape.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The drilling that has been conducted is a valid use of National Forest System Lands. All proposed<br />

drilling activities must have an environmental analysis conducted to determine the effects on the<br />

environment by the specific activity being proposed. Decisions to allow or not to allow geothermal<br />

activities, including effects on Crater Lake, will be based on Site Specific environmental analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

One of the 7 Wonders of the World 'Crater Lake Parks is at present being threatened by drilling<br />

(geothermal) and I feel that presents a hazard to the water quality and natural environment of that<br />

lake. This is a monetary and natural resource that has inestimable value to our State and Nation and<br />

'no way' should this drilling be allowed. There is no sense to it and only shows the greed of the California<br />

enterprise that is promoting this project.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The drilling that has been conducted was approved after going through an environmental analysis as<br />

required by the National Environmental Policy Act. There has been no evidence that 'Crater Lake Park'<br />

is at present being threatened by drilling. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 authorizes the use of<br />

National Forest System lands for this activity.<br />

Comment<br />

The extensive dead lodgepole pine presents another energy opportunity on the Winema. The Winema<br />

has an abundance of beetle-kill pine. This material is available as fuel, fiber or both. This pine and<br />

residues resulting from timber harvesting include biomass energy resources. In response to the need<br />

to reduce slash burning and woodstove use, an environmentally acceptable use of these resources as<br />

fuel (and fiber) should be considered under whichever alternative is adopted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest has an ongoing program to find or develop markets for its beetle killed<br />

pine and residues resulting from timber harvesting. Our contracts for this material do not specify its<br />

end use; however, most of the dead lodgepole is utilized as chips for pulp or firewood for residential<br />

heat. The Winema Forest has increased its sales of this material ten-fold since 1984. Our efforts to<br />

develop markets for logging residues have not been successful. Facilities which could utilize this material<br />

for fuel within the Winema's zone of influence or market area are able to get less expensive fuel. We<br />

continue to receive proposals from the private sector for the utilization of logging residues. However,<br />

so far, none of these proposals have proved to be economically feasible. We are very much interested<br />

in finding alternatives to burning logging residues on site. We will continue to seek these alternatives<br />

as the planning process continues.<br />

Comment<br />

With regard to resource values, some of the estimates seem to be in error. On page 3-16, leasable<br />

geothermal energy is rated as moderate. In light of temperatures and regional geothermal modeling<br />

we believe that a rating of high is more appropriate. In Table F-3 (page -F-1 1) some areas designated<br />

as having low locatable mineral resource potential could be upgraded to moderate where diatomaceous<br />

earth, mercury and gold epithermalization are being actively explored.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The geothermal moderate rating was made by the U.S. Geological Survey based on classification criteria<br />

contained in Geological Survey Circular 647. The moderate rating willl continue to be used until the<br />

Geological Survey assigns a different rating. Even though higher than ambient temperatures have<br />

been recorded in one of the drill holes, it has not been demonstrated that a geothermal resource exists.<br />

K -29

While it may be true that some areas of low locatable mineral potential could be upgraded to a higher<br />

rating, we do not have the information to justify more than a low potential rating. To our knowledge the<br />

only locatable mineral activity being performed is the annual assessment work on the mining claims.<br />

We know of no localized study or survey that would give us the information to assign higher ratings.<br />

Comment<br />

We do have concerns regarding access for mineral exploration and development and regarding<br />

assumptions behind estimates of resource values. With regard to access we note that approximately<br />

63% of Winema Forest is closed to locatable mineral entry. We note also on page 3017 that it is stated<br />

that mineral exploration activity can cause major surface disturbance. In judging the relative merits of<br />

various planning options we believe that consideration should be given to the fact that much of the<br />

Forest is already off limits.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 63 percent of the Forest that is closed to locatable mineral entry consists of lands withdrawn from<br />

mineral entry, and lands that have acquired land status (former Klamath Indian Reservation lands).<br />

The acquired lands make up about 85 percent of the 63 percent and are available under the mineral<br />

leasing laws.<br />

Comment<br />

Plan provides little analysis of possible impacts of gold mining or geothermal development, both adjacent<br />

to Crater Lake National Park. Adoption of Preferred Alternative would maintain current level of use for<br />

domestic grazing on the Winema.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Plan is an umbrella document for mineral activities and identifies the areas of the Forest that are<br />

available for mineral activities, subject to the Standard and Guidelines. The Plan is not intended to<br />

cover specific proposals. Specific proposals will be covered in a site specific environmental analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema has an abundance of beetle-kill pine. This material is available as fuel, fiber or both. This<br />

pine and residues resulting from timber harvesting include biomass energy resources. The standards<br />

cited in the proposed plan refer to these resources under Minerals, Energy, and Geology Forestwide<br />

Standards and Guidelines Nos. 8 and 9. It is suggested that in response to the need to reduce slash<br />

burning, environmentally acceptable use of these resources as fuel (and fiber) will be considered under<br />

whichever alternative is adopted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We are very much interested in reducing the slash burning and finding environmentally acceptable<br />

means of utilizing the material normally burned. This would be pursued in the final selected alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

The impact of the various alternatives on potential production are adequately displayed already in the<br />

analyses of the draft environmental impact statement. This is a constructive step in the direction of<br />

equitable resource judgments and the Forest Service is to be commended for their efforts in this plan<br />

in this area. Primary state interest is on economic impact, however. We would ask that the Forest Service<br />

place more attention on quantitative measures of economic impact, even though displays and tabulations<br />

of impact by area are commendable. The economic efficiency analysis does not factor mineral resource<br />

values into the interpretations. From an economic standpoint this is particularly troublesome, because<br />

the open acre value of land for mining greatly exceeds per acre value for other uses.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The reason that the economic efficiency analysis does not factor mineral resource values is that we do<br />

not know what mineral values, other than common variety minerals, are located on the Forest. Historically,<br />

K - 30

other than common variety, there has not been any known removal of mineral resources from the Forest,<br />

and we feel that it would be inappropriate to conduct an economic analysis without sound data.<br />

Comment<br />

The Governor recently asked Interior Secretary Hodel to limit further drilling wareas removed as far as<br />

possible from the Park.' He also urged the Secretary to cease further leasing in the vicinity of the Park.<br />

A copy of the Governor's letter is attached.<br />

Senator Hatfield recently introduced legislation which the Senate Energy Committee has adopted,<br />

designating Crater Lake as having significant thermal features. This underscores the sensitive nature<br />

of this area. Accordingly, the U.S. Forest Service should direct BLM to prohibit further geothermal activity<br />

aimed at establishing an industrial power plant on those lands adjacent to Crater Lake National Park.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Crater Lake National Park was added to the list of 'significant thermal features within units of the National<br />

Park System' through passage of the Geothermal Stream Act Amendments of 1988. The FEIS will be<br />

revised by adding a discussion relating to the new law.<br />

Comment<br />

Mining has been limited in the past to cinder and gravel removal. Recently, some mining claims have<br />

been filed for pumice on the supposition that they might contain recoverable amounts of gold. Claims<br />

have also been filed for geothermal exploration. More information and analysis should be provided on<br />

the possible impacts of gold mining or geothermal development especially since some of this activity<br />

may take place adjacent to Crater Lake National Park.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Any mineral activities proposed will be evaluated through an environmental analysis, including possible<br />

impacts to Crater Lake National Park, as the proposals are submitted to the Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

The extensive dead lodgepole pine presents another energy opportunity on the Winema The Winema<br />

has an abundance of beetle-kill pine. This material is available as fuel, fiber or both. This pine and<br />

residues resulting from timber harvesting include biomass energy resources. In response to the need<br />

to reduce slash burning and woodstove use, an environmentally acceptable use of these resources as<br />

fuel (and fiber) should be considered under whichever alternative is adopted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest has an ongoing program to find or develop markets<br />

for its beetle killed pine and residues resulting from timber harvesting. Our<br />

contracts for this material do not specify its end use; however, most of the<br />

dead lodgepole is utilized as chips for pulp or firewood for residential heat.<br />

The Winema Forest has increased its sales of this material ten-fold since 1984.<br />

Our efforts to develop markets for logging residues have not been successful.<br />

Facilities which could utilize this material for fuel within the Winema's zone<br />

of influence or market area are able to get less expensive fuel. We continue to<br />

receive proposals from the private sector for the utilization of logging<br />

residues. However, so far, none of these proposals have proved to be<br />

economically feasible. We are very much interested in finding alternatives to<br />

burning logging residues on site. We will continue to seek these alternatives<br />

as the planning process continues.<br />

Comment<br />

In terms of energy resources, geothermal energy is obviously the most promising on the Forest. DOGAMI<br />

rates the geothermal energy resource value on the Forest as high (see DOGAMI comments at page<br />

2). The main area of interest in leasing on the Forest seems to be adjacent to Crater Lake National<br />

K - 31

Park. We are concerned about how this leased area is treated in the DEIS and LRMP. There does not<br />

appear to be any variation in the alternatives in the area available for leasable mineral development. I<br />

recently asked Interior Secretary Hodel to limit further drilling to 'areas removed as far as possible<br />

from the Park." I also urged the Secretary to cease further leasing in the vicinity of the Park. A copy of<br />

my letter is attached to the Department of Energy comments.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Approximately 91 percent of the Forest is identified as being available for geothermal exploration including<br />

the area adjacent to Crater Lake National Park. The recent amendment to the Geothermal Steam Act<br />

of 1970 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consider the effects on significant thermal features of<br />

Crater Lake National Park in determining whether to consent to leasing. The same amendment requires<br />

the Secretary of the Interior to include stipulations in existing leases to protect the significant thermal<br />

features of the Park. The stipulations can require the lease holder to suspend activity on the lease until<br />

such time a significant adverse effect is eliminated. The stipulation shall provide for the Termination of<br />

the lease by the Secretary of the Interior if the significant adverse effect cannot be eliminated within a<br />

reasonable period of time.<br />

Comment<br />

The Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) is concerned, however, by the extensive<br />

restrictions on locatable mineral entry. These withdrawals should be reviewed to determine whether<br />

mineral entry truly is incompatible with other uses. If the high percentage of withdrawn lands is attributable<br />

to the former Klamath reservation status, that should be explained.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current withdrawals are being reviewed to determine whether the withdrawals should be continued,<br />

modified or revoked. The majority of the acreage withdrawn protects the wilderness areas, and Lake of<br />

the Woods, Fourmile Lake, Miller Lake, and Recreation Creek recreation areas. The withdrawals protecting<br />

these areas will remain. Approximately 85 percent of the area on the Forest closed to locatable mineral<br />

entry is the former Klamath Indian Reservation Land. The former reservation land is not subject to<br />

location and entry under the 1872 Mining Laws, however, the mineral resources are available under<br />

the mineral leasing laws.<br />

Comment<br />

However, the detailed descriptions of how you developed altematives, performed economic analyses,<br />

and set guidelines for the different management areas do not appear to adequately account for geothermal<br />

energy's potential as a forest resource.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The geothermal energy potential on the Forest was identified by the U.S. Geological Survey. The moderate<br />

rating will be used until such time as the Survey revises the rating. We recognize that the potential for<br />

geothermal resources exists. We feel that the alternatives and management area standards and guidelines<br />

adequately allow for geothermal developments should a resource be discovered.<br />

Comment<br />

Comments on Alternative D. If the goal of this alternative is to provide actual cash returns to the Federal<br />

Treasury, all nonmandated uses which limit geothermal development should be eliminated from<br />

consideration. On page 11-135, the document states that the timber program produces the highest<br />

economic benefit, followed by recreation. We are confident that inclusion of geothermal development<br />

in your economic analysis would reveal that it would produce the highest benefit - and at the lowest<br />

environmental cost. In addition, geothermal development is largely compatible with many other uses,<br />

including but not limited to timber harvest, recreation, and firewood collection.<br />

K - 32

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The reason for not including geothermal development in the economic analysis is that we do not know<br />

if there is a recoverable geothermal resource. We feel that it would be inappropriate to conduct an<br />

economic analysis without sound data.<br />

Comment<br />

Page B-90 of Appendix B states, 'There are no mineral leases on the forest and no future potential has<br />

been positively identified. Therefore, no value is placed on mineral or energy potential on the forest.'<br />

Clearly, these statements are erroneous and an economic analysis should be included.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This statement is in error and has been removed.<br />

Comment<br />

Geothermal. Another point of concern is the PLRMP's approach to the geothermal issue as it relates to<br />

Crater Lake NP. Research by Oregon State University scientists, Drs. Dymond, Collier and Lupton<br />

should be referenced. The plan should also include the information that Crater Lake is being considered<br />

for listing as a Significant Thermal Feature, and that such designation would provide additional legislation<br />

to ensure its protection and preservation. Geothermal resources activities are a part of Forest management<br />

and geothermal exploration in the Winema is an extremely controversial issue. Although an environmental<br />

assessment on a geothermal exploration project was prepared by the Bureau of Land Management<br />

(BLM) in 1987, the decision to issue a modified permit is under appeal. The FEIS/PLRMP should discuss<br />

the most current status of geothermal exploration and development in Winema NF.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS has been revised to include a discussion of the research of Crater Lake, the Geothermal<br />

Steam Act Amendments of 1988, which designated Crater Lake National Park as a significant thermal<br />

feature, and the most current status of the geothermal activities within the Winema National Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-10, Minerals and Energy. The final document should list and address any major mining or<br />

geothermal activities that are proposed or now operating on Forest lands. Information needs to be<br />

updated and reflect plans and consultation with other agencies.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The major mining or geothermal activities that are proposed or now operating on the Forest has been<br />

discussed in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Page D-21, number 2. The final document should list and address any major mining or geothermal<br />

activities that are proposed or now operating on Forest Lands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix D lists the Standard and Guidelines for each management area and is not the appropriate<br />

place to discuss the minerals activities that are proposed or now operating on Forest lands. These<br />

activities have been discussed in the FEIS.<br />

K - 33

Mountain Pine Beetle<br />

Comment<br />

With regard to the pine beetle infestation problem, it would appear advisable at least to limit harvest to<br />

trees already dead, and to a narrow buffer zone around infected areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The epidemic levels of mortality in the lodgepole pine are expected to continue until all the larger trees<br />

are dead. Our entomologists expect all the lodgepole pine larger than seven inches DBH to die within<br />

20 years. Many people feel it is very inefficient to harvest a few dead trees this year and then to return<br />

in five years to harvest the next portion of dead trees. Other people are concerned that as the stand<br />

dies little by little, the stand becomes under stocked and no longer grows at its potential until it is<br />

regenerated. These people would rather regenerate the stand at the first entry. The answer to the<br />

problem is a mix of both dead only and regeneration cuttings. The Forest will concentrate on salvage<br />

harvest of the dead lodgepole pine in the first decade and then move more into regeneration cutting<br />

in the second decade. This will optimize the return from the lodgepole pine working group.<br />

Comment<br />

Building roads and intensive logging to counter the Pine Bark Beetle appear self defeating. It looks like<br />

you are actually spreading the insect beyond its normal capabilities. The trees are felled, cut into sections<br />

then transported on open trucks. Bark and wood end up scattered everywhere. Two weeks later the<br />

same truck, perhaps unwashed, goes to a different area altogether. Whatever happened to fire as a<br />

management tool? It is true that Beetles won't infest a clear cut yet, over the long-term they may really<br />

thrive in some the planned even-aged timber stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Mountain pine beetle is a native species which is always present in pine forests. The beetle lives on<br />

trees which are stressed and growing slow. When large areas of pine trees become old or suppressed,<br />

the beetle then has the advantage and an epidemic occurs. Moving beetles around in loaded log trucks<br />

does not spread the insect because it is already in the trees, but at a very low population level. People<br />

can cause ornamental pine tree to be attached and killed by bringing the beetle into town in a load of<br />

wood. Ornamental trees are often under stress and susceptible to attack. The effects of the alternatives<br />

on Forest Pests in the DEIS and FEIS speak to how each alternative will prevent or enhance future<br />

outbreaks.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan states 87,000 acres of Lodgepole pine will be harvested in the first decade. I feel this is misleading.<br />

It indicates that these are pure stands of Lodgepole pine. Current salvage harvesting at Chemult District<br />

has included multiple board feet of Ponderosa pine as well as Lodgepole. I feel the plan should be<br />

clear about all species that are salvaged because of the mountain pine beetle.<br />

I am also confused about the amount of acres that have already been salvage harvested at Chemult.<br />

Are they included in this 87,000 acre figure?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The plan refers to the acres of the Lodgepole pine working group that will be harvested in the first<br />

decade. The mature, single story Lodgepole pine working group is 17% Ponderosa pine. This Ponderosa<br />

pine is suffering high mortality and is also being harvested along with the Lodgepole pine.<br />

The data base was updated to the end of FY 88. The harvest acres in the plan would be the harvest<br />

from that time.<br />

In 1981, 193,140 acres of mature lodgepole pine was inventoried. By the end of fiscal years 1988, the<br />

number of acres of mature lodgepole pine had dropped to 156,180 acres. The difference of 36,960<br />

acres was harvested during that period of time. Since the data base for the FORPLAN model was<br />

updated in September 1988, the Forest Plan shows the amount to harvest during the plan period.<br />

K - 34

Comment<br />

Why log economically-losing lodgepole pine just to keep the pine beetle from eating them?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Two basic reasons are given to justify harvesting the dead lodgepole pine:<br />

1. Future management costs will be lowered by preventing large uncontrollable fires.<br />

2. Many people feel it is morally wrong to waste, a resource. If the trees are harvested green, they<br />

can be milled into lumber and this provides many jobs.<br />

3. At the moment these sales are not losing money.<br />

Comment<br />

My understanding is that the draft proposal would severely restrict the harvest of Ponderosa pine in<br />

the upcoming period because of total proposed cut and the need to deal with the pine beetle infestation<br />

in the lodgepole pine stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Local Timber Supply and Demand Section of the DEIS and FEIS shows the harvest rate of ponderosa<br />

pine timber during the last ten years. The draft plan would have harvested ponderosa pine at a rate<br />

30% greater than the 10 year average harvest. During the last five years, the harvest of ponderosa<br />

pine has averaged 106 MMBF per year. That is almost 20 percent greater than the harvest planned in<br />

the draft.<br />

The harvest of ponderosa pine was not tied to the harvest of lodgepole pine. The ponderosa pine<br />

harvest was constrained to stay within 20% of the historic 10 year average harvest of ponderosa pine<br />

of 63.5 MMBF.<br />

In the Forest Plan, ponderosa pine harvest was maintained at the highest level possible while meeting<br />

other resource needs and applying uneven-aged management techniques.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 11-102, Table 11-3B. Under outputs/effects on timber resource, it says, 'Forest's response to pine<br />

beetle infestation - future stands not managed to minimize risk of future epidemics." It is difficult to<br />

understand why not! The tremendous problems the Forest faces today in LP management were set up<br />

because managers of the past said the same thing: PI don't want to deal with it.' What is the reasoning?<br />

Why are we so willing to let the problems continue to manage us? Are we allowed to forego our<br />

responsibility as Forest land managers by neglecting our lodgepole Forest, except to react in a beetle<br />

epidemic?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The lodgepole pine is a small tree that is expensive to log, and in old mills designed to cut mature<br />

ponderosa pine, was very expensive to cut into products. Timber industry simply would not buy large<br />

quantities of small lodgepole pine logs.<br />

During the last ten years, this situation has changed. Mechanized logging and saw mills designed<br />

specifically to mill small logs has made it possible to profitably harvest lodgepole pine. We can now<br />

sell the lodgepole pine, but only at a fraction of the value of large logs. This low value makes it so it<br />

isn't reasonable to make very large investments in lodgepole pine management. But with technology<br />

already available to handle small logs, the harvest of future lodgepole pine stands will be scheduled to<br />

minimize loses. Harvests can start well in advance of the time of expected mortality.<br />

Comment<br />

Harvest the ones that are very badly infested and spray the rest. There is no need to harvest those<br />

that can be 'cured.' If you don't spray now, everything will be infested.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is no pesticide with a label for general treatment of the mountain pine beetle. Carbaryl is labeled<br />

for basal treatment of individual trees but it would not be practical for an entire Forest.<br />

The only reasonable treatment for mountain pine beetle is to keep the Forest healthy and growing fast.<br />

K - 35

Comment<br />

A final comment with regard to the lodgepole pine/bark beetle dilemma is that the Forest Plan is quite<br />

short-sighted in attacking this problem. The preferred alternative does not attempt to control future<br />

outbreaks of the pest through stand improvement techniques that are included in other alternatives. It<br />

would be far better stewardship of the Forest to put more energies into the long term health of lodgepole<br />

pine stands at the slight cost of not being able to harvest all of the present beetle kill while it is still<br />

merchantable.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The section in Chapter IV of the DEIS and FEIS on Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Pests, Insects,<br />

analyzes how well each alternative prevents future mountain pine mortality in lodgepole pine.<br />

While only 22% of the lodgepole pine working groups receives full stocking level, all but 22% receives<br />

some stocking level control. This level of stocking level control will not prevent all loses to mountain<br />

pine beetle, but under managed conditions where demand exists for this material, we would not expect<br />

the epidemic to be as severe as we now experience. Harvest will start before widespread mortality<br />

exists and that should keep future mountain pine beetle loses proportional to the values at risk.<br />

Comment<br />

Most of the Ponderosa pine is beetle infested now. It should be cut while it is still green.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The mountain pine beetle is a native insect. It exists in all pine stands at very low population levels as<br />

long as the stand is healthy and vigorous. Most of the ponderosa pine stands on the Winema are<br />

healthy and vigorous so we would not expect an epidemic of mountain pine beetle in the ponderosa<br />

pine stands as now is occurring in the lodgepole pine.<br />

The Winema is experiencing high mortality in ponderosa pine, which is intermingled with large areas of<br />

lodgepole pine. The Forest has been selling the most susceptible stands of ponderosa pine to minimize<br />

loses and that practice will continue as needed.<br />

Comment<br />

I understand you are looking for a way to control the mountain pine bark beetle which presently infests<br />

overcrowded lodgepole stands. I personally have no suggestion. But, I recently met several entomologists<br />

from U.C. Berkeley who specifically study bark beetles. Perhaps if you contacted the University, they<br />

could be of some assistance.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema works closely with the Forest Service, State and Private Forestry units, which provide<br />

entomologists for our area. They work closely with Forest Service Research entomologists and<br />

entomologists from colleges and universities.<br />

Comment<br />

I would like more informational yignage - to explain the lodgepole pine infestation and consequently<br />

the harvesting and clearing of infected trees. Please coordinate with Deschutes National Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has not developed a plan for informational signing for the mountain pine beetle situation.<br />

This will be given additional consideration.<br />

Comment<br />

It would also be well to heed nature's warning - Paul Keen has said that immature Ponderosa pine is<br />

also susceptible to attack by the Mountain Pine Beetle. There is this hazard in pure, even-age Ponderosa<br />

pine management regeneration. In the past, in the selection Ponderosa pine forest, the Western Pine<br />

Beetles and their potential onslaught have formulated silvicultural practices - and, they may continue<br />

to do so!<br />

K - 36

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Mountain pine beetle kills trees when the stands become overstocked and the growth rate on trees<br />

over seven inches in diameter drops to a level that the tree is no longer healthy enough to fend off the<br />

attack. This is not dependent on the silvicultural system being used but from the lack of stocking level<br />

control in either system. Overstocked and over mature pine stands are very susceptible to insect mortality.<br />

See Chapter IV, DEIS and FEIS, Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Pests for additional information<br />

Comment<br />

Your outbreak of Mountain Pine Beetle is unfortunate, but these things tend to be cyclic, and I hope<br />

that you will not be using any organo-phosphates or chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide to control<br />

them. Are there any biological controls?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No insecticides are planned to be used on the mountain pine beetle. The only pesticide available must<br />

be used as a trunk spray and it simply isn't feasible to spray each tree trunk in a forest.<br />

There are no biological controls available, but silvicultural practices that keep the Forest vigorous are<br />

very effective preventing mortality from mountain pine beetle. See Chapter IV, DEIS and FEIS, Effects<br />

of the Alternatives on Forest Pests for additional information.<br />

Comment<br />

The problem comes when we see that this good site being nonproductive. Let's put this area and<br />

others like it back into production - the sooner the better. We realize that some of this area is being<br />

brought back into production but let's finish the job once and for all. In its present state, the only value<br />

here is for wildlife habitat. Yet, in a few years, this habitat will begin to deteriorate when the snags<br />

begin to fall to the ground. Not only will the wildlife habitat be lost but a new crop of trees won't be<br />

established and a high fire hazard will be created. Heaven forbid, but if a fire should ever get into a<br />

dense area of dead material like that at Sellers Marsh, it would burn so hot and move so fast through<br />

the area that it would more than likely destroy the already managed smaller areas as well as get into<br />

the higher value ponderosa pine stand types - and then where will we be?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is important to keep the Forest productive for timber, but it is also important to maintain the Forest's<br />

productivity for other resources. The Forest Plan is to harvest the dead and dying lodgepole pine as<br />

quickly as possible, while maintaining wildlife habitat at an acceptable level. There is definitely a trade-off<br />

of some timber production potential to maintain an acceptable level of wildlife habitat, but on the other<br />

hand the wildlife habitat is also not being managed at an optimum level. The Forest Plan is designed<br />

to be an acceptable compromise between the two competing resources.<br />

A large fire is a definite possibility. The Forest Plan has been designed to salvage as much of the dead<br />

lodgepole pine as possible in the plan period to minimize this risk and to salvage as much of the value<br />

as possible.<br />

Comment<br />

The prescription would include leaving 2 dead snags per acre, removing the rest of the dead material<br />

and site preparation for artificial regeneration of genetically superior lodgepole pine. The advantages<br />

to our prescription are: (1) puts high site areas back into production quickly; (2) enhances wildlife<br />

habitat in the long term; (3) alleviates a very high fire hazard; and (4) most cost effective.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree with your concept of regenerating the dead lodgepole pine as quickly as possible and enhancing<br />

long term wildlife habitat while being cost effective.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS states that Alternative E is the only alternative that harvests sufficient lodgepole pine in the<br />

first decade to minimize the risk of timber losses to the mountain pine beetle, however it also states<br />

K -37

that .'..Alternatives B and C are the only alternatives with sufficient stocking level control in lodgepole<br />

pine to prevent future timber losses from mountain pine beetle mortality." (page IV-37). More detail<br />

should be provided on how the current mountain pine beetle epidemic will be addressed by the different<br />

alternatives and how the different management applications will prevent or promote future outbreaks of<br />

this insect, as well as other insects, diseases and parasitic plants associated with the forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This section on Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Pests was rewritten as you suggested.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema should provide additional information in the final EIS to demonstrate that the timber yield<br />

tables utilized in FORPLAN have adequately addressed the effect of both current and potential future<br />

insect damage on timber inventory, growth, and mortality throughout the planning horizon.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Adjustments to the yield tables are presented in Yield Table Adjustment for FORPLAN in Managed<br />

Yield Tables for Land and Resource Management Planning on the Winema National Forest, Volume 1,<br />

pages 8 and 9, and in Uneven-aged Managed Yield Tables for Land and Resource Management Planning<br />

on the Winema National Forest, pages 4 through 8. The entire Yield Table process is described in<br />

Timber Yield Tables, in Appendix B.<br />

The timber inventory process and empirical yield table generator measures the current growth and<br />

mortality and then projects the current standing inventory into future. This process adjusts future yields<br />

of existing stands for insects, disease, and operational fall downs. The lodgepole pine mortality was<br />

redetermined in 1988, and the lodgepole pine empirical yields were revised based on the actual measured<br />

mortality.<br />

The uneven-aged management yield tables were originally stand table projections. These yield tables<br />

were recalculated during 1988, using the Southern Oregon Northern California version of the PROGNOSIS<br />

model. This model was calibrated to the Winema National Forest using forest inventory data and local<br />

research data.<br />

K - 38

Mule Deer/Big Game<br />

Comment<br />

Adequate protection of deer and elk habitat must be assured. Wildlife biologists, including Forest Service<br />

Staff biologists, estimate that this would require preservation of 40% of these animal's ranges, as well<br />

as reducing the road density in their ranges. The current road densities are already too high at 3-->4<br />

miles per square mile vs. the 1.5->2 mile figure given by wildlife biologists as required.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan are designed to maintain habitat<br />

effectiveness for deer summer range and improve habitat on deer winter range.<br />

Comment<br />

Is it really true that there are more deer than ever before in the history in Winema Forest?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

To answer this question, one must qualify what period or how far back in history you are referencing.<br />

Early historical accounts of explorers and settlers in the early 19th century indicate low populations<br />

throughout the West, with increases and drops documented through the 1930's. In the mid-1 950's to<br />

early 1960's populations throughout the West were phenomenally high including the area encompassing<br />

the Winema. Those levels were too high for ranges to sustain and much key range was damaged and<br />

populations crashed. Most populations have returned to levels the present habitat can support.<br />

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has set Management Objectives (MO) for numbers<br />

of deer on various ranges. Statistics from the ODFW indicate that populations on game management<br />

units of which the Winema N.F is part ranges from 36 to 104 percent of MO. The ODFW management<br />

objectives for game management units of which the Forest is part are summarized in Chapter 3 of the<br />

FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel that if deer habitat is the most important consideration on former reservation lands, that the National<br />

Forest should enter into cooperative land management plans with adjacent landowners, especially<br />

where winter range is the primary limiting factor. These plans should be designed to promote and<br />

establish quality deer winter range. Furthermore, I feel the National Forest should conduct track counts<br />

with the Klamath Tribe and ODFW to establish its own base for deer population status and trends, and<br />

design management plans to reverse the present downward trend. This is not discussed in the plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Guidelines specific for the deer winter range are designed to improve winter habitat. Mule deer habitat,<br />

population, and habitat relationships are addressed as monitoring needs. The Forest proposes to be a<br />

cooperator in studies that will clearly define the causes for mule deer decline in this area.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel that the Forest should put pressure on the State Fish and Game to restrict hunts in the Klamath<br />

and Sprague Units, and help establish quality hunting instead of the present volume hunting that is<br />

taking place. Also, I feel that the Forest should put pressure on the Klamath Tribe to enforce its game<br />

laws and to restrict the number of deer it allows its members to harvest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema N.F. provides input to the ODFW process to determine deer harvest. The deer harvest is<br />

set by the Oregon Game Commission using recommendations of ODFW biologists and the input provided<br />

by other agencies and private individuals. The Klamath Tribe also coordinates deer harvest with ODFW<br />

and ODFW hunting is designed with tribal needs in mind.<br />

K - 39

Comment<br />

Also, I feel that along with this a more active and visible law enforcement program between the Forest<br />

and the other concerned agencies should be taken. This issue is addressed but no action plan is<br />

made part of the forest plan that I can see. The apparent attitude is it's someone else's problem let<br />

them deal with it, I $on't feel that this attitude should be allowed to continue, and the Forest should<br />

take some steps that say I do care and I am going to do something about it. The present rate of harvesting<br />

of deer, timber, lack of law enforcement, and the removal of quality deer winter range is going to eliminate<br />

a viable deer population, and more fingers are going to be pointed at the Forest Service because of<br />

its lack of management, and potential legal actions will become even more of a reality.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Game violations are the jurisdiction of the ODFW and Oregon State Police. The Forest cooperates with<br />

the state by reporting any violations. The deer harvest is the jurisdiction of ODFW. The Forest has no<br />

jurisdiction over land uses on winter range outside the Forest boundary.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel that the Forest needs to beef up its staffing in the Wildlife, and this should include people with a<br />

range background that understand the importance of the forage component and the necessary<br />

management to keep the forage component in a state that provides quality forage for deer, elk, and<br />

antelope. Effective control on existing hunting pressure would eliminate the need to maintain expansive<br />

cover components and would eliminate the need to mitigate other agencies lack of enforcement of<br />

their game laws and regulations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest currently has seven Wildlife Biologists on staff at the Districts and Supervisor's Office. Some<br />

of these biologists are responsible for the range program on the Districts and the Forest and do understand<br />

the importance of the forage component.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan fails to consider necessary cover/forage ratio for mule deer or elk and dispersion standards<br />

in scheduling timber harvests in the first decade. These standards must be considered and the harvest<br />

rescheduled in the final plan. This is a particular concern on former reservation lands, but it appears to<br />

be a failing of the plan forestwide.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest-wide standards and guidelines for deer and elk habitat provide for a minimum of 30 percent of<br />

its area in cover distributed throughout its area. The standard and guideline for big game winter range<br />

requires a minimum of 30 percent cover with an objective of 50 percent cover. These requirements do<br />

not appear to constrain timber harvest in any decade.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan and DEIS project no variation in mule deer population among the alternatives, nor any change<br />

in population over time within any alternative. The explanation given for this assertion is that the population<br />

is dependent on off-forest winter range unaffected by forest management. The Tribe strongly questions<br />

the validity of this explanation. Even if the dependence on winter range were correct, the alternatives<br />

vary as to the amount of land managed as winter range. According to the Forest Service theory this<br />

should result in population changes, but none is shown.<br />

The Tribe asserts that other factors are at least as important as winter range in determining herd<br />

populations: quality and quantity of forage on summer ranges; fawning habitat; disturbance on migration<br />

routes; and the loss of winter range. The Forest must manage its lands for each of these factors. The<br />

forest plan should also provide protection for transition ranges, used instead of true winter range areas<br />

in mild winters.<br />

K - 40

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that other factors than just forage or just winter range have effects on mule deer population.<br />

We have recalculated populations based on the concepts of the Mule Deer Model. The Forest-wide<br />

standards and guidelines indicate that the Forest will manage its lands for forage quantity and quality<br />

to maintain at least the current number of deer on summer range. Migration routes have not been<br />

identified for which disturbance can be mitigated. The Forest will manage overall habitat capability<br />

including open roads density which contributes to disturbance to maintain at least current populations<br />

on summer range, and to improve on winter range. No losses of winter range acres are projected to<br />

occur on the Forest. Forest standards and guidelines require an increase of habitat capability on identified<br />

winter ranges. The Forest is managing for summer range and winter range conditions, not specifically<br />

for transition range.<br />

Comment<br />

Deer populations and habitat are issues of vital importance to the Tribe. Too many timber sales have<br />

been appealed in large part because of inadequate consideration of deer and tribal rights. The Forest<br />

Service must begin to recognize the gravity of the situation and the serious nature of the Tribes concern<br />

and its own responsibility to the Tribe.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest recognizes its mandated responsibility per the Consent Decree with the Klamath Tribe to<br />

provide for subsistence hunting opportunity for deer.<br />

Comment<br />

The planned departure in the lodgepole working group on the Chiloquin district could have devastating<br />

effects on deer habitat. The discussion in the plan fails to acknowledge the need to protect fawning<br />

habitat, and to apply forage/cover ratios, and dispersion standards. It appears that the planned harvest<br />

volume far exceeds that which can physically be harvested if these resource needs and management<br />

standards are applied and natural regeneration of the stands is planned. These conflicts must be disclosed<br />

throughout the plan and planned harvests reduced to account for application of the standards and<br />

guidelines.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 8: Riparian Areas has been increased to include all riparian areas. Standards and<br />

guidelines for this management area have been modified to protect deer fawning habitat. Outside<br />

riparian areas, the emphasis in lodgepole pine will be to harvest the dead as quickly as possible while<br />

leaving green trees to provide some measure of cover. Forest-wide standards and guidelines allow<br />

short-term reductions of cover to 15 percent of an area if reductions below the 30 percent standard<br />

will provide long-term benefits for deer. This standard does not appear to constrain harvest projections<br />

in lodgepole pine.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan fails to disclose whether or not the Forest Service intends to manage for elk habitat. Past<br />

management activities, by design or default, have created elk forage at the expense of deer forage. If<br />

the Forest intends to manage for elk, it should develop standards and guidelines which adequately<br />

address the relationship between the deer and elk and disclose the effects on deer of managing for<br />

elk. Even if the Forest intends not to manage for elk, it must address their presence on the forest and<br />

their effect on deer populations and habitat. Abdication of responsibility by failing to address the issue<br />

is unacceptable.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS and Forest Plan have been altered to state that the Forest will not specifically manage for elk<br />

habitat except for currently identified calving areas (on the Klamath District) or calving areas as they<br />

are identified. Elk are recognized to occur on the Forest. Their effect on deer populations is not known.<br />

K - 41

Comment<br />

The habitat management standards and guidelines should be related to and consistent with herd<br />

management objectives, while accounting for existing conditions. For example, if optimum cover/forage<br />

ratios are obtained and sustained in mule deer summer range, the Forest will need to provide additional<br />

winter ranges to support the level of deer that optimum summer range habitat can support. The road<br />

density standard equates with 90% habitat effectiveness, but the forage/cover ratio equates with 100%<br />

habitat effectiveness, if achieved. The plan needs to declare the Forest Service's intention to manage<br />

for a specific goal and use a consistent approach to reach it.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has identified the objective to maintain deer habitat in at least current condition on the<br />

summer range, and to improve deer habitat on the winter range. All factors such as cover/forage<br />

conditions, open roads, water distribution, etc. will be considered in evaluation of management activities.<br />

Comment<br />

The table on page 11-145 of the DEIS shows 0 acres managed for fawning habitat in the no change<br />

and no action alternatives. The Forest previously has agreed to the application of lodgepole standards<br />

and guidelines which provide for management for 5% of cover as fawning cover. This agreement should<br />

be reflected in this table.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This section of the EIS has been rewritten.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan fails to refer to the Interagency Technical Advisory Committee mule deer model. The model<br />

should be cited and used in the Forest's monitoring plan to determine the effects of the plan's<br />

implementation on mule deer populations and habitat. The plan should specify which model and version<br />

it cites.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The concepts and factors identified in the Interagency Technical Advisory Committee mule deer model<br />

are now identified as factors to be considered. The Forest will monitor the factors identified in the model<br />

to determine habitat condition for mule deer. The Forest does not agree that the TAC model provides<br />

an adequate projection of the interactions between habitat conditions and mule deer populations.<br />

Comment<br />

We are extremely concerned about your management objectives for mule deer. The Forest projects a<br />

mule deer output which is nearly 30 percent below the ODFW planning benchmark for the Forest; the<br />

same output (11,000 mule deer) is projected across all alternatives through all decades. This does not<br />

produce a sufficient range of alternatives, nor does it meet ODFW management goals. You should<br />

either document more completely why changes in habitat under the different alternatives have little or<br />

no impact on mule deer numbers or provide information on the benefits and costs of more nearly achieving<br />

the ODFW management goal for mule deer.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Estimates of deer populations have been redeveloped using the concepts of the TAC model. They<br />

now vary across the alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW does not agree with your assumption that deer numbers are directly related to available forage<br />

production. The impacts of management activities such as timber, roads, and grazing should be part<br />

of the evaluation of impacts on mule deer populations. The forest should provide a measurable index<br />

of change expected in mule deer numbers, productivity, and survival. This index needs to reflect changes<br />

in habitat effectiveness that would result with the implementation of each alternative.<br />

K -42

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest recognizes that other factors such as cover, open roads, water distribution, livestock<br />

competition, cover and forage distribution and juxtaposition, predation, disease, tribal and sport hunting,<br />

poaching, winter range encroachment on private lands, and weather severity all influence deer<br />

populations. We have redeveloped our estimates of deer population using the concepts of the TAC<br />

model.<br />

Comment<br />

The evaluation of habitat effectiveness for deer and elk needs to be applied to an area smaller than<br />

the entire Forest, such as specific geographic subdivisions of the Forest that ODFW describes as<br />

permanent monitoring units.' According to ODFW, the Forest's monitoring effort, using a combination<br />

of analysis zones, analysis areas, TRI compartments, and management areas may meet this objective,<br />

but this needs to be demonstrated more completely.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Monitoring is described in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan. Habitat effectiveness will be monitored on<br />

smaller areas.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW is extremely concerned with the lack of acknowledgement to mule deer management objectives<br />

and elk benchmarks that were provided to the Forest in 1980 (see DEIS, Chapter 3 comments). The<br />

Forest projects a mule deer output which is nearly 30 percent below ODFW planning benchmark for<br />

the Forest; the same output (11,000 mule deer) is projected across all alternatives through all decades.<br />

The Forest's assumption that deer numbers are directly related to available forage production is not<br />

valid. The impacts of management activities such as timber, roads, and grazing needs to be part of<br />

the evaluation of consequences to mule deer populations. The Forest needs to provide a measurable<br />

index of change expected in mule deer numbers, productivity, and survival. This index needs to reflect<br />

changes in habitat effectiveness that would result with the implementation of each alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have rewritten much of the EIS and Forest Plan in consideration of your comments.<br />

Comment<br />

Elk are present on the Forest. Although no formal objectives are established, management direction is<br />

in place under ODFW regulations. Elk need to be included as a management indicator species. The<br />

elk habitat effectiveness model, which has greater sensitivity to cover and open-road density, must be<br />

used to evaluate elk habitat conditions. ODFW will provide the Forest with a map of areas recommended<br />

for elk/deer management emphasis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Since this response, ODFW and the Forest Service are cooperating in an Elk Study in south-central<br />

Oregon to determine the population dynamics and distribution of elk in the area. Until the results of<br />

this study are evaluated the Forest will manage to protect elk calving areas currently identified and<br />

that may be identified through project area analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest's delineation of winter range agrees with that of ODFWs. The Forest needs to delineate the<br />

important transition range bordering the upper limits of winter range. Transition range in the fall has a<br />

significant bearing on big game body condition for winter survival. Management direction for transition<br />

range needs to support a diverse and thrifty shrub component intermixed with areas of cover.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest decision has been to not delineate transition range.<br />

K -43

Comment<br />

The conversion of 74.2 percent of mature lodgepole pine stands in two decades will have significant<br />

long term impacts on cover-forage ratios for big game, and habitat diversity for wildlife in general. The<br />

Management Standards for lodgepole pine.., September 1986' provides a basis to minimize impacts<br />

on wildlife. Dead lodgepole stands provide big game cover, although It is not of optimum quality, and<br />

provide feeding and nesting habitat for no-game wildlife. Proposed rapid liquidation of timber stands<br />

would have a significant effect on diversity of plant and animal species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest will harvest dead lodgepole as quickly as possible often leaving the green component for<br />

some level of cover. Minimum standards for cover to 15% of an area may be justified to provide long-term<br />

benefits for deer. Snags will be managed at the 40% potential population level for cavity nesters. Riparian<br />

areas in lodgepole pine will be managed to provide for fawning habitat. These standards are felt adequate<br />

to maintain deer use of the areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Well-distributed cover in management area (MA) 12 is essential to assure maintenance of hunting<br />

recreation visitor days (RVD) and to meeting ODFW management unit buck ratio objectives. Stable<br />

cover conditions in the timber management areas is desired and can be accomplished by using<br />

appropriate harvest dispersion rates. Assuming regeneration is successful, cover would be dominant<br />

on timber management lands. Silvicultural treatments that eliminate cover should be limited to those<br />

areas with an excess of 40 percent well-distributed cover.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest-wide standards and guidelines have been developed to maintain a minimum of 30% of the Forest<br />

area in cover for deer. An exception of short-term decrease in cover to 15% if justified to provide long-term<br />

benefits for deer is provided. These standards apply to all vegetation manipulation activities including<br />

silvicultural treatments.<br />

Comment<br />

The evaluation of habitat effectiveness for deer and elk needs to be applied to an area of less than<br />

10,000 acres. This area needs to be a permanent 'monitoring unit for evaluating the effects of roading<br />

and harvest dispersion on big game over time. ODFW will refer to 'monitoring units' a number of times<br />

in this document. The Forest's monitoring effort, using a combination of analysis zones, analysis areas,<br />

TRI compartments, and management areas may meet Our objective of less than 10,000 acres; but this<br />

needs to be demonstrated.<br />

The monitoring units should govern the blending of harvest prescriptions and open road density. The<br />

bounds of monitoring units should not extend more than one-quarter mile onto adjacent unavailable or<br />

unsuitable lands providing a cover or forage credit.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

For mule deer habitat monitoring the Forest proposes the use of implementation areas which range<br />

from 8,000 acres to 50,000 acres. Management areas will overlap the implementation areas in most<br />

cases.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-57. Mule Deer (Add: and Elk)<br />

Elk need to be included as an indicator species along with mule deer. The 1987 population estimate<br />

for elk was 1550 animals. The ODFW management strategy for elk on the Forest is slow population<br />

growth in areas with little or no conflict potential on private lands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Species are chosen as management indicators to represent featured species or ecological indicators.<br />

Elk, a hunted animal, could possibly be a featured species. However, its significance as a hunted animal<br />

is low compared to mule deer. On the Winema N.F. elk would not be a good ecological indicator. Ecological

indicators are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of<br />

management on other species. Elk are believed to be expanding range and population in this area<br />

and would indicate little change due to management activities. Several agencies are cooperating in an<br />

elk study in this area to determine their distribution and population dynamics.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-57. Mule Deer (Add: and Elk)<br />

The Forest has incorrectly acknowledge ODFW planning data that was provided in 1980. In 1981, the<br />

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted winter deer populations and buck ratio management<br />

objectives (MO). The Forest's portion of the MOs are referred to as benchmarks. The Forest needs to<br />

include the following information in the discussion on big game.<br />

Mule Deer Management Objectives<br />

(Winter)<br />

Unit Total Door Forest Allocation<br />

Sprague<br />

Klamath falls<br />

2,200<br />

6,200<br />

1,000<br />

400<br />

Keno 1,900<br />

TOTAL 10,300 1,400<br />

On-Forest Summer Benchmarks<br />

Unit Total Door Forest Allocation<br />

Fort Rock<br />

Silver Lake<br />

500 3,600<br />

2,000<br />

Klamath Falls 1,900<br />

Sprague 60 5,800<br />

Keno 250 2,000<br />

TOTAL 810 15,300<br />

The Forest's estimate of deer is 12,800 adults, ODFW benchmark for the Forest is 15,300 adults, and<br />

the Forest's projected output is 11,000 deer.<br />

Deer transition range should be addressed in this section.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Then 1988 ODFW Management Objectives for game management units are summarized in Chapter 3.<br />

Management objectives for elk have not been developed for this area.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-28. Wildlife and Fish Program<br />

(Bottom of Page). The herd management objectives should be stated here.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Herd management objectives are displayed in Chapter 3 as part of the description of the existing condition.<br />

K - 45

Comment<br />

PP IV40.<br />

8. Disturbance of elk calving areas should be avoided from May 1 to July 15.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A Forest-wide standard and guideline states that road access will be restricted and human activities<br />

discouraged between May 1 and June 30 in areas identified as traditional elk calving.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV.44. Mule Deer<br />

Mule Deer. The Forest's ability to support 11,000 mule deer is based on forage production. The use of<br />

forage as an indices for deer production is misleading. The Forest must also consider the impacts<br />

from a loss of cover and the impacts of open roads on mule deer populations and habitat effectiveness.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have done this.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-45.<br />

(Top of Page). The nutrient value of forage is important to a healthy deer population. The true value of<br />

quality forage needs to be assessed using all of the components of habitat effectiveness (i.e., cover,<br />

roading, spacing).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have done this.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-45.<br />

Paragraph 1. The last two sentences are incorrect. It should be stated that a majority of the present<br />

deer herd uses winter range off the Forest. Should other winter ranges be destroyed or further reduced,<br />

deer will not move to different winter ranges. The winter range on the Forest is viable and needs to be<br />

maintained or improved with the goal of increasing wintering deer to management objectives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We plan to manage nearly all winter range to contribute to our share of the ODFW Management Objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-45.<br />

(Paragraph 2). Intensive timber management on even-aged regeneration can also reduce forage<br />

availability. Harvest activities and site preparation can eliminate much of the bitterbrush component of<br />

a site, and recovery of the bitterbrush is extremely slow.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree.<br />

Comment<br />

D-9.<br />

7.b. Seventy percent cover is a good standard. The cover needs to be well distributed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

On-the-ground surveys during 1989 by Forest personnel indicate that 70% cover is unattainable in<br />

ponderosa pine stands. The Prognosis model also indicates that 70% cover is not achievable in ponderosa<br />

pine stands.<br />

K -46

Comment<br />

D-10.<br />

1.a. Deer winter and transition ranges need to be considered when deciding an appropriate season of<br />

use.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See previous responses regarding transition range and the delineation of deer winter range.<br />

Comment<br />

D-10.<br />

6. The Forest's definition of 'created opening does not specify a standard for when the opening is no<br />

longer a created opening. The standard should be for big game cover characteristics. For elk/deer<br />

areas the standard needs to be 10 feet tall. In deer-only areas the standard needs to be 5 feet tall.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A harvest area shall no longer be considered a created opening for silvcultural purposes when stocking<br />

surveys carried out in accordance with Regional instruction indicate prescribed crop tree stocking at<br />

or above 4.5 feet in height and ree to grow. Where other resource management considerations are<br />

limiting, such as wildlife habitat and scenic requirements, a created opening shall no longer be considered<br />

an opening when the vegetation in it meets the management area presciption objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

D-92.<br />

Objectives No. 1. Add well distributed' to this standard.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These objectives have been rewritten.<br />

Comment<br />

D-93.<br />

Standards and Guidelines need to address transition range.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See previous comments regarding transition range.<br />

Comment<br />

Your assessment of deer outputs is below acceptable levels. You should meet long term ODFW MOs.<br />

In order to do that you will have to develop more sophisticated tools for assessing habitat. You address<br />

big game habitat in terms of cover and forage. In fact, much of what you have identified as one or the<br />

other component fails to really meet the definition of either. Forage needs to be addressed in terms of<br />

a nutritional quality index. Bare ground would meet your definition of forage. Likewise, an area with<br />

trees isn't necessarily meeting cover requirements. We ask that you assess the quality of both of these<br />

components of habitat and rewrite this section of the plan in terms of current quality of habitat and<br />

projected quality and quantity of habitat by alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have redeveloped our population estimates based upon the concepts of the TAC model.<br />

K - 47

Other Comments<br />

Comment<br />

I am in favor of full ElSs done on all Forest projects.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

FSM 1950 contains the national direction which describes the type of environmental analysis which is<br />

necessary for Forest Service proposed actions. Briefly summarized, this direction indicates that<br />

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) will be prepared to document the results of analysis of major<br />

Federal actions that will significantly affect the human environment (40 CFR 1502.3). Most Forest projects<br />

are not classified as major Federal actions and the analysis is documented in an Environmental<br />

Assessment or categorically excluded from documentation. Copies of the direction are available at any<br />

Forest Office. Copies of Environmental Assessments are available for review at the office of the<br />

Responsible Official for the analysis. Direction regarding environmental analysis is also contained in<br />

the Forest Plan, Chapter V, Page 2. Also, refer to the discussion on project level planning in the DEIS,<br />

Chapter I, Pages 1-3 through 1-5. This discusses the concept of 'tiering" of project level planning and<br />

environmental analysis with the approved Environmental Impact Statement and Approved Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Are aesthetics ever a primary concern in Forestry Decisions?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes. Concern for and consideration of aesthetics is required and discussed in many sections of the<br />

Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan. The National Forest Management Act Regulations,<br />

which apply to all management practices, requires that practices be evaluated and monitored to protect<br />

aesthetic values. In reviewing the Forest Management Goals, Desired Future Condition, and Standards<br />

and Guidelines in Appendix D, and in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan, you will find numerous examples<br />

of management direction and requirements which directly relate to protection and enhancement of<br />

aesthetic values. Aesthetic concerns and values have been and will continue to be evaluated in project<br />

level environmental analysis. There have been numerous examples of project design and mitigation<br />

measures used specifically for the purpose of protecting or enhancement of aesthetic values.<br />

Comment<br />

As shown on the attached map, the Winema National Forest is subject to military overflights in the<br />

form of low-level training missions. Inasmuch as low-level overflights do have the potential to disrupt<br />

the solitude and naturalness of areas directly under their flight paths, we recommend you include<br />

consideration of such activities in your discussion and decision-making process. Within that context,<br />

we further recommend you consider location, altitude, and frequency of flights.<br />

Areas which are appropriate for military overflights and low altitude training routes are becoming<br />

increasingly rare. In selecting overflight training routes, the Air Force must consider mission requirements<br />

and fuel costs as well as environmental constraints. Ideally, training routes are located within areas<br />

which: are relatively isolated, have diverse topography and minimal commercial activity, maintain sparse<br />

human populations, and contain lands under federal jurisdiction. It is obvious that these characteristics<br />

are also desirable to a large degree with National Forests and potential wilderness areas. Therefore,<br />

even though the Winema National Forest is subject to air training activities, the Air Force generally<br />

supports your Land and Resource Management Plan provided such a proposal, and subsequent<br />

management thereof, does not restrict use of the airspace for military overflights.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service Manual, Part 2326.03 (3) states as policy,nDiscourage flights over wilderness with<br />

2,000 feet of the ground surface, except in emergencies or for essential military missions. (The Federal<br />

Aviation Administration (FAA) has agreed to and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<br />

(NOAA) has posted, for the FAA, a 2,000 foot over terrain flight advisory on appropriate aeronautical<br />

charts. Specific legislative provisions regarding overflight pertain to certain wildernesses.) Cooperate<br />

K-48

with the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, military<br />

authorities, and with local pilots to promote compliance with the 2,000 foot limit, to keep aeronautical<br />

charts current, and to reduce low level flight.' These are the only restrictions on overflights over National<br />

Forest Administered Lands.<br />

Comment<br />

Why not send literature out to people showing both sides equally (not one-sided).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Draft Environmental Analysis and Proposed Forest Plan was sent to the Public for Review and<br />

Comments. It displays 10 alternatives, reflecting a full range of resource uses and values, which were<br />

evaluated in detail. These documents display the comparisons and environmental effects and<br />

consequences of each alternative. Refer also to Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 11, Pages<br />

11-3 and 11-4, which discusses the alternative development process.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel that the Forest Supervisor must take personal responsibility for management taken on the Winema.<br />

In the final, I want to see the Supervisor's personal professional commitment to management action he<br />

recommends in the preferred alternative as it will be finally implemented.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Record Of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement documents the Regional Foresters'<br />

decision regarding management of the Winema to meet our agency's multiple use mission. It is the<br />

Regional Forester's responsibility to see that the Forest Supervisor carries out that decision.<br />

Comment<br />

We recommend that the dispersion constraint operate against both the suitable and non-suitable land<br />

use.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The dispersion constraint was applied only to suitable lands and was found not to affect anything.<br />

Adding unsuitable lands wouldn't change the situation at all.<br />

Comment<br />

The Cannon Well and Cherry Creek Basin proposed RNAs are both fully deserving and appropriate<br />

candidates for designation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The plan designates Cannon Well, 853 acres and Cherry Creek, 1065 acres, as RNAs.<br />

Comment<br />

It seems highly likely that additional RNA community cells or other sites appropriate for inclusion in the<br />

RNA system can be located on the Winema National Forest. We urge you to identify this necessary<br />

ongoing inventory in your Information Needs section in the final LRMP.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Potential research natural areas on the Winema National Forest were identified in the publication Guide<br />

to Research Natural Area Needs for Planning area 40(USDA Forest Service 1980). The FEIS and Final<br />

Forest Plan reflects the designation or expansion of these identified needs.<br />

Comment<br />

The WNF is clearly a Forest that should actively research and consider designation of geological RNAs,<br />

due to the variety and complexity of the geology of the mountains of south-central Oregon region.<br />

K - 49

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Research Natural Areas are part of a national network of reserved areas that include an array of North<br />

American ecosystems. Unusual geological features can be managed under special interest area<br />

designation. Geological features on the Winema National Forest are not uncommon to the eastern<br />

Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Potential research natural areas on the Winema National Forest were<br />

identified in the publication 'Guide to Research Natural Area Needs for Planning area 42(USDA Forest<br />

Service 1980). The FEIS and Final Forest Plan reflects the designation or expansion of these identified<br />

needs.<br />

Comment<br />

We recommend a specific set of guidelines for restricting recreational and commercial exploitation of<br />

RNAs. In general, recreational activities that cause any amount of resource degradation are not<br />

appropriate in RNAs. Camping and open fires should be specifically prohibited to prevent vegetative<br />

destruction. The collection of native plants and their seeds and parts without a scientifically based<br />

collection permit should be specifically prohibited. Construction of additional permanent trails in RNAs<br />

should be prohibited. We especially recommend specific S&Gs prohibiting ORVs and snowmobiles<br />

and the closing of the RNAs to firewood cutting.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management direction for Research Natural Areas is established in Management Area 13: Research<br />

Natural Areass of the Forest Plan. Although some activities are allowed, generally, nothing is permitted<br />

that would significantly reduce the research or educational values for which the area is designated.<br />

The Standards and Guidelines for Research Natural Areas, contained in the Draft Forest Plan, Pages<br />

IV-125 through IV-127 contain your recommended set of standards and guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

Provide a discussion of the effects of noxious weed introductions on native plants, including the role of<br />

domestic livestock, ORVs, and other recreational activities in such introductions. We could find no<br />

mention of this important effect in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion has been expanded. Please refer to Chapter III of the FEIS, in the Section on Forest<br />

Pests-Noxious Weeds and Competing Vegetation and also refer to the effects discussed in Chapter IV<br />

of the FEIS, in the Section on Effects of the Alternatives on Vegetation.<br />

Comment<br />

We would also like to point out that none of these roadless areas, or any of the others on the Forest,<br />

appear to have been adequately censured for the presence of Sensitive Plant species. This should be<br />

remedied.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 111-4 of the DEIS presents the Pacific Northwest Region's October 1986 revised list of plants<br />

considered sensitive and that have been documented as or are suspected of appearing on the Forest.<br />

These plants are also listed in 'Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregonw(Nature<br />

Conservancy 1985). Also, inventory and consideration of sensitive species is part of any site specific<br />

projects conducted on the Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

The Plan should also provide standards for wastewater systems. We request that the following language<br />

be added to the forest-wide standards section beginning on page IV-36 of the proposed Plan: OSewage<br />

treatment and disposal facilities shall be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality or its<br />

contract agents and shall be in compliance with rules of the Environmental Quality Commission.*<br />

K- 50

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A standard similar to the your proposed standard for wastewater systems has been added to the FEIS<br />

and Forest Plan. Please refer to Chapter 4- Forest Management Direction- Forestwide Standards and<br />

Guidelines and to Appendix D of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Throughout the DEIS and LRMP, you refer to proposed actions that may or may not occur depending<br />

on budget constraints. While the general discussion of budget constraints is useful, OSDF and the<br />

State Economist wish you would address more specifically the likelihood of funding availability for the<br />

proposed actions and the impact on Forest resources i expected funding does not materialize.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The alternatives have been developed to be realistic in their capability of being funded. Also, the annual<br />

and out-year planning and budgeting process sets priorities should full funding not be available. However,<br />

we cannot predict the likelihood of the funding levels that will be available. These budget levels are set<br />

by Congress and the final budget levels depend on many factors. Also, an individual forests capital<br />

investment projects compete Nationally for funding. The effects of reduced funding levels would be<br />

monitored and evaluated in accordance with Chapter V of the Forest Plan, The implementation and<br />

monitoring section, Chapter V of the Forest Plan, has been revised to add clarity and detail to the<br />

budget discussion.<br />

Most of the information you list in the planning records in one form or another. We have mapped riparian<br />

areas and will be refining that data as the Forest Plan is implemented. The Standards and Guidelines<br />

in the Forest Plan (Chapter 4) include provisions which address the riparian allotment area, Forest<br />

access, wildlife and many other concerns. We are currently developing an old growth inventory and<br />

will use that information to specifically locate Management Area 7 during plan implementation.<br />

Comment<br />

The following information is essential for a more thorough and site-specific evaluation of alternatives<br />

and needs to be provided:<br />

1. A map of riparian zones and their condition; rated according to 'Managing Riparian Ecosystems<br />

for Fish and Wildlife in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington," (1979);<br />

2. An overlay map showing the location of grazing allotments on the riparian zone map, with summary<br />

information by allotment on: management strategy, range condition and trend, overuse problems<br />

to resolve, existing and planned grazing season, livestock numbers and permitted AUM's,<br />

improvements planned, and schedule for implementation;<br />

3. Explicit information on methods to be used to effectively implement Forest access and travel<br />

management to protect natural resources and meet hunter/recreationist demands;<br />

4. A map delineating big game transition ranges with special management direction for these ranges;<br />

5. A map delineating elk habitat management areas with specific management direction for these<br />

areas; and<br />

6. A map of forest ecoclass and seral stage distribution showing old-growth habitat (by R-6 refined<br />

definitions) as an independent component of mature forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Much of this information is available in process records and other plans such as permittee allotment<br />

plans at the Forest Supervisor's Office.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-43. Significant Interactions.<br />

The discussion does not provide much information to the reader about the Forest. How have these<br />

interactions affected the various resources on the Forest? (DEIS 111-43).<br />

K - 51

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussions in chapter III of the DEIS that are titled 'Significant Interactions' were meant to indicate<br />

potential relationships between different components of the environment. The environmental effect are<br />

displayed and discussed in Chapters 11 and IV of the DEIS and in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-67.<br />

(Entire Page). See comment for 11-43. P.111-43. Significant Interactions. The discussion does not provide<br />

much information to the reader about the Forest. How have these interactions affected the various<br />

resources on the Forest? (DEIS 111-43).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussions in chapter III of the DEIS that are titled Significant Interactions were meant to indicate<br />

potential relationships between different components of the environment. The environmental effects<br />

are displayed and discussed in Chapters 11 and IV of the DEIS and FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-12.<br />

Did the Forest use the refined definitions of old growth found in the Regional Guide? (PP IV-12).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, the refined definitions were used.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP and DEIS discuss to some extent the rationale for eliminating an alternative that uses primarily<br />

uneven-aged management for all of the ponderosa pine working groups on the forest. An alternative<br />

similar to the preferred one, except for a non-declining flow of ponderosa pine, is also discussed but<br />

has been eliminated.<br />

Further discussion concerning the decision to not use an alternative that results in a non-declining<br />

flow over the long term of ponderosa pine should be included in the analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Final Plan, Alternative J, uses uneven-aged management throughout the Ponderosa Pine working<br />

group. We found that we could sustain a fairly high level of board foot production for 30 years with a<br />

decline thereafter as a result of conversion to uneven-aged stand structure. This is discussed in the<br />

FEIS and Record of Decision.<br />

Comment<br />

It appears that the Winema, unlike some other forests, still has the potential to mold an alternative that<br />

fully satisfies the Forest Program for Oregon objectives of, which the timber harvest targets are but<br />

one measure. The Forest is encouraged to construct such an alternative, incorporating the other<br />

recommendations in this review, and to provide an opportunity for public review.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have discussed the relationship of the Final Plan to the Forestry Program for Oregon in the FEIS<br />

and have worked closely with the State in developing the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The lack of economic parameters for monitoring the social and economic resources separately is a<br />

primary concern. It is also unacceptable that the decision to amend or revise the plan be based solely<br />

on a subjective judgement by the Forest Supervisor. Instead, all monitoring questions should be assigned<br />

specific variability standards.<br />

For example, if the appropriated budget for the forest prevents the Winema from providing at least 90<br />

percent of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) proposed by the plan, some degree of plan amendment<br />

K - 52

or revision should be considered. We suggest that monitoring questions which directly affect community<br />

stability, such as the species composition of the ASO, should be held to within a + or - 10 percent<br />

standard.<br />

In addition, several important economic criteria are missing entirely from the monitoring program. Changes<br />

in job numbers, personal income, returns to counties and the ASQ species composition should be<br />

monitored with a variability standard of 10 percent.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan) has been redeveloped with your comments in mind.<br />

We have included specific socioeconomic indicators and the thresholds of concern for each monitoring<br />

elements.<br />

K - 53

Pelican Butte<br />

Comment<br />

The plan should identify an acceptable access road corridor between bald eagle habitat areas on the<br />

east side of the butte.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Site specific road locations or road corridors are outside the scope of the overall Forest planning process.<br />

Road locations and road corridors will be evaluated during project specific environmental analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

We would hope changes to the proposed Forest plan would include increased land for skiing, i.e.,<br />

downhill and cross-country.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan maintains the option to develop a winter sports area on Pelican Butte. The current<br />

City of Klamath Falls development proposal includes facilities for both downhill and cross-country skiing.<br />

Additional cross- country trails and supporting sno-parks are scheduled for construction in the Activity<br />

Schedule Appendix in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel the boundary of the proposed winter recreational area on Pelican Butte within the Forest plan<br />

should be large enough to accommodate the growth potential that exists with Pelican Butte. Therefore,<br />

4,000 acres would be a minimum rather than the current proposal of 2,500 acres of land.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The area available for winter sports development and future expansion will be determined in a separate<br />

site-specific EIS. No limit is set in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

I believe that the proposed area should be expanded somewhat to include the northern and northeastern<br />

slopes so that the Pelican Butte ski area could accommodate cross-country as well as downhill skiing<br />

and would make the development more attractive.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This proposal is included in the current City of Klamath Falls development proposal being analyzed in<br />

a separate EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan should also identify an acceptable access road corridor between the bald eagle habitat areas<br />

on the eastern side of the butte and scenic management standards within and around the ski area<br />

should allow for the visual alteration that will accompany the development of a ski area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See the response to the first comment in this section.<br />

Comment<br />

However, in the event that the Forest decided to keep open the ski development option, the Sky Lakes-B<br />

roadless area should be classified, on an interim basis, as a Special Management Area to: (a) provide<br />

old growth habitat, primitive recreation opportunities and a natural appearing Forest environment; and,<br />

(b) to keep open the option of developing a downhill ski area on the mountain. This classification would<br />

allow for more flexibility and management options once a decision is reached whether a downhill ski<br />

area will be built. A better allocation of timber, wildlife and recreation resources will be possible at that<br />

time, and the plan indicates that such decision would probably be reached in the near future.<br />

K - 54

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A separate Management Area Intensity has been described for the Pelican Butte Area, including the<br />

Skylakes-B roadless area (see Forest Plan Chapter 4). This area will be managed for semiprimitive<br />

recreation while preserving the option for future recreation development, including a winter sports<br />

area. Undeveloped portions will continue to be managed for semiprimitive recreation and other compatible<br />

uses which preserve the roadless character of the area.<br />

Comment<br />

The development of Pelican Butte will fulfill the growing local and regional needs for winter recreation<br />

facilities and achieve badly needed diversification and expansion of the local economy, including<br />

significant new jobs and purchased goods and services.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Agreed.<br />

Comment<br />

If the ski area goes in near the Tule Marsh, please prohibit the use of motor boats there.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Currently the use of motorboats is not permitted outside the channels of Crystal and Recreation Creeks<br />

in the marsh area. Any proposal to change this would be subject to site specific environmental assessment<br />

and the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife Service which manages a large portion of this area as a<br />

Wildlife Refuge.<br />

Comment<br />

As a taxpayer and a WNF user, I urge you to support the city's project and to work with them in making<br />

what changes are necessary in your plan to allow the Pelican Butte winter recreation area to be completed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan preserves the option for future recreation development on Pelican Butte, including the<br />

current City proposal being analyzed in a separate EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

From a technical standpoint, the Butte can clearly provide a superior alpine and nordic skiing experience<br />

if properly developed. Snow conditions were excellent from the summit consistently throughout lower<br />

elevations to well below the 6,000 foot level. I was particularly impressed by the many possibilities for<br />

both advanced skiers and beginners and specially the unique form of the bowl.<br />

As I also learned during this visit that you are adopting a new Forest Plan for the area, I wanted to<br />

take this opportunity to urge you to designate the northern half of Pelican for winter sports development.<br />

As a professional ski area operator with 18 years of experience, and have evaluated more than 10 ski<br />

areas in the last 10 years, it is clear that Pelican Butte has the snowpack, vertical fall, and diversity of<br />

terrain that can make up an exciting and competitive facility in today's winter recreation industry.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The suitability of this area for winter sports development was the major factor for preserving the option<br />

for development in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel that turning the butte into a ski resort would lead to the banning of snowmobilers to just the trails<br />

skirting Pelican Butte to a complete ban.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Pelican Butte will be managed to continue present uses, including snowmobiling until a decision on<br />

development is made. The current development proposed by the City of Klamath Falls includes areas<br />

specifically designated for snowmobiling.<br />

K - 55

Comment<br />

Outside of the three designated wilderness areas, only three percent of the Forest is in a roadless<br />

condition. This three percent should remain roadless including Pelican Butte with the proposed ski<br />

area. We feel as an organization that subscribes to ski activities, that there are presently ski areas<br />

available for the people of Klamath Falls.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Sky Lakes-B roadless area on Pelican Butte will continue to be managed in its current roadless<br />

condition until a decision on development is made. If development is permitted, the undeveloped portions<br />

will continue to managed for semiprimitive recreation.<br />

Comment<br />

While it would be nice to have a ski area close to Klamath Falls, I wonder how profitable it would be.<br />

The expense is great and there are only so many skiers to keep it going.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The economics of any development proposal will be analyzed in a site-specific EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

I urge you to strongly support the proposed Pelican Butte winter recreation area for a multiple-purpose<br />

facility that includes:<br />

Downhill skiing on 2,500 vertical feet of terrain using 2-3 lifts to accommodate up to 2,000 skiers<br />

initially, with the ability to double the area's capacity using additional lifts.<br />

Continue snowmobiling using existing and new trails.<br />

Snowboarding and speed skiing on special downhill slopes.<br />

Cross-country skiing on lower slopes.<br />

Access to backcountry wilderness skiing.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All of the listed activities would be permitted and encouraged in a winter sports development proposal<br />

for Pelican Butte. The current City of Klamath Falls proposal includes these elements.<br />

Comment<br />

Pelican Butte development as a destination resort and convention facility could enhance the area and<br />

be enjoyed by many tens of thousands annually. Development should include complete facilities for<br />

500 or so conventioneers, including state of the art sewer disposal. Housing would be clustered, similar<br />

to Inn of the Seventh Mountain and sold as condos or time share.<br />

Activities should include year round family oriented facilities. Winter would include complete skiing,<br />

advanced to beginners, tubing and toboganning, snowmobiling, ice skating, horse-drawn sleigh rides<br />

and hay rides and wildlife watching (no hunting allowed within the area).<br />

Summer enjoyment would have equestrian breakfast rides into the wilderness area, guided and including<br />

llamas as pack animals. Use of the chair lift to the top of Pelican Butte, swimming, tennis, crafts, canoeing<br />

through the refuge area, fishing, water skiing, backpacking, carriage rides and hay rides and an 18-hole<br />

golf course in the vicinity, are other amenities that should be included.<br />

Spring and fall activities would be weather dependent but could include any of the summer or winter<br />

activities, and should include headquarters for hunters and fisherman, fall foliage viewing and wildlife<br />

nesting and migration.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An integrated winter and summer development would be encouraged in any proposal for Pelican Butte.<br />

The type and extent of development permitted would be determined in a site-specific EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

I do wonder if it is wise at this time to make a firm decision on whether 2,000 acres or 4,000 acres is<br />

the correct amount of land to set aside. Would it not be beneficial to set 2,000 acres aside immediately<br />

K - 56

with the understanding that after a predetermined period of time the development of Pelican Butte<br />

would be reviewed and additional acreage be set aside as seems appropriate at the time?<br />

Such an understanding would need to be well documented so that the delayed decision would not<br />

simply set off another round of political hassles and possible lawsuits. The standards for the decisions<br />

would have to be spelled out for the immediate acreage set aside in such a way that they could be<br />

used again for the later decision. A conservative approach limiting the set aside to 2,000 acres for now<br />

and forever may or may not give the best, long term results. On the other hand, setting aside 4,000<br />

acres might be unnecessary and extravagant. Why not wait to get the best information?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

To give a potential developer maximum flexibility in planning and siting facilities, no specific acreage is<br />

allocated for development in the Forest Plan. All suitable area developable for winter and summer<br />

recreation may be considered. The actual area to be developed will be determined by a site-specific<br />

EIS. In the interim the entire area will be managed in its current roadless condition for semiprimitive<br />

recreation.<br />

Comment<br />

We believe the Pelican Butte area designated in the 1979 McLoughlin-Klamath Planning Unit Land<br />

Management Plan for winter sports management should retain that designation. This will preserve the<br />

option for such development at least until the current feasibility studies are completed and private<br />

developers make specific proposals. The feasibility studies should include a comprehensive market<br />

analysis. We are unsure from the DEIS why there is a difference in acreage needed for Pelican Butte<br />

in the NC Alternative and Alternative E. In addition, under the Preferred Alternative some land within<br />

the winter recreation area would be managed as old growth and lands needed for access would be<br />

managed as bald eagle habitat. We believe the plan should be designed to preserve the option of<br />

winter recreation development.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The option for development is maintained in the Forest Plan. The acreage differences between alternatives<br />

reflect acreage needs for various developments proposed in the past. No maximum acreage is specified<br />

in the Plan as pointed out above. Effects on old growth and bald eagle will be analyzed in a separate<br />

EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The feasibility of a ski area at Pelican Butte has not been established. The plan states a capacity of<br />

60,000 skiing RVDs a year for the facility and then estimates future economic benefits based on the<br />

facility drawing that much use. This may well create unrealistic expectations. Pelican Butte faces<br />

considerable competition from other facilities in the region such as Ashland, Shasta and Bachelor<br />

Butte. Nearby Ashland, for example, drew 78,000 skiing visits in 1984-85. Transposing this into 12-hour<br />

skiing RVDs gives less than 40,000 RVDs. Yet Ashland draws from a considerably larger population<br />

base than Pelican Butte would.<br />

We suggest use and economic benefit projections for Pelican Butte not be made until more comprehensive<br />

market analysis is conducted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Since feasibility of Pelican Butte development will be analyzed in a separate EIS, estimates of use and<br />

economic benefits are not included in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Specifically we are concerned about access to the North and Northwest slopes (of Pelican Butte) where<br />

the best snow exists. This part of the mountain also is ideal for telemarking which has been the hot<br />

new trend in X-C skiing the last few years and this fast growing sport deserves to be given due<br />

consideration in the plan.<br />

K -57

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current winter sports development proposal include areas for nordic skiing and snowmobiling on<br />

the north and northwest slopes. Until a decision is made on development, the area will be managed to<br />

continue existing uses, including telemarking.<br />

Comment<br />

Perhaps my memory has forsaken me, but as I recall input from biologists etc., indicated several<br />

endangered, rare plant species in the area of proposed ski area, as well as very numerous nesting<br />

areas of our beloved" bald eagle and osprey! Pelican Butte was to be set aside as roadless and forever<br />

protected from development. No roads could be engineered without infringing on eagle or osprey<br />

trees! I have to ask if all that has changed in a mere ten to fifteen years, or are we now willing to sacrifice<br />

our wonderful plants and birds for an ugly scar of a ski resort, used by few, viewed by many.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A portion of Pelican Butte was allocated for winter sports site development in the McLoughlin-Klamath<br />

Unit Plan implemented in July, 1979. The development option is maintained in the Forest Plan. Specific<br />

environmental effects (including effects on wildlife, plants and scenery) will be addressed in a separate<br />

EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

For many years I have dreamed of having a ski area closer to home. Fighting the battles of Rare I and<br />

11, why must we once again redefine this area?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

RARE I and 11 were endeavors to determine the eligibility of National Forest roadless areas for wilderness<br />

designation. The Sky Lakes B roadless area (Pelican Butte) was not recommended for wilderness and<br />

in 1979 the McLoughlin-Klamath Unit Plan allocated a portion of the area for potential winter sports<br />

development. Congress has directed the Forest Service to examine land allocations and management<br />

direction of National Forest lands on a periodic basis (every 10-15 years). This has been done in this<br />

current planning process which maintains the option for winter sports development.<br />

Comment<br />

As currently written, the LRMP and DEIS do not appear to recognize this long-standing history, nor to<br />

take full advantage of the extensive background information on Pelican Butte that has been developed<br />

since the 1960's. An historical chronology of these efforts is given in Appendix B, and a bibliography<br />

of relevant documents in Appendix C.<br />

The City encourages the Forest Service to review this material and incorporate it as appropriate in the<br />

final LRMP and EIS, so as to properly reflect the large amount of community and agency effort already<br />

expended towards a winter sports area on Pelican Butte.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional documents relating to Pelican Butte have been added to The Winema Forest Plan planning<br />

records. These are listed in the references section of the FEIS. These documents will be utilized during<br />

preparation of the separate EIS which will address Pelican Butte development.<br />

Comment<br />

The City is aware that some members of the public still believe the area should be managed in a roadless<br />

or quasi-wilderness manner. Given the lengthy and exhaustive evaluation that occurred during 1973-84,<br />

which resulted in a multiple-use management determination for the Sky Lakes-B area, the City believes<br />

further roadless debate is redundant and technically insupportable. Most important, it is inconsistent<br />

with Congressional intent expressed in the 1984 Oregon Wilderness Act.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Although not included in the Oregon Wilderness Act, most of the Sky Lakes-B area is currently in a<br />

roadless condition providing a semiprimitive recreation environment for activities such as snowmobiling<br />

K - 58

and cross-country skiing. The Forest Plan allocates this area to semiprimitive recreation while maintaining<br />

the option to develop a portion of the area for recreation in the future. This allocation will result in the<br />

area being managed in its current roadless condition until development is permitted. Undeveloped<br />

areas on the Butte will continue to provide a semiprimitive experience outside of wilderness.<br />

Comment<br />

Because these land allocations are being made at the Forest planning stage, the final LRMP and EIS<br />

should discuss the feasibility of ski area development at other sites on the Winema, and explain why<br />

Pelican Butte is the only reasonable site on the Forest for supplying winter recreation opportunities of<br />

this nature and magnitude.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

During the scoping effort for the Forest Plan and its DEIS, interest in ski area development was only<br />

received for the Pelican Butte area. Previous studies by the Forest Service and others have identified<br />

Pelican Butte as the only viable area on the Winema National Forest for ski area development. Alternate<br />

development locations on adjacent Forests will be addressed in a separate EIS analyzing development<br />

alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

As currently drafted, the LRMP and DEIS use a "Developed Recreation' designation on a Forestwide<br />

basis for all types of developed recreation activities. Given the uniqueness of winter sports generally,<br />

and Pelican Butte in particular on the Winema National Forest, the City believes that the 1979<br />

McLoughlin-Klamath Unit Plan's 'Winter Sports Area' designation should be retained and applied in<br />

the final LRMP.<br />

Such a designation is not only a more accurate description of the area's management requirements,<br />

but is also consistent with designations of similar areas on other National Forest Service levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Agreed. A new management area designation as been developed to more accurately reflect the<br />

uniqueness of the Pelican Butte area The Pelican Butte Management Area 1 C is described in Chapter<br />

4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP and DEIS Alternative E propose to reduce the Butte's 1979 Winter Sports' land allocation<br />

from 3,100 acres to approximately 2,000 acres. According to Winema staff, and as stated in the DEIS<br />

Appendices, the location and size of the smaller proposed allocation was based on recollections of<br />

previous ski area studies.<br />

Given the necessity of locating Phase 1 cross-country ski trails on the lower northern and western<br />

slopes, along with the proposed expansion of snowmobile trails in the same vicinity, and the likelihood<br />

of downhill run expansion over 10-15 years, it seems logical to delineate the winter sports area's boundary<br />

coterminous with the terrain zones shown in Figure 1.3. This modified area includes 5,400 acres, but<br />

only a small fraction of it would be physically altered for runs, trails, and associated facilities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 2,000 acre area proposed in the DEIS eliminated some lower elevation area on the east flank of<br />

Pelican Butte which has not been included in recent development proposals. The current City of Klamath<br />

Falls proposal includes additional area on the north and west slopes. Since this proposal will be analyzed<br />

in a separate EIS, no limit on the acres available for development is set in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP creates three management intensities that may be applied in a Developed Recreation area,<br />

which would presumably also apply to a Winter Sports designation. However, the LRMP does not<br />

designate a management intensity for any particular Developed Recreation area, including Pelican<br />

Butte.<br />

K - 59

Because the only reason given in the LRMP and DEIS for the designation of Developed Recreation on<br />

Pelican Butte is to provide for a ski area with up to 60,000 RVD's annually, the city urges the Forest<br />

Service to explicitly state in the final LRMP and EIS that management intensity '2C' will be applied to<br />

the winter sports area on the Butte. Also, expected facility development should be identified as level 4<br />

or 5.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

New management area intensities have been developed to more accurately reflect the allocation for<br />

Pelican Butte and to provide more specific standards and guidelines. Management Area 1C in Chapter<br />

4 of the Forest Plan describes the interim management for the area. Any facilities permitted after completion<br />

of the EIS addressing development, will be managed as a special-use permit recreation area (Management<br />

Area 2D or a similar separate designation). This EIS will provide specific standards and guidelines for<br />

managing the area.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP states that the visual quality objective applicable to all management intensities of Developed<br />

Recreation is 'retention.' 'Retention' is defined as a level of visual quality in which management activities<br />

are not visually evident to the casual Forest visitor. Additionally, the 'desired future condition' for even<br />

the high level (2C) development intensity is stated as occurring 'in a natural-appearing environment.'<br />

The LRMP goes on to define *natural-appearing' environment as one in which 'no more than 5 percent<br />

of the total area is visually altered, similar to visual quality objective preservation and retention standards.'<br />

These visual quality objectives seem inconsistent with the development of a winter sports area. Ski<br />

runs, chair lifts, base area facilities, and access roads can be constructed to repeat the color, shape<br />

and form of the surrounding landscape to a certain extent, but they will still introduce obvious visual<br />

changes regardless of design, and at a level that is likely to exceed 5 percent of the area.<br />

A more compatible set of visual quality objectives for a winter sports area is 'partial retention* for mountain<br />

facilities, and 'modification' for base area facilities. These are apparently the most common visual quality<br />

objectives applied to ski areas on other national forests, and the city urges the Forest Service to modify<br />

the objectives for the winter sports area on Pelican Butte accordingly.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A developed recreation site may have a retention visual quality objective which means that the environment<br />

shall be natural appearing. It is a commonly understood inconsistency that the recreation facility will<br />

often only achieve the partial retention or modification VQL within the natural appearing setting. The<br />

facilities are the points from which the settings are usually viewed and appreciated. Structures are<br />

designed to fit the setting so they achieve as close as possible to a natural appearance in form, line,<br />

color and texture. Structures are not likely to exceed 5 percent of the area.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP states that these old growth areas represent a 'minimum management requirement ... for<br />

northern three-toed woodpecker and pine marten habitat.' The proposed standards and guidelines for<br />

old growth areas further state that 'developed recreation is not compatible with the goals of this<br />

management areas." However, neither the LRMP nor draft EIS explain how the proposed old growth<br />

areas on Pelican Butte are expected to co-exist with a winter sports area if they are incompatible.<br />

The city urges the Forest Service to not designate old growth areas inside the proposed winter sports<br />

area and to address the issue of other surrounding old-growth areas' compatibility with the winter<br />

sports area in the final LRMP and EIS. Guidance is needed as to how these different designations can<br />

be implemented in a complementary fashion, including possible mitigation measures.<br />

Additionally, the old-growth management guidelines for each indicator bird species states that 'disturbing<br />

human activities' will be discouraged or minimized within 1/4 mile of active nest sites. Presumably, this<br />

would apply if an active nest is identified at the perimeter of an old growth management area, such<br />

that the 1/4 mile protection zone would extend a 1/4 mile outside the old-growth management area.<br />

However, it is not stated whether the relevant old-growth areas on Pelican Butte contain active nest<br />

sites, so it is unclear how this management prescription might affect winter sports area development<br />

K- 60

or other surrounding management designations. Nor is it clear what type of activities are considered<br />

'disturbing,' or whether an access road could be placed through an old growth area The city urges<br />

the Forest Service to clarify these issues in the final LRMP and EIS.<br />

The city's proposed expansion of the winter sports area allocation would include a small portion of an<br />

Alternative E Minimum Management area on the Butte's western slope (see Figure 2.2). Exactly why<br />

that area was deemed most suitable for Minimum Management is unclear. The goal of Minimum<br />

Management areas, as stated in the LRMP, is to 'keep the Forest in public ownership and a part of the<br />

national Forest system with a minimum of administrative cost.' The desired future condition for these<br />

lands is to Oremain in their present condition;' and applicable standards and guidelines include the<br />

statement that 'recreation developed sites, and recreation special uses and sites will be closed down<br />

(including ... ski areas).<br />

Because this portion of Pelican Butte is considered necessary by the city for the development of an<br />

economically viable winter sports area, it is suggested that the public interest and economic return to<br />

the Forest Service would be better served by redesignating this small section of land for winter sports.<br />

This would also prevent the inconsistencies in desired future condition and management standards<br />

cited above.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the FEIS preferred alternative all the area in question has been allocated to a management area<br />

which retains the option for development as a recreation area. Effects of development including the<br />

effects on old growth will be analyzed in a separate EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Finally, the city is concerned that the LRMP presently provides no detailed guidelines for management<br />

of visual resources in bald eagle habitat areas. It is stated that 'visual quality levels will be subordinate'<br />

to eagle habitat, but nevertheless the issue of which visual quality objectives would apply to an access<br />

road should be clarified. The city recommends 'partial retention' and 'foreground retention' in such<br />

cases.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

If an access road lies within a bald eagle (BE) habitat designation, then BE management has priority<br />

and scenic quality would be secondary. There would be an effort given to achieve the visual quality<br />

level associated with the road, but not to the detriment of the bald eagles. If an access road lies outside<br />

a BE habitat area, the resource values would dictate its designation. If a scenic allocation occurs, then<br />

foreground retention and middleground partial retention would be the probable designation.<br />

Comment<br />

As shown in Figure 2.2, the city's recommended access road route also passes through a Scenic<br />

Management area The LRMP contains standards and guidelines that can be interpreted as precluding<br />

the construction and use of roads through these areas but discussions with Winema staff indicate that<br />

this interpretation is not intended. This should be clarified in the final LRMP and EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Visual quality objectives do not preclude project activity, but rather, provide the framework in which it<br />

is conducted. A facility may or may not be appropriate in a scenic allocation depending on the<br />

environmental analysis and the line officer decision.<br />

Comment<br />

The statement that scenic views from the Westside Road, Upper Klamath Lake, Highway 140, and<br />

Highway 97 'would' (emphasis added) be affected by development of a winter sports area cannot be<br />

factually supported until a specific development plan is offered and visual resource modeling is<br />

accomplished as part of a project EIS. The statement should be rephrased to reflect potentialities rather<br />

than certainties.<br />

K - 61

<strong>Response</strong><br />

True. Effects will be determined in a separate EIS, so this reference was deleted.<br />

Comment<br />

The statement that multiple cultural resource "sites, (emphasis added) are known to exist on Pelican<br />

Butte is not supported by an inventory conducted in 1987 by the city. As reported to the Klamath Ranger<br />

District in March 1988, this inventory resulted in identification of only a single resource site which is<br />

located outside of the proposed winter sports area boundary.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Identification of cultural resource sites will be part of the site-specific analysis of the current proposal.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS contained a limited discussion of winter sports area impacts on cultural and visual resources,<br />

community services, and local socioeconomics. At a minimum, the final EIS should also address potential<br />

generalized impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, water resources, noise, and fire hazards.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Impacts of development alternatives will be addressed in a separate site-specific EIS and are not included<br />

in the FEIS for the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Using the winter sports area design studies and environmental investigations that it has completed<br />

thus far, and the foregoing analysis of the LRMP and DEIS, the City has prepared a modified Alternative<br />

E land allocation plan for Pelican Butte as shown in Figure 3.1 (superimposed over the City's concept<br />

plan).<br />

This modified set of land allocations is intended to address the major concerns outlined in this document<br />

in a way that will allow for optimum winter sports area development without jeopardizing the Butte's<br />

important environmental qualities. The City stands ready to work with the Forest Service in refining this<br />

recommendation during completion of the final LRMP and EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan maintains the option to develop all the area recommended subject to the findings of a<br />

separate EIS addressing development alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-4, 3rd paragraph. The derivation of 700 jobs generated by development of a Pelican Butte<br />

winter sports area should be clarified. The City's preliminary estimates of local economic benefits from<br />

such development are given in Table 4.1.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Economic benefits of developing Pelican Butte will be addressed in a separate EIS, so are not included<br />

in the FEIS for the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The description of Pelican Butte as a roadless area is misleading. Only 38% of the Pelican Butte geographic<br />

area is contained within the Sky Lakes-B roadless area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Sky Lakes-B roadless area is located on the upper slopes and northwest flank of Pelican Butte.<br />

The roadless area has 9,863 acres and includes nearly all the area which has been identified as suitable<br />

for winter sports development.<br />

K - 62

Comment<br />

The advocacy of a winter sports area is not limited to the City of Kiamath Falls and Kiamath County<br />

Chamber of Commerce. This discussion should reflect the broad-based organizational support evidenced<br />

by LRMP/DEIS public comments received by the Winema National Forest. Furthermore, this advocacy<br />

is not limited to downhill skiing, but rather encompasses a full spectrum of winter sports, including<br />

snowboarding, snowmobiling, cross-country and back-country skiing, and snowplay activities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In Chapter 1 of the FEIS the revised description of the Pelican Butte public issue reflects the range of<br />

public support indicated in comments on the draft EIS for the development a winter sports area on<br />

Pelican Butte.<br />

Comment<br />

It is misleading to suggest that only 'local downhill skiers' have advocated Pelican Butte development.<br />

As stated above, the public comment record will show that a wide variety of interest groups, local<br />

governments, and other community organizations desire a multiactivity winter sports area on the Butte.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See previous response.<br />

Comment<br />

Under Alternative E, it is misleading to suggest that winter sports area development would result in 0%<br />

of Pelican Butte being left unroaded. Even with the City's recommendation to increase winter sports<br />

area acreage to 5,400, much of the Butte's higher elevations would remain unroaded.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A new management area has been created which recognizes that much of Pelican Butte will remain<br />

unroaded even if winter sports development occurs. Undeveloped areas would be managed for<br />

semiprimitive recreation activities, such as snowmobiling and cross-country skiing, which would be<br />

compatible with and complement developed site operations.<br />

Comment<br />

Additionally, the statement that the 1979 McLoughlin-Klamath plan designated the Butte for winter<br />

sports 'in response to the City of lKamath Falls' expressed interest' is incorrect. The City did not initiate<br />

its Pelican Butte studies until 1984. The 1979 McLoughlin-Klamath Plan decision was the result of<br />

participation by many citizens and organizations throughout southern Oregon.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree. The reference is not correct and it has been removed.<br />

Comment<br />

The City is concerned by the following statement:<br />

'It would be inappropriate to issue a permit for development of a ski area on Pelican Butte (if<br />

requested) until or unless the provision of such development is made in the final environmental<br />

impact statement and record of decision for the approved Forest Plan. The feasibility studies<br />

and site-specific environmental analysis may continue, with the stipulation that permit issuance<br />

could occur only if permitted under the land management direction in the approved Forest Plan."<br />

The City has had recent discussions on this particular question with the Forest Service's regional and<br />

national offices. In both cases, the Forest Service staff at these levels have disagreed with the foregoing<br />

statement. They cited no such requirement in applicable Forest Service regulations or NEPA, and instead<br />

indicated that a project EIS could be completed and a permit issued under the 1979 plan.<br />

The City is concerned about this difference in interpretations, particularly in light of possible legal<br />

challenges that will delay final LRMP adoption. The City therefore urges the Winema to reconcile its<br />

position with the regional and national interpretations.<br />

K - 63

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Scoping for the Forest Plan effort revealed that the land allocation to winter sports in the Mcloughlin-<br />

Klamath Unit Plan was an issue. This required a re-examination of the land allocation during the Forest<br />

Plan development. Since there was the possibility of a change in land allocation, it was inappropriate<br />

to issue a permit until the completion of Forest Land Management Planning process. Feasibility studies<br />

and site-specific analysis of the City's proposal have been initiated.<br />

Comment<br />

The City's market research to date indicates that Pelican Butte visitation can reach 80,000 RVDs annually<br />

by the year 2005. The physical capacity of suitable terrain on the Butte could exceed 100,000 RVD's<br />

per year (see Appendix D).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The use figures presented in the DEIS were estimated based on a number of assumptions on the type<br />

and extent of development. Since specific development alternatives will be addressed in a separate<br />

EIS, use projections are not included in the FEIS for the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Alternatives: The basis for estimating the amount of Pelican Butte to be developed, and the resulting<br />

roadless character of the area, should be explained in detail given the significance of this issue. The<br />

origin and derivation of the cited land area percentages, i.e., 69-75%, should be clarified.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A new management area has been developed to more specifically describe the allocation for Pelican<br />

Butte. Appropriate sections of the FEIS have been revised to reflect this change. The percent of the<br />

Sky Lakes B roadless area remaining roadless is displayed by alternative in Chapter 2.<br />

Comment<br />

The statement that development of Pelican Butte as a ski area Ncould t (emphasis added) have an economic<br />

effect on Klamath Falls is inconsistent with several statements elsewhere in the DEIS which project<br />

definite economic impacts. Given the large body of literature documenting positive economic impacts<br />

from winter sports areas on surrounding community economies throughout the United States, this<br />

statement should be rephrased to reflect that certainty.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This statement has been revised.<br />

Comment<br />

This discussion of Pelican Butte should expand the listing of proponents beyond simply the City and<br />

Klamath County. Also, the phrasing should be changed to correctly portray the Sky Lakes-B roadless<br />

area as being located on a portion of Pelican Butte, rather than vice-versa as is presently stated.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This section has been revised to clarify both points.<br />

Comment<br />

The statement that Orecreation and tourism have not played a dominant role in the development of the<br />

local economy is inconsistent with local economic data and analyses. It is widely recognized and<br />

documented that recreation and tourism is the 'third legm of the local economy after agriculture and<br />

wood products industries.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

While we agree recreation and tourism is an important component of the local economy, we don't feel<br />

it is a dominant factor when compared to the agriculture and wood products industries.<br />

K - 64

Comment<br />

The statement that 'development of the ski area is not planned below 6,000 feet' is inconsistent with<br />

the concept of a multiactivity winter sports area that includes nordic ski trails situated between 5,000<br />

and 6,000 feet in elevation, and new snowmobile trails which would reach as low as 4,500 feet.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The statement refers to the developed ski area, rather than the associated winter trail systems that will<br />

not require major construction work.<br />

Comment<br />

Also, the loss of a potential winter sports area at Pelican Butte would conflict not only with City plans,<br />

but also with policies in Klamath County's Comprehensive Land-Use Plan, and Klamath County's Overall<br />

Economic Development Plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Only the City has a documented development proposal.<br />

Comment<br />

The statement that 'lodging, resort homes, and condominiums would (emphasis added) occur on<br />

nearby private land' is inconsistent with the City's concept of developing a day-use facility, and cannot<br />

be factually supported with currently available information. Given the relatively small amount of private<br />

land in the vicinity, and the day-use scope of winter sports area plans, this statement should be modified<br />

to reflect potentialities rather than certainties.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Based upon experience with establishment and operation of other ski areas, this type of development<br />

is probably a certainty.<br />

Comment<br />

Despite the prominence of Pelican Butte as one of the Winema's major public issues, there is only a<br />

single Pelican Butte reference document cited in the DEIS. The City urges the Forest Service to incorporate<br />

relevant literature listed in Appendix C of this comment document.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Documents used in the development of the Forest Plan or referenced in planning documents have<br />

been incorporated and will be used to develop the site-specific EIS for the proposal.<br />

Comment<br />

Outputs used in the input-output analysis for recreation include downhill skiing and snowplay, but<br />

should also include snowboarding, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Outputs from the proposed development of Pelican Butte were not included in the FEIS analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

We would suggest in the final plan a section on how new winter sports sites are permitted on USFS<br />

land. Recently, in discussions in Washington D.C. with the National Recreation Staff for Recreation,<br />

their illustrations of the California System, Colorado System and others was most informative. With<br />

Pelican Butte being in the other category, a discussion of the permitting history of the Sandy Butte<br />

Winter Sports Site at Early Winter, Washington, on the Okanogan National Forest plus the issues causing<br />

the legal appeals should be part of the discussion of Pelican Butte.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The process for permitting ski areas is included in Chapter I of the FEIS. A separate EIS will address<br />

regional ski area issues.<br />

K - 65

Comment<br />

The main points we wish to comment in detail about is Pelican Butte. The draft plan was very short on<br />

the history of the local community's 30 years effort to work with the Winema Forest Service toward a<br />

Winter Sport Site. The EIS was very lacking in direct site specific points about Pelican Butte. The city<br />

of Kiamath Falls has done an excellent job of documenting the history and we are enclosing a copy of<br />

their work with our letter, as we believe it to be very factual and correct. Members of our company<br />

have been part of or helped with most all studies, reports, and field trips during these three decades.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Site specific details and the history of public interest in the development of winter sports area on Pelican<br />

Butte will be addressed in a separate EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

In the final plan a section on competitions for Forest 'Products should state just as the Winema cannot<br />

control the fact that 40% of its timber sold is processed in the Rogue River Valley could it control or<br />

believe it is of concern that many skiers from the Rogue River Valley would not ski at Mt. Ashland but<br />

at Pelican Butte. We understand that the National Office of the USFS is quite adamant on this point.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion concerning currently developed and proposed winter sports areas in the region<br />

will be included in the Pelican Butte Recreation Area EIS.<br />

K - 66

Plan and EIS Content<br />

Comment<br />

What are you doing for monitoring? What are you using for checking Districts' modifications to plan<br />

volumes? You should do an EA or EIS on grazing and allotments. Your plan should pinpoint where<br />

EAs or further assessments are needed - recreation planning, special uses, etc.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan contains a monitoring plan which states the outputs and effects that will<br />

be monitored. It also includes a decision tree which describes appropriate actions that will be taken if<br />

monitoring indicates that desired outputs and effects are not being achieved.<br />

FSM 1950 contains the National direction which describes the type of environmental analysis which is<br />

necessary for Forest Service proposed actions. This direction changes occasionally in response to<br />

national issues and therefore was not included in the Forest Plan. Copies of the direction are available<br />

at any Forest Office.<br />

Comment<br />

There should have been an expanded and more complete Glossary. For instance are there too many<br />

Big Game Species to list? Would one average number suffice for a general Board Foot/Cubic Foot<br />

Ratio? What are current Carrying Capacities? Are the 10 Condition Classes too lengthy to include?<br />

What are the Seral Stages?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Typical big game species are included in the definition contained in the glossary.<br />

Due to the variability in tree size mix between species and species harvest composition among alternatives,<br />

it is a good idea to vary the board-foot/cubic-foot ratio to more accurately portray the board foot volume.<br />

Divide the ASQ in board feet by the ASQ in cubic feet for each alternative to get an average ratio to<br />

see how it varies.<br />

Carrying capacities are discussed in several places in the EIS in relation to the resource to which they<br />

apply. The Winema National Forest condition classes are listed in the glossary. nSeral is defined in the<br />

glossary.<br />

Comment<br />

We are especially concerned that the timber harvest level proposed in the draft plan was apparently<br />

not a result of any planning decision, but rather the residual left over from the FORPLAN analysis after<br />

providing for all other non-timber resources. The basic premise underlying the Forest's analysis appears<br />

to have been that irreconcilable differences exist between timber production and other forest management<br />

objectives. We are concerned that the planning team did not attempt to harmonize the various multiple<br />

uses of the forest. Timber production appears to have been treated as a secondary output rather than<br />

a harmonious one that the Forest seeks to harmonize with other uses. This 'trickle down' analysis<br />

approach fails to comply with the requirements of the Organic Act of 1897, the Multiple-Use Sustained<br />

Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act and NFMA.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timber harvest levels in the alternatives are not the result of a single decision, but rather represent<br />

a blending of many decisions. Many non-timber uses of the Forest are compatible with timber production<br />

(visual resource management, wildlife habitat management, dispersed recreation etc.) The FORPLAN<br />

model was used to estimate the effects of alternative ways to harmonize the various uses of the Forest.<br />

The various alternatives do represent tradeoffs between competing interests simply because every<br />

individual's needs can not be satisfied on every acre of land simultaneously. Our efforts have been<br />

aimed toward developing a plan that maximizes the net public benefits (which include both monetary<br />

and non-monetary considerations) of managing this Forest.<br />

K - 67

Comment<br />

The DEIS does not adequately identify the sources of the data used in the Forest's analysis. Nor does<br />

it clearly discuss the reliability of the data and the scientific uncertainty involved in many elements of<br />

the analysis. As a result, important policy decisions are effectively hidden behind a facade of numbers<br />

that appear "scientific" to the public but may be no more than best guesses in reality. The FEIS should<br />

provide a full and frank discussion of the Forest's modeling assumptions and their limitations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Sources of data are discussed in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. Concerns about the reliability of data are<br />

highlighted in Chapter 4. Details on model assumptions are presented in Appendix B with many references<br />

to the Planning records.<br />

Comment<br />

The non-public process by which minimum management requirements were developed significantly<br />

constrains the potential of the suitable timber land to produce forest resources in every alternative and<br />

makes the Winema National Forest Plan and draft EIS legally indefensible.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix J of this FEIS summarizes the effects of the management requirements. Appendix J of the<br />

Draft EIS (which is now part of the planning records) provides more details. The essential conclusion<br />

is that no management requirement reduced the allowable sale quantity or the present net value by<br />

more than 2 percent and thus the effects of implementing those requirements on this Forest are not<br />

considered to be significant in any alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

The MMR's developed by the Winema violate the public participation, interdisciplinary analysis, and<br />

integrated planning mandates of the National Forest Management Act. Additionally, the MMR's were<br />

developed with complete disregard for the requirements of the National Environmental Policy act to<br />

examine a range of alternatives for major federal actions affecting the environment. Furthermore, the<br />

MMR's violate the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act because they prevent a high level output of other<br />

resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of implementing the management requirements were found to be insignificant on this Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

Because the minimum management requirements as developed by the Winema National Forest become<br />

an inflexible standard incorporated into all alternatives in the planning process, they violate the mandates<br />

of the National Forest Management Act and Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, which require that one<br />

resource is not to override the attainment of other resources. In addition, the implementation of MMR's<br />

on the national forests is an action which significantly affects the quality of the environment and therefore<br />

must comply with NEPA, including the evaluation of a range of alternatives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of implementing the management requirements were found to be insignificant on this Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

However, rather than incorporating the Clean Water Act, approved Oregon standards, the Winema has<br />

bypassed the public process that must be followed to change water quality laws and has independently<br />

and without public review developed its own forest practices act. MMR's are supposed to reflect the<br />

legal requirements established by statute and regulation, not the requirements imposed by hydrologists<br />

and fisheries biologists. The Implementation Plan for Water Quality Planning on National Forest Lands<br />

in the Pacific Northwest, December 1978, notes: The Forest Service problem solving efforts in #208<br />

Water Quality Planning is based on tbest management practices" (BMP's) which are defined by regulation<br />

as la practice or combination of practices, that is determined after problem assessment, examination<br />

K - 68

of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, practicable (including<br />

technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount<br />

of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.<br />

(Emphasis added.) The riparian area MMR developed by the Winema does not comply with this<br />

implementation plan. There is no evidence that the Winema considered alternative practices to the<br />

harvest rate constraints that it claims are the necessary MMR's. Furthermore, the public was not allowed<br />

to participate in the development of these MMR's.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of implementing the management requirements were found to be insignificant on this Forest.<br />

In some alternatives additional emphasis was given to resources such as those in riparian areas. In<br />

alternative J, for example, additional considerations in riparian areas were added after consultation<br />

with the State of Oregon.<br />

Comment<br />

Forest plans that contain MMR's for riparian protection in excess of BMP's are not minimum management<br />

requirements. Furthermore, the Forest Service has signed a memorandum of understanding regarding<br />

water quality protection with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. This memorandum<br />

provides, The USFS is required by many federal laws, federal regulations, and internal agency<br />

requirements, to involve the public in agency decisions. It will utilize these measures...to bring public<br />

involvement into water quality decision-making processes.' The development of the riparian area<br />

management strategy for the Winema National Forest violates this agreement. The riparian area MMR's<br />

were developed in secret solely by Winema National Forest personnel. The public had no input into<br />

their development, and therefore the Winema cannot claim that the MMR's were developed pursuant<br />

to the Forest Service agreement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of implementing the management requirements were found to be insignificant on this Forest.<br />

Riparian area management guidance was developed and refined using public comments and other<br />

agency input.<br />

Comment<br />

Table 11-7: are these projections still valid? Estimates made in 1979 may be outdated/superseded.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Most of the estimates presented in the Draft EIS were developed in 1985 and 1986 using the best<br />

available data. If better data was available, these numbers were updated in the Final EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

MRVD is not defined in the glossary.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

MRVD refers to thousands of recreation visitor days. 'Recreation visitor day' is defined in the glossary.<br />

Comment<br />

Wildlife MMR's. Wildlife MMR's establish 'indicator species' that will be emphasized in the forest plan.<br />

The Winema, however, did not involve the public in either the selection of the MMR indicator species<br />

or the definition and location of indicator species habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of implementing the management requirements were found to be insignificant on this Forest.<br />

See Appendix B and Appendix J of this Final EIS and Appendix J of the Draft EIS for more information.<br />

K - 69

Comment<br />

The Winema did not perform a comparable analysis with the no-change alternative as was performed<br />

with all other alternatives examined in the draft EIS. Thus, it is impossible to compare the current<br />

management direction on the Forest with the direction that would be imposed by adoption of one of<br />

the alternatives considered in the draft EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 'No Change' alternative does not depict current management direction on the Forest because<br />

certain legislative actions have required changes (particularly NFMA). These changes are reflected in<br />

Alternative A, the NNo action' alternative, which is intended to describe the way the Forest is actually<br />

being managed. The 'No Change' alternative would be comparable to historic conditions if those<br />

conditions are assumed to be static. Conditions of Forest management have continually changed in<br />

the past and continue to do so. That evolution is expressed in the 'No Action' alternative in an effort to<br />

estimate the future amounts of goods and services that continuation of current management direction<br />

(not simply current management) will bring. The 'No Change' alternative is described, to the extent<br />

possible, along with the other alternatives so that can be used as a baseline reference.<br />

Comment<br />

The CEQ regulations require that an agency include within an EIS reasonable alternatives not within<br />

the jurisdiction of the lead agency. 40 CFR 1502.14(c).<br />

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue and commented: An EIS is rendered<br />

inadequate by the existence of a viable but un-examined alternative (cite omitted). Furthermore, even if<br />

an alternative requires legislative action,' this fact 'does not automatically justify excluding it from an<br />

EIS.'<br />

(city omitted.) Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester, Case No. 86-4108 (9th Cir. 1987).<br />

The no-change alternative is a reasonable alternative which must be fully evaluated by the Winema<br />

planning staff. The failure to objectively evaluate the current management direction on the Forest is a<br />

violation of 36 CFR 219.12(f)(v) and (vii) and 40 CFR 1502.14(c) and (d).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The no change alternative is not the current management direction of the Forest. Alternative A<br />

approximates the current management direction and it is fully evaluated.<br />

Comment<br />

The minimum management requirement for silvicultural practices states: 'Timber harvest and other<br />

silvicultural treatments shall be used to prevent potentially damaging population increases of forest<br />

pest organisms.' 36 CFR 219.27(c):(7). Furthermore the NFMA evidences significant congressional<br />

concern regarding waste of timber resources by allowing salvage harvest of insect infested timber. 16<br />

USC 1611 (b). All of the alternatives, except the preferred alternative, flout congressional concern over<br />

this issue and exalt waste. Given this congressional expression of concern over waste of our timber<br />

resources and the fact that protection against insect depredation is a specific requirement of the planning<br />

regulations, more alternatives should have been developed which specifically address the mountain<br />

pine beetle infestation on the Winema National Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional emphasis in this area is included in Alternative J.<br />

Comment<br />

Compared to current trends in the forest industry in Oregon, the economic analysis performed by the<br />

Winema understates the cost of implementing the preferred alternative.<br />

The Winema, at the very least, should have recognized that the use of 1977 as the baseline period for<br />

determining the effects of the preferred alternative on jobs and income in the affected area makes it<br />

appear as i implementation of the preferred alternative would result in a great increase in jobs and<br />

income to the residents of the affected area. At the very least, the Winema should have pointed out<br />

K - 70

that current levels of timber volume, jobs, and income are considerably higher than the levels from<br />

1977 used as the basis of comparison. For example, in 1984 and 1985, an average of approximately<br />

185 million board feet was cut on the Winema National Forest (table 111-8, p. 111-34), and in the last two<br />

years, the harvest level in the Winema has been even higher. People are being employed commensurate<br />

with this level of harvest. The Winema should have looked at recent trends in timber harvests in the<br />

area in order to determine a more realistic baseline date from which to conduct this economic and<br />

social analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The basis of comparison in the Final EIS is an estimate of jobs and income associated with the average<br />

levels of Forest activities from 1980 through 1989. In addition the estimates are based upon the structure<br />

of the economy in 1982 rather than 1977 as was used in the Draft EIS. This is the most up-to-date<br />

information on the structure of the economy that is available. We have pointed out, in the discussion<br />

on the economy in Chapter 4, that there are many factors that could affect these estimates. The estimates<br />

are comparable between alternatives and provide the necessary information for the decision at hand.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema should have used the no-change alternative as a baseline to compare total jobs produced<br />

by the alternative management plans. The presentation of table IV-33 on p. IV-1 03 of the DEIS is inaccurate,<br />

misleading and should be withdrawn. The comparison of alternatives to an economy that existed 11<br />

years ago misleads the public with regard to the effect of implementation of any of the alternatives on<br />

the Winema National Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The comparison in the Draft EIS was based on the structure of the economy in 1977, not to levels of<br />

employment at that time. Economic structures shift over time and it is a complicated process to track<br />

and update the description of those structures that are used in our input/output model (see Appendix<br />

B for more discussion of the process used in estimating jobs and income effects). The basis of comparison<br />

used in the Final EIS involved the structure of the economy in 1982 (most recent data available) and<br />

the average level of Forest activities from 1980 through 1989. It has been argued that 1982 was a poor<br />

year for lumber production and that this might cause employment impacts to be underestimated. There<br />

are indications that the opposite may be true simply because efficiencies of scale are lost when production<br />

levels fall and higher levels of employment are associated with each board foot produced.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft EIS contains an inadequate discussion of one of the most important environmental issues --<br />

that is, the environmental impact of not actively managing the Forest. The Winema must consider the<br />

environmental consequences of not harvesting timber from areas that are not scheduled for active<br />

forest management and particularly must address the consequences of delaying salvage of the mountain<br />

pine beetle infested timber stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The alternatives display a whole range of timber management levels. The comparison of the alternatives<br />

provides full consideration of these impacts.<br />

Comment<br />

The forest management plan for the Winema National Forest necessarily affects activities on private<br />

and other public lands, and these effects must be considered when analyzing the environmental impact<br />

of the alternatives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These effects are discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS.<br />

K -71

Comment<br />

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines criteria as 'a standard on which a decision or<br />

judgment may be based." Throughout the entire draft environmental impact statement the Winema<br />

National Forest never presents criteria or a standard by which the different alternatives can be evaluated.<br />

The entire draft environmental impact statement consists of comparisons among and between the<br />

alternatives until it is impossible to determine the underlying rationale of the comparisons.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The EIS has been rewritten so that it is more clear. The Record of Decision highlights key considerations<br />

in the decision.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest draft EIS fails to explain why the preferred alternative was selected. This<br />

frustrates informed public participation in the decision making process. The discussion of the preferred<br />

alternative must be such as to allow meaningful analysis of this alternative compared to the other<br />

alternatives considered. 40 CFR 1502.9(a). Furthermore, the draft EIS must fulfill and satisfy the<br />

requirements established for final environmental impact statements by NEPA.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter I now includes a complete discussion of each issue, the public input related to the issue and<br />

how the issue would be resolved under the preferred Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema fails to address the effect that the timber supply from the Winema National Forest, considered<br />

in light of reductions in the timber supply projected from other national forests in the region, will have<br />

on the economic and social structure of the affected area The cumulative effect of region-wide reductions<br />

in the timber supply will be significantly greater than the effect of reductions from any single forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have discussed what we know and do not know about this concern in Chapters 3 and 4 of the<br />

Final EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest uses sophisticated computer models to shield the decision making process<br />

from public scrutiny. Numerous models are used in the planning process, for example, DFSIM,<br />

PROGNOSIS, IMPLAN and, most importantly, FORPLAN. None of these models is adequately documented.<br />

The Winema must state the assumptions underlying each of these models and make the models<br />

available for public scrutiny.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The models are used to develop estimates of outputs and effects of various management alternatives<br />

so that reasonable decisions can be made. The DFSIM, PROGNOSIS, FORPLAN and IMPLAN models<br />

all have user manuals that are available for public review from several sources (the Supervisor's Office,<br />

the Regional Office, Forest Service Experiment station). The assumptions used in applying these models<br />

are documented in the Forest Planning process records in the Supervisor's Office. Appendix B of the<br />

EIS contains a general description of the analysis process used in the development of the Forest Plan.<br />

These models have also been scrutinized repeatedly by the public. For example a symposium was<br />

held in 1986 (FORPLAN: An Evaluation of A Forest Planning Tool) where representatives of the Forest<br />

Service, academia, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Boise Cascade Corporation, British Columbia and<br />

others discussed the adequacy of FORPLAN.<br />

K - 72

Comment<br />

The Winema's analysis is therefore deficient in two respects; the public has no confidence in the data<br />

which goes into the FORPLAN model, and the Winema fails to discuss the consequences of the outputs<br />

of the model. Only by scrutinizing the inputs to the model, and the model itself, can the public or a<br />

reviewing court place faith in the model's output.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The data that we used is the best currently available. The consequences of the outputs are discussed<br />

in detail in Chapters 2 and 4 of the EIS. Chapter 4 also discusses reliability of the data and the estimates<br />

developed from it. The Planning Records contain voluminous data and support information, much of<br />

which is referenced in the EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

This chapter indicates that much of the information regarding the environmental consequences of the<br />

alternatives was already presented in Chapter II of the EIS. The description of the alternatives contained<br />

in Chapter II is an inappropriate location to place material regarding the environmental consequences<br />

of the alternatives. Furthermore, Chapter II of the draft EIS is composed primarily of exceedingly complex<br />

tables that convey little information to the reader regarding the environmental effects that implementation<br />

of any of the alternatives would have. Chapter II of the DEIS should be limited to a description of the<br />

alternatives themselves and Chapter IV should be rewritten to plainly and thoroughly describe the<br />

effects that implementation of the alternatives would have on the affected environment, not merely the<br />

results from the FORPLAN runs for each alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The chapters have been rewritten for the Final EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Is the land to be put to productive use for the benefit of the majority of people, or is it to be locked<br />

away in overly restrictive and unnecessary MMR's, visual management areas, and de facto wilderness?<br />

Because this is a principal issue in the forest planning process, the draft EIS must spend considerable<br />

effort addressing the issue.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The entire purpose of the EIS is to address these questions in an open forum with an opportunity for<br />

the public to comment and express their preference. Chapter 1 summarizes the broad range of public<br />

opinions on these issues and our <strong>Response</strong> to them.<br />

Comment<br />

Be more specific; does this call for an EA?<br />

What does 'normallym mean? Too subjective and vague for a standard.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Reference is to: Page IV-41, Draft Forest Plan, item 11 c.<br />

We agree, the standard is vague. The standard has been rewritten in the Final Forest Plan. Environmental<br />

analysis is conducted on all project level work. The analysis may be documented in an Environmental<br />

Impact Statement if the project would have a significant impact on the human environment. If no significant<br />

impact is found, the analysis is documented in an Environmental Assessment or categorically excluded<br />

from documentation.<br />

Comment<br />

Federal regulations for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.22)<br />

state that federal agencies in their preparation of- EIS documents 'shall include a worst case analysis<br />

and an indication of the probability or improbability of its occurrence' in cases of incomplete, uncertain<br />

or unavailable information concerning the environmental impacts of a proposed action. The WNF admits<br />

a clear lack of information on a variety of resource issues that would be affected by the PA, yet no<br />

K - 73

worst case analyses are presented. Worst case analyses need to be prepared for the following resource<br />

areas:<br />

1. Effects on the range and distribution of the full diversity of native plant communities on the WNF.<br />

Many areas remain incompletely known.<br />

2. Effects on the distribution and status of listed species of native plants and wildlife. Census data is<br />

incomplete or lacking for many areas and cumulative effects on rare species are poorly known.<br />

3. Effects on the structure and composition of naturally evolved old growth communities of a reduction<br />

far below existing levels.<br />

4. Effects of biocides on native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate species.<br />

5. Effects of the proposed action on water quality and fisheries resources.<br />

6. Effects of destruction of dispersal corridors for old growth dependent species of low dispersal capacities.<br />

7. Effects of snag depletion on nesting wildlife.<br />

8. Effects of livestock and ORV-introduced noxious weed species on the structure, composition and<br />

diversity of native plant communities and listed plant species. This is barely addressed in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The regulations you reference have been changed. Such an analysis is not required. We have identified<br />

areas where information is incomplete or unavailable, but in no case do we consider any such information<br />

to be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

A definition of standards is unfortunately missing from your documents, but the definition from the<br />

Wallowa-Whitman N.F. DEIS should be generally acceptable - la principle requiring a specific level of<br />

attainment, a rule against which to measure.' Frequently, the standards offered in the Plan are so vague<br />

and unquantified that they would be better described as goal statements, not standards. Reference to<br />

yet-to-be-developed plans or future project-level analysis is inappropriate. Standards and guidelines<br />

need to be more precisely defined, and their effectiveness as mitigation measures needs to discussed<br />

and documented. A similar lack of precision in the monitoring plan only compounds these problems.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have rewritten the plan with your comments in mind.<br />

Comment<br />

The Tribe urges the Forest Service to continue conferring with tribal staff and ODFW staff to properly<br />

identify mule deer winter range and the appropriate amount of winter range to manage.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our delineation of mule deer winter range was developed in concert with ODF&W.<br />

Comment<br />

NEPA requires that EIS's include mitigation. Without a detailed monitoring plan, it will be difficult for<br />

the Forest to comply with the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations which require that<br />

an EIS shall contain: 'means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (40 CFR 1502.16(h)).' When<br />

adverse effects on water quality and fisheries are potentially significant, they must be mitigated. A<br />

detailed monitoring plan needs to accompany any proposed mitigation activity in order to measure its<br />

effectiveness and ensure that necessary corrections are implemented.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 has been rewritten to highlight mitigation. The Forest Plan contains a detailed monitoring<br />

plan (Chapter 5).<br />

K - 74

Comment<br />

Upgrading of BMPs or prescriptions to correct inaccurate predictions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The BMP's have been rewritten and are included in Appendix H of the Final EIS and Appendix C of<br />

the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Selection of BMPs for specific activities and how uncertainty is factored into selection.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See Appendix H of the Final EIS or Appendix C of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Best Management Practices (BMPs) and prescription development.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See Appendix H of the Final EIS or Appendix C of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

On-site inspection and administration during an activity, verifying that a particular activity is occurring<br />

as prescribed in contracts, leases, or permits.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter 5 of the Forest plan) addresses these concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Detailed environmental monitoring (especially for water quality and fisheries) before, during, and after<br />

the completion of an activity to determine whether impacts were accurately predicted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter 5 of the Forest plan) addresses these concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Built-in feedback mechanisms so that forest activities causing a problem can be corrected before they<br />

are allowed to continue.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter 5 of the Forest plan) addresses these concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

A description of the data base for existing conditions from which technical experts and the public can<br />

judge the expected effects and level of uncertainty of the predictions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The data describing the existing conditions is included in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. The use of that<br />

data is discussed in Appendix B. The raw data itself is among the planning records.<br />

Comment<br />

The regulatory requirements in NEPA and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) support the<br />

development of a detailed monitoring plan and feedback mechanism.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter 5 of the Forest plan) addresses these concerns.<br />

K -75

Comment<br />

IV-14 Para. 3. (and all other references). The term wild should replace native which would not include<br />

wild populations of brown and brook trout.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We will attempt to clarify this wherever it occurs.<br />

Comment<br />

It is not clear nor reasonable that the outputs and effects can be the same in all alternatives for recreation<br />

and visual resources (11-86 to 89), wildlife and fisheries resources (11-91 to 94), and soils, water and air<br />

resources (11-92) while at the same time the outputs are variable for timber resources (11-79 to 86), grazing<br />

(11-94), and transportation system (11-95 to 97).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Let's look at some of these areas. Developed Recreation use varies by alternative, but by the emphasis<br />

applied to developed recreation rather than by the emphasis applied to timber. This type of recreation<br />

can be supplied on small areas without interacting with timber outputs much. Likewise, downhill skiing<br />

relates to alternative approaches to the Pelican Butte Area (note that any proposals for Pelican Butte<br />

will be evaluated after the Forest plan is completed).<br />

In the case of dispersed recreation, we find that generally the capacity of the Forest to supply this<br />

type of recreation exceeds the anticipated demand for it. This anticipated demand level is a constant<br />

and it's basis is described in Chapter 3. Whenever capacity exceeds demand levels, the demand level<br />

is said to be equal to the use level which is reported in the tables. Thus any alternative where capacity<br />

exceeds projected demand has the same estimated use level. In the case of Wilderness, the acreage<br />

is constant across the alternatives so the estimated use levels are also constant.<br />

The visual quality objectives. do vary by alternative depending upon the emphasis given to that resource.<br />

Timber harvest levels generally decline as more emphasis is given to visual quality.<br />

Wildlife and fish use are estimated to be constant across alternatives. In the case of hunting, the use<br />

levels are lower than demand primarily due to projected static deer population levels and the potential<br />

for permit-only hunting in future decades.<br />

We have updated many of these estimates based upon the latest information on user demand as<br />

described in Chapter 3. We've also rewritten Chapter 2 to explain more about the basis of the displayed<br />

numbers.<br />

Comment<br />

We believe that the standards and guidelines for implementing a Forest Plan should provide detailed<br />

guidance on how all practices will be carried out in achieving the objectives of the Plan. Toward this<br />

end, your standards and guidelines appear strong in some places and weak in others. The Department<br />

of Agriculture found an excellent discussion on forest-wide standards and guidelines for range<br />

management, although they still have some suggestions for improvement. The Water Resources<br />

Department and ODFW, on the other hand, found significant weakness in the statement of quantifiable<br />

standards for measuring performance in statement about fish, wildlife, water, soil and air. The qualifiers<br />

that occur throughout these sections, such as Osome,O Osufficient,' and 'where neededo are subjective<br />

and do not allow for comparison.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest plan have been extensively rewritten with<br />

your comments in mind.<br />

K - 76

Comment<br />

We believe the purpose of a monitoring plan should be to establish methods and threshold levels for<br />

evaluating the direction, standards, and outputs of the Forest Plan. The State recommends that the<br />

Winema consider adopting the monitoring format just recently developed by the Regional Office.<br />

Because so much is unknown about the effects of management activities on different forest resources,<br />

we must rely on monitoring to provide early warning signals about activities having effects beyond<br />

acceptable limits. Therefore, we recommend that the budget for this monitoring be considered an<br />

integral part of the provision of outputs from the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have revised the monitoring plan (Chapter 5 or the Forest Plan) to better deal with these issues.<br />

Budget estimates are provided for each item and are included in the overall budget estimate in the<br />

Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

On 15 November 1984, the Regional Office briefed ODFW on Forest Planning. At this briefing, a document<br />

titled 'Forest Plan Contents (1983, USDA Forest Service)' was explained to ODFW. A reference from<br />

page 10 of the above document states:<br />

'Standards and guidelines state the bounds or constraints within which all practices will be<br />

carried out in achieving the planned objectives. Therefore, standards and guidelines should be<br />

measurable to be meaningful. There is little purpose in defining standards and guidelines for<br />

which no methods of measuring the degree of compliance or attainment exist.'<br />

ODFW is pleased to see that the Forest makes reference to the above paragraph. However, the standards<br />

and guidelines are too general to be meaningful. Although some protection is provided in Forest-wide<br />

water, soil, and air standards and guidelines, specific criteria should be formulated. ODFW is especially<br />

concerned with programming of timber harvest in riparian areas. There is inadequate concern for fish<br />

and wildlife and other riparian-dependent resources in the Range standard and guidelines. The degree<br />

of forage utilization is not stratified by vegetation type or by riparian condition. The 1979 interagency<br />

paper 'Managing Riparian Ecosystems (zones) in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington' is referred<br />

to as a standard in the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for fish and wildlife. Rather than referring<br />

to the publication, the Forest should mention specific criteria from it. The Forest should state specific<br />

time frames for achieving improved habitat conditions (see recommendations for Aquatic/Riparian<br />

Habitats).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have rewritten many of the standards and guidelines to better address your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW, therefore, recommends a strong set of specific standards be developed for the plan. By definition,<br />

a standard is a point to measure against or a basis for comparison. The qualifiers used (such as some,<br />

sufficient, where needed, significant, should, etc.) are subjective and do not allow for comparison. The<br />

Forest must develop clear and objective standards which would provide guidance for implementing<br />

the final plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See Chapter 4 of the Final Forest plan.<br />

Comment<br />

When terms are used that identify a type of direction or degree of restriction, the terms need to be<br />

defined. ODFW recommends that the Forest use the definitions (below) developed by the Siskiyou<br />

National Forest for four of the most often used terms. The Forest would need to define other terms<br />

used in the standards and guidelines that can be subjective in nature. (See letter for terms).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have added additional definitions.<br />

K- 77

Comment<br />

The proposed monitoring plan is too general to be useful because it is based on standards and guidelines<br />

that are themselves general. Specific criteria must be selected and a threshold for changes that trigger<br />

action must be identified.<br />

ODFW recommends the Forest develop a monitoring plan that establishes specific methods, frequence,<br />

and threshold levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have redeveloped the monitoring plan. See Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The 'No Change' Alternative appears to be a compromise approach that could present a true, unaltered<br />

historical reference for public review in the DEIS. However, the Winema has rendered this reference<br />

point meaningless by providing limited output information for this alternative. For example, Tables S2<br />

and I11-A showing resource outputs and environmental effects by alternative has repeated omissions<br />

where data was not provided. The DEIS states that '...outputs and effects of this alternative are derived<br />

in a variety of ways. If an estimate was supplied in the [1 978] Timber Resource Plan then this figure is<br />

used. Other outputs and effects are estimated based on similarities between the 'No Change' Alternative<br />

and Alternative A the 'No Action' Alternative. In some cases no estimates are provided if there is no<br />

information on which to base an estimate...'<br />

Even though the information may be outdated or of unknown precision, it should have been included.<br />

The purpose of the alternative is to allow the public to directly compare management under the existing<br />

plan with management under the proposed alternatives as required by NEPA. By not providing this<br />

data, the Winema has failed to present a true 'No-Action' Alternative for public review.<br />

We have included information about Alternative NC where it exists or where it could be reasonably<br />

estimated on some basis. Estimates without a basis are useless in comparison of alternatives so rather<br />

than be misleading in the comparisons we chose simply to state that the item was 'not estimated.'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have included information about Alternative NC where it exists or where it could be reasonably<br />

estimated on some basis. Estimates without a basis are useless in comparison of alternatives so rather<br />

than be misleading in the comparisons we chose simply to sate that the item was 'not estimated.'<br />

Comment<br />

How much does this minimum management emphasis duplicate similar management provided by<br />

other management areas such as Scenic Management (Area 3), Special Interest Areas (Area 4) Wildlife<br />

Habitats (Area 7, 8, 9, and 10) or Research Natural Areas (Area 13)? Additional information on the<br />

types and acreages to be protected by retaining these lands in their present condition and the purpose<br />

for this minimum management emphasis needs to be explained and made available for public review.<br />

Analysis should also present acreages and values withdrawn from productive range and timber lands<br />

in order to provide this protection.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The minimum level management area (Management Area 14) duplicates none of the other areas. It's<br />

main purpose is to provide the minimum levels of stewardship necessary to avoid damage to the inherent<br />

resource (e.g. soil productivity). It is generally used for lands which are not suitable for furthering the<br />

intent of the alternative. In Alternative J, for example, these are generally small segments of the general<br />

Forest area, outside of important visual zones, that are unsuitable for timber production. No other<br />

management area would be appropriate for these types of lands.<br />

K -78

Comment<br />

Management Area 14 (DEIS, page 11-72,11-75; App., D-104) Little discussion is provided as to criteria or<br />

forest conditions that would necessitate placing an area in this management category. Management<br />

Area 14 is described as a minimum management area that may be applied to any area of the forest or<br />

to the entire forest however the conditions that are being protected are not clear and seem to be inclusive<br />

of other management areas. Table 11-2 shows 8.6 percent of the total forest proposed forthis management<br />

emphasis under the preferred Alternative E. The map for this alternative indicates an additional 1.25<br />

percent in special management areas totaling nearly 10 percent in these categories.<br />

Explanation is not provided as to the qualities that are being protected by each of these withdrawals.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 14 can apply to any part of the Forest where the management is intended only to<br />

protect inherent resources and not to manage them in a proactive sense. In alternatives with a significant<br />

level of management, including alternatives E and J, these are generally lands that are in the general<br />

Forest area, but are unsuitable for timber production. Since they are not particularly suited to recreation<br />

or wildlife use and they are not in critical visual zones, they are simply set aside and protected from<br />

damage. An example would be unvegetated rocky areas, each only a few acres in size.<br />

Comment<br />

There is little or no reason why most acres of National Forest land cannot produce timber products,<br />

clean water, wildlife, forage and quality recreation if the forest management professional does the job<br />

we have all been trained to do. Allocation of areas to principal uses is a cop out; it eliminates first the<br />

hard decisions that we can make.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A review of the standards and guidelines associated with each management area (Chapter 4 of the<br />

Forest Plan) reveals that various mixes of these resources come from most of them. In some cases<br />

certain uses are excluded because of critical conflicts with other uses or because the types of land do<br />

not lend themselves to one use or another.<br />

Comment<br />

A general deficiency we have observed in many draft plans has been the implicit assumption that all<br />

adverse environmental impacts result from timber harvest, grazing or other human activities on the<br />

land. Almost universally, the Forests have ignored the fact that natural events, such as catastrophic<br />

fires and floods, can have far greater impact on environmental values than a well-designed and<br />

implemented timber management program. Invariably, the 'environmentally preferable' alternative has<br />

been the one that has the largest roadless management acreage and lowest timber harvest level. Both<br />

the public and Forest Service decision makers need to know: (1) that the environmental effects of<br />

non-management can be as bad as, or even worse than, the effects of planned management activities;<br />

and (2) that an active timber management program can significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic<br />

natural events.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The variations in effects of the different alternatives on fire, insect and disease are discussed in Chapter<br />

4 of the FEIS. The general relationships between fire, insects and disease and aspects of Forest<br />

management are discussed in Chapter 3. Catastrophic events such as major floods or volcanic events<br />

are equally likely to occur under any alternative and speculation about them would not help in the<br />

selection of one alternative over another.<br />

Comment<br />

Monitoring-The proposed monitoring program may be ineffective because of its immediate reliance on<br />

Plan amendments and revisions in case Plan objectives are not attained. Amendments and revisions<br />

require a full EIS process, are outside the supervisor's authority, and higher Forest Service officials<br />

K - 79

may be reluctant to authorize them. The monitoring program should specify which actions will be taken<br />

in case of problems with Plan implementation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The monitoring plan (Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan) has been rewritten. Implementation of other Forest<br />

Plans has revealed that amendments and revisions are commonly approved.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-18, para. 3. The final document should list the acreages associated with each of the Forest's<br />

10 major plan communities. Acreages for the six successional states should also be provided in order<br />

to assess impacts of the alternatives on the existing environment.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Acreage percents of the various plan communities and successional stages are displayed in Chapter<br />

3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The Park should be included in the affected environment section since the Park and the Forest have<br />

over 32 miles of common boundary. It is important that Crater Lake NP be included as part of the<br />

affected environment and impacts of each alternative described. In light of the 1916 Organic Act, Public<br />

Law 97-250 and the 1978 Redwood Act, it is felt that both the PLRMP and the DEIS inadequately address<br />

protection and preservation of NPS resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have rewritten Chapters 3 and 4 of the EIS. The relationship of various resources to Crater Lake<br />

National Park are included in the discussions.<br />

K - 80

Range<br />

Comment<br />

I cannot find figures for Range use receipts and direct costs. Table IV-2 shows average costs for first<br />

decade of $4,700. What was the actual costs for 1985. Require range users to fence off riparian and<br />

seeded or planted areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Range use receipts and direct cost are not included. Implementation decade costs have been revised.<br />

Range users are not required to build fence though they have a part in maintenance. Costs of resource<br />

protection are born by the resource in question. Standards and guidelines have been revised to emphasize<br />

riparian area protection.<br />

Comment<br />

I advocate that better domestic grazing management be adopted by the plan including:<br />

1. prescribed seasons of use<br />

2. grazing systems fitted to the allotments<br />

3. exclusion of livestock from areas already in poor condition<br />

We want to see more done to prevent damage from overgrazing, like prescribed seasons of use and<br />

exclusion of livestock from riparian areas in poor condition from grazing. Winema Forest has many<br />

fishing streams in substandard shape that could produce far more fish if managed well.<br />

The plan should a) prescribe seasons of use, grazing systems, and improvements by individual allotments<br />

and b) SHOULD EXCLUDE LIVESTOCK FROM RIPARIAN AREAS THAT ARE IN POOR CONDITION.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Planning process does not prescribe this level of detail. This is done in the Allotment<br />

Management Plans. The allotment management plans currently in place on the Winema have prescribed<br />

seasons of use, grazing systems and allow for the exclusion of livestock or resting a portion of the<br />

allotment to improve conditions. A current range analysis needs to be conducted on all our allotments<br />

and range management plans updated at which time trends in range condition will be reviewed, seasons<br />

of use changed if needed, grazing systems changed or modified if warranted and prescriptions for<br />

management of riparian areas within allotments developed that may exclude livestock partially or totally<br />

until such time as the riparian areas are in a condition such that they can be managed with livestock.<br />

Comment<br />

I am also concerned with the current and proposed levels of grazing on the forest particularly in the<br />

riparian areas. Many of these areas are severely over-grazed. Many studies have been done showing<br />

the importance of NOT GRAZING the riparian areas at all. These same studies show that cattle will<br />

utilize the rest of the allotment more efficiently, and at the same time stream flows, clarity, and water<br />

temperature will improve dramatically. The benefits to fish, wildlife, and the watershed are tremendous.<br />

The AUMs on the Winema need to be drastically reduced, with an elimination of riparian grazing.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The allotment management plans currently in place on the Winema have prescribed seasons of use,<br />

grazing systems and allow for the exclusion of livestock or resting a portion of the allotment to improve<br />

conditions. A current range analysis may need to be conducted on all our allotments and range<br />

management plans updated at which time trends in range condition will be reviewed, seasons of use<br />

changed if needed, grazing systems changed or modified if warranted and prescriptions for management<br />

of riparian areas within allotments developed that may exclude livestock partially or totally until such<br />

time as the riparian areas are in a condition such that they can be managed with livestock. This has<br />

been identified as an information need in the Final Forest Plan.<br />

K - 81

Comment<br />

A complete assessment of environmental impacts of grazing should be done by the Forest Service,<br />

and no grazing should be allowed in riparian areas in poor condition.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Whenever a range allotment management plan is re-written or updated, an environmental analysis is<br />

the first step in the process and management of riparian areas will receive top priority consideration.<br />

Comment<br />

Overgrazing is still a problem on national forest lands particularly in riparian zones. Fencing and elimination<br />

of grazing from certain allotments has helped restore some areas. However, I believe we should establish<br />

and rigidly enforce procedures to control grazing on each allotment to preclude overgrazing, improve<br />

overgrazed allotments and exclude livestock from riparian areas which are in poor condition from<br />

overgrazing.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The allotment management plans establish forage use levels that should prevent overgrazing any portion<br />

of an allotment. Through the administration of the Grazing Permit and the Allotment Plan, livestock are<br />

managed to insure appropriate grazing objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

Overgrazing of livestock on our public lands should cease.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In all alternatives of the DEIS, forage allocations are such that a percentage of the total available forage<br />

is allocated for wildlife, a percentage for livestock, both permitted, and recreation use and a percentage<br />

of the welfare of the forage plant. None of the alternatives allocate all the forage to either wildlife or<br />

livestock. With proper administration of grazing permits and well prepared management plans, overgrazing<br />

on the Winema should not be a problem.<br />

Comment<br />

There should be a full assessment made of the environmental impacts of grazing. The plan should<br />

prescribe seasons of use, grazing systems, and improvements by individual allotment.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Whenever a range allotment management plan is re-written or updated, an environmental analysis is<br />

the first step in the process and management of riparian areas will receive top priority consideration.<br />

Comment<br />

While on this subject of overuse, I think cattle grazing should be phased out. The damage to riparian<br />

areas is extensive.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Grazing has been an accepted and encouraged use of National Forest land since the inception of the<br />

Forest Service in 1897. The science of range management has continually improved since that time,<br />

too. For many years, the Winema range conservationist, in cooperation with ranching permittees, have<br />

built water developments away from the riparian environments and have fenced out cattle from riparian<br />

zones.<br />

Comment<br />

I propose that the Forest Service do a full assessment of the environmental impact of grazing. Grazing<br />

in riparian areas in poor condition should be prohibited.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Whenever a range allotment management plan is re-written or updated, an environmental assessment<br />

is the first step in the process and management of riparian areas will receive top priority consideration.<br />

K - 82

Comment<br />

How can Management Area 11 be properly considered if it is used to provide high levels of forage<br />

under only one alternative; and that is not the Preferred Alternative. How many of the 335,000 acres of<br />

suitable range lands are allocated in each alternative? How do we know where the acres for the 13,055<br />

AUM's are?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The theme of Alternative C was to provide high levels of timber and forage production. The assumption<br />

behind the other alternatives was that demand for forage could easily be met so no emphasis was<br />

placed on its production.<br />

No alternative assumed using the full 330,000 acres of suitable range land.<br />

The 13,055 AUM's are produced on the 22 active allotments on the Forest which are identified in Chapter<br />

3.<br />

Comment<br />

*The Forest has the capabilities to produce several times the demand for livestock forage for the planning<br />

horizon," (11-71). What is the total production of forage on the Forest? What is the average per acre per<br />

year production of forage on the suitable and available acres? How many AUM's have been allocated<br />

to big game? How may AUM's, if any, are allocated to other wildlife for any type of habitat?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Total forage production on the Forest is about 67,500 tons. Part of this production is on low production<br />

areas that may not be cost effective to use. Average production per acre varies widely from less than<br />

100 pounds per acre to more than 1000 pounds per acre. Of the total forage production 60% has<br />

been allocated to forage plant maintenance 20% to big game and other wildlife and 20% to livestock<br />

when there are no conflicts with wildlife.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS-LRMP seems to have taken a 'doomsday' approach to livestock grazing. 'The livestock grazing<br />

program on the Winema National Forest will, in all probability, continue its present decline due to poor<br />

economic conditions of the livestock industry,' (IV-27). The industry must be assured, by the Forest,<br />

that the AUM's will be available for an increase, when the market changes direction.<br />

With America's increasing population the Forest is making no effort to help provide for an increased<br />

production of red meat. Why this lack of concern?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Most of the livestock grazing on the Forest is associated with riparian areas. In the future the livestock<br />

industry will have to compete more with other uses of these areas. Livestock grazing will be balanced<br />

with other resource values.<br />

Comment<br />

Grazing? Why should grazing of domestic animals on public land be allowed as all? Let's put grazing<br />

on moratorium for 10 years!! The grazing laws are archaic. This is 1988, not 1938. Our public areas<br />

are going to have pressures of all kinds this next few decades. There is no money in it for the State or<br />

the Government. If we the had to pay for damage grazing has done. It would far outweigh the revenue<br />

from it.<br />

Historically, grazing has been the rights of a very few that didn't really infringe on the rights of many.<br />

That's not true anymore. Some unbiased studies should be done this next decade. For example, eliminate<br />

grazing in one area, allowing it in another -- let's not just think and argue -- let's know!! In ten years<br />

we could really know -- Maybe. Let's keep grazing out of any forest that has a pumice floor. Livestock<br />

congregate - always - and when they do they overgraze. Let's let wildlife graze it, then the nation benefits.<br />

Livestock grazing tends to be alien to the natural diversity. Livestock grazing is not cost efficient to the<br />

government and also tends to be a subsidy to a privileged few. Considering the damage from grazing<br />

K - 83

the the soils, riparian zones, and the competition to wildlife - grazing should be reduced and eventually<br />

eliminated. There also needs to be special efforts to reduce the impact of cattle on the riparian zones.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Grazing has been an accepted and encouraged use of National Forest land since the inception of the<br />

Forest Service in 1897. The science of range management has continually improved since that time,<br />

too.<br />

For many years, Winema range conservationists, in cooperation with ranching permittees, have built<br />

water developments away from the riparian environments and have fenced out cattle from riparian<br />

zones.<br />

In all alternatives of the DEIS, forage allocations were such that a percentage of the total available<br />

forage was allocated for wildlife and a percentage for livestock. None of the alternatives allocated all<br />

the forage to either wildlife or livestock. With proper administration of grazing permits and well prepared<br />

management plans, overgrazing on the Winema should not be a problem.<br />

The allotment management plans currently in place on the Winema have prescribed seasons of use,<br />

grazing systems and allow for the exclusion of livestock or resting a portion of the allotment to improve<br />

conditions. A current range analysis may need to be conducted on all our allotments and range<br />

management plans updated at which time trends in range condition will be reviewed, seasons of use<br />

changed if needed, grazing systems changed or modified if warranted and prescriptions for management<br />

of riparian areas within allotments developed that may exclude livestock partially or totally until such<br />

time as the riparian areas are in a condition such that they can be managed with livestock. There are<br />

also equally as many studies that show the riparian areas can be managed with livestock and will<br />

flourish. Stream flows can be increased, water quality improved and fish and wildlife benefit from proper<br />

livestock management.<br />

There are currently more livestock AUMs permitted on the Winema N.F. than are being utilized. This<br />

trend has been true for the past several years. Many livestock operators have been grazing much less<br />

than the permitted numbers. In some allotments, no livestock grazing has occurred for several years.<br />

Grazing laws and grazing fees are outside the jurisdiction of the Winema National Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

In reviewing the proposed Land and Resources Management Plan, I see that most of the land in the<br />

Dam's Meadow and Switchback allotments that is open enough for good grazing is classified as either<br />

Area 3, Scenic Management or Area 14, Minimum Management. I thought that the scenic management<br />

could be a problem, but was not concerned about the minimum management until I read the Draft<br />

Environmental Impact Statement. It said grazing was usually not compatible with this area, then I saw<br />

in the Appendices that grazing would be discontinued in Area 14, although it was admitted that grazing<br />

was not doing any damage. If this is implemented, in my opinion, the main result to the Forest would<br />

be a greater fire danger. It would be impractical to fence each area, so it seems to me the only alternatives<br />

other than complete removal of cattle, are to stop grazing about half of each allotment, which would<br />

require a lot of expensive fencing, or continue using them in more or less the same way as is presently<br />

being done.<br />

In the interest of highway safety, a goal should be added to state: Grazing cattle should be separated<br />

from major transportation corridors wherever possible for public safety.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A scenic management classification in the Dam's Meadow and Switchback allotments should only<br />

affect grazing to the extent that structural improvements blend into the environment, (see page D-44 in<br />

the Appendix of the DEIS under Range). This would typically be a concern in the foreground areas<br />

only along the Switchback Road and State Highway 140.<br />

Final Forest Plan recognizes livestock grazing as a legitimate use of the Forest. The Forest plan will<br />

generally not eliminate livestock grazing where there are no conflicts. Utilization standards and season<br />

of use may be more restrictive for livestock grazing, but each area will have to be evaluated on a case<br />

by case basis. This will be done as allotment management plans are updated and revised.<br />

The Forest Plan sets standards and guidelines, the individual allotment management plan sets specific<br />

goals and objectives for each allotment. As individual allotment plans are updated and revised, if there<br />

K - 84

are major highway corridors, and livestock are presenting a health and safety problems, fencing highway<br />

right-of-ways, and other control measures will be considered to eliminate the above problems.<br />

Comment<br />

We want you to do a full E.I.S. on the impacts of grazing. We also want a total halt to grazing in riparian<br />

areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Livestock grazing and other Forest Management Activities are being covered under this Environmental<br />

Impact Statement. Forest Standards and Guidelines set the direction for livestock grazing on the Forest.<br />

Allotment Management Plans set specific direction for individual allotments. Livestock are a management<br />

tool that can be used to maintain the desired vegetative condition for plant communities. Livestock if<br />

presenting a problem will be excluded, and/or restricted on the amount of forage they are allowed to<br />

use, and the time that they can graze the above areas.<br />

The Environmental Impact Statement on the Forest Plan is considered to be an umbrella document<br />

which guides project level planning (see the plan implementation section of the Forest Plan for additional<br />

information. An Environmental Assessment will be prepared for each allotment plan which is updated<br />

or revised. One of the purposes for preparing an Environmental Assessment is to determine the need<br />

for a full EIS. If the finding in the EA is that there will be no significant impact on the human environment,<br />

an EIS is not prepared. Generally this is the case with allotment plans.<br />

Comment<br />

We are also aware of the damage that can and has Forest Service to include specific prescriptions for<br />

grazing that will be mutually beneficial to wildlife and livestock in the final LRMP. We further ask that<br />

the prescriptions afford particular attention to current and potential damage in riparian ares and winter<br />

range. We will comment further under Riparian Areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Allotment Management plans, as they are updated and revised to conform to Standards and guidelines<br />

in the Forest Plan, will prescribe the amount of forage that can be harvested from riparian areas by<br />

livestock. The condition of the riparian plant community in the individual allotment will determine the<br />

degree of utilization allowed, Utilization levels may range from total exclusion of livestock to 40% of the<br />

current year's growth. Annual grazing plans will prescribe interim direction until the allotment management<br />

plan is updated, and provide yearly direction to the revised allotment management plans as these<br />

plans are completed. Forest standards and guidelines for forage allocation and livestock use in riparian<br />

zones will be established based on a blending of total resources in the Final Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

We ask the final LRMP address grazing management plans with priorities toward reducing conflicts<br />

detrimental to wildlife and recreational activities.<br />

We generally support the management proposals in the draft plan. Wre do believe that careful selective<br />

logging in riparian areas can be accomplished and cannot only assist in correct riparian management<br />

but also can prevent waste of timber output on these very productive sites. Studies in Arizona and<br />

Central Oregon indicate that modern grazing management systems can improve quality and increase<br />

vegetation production better than elimination of grazing. We urge that such techniques be reviewed<br />

and installed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Allotment Management Plans as they are revised and updated according to the<br />

Final Forest Plan will prescribe livestock grazing to minimize conflicts with other resource users and<br />

activities, and blend total resource uses and resources to compliment each other.<br />

K - 85

Comment<br />

Studies in Arizona and Central Oregon indicate that modern grazing management systems can improve<br />

quality and increase vegetation production better than elimination of grazing. We urge that such<br />

techniques be reviewed and installed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes we are aware of these studies and will consider the results during the allotment planning process.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel that the Forest should take advantage of opportunities to convert some of the existing cattle<br />

allotments on these districts to sheep allotments for the following reasons: (1) sheep are controlled by<br />

herders; (2) sheep are less dependent on riparian areas and consequently have less negative impacts<br />

on riparian areas; (3) there are less range improvements needed on sheep allotments (fencing) and so<br />

costs will be less in construction and maintenance; (4) better utilization of forage occurs and little if<br />

any abuse occurs on the total range allotment; (5) Bitterbrush stands can be maintained in a more<br />

usable condition for wildlife, and most of the understory component on the Chiloquin and Chemult<br />

District is Bitterbrush.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan establishes guidelines for converting types of livestock on individual allotments. These<br />

guidelines place priorities for converting types of livestock based on: present type of livestock is not<br />

meeting forage utilization goals and objectives, present type of livestock is creating and/or contributing<br />

to resource damage, another type of livestock will meet other resource goals and objectives, and status<br />

of allotment. Analysis of individual allotments will determine the need to change existing type of livestock,<br />

followed by a revision and update of the individual allotment management plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The other part of range is noxious weed control and it is felt that due to logging activity and minimum<br />

investment in noxious weed control, the Forest is setting itself up for future lawsuits in the Sprague<br />

River and Hildebrand area from adjoining private landowners. There needs to be two funding levels<br />

established for noxious weed control and containment. One funding level for manual and biological<br />

control and one funding level if herbicide use is available and allowable. Another area the Forest should<br />

monitor is the Klamath District where landownerships are intermingled or the Forest joins private lands.<br />

It is felt the minimum investment should be set at between $10,000 to $14,000 for manual and biological<br />

control and containment, and about $7,000 for the use of herbicides if their use is allowed. Again, I<br />

feel staffing and funding needs to be increased for better monitoring and getting a quality job done.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Noxious Weed Control will continue to be a legitimate activity on the Forest. A Forest Noxious Weed<br />

Control Plan in cooperation with the Klamath County Weed and Rodent Control and State of Oregon,<br />

Department of Agriculture-Noxious Weed Control. The plan establishes a base level for requesting<br />

funding, priority of weed species to control, level of control, and type of control methods that may be<br />

used. It also provides guidelines for an annual work plan, define responsibilities of individual agencies<br />

and groups involved in noxious weed control.<br />

t<br />

Comment<br />

In the Environmental Consequences section of the DEIS, the discussion of the effects of grazing on<br />

other resources is extremely scanty and inadequate. The effects on native plant communities is not<br />

even mentioned, yet many negative effects have been documented, including alteration of native<br />

community structure, elimination of vulnerable species, introduction of exotic invasive weed species<br />

that out compete native species, destruction of the vital moss-lichen soil cover layer, and loss of soil<br />

substrates by increased erosion. None of these effects are mentioned nor is there any mention of how<br />

effects on native vegetation will be monitored or mitigated, other than the extremely vague range condition<br />

monitoring program.<br />

K - 86

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Allotment management plans identify the livestock grazing prescription to be used in maintaining and/or<br />

improving the condition and trend of the plant communities, areas that are sensitive or that need special<br />

protection are identified, and the necessary measures are implemented through a combination of range<br />

improvements and levels of forage utilization which can range from total exclusion of livestock to 40%<br />

utilization. Annual Grazing Plans provide follow-up direction to the allotment management plan. There<br />

are other studies that show that proper livestock grazing can be used to maintain the integrity of plant<br />

communities (ex. Leonard Volland's 'Condition and Trends in The Bluegrass Plant Communities').<br />

The Forest Plan sets the overall direction and priorities for areas to be grazed or to be restricted from<br />

grazing. The revised and updated allotment management plans follow guidelines established in the<br />

Forest Management Plan.<br />

Soil Erosion and soil movement as a result of livestock grazing except for very few areas on the Forest<br />

has not been recognized as a major problem. Corrective measures are being implemented to deal<br />

with these situations. This includes exclusion of livestock by fencing, watershed structures, and/or less<br />

forage allowed to be utilized by livestock, and season of use adjustments which further restrict the<br />

time livestock are allowed to graze a particular area within an allotment.<br />

Comment<br />

We strongly object to the proposed continuation of the overgrazing substantial portions of the Wilderness<br />

Areas on the Winema National Forest. It should be WNF policy to not renew livestock grazing leases in<br />

wilderness areas when they expire, as livestock directly conflict with primary wilderness resources. We<br />

request that the WNF immediately begin this process by relocating all allotments that are in less than<br />

good condition to transitory range in timber management ares outside the Wilderness.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's wilderness areas do not have any livestock allotments located within their boundaries.<br />

The final Forest Plan does not allocate any areas inside the wilderness areas for domestic livestock<br />

grazing other than recreational and Packer stock use.<br />

Comment<br />

Effects of the alternatives, the preferred Alternative E included, do not address the social and economic<br />

impact to the permittees that currently utilize the forage resource of the Winema National Forest. No<br />

reasoning is provided to justify the reduction in the 19,000 AUM's currently allowed to the 13,000 AUM's<br />

presently utilized other than the current economic condition of the livestock industry. Provisions should<br />

be made in the plan to allow for the full utilization of the 19,000 AUM's currently allowed when economic<br />

conditions improve.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Final Forest Plan sets and implements the standards and guidelines for livestock use on the Forest.<br />

Livestock use will be blended with other resource uses and needs. Forage allocation for livestock will<br />

be determined on an allotment by allotment basis, through updated range analysis, and revised and<br />

updated allotment management plans, and livestock Head Months may be increased or decreased<br />

depending on the condition and trend of the forage base, wildlife needs, watershed protection, sensitive<br />

areas identified on the individual allotment.<br />

The Final Forest Plan and EIS have been modified to reflect that the 13 thousand AUM's is only an<br />

estimate of current use. Existing allotment plans establish 19,000 AUM's as the upper limit available for<br />

livestock use on the Forest. This remains the upper limit until allotment plans are updated.<br />

Comment<br />

Range management (Management Area 11) is excluded from the management area's section of the<br />

Proposed Land Resource Management Plan, and is included only in the appendices. Further, we object<br />

to the proposal that all grazing activities be discontinued in Management Area 14. This is impractical<br />

in areas where livestock grazing is interspersed with Management Area 14 areas.<br />

K - 87

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Final Forest Plan recognizes livestock as a legitimate use of National Forest Lands, in some of the<br />

required management areas livestock use will continue to be allowed, forage utilization guidelines may<br />

be restricted in these areas, depending on the needs of the specific required management area. Livestock<br />

will be recognized as a forage management tool and will be utilized to maintain and/or improve the<br />

forage resource of the required management areas.<br />

Management Area 11 is not included in the plan because it was not part of the preferred alternative.<br />

However, this does not preclude grazing under most other management areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) does not include range management in the alternative design criteria.<br />

The exclusion of range management does not allow the current permittees an opportunity to review or<br />

respond to the proposed Alternative E (section 11, page 50).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Range management was not included in the alternative design criteria, because the Forest felt that it<br />

could meet current and future range needs and demands without implementing special design criteria<br />

for range management.<br />

Range management was not excluded from Alternative E, however no lands were allocated to<br />

Management Area 11 in this alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

We are concerned with, and object to, the inference throughout the plan that domestic livestock grazing<br />

should be excluded from tree plantations by fencing. This is not in line with well-documented research<br />

conducted by land grant universities and applied practices of private forest companies. Both have<br />

demonstrated that livestock grazing is compatible with tree plantations and that grazing of tree plantations<br />

will increase tree production by reducing vegetation competition.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Final Forest Plan continues to recognize livestock as a legitimate use of Forest Lands. Standards<br />

and Guidelines for livestock grazing in tree plantations will be based on the age of the plantation, the<br />

type of forage available, the amount of livestock related damage to tree plantations that is acceptable,<br />

and the ability of the individual permittee to manage his(her) livestock in the plantations. Fencing will<br />

be one tool to control livestock use in tree plantations to minimize conflicts, and meet management<br />

requirements for both livestock and other resources.<br />

Comment<br />

The range standards and guidelines fail to address the competition and interaction between livestock<br />

and wildlife; whether a proper amount of forage is allocated to livestock given the needed improvement<br />

of deer habitat; and what effect allocation of forage to livestock has on tribal treaty rights. The forest<br />

needs to provide the animal unit forage equivalents for deer, elk and cattle. Each of these issues must<br />

be analyzed and discussed before the final plan is adopted. If analysis indicates a shift in allocation of<br />

range resources is necessary to protect tribal rights, the final plan should include necessary amendments.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest Standards and guidelines take into account in the allocation of the forage resource that livestock<br />

are not the only users of forage. The allocation of forage is based first on the needs of plant communities<br />

to maintain or improve condition and trend of the communities, soil stability is accounted for, wildlife<br />

needs are considered, and then any available forage remaining is allocated for livestock. Livestock are<br />

one of several management tools available to keep the forage resource in the most usable state for<br />

wildlife.<br />

Those allotments located on former reservation lands, as the allotment management plans are updated<br />

and revised, will consider allocating forage to domestic livestock so that conflicts are minimized and/or<br />

eliminated.<br />

K - 88

Comment<br />

What kind of habitat improvement projects are effective in improving damage done by livestock grazing?<br />

How has their effectiveness been demonstrated?<br />

Restriction of domestic livestock grazing, timber harvest, or road construction in areas adjacent to<br />

streams and wetlands is described as a mitigation measure. The FEIS/Plan should include an explanation<br />

of how these measures will be implemented (e.g. allotment plan and timber sale contract conditions).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Habitat improvement projects that can restore damaged areas include exclusion of livestock by fencing,<br />

placing barriers, developing other water sources, revegetation with plant species preferred by wildlife,<br />

and not necessarily by livestock. Monitoring of habitat improvement projects annually determines the<br />

effectiveness of the project. Any shortcomings and/or falldowns are rioted and necessary corrective<br />

measures are implemented so that those particular projects are successful, and future projects can be<br />

implemented without repeating past mistakes. (The Forest Service provides opportunities for its employees<br />

to make suggestions in improving all types of projects so that projects are successful. Forest Service'<br />

Manuals and Handbooks establish additional standards and guidelines that have proven to be the<br />

most successful over a number of years in developing habitat improvements.)<br />

Comment<br />

An allotment map and summary information by allotment on existing and planned uses, upland and<br />

riparian ecological condition and trend, and planned improvements showing method and time frame<br />

should be provided in the plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest submits a Range Area and Allotment Classification Report to the Region, this report identifies<br />

those allotments that are underdeveloped, allotments that are in good condition, allotments where<br />

resource damage is occurring. At the present time, there are 23 allotments, 17 are rated as quality<br />

extensive, four allotments are vacant, two allotments rated as underdeveloped, management strategy<br />

for the allotments has been identified as extensive management of the environment and livestock.<br />

Three of the vacant allotments may not be stocked again due to potential conflicts with other resources.<br />

The Forest Plan establishes standards and guidelines, the allotment management plan provides priority<br />

to the improvements needed on the allotment, annual management plans provide annual direction in<br />

developing improvements on the individual allotment based on funding, improvement priority as compared<br />

to other allotments on the District. The annual grazing plan also provides annual direction in dealing<br />

with problem areas on the allotment. Allotment Management Plans are periodically updated and revised<br />

to keep management of the allotment current so that existing problems and any potential problems<br />

can be dealt with. Allotment Maps are updated at this time, so that changes on the allotment can be<br />

made.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan does not display the location (map), condition and trend of watersheds and livestock allotments,<br />

and identify lands in less than satisfactory condition and plans for restoration and rehabilitation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan establishes and provides the standards and guidelines for overall management of<br />

allotments on the Forest, the allotment management plan provides the specific direction for individual<br />

allotments, based on Forest Standards and Guidelines, Annual Management Plans provide annual<br />

direction to the grazing permittee using the Forest S&G's, and allotment management plan direction.<br />

Allotment Management Plans are updated periodically to keep allotment management current with the<br />

Forest S & G's, and any changes needed in management to accomplish the S & G's. Maps are a part<br />

of the Allotment Management Plan, and the Annual Grazing Plan, and used at the project.<br />

K - 89

Comment<br />

Trout unlimited recommends that the Forest eliminate grazing on the Sycan River in accordance with<br />

the statement in the Fremont N.F. plan (p.54) that this action is a prerequisite for meeting the objectives<br />

of restoring water quality and good ecological riparian condition to that river.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan establishes necessary coordination with adjoining Forests on management of shared<br />

resources, and in this case the Fremont Forest is the lead forest for management of the Sycan River.<br />

The River Management Plan for the Sycan River establishes the specific direction for other uses that<br />

will be allowed on the Sycan River Corridor as established by legislation, regulations, and agreed to<br />

by the involved Forests and other user groups. If livestock use is determined to be a non-compatible<br />

use, then it will be restricted from the Sycan River Corridor.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest needs to display allotment data as required in Forest planning -36DFR219.20- 'A. Lands<br />

suitable for grazing and browsing shall be identified and their condition and trend shall be determined'<br />

and 'lands in less than satisfactory condition shall be identified and appropriate action planned for<br />

restoration.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS has been updated to include this data.<br />

Comment<br />

An allotment map with accompanying tables showing permitted uses would be helpful in our analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS has been updated to include this information.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan states that attention will be given to improving conditions, particularly in riparian areas. The<br />

State of Oregon supports the Forest's effort to properly manage and restore riparian areas. Standards<br />

and guidelines presented in the DEIS have identified a number of management strategies for improving<br />

range and riparian conditions. Due to the intense interest in riparian management, however, proposed<br />

systems of grazing management and associated practices should be more completely detailed in the<br />

plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Grazing systems and practices are tools used to achieve desired conditions. These are appropriate<br />

addressed in Allotment Mangement Plans rather than at the Forest Plan level.<br />

Comment<br />

One potential method of riparian rehabilitation listed in the DEIS is elimination or reduction of livestock<br />

in those areas. While specific riparian areas may require reduced grazing or exclusion of livestock for<br />

some period to promote resource recovery, the Forest should not overlook use of livestock as 'resource<br />

management tools' to meet riparian and forage goals. In addition, fencing to provide seasonal exclusion,<br />

development of alternative watering facilities, and placement of salt away from riparian areas can reduce<br />

the impact of livestock grazing on riparian zones. See the Department of Agriculture's comments for<br />

more details.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All the methods mentioned are appropiate tools to distribute livestock use. These are addressed in the<br />

Allotment Management Plans.<br />

K- 90

Comment<br />

Fall green up should be reserved for big game productivity and survival. Livestock use on winter and<br />

transition ranges should be discontinued after June 30 and September 30, respectively. The shrub<br />

component of these ranges need management emphasis to provide browse for big game. Prescribed<br />

fire in MA1 0 should only be used as a tool for needed habitat improvement. Ending dates for livestock<br />

use and restrictions on underburning must be included in Forest-wide standards and guidelines.<br />

ODFW recommends grazing curtailment on big game winter ranges after June 30; reservation of fall<br />

green up on transition ranges after September 30 for big game; no grazing of riparian zones in less<br />

than good condition; and protection of water sources. Special protection measures will be necessary<br />

to ensure successful aspen regeneration.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

At the present time permitted livestock grazing does not extend past September 30, on transition ranges.<br />

Permitted Grazing on Winter Range is generally off by the middle of September. Livestock grazing is a<br />

tool that is available to keep the browse in a vegetative state that is more usable for big game. Monitoring<br />

of livestock use on winter ranges determines whether or not browse is being maintained for wildlife.<br />

Season of Use is adjusted accordingly when conflicts between livestock and big game use is occurring.<br />

To this date, livestock use on big game winter range has not been identified as a problem because<br />

low numbers of big game using the winter range, and there is only one active allotment on the currently<br />

recognized big game winter range on the Forest. Livestock use on underburned areas is deferred for<br />

at least one grazing season and usually two seasons. Allowing livestock to utilize underburned areas<br />

depends on, time of fire, fire intensity (cold/hot), condition of the understory plant community after the<br />

fire.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW is concerned about the absence of grazing allotment data. An allotment map and summary<br />

tables with essential information by allotment (see General Comments) should be provided for comparison<br />

with on-the-ground conditions. ODFW is particularly interested in plans to correct resource damage<br />

problems, with a time frame for planned improvements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An allotment map and associated tables have been added to the FEIS. A timeframe for Allotment<br />

Management Plan Revision Update has been included in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

In some areas, much of the livestock use on the Forest takes place in riparian areas. Riparian areas<br />

are also one of the most important habitats on the Forest for wildlife. Reduction of ground cover and<br />

shrubs in riparian areas can, and has, significantly reduced habitat potential for wildlife. FSM 2526<br />

policy gives preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources over non-dependent resources.<br />

Allotment plans need to emphasize wildlife values.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Standards and Guidelines have been developed to emphasize riparian and wildlife values.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-52.<br />

Range Management. The DEIS states that two types of primary rangelands exist on the Forest: bitterbrush<br />

and meadows. Most of the meadows are described as riparian. To what extent are other rangelands<br />

(i.e., uplands or transitory range) available to reduce grazing pressure on riparian areas? (DEIS 111-52).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Some upland areas are available for livestock use on the Forest, other areas may not be available due<br />

to other resource priorities. Those areas available may not be used presently due to lack of water,<br />

these areas are being identified in project work (ex. Timber Sale Assessments, Revising and Updating<br />

of Allotment Management Plans). Other considerations in allowing livestock use on these areas, are<br />

K - 91

soil conditions, plant phenology, type of forage available, and other resource uses and priorities. The<br />

Forest's primary type of transitory and/or upland range is the LPIBB or PP/BB plant associations.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-53.<br />

(Paragraph 1). The results of the 20 years of range studies should be summarized and included it in<br />

the final EIS. (See Recommendations and General Comments).<br />

(Paragraph 2). When were the Williamson River and Sycan River fenced, and how much has been<br />

fenced? (DEIS 111-53-1):. Areas of the upper Williamson River are still part of grazing allotments.<br />

Unauthorized livestock use in the fenced areas is a continuing problem.<br />

(Paragraph 4). Early range users had little concept of or regard for water quality and fish and wildlife<br />

resources, nor for forage and soils.<br />

Significant Interactions. (Sentence 2) Add fish habitat and water quality to the list of impacts from<br />

concentrated livestock grazing in riparian zones.<br />

How many over-use problem areas are there on the Forest? (DEIS 111-53-2). How big are the problem<br />

areas, and where are they? (DEIS 111-53-3).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Range Studies are a project level work activity. The Forest Plan sets Standards and Guidelines in<br />

monitoring range activities according to FSH 2209.01.<br />

Area Ecologists have described ecological sites, and ecological ratings for plant communities, these<br />

will be incorporated into monitoring activities, so management for the desired seral plant community<br />

and ecological condition can be achieved.<br />

The Williamson River has four and one half miles of fence constructed since 1979, The Sycan River<br />

has had approximately 2 1/2 miles constructed during the same time frame. More fencing is being<br />

planned to help control livestock. In addition, more personnel are being brought on to deal with<br />

non-permitted livestock use, along with other violations occurring on the Forest.<br />

Exceeding utilization standards varies from year to year, this is dependent on climatic conditions, plant<br />

development, permitted livestock numbers, and permit compliance.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-54.<br />

(Paragraph 4). The Forest needs to take more steps to reduce conflicts between livestock and riparian<br />

and aquatic habitats. How much of a reduction has there been in degradation of water through<br />

management practices? (DEIS 111-54).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Increased emphasis has been placed on Riparian Management in the FEIS. The statement of reduction<br />

in water quality was a stalemate of judgement. No hard data is available quantitative changes due to<br />

management practices.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-42.<br />

(Paragraph 1). 'None of the alternatives make any investment in range improvements." Why has the<br />

Forest made this decision? (DEIS IV42). The Forest states that some streambanks are in a degraded<br />

condition, new tree plantations may need fencing, and RNA's will need protection from grazing. Are<br />

the range allotments fully developed and improved to meet the proposed stocking level? (DEIS IV-42).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest plan will invest in range improvements, as AMP's are revised and updated, priorities will be<br />

established for range improvements on existing allotments, based on riparian and sensitive areas that<br />

need protection, water developments needed for both livestock and wildlife, fencing systems needed<br />

for movement and control of livestock. Priorities for improvement construction will be based on range<br />

area-classification report.<br />

K - 92

Comment<br />

B-76.<br />

(Paragraph 1). How much of the Forest is managed for intensive range production? (App.B-76).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

None of the Forest is managed for intensive range at the present time.<br />

Comment<br />

D-10. Range<br />

1. The DEIS states that most of the grazing on the Forest occurs in 'riparian areas which are composed<br />

of meadows and mosic lodgepole pine communities.1 In light of this fact range allotment plans should<br />

emphasize fish and wildlife species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Increased emphasis has been placed on Riparian Management in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

D-96. Range 1.<br />

Forage utilization levels need to address objectives to improve range conditions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forage utilization standards are set which are in effect until site-specific information is available through<br />

range analysis. The utilization standards, if implemented, should provide for range condition improvement.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-128<br />

Range. How will the Forest effectively remove cattle from the MA 14 allocations? (PP IV-128).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan has been revised. Grazing is allowed in MA 14 if compatible with other resources.<br />

Comment<br />

PP V-1 1.<br />

14. All problem allotments need ongoing monitoring and evaluation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Monitoring of problem areas will be addressed in the development of AMPs.<br />

Comment<br />

Livestock Grazing Program, IV-27: The objectives for improving the range resource, particularly riparian<br />

areas, should be structured to yield multiple-resource benefits to water resources in addition to wildlife<br />

habitat, water quality, and livestock grazing. The secondary benefits accruing to water resources,<br />

specifically better distribution of seasonal discharge, improved ground water storage capacity, and<br />

enhancement of stream structure may result from the management emphasis. However, these elements<br />

should be included and receive, if not equal treatment, at the very least recognition of their importance<br />

to watershed integrity.<br />

The emphasis on water development to distribute range animals is commendable and consistent with<br />

what the Department recognizes as best management practices. But 'the program should also examine<br />

other best management practices such as alternative stocking rates and seasonal use of riparian areas<br />

which can increase forage utilization by livestock and yet maintain riparian zone stability and vegetative<br />

vigor. Minimal maintenance design should not preclude use of enclosures where necessary to maintain<br />

or enhance riparian conditions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Increased emphasis has been placed on Riparian Management in the FEIS.<br />

K - 93

Comment<br />

The LRMP states that 'The livestock grazing program on the Winema will in all probability continue in<br />

its present decline due to the poor economic conditions of the livestock industry. When this statement<br />

was no-doubt written, the livestock industry was experiencing low market prices and herd reductions<br />

nationwide. As is common to the cyclical nature of this industry, however, that trend has reversed and<br />

market conditions have improved. Whether or not this will create a demand for increased grazing on<br />

the Winema is unknown, but it would seem shortsighted to base projections for long term AUM availability<br />

on the short term economic vagaries of an industry with such historically cyclical market conditions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As of the FEIS no allowable permit requests have been made. Demand for grazing on the Winema as<br />

represented by permit requests has declined.<br />

Comment<br />

The excellent discussion of forestwide standards and guidelines for range management contained in<br />

the DEIS, addresses several of the concepts mentioned above. This discussion is extremely helpful in<br />

gaining an understanding of the forest range management program. We found it interesting, however,<br />

that the LRMP should state that 'range improvements... will emphasize water developments' (page<br />

IV-27), but that the DEIS states 'No alternatives make any investments in range improvements' (page<br />

IV42). Construction of water developments, in our experience, generally requires some investment of<br />

time and resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest plan will invest in range improvements, as AMP's are revised and updated, priorities will be<br />

established for range improvements on existing allotments, based on riparian and sensitive areas that<br />

need protection, water developments needed for both livestock and wildlife, fencing systems needed<br />

for movement and control of livestock. Priorities for improvement construction will be based on range<br />

area-classification report.<br />

Comment<br />

The department is enthusiastic about the cooperative agreement with the Klamath County Weed Board<br />

to maintain inventory records, prepare an annual plan for control of noxious weeds and provide a<br />

coordinated effort to control these pests in Klamath County. It would seem appropriate to provide at<br />

least an outline of that weed control plan in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A Noxious Weed Plan has been developed in cooperation with Klamath County Weed and Rodent<br />

Control and the State of Oregon, Department of Agriculture - Noxious Weed Control.<br />

Comment<br />

The Sycan River and the Williamson River Gorge should be recommended for inclusion in the Wild &<br />

Scenic Rivers program. The preferred alternative refers to both these areas in glowing terms as regards<br />

their scenic value, and designation as 'wild and scenic' would provide protection to these values and<br />

riparian areas also.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Portions of the Sycan River have been legislatively designated as Wild and Scenic.<br />

K - 94

Comment<br />

The Plan should contain a map of grazing allotments. Forage should be allocated by allotment. Grazing<br />

systems should be prescribed by allotment. Utilization levels should be discussed by allotment. Key<br />

indicator species should be identified by pasture and allotment. The existing condition and trend should<br />

be identified by pasture and allotment. The predicted condition and trend should be identified by pasture<br />

and allotment for each alternative, and each pasture and allotment should have specific range<br />

management actions prescribed in the EIS. The construction standards for rangeland developments<br />

should be in the plan.<br />

Grazing is a major federal action. The Forest does not have the option of deferring grazing decisions<br />

to Allotment Management Plans.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A general map of allotments has been included in Chapter 3, FEIS. The detailed information requested<br />

is largely unavailable and is, in any case, more appropriately addressed in Allotment Management<br />

Plans after Range Analysis. The AMP is the tool to address site-specific items and as pasture management<br />

and improvement standards.<br />

Comment<br />

Page B-75, para. 3. The final plan should address how much forage would be left for native wildlife.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

40% of total forage is allocated to grazing by wildlife and livestock. 20% is allocated to livestock if no<br />

conflicts occur with wildlife.<br />

K - 95

Recreation<br />

Comment<br />

I, then, fully urge that each of the following areas and acres as located on the Winema National Forest<br />

only, be dedicated as Wilderness; as each such area with acres feature superb wilderness attributes,<br />

and to be added to our National Wilderness Preservation system at this time:<br />

AREA<br />

ACRES<br />

Aspen 1,500<br />

Badlands 910<br />

Brown Mountain 3,600<br />

Clover 490<br />

Marsh 1,275<br />

North Boundary 805<br />

Odessa 180<br />

Sky Lakes 19,450<br />

Devil's Garden 595<br />

West Boundary 2,950<br />

Mount Thielsen 3,020<br />

Yamsay 7,815<br />

... plus an additional 110,000 acres. So as to establish a total of some 246,000 acres of dedicated<br />

wilderness to be located on the Winema National Forest, only; and to be included in our National<br />

Wilderness Preservation System, at this time.<br />

To include rivers, streams - creeks in our National Wild and Scenic River System. Including the following<br />

rivers: Williamson, Sycan, and Sprague.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All of the areas mentioned were evaluated during the R.A.R.E. II (Roadless Area Review Evaluation)<br />

process and were found to be lacking critical attributes for their inclusion into the National Forest<br />

Wilderness System. These areas were again considered during the formulation of the 1984 Oregon<br />

Wilderness Bill and were not included. No additional areas on the Forest have been identified in inventory<br />

as being suitable for wilderness designation. No additional wilderness is being recommended in the<br />

Preferred Alternative, although portions of the areas mentioned will continue to be managed in their<br />

current roadless condition as shown in Appendix C of the FEIS.<br />

The Sycan River has been added to the National Wild and Scenic River System by Congress since the<br />

DEIS was released. The Williamson and Sprague Rivers were not found to have outstanding remarkable<br />

features so classification was not recommended. However, the Williamson River Gorge will be managed<br />

as a "Unique AreaN with no harvest and a recreation, wildlife and watershed emphasis.<br />

Comment<br />

Many recreational assets have been attributed to the high standard road system being built to service<br />

the timber projects, in which you know that we have little interest. The plans have closed 90% or more<br />

of these after the timber is cut. How do you explain this contradiction.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema's high standard road system has been previously constructed and in place for many<br />

years. Very little of this road system has been closed after the timber sale, but has remained open to<br />

provide long term access for administrative, public, and recreational purposes. Almost all of the roads<br />

being built now are low standard timber access road only, and no major recreational assets have been<br />

identified in the written road objectives. The roads that have been blocked to use have been identified<br />

K - 96

as intermittent or temporary road needs. These roads have been closed or blocked for a variety of<br />

reasons, including reduction of open road densities in wildlife areas, reduction of road maintenance<br />

expenditures, for re-establishment of vegetation, and for protection of resources.<br />

Comment<br />

These commentators mentioned various aspects of development of the Intertie Trail including various<br />

combinations of the following:<br />

Why is the intertie trail that would connect the Pacific Crest Trail to the Desert Trail omitted in the plan?<br />

The east-west intertie trail must not end at the Winema Boundary.<br />

I would urge you to complete the east west intertie trail from the Desert Trail to the Pacific Crest Trail.<br />

Five miles of new trail is totally inadequate. The proposed management plan does not address the<br />

needs of people who wish to use the Forest for recreation now and in the future.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS proposed that the Intertie Trail be only minimally developed primarily<br />

using existing roads and route markers. Due to the strong support voiced by the public during the<br />

comment period, this trail has been added to the Activity Schedule in the Forest Plan. Funding will be<br />

requested to complete a feasibility study which will determine the best trail location and construction<br />

standards to meet public needs. The trail will ultimately tie the proposed Fremont National Recreation<br />

Trail to the Pacific Crest Trail completing the Desert Trail to PCT intertie.<br />

Comment<br />

Although the Williamson River above the Klamath Marsh in not included as a candidate for inclusion in<br />

the Federal Wild and Scenic System, I believe it qualifies for designation as a 'recreation river" under<br />

the system and urge that such a recommendation be included in the plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest found that portions of the Williamson River above Irving Creek were free flowing, but identified<br />

no Noutstandingly remarkable feature' that would qualify the river for inclusion in the National Wild and<br />

Scenic River System, so in accordance with the Act the analysis process did not continue to the<br />

classification process. Please see Appendix E of the EIS for details of the study process.<br />

Comment<br />

Brown Mountain: in the preferred alternative it is allocated to a semiprimitive recreation strategy; this is<br />

interpreted to be NON-motorized recreation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The allocation in the Preferred Alternative for Brown Mountain is semiprimitive non-motorized in the<br />

summer and motorized in the winter which permits use by over-the-snow vehicles.<br />

Comment<br />

Finally, regarding wilderness, I have strong concern that the existing group-size limits in Sky Lakes<br />

Wilderness Area be maintained. I understand that the Forest Service is receiving pressure to open the<br />

area up to large groups, particularly those on horses. I have nothing at all against horse groups in the<br />

wilderness area, but I feel that these areas were, as the law states, set aside for human use--but use<br />

that is compatible with keeping the opportunity to experience solitude...an increasingly rare and valuable<br />

commodity in the ever-more crowded world of the late 20th and early 21 st centuries.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Maximum party size and livestock limits are established for each wilderness and wilderness setting<br />

based on vegetation and soil impacts and social factors, such as number of expected encounters with<br />

other parties. These group size limits are displayed in the Standards and Guidelines for Management<br />

Area 6 - Wilderness in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan. A monitoring program will be used to determine if<br />

these limits are sufficient to meet resource protection and solitude guidelines.<br />

K - 97

Comment<br />

What is the difference between recreation use and recreation demand? I am not asking about supply<br />

and demand.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation demand is projected future recreation use based on a given set of population, demographic,<br />

and activity participation rate assumptions.<br />

Comment<br />

Table 111-25 shows Dispersed Recreation use at 197,500 RVD's, in 1983. Table 11-1 shows Dispersed<br />

Recreation use at 310,000 RVD's, in 1986 thru 1990. What made the RVD's increase 57 percent from<br />

1983 to 1986 and not show another increase until 1990?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 11-1 in the Draft Forest Plan showed projected dispersed recreation RVD's from the R-6 Regional<br />

Guide. The 310,000 RVD's was the decade annual average for 1986-1995 and should not have been<br />

displayed as use for any single year except for the decade mid-point 1990. This figure also included<br />

wilderness use that was not included in the 197,500 RVD's displayed in the DEIS. These tables have<br />

beentrevised to-more clearly compare projected with current use.<br />

Comment<br />

What are the definitions for Developed Rural and Developed Roaded Natural? The Glossary defines<br />

Developed Recreation as; 'Outdoor recreation requiring significant capital investment in facilities to<br />

handle a concentration of visitors on a relatively small area. Examples are down hill ski areas, resorts,<br />

and campgrounds.' I believe that definitions will conflict or one will find that Oa relatively small area' will<br />

be quite large; or one can ask Arelatively small' as compared to what?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The terms refer to recreation use occurring in developed sites within the 'Rural' and 'Roaded Natural'<br />

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes. The ROS classification is based on the extent to<br />

which the natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor<br />

skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use. Each class is described in<br />

the Glossary.<br />

The areas allocated to Developed Recreation are 'relatively small' as compared to the of acres allocated<br />

to all other uses of the National Forest. All alternatives allocate less than one percent of the Forest to<br />

this management area.<br />

Comment<br />

'Standards and Guidelines should be measurable to be meaningful,' (D-1). Yet I cannot find one place<br />

where the criteria is given to determine the social carrying capacities (Persons at one time, PAOT), for<br />

wilderness, roadless or developed recreation areas. This also applies to annual capacities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

From the Recreation Information Handbook (page 121.22--12-13), the 'People at One Time' (PAOT)<br />

criteria for developed sites capacities are as follow:<br />

A. Developed Sites. Enter the number of persons at one time the site, as presently developed, can<br />

safely and reasonably accommodate.<br />

There is no absolute measure of the capacity of a site in terms of the number of persons who can or<br />

should use it at one time. The estimate must be made on a judgment basis, taking into consideration<br />

environmental factors and matters related to human health and safely. Do not deliberately include<br />

overuse which will impair the the developments or the surrounding forest atmosphere. The following<br />

are guidelines:<br />

(1) For campgrounds and picnic grounds, multiply the total number of camping or picnicking<br />

units by 5.<br />

K - 98

(2) For organization camps, hotels, lodges, resorts, and recreation residences, estimate<br />

overnight capacity. Overnight capacity may be measured by a pillow count. Include the<br />

capacity of any day-use facilities surplus to the requirements of overnight guest.<br />

(3) For other commercial-public-service sites, swimming sites, boating sites, winter-sports<br />

sites, interpretive and information sites, and observation sites, enter the safe capacity of<br />

the key facility which first acts to limit or govern use that is, for restaurants, the seating<br />

capacity; for swimming sites, the beach area, bathhouse, or parking lot capacity; for boating<br />

sites, the dock or parking lot capacity; for winter-sports sites, the capacity of parking lots,<br />

spectator space, and/or uphill equipment.<br />

For wildernesses and roadless areas the capacities are estimates based on the amount of use that is<br />

observed to cause resource damage or to exceed social criteria such as numbers of other parties<br />

encountered or other campsites visible. The guidelines in the 1986 ROS Book, which is part of the<br />

process records for the FEIS, were used to develop area capacities. Since these capacities are derived<br />

more subjectively, use will be monitored to refine estimates.<br />

Comment<br />

In Table 111-32, the RVD capacity does not appear to be even close to realistic numbers, assuming<br />

those are annual capacities. I believe the RVD's shown in this table are less than 20 percent ofithe<br />

annual carrying capacity.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These capacities were developed based on both resource capabilities and social factors, such as<br />

solitude measured by frequency of encounters with other groups and visibility of other campsites. The<br />

capacities are further limited by the short duration of the major use season for these areas.<br />

Comment<br />

How far is '2 days of cross-country travel,' (D-79). It must be measurable to be meaningful.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This definition of Primitive Trailless areas has been superseded by the Pristine WRS class described in<br />

the Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 6 - Wilderness. The reference to '2 days travel'<br />

was dropped from the definition.<br />

Comment<br />

For the DEIS-LRMP to be meaningful to the reviewing public, it must contain the necessary information<br />

for the reviewer to arrive at conclusions without referring to the Forest Service libraries. Page D-70<br />

refers to FSM 2320, R6 Supplement 56, 11/81. I checked with Fremont N.F. staff and they said that it<br />

appears that this Supplement is outdated and no longer exists. What prevented the Management<br />

Standards from being included in the DEIS-LRMP?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The referenced Supplement was superseded by FSM 2320, R-6 Supplement 81, 4/87. The direction<br />

contained in this supplement has been incorporated into the Standards and Guidelines for Management<br />

Area 6 - Wilderness in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Wilderness areas were established for the primitive recreation user, yet the Forest Service proposes<br />

to: Restrict types of use; limit length of stay; close campsites; restrict numbers of campers; allow only<br />

day use; and eliminate fish stocking.<br />

Has the Resource Manager yet realized the primary cause of visitor problems, in wilderness areas,<br />

stem from developed trails? From some level of authority the land manager believes that there is an<br />

obligation to lead the user through the wilderness by the hand; and that Big Brother must protect the<br />

user from himself.<br />

K - 99

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Wildernesses were not only established for the primitive recreation user, they have another objective<br />

and that is as a biological reservoir..OValuable for it's scientific and educational uses, and as a benchmark<br />

for ecological studies.. managed.. to ensure that human influence does not impede the free play of<br />

natural forces or interfere with natural successions in the ecosystem..' The restrictions on visitor use<br />

mentioned are to ensure that human influence does not negatively impact the wilderness environment.<br />

Trails, likewise, are management tools to manage visitor use to minimize impacts and to facilitate public<br />

access for folks with a wide variety of capabilities.<br />

Comment<br />

The thirteen roadless areas discussed in Appendix C contain 32,218 acres,as shown in Table C-2.<br />

However Table C-8 has over allocated acres form a low of 26,694 acres in Alternative C to a high of<br />

193,570 acres in Alternative G. Is it possible that these Acres should have read RVD's?<br />

If these are RVD's, no Standards or Guidelines are given to support the numbers listed. There is no<br />

correlation between Tables 0-6 and C-8, and I am sure that there should be one.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table2C-8 did have a number of errors. Since it duplicated much of the information presented in Table<br />

C-6, the table was not included in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

I find it very odd that in nearly every case none of the potential uses, for the several roadless areas, is<br />

in current use, according to Table C-5. Current recreation uses appear to be just a guess, and some<br />

aren't even a good guess.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Displaying information graphically can sometimes lead to the assumption that the variables being<br />

monitored are discrete; it is the nature of graphic display. Logic tells us that undoubtedly the 'potential<br />

usesw shown may also be happening. A particular management area could be listed in the 'current<br />

uses' section too. Some of the 'potential uses' listed can only occur legally if the management prescription<br />

for a specific area is changed in an alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

There was no logical reason given for allocating 1,857 acres of the Brown Mountain roadless area to<br />

semiprimitive non-motorized recreation, in Alternative E. The west side of the Forest is so heavy with<br />

roadless areas now, that it is about ready to topple into the ocean. It is the type of logic used with<br />

Brown Mountain that makes other decisions in the DEIS-LRMP suspect.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The allocation of semiprimitive non-motorized in summer and motorized in winter provides for recreation<br />

activities in an undeveloped setting which are not permissible within wilderness, such as snowmobiling.<br />

Very little semiprimitive area exists on the Forest outside of wilderness.<br />

Comment<br />

The Badlands Roadless Areas is in the Cowboy Burn salvage area and is no longer roadless. This<br />

new input should change the acres you have calculated as existing roadless.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No new roads were constructed to fight the Cowboy Fire, some dozer trails were put in to cut a fireline.<br />

Some new roads and spurs have been constructed to facilitate timber salvage operations. No new<br />

roads were put into the Badlands Roadless Area. All dozer trails are being rehabilitated and returned<br />

to a natural state.<br />

K - 100

Comment<br />

There is only mention of dispersed recreation facilities on Kiamath District. These facilities should also<br />

be located on Chemult and Chiloquin Districts.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Activity Schedules for recreation facility and trail construction in the Forest Plan proposes facilities<br />

to support dispersed recreation on all three Districts.<br />

Comment<br />

There is no new trails construction slated for the first five decades. There could be trails built into the<br />

Williamson River Gorge and Devils Gardens. There probably are other scenic areas at Chemult also.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the FEIS preferred alternative new trails are being planned on all the Districts. Refer to the Trail<br />

Construction Activity Schedule for a list of proposed projects.<br />

Comment<br />

It is gratifying to find numerous references to snowmobiling, directly or implied, in the management<br />

areas most obviously appropriate, such as Areas #1, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C and 14. (Chap. IV - Forest Management<br />

Direction). In other areas such as 3, 4, and 7, recreation is not completely ignored, but described in<br />

vague or indefinite terms. Should we assume snowmobiling will or will not be permitted in these areas?<br />

The Plan for Area 12, Timber Production, (important because of it's size) does say specifically that 'a<br />

variety of dispersed recreation activities will be permitted (IV - 121). Since dispersed recreation as<br />

defined in 11-10, 11-1 1, and 111-6 includes spectrum classes in which snowmobiling is acceptable, we<br />

assume it is permitted, but would feel more comfortable with a more specific reference.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines for Management Area 3 (Scenic Management) specifies these areas will<br />

be managed to the standard of semiprimitive motorized or roaded natural recreation opportunity spectrum<br />

classes and Management Area 12 (Timber Production) will be managed as roaded modified. Snowmobiling<br />

use is encouraged in these ROS classes.<br />

In Management Area 4 (Unique Areas), recreation activities will be managed through site-specific<br />

management plans to prevent degradation of the special interest resource. However, no snowmobile<br />

use restrictions are anticipated at this time. Snowmobiling will not be encouraged in Management<br />

Areas 7, 9 and 10 which have wildlife emphases and prohibited within MA 6 (Wilderness).<br />

Comment<br />

Facilities Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (IV-60) describes the anticipated closing of roads no<br />

longer needed. Can such roads be used for snowmobiling? Just as some trails are built or improved<br />

by snowmobile clubs, perhaps these could be maintained by users to the extent needed, with some<br />

even being groomed. We assume new roads can be used for recreation which conforms to the Plan<br />

for the specific area involved.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The roads which are designated as no longer needed, and intended to closed, have no identified<br />

future needs such as timber access or recreation uses, including snowmobiling. These roads are almost<br />

exclusively low standard short length roads, many of which dead end or duplicate other access available.<br />

In most cases, such roads could be used for snowmobiling if the need were identified. The road would<br />

be managed to provide for this use in cooperation with user groups.<br />

Comment<br />

Finally, we note the terms 'snowmobile groups, (IV-33), 'all-terrain vehicles' (IV-33) and *off-road vehicles'<br />

(1-3) are all used. (Yet another term, *over-the-snow vehicles' is used in certain other publications).<br />

We suggest there may be places where a specific, rather than a general term should be used, since<br />

conditions appropriate for some all-terrain vehicles are different than for others.<br />

K- 101

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The terms 'snowmobile,' wall terrain vehicle' and 'off road vehicle' refer to different types of vehicles in<br />

the Plan (e.g. snowmobiles, three wheelers and four wheel drive vehicles, respectively) and were not<br />

supposed to have been used interchangeably.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest-wide standards and guidelines should specify a higher level of trail protection and restoration.<br />

The trail system can no longer be allowed to be destroyed by other management activities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Protection of existing facilities and investments, such as trails, is an on-going consideration and<br />

requirement when conducting all management activities, and in the environmental analysis for specific<br />

projects or timber sales, if there is an identified need or concern. Protection of existing facilities and<br />

investments is also included within the provisions of contract requirements when accomplishing forest<br />

management activities. Standards and guidelines addressing protection of trails have been added to<br />

Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The recent report from the President's Commission of Americans Outdoors identifies this area as among<br />

the most rapidly growing segments of outdoor recreation. The proposed plan will reduce the opportunities<br />

for primitive recreation, eventually displacing all roadless recreation into the Mountain Lakes and Sky<br />

Lakes Wildernesses.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All lands on the Winema National Forest capable of producing primitive recreation opportunities as<br />

defined in the ROS standards are within existing wilderness. The FEIS Preferred Alternative does allocate<br />

semiprimitive areas outside of wilderness to management areas that provide for recreation in a roadless<br />

environment, including Brown Mountain, Yamsey Mountain and Pelican Butte.<br />

Comment<br />

Why? Currently there is 9% of the Forest as roadless, with an increase of 8700 additional acres to be<br />

added with the new plan. This should be sufficient to meet anticipated demand for roadless areas,<br />

and allow the rest for multiuse.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The areas remaining roadless will provide semiprimitive recreation opportunities outside of wilderness<br />

where some activities are prohibited, such as snowmobiling. These areas are primarily classified as<br />

not being suitable for timber production.<br />

Comment<br />

My major concern is winter recreation on the Winema National Forest. I have been cross country skiing<br />

in the area for over 20 years, and am the author of a recent book on 'Southern Oregon Cross Country<br />

Ski Trails.' I am pleased with the number of cross country ski trails on the Forest, however, I do not<br />

want this recreational interest to be neglected. The Forest Plan does not address this use in much<br />

detail, thus I would like to see more emphasis placed on developing and signing trails, and constructing<br />

additional Sno-Parks for vehicles. The increased interest in this sport certainly justifies providing more<br />

cross country skiing opportunities and emphasis in the Forest Plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has an a current program of providing and expanding recreation opportunities, including<br />

cross country skiing, as funding permits. The land allocations and capital investment program included<br />

in the Forest Plan should add emphasis to this effort.E<br />

K- 102

Comment<br />

Finally, I do not support increased logging in the vicinity of Crater Lake National Park. Old growth timber<br />

should be preserved as a buffer around the Park; to provide habitat for wildlife and to preserve the<br />

scenic view from the Park. A similar consideration should be applied near the boundaries of the Sky<br />

Lakes Wilderness Area and Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Legislation has established the existing wildernesses and Crater Lake National Park to include the land<br />

area necessary for protection and management of resources in those areas. The Forest lands adjacent<br />

to these areas are allocated to~various resource uses based upon the capabilities of these areas.<br />

Comment<br />

A monitoring program should be part of the final plan. Because uneven-aged management is visually<br />

more pleasing, there should be less need to set aside suitable timberland for dispersed recreation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A detailed monitoring plan is included in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan. The use of uneven-aged<br />

management will indeed provide a more natural appearing setting for dispersed recreation use. Only<br />

4,243 acres of land suitable for timber production is allocated to semiprimitive recreation in the FEIS<br />

Preferred Alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest should consider a public information program describing how they intend to manage pine<br />

so the Forest will be visually attractive and continue to provide the historical supply of Ponderosa pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Providing public information is an ongoing part of Forest management activities. Explaining major changes<br />

in management of the Forest, such as the management of ponderosa pine, will be a major focus during<br />

Plan implementation.<br />

Comment<br />

SOTIA supports the preferred altemative's recommendation not to designate Wild and Scenic rivers on<br />

the Winema. SOTIA recommends that the final plan include provisions for expanding developed recreation<br />

sites in the Williamson and Sycan River areas to accommodate greater recreation opportunities, and<br />

manage the river corridors to protect visual quality.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Sycan River has been legislatively designated as a Wild and Scenic River. The Williamson River<br />

Gorge will be managed as a Unique Area with emphasis on protecting scenic qualities. The Activity<br />

Schedules in the Forest Plan proposes expansion of Williamson River Campground and construction<br />

of a horse camp and a trail system in the Sycan area. Other developments will be considered if needed<br />

to meet demand.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft EIS fails to comply with this requirement because it does not address how the recreation<br />

opportunities that would be created on the Forest by implementation of the proposed alternatives are<br />

coordinated with existing recreation opportunities, not only those existing on the Forest itself, but also<br />

those existing on adjacent state, federal and private lands. In evaluating the recreation demand, the<br />

Winema does not appear to take into account recreational opportunities existing outside the Forest.<br />

Outside resources must be considered when evaluating the proposed alternatives on this issue.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The description of Forest recreation opportunities in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, has been revised to include<br />

opportunities provided by others in the area. The availability of recreation opportunities in adjacent<br />

areas is key to analyzing recreation demand, especially in our case when these opportunities include<br />

K- 103

Crater Lake National Park, Upper Klamath Lake and two State Parks as well as adjacent National Forests<br />

and local parks. These opportunities were considered in determining which facilities and settings the<br />

Forest will provide and which segment of the projected demand we will satisfy. Coordination currently<br />

is performed with neighboring National Forests, Klamath County, Crater Lake National Park, Klamath<br />

Basin National Wildlife Refuges, and the Bureau of Land Management for planning and routine<br />

management activities.<br />

Comment<br />

Under the preferred alternative, 18,573 acres of Winema National Forest land would remain undeveloped<br />

by the second decade. The Winema cannot violate the will of Congress and administratively create<br />

wilderness that takes an act of Congress to create. If Congress had intended these areas to be removed<br />

from active forest management, it would have designated them as wilderness. Congress, however,<br />

carefully considered the majority of these areas for wilderness and made the decision to release them<br />

from multiple use management. The Winema cannot defy this clear congressional mandate, and must<br />

leave the creation of wilderness to Congress.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No additional areas are being allocated or recommended as wilderness in the Forest Plan. The areas<br />

remaining undeveloped by the second decade are primarily not suitable for timber production and are<br />

not needed for other development. Some of this area is allocated to semiprimitive recreation with no<br />

programmed harvest, some to minimum management which is unsuitable for timber harvest, and other<br />

areas to land allocations available for development or harvest but not scheduled for entry until after<br />

the second decade.<br />

Comment<br />

Our primary concern with wilderness area management is the management philosophy of making the<br />

use of these areas to difficult or regulated that users will be discouraged and not visit these areas.<br />

This negative management theory is suggested by such practices as closing close trails or trailhead<br />

access to heavily used areas to make longer trips necessary, intentionally designing trailheads and<br />

parking areas to handle less than expected numbers of users on peak days, not stocking lakes with<br />

trout to discourage people from visiting them and our biggest concern, limiting maximum party size to<br />

such small groups that even two families riding horses can not visit a wilderness area together.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Wilderness areas are managed to provide a special experience where, as directed by Congress, solitude<br />

in a natural environment can be achieved, where there is freedom to explore unhindered in a primitive<br />

landscape and the area is retained in the purest natural state. Limiting visitor use to protect wilderness<br />

resources is one management technique. This could include party size limitations, permit requirements,<br />

not maintaining trails to a high standard, downgrading trailheads, and not providing high level access<br />

to trailheads.<br />

Comment<br />

We also feel the Forest has many excellent horseback recreational opportunities available outside of<br />

the wilderness areas that should be developed. We suggest the Forest consider improvement of any<br />

trailhead that is just a wide spot in the road. The Forest has many such trailheads. Turn-arounds, parking<br />

areas, camp spots, corrals and water developments are all items for consideration at any such trailhead.<br />

These are the type of improvements that can be made outside the wilderness areas and at many locations<br />

other than wilderness trailheads that may provide horseback riding opportunities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Projects that will improve or create opportunities for the horse using public outside wilderness are<br />

scheduled in the Recreation Facility and Trail Activity Schedules in the Forest Plan.<br />

K- 104

Comment<br />

References to the retention of roadless area characteristics on a portion of Sky Lakes B roadless area<br />

for possible consideration for later wilderness designation should be eliminated from the draft and all<br />

of the area should be open to harvest entry without limitation except that designated for potential ski<br />

area development.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Most of the Sky Lakes-B roadless area, including the potential winter sports area, is not suitable for<br />

timber production and is currently in a roadless condition. The preferred alternative proposes to continue<br />

managing this area for current unroaded uses with the option to develop a winter sports complex on a<br />

portion of the area.<br />

Comment<br />

Skiing up the East Canal trail and see pink flags along the eastside. What's the story? The Forest is<br />

large enough that you should be able to keep the loggers out of this whole recreation area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Although the Forest seems large, the overwhelming demands for its resources seldom allow the allocation<br />

of its lands for exclusive single resource use. It is felt that timber harvest can be compatible with, much<br />

of the recreation activity that occurs on the Forest. Where significant recreation activity may occur the<br />

harvest is often modified by managing for scenic values or by excluding all programmed harvest. The<br />

land allocation in the vicinity of the Canal Ski Trail is to Scenic Management and Old Growth Management.<br />

Both allow cross-country skiing activity and permit no harvest or modified harvest activities.<br />

Comment<br />

How about a ski trail parallel to the Sunset trail, and parallel to Varney Creek trail, and a nice loop on<br />

the NE side of Brown Mountain, with a connection to one of the Fish Lake trails? How about a hiking<br />

trail to the top of Brown Mountain?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is actively planning new ski and hiking trails as listed in the Trail Construction Activity Schedule<br />

in the Forest Plan. New ski trails are normally developed with the assistance of user groups. The<br />

development of ski trails suggested can be pursued by contacting the Klamath Ranger District.<br />

Comment<br />

It is time that the WNF institute a system of restrictions on total visitor numbers in the WAs. Resource<br />

degradation due to excessive human use has become a serious problem. Many areas have suffered<br />

vegetation loss, erosion, and pollution from overuse. It is time that this problem be acted on by restricting<br />

both group size and total number of entries during peak seasons.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Wilderness Implementation Schedules have been completed for each wilderness area. Included in<br />

these schedules are management techniques, including limiting party size, which will be implemented<br />

to prevent resource degradation and restore wilderness character. These are summarized as standards<br />

and guidelines for Management Area 6 - Wilderness in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Roadless areas are necessary to provide undisturbed wildlife habitat and primitive recreational<br />

experiences. They also provide an ecological and spiritual reservoir as the remainder of the earth<br />

undergoes increasing pressures of human occupation. The value of roadless areas is increasing<br />

proportionately to those pressures.<br />

K - 105

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Agreed. These are some of the reasons that most of the roadless area on the Forest has been designated<br />

as wilderness. Some additional areas outside of existing wilderness will also continue to be managed<br />

in a roadless condition for these uses.<br />

Comment<br />

It is quite evident that the Plan analysis and subsequent provisions for recreation opportunities failed<br />

to adequately consider the information available on public needs and use trends developed in the<br />

most current edition of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) as is required<br />

in 36 CFR 219.2(e) since the plan documents do not recognize and respond to important aspects of<br />

this information. The plan documents essentially reflect the trends toward relatively greater increasing<br />

demand for developed sites and trails but it is very important that there is a thorough, cited consideration<br />

of SCORP in the Final to conform to regulations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation demand projections have been updated using more recent use data and findings of recent<br />

national and regional studies, including those to be used in updating the Oregon SCORP. Results are<br />

displayed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Conflicts between competing' winter sports activities are mentioned in the DEIS (111-74). Most perceived<br />

or real conflicts can be equitably resolved by trail and snow play area zoning and most importantly<br />

adequate parking space for all types of winter sports enthusiasts since most "conflicts' are the result<br />

of competition for parking.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Zoning motorized and nonmotorized uses has been used successfully on the Forest to reduce conflicts.<br />

Additional sno-parks are also proposed for construction in the Activity Schedule to reduce competition<br />

for parking.<br />

Comment<br />

We support management of the national forests to provide a broad range of recreational opportunities.<br />

Under the proposed plan, the management of semiprimitive areas is somewhat unclear and should be<br />

explained better. More data is needed to understand potential conflicts between growing uses like<br />

cross-country skiing and snowmobiling and how they can be managed. See State Parks and Recreation<br />

comments for more details.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines for Management Area 1 (Semiprimitive Recreation) have been expanded<br />

to clarify management of these areas (Forest Plan Chapter 4). Additional discussion of individual recreation<br />

uses has also been added to the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Under all alternatives, ample supply for roaded natural and roaded modified opportunities will prevail<br />

throughout the planning horizon. Demand for primitive opportunities in wilderness will nearly reach<br />

supply by the year 2030. Current capacity for semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) and semiprimitive<br />

Non-Motorized (SPNM) exceeds demand. However, the preferred alternative would reduce roadless<br />

areas providing semiprimitive opportunities from over 32,000 acres to 8061 acres.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS preferred alternative increases the semiprimitive recreation allocation to 22,590 acres, by<br />

increasing the size of the Yamsey and Brown Mountain areas and by adding a portion of Pelican Butte<br />

to this allocation. Additional trails and trailheads area planned in or near these areas as an alternative<br />

to using wilderness trails.<br />

K - 106

Comment<br />

Specific forms of dispersed recreation are impossible to examine due to a lack of data. For example,<br />

the plan cites that winter use of trails by motorized vehicles has increased dramatically, that cross-country<br />

skiing has also increased and that conflicts between the two uses are emerging. The plan provides no<br />

analysis of this use nor indication of how the forest will accommodate it in the future.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Completing analysis and providing direction for specific situations is beyond the scope of the Forest<br />

Plan effort. The Forest plan allocates land to various management areas and establishes direction to<br />

guide management of activities to achieve objectives and goals for those management areas. The<br />

allocation with its standards and guidelines will provide the basis for guiding management of various<br />

activities, winter sports in this example.<br />

Comment<br />

The final EIS should provide a summary of the potential allowable sale quantity contribution of each<br />

unroaded area in addition to undeveloped acres remaining in each area for each alternative during the<br />

first five decades.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Refer to Appendix C for timber volumes by roadless area.<br />

Comment<br />

The appendix (page C-8) also contains the statement that O...there are no check in stations for [the<br />

three] wilderness [and that] all figures are estimated, based on personal interviews with visitors using<br />

the areas., The Final EIS also needs to show historic wilderness recreation use to clearly articulate the<br />

use statistics and assumptions regarding potential future demand need to be reasonable and supportive.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The statement in the appendix, page C-9, I All figures are estimated, based upon personal interviews<br />

with visitors using the areas' is incorrect. Use estimates were derived from data from wilderness permits<br />

required for wilderness visitors to most wildernesses prior to 1985. This data was supplemented by<br />

observation and random sampling of use by field employees.<br />

Comment<br />

We question whether increased acreage in this recreational setting will actually result in more semiprimitive<br />

recreational use on the forest.<br />

Analysis should also consider the supply of SPNM recreation on adjacent national forests, including<br />

California.<br />

It would appear that SPNM is not the high priority on the Winema that it is on otherforests. A full discussion<br />

of the trade-offs incurred in order to supply the demonstrated and projected recreation demands should<br />

be presented in the Final EIS along with the discussion of demand level derivation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The projected need for semiprimitive recreation on the Forest is based upon historical use of the Forest<br />

in these areas and regional demand projections. The area on the Winema suitable for this designation,<br />

however, is very limited since most of the unroaded areas are in wilderness.<br />

Comment<br />

Currently, the draft Plan states there are 32,218 roadless acres. Only 8,658 acres will remain roadless<br />

under the Forest Service's proposed plan. To propose developing most of the roadless acres on the<br />

Forest demonstrates an incredible disregard for the resources roadless areas protect. The final Forest<br />

Plan must recommend protecting more roadless areas and acres than the Draft Plan.<br />

K - 107

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS preferred alternative allocates 22,590 acres to semiprimitive recreation areas. In addition,<br />

over 93,000 acres are already designated as wilderness which maintains these area in a permanent<br />

roadless condition that protects roadless area resources.<br />

Comment<br />

There are 2 abandoned trails up Pelican Butte, the old Rocky Point Trail, and the Pelican Butte Trail.<br />

The possibility of restoring these trails should be explored, perhaps using local volunteers for construction<br />

and maintenance, but only if compatible with raptor nesting requirements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest recreation and trail capital investment program, a part of the Forest Plan, includes a proposed<br />

project to develop a trail system around Pelican Butte in connection with a proposed horse camp at<br />

Big Meadows. Any effects of the proposal on raptors or other resources will be analyzed in a site-specific<br />

environmental assessment prior to designing the project.<br />

Comment<br />

RecreaVon -- The Winema Forest Plan shows that more roads are not needed to satisfy future, projected<br />

demand of this recreation form: Future demand is predicted to be only 8.3 percent of capacity. Unroaded<br />

recreation, however, is predicted to reach capacity within 45 years. Nonetheless, the Plan proposes to<br />

develop many roadless areas...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS preferred alternative allocates 22,590 acres to semiprimitive recreation areas. In addition,<br />

over 93,000 acres are already designated as wilderness which maintains these area in a permanent<br />

roadless condition that protects roadless area resources.<br />

Comment<br />

We call upon you to fundamentally redirect your management strategy toward a recreational emphasis<br />

which includes all types of recreation including a balanced level of opportunities for semiprimitive<br />

motorized recreation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Areas that offer a semiprimitive experience outside of wilderness (available for motorized use) are limited<br />

on the Forest. In the FEIS preferred alternative approximately half the available area will be managed<br />

for semiprimitive motorized recreation in the summer. Most will be available for motorized use in the<br />

winter.<br />

Comment<br />

I would strongly request that you add a strategy to consider the successes of user-cooperative programs<br />

such as Adopt-a-Trail/Road.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has utilized volunteer efforts on many occasions in the past, in seeking input, and coordination,<br />

and actual accomplishment of projects. These efforts have been very successful and have allowed<br />

accomplishment of projects with limited budgets. It is our intent to continue such successes with volunteers<br />

and user-cooperator groups and programs, such as Adopt-a-Trail/Road.<br />

Comment<br />

We call for a re-evaluation of closure criteria of public lands to 4WD and ORV usage.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Off-road vehicle use will be managed considering the resource values, promoting safety of users, and<br />

minimizing conflicts with other uses. Specific restrictions regarding off-road vehicle use are contained<br />

K - 108

in the Management Area Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 4 if the Forest Plan. Other area ORV<br />

and 4WD closures may be implemented if unacceptable resource or facility damage occurs.<br />

Comment<br />

I would like to see more trails open to off-road vehicle use. Recently, I went into the Chemult Ranger<br />

District to inquire about same and after about 1/2 hour research, they said there is only one that they<br />

knew was designated for O.R.V. use, was 6 miles long and was named the "Rye' Trail.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Nearly all of the existing trail system on the Forest is within or directly accesses wilderness where motorized<br />

use is prohibited by law. Construction of additional trails outside of wilderness is a priority in Trail<br />

Construction Activity Schedule in the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

We ask that primitive roads be addressed in the plan so as to maintain a dispersed recreational pattern.<br />

We have sought help and direction of Forestry and have three areas in mind for investigation and<br />

planning. (Map of areas submitted with comment).<br />

Where does the high clearance trail come into your plan? There are areas that can be developed and<br />

reopened to this type of recreation. Some specific areas in the Chiloquin and Chemult areas have<br />

been mapped by the local four-wheel drive club, Four Runners of Klamath Falls, for your consideration.<br />

A plan for four-wheel drive use is not clearly provided with the plan as it is now written. We ask that<br />

our form of recreation be addressed and we are willing to work with you.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan indicate if ORV use is permissible, seasonally restricted<br />

or prohibited in each Management Area. These will serve as the basis for the ORV Implementation<br />

Schedule. ORV use may be restricted or prohibited in additional areas as outlined in the Monitoring<br />

Plan (Forest Plan Chapter 4). In addition designated (recommended) ORV use areas and routes will<br />

be developed in conjunction with user groups. These on-going changes will be added to the ORV<br />

Implementation Schedule as they occur.<br />

Comment<br />

S&Gs for MAs#7 should specifically prohibit entry and/or use of these areas by ORVs and livestock,<br />

so as to better preserve the integrity of the ecological characteristics of these old growth communities.<br />

Livestock can cause significant degradation of understory and ground-cover conditions, potentially<br />

affecting small mammals and the predators that feed on them. ORVs can have similar effects, in addition<br />

to causing stress to other species of wildlife native to the old growth ecosystem. Such disturbances<br />

are unjustified and inappropriate in areas to be managed to retain natural ecosystems.<br />

The final plan for the WNF should specifically prohibit ORV use in hiking areas and in sensitive habitat<br />

areas. The final plan should also clearly comply with and refer to Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road<br />

Vehicles on the Public Lands, and portions of the NEPA implementing regulations that expressly restrict<br />

ORV activities on public lands to those areas where such activities ari clearly not in conflict with other<br />

resources, such as wildlife and native plant habitat, non-motorized recreation, scenic values, riparian<br />

zones, and others. Both overall policy and management S&Gs in the Final plan should clearly reflect<br />

the intent of this Executive Order. We do not believe that either the WNFs existing ORV management<br />

plan or the S&Gs of the PA in regard to ORV use in environmentally sensitive areas are in compliance<br />

with E.O. 11644.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Standards and Guidelines for each management area specifies whether ORV use is permitted,<br />

seasonally restricted or prohibited. In compliance with E.O. 11644 off-road vehicle use will be restricted<br />

or prohibited in areas receiving resource or facility damage. Monitoring damage caused by ORV use is<br />

a monitoring objective in the Forest Plan Monitoring Plan.<br />

K - 109

Comment<br />

We request that the WNF institute a policy similar to that developed by the Gifford-Pinchot and other<br />

National Forests that prohibits ORVs from all trails leading into established Wilderness Areas. This is<br />

an appropriate and long overdue action. We recommend that this policy be extended to those trails<br />

approaching RNAs, riparian and wetland areas, and other sensitive habitat areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Currently all trails on the Forest that directly access wilderness are closed to motorized and mechanized<br />

use. This restriction will be continued to protect the wilderness resource. Other ORV restrictions are<br />

addressed in the Management Area Standards and Guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

Potential for ORV/wildlife conflicts need to be more closely addressed, since resource damage may<br />

occur. When would the off-road vehicle implementation plan be developed? (App. D-5).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan Monitoring Plan prescribes monitoring actions to determine if resource damage is<br />

occurring.<br />

Comment<br />

Page D-5, number 7. The final document should include at least a summary of the off-road vehicle<br />

plan and its tentative date of implementation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan indicate if ORV use is permissible, seasonally restricted<br />

or prohibited in each Management Area. These will be implemented upon implementation of the Plan.<br />

These Standards and Guidelines will serve as the basis for the ORV Implementation Schedule. ORV<br />

use may be restricted or prohibited in additional areas as outlined in the Monitoring Plan (Forest Plan<br />

Chapter 4). In addition designated (recommended) ORV use areas and routes will be developed in<br />

conjunction with user groups. These on-going changes will be added to the ORV Implementation Schedule<br />

as they occur.<br />

Comment<br />

We firmly maintain that ORV use is incompatible with most all other uses of the national forest. As<br />

such, their use should be strictly regulated and confined to areas, adequate in size, where they will be<br />

sufficiently separated from other forest uses, especially recreation and wildlife, in such a manner that<br />

the value of other resources will not be diminished. Specifically, ORV usage areas should be designated<br />

so that noise will not carry into other recreational and important wildlife areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

ORV use is a legitimate use of National Forest lands where legally authorized, not contributing to<br />

unacceptable resource damage and not conflicting with other legitimate Forest uses. Due to the potential<br />

for ORV use to cause damage and conflict, it will be a closely monitored and managed. Separation of<br />

motorized and nonmotorized uses is one management technique currently used.<br />

Comment<br />

Is the term Non-game hunting a misnomer? Just what is non-game hunting? I believe that Table 111-20<br />

and associated narratives are unreliable without supporting documentation. Is it possible that the WFUD's<br />

listed in Table 111-20 should have been combined and included in Table 111-21? P.111-66. Paragraph 1.<br />

The Forest needs to define nongame hunting.<br />

K- 110

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The term Non-game hunting, refers to varmint shooting for which projected demand was displayed<br />

separately in the DEIS. In the FEIS updated projections for hunting, fishing and non-consumptive wildlife<br />

use are shown under in the Recreation section of Chapter 3.<br />

Comment<br />

The term *hunter days' in Table 111-19 is not properly defined; which further confuses the issue when<br />

the DEIS also used the terms Recreation Visitor Days (RVD's) and Wildlife and Fish User-days (WFUD's).<br />

The DEIS would have us believe that hunters and fishermen do not engage in any amenity, such as:<br />

hiking, sightseeing, photography, backpacking etc.<br />

What are WFUD's? What are RVD's? The Glossary states that, WFUD's are: 'Twelve visitor hours which<br />

may be aggregated continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously by one or more persons.' RVD's are<br />

defined as: 'Twelve visitor hours, which may be aggregated, continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously<br />

by one or more persons."<br />

If the resource manager has reliable data and wants to identify WFUD's by persons, taking or attempting<br />

to take game animals of all species, as a bracketed component of RVD's, this would be logical. It is<br />

impossible to identify all WFUD's, so they should be left in RVD's where they belong.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

'Hunter Days,* 'Wildlife and Fish-User Days,' (WFUD's) and 'Recreation Visitor Days, (RVD's) all are<br />

measures of recreation use consisting of twelve visitor hours. The term used depends on the primary<br />

activity the person is engaged in. All use figures are only estimates based on such data as deer and<br />

fishing licenses, campground head counts and fee envelopes and fire and law enforcement patrol<br />

observations. The Wildlife and Fish User-day also includes non-consumptive uses such as wildlife<br />

viewing and photography. WFUD's are identified separately as a subset of RVD's because they are<br />

visitor use associated with the fish and wildlife resource and are valued at a higher rate for economic<br />

analysis purposes.<br />

Comment<br />

Table IV-1 shows WFUD's at 64,900 in the first decade and 79,100 in the fifth decade. Table 111-20<br />

shows WFUD's at 39,000 in 1980 and 45,000 in 2000. Table 111-21 shows WFUD's as 1,212,000 in 1980<br />

and 1,391,000 in the year 2000. Table 111-20 is telling us that the Winerna National Forest had an average<br />

of 3,320 persons at one time, for 12 hours each, of the 365 days in 1980; this is wildlife and fish only<br />

and does not include any other recreation user. Is this data reliable?<br />

Information in Tables Il-1 and 111-21 continues to confuse the issue of RVD's and WFUD's.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table IV-1 showed WFUD estimates for the Winema National Forest only. The other tables referenced<br />

displayed use estimates for some activities for all Central Oregon Forests. In the FEIS updated demand<br />

projections for just the Winema National Forest are shown in the Recreation Section of Chapter 3.<br />

Comment<br />

How does the Resource Manager determine when the dispersed recreational user is engaging in any<br />

wildlife or fish use, if the user isn't packing a gun or fishing rod?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All visitor use figures are estimates based on observations supplemented by data collected from a<br />

number of sources. Recording the primary activity engaged in is a judgement call just like discerning<br />

whether a visitor is camping or picnicking.<br />

K-111

Comment<br />

The National Forest is supposed to belong to all the people of the U.S. Then why is it that you turn the<br />

whole National Forest over to a very small group of hunters every year.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Hunting on the National Forest is a State controlled activity. It is not an exclusive use period for hunters.<br />

Other recreation opportunities may be pursued by other users at the same time, if they wish.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-141.<br />

(Paragraph 1). The Forest should state that data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) national<br />

recreation survey indicates the monetary value of non-consumptive wildlife use may equal or exceed<br />

the value of hunting and fishing.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The RPA values for hunting, fishing and non-consumptive wildlife use used to value WFUD's in the<br />

FEIS are $30, $15 and $25 respectively (see Appendix B).<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-145.<br />

Table 11-7 Old-Growth Habitat. "Dispersed Recreation" - Most of the opportunity on the Forest for a<br />

semiprimitive hunting experience has been precluded. How will the Forest meet the concerns of hunters<br />

for excessive roading and less of a quality hunting experience? (DEIS 11-145-1) "% of forest in old-growth<br />

condition" What is the definition of "old-growth condition?" (DEIS 11-1 45-2).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The percentage of the Forest managed in semiprimitive ROS classes has been increased slightly in<br />

the FEIS, however, the inventoried amount of this ROS class outside of wilderness is very limited on<br />

the Winema. Hunting in wilderness or substitution of roaded ROS class hunting are the primary options.<br />

Road densities will be reduced in many areas through selective road closures.<br />

Old-growth habitat and old-growth stands are defined in the Glossary.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-65.<br />

(Paragraph 3). The Forest has made the assumption that current demand for fishing and hunting is<br />

equal to current use. ODFW believes that current demand exceeds current use. If Forest streams were<br />

in optimal condition for fish production, use would be considerably higher than current levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This assumption is probably correct. As conditions for fish production are improved, use will be monitored.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-74. Paragraph 4.<br />

The possible conflict between bird watching and eagle nesting is a poor example when compared with<br />

more common and serious interactions between wildlife, recreation, and vegetation manipulation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This section has been revised to include additional interactions.<br />

K- 112

Comment<br />

PP IV-3.<br />

Recreation. High road densities and reduced hiding cover increases hunter success and decreases<br />

the length of the hunting season. The Forest must have a goal to maintain or increase hunting RVD's.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest-wide standards and guidelines have been developed addressing road densities and mule deer<br />

hiding cover. Hunting RVD's will depend to a large extent on deer populations and the State hunting<br />

regulations in effect. The Forest has no goal to increase hunting on the Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-1 04.<br />

Deer Hunting and Fishing. The effects of the alternatives on hunting opportunity and experience need<br />

to be addressed. High road densities and reduced cover increases vulnerability of bucks and bulls to<br />

harvest, resulting in hunting restrictions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of the alternatives on deer populations are addressed in the Effects on Wildlife in Chapter<br />

4 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

B-94.<br />

(Last Paragraph and Table B-1 2). Should values of wildlife and fish user days be shown apart from<br />

recreation benefits and values? (App. B-94).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Fish and wildlife user days have been displayed and valued separately in the FEIS (See Appendix B),<br />

but are also included as a part of the total RVD use in the Recreation Section of Chapter 3.<br />

Comment<br />

Some data for hunting and fishing on the forest is provided. For example, mule deer hunter days are<br />

projected to increase 20% by the year 2000. Yet, the plan provides no information as to how this use<br />

is to be accommodated. Non-game hunting and wildlife viewing demand is estimated for Central Oregon<br />

forests and shows increases in demand of about 15% from 1980 to 2000. What portion of this demand<br />

may occur the Winema? How will it be accommodated?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Updated projections for hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing are presented in the Recreation Section of<br />

Chapter 3. Based on recent recreation consumption surveys and projections, a much smaller increase<br />

in hunting use is expected. Non-game hunting was not tracked separately in these surveys, but is<br />

included in the hunting total. Since most hunting on the Forest occurs in dispersed settings, the Forest<br />

has no plans to add facilities to accommodate hunting use.<br />

Comment<br />

I feel if you close a road or area due to enhancing deer and elk habitat you should close that area to<br />

everyone not just the people who work in the area, but also the people who use it for recreational<br />

purpose, such as snowmobile, etc., 4-wheelers, general public.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Generally, closures are established to protect wildlife from adverse disturbance. Such closures would<br />

apply to recreation and other uses. If a closure is established for habitat protection, some recreation<br />

uses may still be compatible with the closure.<br />

K- 113

Comment<br />

I also do not see why so much is designated Area 3, Scenic Management, when a lot of it does not<br />

even have a road through it.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Most areas designated scenic management fall into two categories. First, foreground areas along selected<br />

travelways, use areas (such as recreation sites) or important waterways, that are managed with tighter<br />

controls on management activities to minimize potential adverse effects from dramatically altering the<br />

forested landscape through harvest practices (see Pages D-43 - 52 in the DEIS, Appendix). This area<br />

is limited to 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile from the road, depending on the topography.<br />

Second, middleground areas, (seen from up to 3 miles to 5 miles) as viewed from the same travelways<br />

are managed fairly similar to Timber Production Area 12; the difference in scenic management is that<br />

there is a limit to the amount of area that can be in created openings (or clearcut) at any one time<br />

(see Table D-15 on page D-58 of the DEIS, Appendix). This does not place a limit on silviculturally<br />

treating an entire area through thinning, selection cutting, partial removal, and other treatments typically<br />

used to manage timber. The result in the middleground view is that the forest is managed for timber<br />

production in a way that maintains a natural appearing forest.<br />

It is true that the opportunities will be reduced, but there will still be opportunities for roadless recreation<br />

in the Yamsay and Brown Mountain areas. See the description for Alternative E in the DEIS or FEIS for<br />

additional information.<br />

Comment<br />

In comparing the Plan's Preferred Alternate (Alt. E) with some of the other Alternatives, one is struck<br />

by the priority given in the Preferred Alternative to the production of resource outputs. For example,<br />

Alt. E will result in the conversion of 45% of the Forest from a natural appearing to an obviously modified<br />

environment in 10 years (DEIS Table 11-3B):. In contrast, with Alternative G only 5% of the Forest will be<br />

converted. And yet both alternatives will meet the Forest's share of total county-wide harvest, and<br />

produce only a 5% difference in county-wide employment.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the recommended Forest Plan Alternative, Alternative J, there is a lower emphasis on commodity<br />

outputs while maximizing the use of uneven-aged management. Alternative G in the DEIS also maximized<br />

the use of uneven-aged management which maintains a general forest-cover condition while reducing<br />

the amount of clearcutting.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft plan allocates over 160,500 acres to scenic management areas, including: (1) 35,757 acres<br />

managed to achieve foreground retention VQO's; (2) 48,767 managed to achieve foreground partial<br />

retention VQO'S; and (3) 75,992 acres managed to achieve middleground partial retention VQO'S<br />

(DEIS Table 11-2). The objective of timber management on these acres is to provide "a natural appearing<br />

environment.' When even-aged systems are used, long rotation periods and limitations on the size<br />

and distribution of harvest units are used to achieve this objective (DEIS 11-65). These constraints are<br />

more severe on the foreground retention areas and less severe on the middleground partial retention<br />

areas. The timber volume and PNV tradeoffs resulting from these allocations is not described in the<br />

DEIS. 5/ However, it appears that the draft plan's visual quality objectives are the primary factor responsible<br />

for its reduced timber production potential.<br />

5/ The volume and PNV tradeoffs resulting from these and all other significant timber harvest constraints<br />

should be clearly disclosed in the FEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timber volume and PNV tradeoffs resulting from allocation to scenic quality is not nearly as severe<br />

as it may have appeared in the DEIS. Significant timber harvest comes from these areas. The tradeoff<br />

analysis is included in Appendix B in the FEIS.<br />

K- 114

Comment<br />

The Forest used foreground retention in areas that occur within 0.5 miles from designated visual<br />

corridors,public use areas, and water bodies. The planning team used extended rotations of 250 years<br />

and limiting openings to 8 percent per period to apply this objective. The current Forest condition has<br />

stands of 190 years. The Winema's present Forest structure has no stands that meet the 250 year<br />

objective of retention. We believe the rate of harvest should be used to meet the scenic objective.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Except in mixed conifer and lodgepole pine plant communities where maximum percentage in created<br />

opening will still be applied, uneven-aged management will be emphasized on the Forest using basal<br />

area distribution.<br />

Comment<br />

Thus, these stands (average age 160) do not contribute to the harvest volume until the average age<br />

reaches 250. We recommend that the Winema also evaluate allowing multiple CT options and earlier<br />

harvest ages for the visual emphases.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The long rotation of trees in the foreground has five commercial thinnings. Uneven-aged management<br />

will maximize wood production while maintaining a forest-cover condition.<br />

Comment<br />

What activities will be used to maintain or enhance' scenic quality?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Vegetative management activities are the primary tools for managing scenic quality. Activities such as<br />

prescribed fire, small clear cuts, partial removals, and even-aged management and thinning are treatments<br />

used to maintain or enhance scenic quality. Other activities, such as revegetating wildfire areas help to<br />

prevent erosion and re-establish the forest. Planning vegetative management activities over time and<br />

space within a viewed area can improve vegetative diversity, assure a forested environment into the<br />

future, and allow for attractive feature, such as peaks, lakes and streams, to be seen from travelways.<br />

Comment<br />

We need to understand the benefits and costs of different levels of visual protection for your primary<br />

and secondary travel routes and recreation sites. Both as a contributor to the setting for the increasing<br />

tourist industry in Klamath county and as a contributor to the quality of life in Oregon, scenic quality<br />

on the Forest is a resource that must be carefully considered in the Forest Plan. Given the large area<br />

of forest that may be covered by these objectives, it is especially important that we understand the<br />

trade-offs involved and that they be minimized. As mentioned above, expansion of uneven-aged<br />

management to more of your key visual areas may help achieve this objective.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree. We are using uneven-aged management to minimize conflicts between timber harvest and<br />

scenic quality.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-12. Display 11-1.<br />

Scenic Management - FG Retention has a maximum strategy of 8 percent of the area in opening. Appendix<br />

B of the DEIS (page 170) states the 8 percent limit will not be used during the first two decades. What<br />

limit will be used during the first two decades? (DEIS 11-12).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

That is correct as it appeared in the DEIS. The constraint was applied appropriately in the FEIS.<br />

K- 115

Comment<br />

P.11-51.<br />

It should be stated here that the 8 percent opening limit for foreground retention will not be applied in<br />

the first two decades.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the modeling for the FEIS, the constraint was applied appropriately.<br />

Comment<br />

B-147.<br />

The semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation strategy is designed to maintain the area's natural character.<br />

How can this objective be met with 16 percent of the area in openings each decade? (App. B-147).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is no timber harvest programmed for semiprimitive Recreation management areas although<br />

salvage in case of catastrophes or to meet the objectives of this land allocation is permitted. If such<br />

situations occur, the guideline for openings would govern development of methods to achieve the<br />

natural character goal for the area.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-85. Description.<br />

This description is a change from that displayed in DEIS App. D-56. why has the distance changed<br />

from '.5 to 5 miles' to 'up to .5 miles?' (PP IV-85).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

PP IV-85 was incorrect. This has been changed in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-105. Recreation.<br />

4. 'The visual quality level will be maximum modification. This is an unacceptable standard for riparian<br />

areas. This standard does not meet the desired future condition goal for riparian zones. The visual<br />

quality goal for riparian areas should be retention.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the recommended Forest Plan Alternative the riparian areas were modeled to achieve the partial<br />

retention visual quality objective across the Forest. Individual management area standards and guidelines<br />

may allow for a higher or lower visual quality objective consistent with the management area objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

Visual Management - (DEIS, page 111-85, App., page B-146). The Winema has chosen to impose constraints<br />

for visual management in every alternative. Like the MMRs previously discussed, the standards and<br />

guidelines for visuals have been implemented without public review, without the exploration of alternative<br />

strategies, and without an adequate tradeoff analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The DEIS was the vehicle for exploring alternative strategies and providing opportunity for public review<br />

and comment. The FEIS reflects response to public comments and a detailed tradeoff analysis was<br />

completed which appears in Appendix B.<br />

Comment<br />

The extreme effects of imposing harvest restrictions through extending the time required for I...an opening<br />

no longer being an opening ... [until]... the vegetation within it reaches 20 feet in height...' are not well<br />

discussed in the plan. Also, the standards and guidelines for management of the 124,800 acres of<br />

background partial retention, and subsequent discussion of the effects on forest output have apparently<br />

K- 116

een omitted. Because timber outputs are greatly and directly affected by these requirements, the<br />

Department requests that the following information be provided in the final EIS by the Winema:<br />

1. A summary of the costs, in terms of present net value and allowable sale quantity, of the<br />

minimum level of visual management included in DEIS alternatives.<br />

2. An analysis of the tradeoffs that would occur if the visual management constraints were increased,<br />

reduced, or eliminated.<br />

3. An analysis of how increased use of uneven-aged management would affect the need for<br />

these constraints.<br />

4. An explanation of how the seemingly arbitrary diameter and harvest dispersion requirements<br />

were selected and an analysis of the tradeoffs that would occur should different requirements<br />

be used (higher or lower).<br />

5. A summary of the anticipated recreation use (demand) on the secondary roads that are<br />

designated for visual management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

-The requirement for scenic resources where an opening is no longer an opening when vegetation in<br />

it reaches 20 feet in height reflects a compromise throughout the Region. At least 40 feet in height is<br />

actually needed where the young tree crop begins to blend into the branches and boughs of adjacent<br />

mature trees and the cut edge becomes less obvious to the viewer.<br />

-This Forest has chosen to focus on the highest priority scenic lands. The background partial retention<br />

areas are not allocated to scenic management; there are no constraints or effects on timber harvest.<br />

The regional policy direction allows no less than the visual quality objective of maximum modification,<br />

this is achieved through harvest design. Standards and guidelines provide encouragement to achieve<br />

a higher standard if it can be practically achieved. There is no consequence for achieving the minimum<br />

resource requirement of maximum modification except for public perception and feedback.<br />

-Timber outputs are not 'great and directly affected by these requirements.,<br />

-A summary of costs, PNV, ASQ and Tradeoffs are reflected in the large chart in Chapter 11 and in<br />

Appendix B.<br />

-Increased use of uneven-aged management will affect scenic quality significantly. On the positive<br />

side, the perceived ugliness of clearcuts will be reduced and there will be more age diversity per acre.<br />

However, there will be a liquidation of large trees early on and more acreage will be treated in less<br />

time. The forest will appear very open with a distinct emphasis on small trees because of the basal<br />

area distribution. The few scattered large diameter trees will not be enough to retain or partially retain<br />

the character of our existing forest appearance. Diversity on a larger scale will be reduced because<br />

everything will look similar over a large area and appear distinctly 'managed."<br />

-'the seemingly arbitrary diameter and harvest dispersion requirements' for scenic resources was not<br />

at all arbitrary. The diameter sizes were based on actual tree measurements of trees that contained<br />

the desired character for the species sought. Form, line, color and texture are key elements for analyzing<br />

and managing scenic quality. To achieve the desired character of the plant communities, key components<br />

were tree diameter size, bark color and tree form. Retaining the characteristic landscape generally<br />

means retaining all size classes with emphasis on the most distinctive aesthetic characteristics. The<br />

dispersion constraints for openings were a function of rotation age. Rotation age was derived from the<br />

length of time required to achieve the desired conditions. Computer modeling also substantiated the<br />

percentage of created openings that could be placed into a landscape to achieve the various visual<br />

quality levels. This was done at all condition levels from natural appearing down to heavily altered<br />

landscapes.<br />

-The anticipated recreation use (demand) on the Forest as a whole was derived from the Pacific Northwest<br />

Outdoor Recreation Consumption Study, the Oregon Project, which was completed in cooperation with<br />

State agencies. The classification of roads in relation to scenic management is based on actual use<br />

and type of use, not participated use. The Forest has an ongoing system for traffic counts, both numeric<br />

and visual. This data becomes part of the formula that is identified in the national 'Visual Management<br />

System' that determines the level of visual quality that is expected by the public. The data is contained<br />

in the forest planning records.<br />

K- 117

Comment<br />

Guidelines for visual management should also address the question of implementing an effective visual<br />

management program in areas where a scattered, fragmented ownership pattern occurs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest is primarily blocked public ownership. There is no question of program<br />

implementation.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Management Tradeoffs - (DEIS, page 11-74) An essential part of the Department of Forestry's<br />

review of the national forest plan is to evaluate the tradeoffs involved in each alternative's land allocations.<br />

The DEIS and the Winema planning team seem to lack some of the basic information needed to accomplish<br />

this task. For example, except for Alternative D each alternative provides a minimum level of visual<br />

management through the allocation of at least 24,911 suitable acres to Management Area 3 (the Preferred<br />

Alternative (E) allocates 161,816). The text on page 111-86 states that '...currently 91 percent of the Forest<br />

'is in a visual condition in which nature dominates and human activities are not easily noticed [and<br />

that] only 9 percent of the Forest is in a moderately to heavily altered state." The text goes on to note<br />

that '...it is expected that demand for scenic quality will increase in conjunction with the increase in<br />

recreational use and the increased marketing emphasis in Klamath County on tourism.' Unlike the<br />

other listed constraints, however, no estimate of the harvest falldown is given.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The percent of full yield produced for timber harvest varies by the type of scenic allocation. It is not a<br />

straight line relationship. Allowable sale quantity is impacted by timing choices and intensities that<br />

mask the effect of acres allocated to a certain resource allocation.<br />

Comment<br />

Impacts from timber harvest activities on these viewsheds need to be considered in the Winema DEIS.<br />

NPS would like the Forest to consider running the Visual Management System inventory for views from<br />

Rim Drive east into the Winema Forest. The Forest Service is concerned about vistas and scenic corridors<br />

along Sun Pass Road; it is recommended that the same consideration be given to Rim Drive in Crater<br />

Lake NP.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the FEIS, the middleground part of the RIM Drive viewshed was mapped and incorporated into the<br />

preferred alternative. The Sun Pass road was not allocated to scenic emphasis in the preferred alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

Approximately 12 percent of the Forest offers non-roaded recreation opportunities for the pursuit or<br />

observation of fish and wildlife. The management of these areas in a roadless condition will help meet<br />

the wildlife policy for the State of Oregon by providing for optimum fish and wildlife recreational and<br />

aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of the State.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In the FEIS preferred alternative, almost 11 percent of the Forest will be managed to provide an unroaded<br />

setting. Additional currently unroaded areas are also expected to remain unroaded during the plan<br />

period.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema Plan proposes the construction of only 5 miles of new trails (Plan at IV-33); the east-west<br />

'route markers,' referenced at DEIS 11-51, are not substitutes for trails. The sparsely populated Fremont<br />

Forest, upon implementation of its plan, would have nearly twice the mileage of trails as the Winema.<br />

K- 118

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The levels of recreation opportunities and related facilities (such as trails) provided in the Preferred<br />

Alternative has been re-evaluated. This was in response to public comment and to consider direction<br />

and opportunities contained in the recent National Recreation Strategy. Please refer to the FEIS and<br />

Forest Plan which incorporates the re-evaluation.<br />

Comment<br />

It does not address recreation in the Chemult area. Nordic ski trails, snowmobile trails, up-grading our<br />

existing camping facilities (showers, hookups, RV sites, dump stations...). Only Alternative F plans a<br />

trail around the Jackson Creek, Yamsay area, turn old guard stations into warming huts for Nordic<br />

skiing, ice fishing at Miller Lake, coordinate with other Forests for a snowmobile trail, Johnson Meadow<br />

snowmobile trail and warming hut...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan has been revised to increase emphasis on recreation Forestwide in response to the<br />

new National Recreation Strategy direction. Existing developed sites are scheduled to be upgraded<br />

to provide facilities and services requested by the recreating public. Additional development is scheduled<br />

in the Implementation Plan to expand recreation opportunities, including construction of nordic,<br />

snowmobile and hiking/riding trails in the Chemult area. Recreation staffing has been increased on the<br />

Forest, including at Chemult, to plan, execute and promote this expanded program.<br />

Comment<br />

In Table IV-1, should the PAOT under Developed Recreation Sites 13 be some other unit of measure? It<br />

doesn't seem logical to construct or reconstruct PAOT.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Persons At One Time (PAOT) is an measure of average design capacity for developed sites. For<br />

campgrounds and picnic areas a family unit has a PAOT of five, so a development with 20 units would<br />

have a total designed PAOT capacity of 100. RWF<br />

Comment<br />

Access to our Federal and Public lands must be provided for the handicapped, elderly and non-athletic.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest is generally well roaded outside of designated wilderness. Access roads<br />

to recreation sites are maintained for passenger car use. New and replacement facilities, including<br />

some trails, will be designed to provide barrier-free access for elderly and persons with disabilities.<br />

Comment<br />

Projections for recreational activities on the forest are on an upward trend and the FS should, therefore,<br />

be planning for increased use, not stable or decreasing recreational pursuits. We need more, not less,<br />

recreation area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Overall recreation use on the Forest is projected to increase, with participation in some activities increasing<br />

more rapidly than others. Updated recreation projections have been added to Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

The Recreation Facility and Trail Activity Schedules in Appendix B in the Forest Plan list proposed<br />

developments needed to meet this increased demand.<br />

K- 119

Comment<br />

If there was a road into the Wilderness Areas a lot more people could enjoy them.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Wilderness Act prohibits roads and the use of motorized equipment within wilderness.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS lists a number of potential Special Interest Areas on the Forest but we were surprised to see<br />

that the Sand Creek Pinnacles were not included. This geologic wonder was listed as a lunique site'<br />

on the forest, however, along with several other areas that did receive mention as potential Special<br />

Interest Areas (SIA's) too. The description of the potential SIA's in Chapter 3 would have benefited by<br />

the inclusion of a map locating the boundaries for the sites and a bit more discussion of the natural<br />

and cultural values that are present at each area. Also there were no Klamath Indian religious sites<br />

noted in the list of SIA's but this was presumably to prevent destruction of these sites.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Sand Creek Pinnacles were not initially included because it was felt that the significant geologic<br />

formations had already been included within the Crater Lake N.P. boundary. Further investigation has<br />

revealed that there are still geologic formations on the national forest land along Sand Creek that warrant<br />

Unique Area consideration. This is also true of other potential special interest areas that have been<br />

analyzed. Because of the small acreage size of many potential special interest areas, it is not easy to<br />

locate them on alternative maps. However, maps are available to view at the Winema National Forests<br />

Supervisor's Office. The Klamath Indian religious sites are protected by the Freedom of Information<br />

Act, the AIRFA of 1978 and the ARPA of 1979.<br />

Comment<br />

However, reasons should be given for not designating the remaining sites as SIA's in the preferred<br />

alternative. The priority ranking that was assigned to each site in Table 111-28 (p. 111-77) indicates that a<br />

number of the historic sites are considered high priority. Why were these not included in the preferred<br />

alternative, especially since they are of minimal acreage and presumably with few resource conflicts?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The potential Special Interest Areas were often not recommended as a Special Interest Area because<br />

it was felt that allocation to management areas such as scenic, riparian, or minimum management<br />

would achieve a similar result, in that they would remain in a fairly natural condition. Historic sites on<br />

the forest are covered by several Acts that require inventory and evaluation for significance and any<br />

subsequent protection. It is true that these are limited in size.<br />

Comment<br />

The preferred Alternative E map shows two units of Developed Recreation (Management Area 2) north<br />

of Highway 140. The units appear to overlap our State Highway Maintenance Station. If that is the<br />

case, there would be a serious conflict between the recreation use and our snow removal/routine<br />

maintenance activities. We also would not want to encourage public use around our housing and other<br />

facilities. The Developed Recreation area would not permit any new structures to be constructed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Developed Recreation Management Area north of Highway 140 was intended to depict areas near<br />

Billie Creek approximately one-half mile west of the Maintenance Station. A buffer area with topographic<br />

and vegetative screening will be maintained between the Station and any new facilities constructed.<br />

Comment<br />

If we could get the Forest Service to close the lower road to the creek (The Highway Dept. would be<br />

very happy because of the way the road enters the highway right at the turn at the bottom of the hill)<br />

and have someone patrol the camping area, -this would stop a lot of the indiscriminate shooting that<br />

goes on, also there is a tremendous amount of small dead timber near where they put their boats in.<br />

K - 120

This is an awful fire hazard not so much for your Forest land but we and our neighbors have quite a<br />

lot of money invested in our homes and property.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This situation was handled outside the planning process.<br />

Comment<br />

We support the recommendations in the draft plan for developed recreation. It is our opinion that dispersed<br />

recreation levels are too high in the plan and do not match demand while developed recreation demand<br />

is underestimated. The general age of the population is increasing, and so is their desire for developed<br />

recreation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation demand has been reanalyzed based on updated use data and recent State and National<br />

demand projections. The results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service needs to be pro-active towards increased recreational development rather than<br />

re-active. Leadership needs to be taken and demonstrated, which is not the present case. The Forest<br />

Service is too conservative and needs to take a risk towards future development of Pelican Butte.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In accordance with the new 'Recreation Strategy, the Winema National Forest is taking a more pro-active<br />

role in assessing recreational needs, upgrading facilities and promoting opportunities through partnerships<br />

with user groups and other agencies. The Recreation Facility and Trail Activity Schedules in the<br />

Forest Plan outlines planned recreation development and improvement projects.<br />

An option to develop a portion of Pelican Butte for winter sports is maintained in the Forest Plan. The<br />

current development proposal is being analyzed in a separate site-specific EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 11-9, 2nd paragraph. This discussion implies that the Winema's recreation demand is generated<br />

only from the populations of Klamath, Jackson, and Josephine counties. The role and impact of population<br />

growth and recreational visitation from Deschutes, Lake, Modoc, and Siskiyou counties should be<br />

clarified in the demand projections.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This section has been revised to reflect a reevaluation of recreation demand based on State and National<br />

demand projections as well as local and regional population growth.<br />

Comment<br />

The statement that 'recreation and tourism have not played a dominant role in the development of the<br />

local economy' is inconsistent with local economic data and analyses. It is widely recognized and<br />

documented that recreation and tourism is the 'third legs of the local economy after agriculture and<br />

wood products industries.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

While we agree recreation and tourism is an important component of the local economy, we don't feel<br />

it has been a dominant factor when compared to the agriculture and wood products industries.<br />

Comment<br />

Your recreational planning models appear to understate both the value and the trends in recreational<br />

use. I believe the recreational supply-demand analysis also leads to understating future use of the<br />

forest. This seems particularly true for the net new trails planned. The growth in snowmobiling and<br />

cross country skiing warrant more development than planned and contribute critical seasonal employ-<br />

K- 121

ment. I believe that a niche market in horse packing and trail riding can develop with encouragement<br />

from the Forest Service.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation demand has been reestimated based on updated data and assumptions which are more in<br />

line with the new ORecreation Strategy." The results are displayed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The Activity<br />

Schedules in the Forest Plan has been expanded to schedule upgrading/expanding of existing facilities<br />

and adding some new facilities, including trails for winter and horse use. Outfitter-Guide permits can<br />

be issued to authorize commercial horse packing and trail riding. Restrictions on party size within<br />

wilderness limits such operations until additional trails suitable for horse use are developed outside<br />

wilderness.<br />

Comment<br />

On the Forest, the Klamath District has and is the primary focal point in recreation. It is felt that the<br />

other districts should be managed more actively to reach their full potential in the recreation area.<br />

These districts have been de-emphasized, and I think the Forest should more completely address the<br />

recreational opportunities on these districts, provide the funding to develop these opportunities, and<br />

the necessary staffing to develop, maintain and increase the recreational opportunities on these districts.<br />

These opportunities include everything from birdwatching, cross-county skiing, horse use to ATV's and<br />

snowmobiles. There is no mention of investments into recreation and this needs to be done.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See previous comment. Recreation opportunities are emphasized Forest-wide in the FEIS Preferred<br />

Alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

What are the 'variety of other uses, that other unroaded areas will be subjected to?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 'other uses' are dependent on the capability of each area. For instance the Aspen area in the<br />

Preferred Alternative has portions allocated to Old Growth Management, Timber Production, and Minimum<br />

Management. A detailed breakdown of allocations for each inventoried roadless area by alternative in<br />

shown in Table C-6 in Appendix C.<br />

Comment<br />

No perceptible change in the Forest by the end of the first decade?? There are already very perceptible<br />

changes in the aesthetic and biological conditions in many areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

That is true. There will be a perceptible change in the Forest by the end of the first decade. The Chemult<br />

District has changed due to the mountain pine beetle epidemic, the Klamath District will continue to<br />

change due primarily to the armillaria root rot disease that is increasing, and the uneven-aged<br />

management in the pine types will maintain a forest cover condition but change the vegetative structure.<br />

Comment<br />

Where on Klamath R.D. will recreation developments go? Are any of these areas in current roadless<br />

management?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation developments would be expanded or established primarily in the Developed Recreation<br />

management area allocations. All existing developed recreation sites and areas on the Klamath District<br />

are included in these allocations. Some developments may be planned for other management areas to<br />

achieve recreation management direction for those management areas. Planned developments are<br />

listed in the Activity Schedules in Appendix B in the Forest Plan.<br />

The Pelican Butte Recreation Area is proposed for development within the Sky Lakes B area and some<br />

trail construction is currently planned in the Brown Mtn., Yamsey Mtn. and Sky Lakes B areas.<br />

K - 122

Comment<br />

(last Par.) Specify how many acres of Yamsay and Brown Mountain areas will remain roadless, contrast<br />

with planned harvest areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All of the Yamsay and Brown Mountain areas is allocated to semiprimitive recreation and will remain<br />

roadless. The acreage allocations for all roadless areas can be found in Table C-6 in Appendix C of<br />

the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

How much acreage would the annexation of Crater Lake National Park and Sky Lakes Wilderness Area<br />

include?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Sky Lakes Wilderness is already a part of the Winema and Rogue River National Forests and we have<br />

no plans to annex Crater Lake National Park.<br />

Comment<br />

We have several concerns with your overall treatment of the values of recreation on the Forest. First, in<br />

your use of composite recreational values based on the recreational opportunity spectrum class, the<br />

value of specific types of recreational activities is understated. This particularly undervalues the high<br />

quality hunting and fishing that occur on the Winema. We recommend that recreational values be<br />

recast by specific activities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Hunting and fishing use, as well as non-consumptive wildlife uses, have been valued separately as<br />

Wildlife and Fish User Days (WFUD's). Downhill skiing was also valued separately at a higher rate per<br />

visitor day. Average ROS class values were used for all other developed and dispersed uses, because<br />

of the large number of activities involved.<br />

Comment<br />

The economic values of recreational activities have been discounted by 37 percent. In addition,<br />

recreational values have been assigned by a 0 percent per year real price trend throughout the life of<br />

the plan while a one percent per year real price trend for timber was used for harvest scheduling analyses.<br />

We believe these adjustments to be unsupported and result in a serious under-evaluation of the<br />

contribution recreation makes to Present Net Value (PNV).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This method of valuation was based on National planning direction.<br />

Comment<br />

Wilderness - (DEIS, page 111-82, App.) The text states that "...dispersed recreation use in wilderness<br />

has not increased over the last few years... [and that]...current wilderness use is below the potential<br />

capacity of the available wilderness.... However, a 10 percent increase in wilderness use is projected<br />

from 1985 to 1995 based on population trends. The text also states that use is expected to increase 5<br />

percent per decade during the next four decades -- which disagrees with the 10 percent projected for<br />

the current decade. While these numbers need to be clarified in the Final EIS, it appears that the Winema<br />

may have projected an overly optimistic view of the potential future use of these areas. The population<br />

age is increasing, especially in southern Oregon, which would lead to the possible conclusion that<br />

more sedentary recreation and more roaded, developed recreation will be in demand. The Final EIS<br />

should also relate expected population demographics to projected use changes by recreation type.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Both the Wilderness and Recreation sections of Chapter 3 have been revised to include updated use<br />

projections.<br />

K - 123

Comment<br />

Where possible, the plan should identify recreational use in terms of the major specific recreational<br />

activities as well as by ROS classification. Projections of such use should take into account historical<br />

growth in the forest, the differential growth rates of the activities, and the possible effects of recreationists<br />

from outside the three county areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation use projections have been revised using updated data and recent State and National<br />

projections by activity. Results are displayed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Examples given of recreational use by ROS class are potentially confusing. For example, current demand<br />

for over 92,000 acres of 'Primitive' wilderness is given as over 38,000 RVD's per year while current<br />

demand for 32,000 acres of oSemiprimitive Motorized and Non-motorized" recreation is given as 800<br />

RVD'S per year. This appears to be an extremely low demand for semiprimitive recreation, especially<br />

when compared to the demand cited for primitive recreation. It also is at extreme variance with the<br />

demand for semiprimitive recreation cited by other forests in Oregon.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The very low use shown for semiprimitive recreation is due to the nature of the areas that make up the<br />

32,000 acres in this ROS class. Much of this area consists of small isolated tracts that are relatively<br />

inaccessible. Demand projections for this ROS class have been updated based on current data. Results<br />

are shown in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Capacity and demand for developed recreation is defined in terms of developed recreation opportunity<br />

classes. In terms of these classes, capacity exceeds demand. While this analysis may be adequate in<br />

terms of the land base available, it is insufficient in terms of the facilities necessary for developed recreation.<br />

The plan should analyze the adequacy of facilities at Lake of the Woods and Rocky Point to meet<br />

future use. The adequacy of smaller developed sites throughout the forest should also be addressed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The recreation section in Chapter 3 in the FEIS has been expanded to include information on existing<br />

uses. Recreation use projections have been revised based on expanded and updated data. Developed<br />

site capacities have also been analyzed by recreation area or complex to determine need for additional<br />

facilities to meet future use.<br />

Comment<br />

However, projections of future conditions throughout the planning horizon (pp IV-69 to IV-79) raise<br />

concern in some areas. For example, State Highway 140 is projected to improve to unatural appearing'<br />

than to go to nslightly altered"; State Highway 52 from Nslightly altered' to "moderately altered.' Other<br />

areas with similar fluctuations are: Westside Lake of the Woods, Sprague River Road, Silver Lake Road,<br />

Squaw Flats, Varney Creek Trail (to "heavily altered") Williamson River (to wheavily altered' in the first<br />

decade). Sycan Ford and others. Many of these are not only major thoroughfares through the forest<br />

but important recreational areas. We believe it is not only important to improve visual conditions in the<br />

long run but also to maintain existing visual qualities. It is recognized that removal of bug killed lodgepole<br />

may be responsible for much of the projected visual decline. That needs fuller description in the plan.<br />

In areas along the major travel routes and recreation areas where dead lodgepole is not the issue,<br />

existing acceptable and stable visual qualities should be maintained where possible.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that it is important to improve long-term visual conditions and maintain existing visual qualities<br />

but consistent with the visual quality objective associated with a specific land area The DEIS shows a<br />

short-term inability to achieve desired scenic condition in the first decade or two in several viewsheds.<br />

This is sometimes due to mountain pine beetle infestation or other disease, but also because the amount<br />

K- 124

of area that can be in "created opening, (scenic definition of vegetation less than 20 feet in height) is<br />

often already exceeded. In the FEIS FORPLAN constraints better reflect capability in scenic management<br />

areas to achieve desired future conditions.<br />

Comment<br />

In the DEIS, Tables IV-23 and IV-24, an analysis of the acreage in management area 3 is compared to<br />

the visual quality objective inventory. This is useful information; however, it does not tell the complete<br />

story. The reader should be able to compare by alternative the acreage to be managed as inventoried<br />

for each management area, not just management area 3. This would allow the reader to evaluate how<br />

many acres inventoried with a high standard of visual protection have been dropped out of each alternative<br />

and would be managed with little visual protection if the alternative was adopted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A table has been created in the FEIS that better reflects the allocation of viewshed parts to other<br />

management emphases.<br />

Comment<br />

The forest plan should include a full recreation plan, including potential developments as well as<br />

allocations. Your discussion of treatments for dispersed recreation sites is inadequate. You need further<br />

discussion of trails, especially the Fremont National Recreation Trail. And you need more consideration<br />

for a broader spectrum of recreation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A detailed recreation plan for the Forest is beyond the scope of the Forest plan effort. The planning<br />

effort has considered current recreation need, opportunity and potential. Additional discussion of<br />

dispersed recreation area and activities have been added to Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Proposed recreation<br />

development, including trail construction, is identified in the Activity Schedules in Appendix B of the<br />

Forest Plan.<br />

K - 125

Roads and Corridors<br />

Comment<br />

The proposal would create a level E grade of road on the Forest to include all above400 travelways<br />

which are primarily suited for high clearance/4WD use. Level D is not suitable because the plan stated<br />

that these are either constructed for local access to timber and closed after cutting, or will be maintained<br />

for administrative use only (i.e. always closed).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The terrain on the Winema is relatively flat and there exists and extensive system of roads on the Forest,<br />

ranging from high standard to primitive roads. With the exception of Wilderness and Semi-primitive<br />

Unroaded Areas, access to almost all areas of the Forest, including remote areas, on roads suitable<br />

for high clearance/4WD currently exists and would continue to exist in the Forest Plan. The FEIS and<br />

Forest Plan does not categorize roads into Level A to D, but instead in Levels of Access, consisting of:<br />

1) access suitable for passenger cars, 2) access suitable for high clearance vehicles, 3) intermittent<br />

access (open/closed), and 4) short term roads (to be removed from the road system). These levels<br />

were shown on Pg. 111-101 of the Draft EIS and in FEIS.<br />

Creating a new category of Level E roads (suitable for high clearance/4WD) would be duplication of<br />

those roads identified to be suitable for high clearance access in the EIS and Forest Plan. We feel that<br />

the purpose and intent of creating a Level E road is already being met in the existing access level<br />

categories. Also, since Levels of Access are described, not Categories A to D, creation of a Level E<br />

road would not be consistent. Also, we would note ORV/4WD objectives within the written objectives<br />

for the road and manage accordingly. Roads are closed for the purpose of reducing high road densities,<br />

for such purposes as maintaining wildlife habitat, reducing road maintenance costs, etc. Closing these<br />

roads does not result in denying access to Forest land areas, including remote areas, but does reduce<br />

the open road densities within individual areas. The forest also intends to produce Forest travel plans<br />

and maps, which would display the availability of high clearance/4WD/ORV uses.<br />

Comment<br />

I would strongly request that you add a strategy to consider the successes of User-cooperative programs<br />

such as Adopt-a Trail/Road.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has utilized volunteer and cooperative efforts on many occasions in the past, to seek input,<br />

to coordinate, and for actual accomplishment of projects. These efforts have been very successful and<br />

have allowed accomplishment of projects with limited budgets. It is our intent to continue such successes<br />

with volunteers and user-cooperator groups and programs. Standards and Guideline #6, Page IV-36,<br />

of the Draft Forest Plan speaks to continued coordination with user groups.<br />

Comment<br />

Your plan does not recognize the large network of existing and previously open network of old forest<br />

roads/logging roads/stage roads which are shown on topo maps as "jeep trails' as the substantial<br />

opportunity it is.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Road System, comprised of over 6000 miles of roads, has been inventoried and categorized<br />

into travel access levels. A large percentage of the roads consist of old Forest roads and are open<br />

and available for ORV/4WD use. When a Forest Travel Plan and map are produced, it is our intent to<br />

identify in more detail, ORV/4WD opportunities and locations. This would be done by working with the<br />

various 4WD/ORV organizations to develop and agree upon opportunities. We have in the past worked<br />

with 4WD/ORV associations. The opportunity is recognized in the Proposed Forest Plan in that the<br />

majority of the Forest is open to ORV/4WD uses. The plan does provide for 4WD/High clearance use<br />

on a large percentage of the network of primitive travelways.<br />

K - 126

Comment<br />

Many recreational assets have been attributed to the high standard road system being built to service<br />

the timber projects, in which you know that we have little interest. The plans have closed 90% or more<br />

of these after the timber is cut. How do you explain this contradiction.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We do not feel that there is a contradiction. The statement that 90% of the high standard road system<br />

has been closed is not correct. The Winema's high standard road system has been previously constructed<br />

and in place for many years. Very little of this road system has been closed after the timber sale, but<br />

has remained open to provide long term access for administrative, public, and recreational purposes.<br />

Almost all of the roads being built now are low standard timber access road only, and no major recreational<br />

assets have been identified in the written road objectives. The roads that have been closed to use<br />

have been identified as intermittent or temporary road needs. These roads have been closed for a<br />

variety of reasons, including reduction of open road densities in wildlife areas, reduction of road<br />

maintenance expenditures, for re-establishment of vegetation, and for protection of the resource.<br />

Comment<br />

Winter driving conditions in viewshed areas could be improved on primarily E-W trending roads if some<br />

trees were removed to the south. This would allow the sun to melt snow or ice on highways, improving<br />

driveability. Also, the highways might be in better condition if snow and ice were melted to stay off the<br />

highway. It is presumed uneven-aged harvest to the south side of primarily E-W trending highways in<br />

viewshed management would improve driving conditions in winter and also lessen road surface<br />

deterioration with more sun shining on the pavements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that there are opportunities to do the above types of management to improve driving conditions<br />

and that there would be benefits on certain roads and highways in terms of hazard tree removal, opening<br />

up of vistas in viewshed corridors, and for the reduction of deer kill along main travel corridors. It should<br />

be noted that very few of the roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service are paved. The opportunities<br />

spoken to in your comment pertaining to paved roads applies mainly to the paved high standard road<br />

system, which is under the jurisdiction and maintenance of the State of Oregon, Klamath County, or<br />

others.<br />

Comment<br />

The increase of road building in your plan also deteriorates the protection for our wildlife. The construction<br />

of roads by our government for private industry to use to harvest our timber resource is a sore spot<br />

with me anyway. Building roads into areas that serve as cover for our herds of elk is damaging to their<br />

survival.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The primary road system is in place. Levels of road construction described in the plan are necessary<br />

to adequately carry out the Forest's Mission. Almost all of these planned roads would be low standard<br />

intermittent access roads and would be closed to access during periods of time when access is not<br />

required. Please refer to the FEIS, Appendix D, and to the Forest Plan, Chapter 4 which discusses<br />

direction and standards and guidelines pertaining to management of open road densities and road<br />

closures.<br />

The Forest Plan specifies that approximately 360 miles of minimum standard local roads will need to<br />

be constructed in two decades for timber harvest. These roads are required to complete the Forest<br />

Transportation plan. However, within the same time periods, the Forest Plan also shows a net reduction<br />

in the total miles of roads on the Forest, even with the new road construction. This is because many<br />

existing roads not needed for future management activities have been identified. These roads have<br />

been or will be closed-to use and will be returned to the productive land base. The overall net effect is<br />

a reduction in the total Forest road miles. In the past the Forest has implemented an aggressive program<br />

of closing roads to use. Over 1700 miles of intermittent access and short term roads roads have been<br />

closed to use, to reduce open road densities, to return short term roads to the productive land base,<br />

K- 127

and to reduce road maintenance expenditures. Under the Preferred Alternative, roads would continue<br />

to be closed when not needed, to reduce high open road densities.<br />

Comment<br />

Let the Timber companies build their own roads and totally restore them after any current sales.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Almost all of the roads constructed on the Forest, whether long term system roads or temporary roads,<br />

are constructed by the timber companies, through provisions within the timber sale contract. Intermittent<br />

or temporary access roads constructed by timber companies are closed to use or restored, either by<br />

the timber purchaser, or through a collection deposit with the provisions of the timber sale.<br />

Comment<br />

Congress has directed the Forest Service to administer the National Forests for multiple use. Yet for<br />

over 25 years this mandate had virtually been ignored and instead the Forest Service has emphasized<br />

logging and road construction. And doing this while losing money--selling its stock-in-trade far below<br />

the cost of production.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service makes many investments in multiple use. The Forest Service was a leader in developing<br />

wilderness areas, campgrounds have been developed at many major attractions, visual corridors are<br />

maintained along major travel routes, habitat is developed and maintained for both harvested and<br />

non-harvested wildlife species. The list could go on and on. National Forests were established to provide<br />

goods and services for the public, not to be set aside as preservation areas. The Winema is a very<br />

cost effective Forest. Our timber receipts far exceed the cost of road construction and timber management<br />

costs.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema Plan proposes the construction of only 5 miles of new trails (Plan at IV-33); the east-west<br />

T route markers," referenced at DEIS 11-51, are not substitutes for trails. The sparsely populated Fremont<br />

Forest, upon implementation of its plan, would have nearly twice the mileage of trails as the Winema.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The levels of recreation opportunities and related facilities (such as trails) provided in the Preferred<br />

Alternative has been re-evaluated. This was in response to public comment and to consider direction<br />

and opportunities contained in the recent National Recreation Strategy. Please refer to the FEIS and<br />

Forest Plan which incorporates the re-evaluation.<br />

Comment<br />

Logging practice and road building methods need to be carefully considered so as to minimize soil<br />

disturbance and sedimentation. The vegetating of road cuts and fills is required and native plants need<br />

to be used; do not bring in outside species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The terrain of the Forest is mostly gentle; only about 5% of the Forest has slopes greater than 35%.<br />

Because of this gentle terrain and the porous pumice and ash soils that are capable of absorbing and<br />

transmitting water very rapidly, the Forest does not have a major problem with surface soil erosion or<br />

landslides. The potential for excessive surface erosion is limited to that 5% of the Forest with slopes<br />

over 35%, and to a limited number of concern areas. Many of the standards and guidelines for logging<br />

practices and road construction and reconstruction are written to reduce and minimize soil disturbance,<br />

sedimentation, and erosion. These standards guidelines were contained in the Draft EIS and Proposed<br />

Forest Plan, and are contained in the FEIS, Appendix D, and in the recommended Forest Plan, Chapter<br />

4. The need to revegetate road cuts and fills is considered when situations warrant.<br />

K - 128

Comment<br />

Facilities Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (IV-60) describes the anticipated closing of roads no<br />

longer needed. Can such roads be used for snowmobiling? Just as some trails are built or improved<br />

by snowmobile clubs, perhaps these could be maintained by users to the extent needed, with some<br />

even being groomed. We assume new roads can be used for recreation which conforms to the Plan<br />

for the specific area involved.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The roads which are designated as no longer needed, and intended to be closed, have no identified<br />

future needs such as timber access or recreation uses, including snowmobiling. These roads are almost<br />

exclusively low standard short length roads, many of which deadend or duplicate other access available.<br />

We would want to work with the SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION and CLUBS to determine if some of<br />

these roads do in fact serve snowmobiling needs or opportunities. In the past, prior to closing any<br />

roads, we have held public meetings to provide information and seek input regarding the intended<br />

closures. We have modified our planned closure program based on input received and intend to continue<br />

this policy.<br />

Comment<br />

There are some potential conflicts between the plan statements and the operational requirements for<br />

State highways. In the appendices to DEIS, page D-45 under facilities 2. 'Transportation and Utility<br />

corridor location and associated facilities would be avoided in this management area (scenic).<br />

There is no specific statement recognizing the unique requirements of the transportation corridors,<br />

specifically the State highway routes. Those requirements are addressed in Section V 'Maintenance' of<br />

the Memorandum.<br />

The standards and guidelines should recognize the substantial amount of existing facilities and the<br />

potential need for expansion of those facilities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It was intended that this standard and guideline applied to the location of ' 'new corridors and their<br />

associated facilities. This standard and guideline has been revised to differentiate between 'new' and<br />

'existing, corridors.<br />

The National, State and Local significance and unique requirements of transportation and utility corridors<br />

was recognized in the DEIS (chapter III, Page 109-113. In Chapter 4 of the DEIS, Page 96-99, this<br />

significance is further recognized in that actual corridor designations for existing corridors are proposed<br />

in all alternatives. These proposed designations have also been added to the Forest Plan and appear<br />

in Chapter 4, under the section entitled Transportation and Utility Corridors.<br />

Comment<br />

The Proposed Land and Resource management Plan, p. IV-75, Management Area 3: Scenic Management,<br />

needs to be balanced by operational needs. 'The desired future condition is a natural-appearing forest<br />

environment --.' The operational needs of highways need to be recognized i.e., large trees cannot be<br />

permitted very close to the traveled way.<br />

'Landscapes or portions of landscapes not meeting visual quality levels because of negative visual<br />

elements, such as skid roads, activity residues, or cable corridors will be rehabilitated as opportunities<br />

occur, with consideration for the resource values present.'<br />

This concept could be added to Section IX of the 'Memorandum.' That particular section of the<br />

'Memorandum' covers most of the Scenic Management concerns.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A major highway is usually considered an inclusion within a scenic management allocation which typically<br />

would achieve the modification visual quality objective and be the points from which the scenery is<br />

viewed. The Forest has a hazard tree program that includes the areas adjacent to public roadways.<br />

This analyzes all sizes of trees for potential removal or modification if found to be hazardous to the<br />

public.<br />

K - 129

Comment<br />

Specifically, there is a need to manage roadside vegetation in zones.<br />

The zone from the edge of the pavement out to 8-10' needs to be kept bare to:<br />

maintain surface drainage, maintain subsurface drainage, reduce fire hazard, eliminate breakup of<br />

pavement by plants, reduce deterioration of roadside hardware, maintain visibility, and provide for<br />

snow storage.<br />

Zone 2 would extend from the first zone outward to meet all operational needs. This zone basically<br />

covers the roadbed prism and beyond where necessary.<br />

Control of vegetation in this zone is necessary to:<br />

improve drainage, maintain visibility of signs, increase sight distance on curves, increase sight distance<br />

at intersections, control danger trees and noxious weeds,provide visibility of pedestrian and animals,<br />

remove trees that shade the highway and perpetuate icy spots, remove trees that cause a strobe light<br />

effect on drivers because of the continuous light/shade, and remove roadside obstacles that can be<br />

hazardous to an errant vehicle.<br />

The third zone would provide a transition to adjacent land use, conserve desirable vegetation and<br />

enhance views. A vegetative management system similar to that described in USDA Handbook No.<br />

483, as irregular clearing and feathering is desirable. This would consist of a zone of grass and/or<br />

uniform, very low-growing shrubs to provide a backdrop for animal visibility especially that would still<br />

offer the traveler a visual penetration into the forest of about 300 feet. This would prevent the tunnel<br />

appearance which seems to have a hypnotic effect.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We largely agree with the statements above, except for Zone 3, which would be determined on a case<br />

by case basis during project planning. Viewshed or vegetative management guides for implementing<br />

the Forest Plan would provide guidance relative to desired future vegatiative condition, user safety and<br />

other identified needs and opportunities.<br />

Comment<br />

The City believes that the Forest Service should revise the standards or define the term 'transportation<br />

and utility corridor in such a way that it is clear that all access roads are not transportation corridors.'<br />

Also, the term Oavoided' is not defined in either the LRMP or DEIS, although Winema staff have indicated<br />

that this term has a specific meaning to the Forest Service. Even if not relevant to the Pelican Butte<br />

area, the City suggests that this term be defined in the final LRMP and EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is not intended that any road is a Transportation Corridor. The definition is in the DEIS, Glossary,<br />

Page GL-33, and in the Proposed Forest Plan, Glossary, Page GL-33. The intent and definition of utility<br />

and transportation corridors was also discussed in the DEIS, Chapter III, Page 109, 1st Paragraph.<br />

Chapter 4, Page 97 of the DEIS displays the existing corridor designations. Existing corridors were<br />

designated in all alternatives. The corridor designations shown in Table IV-31 on Page IV-96 of the<br />

DEIS have been added to the Forest Plan, along with a short discussion of the intent and definition of<br />

transportation and utility corridors.<br />

Exclusion Areas and Avoidance Areas are defined and described in the DEIS, Chapter 4, Page IV-97<br />

and 98. This same information has been added to the recommended Forest Plan, and definitions included<br />

in the glossaries.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP also states that 'transportation and utility corridor location and associated facilities will be<br />

avoided in this management area." Winema staff have informed the city that transportation and utility<br />

corridor' has a specific meaning to the Forest Service, and that all roads are not 'transportation corridors."<br />

However, the phrase is not defined in the LRMP or DEIS. Without a definition, it is possible for future<br />

Forest Service officials or others to interpret the LRMP text so that any road is a transportation corridor.'<br />

If so, the location of a road in a Scenic Management area would be 'avoided' according to the LRMP,<br />

K- 130

which seems to be inconsistent with the standard concerning design of roads and other facilities discussed<br />

above.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Transportation and Utility Corridors were defined in the DEIS and in the Glossaries. Please refer to the<br />

<strong>Response</strong> to the above.<br />

Comment<br />

Will new roads automatically be scheduled for closure?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

When 'new* roads are determined to be needed for management activities, the proposed road has a<br />

road management objective prepared which specifies the resource objectives served, environmental<br />

constraints, design criteria, and how the road is to be operated and maintained. The road objective<br />

establishes whether the road access need is intermittent, or constant service. If the need is for intermittent<br />

access, and there are no access needs after the timber sale or other activity ends, then the road is<br />

scheduled for closure. The closure is accomplished, either by the timber sale or through collected<br />

deposits for road closure. In most cases, a deposit is collected which is used to accomplish the closure.<br />

Almost all of the new roads to be constructed on the Winema will be intermittent access roads, to be<br />

closed when access is not required.<br />

Comment<br />

(Notes, #32) How much is a *minor' amount of collector road construction?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Ten miles of collector road construction is anticipated. This was stated in Section III, Page 103 of the<br />

DEIS and in Section IV, Page 35 of Proposed Land Management Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Why will considerable investments' to the transportation system be needed if only "minor additions to<br />

the road system are foreseen?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This statement, in Section IV, Page 21 of the Proposed Land Management Plan referred to considerable<br />

investments for I transportation systems, reforestation, and protection (fuels treatments, control of insects,<br />

disease, and animal damage). The cost of new additional roads is only a portion of this total cost. Also<br />

included in the investment cost are those costs associated with road reconstruction on existing roads,<br />

road maintenance, road closures, and road management and road operation costs on existing roads.<br />

The level of new road construction and road reconstruction was shown in Section IV, Page 35 of the<br />

Proposed Land Management Plan, and in Table IV-1 (Page IV-9). Even though the majority of the forest<br />

road system is constructed, sizable investments are still required to complete the transportation system<br />

and to bring certain existing roads to standard, through reconstruction and maintenance of roads.<br />

Comment<br />

Cooperation for road 'management' is mentioned, what is road 'management'? Be specific in addressing<br />

need for road closures.<br />

(last Para.) First sentence poorly worded and conveys little information; needs re-write.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Road Management refers to the overall management of all road activities, in accordance with established<br />

road management objectives, as discussed in Section IV, Page 58 of the Proposed Plan. The range of<br />

these activities was described in Section IV, Page 57 and 58, of the Draft Plan. A portion of the forest<br />

road system is not required to be open continually and access is required only intermittently, when<br />

there is a timber sale or other access need. These roads are closed during non-use periods. The need<br />

to close roads and the associated benefits were spoken to in the DEIS, Section III, Pages 102 and<br />

104, and in the Proposed Forest Plan, Standards and Guidelines Section, Page IV-41 and IV-59. In<br />

K - 131

esponse to public comment, additional information on road closures and standards and guidelines<br />

was included in the final FEIS and the Forest Plan.<br />

Regarding the last paragraph, first sentence on Page IV-35, this sentence has been rewritten to clarify<br />

the intent.<br />

Comment<br />

Guideline 1 under Facilities (p. IV-127), would appear to mandate the construction of roads in RNA's.<br />

We strongly object to this provision. We can visualize no form of research or other approved use of<br />

the RNA's on the WNF that would necessitate road construction, and we request that you clearly prohibit<br />

road construction for any reason in RNAs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This standard was not intended to mandate the construction of roads in Research Natural Areas (RNA's).<br />

It is a standard to be applied if it is determined that road access within a RNA is required for management<br />

of the RNA. A Standard and Roads would not be constructed unless the intent and management of<br />

the RNA actually required road access to achieve the management goals of the RNA. This intent is<br />

also emphasized regarding issuance of easements and rights of ways.<br />

Comment<br />

I think road must be built through the Wilderness Area as well as all other Forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

With certain exceptions, construction of roads in designated National Forest Wilderness is prohibited<br />

in the Wilderness Act. Reference: Wilderness Act of 1964 and Code of Federal Regulations, Section<br />

36, 293.6.<br />

Comment<br />

Roading Costs - (DEIS, page 11-95, App. B) The preferred Alternative (E) plans for 21.7 miles/year of<br />

timber purchaser road construction in addition to a minor amount of the 16.2 miles/year of collector<br />

road construction during the first decade. Very little discussion is provided about timber purchaser<br />

road construction costs even though this is a major cost category tracked in FORPLAN. A summary of<br />

acres of harvest shows that 31 percent or 9,700 acres of regeneration harvest will be done during the<br />

first decade without identifying type of harvest method. How much of this will be tractor and how much<br />

cable yarded? We question the assumption that roading costs would be the same for cable systems<br />

as for tractor systems. It is possible that the steeper ground where cable systems are used for yarding<br />

engenders higher dollar per mile roading costs which offset the lower road densities required. In fact,<br />

however, on much tractor ground, there are, or should be, very low road costs. In any case, road costs<br />

are of high enough significance that a thorough analysis should have been presented rather than<br />

simply assuming that the costs are the same.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

1. The 16.2 miles/yr. referred to above is not new road construction. This annual mileage consists<br />

entirely of reconstruction of the existing Arterial and Collector Road System. This figure, as shown in<br />

Table 11-3a, on Page 11-95, was titled Arterial and Collector Road Reconstruction.<br />

2. The costs discussed above were not assumed to be the same and did vary in the analysis. These<br />

costs varied in the analysis depending on road density, location, the percent of ground sideslope, and<br />

the standard of road. This range of construction costs is shown in Table B-9 (Pg. B-89), which shows<br />

the range in costs per mile for local road construction and reconstruction. As noted on Page B-87 of<br />

the Appendix, it was not the intent to document the development of all these cost estimates in the<br />

Appendix. Further documentation of management costs is available in the Forest's process records.<br />

Comment<br />

However, it is unclear, or at the least difficult to surmise from the alternatives and the way the plan is<br />

presented, how road closures will be undertaken to reach the desired density and at what rate. There<br />

K- 132

is no discussion of road density relative to stream density under existing or proposed management<br />

direction. Management plans for the road system should be clearer and more detailed and include a<br />

discussion of road density relative to stream density.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In response to public comment, more information on road densities and road closures has been added<br />

to the FEIS and the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest was supplied a copy of the comprehensive results of the 1984 survey of big game hunters<br />

in Oregon. The survey involved input from 5,000 hunters who attended workshops, and an additional<br />

17,000 hunters who returned questionnaires. The results show a high demand for semi-primitive hunting<br />

experience on the Forest are extremely limited. To help meet this demand ODFW recommends the<br />

Forest establish and administer hunting season area closures of roads.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest currently has one hunting season closure in effect, on the Chemult Ranger District. Other<br />

closures would be considered. -<br />

Comment<br />

According to FSM 4/87 R-6 Supp. 40, 2635.02, the Forest, in coordination with ODFW, must develop a<br />

comprehensive road management plan that includes fish and wildlife objectives. ODFW will provide<br />

more specific input and desired open road densities on the Forest during road management planning.<br />

The Forest should address vehicle travel management using Federal authorities listed in the Forest<br />

Service Manuals (FSM 7110, FSM 2355.1).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Road management planning would be done in accordance with the new R-6 Supplement 2600-90-3,<br />

2630, dated August 1990.<br />

Comment<br />

P.V-93.<br />

TABLE IV-29. Why would alternatives A-H all have the same total miles of road access by the fifth decade<br />

when the ASQ varies from 77.6 MMBF to 181 MMBF, and roadless acres vary from 17,714 to 29,964?<br />

(DEIS IV-93).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The reason for the small variation in total miles of road among alternatives (Except ALT.I) is stated in<br />

the 3rd paragraph on Page IV-93 of the DEIS. It is correct that there will be a small variation in road<br />

miles due to the variation in roadless areas acres in the alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

D-27.<br />

26. On line one change *may' to 'shall."<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standard has been rewritten and is in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan and in Appendix D of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-5.<br />

(PARAGRAPH 5). How many miles of roads would be constructed to access the roadless areas? (PP<br />

IV-5-1).<br />

K- 133

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The number of miles to be constructed has been added to this paragraph, and reflected in the other<br />

tables in the FEIS and Forest Plan which refer to miles of road construction. The number of miles is<br />

approximately 70 miles total.<br />

Comment<br />

Road densities are much too high on the forest. We recommend densities of one mile per section or<br />

less on winter range, 1.5 miles per section on your transition range and on important elk range, including<br />

all spring range, and not more than 2 miles per section on any other portion of the forest. The plan<br />

should discuss the methods for closing roads and a schedule for same.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The intent of the following direction regarding management of road densities and closing of roads has<br />

been incorporated into the FEIS and the Forest Plan. This direction has been added to Chapter 4 of<br />

the Forest Plan.<br />

1. The objective will be a Forest with the minimum number of roads which are needed for management<br />

activities and for public access. The Winema will manage road densities to meet management<br />

area direction and objectives, to meet access management objectives, and to reduce road<br />

management and maintenance costs.<br />

-Roads which are not needed for future management or public access will be closed and returned<br />

to vegetative production.<br />

-Roads not needed for recurring management or public access will be closed until the next activity<br />

requires access.<br />

2. The previous direction to manage open road densities to an approximate average of 2.5 miles<br />

per square mile has been discontinued. Rather than a overall forestwide average road density<br />

goal, the goal will be minimum numbers of roads to meet management and public access needs,<br />

and a system of open roads consistent with Management Area direction and objectives. The<br />

open road system which supports the areas direction and objectives will be determined through<br />

area or project analysis and documented in the road management objectives and road management<br />

plan.<br />

K- 134

Society/Economics/Employment/Budgets<br />

Comment<br />

In reviewing the Forest Service Preferred Alternative, it is noted the sale of Lodgepole and Ponderosa<br />

pine timber types have been altered so that the anticipated revenue to Klamath County will be reduce.<br />

You proposed reduction in the sale of Ponderosa pine will reduce Klamath County's portion of the<br />

Winema National Forest receipts.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS was not altered with any intent to reduce revenue to Klamath<br />

County. The estimated returns to the county for each alternative are shown in a table in the Chapter 2<br />

discussion of Social and Economic Resources. Historic trends in payments to the county are provided<br />

in 'The Local Economy' section of Chapter 3. The preferred alternative from the Draft EIS (Alternative<br />

E) is estimated to generate slightly more returns to the county than the no action alternative (Alternative<br />

A). The preferred alternative in the Final EIS (Alternative J) is estimated to generate slightly lower returns<br />

than the no action alternative. The lower returns of Alternative J are a result of generally lower timber<br />

volumes due to timber inventory updates, conversion to uneven-aged management and additional<br />

emphasis given to other resources. The returns would have been even lower except that we were able<br />

to account for the higher values of the larger diameter ponderosa pine that will be removed while those<br />

stands are converted into an uneven-aged structure. All of these value estimates are based upon historic<br />

timber values. It is not yet clear whether current restructuring in the wood products industries will have<br />

major impacts on log prices in the long run. We can speculate that log prices will rise faster than general<br />

inflation due to supply reductions that seem to be developing in both the public and private sectors<br />

region-wide.<br />

Comment<br />

Individual survey information, described by Finsterbusch as 'the backbone of SlAs* is entirely lacking<br />

in the DEIS and its appendices. These reflects both the emphasis on existing aggregate date, and<br />

Office of Management and Budget constraints upon Federal Government sponsored surveys.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In another publication (Finsterbusch, Kurt, 'Estimating Policy Consequences for Individuals, Organizations,<br />

and Communities,' in Methodology of Social Impact Assessment, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross,<br />

Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn) Mr. Finsterbusch states "the social consequences of economic impacts can<br />

be crudely measured by surveys after the fact, but can be only vaguely estimated beforehand on the<br />

basis of past research.! We were unable to uncover much in the way of past research particularly<br />

along the lines of pertinent individual survey information, thus we relied upon existing aggregate data<br />

and reasoned interpretations of that data to differentiate the social impacts of the alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

The short term trend (since 1977) is towards reduced employment in the wood products industry as<br />

per laborer outputs increase. The DEIS fails to display long-term historic employment trends.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Employment trends in the wood products industry result from many factors, one of which is improving<br />

efficiency in the industry. 'The Local Economy' section of Chapter 3 includes total employment figures<br />

from 1967 through 1989 for Klamath County and selected employment figures by industrial sector<br />

back to 1979. The following figures show lumber and wood products employment for Klamath County<br />

as far back as we've been able to obtain them (State of Oregon, Department of Employment) as well<br />

as all the data on lumber production available (Western Wood Products Assn) for the county.<br />

K - 135

KLAMATH COUNTY<br />

HISTORICAL LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS EMPLOYMENT<br />

AND<br />

LUMBER PRODUCTION<br />

YEAR EMPLOYMENT LUMBER INDEX YEAR EMPLOYMENT (MMBR INDEX<br />

(MMBF)<br />

(MF<br />

1958 3,360 - - 1974 4,210 483 8.7<br />

1959 3,370 - - 1975 3,980 457 8.7<br />

1960 3,130 - - 1976 4,380 500 8.8<br />

1961 2,710 - - 1977 4,640 548 8.5<br />

1962 2,720 - - 1978 4,970 534 9.3<br />

1963 2,680 - - 1979 4,910 503 9.8<br />

1964 2,970 392 7.6 1980 4,370 380 11.5<br />

1965 3,030 398 7.6 1981 3,760 351 10.7<br />

1966 3,110 437 7.1 1982 3,430 365 9.4<br />

1967 3,220 455 7.1 1983 3,750 450 8.3<br />

1968 3,440 495 6.9 1984 3,750 436 8.6<br />

1969 3,490 464 7.5 1985 3,500 378 9.3<br />

1970 3,460 452 6.9 1986 3,380 437 7.7<br />

1971 3,670 505 7.3 1987 3,680 473 7.8<br />

1972 4,060 515 7.9 1988 3,660 406<br />

1973 4,280 528 8.1 1989 3,740 -<br />

9.0<br />

The column labeled INDEX' is simply the employment figure divided by the lumber figure and represents<br />

total employment per MMBF of lumber produced. Note that the lumber and wood products includes<br />

other things besides lumber production so this is only a rough indicator of production efficiency. For<br />

example the addition of a secondary manufacturing facility could increase employment in the sector<br />

with no change in lumber output. We don't have any way to properly account for this, but if we make<br />

the assumption that other factors affecting wood products employment are constant or proportional to<br />

changes in lumber production employment, we can do a little interpretation of the data. First it appears<br />

that when lumber production drops the industry is slow to reduce the work-force thus becoming relatively<br />

less efficient during market shifts (e.g. 1979-1981 and 1987-1988). Second, the index numbers for the<br />

mid 1960's and the mid 1980's don't show any trend toward higher efficiency. The same amount of<br />

lumber was produced in 1966 as in 1987, but the index for 1987 is higher. This doesn't necessarily<br />

show that efficiencies are not occurring, just that the gross data available does not support that contention.<br />

We have not seen any more detailed data which would support your contention for Klamath County<br />

producers, however one would expect that mills would try to be more efficient in order to remain<br />

competitive.<br />

Comment<br />

The overall economy is characterized as agricultural and natural resource dependent. The SIA suggests<br />

that it tends to be cyclic (boom and bust).' A major proportion of current income within the county is<br />

from rent, dividends and government transfer payments. No long term data are provided regarding<br />

this aspect of the economy. The extent to which transfer payments might replace or supplement income<br />

from manufacturing industry is not explored. Interactions between the various aspects of the economic<br />

environment are only superficially described.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An expanded discussion of the relationships between the various sectors of the local economy is included<br />

in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. While transfer payments can help to support the service sectors in the economy,<br />

they can not replace income derived from manufacturing sectors. Most displaced workers will not be<br />

eligible for retirement and disability insurance payments (the fastest growing transfer payments).<br />

K - 136

Unemployment benefits are limited and thus can not be considered a long term solution to declining<br />

employment in manufacturing. While increasing transfer payments indicates shifts in the structure of<br />

local society, it is not an answer for workers displaced in other sectors of the economy.<br />

Comment<br />

According to the DEIS there is very little data available on human lifestyles in Klamath County. Heavy<br />

reliance is placed upon U.S. Census Bureau data to determine aggregate population distribution and<br />

demographic features. Though data is only provided for the most recent (1980) census, there is limited<br />

discussion gross aspects of the 1970 population. Very little information is provided on the value systems<br />

and social institutions of the County's non-Indian residents.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information is in the Socioeconomic Overview which is among the Planning Records. That<br />

document also relies heavily upon 1980 Census data since that is what is available. Special emphasis<br />

is given to the Native American population because of the Klamath's Tribe's special tribal status and<br />

their direct dependence upon Forest resources for their cultural needs. The discussions in Chapters 3<br />

and 4 have both been rewritten to address these concerns better.<br />

Comment<br />

Historic, short term population trends are discussed for the County as a whole. The distribution of<br />

population between rural 'fringe communities' and the urban Klamath Falls center is sparsely described.<br />

Population trends from the recent past were projected into the future for two decades. Methods used<br />

for making projections are not described either in the text of the DEIS or in accompanying appendices.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Population projections are notoriously inaccurate particularly when local economies are experiencing<br />

significant shifts. They are also not particularly helpful in the kinds of decisions associated with National<br />

Forest Management. Projections are discussed in the Socioeconomic Overview (Planning Records),<br />

but were not brought forward to the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

In my opinion, 'No Change' is the appropriate baseline alternative for comparing the effects of<br />

implementation. It more accurately reflects existing management of the National Forest. Social and<br />

economic conditions described in aggregate data resulted from Forest Service management under the<br />

'No Change' alternative. The 'No Action' alternative fails to address the requirements of 36 CFR 219.12<br />

(f) (7) which states in part<br />

'At least one alternative shall reflect the current level of goods and services provided by the<br />

unit and the most likely amount of goods and services expected to be provided in the future<br />

if current management direction continues.' (Emphasis added.)<br />

Comparisons of future trends based upon 'No Action' will not be comparable with historic conditions<br />

since this alternative is actually a change in policy direction.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 'No Change' alternative does not depict current management on the Forest because certain legislative<br />

actions have required changes (particularly NFMA). These changes are reflected in Alternative A, the<br />

'No action' alternative, which is intended to describe the way the Forest is actually being managed.<br />

The 'No Change' alternative would be comparable to historic conditions if those conditions are assumed<br />

to be static. Conditions of Forest management have continually changed in the past and continue to<br />

do so. That evolution is expressed in the 'No Action' alternative in an effort to estimate the future amounts<br />

of goods and services that continuation of current management direction (not simply current management)<br />

will bring. The 'No Change' alternative is described along with the other alternatives so that you can<br />

use it as a baseline if you wish.<br />

K- 137

Comment<br />

According to Henshaw, the intended function of an environmental impact statement 'is to differentiate<br />

the significant and functionally degrading or improving impacts..." By its overwhelming focus on the<br />

physical and biological impacts resulting from the proposed alternative, the Forest Service has failed<br />

to address potentially significant social and human implications that might result from selection of the<br />

more extreme alternatives. For example, the rapid expansion or contraction of the resource dependant<br />

economy of Klamath County might cause increased social fragmentation as described in 'boomtown'<br />

social impact literature. Since 30% of the Klamath County budget is funded by timber receipts form the<br />

National Forests, a significant decline in the harvest level would presumably impact social services<br />

such as roads, schools, police and fire protection.<br />

These impacts would be in addition to the increased unemployment in manufacturing and service<br />

sectors of the economy. They were not addressed in the SIA or in the economic analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The social and human implications of the various alternatives are discussed in the 'Effects of the<br />

Alternatives on Society' section of chapter 4. The effects on the Klamath County budget and the<br />

implications of that are discussed in the same section and also in the 'Effects on the Local Economy'<br />

section of chapter 4. These sections have been rewritten for the FEIS to better address your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Finsterbusch summarized the work of several authors who discuss the effects of long-term unemployment<br />

on individuals and families. He reported that a large decline in income causes families to experience<br />

social isolation as they can no longer afford the pastimes of their former friends and acquaintances. In<br />

addition they suffer a reduction in standard of living, and often have to move to less expensive dwellings<br />

when they adjust living expenses to their current means. Would these same phenomena not occur<br />

should an alternative be selected that results in substantially lower harvest levels for the National Forest?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Any action that reduces family income can be expected to causes effects like this among families that<br />

are unable or unwilling to relocate to areas where they can obtain jobs that will allow them to retain<br />

their socioeconomic status.<br />

Comment<br />

Conversely, significant expansion in manufacturing jobs associated with the high harvest levels in some<br />

alternatives might cause other significant impacts to social structures. For instance there may be increased<br />

needs for police or fire protection. Crime rates and social insecurity may increase causing a reduction<br />

in the well-being of certain groups or individuals. Alternative D results in significantly higher projected<br />

employment in the lumber and wood products industry.<br />

In the likely event that labor will migrate into the area in response to increased job opportunities, would<br />

not similar 'boomtown' strains on social services occur?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The unemployment levels as displayed in Chapter 3 could supply much of the labor force for any<br />

reasonably foreseeable expansion in the wood products industries. Should a major increase in activity<br />

occur, some in-migration would result. It is not anticipated that this would seriously strain public services<br />

because of the high incomes associated with these types of jobs. It is also not anticipated that new<br />

comers to fill and support timber related jobs would seriously upset the social structure because<br />

functioning segments of society which could absorb these people currently exist.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS contention that adverse social impacts will be spread proportionately among women and<br />

minorities is unsubstantiated. Freudenburg showed that social and psychological impacts of rapid<br />

growth may differently affect groups. Youth and homemaker wives may bear a disproportionate share<br />

of the stress associated with rapid social change.<br />

K- 138

The DEIS fails to acknowledge and deal with social and psychological stresses that would be associated<br />

with alternatives that result in large changes in employment and economic well-being.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

While Freudenburg (Freudenburg, W.R. 1982. 'The Impacts of Rapid Growth on the Social and Personal<br />

Well-Being of local Community Residents.' In: Weber,B.A. and R.E. Howell. Coping with Rapid Growth<br />

in Rural Communities. Westview Press, Inc. BoulderCO.) makes the point that these groups may be<br />

affected differently, he also characterizes much of the basis for this assertion as 'hunches.' Be that as<br />

it may, the key difference between the type of social impacts that Freudenburg talks about and those<br />

that we can expect to see here revolve around the extreme situations where these impacts are seen.<br />

The boom town literature, which you quote, mostly deals with situations where a whole new sector<br />

(often oil production) is added to or removed from a small economy. Here, we are talking about changes<br />

in size of existing sectors in a fairly robust economy.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS discusses the attitudes of interested parties when the issues are presented in Chapter I. It<br />

does not specifically address the probable reaction of interested parties to any particular alternative.<br />

Nor does it discuss specifically how alternatives respond to individual issues.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Identifying the reaction of interested parties to the alternatives being considered is the primary purpose<br />

of the DEIS. The draft allows the Forest Service to identify reactions of the public through their written<br />

responses. A summary of these public responses along with the agency response to the many comments<br />

are contained in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in Chapter 5 (which you are now<br />

reading).<br />

The response of the alternatives to the issues is discussed in Chapter 2 of this Final EIS. Indicators of<br />

the differences between the alternatives and the way they address the issues are included in the tables<br />

in Chapter 2. The discussion of the effects on the local society in Chapter 4 summarize these differences<br />

in human terms.<br />

Comment<br />

While the biological and physical environments are discussed in great detail, there are gaping voids in<br />

the economic and social impact portions of the DEIS. Much of the economic data is based upon a<br />

single decade or less. A longer time frame is necessary in order to even out the peaks and valleys<br />

and make long term trends evident. Likewise, much of the social impact assessment was based upon<br />

data from a single year.<br />

It is impossible to establish a trend in the absence of historical record. There is no way valid projections<br />

in population growth or demography can be made based upon such scanty data.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have rewritten much of the social and economic impact discussion both in Chapter 3 and in Chapter<br />

4. We have focussed more on trends in Chapter 3 and have displayed historical data for as far back<br />

as consistent numbers are available. We also used an analysis of trends in the local economy that<br />

was developed by the State Department of Human Resources.<br />

In all cases, the best available information was used to describe the social and economic environments<br />

and to predict changes. Since the plan under consideration is for a 10 to 15 year period only, the<br />

performance of the economy for the last 10 years is a good indicator of the near future. In the case of<br />

job and income predictions, the most current information relating forest outputs of goods and services<br />

to local jobs and incomes is now 1982 rather than 1977 as used in the Draft EIS so that information<br />

has been updated.<br />

Comment<br />

Given the special emphasis on Klamath Tribal Rights and upon the well-being of tribal members, detailed<br />

surveys to determine wants and needs would seem justified. Particularly since much of the Forest<br />

management direction is targeted towards improving their economic and social condition, surveys<br />

K- 139

should be planned as a part of the monitoring effort. In the absence of specific, survey type data it will<br />

not be possible to determine whether social goals of the Forest Plan are being met.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have worked closely with the Klamath Tribe in development of Alternative J to ensure that their<br />

concerns are appropriately considered.<br />

Comment<br />

Monitoring Forest Plan implementation is excessively focused on quantitative measures of output or on<br />

physical or biological conditions. More explicit treatment of economic or social conditions is needed.<br />

For example, how will the Forest respond should market conditions decline to the point that the demand<br />

for timber is well below projections? What are the implications for the forest management or fire protection<br />

of growing fringe communities? Will growing fragmentation of land ownership affect the potential for<br />

future timber supplies from private lands?<br />

If so, how will the Forest respond? The issue of increasing population in fringe communities is raised<br />

in Chapter III of the DEIS, but not developed further in discussions of the consequences of implementation.<br />

Cromwell indicates that expanding urban populations along the forest fringe may result in significant<br />

problems if managers fail to recognize and cope with them as colonization occurs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In general these concerns are handled within the context of normal forest operations to the extent they<br />

are within our control. For example, if market conditions decline dramatically, timber that is offered for<br />

sale will not be purchased. The resultant effects on the local economy would typically be beyond our<br />

control (we can't force industry to purchase the timber or force them to retain workers when they don't<br />

buy timber). If deviations in timber volumes sold became excessive, the Forest Plan can be reviewed<br />

and modified or amended as necessary to deal with the problem. Changes in society are affected by<br />

Forest Management as described in the EIS but they are also affected by many other things. Monitoring<br />

changes in society would be an interesting academic exercise, but would not provide much help in<br />

Forest Management. It is important to remember that the iterative nature of Forest Planning will lead us<br />

to redevelop and reanalyze alternative Forest management strategies in 10 to 15 years. At that time,<br />

the long term trends, which you have pointed out as being so important, can be viewed in the context<br />

of a coherent management approach.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS discusses the topic of Below Cost timber sales at great length. The discussion is misleading<br />

since it implies that the sale program is the only area in which government subsidizes a resource in<br />

order to achieve social objectives. For example, the DEIS states that actual range use is 13,055 AUM's.<br />

What it does not say is that the grazing fee is about $1.32 per AUM. Thus total Forest revenue from<br />

grazing is less that $18,000 per year.<br />

How many range conservationists does the Forest have on its staff? Surely there is at least one. The<br />

range program must therefore be 'below cost'. A similar analysis could easily be done with the recreation<br />

program, the wildlife program, or the cultural resources program. Provision of firewood is among the<br />

driving issues for the DEIS. Is firewood a money maker, or in reality, is it subsidized by funds from<br />

commercial timber sales? How much money does wilderness return to the treasury over the costs of<br />

operation?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The topic 'Below Cost Timber Sales' discussion in the DEIS is in response to a national issue specific<br />

to the cost of timber harvest and road construction compared to the dollar benefits from those activities.<br />

You are correct in your assertion that other resource programs could be considered 'below cost' in<br />

this context. From the efficiency standpoint we look at all benefits associated with the resource even<br />

though real dollars are not necessarily collected from resource users. This is addressed in Section 8<br />

of Appendix B.<br />

The Winema National Forest sells firewood for a value that generally defers the administrative cost of<br />

the firewood program. In the case of dead Lodgepole pine (the major firewood source), the money<br />

collected for firewood compares favorably with the commercial value of the material.<br />

Ad<br />

K - 140

Comment<br />

Timber sale is your only money making multiple use. I've heard the Winema is very efficient, make it<br />

more so.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema is managed under national direction and for multiple uses. The purpose is to manage the<br />

land for the best possible use, not just to make money. The Forest Plan is an effort to balance the<br />

needs of often conflicting land uses. We will continue to strive to operate all of our programs as efficiently<br />

as possible.<br />

Comment<br />

If Forest Service curtails the logging industry as they plan, their staff should be reduced appreciatively.<br />

That monies should be returned to the State of Oregon. They have increased their staff throughout<br />

State by a great deal last 6-8 years. For the amount of timber sold, tree planting, etc., they have way<br />

too many employees. Oregon is losing a great deal of money!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture which is national as opposed to State funding.<br />

There is no relationship between the budget of the State of Oregon and the Forest Service other than<br />

the money we return to the counties under the 25% fund receipts.<br />

Comment<br />

Revise your economic data to update the timber jobs multipliers. The current data used in the plans is<br />

based upon 1977 information and overstates the numbers of timber based jobs the Forest produces.<br />

Use current economic data to show the actual balance of economic data to show the actual balance<br />

of economic outputs to local communities. Don't overstate timber values.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The most up-to-date analysis model for jobs and income (IMPLAN) used in development of the DEIS<br />

was based upon 1977 data. A recently updated IMPLAN model uses 1982 data as it's base. The 1982<br />

base relationships are used in the numbers provided in the FEIS. Timber values are based upon historical<br />

data and expected future trends.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forests should be sold to private individuals or corporations and the sale proceeds applied to the<br />

National debt.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This recommendation is not permissible under current law and beyond the scope or intent of Forest<br />

Planning.<br />

Comment<br />

Everything of value should be privately owned. Government has no legal right to own anything of value.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This concept is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and well beyond the scope of Forest planning.<br />

Comment<br />

Stop all foreign shipment of all raw forest materials. Send the finished product only and put men back<br />

to work in this country.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

With certain exceptions, logs from the National Forests are not to be exported. The issue you raise is<br />

currently being debated in Congress and is well beyond the authority of the Winema National Forest<br />

to implement.<br />

K - 141

Comment<br />

I have made a continuous study of who sells property in Klamath County. I can document that among<br />

rural Klamath County Communities in 1986, sales of repossessed houses made up approximately 25%<br />

of the total number of residential properties sold. Particularly in communities such as Chiloquin, I suspect<br />

many of the foreclosures were brought about by the 80-83 recession in the timber industry. In Klamath<br />

Falls during 1986, apx. 13% of properties sold had previously been repossessed. This abnormal market<br />

activity has results that extend beyond our particular community. Problems in the Oregon Department<br />

of Veterans Affairs loan program being felt by its investors (citizens of Oregon) are, at the very least,<br />

compounded by an erratic and declining economy.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary<br />

Comment<br />

A representative from the Forest Service needs to be attending and being more involved in economic<br />

issues and potentials in the County. Economic corridors on the land use plan need to be identified<br />

and placed on maps, to encourage future development.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This comment seems to be concerned with industrial development on National Forest lands. Certain<br />

kinds of developments can occur on National Forest lands where resources exist and can be appropriately<br />

used. Examples are mining, oil and gas recovery, geothermal and hydroelectric power generation and<br />

recreation developments. Exploration for geothermal resources in currently underway on the Forest.<br />

Proposals for a major ski area at Pelican Butte are being evaluated and can be accommodated under<br />

the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Further, I have a concern about the distribution of Federal Forest receipts. The ratio of funds to schools<br />

and to County roads is in desperate need of change. Our County roads are in fine shape. Some are<br />

paved over several times and are currently serving the County, and some of the few drivers that use it.<br />

But, our schools are in dire need of funds. The distribution needs to be reversed. A study needs to be<br />

done of this situation and some measures taken towards change. Our youth deserve the investment<br />

more so than our already developed County roads. Again, the Forest needs to be pro-active in examining<br />

this issue and get its head out of the sand.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Twenty-Five Percent Fund Law (35 Stat. 251 as amended) directs the Forest Service to pay the<br />

states an amount equal to 25% of National Forest receipts, and prescribes only that this payment I...be<br />

expended as the state... may prescribe for the benefit of the public schools and public roads of the<br />

county...' The Forest has no control over the matter as it is a decision made by the state government.<br />

Comment<br />

As you know, Klamath County is hurting very badly, with unemployment and a decrease in the total<br />

population since 1980. This cannot continue, the Winema N.F. is a principal landowner in the County.<br />

Creative ideas to increase the economy and fully utilize the land needs to be undertaken. An economic<br />

committee for looking at alternatives,land use, and opportunities needs to be created.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest planning effort has addressed the various potential uses of National Forest lands in light of<br />

public demands both for more economic activity as well as demands for less economic activity. The<br />

Forest Plan was selected as a balance between divergent views on these issues.<br />

Comment<br />

As indicated above, the derivation of 696 jobs from 'ski area development" should be clarified to explain<br />

the calculation and distinguish between direct and indirect job creation.<br />

K - 142

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion on potential jobs from ski area development has been removed from the EIS. The Forest<br />

plan retains the option for this development. Detailed evaluation of the impacts of a ski area development<br />

will be pursued with an environmental analysis independent of the Forest Plan analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

In addition to the previously questioned employment derivation, this table includes $8.2 million in 'potential<br />

income from ski area development.' The origin and derivation of this income estimate should be clarified.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion on potential income from ski area development has been removed from the EIS. The<br />

Forest plan retains the option for this development. Detailed evaluation of the impacts of a ski area<br />

development will be pursued with an environmental analysis independent of the Forest Plan analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

The discussion of the city's hydroelectric funding incorrectly suggests that financing options are limited<br />

to such a source, when in fact the municipality and other potential developers have a wide variety of<br />

funding options available to them.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This discussion has been removed from the EIS.<br />

Comment<br />

We suggest that the FEIS include an analysis for each of the alternatives describing: (1) the impact on<br />

projected resource outputs if required funding levels are not realized; and (2) how the alternative could<br />

be modified to meet its most critical output targets if actual budgets are less than specified in the plan.<br />

This information could prove vital to both industry and the Forest Service as we work with Congress to<br />

get the appropriations needed to maximize net public benefits from the Winema National Forest. It<br />

could also have implications for selection of the final forest plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Generally resource outputs would be reduced proportionately to the reduction in funding provided for<br />

each resource. Thus if funding for sale preparation were cut in half, we could expect to have about<br />

half the volume available for sale a year or two in the future. Cuts in recreation budgets would have<br />

minimal effects on dispersed types of recreation in the short term although trails would likely deteriorate<br />

and use might become less in the long run. Cuts in recreation budgets would be seen most rapidly in<br />

campgrounds where services would be reduced immediately. These types of effects would vary more<br />

by the level of funding than by alternative and estimates for each alternative would not be particularly<br />

useful in comparing the alternatives so we made no attempt to do this. Our normal out-year budgeting<br />

process involves estimates of the effects on outputs under different funding scenarios.<br />

Since funding levels vary each year, it would take several years of implementation to determine whether<br />

or not an alternative was being effectively implemented. We have included a monitoring item to determine<br />

whether funding received by the Forest is consistent with the budget estimates developed by the Forest<br />

Plan. At some point, significant variations could result in modifications to the Forest Plan which would<br />

attempt to maximize the net public benefit with lower funding levels and could result in a different mix<br />

of outputs. Thus, we see these issues as being handled more directly in the implementation phase<br />

than in the selection of an alternative for implementation.<br />

Comment<br />

We believe that the draft plan must be revised to reduce the risk of unacceptable economic and social<br />

effects.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have redeveloped the discussions on economy and society in Chapters 3 and 4 to better depict<br />

these effects. The Proposed Plan gives additional consideration to resources other than timber and<br />

K- 143

thus tends to have a higher risk of adverse social and economic effects although we do not consider<br />

the level to be Nunacceptable."<br />

Comment<br />

Because of our substantial concerns over the details of the present net value analysis, we support the<br />

use of a maximum timber objective function in the preferred alternative. This should be combined with<br />

a PNV "rollover" to assist the forest in harvest scheduling over the next decade.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Proposed Plan (Alternative J) used the maximize PNV" objective function rather than the "maximize<br />

timber followed by a PNV rollover. Since the timber resource has the largest effect on PNV and since<br />

Alternative J already gets as much ponderosa pine as is available with uneven-aged management, we<br />

doubt that using your approach would make much difference.<br />

Comment<br />

The economic value of timber must be adjusted so that it is comparable to the economic values of<br />

recreation and wildlife.<br />

Certain outputs, such as recreation, fisheries and certain wildlife outputs are given values in the draft<br />

EIS economic analysis. These values are derived from the 1985 RPA program and are based upon the<br />

'willingness to pay" concept. The timber resource, however, is not based upon a willingness to pay<br />

concept, but rather is derived from real values which represent competition in the marketplace. Because<br />

timber is sold in a competitive market, the value of that timber does not reflect what a consumer is<br />

willing to pay for it, but rather what a consumer must pay for it. It is possible to derive willingness to<br />

pay values for the timber resource just as it is for recreation, fisheries and wildlife outputs which are<br />

given values in the draft EIS economic analysis. The Winema did not do so, and therefore, the economic<br />

analysis contained the DEIS seriously under-represents the value of the timber resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your comment implies that individuals would be willing to pay much more for lumber, but that for some<br />

reason the price is kept low. The major factor which keeps lumber prices from being higher is that<br />

when they are raised, people buy less thus reducing total profits in the manufacturing/wholesale/retail<br />

chain. People buy less at higher prices because they aren't willing to pay more. In any case, the timber<br />

values on a per acre basis are so much higher than other resource values that raising their values<br />

further would not have much effect on land allocations or harvest scheduling in an alternative, such as<br />

Alternative J, which is heavily constrained by other resource considerations.<br />

Comment<br />

Many forest users taking the time to comment on your draft plan wish to know the procedure how<br />

their information is evaluated. We understand all responses are coded into the computer for recall on<br />

many forest issues, such as timber harvest level, support for a new winter sport site, wildlife, and etc.<br />

We would suggest that one additional way for information retrieval is by congressional districts. The<br />

reason for this is due to much what you hope to accomplish on the Winema is tied to your budget<br />

from Congress. We would think if you could show the public position on many of your projects this<br />

may be helpful in gaining the funding requirements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We sorted the comments by specific topics so that they could be assigned to appropriate specialists<br />

for response. We also weighed the preponderance of comment on the issues in a subjective way. We<br />

didn't "count votes" because people have too many and varied views on each issue to make that<br />

particularly useful. For the same reason it is difficult to identify a definitive "public position on any issue<br />

- people differ too much. We've summarized "What People Said" for each issue in Chapter 1 of this<br />

EIS. We didn't try to break out the comments by Congressional District, but encourage elected<br />

representatives to read the EIS, including the summary of public comment and this Appendix. We trust<br />

that individuals who feel strongly about a particular issue will contact their representatives directly.<br />

K- 144

Comment<br />

Increase funding levels of the following programs to get them closer to parity with timber management:<br />

a. Wildlife & Fisheries; b. Recreation; c. Cultural Resources; d. Law Enforcement; and e. Range<br />

Management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest budget requests for upcoming years are based on the Forest Plan preferred alternative. The<br />

final preferred alternative, with its increased emphasis on recreation and wildlife, will result in larger<br />

requests in this area. Actual forest funding levels are determined by the amount of these kinds of funds<br />

made available by Congress, which takes into account Forest Service requests, but also may be modified<br />

to meet National priorities. Once a budget for a particular resource, be it timber or wildlife or range or<br />

whatever, is approved by Congress for the Forest Service, we are, by and large, prevented from shifting<br />

money from one resource area to another.<br />

Comment<br />

The cost breakdown on page IV-1 7 of the Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan indicates<br />

that only $12,000.00 are planned for trail construction each year. By shifting 1% from both the timber<br />

and road budgets a considerably larger amount of money would be available for trail construction. The<br />

cost of operating the Forest, as indicated by Table IV-2, show a definite bias toward timber harvesting<br />

and road construction. With 96% of the operational cost being allocated to timber, roads and fire<br />

suppression little is left for recreation,wildlife and watershed management. It is hard to see how this<br />

can be considered multiple use management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The trail construction estimate has been increased to $127,000 per year, about 1.5% of the direct timber<br />

and road costs. It's not particularly informative to use tudget figures to evaluate the concept of<br />

multiple-use. Dispersed non-motorized recreation demands, for example, can be satisfied at relatively<br />

low costs because it doesn't cost much to let people walk and camp at dispersed locations across the<br />

Forest. Timber production, on the other hand, is quite costly to administer due to the plethora of concerns<br />

that must be addressed in order to produce a satisfactory result in both an environmental sense and<br />

in terms of insuring that the public interest is protected. A better way to evaluate whether or not multiple-use<br />

is being implemented is to compare the expected output levels for the various resources (Chapter 2)<br />

to estimates of demand levels (Chapter 3). This is done in Chapter 4 of this EIS.<br />

The budget estimate was not developed by taking a total dollar figure then allotting it, on some basis,<br />

to the various resources. Rather, the costs of supporting each resource at the output levels determined<br />

for the alternative were individually calculated and then totaled.<br />

Comment<br />

The proposed departure will only delay the decline of the local timber industry and related employment<br />

which has grown dependent on national forest timber supplies. Payments to local counties will also<br />

decline markedly in the future. The inevitable may be delayed for twenty years, but then the decline in<br />

the allowable sale quantity will have severe impacts on the local communities. Alternatively, the immediate<br />

implementation of sustained yield management would lead to more moderate reductions in the timber<br />

supply and related employment in the short term, but would lead to more stability in the long run.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative J, the preferred plan, is not a departure alternative although the program to salvage dead<br />

and dying lodgepole pine will cause some of the effects you mention.<br />

Comment<br />

We must take partial exception to the statements (LMP 11-5) that timber supply from the Forest does<br />

not effect price. While it may be true that there is no great influence upon product market prices from<br />

variances in the Forest timber supply, stumpage prices will be very sensitive to the adequacy of hat<br />

supply within economic limitations to the considerable extent that the Winema wields a monopolistic<br />

influence within the local timbershed. Also in this same discussion of local supply and demand, (ibid)<br />

K - 145

it should be realized by the plan authors that there is not necessarily a fixed, directly proportional<br />

relationship between lumber and housing demand. In recent years, we have found that while housing<br />

starts are far from historic highs, lumber consumption has steadily increased due to expanding repair,<br />

remodel, industrial and export markets.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion in Chapter 3 on *Local Timber Supply and Demand' talks about this situation. Stumpage<br />

prices do vary depending upon the total supply that is available, but, as you imply, the height to which<br />

prices can rise is limited by the height to which lumber prices can rise before consumers begin to use<br />

substitute materials. We agree that there is no fixed, directly proportional relationship between lumber<br />

and housing demand, but that does not deny the existence of a relationship between the two.<br />

Comment<br />

Specifically, we question the use of a one percent price trend for all stumpage values regardless of<br />

species. Basing stumpage values for small diameter mixed species logs (a commodity not currently in<br />

high demand) on a one percent price trend appears speculative, while recent market history for ponderosa<br />

pine indicates a price trend higher than one percent may be in order for that species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have added a monitoring element to help track this situation.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan and DEIS do not include an analysis of what effect lower budgets could have on management<br />

decisions. This omission is of concern to the Tribe for several reasons.<br />

1. Without adequate funding, the anticipated habitat improvements, monitoring and mitigation measures<br />

may not be possible, and the cumulative effects on tribal treaty rights could be disastrous.<br />

2. Without an analysis of an alternative with a lower budget, there is no way to determine whether<br />

different management techniques would be used, whether anticipated mitigation measures would be<br />

deleted, or what alternative actions the Forest would take. Failure to analyze an alternative with a lower<br />

budget prevents decision makers from becoming aware of potentially more efficient management<br />

techniques, lower capital costs, or lower mitigation costs.<br />

The Fremont National Forest has acknowledged its responsibility to provide habitat sufficient to meet<br />

the Tribe's treaty rights and needs, and the Winema must do so as well. Fulfilling this responsibility at<br />

lower funding levels will require changes in proposed management activities. The current planning<br />

process is the appropriate means to address this likelihood.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The alternatives described in the EIS are alternatives for management of Winema resources. An alternative<br />

based upon funding levels isn't really appropriate. We expect funding levels to go up and down as in<br />

the past, however, regardless of the funding levels, the Plan will give us consistent direction to strive<br />

for agreed upon goals. The Plan gives us management direction; any one year's funding level won't<br />

change that direction. We have included a monitoring item to ensure that the situation is tracked and<br />

adjustments are made if significant deviations are found.<br />

We have been working closely with the Tribe in development of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Fish, wildlife and recreation outputs have variable response factors and have been underestimated<br />

and undervalued in quantifying outputs, effects, and tradeoffs between economic benefits.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We don't agree that the outputs are undervalued or underestimated. The key thing, here, is that they<br />

are developed in the same way for each alternative so they are comparable across the alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service projects that an increase of 841 new jobs will result from their preferred Alternative<br />

E. It is unlikely that this increase will occur for several reasons. Their projections are based on 1977<br />

K- 146

data, a period when wood products industry employment averaged 4,640 in Klamath county. Presently,<br />

during a period of peak production levels, employment in the industry totals only 3,800. The relationship<br />

between production and jobs has changed considerably. The entire projected gain would be needed<br />

just to restore employment in wood products to the base year levels.<br />

Second, the job changes across alternatives should not be viewed as absolute employment changes.<br />

Rather, they should be used only for relative comparative purposes.<br />

The No Action alternative shows an increase of 367 jobs; therefore, the preferred alternative should be<br />

discounted by at least this much to approximate better a comparison to recent levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We used the most recent data available to develop estimates of numbers of jobs. All of the figures<br />

have been updated using an input/output model (IMPLAN) with 1982 base data as described in Appendix<br />

B. For Alternative E the estimate is now 394 additional jobs rather than 841. We have not been able to<br />

obtain the detailed data necessary to support the assertion that there has been a significant change in<br />

labor efficiency in lumber production in Klamath County, but we suspect that this is occurring.<br />

We agree that these are not absolute numbers, but are of reasonable use only in a comparative sense.<br />

The No Action alternative shows an increase of 31 jobs since updating the model. It's not clear why it<br />

would be appropriate to adjust any alternative by this amount to improve the comparative analysis<br />

since the No Action alternative is a projection of Forest management trends into the future.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service projects a large increase in employment because the proposed allowable sale<br />

quantity of 199 MMBF is considerably above the 1976 to 1985 average timber harvest of 11 8.6 MMBF.<br />

More recent years have amounted to 177 MMBF in 1985, 223 MMBF in 1986, and 262 MMBF in 1987.<br />

Since lumber and wood jobs are linked to the harvest level, and the proposed allowable sale quantity<br />

is lower than the average of the last three years' harvest, it is unlikely that a job gain above current<br />

employment levels will occur as a result of the Forest Service's preferred Alternative E. Furthermore,<br />

the proposed allowable sale quantity is based on an accelerated harvest of lodgepole pine - a species<br />

that does not produce as many jobs per MMBF as ponderosa pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have updated the estimated job figures so that Alternative E is now estimated to increase employment<br />

by 394 jobs. This is in comparison to a 1980 through 1989 base period. Total sawtimber volume in<br />

that period averaged 170.5 MMBF per year. The average lodgepole pine harvest was about 40 MMBF<br />

per year during the same period in comparison to 15 MMBF per year estimated for Alternative E.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service should expand its economic analysis to include Jackson County. Current data<br />

indicates that almost one-third of Winema stumpage flows into southwest Oregon, primarily Jackson<br />

County. Further, retail and wholesale trade in Jackson County rely on basic industries that are dependent<br />

upon the Winema National Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The estimates of income and employment take into account the differing structures of the Jackson<br />

and Douglas County economies. We have retained the emphasis on the Klamath County economy<br />

because even though a substantial portion of Winema logs go to these counties for processing, they<br />

represent a relatively small portion of the total volume processed there.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service should address the impact of the plan on other taxes such as road, harvest, state<br />

income, and property taxes.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have not specifically added a discussion on most of these topics because they don't add much to<br />

the comparison of alternatives. Taxes related to timber harvest depend on volume levels, which is<br />

discussed and income taxes depend on income levels, which is discussed. Road use taxes relate to<br />

K - 147

log and lumber haul which depends on volumes harvested, which is also discussed. Effects on property<br />

taxes are discussed in the Effects on Society" section of Chapter 4.<br />

Comment<br />

Funding and an outline for monitoring local economic conditions (e.g., employment by sector and<br />

county, unemployment, population, and personal income) have not been included. If the intent of this<br />

extensive planning effort is to achieve specific desirable outcomes, then it is critical that sufficient effort<br />

and funding be included in the budget for monitoring and evaluating progress on an annual basis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is not the intent of this Plan to effect specific outcomes in the local economy. There are so many<br />

other factors involved in the function of the local economy that it would be impossible for us to control<br />

it even if that were our desire. Our intent is to give due consideration to potential effects on the economy<br />

as a result of our actions. We are focussing our efforts on monitoring those socioeconomic factors<br />

that are measurable and which directly link our activities to the local economy. The returns to the County<br />

are the most direct and measurable item available.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service requires a 16.3 percent increase in their budget compared to current levels in order<br />

to implement their preferred alternative E. In light of tight Federal budgets, this increase is not by any<br />

means assured. The Forest Service should indicate which activities it would scale back if its budgetary<br />

requests are not met.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Activities that would be scaled back depend upon the National priorities that cause Congress to fund<br />

one area over another. These priorities change from year to year so it would take several years of<br />

funding to identify an overall trend. We have included a monitoring element to track this. If deviations<br />

from the Plan are significant enough, the Plan can be amended.<br />

Comment<br />

Employment and Income Effects: The Winema only supplies about 15% of timber processed by Klamath<br />

County mills. While this percentage will increase substantially over the next two decades, there is simply<br />

no logical basis on which to assume that the adoption of the Preferred Alternative would result in the<br />

generation of 841 new jobs (see Table IV-33). No detailed analysis of the derivation of the employment<br />

and income totals presented in this Table is provided. Further, projections are based on 1977 data, a<br />

period when forest industry employment averaged 4,640 in Klamath County. Presently, during a period<br />

of peak production levels, employment in the industry totals only 3,800 - would need almost the entire<br />

projected gain just to restore employment in lumber and wood products to base year levels!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The jobs and income estimates are based upon the total Forest program and the assumption that the<br />

logs will be processed in either Klamath, Jackson or Douglas Counties. It is assumed that 65% will be<br />

processed in Klamath County, 34% in Jackson County and 1% in Douglas County. These figures are<br />

based upon the 1985 (most recent) version of Oregon's Forest Products Industry (Howard and Ward,<br />

PNW Station, Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-149). The IMPLAN model is described in Appendix B with<br />

references to other sources for details on the methodology. The data has been updated to 1982 (most<br />

recent data available) and all estimates of jobs and income have been adjusted. It is important to realize<br />

that the highest utility in these numbers is in the comparison of alternatives not as an absolute estimate<br />

of economic activity.<br />

Comment<br />

The economic assumptions used to determine the job impacts of the various alternatives need to be<br />

more fully explained. Updated information that reflects current job numbers should be included in the<br />

final EIS. Page 111-4, LRMP indicates that up to 1,537 jobs Owould be created in decade 1 if the plan is<br />

implemented. A more accurate statement would explain that this prediction does not represent a change<br />

K - 148

from current employment levels, but rather a change from hypothetical employment levels of the no<br />

change alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion and estimates have been updated. The change is from a base created by averaging<br />

Forest outputs from 1980 through 1989 and calculating total jobs and income the same way as was<br />

done for all the alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

Local Economies - (DEIS, 111-1 15) The Forest appears to have erred in confusing residentiary with basic<br />

economic activities. Basic industries are those that generate exports with whose receipts purchases of<br />

outside goods and services can be made. Forest industry and the tourism industry are parts of the<br />

economic base. With this in mind, the chart on page 111-1 16 needs additional explanation. Although<br />

wood related dollar gross output may be less than 50 percent of total gross output, analysis completed<br />

for our next Forestry Program for Oregon assessment shows that the lumber and wood products sectors<br />

accounts for over 70 percent of the basic private employment in Klamath County.<br />

In addition, 1977 data is out-dated and inappropriate for use in the analysis; it should be updated.<br />

This plan may not become final until 1989, by which time the data would be almost a decade old.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The entire discussion has been rewritten to be more pertinent. The most recent IMPLAN data base<br />

available is for 1982. All the job and income estimates in the EIS were updated using this model.<br />

Comment<br />

INDUSTRY JOBS - (DEIS, 111-121) The discussion about automation continuing to reduce the number<br />

of jobs is speculation. Secondary manufacturing of wood products is cursorily mentioned. However,<br />

this and other high value-added wood products could increase employment rather than decrease<br />

employment, albeit using different technology. Oregon in the past has been famous for making low<br />

quality wood products out of high value stumpage. This is changing; employment trends are expected<br />

to change as well.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree, the entire section has been rewritten.<br />

Comment<br />

Effects of the Alternatives on Local Economy - (DEIS, IV-101) The projections of economic growth are<br />

based on Winema timber harvests only, and do not include harvests of other national forests or ownerships<br />

in the Klamath or adjacent timbersheds. This should be made clear. We believe the forest should present<br />

information on the total economic picture, including those alternative timber harvest changes that can<br />

be reasonably expected.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our intent is to clearly differentiate between alternatives in the area of social and economic impacts,<br />

not to attempt to predict or speculate about the actions of others. We have included a discussion<br />

developed by the State of Oregon in Chapter 3 that should adequately address your concerns in this<br />

area.<br />

Comment<br />

A departure in ponderosa pine to maintain historical levels is required by the Plan and will contribute<br />

substantially to the economic stability in the Klamath Basin.<br />

This statement is completely false. Figure IV-1 of the plan shows wild fluctuations in the Allowable Sale<br />

Quantity which would be extremely damaging to the local community.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative J, the preferred plan, was developed in response to public comments and deals with these<br />

issues differently than Alternative E.<br />

K- 149

Soils<br />

Comment<br />

Can Eastern Oregon, the pumice desert areas of the Winema be treated with the same decision making<br />

as any other forested area? It definitely should not! The impact in the pumice areas are devastating to<br />

future rapid growth. (There is no rapid growth in large Ponderosa forests where pumice is the predominate<br />

first layer of earth.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Almost all Ponderosa pine stands on the Winema are timber site productivity class 4 and 5 with a<br />

majority being site 5. The pumice sites can be sensitive to work, but in many ways, are less sensitive<br />

to work than other soils because they are far less apt to compact. Growth measurements on young<br />

pine stands indicate that productivity is being maintained or possibly increased with early stocking<br />

level control.<br />

Comment<br />

In my opinion clear cutting has destroyed much of Oregon's Forest in my lifetime...probably from erosion,<br />

lack of replanting and change in soil temperature.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Clearcutting is a viable regeneration system. All clearcuts on the Winema are planted except for some<br />

in lodgepole pine, which will naturally regenerate, and since the Winema is so flat, very little erosion<br />

occurs. Overall soil temperatures may be lowered in the first years after a clear cut but will eventually<br />

warm to normal levels after the young trees become 10 to 15 feet tall.<br />

Comment<br />

The proposed uneven aged management of 144,000 acres of ponderosa pine forests on former tribal<br />

lands is a good starting point for maintaining vegetation diversity on this portion of the Forest but the<br />

practice needs to be coupled with a prescribed burning program to insure that the stands do not convert<br />

to pine associated or fir dominated forests. Prescribed burning should in fact be instituted across the<br />

Forest to help return the vigor to some of the stands and to assist in the control of forest pests.<br />

Re-introduction of fire into the east Cascades forests will also help return the composition of the forests<br />

to more Ponderosa pine dominated stands, which more closely simulates the natural composition of<br />

the forest and which is the preferred species by timber interests and local economics.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 144,000 acres of ponderosa pine forest that is planned for uneven-aged management has ponderosa<br />

pine as the climax species. Therefore there is no need to use fire to assure maintenance of ponderosa<br />

pine. It is planned to manage some of the pine associated in uneven aged management favoring<br />

ponderosa pine. This will be accomplished through various silvicultural practices that will favor ponderosa<br />

pine.<br />

Based on some current research there is some question on the desirability of a prescribed burning<br />

program on pumice soils to maintain stocking or reduce natural fuels. There is a potential for reduction<br />

of site productivity as the result of the burning.<br />

Comment<br />

The two paragraphs given to the effects on soil in chapter IV are particularly inadequate.<br />

The standard that would allow detrimental effects on soil productivity on 20 per cent of an activity area<br />

is inadequate to meet the basic Forest Service mandate to assure that productivity will be maintained.<br />

That this permissive standard is to be monitored by 'review of EAs' only compounds the problem. Soil<br />

condition can only be determined by monitoring soil, not documents.<br />

Page V-1 0 of the Plan: Monitoring question 10: Twenty percent loss of soil productivity level is an<br />

unacceptable result of management activities. Monitoring should assure that losses never exceed 10%,<br />

K - 150

and management activities should be designed to maintain or improve soil productivity. All future<br />

resources of the Forest depend on continued soil productivity.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standard you refer to was established as a tool to monitor impacts of management on long-term<br />

productivity. We strive to protect a minimum of 80% of an activity area from any detrimental soil impacts<br />

(from past, present, and future roads, landings, skid trails, etc.). Within the 20 percent area, productivity<br />

is reduced, but seldom eliminated. The standard serves as a warning device to indicate that productivity<br />

may be significantly affected if the 20 percent threshold is exceeded. The threshold is not the goal.<br />

The management goal is to maintain or improve the inherent productive capacity of the soil. Both<br />

adherence to the standard and effectiveness of the standard will be monitored. Management practices,<br />

and even the standard, will be revised if warranted. Chapter IV of the FEIS has been revised to better<br />

explain how this standard is applied.<br />

Comment<br />

In addition, the plan should identify the sensitivity of riparian areas by watershed to allow analysis of<br />

the effects of harvesting on soil productivity and water quality. The Tribe urges that no timber harvesting<br />

be allowed in riparian areas if it would result in any further degradation of water quality or fish habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The E.A. for a management activity in the area will take in consideration the sensitivity of the riparian<br />

area. Standards and guidelines will be used to take this sensitivity into consideration and also prevent<br />

any degradation of the riparian values, water and fish resource.<br />

MA8 and discussions on BMP's have been revised to discuss management of riparian areas to maintain<br />

their values. Timber harvest is allowed in riparian areas only under very strict controls. No harvest is<br />

scheduled near Class 1, 11, and Ill streams. Standards and guidelines and BMP's with monitoring should<br />

ensure that values are adequately protected. Insufficient data is available to make such an analysis on<br />

a watershed at the Forest Plan level. Forest plan monitoring will collect the necessary data. Watershed<br />

analysis will be donw during project level planning.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-4. Soils (Paragraph 5).<br />

How much land has been taken out of production due to impacts to soils? (DEIS 111-4-1). How much<br />

land has reduced productivity due to impacts to soils? (DEIS 111-4-2). Where are these lands? (DEIS<br />

1114-3).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is unknown how much land has been taken out of production. These lands are scattered throughout<br />

the Forest where there are roads, landings, skid trails, trails, etc. Discussion of current conditions have<br />

been added to Chapter 3. Future impacts have been estimated in Chapters 11 and IV of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

1 3a. Include exposed' in the standard 'No more than a cumulative total of 15 percent of an activity/project<br />

area will be compacted, displaced, or puddled to a degree that degrades vegetative productivity.'<br />

Deleting the phrase *to a degree that degrades vegetative productivity' might make the standard appear<br />

less subjective. This would make the standard strictly a quantitative measurement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

"Exposed' soil does not necessarily mean that it is damaged or that it will erode. The standard you<br />

refer to will protect soils from physical damage. Other standards specify minimum levels of residues to<br />

remain on the soil for erosion protection and nutrient cycling. Taken together, the application of standards<br />

and guidelines should adequately maintain long term soil productivity. Soils can tolerate a certain level<br />

of damage without degrading vegetative productivity. The tolerance of soils to damage can be quantified,<br />

and these tolerances have been included in the standard.<br />

K - 151

Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals<br />

Comment<br />

It was surprising to find no mention of sensitive plants in the Forest Plan, however, as there were Standards<br />

and Guidelines put forth for animal species of concern. This deficiency should be corrected in the<br />

Final Forest Plan. The Forest Plan should also address the sensitive species surveys of project areas<br />

that are required by Forest Service Region 6 policy. In addition to required surveys in project areas,<br />

The Nature Conservancy is also requesting that National Forests undertake inventories of currently<br />

protected areas on the Forest to further the knowledge of rare species distribution and abundance. It<br />

is important to conduct surveys in wilderness areas, Research Natural Areas, Special Interest Areas,<br />

and other protected sites as there may be direct<br />

implications for management of rare species on other lands where the species is found. For instance,<br />

if currently listed sensitive species are found to be in great abundance in secure, designated areas<br />

then a recommendation can be made to remove the species from the Forest Service sensitive list.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

You are correct. Pages III 20-24 of the DEIS discussed sensitive plants on the forest. None of the<br />

information was carried forward in the Plan as it should have been. Information regarding sensitive<br />

plants has been updated in the FEIS and Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Wildlife species of concern were also listed in the DEIS in Chapter III (p. 111-63) and the list is essentially<br />

complete except for one omission and several corrections in species status. The corrections in the list<br />

are for the two fish species, the Lost River Sucker and the Shortnose Sucker, which have been officially<br />

proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and are in the mandatory review period before<br />

listing. The species are both proposed for listing as Endangered which has important management<br />

implications for their critical habitats. The Final Forest Plan should note the final status of these species<br />

and should also indicate that the Forest intends to take appropriate management actions, including<br />

protection of their habitat, to protect the species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your comment is partially correct. No species were omitted from the list you refer to. The advent for<br />

sucker listings has been on going for several years, with the Winema N.F. as an active participant. The<br />

listing is now complete and we will so recognize in the FEIS with appropriate guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

Three rivers on the Winema National Forest were evaluated for eligibility for wild and scenic status with<br />

the Sycan and Williamson rivers being determined to be eligible. We feel the analysis portrayed in<br />

Appendix E of the DEIS omits one important category--threatened, endangered, and sensitive<br />

species--that should be considered in the evaluation for eligibility. The Williamson and the Sprague<br />

rivers are critical habitat for the Lost River Sucker which is currently proposed for endangered listing<br />

by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This species will likely be formally listed by mid-1 988. Furthermore,<br />

the Williamson also provides habitat for the shortnose sucker which is also proposed for endangered<br />

listing.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix E-14 recognizes segments Two and Three of the Lower Williamson and the Sprague River<br />

from the Williamson to Chiloquin Dam as primary habitat for the Lost River and shortnosed suckers,<br />

along with their Threatened and Endangered staus as mentioned above. 'Critical habitat when applied<br />

to a T&E species has a legal definition. The USF&WS has identified Upper Klamath Lake and tributary<br />

streams as primary habitat for the species. They however, have not identified critical habitat.<br />

K- 152

Comment<br />

In case of the Winema N.F., it is unclear from the draft plan as to what effects the proposed management<br />

plan will have upon the Forest's botanical resources. The plan attempts to promote the claim that<br />

management activities will not negatively affect sensitive plants, but the supporting statements are<br />

vague assertions or grandiose claims that lack supporting data For example, the DEIS states (111-21)<br />

'timber harvest poses a limited threat, because sensitive plants generally do not occur in forested<br />

plant communities but rather in unique areas, such as meadows and scab flats., Perhaps, then sensitive<br />

plant management should be integrated with rangeland management? This might be a logical approach,<br />

but one must have doubts that this approach would be effective, given the further (completely<br />

unbelievable) assertion that Ograzing of domestic livestock will not be a threat to the sensitive plants on<br />

the Foresto (DEIS 111-21).<br />

The reality of the situation is that the Forest harbors sensitive plants in a variety of habitats, from grasslands<br />

and meadows, to Forest lands, and high elevation habitats. Potential management conflicts (and grazing<br />

of livestock is often a major conflict) may occur in any of these habitats. Thus we feel that the Forest<br />

has a responsibility to pay full consideration to the fate of sensitive species, and not try to pass off the<br />

issue with a few paragraphs of unfounded assertions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest Standards and Guidelines for range management require the permittee to comply with multiple<br />

use concept, which includes compliance with the threatened and endangered species requirements(this<br />

includes vascular plants). These standards and guidelines include maintaining and/or improving<br />

ecological condition of the different plant communities on the allotment. Implementing these guidelines<br />

through the allotment management plans, sensitive areas are either excluded from livestock grazing,<br />

or utilization standards, and season of use are adjusted to restrict the time and amount of forage that<br />

can be removed. Allotment Management Plans are periodically updated and revised to account for<br />

new situations as they are encountered on the ground. Annual grazing plans provide annual direction<br />

to the permittee for areas that need to be avoided, or protected from heavy livestock use.<br />

All activities must be evaluated for the occurrence of sensitive plants or animals, and the risk to the<br />

species must be analyzed. Species management guides are to be developed for each species.<br />

Comment<br />

It is particularly important to clarify the statement that Ono threatened or endangered vascular plants<br />

are known to occur on the Forest.' Though there are no federally listed species on the Forest, there<br />

are a number of candidates for listing that do occur. Candidate species may well qualify for formal<br />

listing, but have not yet been listed due to the great backlog of candidate species. All candidates should<br />

be managed as if they were listed. This means that full inventories of Forest lands for these species<br />

should be conducted, and management guidelines should be prepared to ensure that other management<br />

actions do not further contribute to the species' decline. Also, now that the State of Oregon has a<br />

formal endangered species program, coordination of management needs and approaches should<br />

include that program.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All activities must be evaluated for the occurance of sensitive plants or animals, and the risk to the<br />

species must be analyzed. Species management guides are to be developed for each species.<br />

Comment<br />

We feel the only way to effectively meet the needs and challenges of endangered and sensitive plants<br />

is for the Forest to maintain a permanently employed botanist on the staff. This person should be an<br />

experienced field botanist, preferably with graduate training in plant taxonomy or ecology. Only in<br />

exceptional cases will employees trained in other fields possess sufficient background to implement<br />

such a program. This level of training is necessary so that the employee can conduct specific research<br />

into the ecology and life history of each species, so that management can be based upon sound biological<br />

data, rather than casual observation and inference.<br />

K - 153

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Area 4 Forests, which include this Forest, have Ecologists that are hired to study and make necessary<br />

inventories for T&E Plants in addition to classification of plant communities, these professionals are<br />

present to help the Forest in implementing necessary protection measures for vascular plants needing<br />

such action. These personnel, also, work in cooperation with universities, the Forest Service Research<br />

Lab, in conducting studies needed to implement sound management for plant species that are in the<br />

threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive categories.<br />

A Forest Botanist is currently on our staff.<br />

Comment<br />

We would also like to point out that none of these roadless areas, or any of the others on the Forest,<br />

appear to have been adequately censused for the presence of Sensitive Plant species. This should be<br />

remedied.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS,(Chapter 3) presents the Pacific Northwest Region's April 1990 revised list of plants considered<br />

sensitive that have been documented or are suspected as occuring on the Forest. Consideration of<br />

sensitive species is part of any site specific projects conducted on the Forest. Areas with proposed<br />

activity have priority for survey, areas such as roadless areas or Wilderness will be lowest priority for<br />

survey since no immediate impacts are expected. As the backlog of acres to be surveyed is reduced,<br />

Wilderness will be surveyed.<br />

Comment<br />

We recommend that the WNF develop the management of native plants as a formal planning issue.<br />

This issue development should include the provision of more specific and comprehensive Forestwide<br />

S&Gs for Sensitive plant species, a commitment to the development of Management Guides (including<br />

long-term monitoring of populations) for all of the Forest's Sensitive plant species, and the provision of<br />

an inventory of some potential Botanical Special Interest Areas on the WNF. These would represent<br />

strong steps towards an effective program of protection for the Forest's unique botanical resources.<br />

We request that the WNF take these steps as soon as possible. We suggest that you refer to the draft<br />

LRMPs of the Siskiyou and Gifford-Pinchot National Forests as models of how other Forests have at<br />

least begun to adequately address the issue of native plant/Sensitive species management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All activities must be evaluated for the occurance of sensitive plants or animals, and the risk to the<br />

species must be analyzed. Species management guides are to be developed for each species.<br />

Comment<br />

Logging, even in temperate zones, has endangered or eliminated assorted species of flora and fauna.<br />

Biological cures for diseases have been developed from rare plants. It is theoretically possible that the<br />

entire species of mankind could be eliminated with the extinction of one endangered plant which has<br />

the potential for curing a known plague or disease, or a disease of the future that is unknown to us<br />

presently.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Two sucker species, the Lost River Sucker and the shortnose sucker, have been proposed for listing<br />

as endangered species by United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act imposes<br />

procedural and substantive requirements on management activities which may adversely affect the<br />

species or their habitats. The Forest Service must fully disclose the effect implementation of the proposed<br />

plan will have on the suckers, consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and avoid taking any action<br />

K- 154

which might jeopardize the species. Failure to fulfill even procedural requirements of the Act may subject<br />

the forest plan to court action for injunctive relief. Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir., 1985).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Both suckers are currently listed as endangered. An interagency cooperative study to determine the<br />

factors limiting the suckers is underway. The Forest will consult with USFWS on any activity that will<br />

potentially impact sucker habitat.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS states that there are no known federally threatened or endangered plant species on the<br />

Winema National forest. We agree. We appreciate inclusion of the list of sensitive plants in the DEIS,<br />

although the Department of Agriculture's botanist has several specific suggestions on how to improve<br />

it. We also recommend that a clear policy on sensitive species management be developed by the<br />

Forest and included in the Plan. A good example of such a management policy is included in the Rogue<br />

River National Forest DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All activities must be evaluated for the occurance of sensitive plants or animals, and the risk to the<br />

species must be analyzed. Species management guides are to be developed for each species.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest needs to provide more explicit information in wildlife in the above categories. More information<br />

on habitat requirements and habitat protection measures needs to be presented for sensitive species<br />

such as northern spotted owl, great gray owl, and bull trout. ODFW offers its assistance with the<br />

development of habitat management plans. The following are some comments and recommendations<br />

by species:<br />

Peregrine Falcon - The peregrine falcon nests in Crater Lake National Park near the Forest. The<br />

potential for peregrine falcons nesting on the Forest needs to be addressed.<br />

Bald Eagle - ODFW supports the protection of all existing and potential winter roost sites and<br />

nest sites. The status of the bald eagle warrants intensive habitat protection to meet the goals<br />

of the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.<br />

Golden Eagle - ODFW supports protection of inventoried nest sites.<br />

Northern Spotted Owl - ODFW recommends management areas be at least 2,200 acres in size,<br />

well distributed, and dedicated as oId-growth habitat.<br />

Purple Martin - Purple martin are a Federally listed sensitive species.<br />

Osprey - All osprey nest sites located in riparian or upland areas should be accorded full protection.<br />

Sandhill Crane - Marshes and meadows should be allocated to MA 8. Marshes and meadows<br />

that have been adversely impacted by management activities need to be rehabilitated.<br />

Bull Trout - The only plausible opportunity to maintain relic populations of bull trout (a Federal<br />

candidate species) at current levels or better is through maintenance of roadless areas and<br />

implementation of strict standards for protection of riparian habitat and water quality.<br />

Great Gray Owl - Meadows and surrounding forest cover need to be allocated to MA 8 or other<br />

allocations restricting timber harvest. Management activities must benefit this unique owl.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter III of the FEIS lists plant and animal species considered sensitive by the Pacific Northwest<br />

Region. Species management guides will be developed for these species within the planning period.<br />

These will be developed in cooperation with ODFW.<br />

Specific information regarding the species listed follows:<br />

Peregrine falcon - The Forest will monitor potential habitat for occurance.<br />

Bald Eagle - The bald eagle warrants special management defined in Management Area 9. This<br />

management area includes and provides management guidance for winter roosts and nest<br />

sites.<br />

Golden Eagle - This species is not on the R6 Sensitive Species List. However, standards and<br />

guidelines provide for protection of golden eagle nest sites during nesting activity periods.<br />

K- 155

Spotted owl - Spotted owl habitat areas are reserved in Management Area 7. Guidelines for this<br />

species are in accordance with the Supplement to the Final EIS of the Regional Guidelines.<br />

Purple Martin - This species is not on the R6 Sensitive Species List and is not known to occur<br />

on the Forest.<br />

Osprey - Osprey nest sites are protected during nest activity periods.<br />

Sandhill crane - Marshes and wet meadows are allocated to Management Area 8, Riparian Areas<br />

in Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative.<br />

Bull Trout - This species is protected by Forestwide standards and guidelines in Soil and Water,<br />

and standards and guidelines in MA 8.<br />

Great Gray Owl - This species is not on the R6 Sensitive Species List for the Forest. However,<br />

nest sites are protected during nest activity periods.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-49<br />

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. What would be the effects of the alternatives on the<br />

peregrine falcon? (See Recommendations).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Peregrine falcon nest in Crater Lake National Park. The falcon from the Park may feed on waterfowl<br />

and other birds on the Forest, but this has not been documented. There are potential nesting areas<br />

on the Forest. These will be monitored for occupancy.<br />

Comment<br />

D-8.<br />

Bald Eagle. January 1 - August 31 needs to be labeled nesting.' Dates for roosting need to be November<br />

1 to March 15.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 9 has nesting and roosting periods for bald eagle.<br />

Comment<br />

The spelling of two species epithets need correction: bolanderi on page 111-22 and erythrorhiza on page<br />

111-24. Also, the taxonomic status of Erigeron decumbens var. robustior has recently been re-evaluated,<br />

and this taxon is now considered not to occur in Oregon according to a soon-to-be published paper<br />

by John Strother and William Ferlatte of the University of California at Berkley. The Winema National<br />

Forest may cite ODA as a source of this information.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Sensitive plant and animal species lists are updated annually by the Pacific Northwest Regional Office.<br />

Comment<br />

The planning document implies that Table 111-4 has been compiled after consultation with the lists of<br />

species in 'Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon:, published by The Oregon<br />

Natural Heritage Data Base (ONHDB) in 1985. The Forest should be aware that an updated, 1987<br />

version of this reference is now in print and has been for several months. ODA believes that the table<br />

would be further improved if it indicated that suspected level of sensitivity of the individual species<br />

presented. This information can be generally gathered from the ONHDB publication cited earlier. For<br />

example, many of the species listed are now considered by botanical authorities in Oregon no longer<br />

be in jeopardy of extinction, or, they may be perhaps sensitive in Oregon but not in adjacent states.<br />

The recognition of these taxa in some way is appropriate by the Forest, but they should be distinguished<br />

from those plants which are in more immediate need of study and protection.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Tables have been updated to reflect the latest status for all species. This list is updated annually by<br />

the Pacific Northwest Regional Office.<br />

K- 156

Comment<br />

The last paragraph of the section on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive vascular plants, on page<br />

111-21, starts with the following sentence: wGrazing of domestic livestock will not be a threat to the sensitive<br />

plants on the Forest." ODA would be very interested in seeing the data on which this statement is<br />

based, as nothing concerning threatened and endangered species is mentioned under the Range<br />

Management section located on pages 111-52-55.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This statement has been reworded to 'generally will not be a threat.' This is the opinion of the Area 4<br />

Ecologist, a professional botantist.<br />

Comment<br />

A brief reference to grazing and sensitive species is given on page IV-14, under the Environmental<br />

Consequences section. There is a vague implication at this point that grazing may affect these taxa,<br />

but it is indicated that this activity 'will be managed to prevent the degradation of the range resource<br />

which will generally protect the sensitive plants.' Similar comments are offered with respect to recreational<br />

use of national forest property. A statement should be inserted here that specifically says how such<br />

management will be accomplished, If the Forest does not have professional botanists on staff, then<br />

employment or consultation of such expertise should be proposed as the method by which sensitive<br />

species management will be undertaken. An estimate of the Forest's annual financial commitment to<br />

this effort should be provided somewhere in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Area 4 Forests, which include this Forest, have Ecologists that are hired to study and make necessary<br />

inventories for T&E Plants in addition to classification of plant communities, these professionals are<br />

present to help the Forest in implementing necessary protection measures for vascular plants needing<br />

such action. These personnel, also, work in cooperation with universities, the Forest Service Research<br />

Lab, in conducting studies needed to implement sound management for plant species that are in the<br />

threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive categories.<br />

A Forest Botanist is currently on our staff.<br />

Comment<br />

ODA recommends that a clear policy on sensitive species management be presented by the Winema<br />

National Forest. It is surprising that sensitive species conservation has not been identified as a public<br />

issue or concern by the Forest, these being defined on page 1-7 (DEIS) as 'subject(s) of wide-spread<br />

public interest related to teh management of the National Forest System.' Inasmuch as there are federal<br />

and state laws in effect in Oregon dealing with endangered species, plans should be developed to: 1)<br />

systematically determine the extent and biological requirements of sensitive species populations on<br />

the Winema National Forests; 2) devise a clear policy for mitigation of potential management conflicts;<br />

and 3) promote interagency contacts and determine consultation procedures with respect to this resource.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Area 4 Forests, which include this Forest, have Ecologists that are hired to study and make necessary<br />

inventories for T&E Plants in addition to classification of plant communities, these professionals are<br />

present to help the Forest in implementing necessary protection measures for vascular plants needing<br />

such action. These personnel, also, work in cooperation with universities, the Forest Service Research<br />

Lab, in conducting studies needed to implement sound management for plant species that are in the<br />

threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive categories.<br />

A Forest Botanist is currently on our staff.990.<br />

Comment<br />

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species: The plan fails to fully assess current status of these<br />

species, the habitat requirements of these species and the impacts to habitat by alternative.<br />

K- 157

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current status of the species which are listed as threatened, endangered, and sensitive is discussed<br />

in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The specific habitat of each species is documented by Oregon Heritage<br />

Natural Database. The specific requirements of each species in its habitat is generally not known and<br />

will require research to obtain. The impacts to species that affect large acreages of the Forest, such as<br />

bald eagle and spotted owl, are shown in Chapters 2 and 4. Other species, such as the sensitive plants,<br />

occupy very small sites and will generally reflect no impact on output of the Forest Plan. The Forest<br />

will evaluate and address the effects of any site-specific activity on a sensitive species through a biological<br />

evaluation process.<br />

Comment<br />

Plants: We do not find an acceptable strategy for protecting sensitive plant species in the plan. Contract<br />

stipulations do not protect plants unless the contractors, or contracting officers are botanists. We feel<br />

that the plan would benefit from an operational policy on protecting plant species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Area 4 Forests, which include this Forest, have Ecologists that are hired to study and make necessary<br />

inventories for T&E Plants in addition to classification of plant communities, these professionals are<br />

present to help the Forest in implementing necessary protection measures for vascular plants needing<br />

such action. These personnel, also, work in cooperation with universities, the Forest Service Research<br />

Lab, in conducting studies needed to implement sound management for plant species that are in the<br />

threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive categories.<br />

A Forest Botanist is currently on our staff.<br />

Comment<br />

DEIS IV-49, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species: This section and references contained in<br />

this section do not give a clear assessment of effects to threatened, endangered and sensitive species<br />

by alternative. If management lans, standards and guidelines, and management area prescriptions for<br />

bald eagle are to be consistently applied regardless of alternative, a statement should be provided<br />

indicating that there will be no change in management regardless of alternative selected. However,<br />

based upon our review of available information, alternatives appear to differ in the degree to which<br />

potential habitats for listed species will receive special management consideration. What these differences<br />

may mean in terms of effect to listed species and their recovery should be concisely stated.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current status of the species which are listed as threatened, endangered, and sensitive is discussed<br />

in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The specific habitat of each species is documented by Oregon Heritage<br />

Natural Database. The specific requirements of each species in its habitat is generally not known and<br />

will require research to obtain. The impacts to species that affect large acreages of the Forest, such as<br />

bald eagle and spotted owl, are shown in Chapters 2 and 4. Other species, such as the sensitive plants,<br />

occupy very small sites and will generally reflect no impact on output of the Forest Plan. The Forest<br />

will evaluate and address the effects of any site-specific activity on a sensitive species through a biological<br />

evaluation process.<br />

K- 158

Comment<br />

PLAN IV-1 07 to IV-1 17, Management Area 9: The Service recommends that the Forest consider expanding<br />

this management area to include identified historical and potential habitat for peregrine falcons and<br />

shortnose and Lost River suckers. See comments on DEIS 11-62.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 9 provides specific guidance for the management of bald eagle habitat.<br />

Peregrine falcon nest in Crater Lake National Park. The falcon from the Park may feed on waterfowl<br />

and other birds on the Forest, but this has not been documented. There are potential nesting areas<br />

on the Forest. These will be monitored for occupancy.<br />

Both suckers are currently listed as endangered. An interagency cooperative study to determine the<br />

factors limiting the suckers is underway. The Forest will consult with USFWS on any activity that will -<br />

potentially impact sucker habitat.<br />

K - 159

Timber Management<br />

Comment<br />

Has any provision been made for seed selection or gene enhancements to provide better stock for<br />

replanting?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, provisions have been made to provide genetically improved stock for reforestation. The Winema<br />

N.F. has 5267 trees selected for seed production as well as four seed orchards established, and two<br />

additional orchards are being developed at this time.<br />

Comment<br />

Costs in Table IV-2 show average annual timber sales costs are $7.4 million including replanting, etc.<br />

Yet in Table 111-14 of the DEIS you show costs of only $3.7 million for 1985. Show realistic costs in all<br />

places.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table IV-2 in the draft Forest Plan is an estimate of the cost of implementing the preferred alternative<br />

whereas Table 111-14 of the DEIS shows some historic expenditures for timber management on the<br />

Forest. Table IV-2's higher value indicates the higher investments needed to implement uneven-aged<br />

management, reforest the dying lodgepole pine and increase the timber stand improvement program.<br />

Comment<br />

The timber sale areas in green stipple on the Alternative E Map could be sold off to the highest bidders<br />

so as to allow the private enterprise, or timber companies to manage harvest areas. Then the Federal<br />

government would no longer be in a business which can conflict with a capitalist orientation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

From the passage of the Organic Act (June 4, 1897) to the passage of the Multiple Use-Sustained<br />

Yield Act (June 12, 1960) the mission of the U. S. Forest Service has always been conservation and<br />

management of forested federal lands to ensure a continuous supply of all resources. Selling of our<br />

timber lands would be a violation of our mission.<br />

Comment<br />

To justify a departure from sustain yield harvest by saying it will Istabilize" economy of the area makes<br />

as much sense as getting out on a limb and then cutting off the limb. We've allowed overcutting for<br />

years so the economy of the area is now dependent on it--the price of lumber falls, the housing market<br />

goes down, so you need to cut more to make less. The mill yards are full. Why use up in a few years<br />

natural resources that have taken hundreds of years to come into existence just to put a temporary<br />

band-aid on the local economy?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

According to the timber supply projection made by the Oregon State Department of Forestry, timber<br />

harvest on private lands is expected to decline 36%. Increasing the harvest on National Forest lands<br />

will offset this reduction in harvest while the timber on private lands grows and become economical to<br />

harvest. This shifting of the harvest from private to Federal lands and then back again, will maintain an<br />

even flow of timber to local mills.<br />

There was considerable public comments against a departure from long-term sustained yield from the<br />

Winema National Forest so Alternative J, the Forest Plan, is not a departure.<br />

Comment<br />

Even-aged management and large clearcuts encourage catastrophic burns. It is economically preferable<br />

in the long-term to reduce the size of clearcuts and promote mixed stands.<br />

K- 160

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan will emphasize uneven-aged management on the ponderosa pine and pine associated<br />

working groups.<br />

Comment<br />

I am concerned over the fact that we are planning for only a 10-15 year period, because if a commodity<br />

alternative is chosen, it will severely restrict our management options during each future planning period,<br />

i.e., once the decision is made to build roads into roadless areas, and to log much of the remaining<br />

old growth we have lost this resource and these options for realistically all time.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The planning process is developed to look at both short term and long term issues. The 10-15 year<br />

planning period helps us to respond to changing needs. Our 1 50-year planning horizon facilitates a<br />

look at what long term options are eliminated by short term actions. The roading of roadless areas<br />

and regeneration harvests of old growth does eliminate those conditions for our lifetime.<br />

Comment<br />

As a suggestion, may I point out the most successful logging practices of the Gilchrist Logging Co.<br />

and the Pacific Logging Co. of Northern California (before being taken over). They have demonstrated<br />

for several generations in the same families that Selective Logging can be done profitably and sustain<br />

a continuous yield of good trees as opposed to wasteful and destructive clear cutting with its inevitable<br />

and irreversible erosion.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that uneven-aged management is a viable option and will be prescribed for many acres.<br />

Even-aged silvicultural systems will still be prescribed for some diseased stands and other stands<br />

needing a fresh start. Clearcutting may appear destructive and wasteful in some cases, but it actually<br />

maximizes wood fiber production and is a very efficient way to harvest timber. Analysis indicates that<br />

insignificant amounts of erosion occur due to harvest activities. The! Forest Plan will emphasize<br />

uneven-aged management on the ponderosa pine and pine associated working groups.<br />

Comment<br />

Stop being captive to timber and grazing interest, stop managing for the short run only, become active<br />

in supporting a total ban of all log shipments from the U.S. (private, state, or federal)-great nations<br />

ship finished goods, not raw materials.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Currently, there is a law banning the export of logs from federal lands. The decision to ban the export<br />

of private and/or state timber is one that can only be made by each state's legislature or by Congress.<br />

Comment<br />

Overcutting of timber. The plan cuts beyond a sustained yield level and eliminates both old growth<br />

and tree diversity. Cutting levels should be reduced to preserve old growth and maintain a mixed-age,<br />

sustained yield forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The preferred alternative in the DEIS was a departure from sustained even flow to maintain the ponderosa<br />

pine harvest and to harvest the dying lodgepole pine. Tables are included in Chapter 2 of the FEIS<br />

which gives the projected amount of old growth on the Forest for each alternative. The preferred alternative<br />

maintains a minimum level of old growth to maintain viable populations of dependent wildlife species.<br />

In addition, extra oldgrowth was allocated in the ponderosa pine to maintain 10 percent oldgrowth.<br />

The Forest will have much more variation between age classes in 50 years than it has today but the<br />

amount of old mature trees will be greatly reduced. The species mix will not change. Most of the Forest<br />

is climax ponderosa pine or lodgepole pine and little species variation occurs in these stands.<br />

K - 161

Comment<br />

I also feel that not enough old growth timber is being preserved for the long-term; the Forest Service<br />

should protect at least several thousand additional acres of those magnificent old stands of ponderosa<br />

pine for which the upper Klamath Basin was once famous.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The preferred alternative has been modified to maintain 10 percent of the ponderosa pine working<br />

group as oldgrowth.<br />

Comment ,<br />

It seems to destroy the natural ecological system of the Forest when even-aged fast-growing stands<br />

are proposed as 'forest management." I submit that such a plan over the long haul is mismanagement!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Natural pine stands on the Winema in the early 1900's tended to be mature single story stands with<br />

little or no understory vegetation. Aggressive effective fire control, which started about 50 years ago,<br />

has allowed young trees to become established under the mature trees giving a multiaged stand. Our<br />

current multistoried stands are quite unnatural.<br />

Managed stands definitely look different than stands left for natural systems to operate. There are no<br />

natural ecosystems on the Forest. All stands, even the wilderness areas, are subject to fire suppression<br />

which greatly alters natural thinning and regeneration systems. Management tries to mimic nature by<br />

controlling competing vegetation during regeneration phases (burning or mechanical scarification),<br />

controlling stocking levels (precommercial and commercial thinning), and by making room for new<br />

trees by removing mature trees. The final Forest Plan includes uneven-aged management on ponderosa<br />

pine and pine associated stands to lessen the visual impacted of timber harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

Let the timber companies build their own roads and totally restore them after any current sales.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Almost all of the roads constructed on the Forest, whether long term system roads or temporary roads,<br />

are constructed by the timber companies, through provisions within the timber sale contract. Temporary<br />

or intermittent access roads constructed by timber companies are closed to use or restored, either by<br />

the timber purchaser, or through a collection deposit within the provisions of the timber sale.<br />

Comment<br />

The Preferred Alternative is inadequate in its ability to protect the diverse ecosystems within the Forest.<br />

The plan calls for a departure from even flow, sustained yield harvests to production of even-aged<br />

stands. This results in loss of both genetic and species diversity. I fear the yield tables used to determine<br />

the future timber supply are optimistic, and urge reconsideration of them.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The plan provides for several methods to achieve diversity in age and structure: 59,140 acres will be<br />

managed as old growth; 91,385 acres as wilderness; 3,045 acres as research natural area; 22,590<br />

acres as a semiprimitive non-motorized recreation areas; and, 43,573 acres will receive minimum<br />

management. In addition, approximately 400 thousand acres of ponderosa pine and pine associated<br />

stands will be managed using uneven-aged silvicultural systems. The yield tables were all reviewed<br />

and are based on research data.<br />

Comment<br />

The change in management practice, from selective harvesting to clearcutting will cause a departure<br />

from even flow sustained yield for both lodgepole and ponderosa pine stands in the Forest. Uneven-aged<br />

management practices have proven to be a better long term strategy on every count.<br />

K - 162

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is not planning to change from uneven-aged to even-aged silvicultural practices. We are<br />

already using even-aged silvicultural practices and plan to start using some uneven-aged silvicultural<br />

practices. Changing from even-aged to uneven-aged silvicuitural practices does not effect sustained<br />

yield; either system can be managed to produce whatever flow is desired.<br />

Uneven-aged management has not proven to be the best for all situations. Uneven-aged management<br />

will minimize horizontal diversity between stands, which will be detrimental to animals which use edge<br />

habitat, such as deer and elk. That is only one of the many situations where uneven-aged management<br />

will not be best.<br />

Comment<br />

I have asked before and I will ask again, 'What will be left for our grandchildren if the old growth cutting<br />

is not stopped?" Why can you not continue with your plan for uneven-aged timber, management? Have<br />

you done an INDEPENDENT assessment of the environmental impact of grazing in riparian areas before<br />

giving out permits?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

I will address your questions in order:;<br />

1. The figures in Chapter 4 of the FEIS shows how vegetation age will change over time for selected<br />

alternatives. In the alternatives with the highest timber harvest the acres of overmature stands<br />

decreases to about 150,000 acres and then increases to over 200,000 in about 70 years.<br />

2. Previous plans did not call for uneven-aged management. The preferred alternative does call for<br />

uneven-aged management on almost 300,000 acres. The Forest Plan directs use of uneven-aged<br />

management on ponderosa pine and pine associated stands when practical.<br />

3. All range allotment management plans have an environmental assessment which would include<br />

an assessment of the impact of livestock grazing on riparian habitat.<br />

Comment<br />

I can see no reason why the Forest Service and the forest products industry can not create programs<br />

that will enable the cutting of trees for a profit and still keep our forest beautiful. A reasonable answer<br />

is requested.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest plan calls for implementing uneven-aged management practices. The main reason this<br />

change is being considered is to maintain a pleasant looking Forest while maintaining needed levels<br />

of timber harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

Massive clearcuts of diseased lodgepole stands would have a devastating effect on some cavity nesting<br />

species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A normal lodgepole pine stand only has scattered mortality and offers limited habitat for cavity nesting<br />

species. The increased mortality from the mountain pine beetle epidemic has greatly increased the<br />

habitat for cavity nesting species. This habitat is short lived, because lodgepole pine snags rot off and<br />

fall in about seven years. Harvesting the dead and dying lodgepole pine will reduce the available habitat<br />

from the present level, but harvesting will not reduce the habitat below normal levels.<br />

Comment<br />

We strongly support your proposal that over 140,000 acres of former reservation lands, principally<br />

ponderosa pine forest lands, receive uneven-aged timber management. We agree with your assessment<br />

that this silvicultural practice is more compatible with wildlife values.<br />

K - 163

<strong>Response</strong><br />

I am sorry if we led you to believe that we feel uneven-aged management is more compatible without<br />

wildlife values. We believe that uneven-aged management will benefit species that benefit from vertical<br />

vegetation diversity, but will be detrimental to species benefiting from horizontal vegetation diversity<br />

and edge. The vice versa is true for even-aged management.<br />

Comment<br />

In Table C-7, the Long-Term Sustained Yields (MMCF/YR) are questionable. Under Alternative E, just<br />

to list a coupe of cases, this Table shows that Skylakes-B would produce 120,000 CF/YR on 39 acres,<br />

allocated to timber production, or 3,076 CF/AC/YR. The table shows that West Boundary would produce<br />

169,000 CF/YR from Zero acres allocated to timber production. Allocation figures are taken from Table<br />

C-6.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have the wrong units on Table C-7 in the DEIS. The table should have been in thousands of cubic<br />

feet (MCF) in stead of millions of cubic feet (MMCF).<br />

Comment<br />

In Table IV-9, it seems odd that 37% less standing inventory, in 2030, will grow 74% more fiber each<br />

year than the present annual net growth. Does this mean that some low productivity sites will be converted<br />

to high productivity sites, or is this the true result of managed stands?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The increased growth is the result of converting old stands to young vigorous stands. For example,<br />

the mature ponderosa pine stands on the Winema are growing 34 cubic feet per acre per year whereas<br />

young managed stands will grow 45 cubic feet per acre, per year. The mature mixed conifer stands<br />

are growing 63 cubic feet per acre, per year whereas young managed mixed conifer stands grow over<br />

a 100 cubic feet per acre per year.<br />

Comment<br />

In Table C-4, the Standing Volume Suitable AC/MMCF does not look realistic. As I understand this<br />

Table, it would take 4.6 acres to contain one million cubic feet (MMCF) of standing volume in the Aspen<br />

roadless area. This would calculate to 217,391 CF/AC. The standing volume per acre, in 1981 for the<br />

Forest, was about 2,000 cubic feet per acre. The numbers in the last column of Table C-4 need to be<br />

verified and/or further explained. I believe that it would have been more meaningful to give the actual<br />

standing volume for each roadless area, and I request that this be done in the final EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The column referred to should have read: Standing volume on suitable acres in millions of cubic feet.<br />

Comment<br />

Some spokesmen in the timber industry and in forest management claim that forests are renewable.<br />

Given enough time, that is true. But the current desire to cut down even the remaining old growth<br />

forests reveals that the other forest lands have not grown fast enough to meet our nation's hunger for<br />

lumber. Let's face the truth. We are cutting down forests faster than they can grow.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The forest is currently growing about 118 million board feet per year (1981 inventory statistics). The<br />

average annual harvest for the last 10 years (1979-1988) was 166 million board feet per year. Normally,<br />

during the time period a forest is being changed from an old growth to a managed second-growth<br />

forest, harvest exceeds growth because the mature forests grow at such a slow rate compared to<br />

immature forests; and, the quicker the stands are reforested with young trees, the quicker the higher<br />

growth rates can be captured.<br />

The Winema plans to keep about 10 percent of the area available for timber harvest in old-growth. All<br />

other stands would be harvested and converted to immature stands.<br />

K - 164

Comment<br />

National forest management is trending towards even-aged stands of single species of trees. This will<br />

be depriving future forest ecosystems of the much needed plant and animal diversity. This, I believe, is<br />

very wrong and the future managers will pay the price. Protecting the biological diversity is the main<br />

reason for protecting the roadless areas, riparian zones, the old-growth, large dead and downed trees,<br />

a diversity of tree species and size classes. This concept is not given sufficient emphasis in the plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The plan addresses diversity in many ways. Areas managed with uneven-aged silvicultural systems will<br />

have a lot of vertical diversity within stands, but little horizontal diversity between stands. Areas to be<br />

managed with even-aged silvicultural systems have restrictions on cutting unit size so optimum diversity<br />

between units is achieved but within stand diversity is minimum.<br />

The forest has been converted to fir dominated stands where ponderosa pine once dominated. The<br />

reforestation program will concentrate on reestablishing the historic mix of pine and fir on the forest.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan states 87,000 acres of lodgepole pine will be harvested in the first decade. I feel this is misleading.<br />

It indicates that these are pure stands of lodgepole pine. Current salvage harvesting at Chemult District<br />

has included multiple board feet of ponderosa pine as well as lodgepole. I feel the plan should be<br />

clear about all species that are salvaged because of the mountain pine beetle.<br />

I am also confused about the amount of acres that have already been salvage harvested at Chemult.<br />

Are they included in this 87,000 acre figure?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The plan refers to the acres of the lodgepole pine working group that will be harvested in the first<br />

decade. The mature, single story lodgepole pine working group is 17% ponderosa pine. This ponderosa<br />

pine is suffering high mortality and is also being harvested along with the lodgepole pine.<br />

The data base was updated to the end of FY 88. The harvest acres in the plan would be the harvest<br />

from that time.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan states that 38% of the ponderosa pine stands will have been managed for 50 years as<br />

uneven-aged management after the first decade. This is not possible since those acres are not currently<br />

being managed as uneven-aged stands. They may have been managed as uneven-aged by the U.S.<br />

Bank, but since 1974, the Forest Service has been managing them as even-aged.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This is an error and is corrected in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan states the old-growth component will be reduced from 645,000 to 246,000 acres in 5 decades.<br />

This is misleading. It should be made clear that these acres remaining are not included in the 793.1 M<br />

acres of suitable timber production land.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 246,000 acres of old-growth in Decade 5 includes 180,000 acres on lands with no programmed<br />

harvest; 44,000 acres on lands with a programmed harvest except the lands with a management intensity<br />

of minimum level; and, 22,000 acres on lands with a programmed harvest, but with a minimum level<br />

management intensity.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan is very concerned that it maintains historical levels of harvest.' Yet, these levels are so high<br />

that they cannot be maintained after 5 decades. I feel this is not sustained yield, but 'get it while you<br />

can' philosophy. In 50 years, there will not be enough timber left to sustain this basin economically.<br />

K- 165

The harvest levels should be pulled back to levels that are sustainable. (I don't have a figure for you,<br />

but it should be calculable with the FORPLAN model.)<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan has been recalculated to maintain a sustained even flow. See Alternative J for details.<br />

Comment<br />

Table IV-3 indicates that all thousand acres of uneven-aged management will be harvested the first<br />

decade. This should also have been stated elsewhere. This is misleading to the public who wanted<br />

uneven-aged management, such as the Klamath Indian Tribe. This incredibly accelerated harvesting of<br />

these stands will not result in the all age stands they envisioned but in a checkerboard of harvest<br />

units.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The harvest type is also shown in Table 11-3a in the DEIS and Table 2-5 in the FEIS.<br />

Leveling of the uneven-aged treatment between decades was a concern of many folks. The final preferred<br />

alternative leveled the number acres of selection harvest between decades.<br />

Comment<br />

Old Growth. Old trees are important for wildlife, people, aesthetic, etc., but most important of all, they<br />

are necessary to provide the 'blueprint' for a sustainable forest (as opposed to 'sustained yield" of<br />

timber sawlogs). Nowhere in the world have we successfully grown a third generation 'forest.' Humanity's<br />

forest becomes a tree from--nature's forest is a diverse ecosystem. Old growth must be preserved in<br />

sufficient quantities of various timber types, of different age groups, to ensure perpetuation of the forests.<br />

NFMA clearly states forests should be managed for a "sustained yield [sustainable forest] in perpetuity."<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The plan provides for several methods to achieve diversity in age and structure: 59,140 acres will be<br />

managed as old growth; 91,385 acres as wilderness; 3,045 as research natural areas; 22,590 acres as<br />

semiprimitive non-motorized recreation areas; and, 43,573 acres will receive minimum management. In<br />

addition approximately 400 thousand acres of ponderosa pine and pine associated stands will be<br />

managed using uneven-aged silvicultural systems.<br />

Comment<br />

Congress has directed the Forest Service to administer the national forests for multiple use. Yet, for<br />

over 25 years, this mandate had virtually been ignored and instead the Forest Service has emphasized<br />

logging and road construction. And, doing this while losing money--selling its stock-in-trade far below<br />

the cost of production.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service makes many investments in multiple use. The Forest Service was a leader in developing<br />

wilderness areas, campgrounds have been developed at most major attractions, visual corridors are<br />

maintained along major travel routes, habitat is developed and maintained for both harvested and<br />

non-harvested wildlife species. The list could go on and on. National forests were established to provide<br />

goods and services for the public, not to be set aside as preservation areas.<br />

The Winema is a very cost effective forest. Our timber receipts far exceed the cost of road construction<br />

and timber management costs. See Below Cost Timber Sales in Chapter 3.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Harvest Practices. The allowable harvest schedule for any decade shall thus be limited to a<br />

quantity equal to or less than the planned sale. NFMA (Section 13(a)) states that timber sales shall be<br />

of 'a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity<br />

on a sustained-yield basis.' Yet, Forest Service managers continue to draw up long range plans to<br />

accelerate their timber programs.<br />

K - 166

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Federal Code of Regulations 36 CFR Part 219.16 Timber Resource Sale schedule gives the rules for<br />

departing from the base sale schedule. The departure analysis for the DEIS is found on pgs. B-1 85<br />

through B-189.<br />

Comment<br />

It should be clear to the Forest Service that clearcutting is not acceptable to the public. NFMA says<br />

this may be used if it is the optimum method. The Forest Service has interpreted this too liberally. ff<br />

clearcutting methods are used, it should be done in smaller sized entries (5-10 acres), contour cuts,<br />

lineal, as opposed to checkerboard squares of (40+ acres), and only on land which without risk will<br />

be assured of regeneration.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Clearcutting is not used very much on the Winema National Forest. It is mainly used to harvest diseased<br />

stands, such as the Armillaria root rot areas on the Klamath District or the dwarf mistletoe areas which<br />

occur throughout the Forest. The disease-free ponderosa pine and pine associated stands on the<br />

Forest will be managed with uneven-aged silvicultural systems.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service continues to lose money on sales. There should be a policy of no below-cost timber<br />

sales. Longer rotation--at least 150 years--should be the policy in all land management plans. Allow<br />

the forest to regrow as nature intended it to do--not as an agricultural crop.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema has a very positive balance sheet for its timber program. Chapter 3 gives information<br />

about below cost sales.<br />

The Winema tries to design its sales to not be below cost. Some thinning sales are below cost and<br />

many of the lodgepole pine sales are below cost. The sales are made to minimize costs or to enhance<br />

another resource.<br />

Rotation lengths are determined by the culmination of mean annual increment of wood measured in<br />

cubic feet. Some management areas, such as visual foreground retention has a much longer rotation<br />

to provide the desired stand conditions. Choosing rotations past the culminating of mean annual increment<br />

for areas of general forest, would simply reduce the productivity of the Forest and increase costs.<br />

Comment<br />

Are there stands of ponderosa pine never touched that can be saved as a part of our heritage - a gift<br />

to people we will never know? This question. must be answered truthfully and now before cutting program<br />

begins. Please contact me for information on areas that could be proposed areas for very select cutting.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There are allocations within the plan that will prevent the removal of all old growth ponderosa pine.<br />

Approximately 52,000 acres of the ponderosa pine working group and 16,000 acres of the pine associated<br />

working group which are suitable for timber production are allocated to no harvest management areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Can Eastern Oregon, the pumice desert areas of the Winema be treated with the same decision making<br />

as any other forested area? It definitely should not! The impact in the pumice areas are devastating to<br />

future rapid growth. (There is no rapid growth in large ponderosa forests where pumice is the predominant<br />

first layer of earth.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Almost all ponderosa pine stands on the Winema are timber productivity site class 4 and 5 with a<br />

majority being site 5. The pumice sites can be sensitive to work, but in many ways, are less sensitive<br />

to work than other soils because they are far less apt to compact.<br />

K - 167

Comment<br />

In my opinion, clearcutting has destroyed much of Oregon's forest in my lifetime...probably from erosion,<br />

lack of replanting and change in soil temperature.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Clearcutting is a viable regeneration system. All clearcuts on the Winema are planted except for some<br />

in lodgepole pine, which will naturally regenerate, and since the Winema is so flat, very little erosion<br />

occurs.<br />

Comment<br />

Please consider that departure from even-flow sustained yield will ultimately be destructive to the<br />

ecosystem.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is nothing inherently destructive about departure from sustained even flow. The same silvicultural<br />

treatments will be applied, just over a shorter time period. Over the long run, the Forest will produce<br />

the same amount of wood; it will just vary between decades.<br />

The preferred alternative in the FEIS reversed the decision in the DEIS so the Forest no longer plans<br />

to use a departure from sustained even flow.<br />

Comment<br />

In generally reviewing your plan, it appears that the ASQ is too high due to backlog of unreforested<br />

areas, credits taken for intensive management practices are as yet unconfirmed. Roading is beyond<br />

the maximum amount for protection of big game.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The ASQ is calculated using the current conditions of all forested lands. Non-stocked areas are included<br />

and only start accumulation volume once they are reforested. The Winema has no current reforestation<br />

backlog. All non-stocked areas are in the current reforestation plan or have been left non-stocked to<br />

meet other resource needs.<br />

Precommercial thinning is used extensively in the plan and we have good research data to substantiate<br />

expected growth response.<br />

The number of open roads is greater than needed to manage some parts of the Forest and in those<br />

areas roads are being closed.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service should live up to their last Forest Plan plus the wilderness study designations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is reaffirming the allocation for developed recreation on Pelican Butte. The wilderness<br />

allocations were made in the 1984 Oregon Wilderness Act.<br />

Comment<br />

The concept of multiple use management as mandated by the National Forest Management Act of<br />

1976 and other legislation, calls for balanced consideration to all uses of the Forest. The benefits from<br />

each use must be continuous and sustained. Essentially all uses need be considered not just the use<br />

of trees. The National Forests should not take on the aspects of industrial tree farms and be placed<br />

under monoculture management where a theoretical maximum amount of timber is harvested each<br />

year at a rate that may or may not be sustainable. With monoculture management, all other uses tend<br />

to become subordinate to timber.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The following is the definition of Multiple Use:<br />

The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System<br />

so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people;<br />

K- 168

making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services<br />

over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform<br />

to changing needs and conditions; that some lands will be used for less than all of the resources;<br />

and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other,<br />

without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative<br />

values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the<br />

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.<br />

To meet this definition, a series of land allocations were made with each having a different level of<br />

timber management ranging from no harvest to intensive timber management. Some allocations<br />

emphasize dispersed recreation, others emphasize developed recreation, still others emphasize scenic<br />

values. In these allocation timber is a subordinate resource.<br />

Comment<br />

Considering the relatively poor timber growing capacity of the land and the fact that the Forest has<br />

been cut through several times, we question if the increased levels of harvest above that of the past<br />

decade would be sustainable without serious damages to the biological diversity and forest environment.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The increased harvest is not sustainable as proposed in the Preferred Alternative of the DEIS. The<br />

harvest level must drop substantially in the 5th Decade to let the Forest growth catch up to the cut.<br />

Page 11-80 of the DEIS shows how the allowable sale quantity would change over time. Chapter 4 addresses<br />

how other resources would be impacted by the harvest level.<br />

The preferred alternative in the FEIS no longer is a departure from sustained even flow so the ASQ of<br />

19.4 MMCF is sustainable.<br />

Comment<br />

These complex relationships must be maintained to prevent future 'waldsterben' or Forest death now<br />

encroaching upon the forest of Central Europe. Acid rain has taken most of the blame, but according<br />

to Chris Maser, Researcher, Forest Science Laboratory, Corvallis, some of the problem lies with the<br />

loss of the biological strength from centuries of monoculture management where many of the original<br />

ieforms have long been gone.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have the same concerns; and, to address these concerns we have initiated several practices, such<br />

as leaving large debris in logging areas to provide habitat for small animals, bacteria and fungi. The<br />

dead and down woody material standard and guideline give the direction to maintain woody debris.<br />

Comment<br />

Current harvesting practices on the ponderosa pine will eventually remove all of the old growth unless<br />

efforts are made to reverse this trend.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There are allocations within the plan that will prevent the removal of all old growth ponderosa pine.<br />

Approximately 52,000 acres of the ponderosa pine working group and 116,000 acres of the pine associated<br />

working group which are suitable for timber production are allocated to no harvest management areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Ongoing research is beginning to uncover many unsuspected attributes of old-growth forests to the<br />

ecology of an area It is home, not only for the mature trees that make up its outward appearance, but<br />

to many birds and animal large and small, as well as plants, shrubs, insects, microbes and fungi. Many<br />

of them live in a symbiotic relationship that seems to have a good effect on trees, especially over the<br />

long run. These older trees are inhabited by certain nitrogen fixing lichens that are not present in younger<br />

trees.<br />

K - 169

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, this is true; and, for the reasons you stated 59,140 acres would be managed in an old growth<br />

condition as well as 91,385 acres in wilderness and 3,045 acres in research natural area. The 22,590<br />

acres in semiprimitive non-motorized recreation and the 43,573 acres in minimum management would<br />

be area receiving no site disturbing activities.<br />

Comment<br />

The Preferred Alternative E, which is a departure, is bad in that it continues the overcutting of the<br />

ponderosa.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative E is a departure and the harvest level of ponderosa pine proposed in that alternative is not<br />

sustainable. Alternative J, the FEIS preferred alternative, is not a departure and is designed to maintain<br />

a sustained even flow of ponderosa pine sawtimber.<br />

Comment<br />

In reviewing the Forest Service Preferred Alternative, it is noted the sale of lodgepole and ponderosa<br />

pine timber types have been altered so that the anticipated revenue to Klamath County will be reduced.<br />

Your proposed reduction in the sale of ponderosa pine will reduce Klamath County's portion of the<br />

Winema National Forest receipts.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS was not altered in any way to reduce revenue to Klamath County.<br />

Page 111-34 gives information on the local timber supply and demand. The average ponderosa pine<br />

harvest for the period 1976-1985 was 63.5 million board feet per year. The Alternative E would sell<br />

ponderosa pine at approximately 80 million board feet per year. There were only two years during that<br />

1 0-year period that the harvest of ponderosa pine exceeded 80 million board feet.<br />

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS, Alternative J, does lower the harvest of ponderosa pine to a<br />

sustainable 54 million board feet per year. It is projected that this will lower the projected payments to<br />

Klamath County by about 10 percent from Alternative E.<br />

The projected payments to Klamath County under Alternative J would be approximately 25 percent<br />

less than the 1989 payment to the County.<br />

Comment<br />

The monoculture forests which are planted after clearcuts are inferior to diverse forests as wildlife habitat<br />

and susceptible to disease and insect infestations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Clearcuts that have been planted do have ecological characteristics that are different than the ecological<br />

characteristics of mature forests. They are not inferior, just different. Plantations are most beneficial to<br />

species which flourish during the earliest ecological stages while other species are dominant in high<br />

forest conditions.<br />

Comment<br />

The short term trend (since 1977) is toward reduced employment in the wood -products industry as<br />

per laborer outputs increase. The DEIS fails to display long term historic employment trends.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Pages 111-118 and 111-1 19 in the DEIS give the trends in employment.<br />

Comment<br />

The overall economy is characterized as agricultural and natural resource dependent. The SIA suggests<br />

that it tends to be 'cyclic (boom and bust).' A major proportion of current income within the county is<br />

from rent, dividends and government transfer payments. No long term data is provided regarding this<br />

K - 170

aspect of the economy. The extent to which transfer payments might replace or supplement income<br />

from manufacturing industry is not explored. Interactions between the various aspects of the economic<br />

environment are only superficially described.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The economy is described on pgs. 111-1 15 through 111-1 21 in the DEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Your lodgepole is hardly worth enough to be worth the accelerated cutting; and, the accelerated cutting<br />

of ponderosa, while perhaps of economic advantage to local communities now, will create a shortfall in<br />

time, especially since many experts feel that regeneration will be slower than anticipated.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The lodgepole pine value used in FORPLAN is approximately $60 per thousand board feet. The recent<br />

values have varied greatly from less than $10 per MBF to currently over $70 per MBF. At $60 per MBF,<br />

lodgepole pine is worth salvaging.<br />

Maintaining the current harvest levels of ponderosa pine is beneficial to local communities by filling the<br />

demand for ponderosa pine timber, while private lands are not filling the demand. Once cut over private<br />

lands grow back, the private lands can once again fill demand.<br />

Comment<br />

It is my hope that the Forest Service will do a complete assessment of environmental impacts of grazing<br />

and logging and will do more to protect the riparian areas along streams.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 describes the impacts of timber harvest and grazing on riparian areas. Detailed analysis of<br />

the impacts of timber harvest and grazing will be analyzed in timber sale environmental assessments<br />

and in the environmental assessments for grazing allotment plans.<br />

See the Forest Plan for the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines and the Standards and Guidelines<br />

for Riparian Zone for the measures that will be used to protect riparian areas along streams.<br />

Comment<br />

I suggest two programs to sustain our forests: Every logging contract contain a provision for replanting.<br />

A deposit from the sale is withheld to guarantee the replanting and evaluated in 5 to 10 years and the<br />

refund based on the new healthy, young trees.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service collects funds for reforestation, timber stand improvement and other renewal resource<br />

enhancement from each timber sale. These funds are deposited into a coop account and the timber<br />

sale is reforested using funds from this account. Each year the fund is checked, and if excess funds<br />

have been collected, they are returned to the Treasury.<br />

Comment<br />

This diverse native Forest is a complex interacting system which has taken millions of years to evolve<br />

and we evolved within this system. Any action which harms or eliminates this system, i.e., road building,<br />

clearcutting, burning and planting monoculture trees is undermining our heritage and our ability to fall<br />

back on this system should our earth experience a catastrophic event of the magnitude that it would<br />

eliminate the artificial systems our society depends on today. The current rate of exploitation of our<br />

natural resources and the cumulative effect of pollution caused by the processing and consumption of<br />

these resources may cause a catastrophic event of this magnitude.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our Forests are a very complex system as you state, but even areas on the Forest, which have never<br />

had a road built or timber harvested are not functioning in a natural system. Fire was effectively removed<br />

from the system in the early 1 900's, so the system has not been natural since that time. Fire did natures<br />

harvesting and site preparation for regeneration. Now this same function is performed by timber sales.<br />

K- 171

The Forest definitely looks different with timber sales doing the regeneration rather than intense fires,<br />

but the Forest is not more susceptible to harm from a catastrophic event because of this artificial<br />

regeneration system.<br />

Comment<br />

With 52% of the land in Klamath County owned by the federal government, the Winema as well as<br />

other government agencies, is obligated to maintain a high level of income from the lands to pay their<br />

share of local taxes.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service, by law, is obligated to multiple use management. The income from the Forest is<br />

dictated by the value of the sustainable harvest which meets all resource needs.<br />

Comment<br />

We think the use of departure as a means for maintaining the economic stability of the Klamath Basin<br />

is against the intent of the concept as allowed under the National Forest Management Act of 1976.<br />

Another benefit of uneven-aged management is the maintenance of diversity in forest ecosystems.<br />

Diversity is emerging as a key concept in maintaining the long term productivity of forests. Forest<br />

ecosystems are complex entities that are not well understood at present. The tree farm concept may<br />

not work all that well on many forested sites. By maintaining a variety of age and size classes, by not<br />

disposing of all logging residue, and by using a light hand on the land, productivity in the long term<br />

may be enhanced. There are many questions yet unanswered in this regard. We believe that it is best<br />

to take a conservative approach so that we can maintain our options rather than make mistakes that<br />

may take centuries to correct.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The regulations for choosing a departure alternative are included in 36 CFR 219.16. The departure<br />

analysis is included in the Departure Analysis in Appendix B.<br />

Both even-aged and uneven-aged management system have benefits. Uneven-aged management will<br />

enhance vertical diversity within stands, but it will minimize horizontal diversity between stands, and<br />

will minimize edge.<br />

Comment<br />

Forest managers want to spray pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on the Forest. Only organic methods<br />

should be used that will not pollute the water system.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest managers want to maintain a Forest where the various renewable renewable surface resources<br />

can be to best meet the needs of the American people. Sometimes pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers<br />

are needed to meet this goal.<br />

Comment<br />

Question: What assumptions are made on future value of pines and firs, i? large and small DBH? If<br />

the assumption is made that future values of larger DBH trees in both types (pine and fir) would be<br />

higher, would this extend the rotation lengths? My observation here is that rotation lengths are shorter<br />

now than in the previous Forest Plan, and I am not convinced that it increases PNW enough to offset<br />

loss of long term sustained yield level.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A real price inflator of 1% per year compounded for 50 years was used. The relative price between<br />

small and large material did not change but the absolute difference between the small and large material<br />

increased for the 50 years.<br />

The rotation length is determined by the culmination of mean annual increment. The economic rotations<br />

are much shorter but, by law, the rotation length used for Forest Service planning can't be shorter<br />

than the culmination of mean annual increment.<br />

K - 172

Economic rotations are much shorter than the culmination of mean annual increment, so changing the<br />

real price inflator of the larger diameters would not change the rotation length.<br />

Comment<br />

Question: Will future timber sales be sold in cubic feet?<br />

Will district target volumes be measured in cubic feet?<br />

If not, I am concerned that what we say can be grown in cubic feet of wood does not get translated<br />

into an accurate estimate of what volume is scaled in board feet. In other words, what might take 10<br />

acres to produce mx volume in cubic feet, might actually take 12 acres to produce the theoretical equivalent<br />

in board feet.<br />

Also, if Forest land grows Oxm amount of cubic feet of wood, and some of it is used for firewood or poles,<br />

does this get counted in the bottom line allowable sale quantity?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Future timber sales will be sold in cubic measure and the Washington Office is currently developing<br />

the regulations to implement cubic measure sales. We don't know in which year this change will be<br />

made.<br />

District targets will be given in cubic measure when all sales are sold in cubic measure.<br />

The Forest Plan will be monitored in cubic measure not board feet. Cubic measure is a standard cruise<br />

output for reporting purposes. Yearly targets given to Ranger Districts in board feet will simply vary<br />

from year to year, so the planned cubic foot ASQ is achieved.<br />

Comment<br />

DEIS, Table 11-3A - Timber yield categories 50-99% = 166.1 M acres for Alternative E.<br />

Question: What volume is assumed? Midpoint? or 99%? Or does it depend on resource allocation? If<br />

so, what is the estimate for each resource where yield is less than 100% of potential?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timber yield categories displayed in Table 11-3A were calculated in the following manner.<br />

a) Full yield are all lands allocated to management Area 12A and 12B.<br />

b) The 50-99% of full yield category are all lands with a programmed harvest except<br />

management Area 12A, 12B.<br />

c) The 1-49% of full yield category are lands with a programmed harvest allocated to<br />

management Area 14.<br />

The actual volume depends on the resource allocation. Table 2-10 in the FEIS shows the timber<br />

management intensity chosen for all lands with a programmed harvest.<br />

Table 4 in Managed Yield Tables for Land and Resource Management Planning on the winema National<br />

Forest Volume 1 summarizes the yields for all the management intensities for all the management<br />

areas. This is too large to repeat here, but as an example Management Area 3 yields approximately<br />

25% less than Management Area 12.<br />

K - 173

Comment<br />

DEIS, 11-84, Table 3A - Allowable sale quantity for diameters 6' - 8.9' = 0 MMCF.<br />

Question: Why? If commercial thin programmed = 5.2 M acres, and volume in board feet for 8' (midpoint<br />

in range = r - 8.9") (Nettleton's Rule of Thumb: radius (3.5') squared x 5 (short tree) = 61 board<br />

feet).<br />

y=300-x<br />

Ave.<br />

stand DBH=12"/<br />

///I ///<br />

// 1/1/// I ////<br />

/ / 1////12 I //<br />

8"t 10" 12", 141" 16",<br />

In HTH from below, trees to be removed < 12".<br />

If total = 300 TPA, and we leave 150 TPA, 150 TPA are cut.<br />

If only 10% of trees are 7" - 8.9' and total = 15 TPA - 1st HTH,<br />

15 TPA X 5,200 AC = 78,000 trees<br />

78,000 trees X 61 bd ft tree = 4.76 MMBF = NO CREDIT!!<br />

Why are merchantability specs for HTH i 7' DBH, 4' top (Forest Standards and Guides) and no credit<br />

is received for this on Table 11-3A (Pg. 11-84 DEIS)?<br />

Why is there a difference between harvesting an 8' tree in a thin vs. an 8' tree in a clearcut? Why say,<br />

on one hand, that it is merchantable, and on the other hand, that it is not?<br />

There are a number of reasons why this Plan should call for a consistent ation standard of 7' DBH and<br />

get credit for this in the allowable sale quantity:<br />

a. Wise use of resources calls for increased ation of wood, not the opposite.<br />

b. Not getting credit for this size material means more trees have to be cut to reach the same<br />

allowable cut.<br />

c. Efficient mills that have invested in modern equipment to handle small logs are penalized,<br />

and other mills are favored.<br />

d. Forest Service should be the leader in the trend to use resources (wood) efficiently, rather<br />

than let several large companies tell us what they want to standard to be.<br />

e. Appendix D-1 6, 24. "Timber harvest ation standards...7' DBH to a 4' top... for lodgepole and<br />

all commercial thinning..."<br />

If it's to be cut, why no credit?<br />

f. For more than a decade, stands and pine plantations have been managed with an assumption<br />

that its first commercial entry is at 8'.<br />

If that first entry timing is changed and no yield is credited below 9',what do we do with all the<br />

wood in these stands?<br />

Does this force the district to conduct a second precommercial thin in the pine plantations?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The portion of Table I11-A on the DEIS, page 11-84, refers to the average stand diameter of harvested<br />

stands; it does not give the diameter of all material harvested. This is clarified in the FEIS. (Table 2-5)<br />

The merchantability standards for the allowable sale quantity are given in Table 3-6 in the Regional<br />

Guide for the Pacific Northwest Region. Material harvested during the plan period not meeting the<br />

merchantability standards will not be chargeable against the allowable sale quantity. Now, this does<br />

K - 174

not mean the Forest will discourage ation of material not meeting merchantability standards, it only<br />

means that sub-merchantable material is not charged against the ASQ. In this way, everyone knows<br />

how much saw timber will be marketed. The Forest Plan proposes to harvest 15.3 mmcf of material not<br />

meeting the regional merchantability specifications. This material includes all dead trees, cull logs, and<br />

other small material such as posts and rails.<br />

Overstocked pole sized stands will still be thinned and in most cases, the small logs will be milled into<br />

lumber. The Regional plan specified normal sawlog merchantability standards, but some locations will<br />

have established small logs mills that can manufacture lumber from small logs.<br />

Comment<br />

Keeping ponderosa pine harvest at historic levels is one thing; increasing it almost 20% is a significant<br />

change, which may not be desirable at this time, for the following reasons:<br />

a. This may divert focus from need to deal with lodgepole and increase logistical problems.<br />

b. Table 11-3E, Pg. 11-127, shows that this departure would go against the basic objectives of the<br />

Forestry Program for Oregon.<br />

If we don't have to cut more PP, then why choose to, when future options then become more<br />

limited? (Also, see Pg. 111-139, Timber Supply Projection.) Would this not be a short-sighted move,<br />

set us up for problems two to three decades out, and cause a disruption in the long term stability<br />

of this community?<br />

Also, in the January 1, 1988, edition of the Herald and News, an industry representative said, *Our<br />

interest is in maintaining historic cutting levels of ponderosa pine, not necessarily increasing them:<br />

I see no logic to support this increased harvest level, and believe it should be adjusted in the final<br />

plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

After a great deal of concideration, it seems that we agree. The Forest Plan is not a departure and is<br />

designed to maintain a sustainable level of ponderosa pine harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

Appendix D-15 - 11. '... goal of satisfactory stocking within 3 years." Does this refer to planted stock or<br />

natural regeneration? Is this sentence clear?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, our goal is to have natural regeneration within three years of site preparation, but we are fully<br />

aware that in some cases it may take ten years or longer. At the end of three years, a stocking survey<br />

will tell us if the reforestation is proceeding satisfactorily, and if it isn't, a new prescription will be written<br />

and implemented to correct the problem.<br />

Comment<br />

We can sustain and increase our ponderosa pine at above 90 million.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our analysis shows that after meeting management requirements, but with little land allocated to maintain<br />

visual quality objectives, we could maintain a harvest level of ponderosa pine of about 80 MMBF.<br />

Comment<br />

Because much of the timber will be diseased and should be removed and new trees planted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest is generally healthy, except for the overstocked, overmature lodgepole<br />

pine, and the root rot problems in the mixed conifer. The ponderosa pine is quite healthy and there is<br />

no insect or disease reason to accelerate the harvest of ponderosa pine.<br />

K - 175

Comment<br />

People need affordable housing. The price of timber is already higher than it ever has been. If the<br />

proposed reductions in harvest go through, housing costs will go even higher and the average person<br />

cannot afford a new house now.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The price of housing will continue to increase but the cost of lumber in a home has little to do with its<br />

selling price. A $70,000 home in Klamath Falls that sells for $200,000 in central California, has the<br />

same lumber cost.<br />

Comment<br />

Years ago the Forest Service planned for a sustained yield harvest. But they have had to cut back.<br />

Because so much is being locked up each year--where will it stop?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The general public is becoming more and more interested in non-consumptive uses of the National<br />

Forests. The lands available for timber harvest will continue to decrease until the demand for recreation<br />

lands and the demand for timber production come into equilibrium.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest is already over cut. There is not sufficient old growth there now. How can you keep over<br />

cutting and expect to have any forest for future generations?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In 1981, 86% of the Winema National Forest was covered with mature stands or two-storied stands<br />

with a mature overstory. (See Table 11-6 in the DEIS). By 1988 that percentage of mature stands of<br />

timber had dropped to 66%. This amount of mature timber is more than adequate to meet old growth<br />

needs.<br />

The Forest will continue to get younger as older stands are harvested, but the Forest will continue to<br />

be there for future generations. Alternative J, the preferred alternative, maintains approximately 10<br />

percent of the tentatively suitable forest lands as oldgrowth.<br />

Comment<br />

Historic data supports this as a sustainable level of harvest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our analysis shows that after meeting management requirements, but with little land allocated to maintain<br />

visual quality objectives, we could maintain a harvest level of ponderosa pine of about 80 MMBF.<br />

Comment<br />

It should be part of the plan to use the most advanced techniques available to reforest our lands as<br />

quickly as possible.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We will continue to aggressively reforest non-stocked suitable forest land.<br />

Comment<br />

Soil compactibility, soil nutrient depletions are causing projected yields to be way too short-sighted.<br />

The question is, what percentage of today's national forests will be around, and at what level, in 300<br />

years?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In 300 years, our forests will be in a fully regulated condition. Trees will be much younger, but production<br />

will be higher than today.<br />

K - 176

Comment<br />

I'm not a Forester, nor an expert, but I can stand on any high ground in Southern Oregon and tell you<br />

that we are over harvesting.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A very high percentage of the Winema National Forest is forested with mature and two-storied stands.<br />

A fully regulated forest would have about 25% of the area in young plantations, 25% in pole size stands,<br />

25% in small sawlog sized stands, and 25% of stands at or near maturity. The Winema is far from reaching<br />

this point of harvesting.<br />

Comment<br />

I want to express my concern about your proposed 10-year Forest Plan for the Winema Forest. I oppose<br />

it because of the effect it will have on jobs which will be lost and problems the community will suffer<br />

when revenue receipts are reduced.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the historic harvest levels on the Winema N.F. The planned allowable sale quantity in<br />

the Forest Plan is substantially lower than the harvest level of the last ten years. The economic tables<br />

in Chapter 2 show our projected impacts of this level of harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

Consider the intensification of cultural treatments to increase growth on land dedicated to commercial<br />

forest management, including even-aged management and clearcutting of stands that no longer lend<br />

themselves to all-aged management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The primary reason for using uneven-aged management is to maintain a high forest cover, which is<br />

more visually acceptable to the general public. We will only clearcut stands in the uneven-aged<br />

management areas to control insect or disease problems, not to increase yields.<br />

Comment<br />

The lodgepole pine was formerly only a very minor component of the allowable harvest and should not<br />

be allowed to confuse the issues relating to the traditional species composition of the allowable cut.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Previous timber resource plans were not developed to maintain an even flow of all species. All species,<br />

including lodgepole pine, were used to calculate the previous allowable sale quantity, and we will need<br />

to do that again.<br />

Comment<br />

Treat the conversion of the bug infested lodgepole pine as an issue entirely separate from the allowable<br />

harvest over the near term.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The National Forest Management Act does not allow for us to keep live green lodgepole pine as an<br />

entirely separate issue. The allowable sale quantity must be calculated using the entire land base<br />

suitable for timber management.<br />

In an attempt to clarify this issue, the dead lodgepole pine was removed from the yields tables so it is<br />

no longer part of the ASQ.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service is selling out the last of our old growth ecosystems, the Forest Service is taking the<br />

Forest from the mountains instead of some trees from the Forest!I<br />

K- 177

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest is not selling out the last of the old growth ecosystems on the Forest.<br />

Approximately 10% of the forest is wilderness areas, which will never be harvested. There is also over<br />

100,000 acres of the forest allocated to old growth, research natural areas, semiprimitive recreation<br />

areas and unique areas which will not be harvested. Only 720,000 acres out of 1,046,000 acres have a<br />

programmed timber harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

Also, the Forest Service wanting to use herbicides is so absurd and dangerous! The only thing it's<br />

good for is the chemical companies' pocket books!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest uses very few herbicides. There is no record of a large herbicide treatment<br />

on the Forest. We may use herbicides in the future, but only when it is the only way to accomplish<br />

management objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

My 40 years experience as a Forester, tells me that 90 MM of ponderosa pine can be produced with<br />

imagination, innovation, and hard work.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our analysis shows we could maintain about 80 MBF per year if we implemented a maximum timber<br />

alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

Also, the streams in the Forest are practically all gone because of no trees for water storage. Also the<br />

trees that have been logged have fallen in the streams. They should be cleared away and logging<br />

should not be allowed on the banks of the streams.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest hydrology research have shown that stands of trees use much more water than brush and<br />

grass. The Winema National Forest does have streams and springs that do not flow water during the<br />

summer as they use to, but that is because the Forest has much denser tree cover now than it ever<br />

did in the past. Even so, we are not planning to harvest areas to increase water flow.<br />

The standards and guidelines for the Forest Plan spell out the procedure we will use to protect riparian<br />

zones. There is no planned harvest within 100 feet of class I and 11 steams or within 50 feet of class IlIl<br />

streams.<br />

Comment<br />

As mentioned earlier, much of the Winema, at one time, supported ponderosa pine stands; but, are<br />

now overrun with lodgepole pine. Many ponderosa areas, when cut, are planted to lodgepole pine. I<br />

feel this is a short term insight. Sure, lodgepole is easier to plant seedlings; but, the Forest Service<br />

realizes little or no revenue from lodgepole, which is vulnerable to pine beetles in extreme dry seasons.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema is still primarily forested with ponderosa pine. We generally plant ponderosa pine in all<br />

plantation, except for the lodgepole pine areas, which are planted to lodgepole pine.<br />

A few years ago, we did clearcut some ponderosa pine stands in areas that became too cold to support<br />

ponderosa pine seedlings. The areas were replanted to lodgepole pine. This kind of problem will not<br />

happen in the future, because the uneven-aged stands will provide adequate protection to the site so<br />

they won't get too cold for ponderosa pine.<br />

K- 178

Comment<br />

It is also my belief, more timber should be sold as Small Business Set-Asides because small mills cannot<br />

operate at a loss for very long, whereas large multi-national companies can. Then, when the small mill<br />

goes broke, the big one comes in and buys it for a song and sing it themselves. I also do not approve<br />

of buyouts for those who overbid timber in the early 1980's nor do I think a period of 3-5 years should<br />

pass between timber sale contract award and actual logging of said sale. Timber sold should require<br />

harvest within 18 months. Some of the major mills have been able to accumulate a 5-year backlog of<br />

timber sales.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Small Business Administration Set-Aside Program is an agreement between SBA and the Forest<br />

Service to maintain historic sell levels to small business. Every five years, the structure of the local<br />

timber industry is analyzed to see if the SBA share of the timber sell should be changed. An increase<br />

in the SBA Set-Aside Program would only happen if more of the local mills became small business.<br />

The buyout program was a law passed by Congress to minimize the impact on timber industry of the<br />

economic recession of the early 1980's. We do not anticipate this program happening again, but it<br />

could if Congress so wishes.<br />

The length of timber sales have been shortened. Sales that used to have a 3-5 year time for logging<br />

now have a 2-3 year time for logging. Buyers also must make down-payments and mid-point payments<br />

along with stumpage payments. These factors all have timber industry complaining that they can't<br />

build an inventory of stumpage under contract. Buyers are also only given one (1) year extension if<br />

they qualify. To qualify the buyer must have removed 75% of the stumpage and have completed all<br />

contractual requirements on the areas harvested.<br />

Timber industry does not have the lee-way to get large amounts of stumpage under contract as they<br />

did in the early 1980's.<br />

Comment<br />

The Bill of Rights says any American citizen is entitled to 200 posts and 20 tiers of wood per year.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Bill of Rights is Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution of the United States. No reference was found<br />

to posts or wood in the Bill of Rights.<br />

Comment<br />

Additionally, the Forest Service's assumption of a 100% cut of the ASO is unrealistic and will skew the<br />

data. Historically, the actual cut has been below the ASO, with the cut amount below the ASQ varying<br />

over time and national forest. Various economic and market conditions have prevented a harvest of<br />

100% of the ASQ. Another point of contention is at the bottom of page 111-35 of the D.E.I.S. where the<br />

Plan states that harvest levels are now declining, after being at their highest levels in the early 1970's.<br />

The table cited in support of this statement does not show data from the early table cited in the early<br />

1970's, so the reader has no way of verifying this statement. The data in the table starts with the year<br />

1977. There is no steady decreasing pattern evident in this table, but rather a pattern of high harvest<br />

levels in the late 1970's followed by declines through the recession of 1982, and thereafter, typified by<br />

increasing harvest amounts through the mid-1 980's to levels that, in some cases, are higher than any<br />

previous historical harvest levels. When looking at the national forest data, 1984 and 1985 are the<br />

highest harvest level years on record for the data in this table. They both surpass the previous historical<br />

peak, which was in 1978. In addition, after the recession induced low harvest level in 1982, there have<br />

been dramatic increases in harvest levels. This information needs to be explained in greater detail and<br />

in a much clearer format to allow a clear understanding by readers.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest Timber Resource Plan had a programmed harvest of 155.7 MBF per year.<br />

The actual sell during that period was 150.3MMBF per year, which is not significantly different. Now,<br />

during that same time the potential yield was 199.2 MMBF, but it was never planned to sell at that<br />

level. Once the ASO is established, the Agency does plan to sell at that level, so I expect it will happen.<br />

K- 179

The citation at the bottom of page 111-35 of the DEIS is Figure 111-8, not Table 111-8. Figure 111-8 shows the<br />

long term trend of timber harvest in Klamath County.<br />

Comment<br />

Historic timber sale levels cannot be maintained/drastic reductions are necessary to maintain the Forest<br />

as a forest community. Even 130 MMBF is probably not sustainable.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 111-8 in the DEIS shows the historic harvest levels. The historic harvest for the period from 1976<br />

to 1985 was 118.6 MMBF. (Annual growth was the same.): The Forest will continue to change from an<br />

old growth forest to a much younger managed forest. The Forest has the potential to maintain a much<br />

higher sustained harvest, depending on the timber management intensity and the number of acres<br />

available for timber harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

If it takes 100 years to grow a Douglas-Fir that can be harvested, why are Forest plans thought out in<br />

1 0-year forecasts?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Ten-year planning periods are used so the Forest Service can be responsive to changing issues and<br />

societies demands. The environmental consequences section of the FEIS present consequences over<br />

a 150 year planning horizon.<br />

Comment<br />

Because there seems to have been no problem with this amount up to now.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Many people have not been comfortable with the past level of harvest. Alternative J is a compromise<br />

between competing interests and that alternative only produces 54 MMBF per year of ponderosa pine<br />

which is well below the current harvest level.<br />

Comment<br />

I support MULTIPLE USE of National Forests. I do not support the creation of more wilderness; indeed,<br />

I do not support the retention of all of the wilderness which has already been designated. Virtually<br />

nobody uses it, the Forest Service cannot properly care for it (such as by taking firefighting equipment<br />

into it), and it serves little or no purpose for research which cannot be met in a multiple use Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Wilderness Areas were designated by Congress and can only be changed by legislative action.<br />

Wilderness is one aspect of multiple use of the Forest. Research is allowed in wilderness under controlled<br />

situations.<br />

Firefighting equipment is allowed in wilderness areas depending on the situations on the fire and the<br />

threat to resources.<br />

We do manage wilderness based on individual wilderness management plans, which allows a number<br />

of activities including grazing, disperse recreation and limited research.<br />

Comment<br />

However, using more Forest land and cutting open more ground to supply overseas markets (in essence,<br />

trading Toyotas and Toshibas, for old-growth and minerals) is a farce.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

National Forest timber west of the 100th Meridian in the contiguous 48 states cannot be exported<br />

unless specifically exempt. No unprocessed logs from the Winema are exported.<br />

K - 180

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest Draft Plan and DEIS address the maintenance of natural diversity in a<br />

number of places under a variety of topics. Unfortunately there is no general discussion of diversity in<br />

the documents that attempts to show how these topics all relate to this issue and how the Forest Plan<br />

will maintain diversity. It would be beneficial to have one place in the final EIS that integrates all of the<br />

various aspects diversity to show how the Forest is responding to the issue. The topics that relate to<br />

diversity that should be involved in such a synthesis include vegetation and wildlife diversity, protected<br />

areas (RNA's, Special Interest Areas, Wilderness Areas), rare and sensitive species, roadless areas,<br />

and riparian zone management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS has been restructured to have a writeup on diversity under vegetation and wildlife.<br />

Comment<br />

However, the analysis does not indicate how different forest tree species groups (Ponderosa pine,<br />

pine associated, true fir, lodgepole) will respond to the effects of the alternatives. This is important<br />

from a diversity standpoint as the preferred alternative, for instance, will cut 46% of the lodgepole stands<br />

on the Forest in the first decade of the Plan, thus resulting in a dramatic change in stand age class for<br />

this species alone.<br />

s<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS preferred Alternative J does not concentrate regeneration harvest in the lodgepole pine working<br />

group as did the DEIS preferred alternative. The Forest Plan will only be salvaging dead lodgepole so<br />

nature diversity will not be affected.<br />

Comment<br />

Another problem with the analysis of the effects of the alternatives on vegetation diversity is that there<br />

is no portrayal of what the natural forest age class composition would be without the effects of fire<br />

suppression or timber harvest. Since the goal of maintenance of natural diversity is to provide a<br />

representation of age classes in each tree species group across the Forest that is somewhat proportional<br />

to the natural composition then for comparison purposes it is necessary to show the natural composition.<br />

The very high levels of the 0-20 year age class and the very low levels of the 110-150 year age class<br />

that are evident in most alternatives (p. IV-12) are probably significant deviations from natural conditions<br />

and will have effects on the overall diversity of the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The amount of mature trees on the forest will definitely be less in all the alternatives that allow for timber<br />

harvest. The forest would have approximately 25 percent of the lands available for timber harvest in<br />

timber stands less than 25 years old. This is quite different than what the forest was like in 1900. At<br />

that time, old photos and surveyor notes time a story of very open mature stands of trees with little to<br />

no understory trees or other vegetation.<br />

Comment<br />

Riparian habitats are recognized as being critical links in the ecosystems on the Winema and out of<br />

the 50,000 acres of riparian zone vegetation 16,0000 acres are included in Management Area 8--Riparian<br />

Management. Unfortunately 93% of these 16,0000 acres are deemed suitable for timber harvest at<br />

some level (Plan, p. IV-63) thus the riparian systems on the Forest are not truly protected. As stated in<br />

the response to public issues section of the Forest Plan (p. 111-7), the 16,0000 acres will protect 32% of<br />

the riparian zones on the Forest, however, in reality only slightly more than 1000 acres will be completely<br />

protected from disturbance.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS Preferred Alternative J placed many more- acres into the riparian management area. 57,937<br />

acres were allocated to riparian management. Also the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan<br />

K - 181

were changed to remove logging within 100 feet of class I and 11 stream and within 50 feet of class IlIl<br />

streams. This will protect riparian zones.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest can sustain this amount. Our growth plots indicate a 3.5% simple growth rate.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The ponderosa net scribner board feet (for a 9 inch dbh to a 6 inch top) growth rate for the Winema<br />

National Forest is 1.4% simple growth rate, which equates to 58.5 MMBF per year.<br />

Comment<br />

If the alternative E plus plan is not approved and the allowable cut is reduced, I believe additional<br />

measures are required. In order to assure local mills a sustained timber supply, a study must be made<br />

of their requirements and then mills from out of the area would be allowed to bid only on the material<br />

above local requirements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The regulations that allow the Forest Service to sell timber does not allow restricting bidding to a<br />

geographic area.<br />

Comment<br />

Historical data regarding the former Klamath Indian Tribe lands, private lands and other National Forests,<br />

indicate that with proper management techniques the Winema will continue to be able to produce this<br />

footage as a renewable level. Apparent errors in the original Forest Service harvest model.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the historic harvest for the last ten years. Our analysis indicates that this level of harvest<br />

cannot be sustained.<br />

Comment<br />

90 million board feet has been an historically attainable harvest level.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the historic harvest for the last 10 years. The historic ponderosa pine harvest is 80.0<br />

MMBF per year.<br />

Comment<br />

Forest Service should be doing much more tree planting. They have fallen behind this project.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema is current with needed reforestation. Reforestation units that have failed are currently<br />

being replanted.<br />

Comment<br />

Why are these letters only given to employees of the timber industries.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The questionnaire you received was developed by a local timber industry group to solicit input to the<br />

Winema's Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The letter was passed out at each meeting they<br />

conducted which included folks from all walks of life. The Audubon Society made a similar effort.<br />

Comment<br />

Count on a resurgence of the 1981-1985 recession in South Central Oregon if the proposed Winema<br />

Preferred Alternative Plan for timber supply is implemented.<br />

K - 182

The proposed program you advocate is based on a 'departure' from non-declining yield that calculates<br />

out to a drop of 127 million board feet per year by the fifth decade. That's 36% below the present<br />

allowable program and 19% less than the average volume actually sold between 1977 and 1986.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

What you state is correct in the DEIS. The allowable sale quantity would drop to 127 MMBF by the fifth<br />

decade. It is assumed that other ownerships would make up he difference.<br />

There was no support for the departure presented in the DEIS. So the preferred Alternative J in the<br />

FEIS dropped the ASQ to a sustainable 117 mmbf level. This level will have impact on the local timber<br />

industry and probably a sawmill will close before a balance is reached between supply and demand<br />

for sawlogs.<br />

Comment<br />

Perhaps that recession was unavoidable. However, the pending economic disaster, based on the<br />

proposed reduction in the federal timber supply from the Winema, is entirely within your agency's<br />

power to prevent. Simply maintain the allowable cut at 199 million board feet annually, including at<br />

least 90 million board feet of Ponderosa pine each year.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Maintaining the level of harvest you propose would require a departure from sustained even flow of<br />

sawtimber. There was a great deal of objection to that alternative so Alternative J, the preferred alternative<br />

in the FEIS, is not a departure. Alternative J will only produce about 54 mmbf of ponderosa pine and<br />

117 mmbf of total sawtimber harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

To the extent that the Forest Service will seriously consider valid comments on all issues, an acceptable<br />

harvest level in the final plan can be developed with additional computer runs after the comment period<br />

expires.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We believe the Forest Service has seriously considered all comments; as evidenced by changes to the<br />

document and preferred alternative. Specifically, additional computer runs were made based on the<br />

comments.<br />

Comment<br />

There is every indication at this time that the Winema staff is open to incorporating technical adjustments<br />

into the final plan. These should include a correction to the acreage of tentatively suitable forest land<br />

which was understated by some 24,000 acres. Increased Ponderosa pine yields should also be included<br />

for uneven aged managed stands which were too conservative when compared with other data similar<br />

to those displayed in the attached Exhibit which shows growth and yield data from Indian forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, these corrections were made. The land base maps were corrected and the acres of tentatively<br />

suitable lands changed from 793,100 acres to 825,394. The uneven-aged management yield tables<br />

were all redone using the SORNEC version of the PROGNOSIS growth and yields model.<br />

Comment<br />

There are some grave inconsistencies within the Forest Service data also. For instance, for one large<br />

component of the Forest, growth is stated to be 18.2 cubic feet per acre while the Forest Service inventory<br />

indicates the measured growth for the same component is 33.4 cubic feet.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The difference in the growth rates between the empirical yield tables and the gross growth rate of<br />

inventoried stands come from many areas. The empirical yields are net with all cull, breakage and<br />

mortality subtracted where as the inventory growth rate is simply the measured growth rate of live<br />

K - 183

trees on an acre with no reductions. The empirical yields estimate the growth of usable volume on<br />

each acre.<br />

Comment<br />

There is also some evidence that the use of improper cost data and the maximization of net present<br />

value may result in the establishment of lower yields than necessary. These factors should be examined<br />

more carefully by the Forest Service.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A Stage II analysis was made on all the prescriptions use in the FORPLAN model. A brief summary of<br />

that analysis is included in Appendix B and the full analysis is available for review at the Winema Forest<br />

Supervisor's. Office in Klamath Falls.<br />

Comment<br />

It is reasonable and prudent to expect most elements of a timber stand to produce at a rate of at least<br />

2% of inventory. Experience on Klamath Indian Management Trust lands indicated growth rates<br />

substantially in excess of 2% as evidenced by attached pages.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current mortality of trees caused by the mountain pine beetle and other factors is keeping the<br />

current net growth rate down to 1.1 percent. The net rate of growth is up to 2.4 percent by the second<br />

decade and to almost 3.0 percent within 50 years. This rate of growth seems reasonable for the Winema.<br />

Comment<br />

It seems the greatest problem stems from the gypsy moth infestation. I recall that the British started to<br />

have the same problem, however, they corrected it by spraying the forests with a chemical that was<br />

harmless to humans and animals. This chemical disrupted the mating cycle of the gypsy moth and<br />

ended the problem once and for all. Has this method been considered?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

At this time, we do not have a problem with gypsy moth infestations. Our main problems deal with<br />

mountain pine beetle infestations and localized root rot infestations. There has been some developments<br />

to help disrupt mountain pine beetle populations but these developments are only practical on small<br />

areas such as campgrounds were very high value trees are in a small area<br />

Comment<br />

We strongly disagree with the departure proposed for the timber management plan. How can so many<br />

of the Ponderosa pine regions National Forests justify increasing the lodgepole cut all at once? What<br />

will this do to the market and stumpage prices? Do not depart from sustained yield on the lodgepole<br />

component.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Many Forests in the ponderosa pine region are increasing their harvest of lodgepole pine. Mountain<br />

pine beetle has been causing heavy mortality to the overstocked mature lodgepole pine Forests. All<br />

the Forests are trying to harvest the lodgepole pine before it loses all its value.<br />

We agree that selling the high volume of lodgepole pine will suppress market value however, we have<br />

other management objectives other than economic which we are trying to achieve. Which include<br />

needs for reducing fire hazards (which would prevent catastrophic fires and protect watershed values),<br />

maintenance of wildlife habitat and reforestation needs.<br />

Alternative J, the preferred alternative in the FEIS, removed all the dead lodgepole pine from the ASQ<br />

calculation. The programmed harvest plans to harvest about 40 mmbf of dead lodgepole pine each<br />

year until all the excess dead trees are removed.<br />

K- 184

Comment<br />

The proposed action's change of predominate harvest method of selective cutting to clearcutting will<br />

have a long term negative impact upon scenery, soils, run-off/watershed values and wildlife habitat.<br />

Use a more sensible mix of cutting methods. The long term management of the Forest should not<br />

promote a monoculture. e more uneven age management techniques.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The application of uneven-aged management has been expanded in the EIS to be applied to the<br />

Ponderosa pine, pine-associated and in some cases, mixed conifer working groups. Refer to Chapter<br />

2 for the range of uneven-aged management among the alternatives. However, even-aged management<br />

will continue to be the dominant silvicultural system used for lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands<br />

on the Winema.<br />

Comment<br />

Firstly, we understand the Forest Service has, in this instance proposed abandonment of its sustained<br />

yield' and proposes to permit the cutting of at least 34% of suitable timber over the next 10 years.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The preferred alternative in the DEIS did harvest 31 percent of the inventoried volume in the first decade.<br />

The preferred alternative in the FEIS is no longer a departure from sustained even flow. AlternativeJ,<br />

the new preferred alternative, harvests about 19 percent of the standing volume in the first decade.<br />

Comment<br />

In comparing the Plan's Preferred Alternate (Alt. E) with some of the other Alternatives, one is struck<br />

by the priority given in the, Preferred Alternative to the production of resource outputs. For example,<br />

Alt. E will result in the conversion of 45% of the Forest from a natural appearing to an obviously modified<br />

environment in 10 years (DEIS Table 11-3B):. In contrast, with Alternative G only 5% of the Forest will be<br />

converted. And yet both alternatives will meet the Forest's share of total county-wide harvest, and<br />

produce only a 5% difference in county-wide employment.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The major difference between Alternative E and G is the amount of uneven-aged management prescribed.<br />

Alternative G is quite similar to the new Alterraive J except Alternative J prescribes somewhat less<br />

uneven-aged management in the mixed conifer and pine associated working groups. The impact on<br />

the forest appearance will be much less with the new preferred alternative J than with Alternative E.<br />

Comment<br />

I spend a lot of time in the mountains and I see an awful lot that is clearcut but not replanted.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Reforestation areas are all currently stocked on the Winema or If the first attempt failed, they are being<br />

replanted.<br />

Comment<br />

The present Forest Plan allows for the following:<br />

PP - 75m bd. ft.<br />

TF - 53m bd. ft.<br />

DF - 15m bd. ft.<br />

LP - r1m bd. ft.<br />

TOTAL - 154m bd. ft.<br />

These ASQ volumes per species should be considered a minimum management requirement for the<br />

Forest, providing these harvest levels are a sustained yield and do not negatively impact the environment.<br />

K- 185

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The present Timber Resource Plan did not specify yields by species. Page IX of the Timber Resource<br />

Implementation Plan specified the planned yield by working group. The values you presented are from<br />

Alternative A which projects the yields for the Forest if the land allocations are not changed from the<br />

current situation.<br />

Previous timber planning was not done to maintain a sustained even flow by species. To do so, causes<br />

substantial reductions in total allowable harvest.<br />

The preferred Alternative J sustains the ponderosa pine at its highest possible sustained even flow.<br />

Comment<br />

Much of what I've read concerning the Draft Plan suggests that a recession period could be imposed<br />

on Klamath County by reducing allowed yields of timber from the Winema. It seems to be implied that<br />

the currently proposed plans substitute damaged lodgepole pine yields for ponderosa pine yields<br />

which have been the mainstay of the local logging industry.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the harvest levels for the past 10 years. The planned sell in Alternative J is considerably<br />

below the historic harvest level. The new plan proposes to maintain the ponderosa pine sell at the<br />

maximum sustainable level, given other constraints.<br />

The economic impact analysis presented in Chapters 2 and 4 suggest that the economic impact will<br />

not be as severe as some people suggest.<br />

Comment<br />

I believe that growth under even-aged or uneven-aged management will, on the same acre, be nearly<br />

the same.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our analysis, using the PROGNOSIS model, indicates you are correct. Other folks though feel just as<br />

strongly that uneven-aged management will produce less than even-aged stands. The Forest will establish<br />

several growth and yield plots in uneven-age managed stands to determine the actual growth.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber salvage programs, not just for lodgepole pine, need to be pursued. More complete ation of the<br />

resource will alleviate at least some of the shortfall in timber harvest shown in most alternatives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Catastrophic events, such as wildfires, are aggressively salvaged but most individual trees that die<br />

must be left for dead tree wildlife habitat. (See the alternative description in Chapter 2.<br />

Comment<br />

We would like to see the Forest use PROGNOSIS for yield estimates. This model, we understand, has<br />

been calibrated for use in your area. We believe this model is flexible enough to handle both even and<br />

uneven-aged harvesting methods and certainly enjoys wide acceptance among mensurational experts.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The uneven-aged management yield tables were redone between the Draft and Final EIS using the<br />

SORNEC version of the PROGNOSIS model. Prognosis Model outputs were compared to the yield<br />

tables used in the Draft Plan and we found the even-aged tables were very similar but the uneven-aged<br />

tables used in the DEIS were much lower than prognosis estimates.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema Forest is ideally suited to uneven-aged management. The topography is gentle for the<br />

most part and the species on the Forest regenerate naturally. We reject the hypothesis that there will<br />

K - 186

e less yield under uneven- ged management. This decline in yield in the final plan needs to be fully<br />

supported.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that uneven-aged management is appropriate for much of the Winema. It will be prescribed<br />

for most of the ponderosa pine and pine associated timber types. We do not plan to prescribe uneven-aged<br />

management in the lodgepole pine type because of marginal values and high logging costs. Uneven-aged<br />

management will be used sparingly in the mixed conifer type because of the Armillaria root rot problem.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest should consider two strategies in their young stands: (a) grow these stands under tight<br />

spacings until they self-prune and then thin these stands to wide spacings; or, (b) prune these stands<br />

at young ages up 32 feet and then grow these stands at wide spacings.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A decision on pruning is not being made at this time. It will be left open to decide at a later. A program<br />

has been developed to evaluate pruning Douglas-fir but the program has not been developed, yet, for<br />

ponderosa pine.<br />

Pruning greatly reduces mule deer hiding cover. Our analysis shows that the dense cover stands are<br />

hard to maintain at acceptable levels without pruning so pruning is not being prescribed.<br />

Comment<br />

Natural stands of lodgepole pine show tremendous genetic variability. Seed collections from goodlooking<br />

parents should be made. Growth rate as well as straight stems should be primary selection criteria<br />

when parent trees are chosen. precommercial thinning of lodgepole pine stands near the major haul<br />

routes should be considered to remove poor quality trees and enhance the visual appearance of the<br />

stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Phenotypically, superior trees have been selected for lodgepole pine seed collections. We are also<br />

purchasing lodgepole pine seed from Weyerhaeuser's seed orchard at Malin. Many different prescriptions<br />

are being applied to the lodgepole pine stands near travel routes to make them visually pleasing.<br />

On a large percentage of our regeneration harvest lodgepole sites, we plan to rely on natural regeneration.<br />

An effort will be made to select seed sources that would provide the greatest genetic gain as a seed<br />

source.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest should re-evaluate the conversion factor relationship in conversion of board feet to cubic<br />

foot scale and the corresponding impact on sustained yield harvest levels. By planning allowable harvest<br />

levels in cubic scale but measuring actual harvest in board feet, the Forest will over cut early in the<br />

rotation and undercut later in the rotation. Along this same line, we urge the Forest to upgrade the<br />

timber inventory process with a modern Forestwide inventory system., The uneven-aged yield tables,<br />

likewise, need to be updated based upon current knowledge levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We re-evaluated the conversion factors for board feet and cubic feet, and elected to put in FORPLAN<br />

the actual board foot yield table, which corresponds to each cubic foot yield table.<br />

The Forest Service is evaluating selling all material in cubic feet, but in any case, we will monitor the<br />

sell in cubic feet. Our standard cruise program develops both the board foot and cubic foot volume for<br />

the sale.<br />

The Regional Office is developing a new inventory process. The Winema will be reinventoried in 1991,<br />

using this new system integrated into a GIS computer mapping system. This new system, overtime,<br />

should correct our inventory problems.<br />

The uneven-aged management yield tables were re-done using the PROGNOSIS stand projection<br />

model.<br />

K- 187

Comment<br />

When managing future lodgepole pine stands, the Forest should plan on a shorter rotation. Biologically<br />

and mensurationally 60-year rotations will maintain healthier and more productive stands. These rotations<br />

can be accomplished and still meet the legislated 95% culmination of M.A.I. target.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, we agree. Our lodgepole pine stands, being managed for timber production, have 60 and 70-year<br />

rotation lengths.<br />

Comment<br />

I would like to see us run another alternative without departing from even flow sustained yield for ponderosa<br />

pine. Let's see what this does to the sustainable harvest level of ponderosa pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The final alternative is based on maintaining a sustained even flow of ponderosa pine.<br />

Comment<br />

The time period between 1975 and 1985 included one of the most severe recessions in the timber<br />

industry's history. Timber program statistics from this time period do not accurately reflect either current<br />

demand for wood products or the timber industry's current raw material requirements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Tables in Chapter 3 have been updated to the current year.<br />

We are aware that the local timber industry is currently producing at very high levels. The local milling<br />

capacity far exceeds the growing capacity of local forests, so we must expect a major restructuring of<br />

the local industry to get the milling capacity more in line with local growth potential.<br />

Comment<br />

Winema's planners estimate that 50 percent of the Winema's lodgepole pine has already been killed<br />

by the mountain pine beetle and that virtually all of the Forest's lodgepole pine sawtimber will be dead<br />

within the next seven years.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The mortality was checked and we found the lodgepole pine mortality was less than originally projected.<br />

The lodgepole pine empirical yields have been modified based upon the measured mortality rates.<br />

Also, the dead lodgepole pine has been removed from the ASO so only green sawtimber will be in the<br />

ASQ.<br />

Comment<br />

We are especially concerned about the preferred alternative's reduced ponderosa pine harvest levels.<br />

The Forest's timber cut and sold reports show that the Winema actually sold an average of 93.2 million<br />

board feet of ponderosa pine sawtimber per year between 1977 and 1986. The proposed plan would<br />

sell about 80.8 million board feet per year over the next ten years; a level 13 percent less than the<br />

1977-86 historic average (DEIS Table 11-23).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the past harvest level by species. Table 3-8 is more indicative of the actual local demand<br />

than the sell. During that period many sales were defaulted and returned to the Forest Service without<br />

being cut. The harvest is scaled volumes and show what was actually used.<br />

The preferred alternative in the FEIS, Alternative J, has an ASQ of 117 mmbf per year of which 54<br />

mmbf is ponderosa pine. This is 68 percent of the historic harvest rate of ponderosa pine so we expect<br />

some restructuring of the local timber industry to occur before demand equalizes with the ponderosa<br />

pine timber supply.<br />

K - 188

Comment<br />

Given the significant green sawtimber harvest reduction proposed in the draft plan, we believe the<br />

Winema's preferred alternative will have to be revised if the Forest hopes to produce sufficient timber<br />

to maintain the economic stability of timber-dependent communities. The land allocations and ASO<br />

established in the final plan must recognize: (1) the local timber industry's current, post-recession raw<br />

material requirements; (2) the impending reduction in private timber harvest levels; and (3) the major<br />

harvest reductions proposed on adjoining national forests. As a minimum, the Winema's green sawtimber<br />

sale program for the next ten years should be as close as possible to the Forest's own historic sell<br />

level; especially in the critical ponderosa pine component.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest gave all the factors you mentioned a great deal of consideration while developing the Forest<br />

Plan. Please see Chapter 3, Social and Economic Setting and Chapter 4, Effects of the Alternatives on<br />

the Local Economy.<br />

Comment<br />

We estimate, based on the limited analysis we have done to date, that Alternative E-Plus would have<br />

sufficient productive capacity to produce a first-decade ASO in excess of 210 million board feet per<br />

year, including ely 90 million board feet per year of ponderosa pine and considerably more lodgepQle<br />

pine than recent historic levels. 4/ We anticipate that ponderosa pine production, expressed in cubic<br />

feet, would remain at or near the first-decade level over at least the next fifty years. Board-foot volumes<br />

would probably decline somewhat in future decades as smaller-diameter, second-growth stands provide<br />

an increasing component of the Forest's timber sale program. We estimate that Alternative E-Plus<br />

would have sufficient productive capacity to maintain a sustainable timber sale program (all species)<br />

of ely 164 million board feet of green sawtimber per year over the long term.<br />

4/ This number equals the preferred alternative's first-decade ASQ plus the additional ponderosa pine<br />

volume needed to bring the pine component up to 90 MMBF per year. Given the differences in lands<br />

allocations between Alternative E-Plus and the preferred alternative, it is likely that the maximum potential<br />

ASQ could be even higher than 210 MMBF/year. Additional FORPLAN analysis will be required to estimate<br />

a more precise number.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative E plus was run through FORPLAN as MODEL 4B. The output is available at the Forest Office<br />

for review. A summary of the model output was given to local industry representatives for their review.<br />

The summary shows the alternative would produce an ASQ of 26.4 mmcf pre year or between 124<br />

and 160 mmbf per year. The ponderosa pine yield varied between 50 and 90 mmbf per year and was<br />

51.4 mmbf in the first decade.<br />

Comment<br />

We would support an alternative that emphasizes production of large-diameter pine to the extent the<br />

Winema can achieve this objective without significant adverse impact on its overall timber sale program<br />

level. We would not support such an alternative if further analysis shows that emphasis on 'high-quality"<br />

pine production would require a significant reduction of the Forest's overall timber sale program. We<br />

see no sense in drastically reducing current harvest levels and sacrificing for large-diameter pine will<br />

somehow assure community stability over the long term. We believe that technological developments<br />

and changing market conditions over the next several decades will allow our companies to develop<br />

new markets and processing technologies to handle whatever species and size mix the Winema eventually<br />

produces. Ideally, it will be high-quality, large-diameter ponderosa pine. If not, we will adapt our operations<br />

to an existing mill out of business and people out of work only to discover later that the action was<br />

needless and provided no real benefits.<br />

The final forest plan must be based on a very careful analysis of this critical issues.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Several contacts were made with industry representatives to get an understanding of high value pine.<br />

Our understanding of a high value pine tree is one over 20 inches DBH that has growing fast enough<br />

K - 189

to produce a clear block of wood between each limb whorl. The uneven-aged management prescriptions<br />

will provide this type material.<br />

Comment<br />

Alternative E-Plus would include greater emphasis on uneven-aged management: (1) where uneven-aged<br />

management makes biological sense; and (2) to the extent it can be used without significantly reducing<br />

the Forest's overall timber production potential. Our experience on industrial lands suggests that greater<br />

reliance on uneven-aged management in the Winema's pure ponderosa pine types should offer an<br />

opportunity to ameliorate some of the real and perceived conflicts between timber production and<br />

other resource values without sacrificing significant timber production potential.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Uneven-aged management yield tables project about the same yield as the even-aged tables.<br />

Alternative J maximizes the use of uneven-aged management in the ponderosa pine and pine associated<br />

working groups.<br />

Comment<br />

The final plan should implement an aggressive ponderosa pine salvage program, especially on the<br />

north end of the Chemult District.<br />

Most industrial timber owners in Central Oregon employ aggressive salvage programs on their own<br />

lands to harvest each year's mortality before the dead trees lose their value. Most industry people are<br />

appalled at the huge volume of salvable timber that goes to waste each year on Oregon's national<br />

Forests. Loggers commonly wonder why the Forest Service requires them to clearcut stands of vigorous<br />

old-growth timber and young, rapidly-growing trees, while significant volumes of salvable, recently-dead<br />

timber are "left to rot in stands right next to the timber sales they are logging. We have found on our<br />

own lands that an effective, annual salvage program can: (1) capture significant timber value that would<br />

otherwise be lost; (2) reduce the volume of green timber that needs to be harvested each year to meet<br />

mill requirements; (3) maintain the growth potential of vigorous stands that would otherwise have been<br />

harvested in a given year; and (4) effectively extend the inventory of old, large-diameter timber available<br />

for harvest from our lands in the future. There are also environmental advantages associated with using<br />

a light, forest-wide salvage program to produce a major part of our annual harvest volume. Such a<br />

program disperses environmental and visual effects over a broader area of the forest, reduces the<br />

intensity of the impact on any given site and makes the effects of timber harvest less objectionable to<br />

the public.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Most of the Winema is deficient in large dead trees to meet the habitat needs of cavity nesters. The<br />

current mortality is being left to meet this need for large dead trees.<br />

Comment<br />

We recognize that some individuals and special interest groups would prefer to see the Forest's<br />

non-wilderness roadless lands remain undeveloped and available for future reconsideration for wilderness<br />

designation. We also recognize that management of these areas for timber production could reduce<br />

opportunities for some forms of roadless recreation on the Forest. On the other hand, we believe that<br />

Congress' intent was clear when it 'released these lands for multiple-use management rather than<br />

designating them Wilderness. In the Winema's case, these lands appear to include very little commercial<br />

timberland. Nevertheless, given the potentially severe adverse economic and social impacts of an<br />

inadequate timber sale program on the Winema, every acre is important. We firmly believe that the<br />

Forest's unroaded nonwilderness lands can produce multiple benefits, including both timber and<br />

satisfying recreation experiences, if the Forest es management practices designed to minimize rather<br />

than exacerbate conflict between various management objectives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The roadless areas on the Winema do not contain many lands suitable for timber production. Three<br />

percent of the forest is unroaded. Of the unroaded acres, 71 percent is unsuited for timber production<br />

K- 190

which leaves 1 percent of the tentatively suitable land base in unroaded areas. Most of the suitable<br />

timber land in unroaded areas is mixed with so much unsuited lands that it is very hard to develop.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft plan would manage 26,784 acres primarily to achieve big game winter range management<br />

objectives, an increase of 4.2 percent compared to current management direction (DEIS Table 11-2).<br />

The acreage involved would be equivalent to 3.3 percent of the draft plan's suitable land base. Timber<br />

Harvest will be constrained to 'provide thermal cover." Disturbing human activities will be 'discouraged<br />

or minimized" from December 1 through April 30. Unneeded roads will be closed or obliterated. Local<br />

roads may be closed on a seasonal basis (DEIS Appendix Table B-5). The DEIS does not describe the<br />

effect these management constraints have on timber yields (whether positive or negative).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The winter range allocation has little to no effect on timber yields. Table 4-10 in the Forest Plan shows<br />

the timber management intensities used in each management area. A comparison with the timber<br />

management area shows that prescriptions with more commercial thinnings occur within the winter<br />

range to maintain more control of the stocking level. This is beneficial to mule deer and also increases<br />

the timber yield on these acres.<br />

Comment<br />

It is important to recognize, as indicated by these research findings, that: (1) nobody can definitely<br />

state how much old growth is required to maintain viable populations of 'old-growth dependent' wildlife<br />

species, or even if old growth is required at all; and (2) that managed, second-growth stands can<br />

provide many of the habitat components needed to maintain viable populations of such species. The<br />

Winema's FEIS should include an in-depth review of the recent research literature on this subject and<br />

clearly disclose these kinds of facts. The FEIS should also examine alternative ways to meet wildlife<br />

objectives without taking productive forest lands entirely out of the suitable land base, including use of<br />

intensive management techniques to provide healthy wildlife populations while still meeting demand<br />

for timber (see Appendix B).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is a committee reviewing the oldgrowth definitions for the Region but this plan is still developed<br />

using the oldgrowth definitions in the Regional Guide.<br />

Comment<br />

Alternative E-Plus would include the same recommendations outlined in the draft plan, except for those<br />

portions of the Cherry Creek Basin outside of the Sky Lakes Wilderness Area. These nonwilderness<br />

sites include about 852 acres of tentatively suitable forested lands supporting good stands of<br />

merchantable timber. In addition, the Cherry Creek Basin recommendation has all the earmarks of a<br />

wilderness 'buffer." Such buffers are explicitly forbidden by the terms of the 1984 Oregon Wilderness<br />

Act.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

One of the cells to be represented by the Cherry Creek Basin RNA was a 3rd order fir community<br />

drainage. The additional acres outside of the wilderness boundary is to make sure the cell is represented.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS does not adequately analyze and disclose the potentially severe adverse environmental<br />

impacts of a decision to not cut timber in roadless areas, visual corridors, dedicated old-growth stands,<br />

riparian areas and other allocations with timber harvest restrictions. This is an especially serious omission<br />

on a Forest with extensive stands of dead timber, heavy fuel loads and the potential for catastrophic<br />

wildfires.<br />

K - 191

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The DEIS was designed so some alternatives managed more or less of the management areas that<br />

restrict timber harvest. Reviewing the outputs in Chapter 2 for each alternative will show what the impact<br />

is for putting more lands in no yield or low yield land allocations.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest inventory, conducted in 1981, used only 446 inventory plots to cover about 779,000 acres.<br />

This relatively low number of plots reflects the Forest Service's inventory design as related to the standard<br />

error objectives set for the overall inventory.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

That is correct.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema staff stratified its forest inventory into four major model components. They did not stratify<br />

the forest inventory by site productivity. The forest should be stratified by productivity class.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The mixed conifer working group was stratified separately from the pine associated working group<br />

because of the difference in productivity of the two working groups. They are both fir associated types.<br />

Other working groups did not have sufficient variation in productivity by large enough land areas to<br />

warrant additional stratification.<br />

Comment<br />

There are major differences between the Winema's first period, net growth derived from the empirical<br />

yield tables and the current net growth shown in the forest inventory plot data. The empirical yields<br />

understate the growth, as compared to the inventory, by about 30 percent. This is an important issue<br />

which we recommend the forest staff evaluate and address in the final EIS through updated yield tables.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timber inventory growth rates are gross values where as the empirical yield tables represent the<br />

net growth which can be captured under a none managed stand condition.<br />

Comment<br />

Since the developed empirical yields already resulted in substantial reductions in growth, the Winema<br />

staff should closely evaluate its decision to add further reductions to the estimated volume of lodgepole<br />

pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The lodgepole pine inventory plots were revisited and found to have an average mortality since 1981<br />

of over 35 percent. The yield tables were adjusted for this measured mortality and expected mortality.<br />

Comment<br />

It is not clear whether the ASQ estimate in the preferred alternative includes salvable dead volume<br />

captured during green timber sales. The Forest should estimate the salvable dead from green sales<br />

(we believe about two million cubic feet per year). They should also estimate the volume of salvage<br />

sales sold above the accelerated lodgepole pine harvest rate. These volumes should be included in<br />

the total timber sale program.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Dead material is not included in the ASQ. The ASO is all live and green sawlog material which meets<br />

merchantability standards. The dead material will be part of the total sale quantity.<br />

K - 192

Comment<br />

The Winema Forest, through the empirical yield table generator, used standard defect and breakage<br />

reductions that only vary by species, not stand age. Since defect found in the pole and small sawtimber<br />

stands is likely below that assumed, these yield tables should be evaluated, and increased through<br />

updated yield tables.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The cull and breakage factors are values we are currently experiencing. They were developed by species<br />

rather than stand age but are still good representation of the average defect we experience.<br />

Comment<br />

Form factors only vary by 1 0-inch size classes. The Forest Service should document the procedures it<br />

used to develop these average form factors and evaluate whether more precise estimates of form<br />

factor would have an impact on the ASQ.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The form factors vary only slightly between diameter classes so it does not seem reasonable to spent<br />

any more time on form factors. The Form factors came from a fall-buck-and scale study and from the<br />

measured form classes from timber sale cruises.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service should evaluate whether there are additional commercial thinning and fertilization<br />

opportunities in their existing young stands. The staff assumed that a 12-inch stand diameter and<br />

minimum volume per acre were needed to justify commercial thinnings. The Winema staff should meet<br />

with timber industry representatives to evaluate whether assumptions about commercial thinning<br />

minimums accurately reflect expectations of future thinning limitations<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This is an on going situation. We have been able to achieve ation of smaller thinning material when<br />

the operation is subsidized with other funds but no commercial thinning has been practical because of<br />

all the restrictions that harvesting must meet.<br />

Comment<br />

The managed yields were developed with the assumption of one average site index per model component.<br />

This restricts the ability of the FORPLAN model to achieve resource efficiency and optional ASQ.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is little variation in the general forest within each working group. The working groups adequately<br />

divide the forest by productivity grouping.<br />

Comment<br />

While some of the assumptions used were well documented, most of the detailed procedures for<br />

calculating the managed yields were not well defined or understandable.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The yield table documentation is available for review in the Forest Supervisors Office.<br />

Comment<br />

A five-percent reduction was made in the ponderosa pine and pine-associated working groups to account<br />

for presumed competition from understory vegetation. The Forest staff should document its decision to<br />

use the various percentage reductions and evaluate measures to mitigate these reductions (such as<br />

vegetation control). The staff should also detail why the falldown factors were greater for uneven-aged<br />

management than even-aged management.<br />

K- 193

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The discussion for the operational falldown for vegetative competition is found on page 9 of the yield<br />

table documentation which is available at the Supervisor's office. The vegetative competition was used<br />

with prescriptions that maintained an open canopy for most of the rotation.<br />

The operational falldown for uneven-aged management is found on pages 4, 5, and 6 of the documentation<br />

for the uneven-aged management yield tables. The operational falldown for uneven-aged management<br />

for ponderosa pine and pine associated working groups are within the range used for the even-aged<br />

tables. The operational falldown for uneven-aged management in mixed conifer and lodgepole pine is<br />

much higher than for even-aged management because rot will be a major problem in stands of fir<br />

managed with uneven-aged management and lodgepole will have problems with logging damage and<br />

mistletoe.<br />

Comment<br />

In most of these limited harvest areas, timber harvest was not allowed in FORPLAN until the average<br />

age of the stand reached the minimum harvest age of the management area prescription (for example,<br />

250 years in the foreground retention zone). In our opinion, this constraint is inappropriate since it is<br />

based on an average stand age for each model component and only the entry rate constraint should<br />

be used.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is only an area in opening constraint in the foreground retention areas.<br />

Comment<br />

The ation requirements on the Winema have increased from the current plan. The Forest now requires<br />

that smaller trees must be ed in both empirical and managed stands. In the approved plan, trees 11<br />

inches DBH to a 6-inch top in the empirical stands, and trees 9 inches DBH to a 6-inch top in the managed<br />

stands comprise the minimum able size. In this current planning effort, empirical yields incorporate<br />

trees 9 inches DBH to a 6-inch top and the managed yields incorporate trees 7 inches DBH to a 4-inch<br />

top. These improved ation standards increase the per acre volume of both the Forest inventory and<br />

managed yield tables.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This is true.<br />

Comment<br />

We have found that the documentation in the Regional Office, which describes the procedures and<br />

the processes used to develop the Forest inventory date and convert it into empirical yield tables, is<br />

very limited.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

John Teply, Regional Biometrication, maintains these files.<br />

Comment<br />

The mature (HRG) ponderosa pine component only used 50 plots to represent about 243,600 acres or<br />

an average of roughly 4,900 acres per plot. We consider this to be a very low level of sampling; it is<br />

noteworthy since it occurs on the largest component on the Winema Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The inventory was designed to sample the model components to within + or - 10 percent at one standard<br />

deviation from the mean as measured in board foot volume. The mature ponderosa pine component<br />

was inventoried to + or - 9.6 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.<br />

K - 194

Comment<br />

The Winema staff should be aware of the limitations these high standard deviations impose for Forest<br />

planning. Because of the high variation in the average volume per acre, using dispersion or other area<br />

volume constraints based on gross averages must be carefully evaluated. In our opinion, the limited<br />

stratification of the Forest inventory does not support the use of many of the constraints applied in<br />

FORPLAN.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our inventory design definitely limits our ability to analyze the effects of allocations of small land areas.<br />

The inventory losses accuracy as we apply the statistics to smaller and smaller areas. But as for FORPLAN,<br />

our dispersion constraint was not limiting. Long-term sustained yield is limiting.<br />

Comment<br />

Exhibit Il-A-4 shows the tentatively suitable land base as stratified in FORPLAN by age class. The young<br />

stands (between zero and 30 years of age) total about 209,000 acres. In contrast, Exhibit Il-A-1 shows<br />

that the inventory contained about 31,500 acres of non-stocked and young seedling and sapling stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The table in FORPLAN (F10.8), which you used to get your information, is not working correctly. The<br />

inventory had about 32,000 acres of non-stocked and seedlings and saplings. That figure was updated<br />

to about 81,000 acres for the DEIS analysis and was further updated to about 127,000 acres for the<br />

FEIS analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

The ation standards for the managed yield tables are a 7-inch DBH to a 4-inch top. Thus, we recommend<br />

that the Winema staff adjust the pole and small sawtimber stand volumes to account for improved<br />

ation down to a 7-inch DBH.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Commercial thinnings in existing stands used a 7 inch DBH to a 4 inch top merchantability.<br />

Comment<br />

Other comments about the Empirical Yield Tables. We found major differences between the first period<br />

growth derived from the empirical yield tables and the net growth derived from the Forest inventory<br />

plot data for the same model strata. The volume growth over the entire Forest as derived from the<br />

empirical yield curves for the first decade totals about 18.592 million cubic feet annually (Exhibit Il-A-1).<br />

In contrast, the net growth shown from the Forest inventory plot data totals 27.145 million cubic feet<br />

annually. Thus, the first decade volume growth from the empirical yield curves, compared to the net<br />

growth from the Forest inventory plot data, is understated by about 30 percent. This is over 50 million<br />

board feet annually.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The inventory shows the growth occurring on the forest but makes no attempt to determine what percent<br />

of that growth will actually be ed. The empirical yield tables indicate the growth of volume which actually<br />

will be harvested.<br />

Comment<br />

This implies that significant in-growth occurring on the Winema Forest is not being picked up in the<br />

empirical yield table generation process because of the methodology being used to develop the empirical<br />

yield tables.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

I believe the empirical yield tables are a good representation of the volume we will harvest including<br />

expected in-growth.<br />

K- 195

Comment<br />

We recommend that the Winema staff evaluate the differences in growth as represented by the empirical<br />

yields and address them prior to the final EIS through updated yield tables. This underestimate of<br />

growth on the Winema is significant and could contribute to substantial increases in the ASQ. They<br />

also need to re-evaluate their decision to reduce the lodgepole pine yields by such a large percentage.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The empirical yield tables were updated to the midpoint of the planning period.<br />

The empirical lodgepole pine yield tables were adjusted for current mortality so the ASQ for the Forest<br />

Plan will be live green volume and will not include salvage material. Salvage material will be included<br />

in the timber sale program quantity.<br />

Comment<br />

In its Forest inventory procedures, the Forest Service estimates the dead volume which would have<br />

merchantable value over the next ten-year period. This is commonly called the salvable dead. The<br />

salvable dead timber available for harvest is not included in the FORPLAN ASQ since the FORPLAN<br />

yields are based on net merchantable volume. For example, we estimate that the salvable dead volume<br />

in the Winema's inventory is 70.3 million cubic feet or roughly 90.2 cubic feet per acre. The first decade<br />

harvest (Management Plan, Pg 11-7) totals about 25,000 acres. Based on the 90 cubic feet per acre,<br />

the salvable dead volume on green sales would be about 2.2 million cubic feet annually.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An estimate of salvage volume is included in the timber sale program quantity.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema staff should evaluate the defect factors used for its pole and small sawtimber stands. It is<br />

possible to correct the defect and breakage factor on these stands by changing the percentage reduction<br />

that was used. This problem could be corrected by modifying the beginning average volume per acre<br />

to reflect improved logging technology and lower defect and breakage rate of young stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The cull, defect and breakage values for the Forest were developed from fall buck and scale studies<br />

and values used by ranger districts for timber sale appraisals. We discussed your concern of using an<br />

average value for all working groups, but at this time we do not have information to vary the value by<br />

stand age.<br />

Comment<br />

The increased yields that will result from fertilization treatments should be incorporated into the yield<br />

tables. The cost and potential benefits of fertilization on different sites should be evaluated.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station have been evaluating fertilization on the<br />

Winema. Their research shows that the response on the forest is not large enough to cover costs so<br />

fertilization was not given additional evaluation.<br />

Comment<br />

On the Winema, the intensive managed yield tables were only developed for an average site within<br />

each model component. We question this decision, particularly for the major species such as ponderosa<br />

pine or the mixed conifer stands. There is a wide variation of site conditions and site indices within<br />

each of the model components generated by the Winema staff.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The model components were designed to address the major differences in productivity. The fir associated<br />

stands on the Klamath Ranger District were placed in the mixed conifer working group while the fir<br />

associated stands on the rest of the Forest were placed in the pine associated working group. These<br />

K - 196

two working groups have similar species composition but major productivity differences. The differences<br />

in the ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine working groups were not of a large enough magnitude to<br />

warrant separate working groups.<br />

Comment<br />

The Yield Models. The Winema staff used a variety of techniques to develop the managed yield tables<br />

for the four model components. For the lodgepole pine model component, the LPSIM growth model<br />

was used. The major input into this model was the average site index for the lodgepole pine component;<br />

height growth curves and gross basal area factors were not needed to operate this model. We were<br />

told that the major growth functions for this model were derived from the PROGNOSIS model.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

LPSIM was developed before the SORNEC version of the PROGNOSIS model. PROGNOSIS uses the<br />

LPSIM growth functions.<br />

Comment<br />

For those prescriptions that incorporate between two to five commercial thinnings, the Winema staff<br />

should detail its decision process about the stocking level both at the time of precommercial and<br />

commercial thinning.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The assumptions used in the managed yield tables are available in the working papers at the Supervisor's<br />

Office.<br />

Comment<br />

We recommend that the details of this decision be documented and analyzed. The Forest staff should<br />

delineate the number of acres which they believe had adequate stocking from advanced regeneration<br />

and the acres in which they presumed there was inadequate stocking from advanced regeneration. In<br />

addition, it seems that the advanced stocking that did occur, whether adequate or not, would have<br />

some impact on the managed yield tables unless it is destroyed during logging. The Winema staff<br />

should evaluate whether the measurement of the advanced regeneration would have a significant<br />

impact on the total ASO.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The inventory is not designed to provide this level of detail on advanced regeneration. It was assumed<br />

that the regeneration areas did not have manageable advanced regeneration.<br />

Comment<br />

In addition to documenting the falldown factors and measures that could be taken to mitigate these<br />

factors, the Winema staff should also evaluate their decision to add an additional five percent reduction<br />

in the per acre volume. This decision seems to be arbitrarily developed without a sound scientific basis<br />

for the individual component parts. Alternatives, such as vegetation control, were not evaluated. They<br />

should also compare the tradeoffs of increasing pine stocking levels against potential volume increases<br />

expected with less understory vegetation. The PROGNOSIS model can be used to evaluate this factor.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This 5 percent reduction for vegetation competition was only taken on stands that maintained open<br />

stand conditions. The 5 percent reduction is based upon growth response measured when understory<br />

vegetation was removed.<br />

Comment<br />

For some reason, the Winema staff double entered the uneven-aged management acres into the<br />

FORPLAN data base (Exh. Il-A-4). While this did not appear to incorrectly increase the ASQ, the Winema<br />

staff should explain the reasoning behind this entry.<br />

K- 197

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We did not input the uneven-aged management acres twice. The FORPLAN model does not correctly<br />

handle uneven-aged management acres in the age report.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema staff did not evaluate planting genetically improved stock as part of the overall strategy of<br />

uneven-aged management primarily because they believed repeated planting entries would be too<br />

expensive. This prescription might actually improve the genetic make-up and total long term yield because<br />

of improved thinning from below.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We do believe that many of the uneven-aged management treatment acres will receive some planting<br />

but we don't believe there will be a genetic gain. We believe planting in the uneven-aged management<br />

acres will be needed to maintain the current genetic base.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema staff should describe how the maximum diameter requirement drove the model and how<br />

that compared with the even-aged stand model. It appears the staff is trying to produce a tree that is<br />

larger than the average diameter of the managed yield tables. The Winema staff should evaluate this<br />

issue; if the average diameter for uneven-aged stands is higher, the cost and benefits of this decision<br />

should be discussed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Uneven-aged management is being prescribed to maintain an accept forested appearance while<br />

producing some timber outputs. To maximize timber production while using uneven-aged management,<br />

a maximum tree size goal of ely 14 inches would have been chosen. That tree size would not have<br />

maintained an acceptable forested appearance. We chose 24 inches as the maximum tree size because<br />

we believe it will maintain an acceptable forested appearance.<br />

Comment<br />

In the case of the lodgepole pine stands, the methodology used produced yields 114 percent of the<br />

EAM (Managed Yield Tables).' (Uneven Managed Yield Book, pg 3). Again, the Forest silviculturist<br />

reduced these yields. In this case, the uneven-aged lodgepole heights were reduced 24 percent from<br />

the managed yield table. This was the same percentage reduction as was found in the ponderosa<br />

pine working group.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The uneven-aged management yield tables were all redone using the SORNEC version of the PROGNOSIS<br />

model.<br />

Comment<br />

In our opinion, the development of the operational falldown factors, particularly those involving disease,<br />

insect, or factors related to soil compaction are not adequately presented in the draft EIS. These factors<br />

seem to be arbitrary, with little scientific background to support the actual percentages developed. We<br />

recommend that the Winema staff specifically identify those forest acres of each different model<br />

component which will experience yield reductions because of the specific activities, such as soil<br />

compaction, dwarf mistletoe, and other diseases. If there is substantially more falldown in the uneven-aged<br />

stands, the costs and benefit of this type of management should be evaluated before such management<br />

is implemented.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The development of the operational falldowns are documented in process papers and are available for<br />

review in the Forest office.<br />

K - 198

Comment<br />

The Winema staff should evaluate the management goals for the uneven-aged stands under different<br />

constraints and timing choices. In addition to using a 30-year cycle, the Winema staff should allow the<br />

FORPLAN model other timing choice options as developed through Ithe PROGNOSIS model in order to<br />

level out the entry into the uneven-aged stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timing choice is based upon the amount of time it takes the average stand to regain its stocking<br />

level after each uneven-aged management treatment.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema's proposed departure alternative for all species (including lodgepole) is a major issue<br />

that needs more evaluation. One objective of the preferred alternative was to allow the accelerated<br />

harvest of lodgepole pine in the lodgepole pine component because of the mountain pine beetle damage.<br />

Because of the FORPLAN formulation, though, the preferred alternative also proposes accelerated<br />

harvest of the other model components. We believe this is a major issue on the Winema which needs<br />

further evaluation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The DEIS preffered alternative was developed to allow salvage of the dying lodgepole pine while<br />

maintaining the historic harvest level of ponderosa pine and the true firs.<br />

Comment<br />

The harvest schedule is a major issue. The Winema staff should work with local forest industry<br />

representatives to develop a harvest schedule that meets expected needs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has been working with local timber industry representatives and have developed a FORPLAN<br />

run for an industry supported alternative. The industry alternative was within the range of published<br />

alternatives so was not developed into one of the FEIS final alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

Because of the limitations of the Forest Service's present net value evaluations, we recommend that<br />

the preferred alternative be developed by using a maximum timber objective function in FORPLAN<br />

coupled with what is called a PNV "rollover."<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The National Forest Management Act requires that we maximize net public benefit. Present Net Value<br />

is used as an indicator of net public benefit.<br />

Comment<br />

In its current formulation, the preferred alternative will not meet the needs of the American people for a<br />

high level output of renewable resources, and therefore violates the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.<br />

16 U.S.C. 531.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We believe that the preferred alternative will maximize the net public benefit when all resource values<br />

are concidered.<br />

Comment<br />

The failure of the Winema to conduct and keep a current comprehensive survey of present and prospective<br />

conditions on the Forest is a violation of 16 U.S.C. 1642b and 36 C.F.R. 219.12(d). The Winema must<br />

reevaluate its Forest inventory to provide an accurate assessment of the potential of the Winema National<br />

Forest.<br />

K- 199

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The inventory has been updated to September, 1989; lodgepole pine inventory was updated for current<br />

mortality; uneven-aged management yield tables were redone using the latest version of the PROGNOSIS<br />

model. The Forest is just starting a new inventory which will be complete in about 3 years.<br />

Comment<br />

The time period between 1975 and 1985 included one of the most severe recessions in the timber<br />

industry's history. Timber program statistics from this time period do not accurately reflect either current<br />

demand for wood products or the timber industry's current raw material requirements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Tables is Chapter 3 have been updated to the current year.<br />

We are aware that the local timber industry is currently producing at very high levels. The local milling<br />

capacity far exceeds the growing capacity of local forests, so we must expect a major restructuring of<br />

the local industry to get the milling capacity more in line with local growth potential.<br />

Comment<br />

Winema's planners estimate that 50 percent of the Winema's lodgepole pine has already been killed<br />

by the mountain pine beetle and that virtually all of the Forest's lodgepole pine sawtimber will be dead<br />

within the next seven years.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The mortality was checked and we found the lodgepole pine mortality was less than originally projected.<br />

The lodgepole pine empirical yields will be modified based upon the measured mortality rates. Also<br />

the dead lodgepole pine will be removed from the ASO so only green sawtimber will be in the ASQ.<br />

Comment<br />

We are especially concerned about the preferred alternative's reduced ponderosa pine harvest levels.<br />

The Forest's timber cut and sold reports show that the Winema actually sold an average of 93.2 million<br />

board feet of ponderosa pine sawtimber per year between 1977 and 1986. The proposed plan would<br />

sell about 80.8 million board feet per year over the next ten years; a level 13 percent less than the<br />

1977-86 historic average (DEIS Table 11-23).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the historic harvest level by species. Table 3-8 is more indicative of the actual local<br />

demand than the sell. During that period many sales were defaulted and returned to the Forest Service<br />

without being cut. The harvest is scaled volumes and show what was actually used.<br />

Comment<br />

Given the significant green sawtimber harvest reduction proposed in the draft plan, we believe the<br />

Winema's preferred alternative will have to be revised if the Forest hopes to produce sufficient timber<br />

to maintain the economic stability of timber-dependent communities. The land allocations and ASO<br />

established in the final plan must recognize: (1) the local timber industry's current, post-recession raw<br />

material requirements; (2) the impending reduction in private timber harvest levels; and (3) the major<br />

harvest reductions proposed on adjoining national forests. As a minimum, the Winema's green sawtimber<br />

sale program for the next ten years should be as close as possible to the Forest's own historic sell<br />

level; especially in the critical ponderosa pine component.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These factors were all concidered in detail but the preferred alternative does not maintain local industry<br />

and we expect some major restructuring of the local timber industry will need to occur to get the milling<br />

capacity in line with available timber supplies.<br />

K - 200

Comment<br />

Uneven-age, mixed species forest management can draw on all the acquired skills of the professional<br />

or trained forester. Hence, the culmination of such management, i.e., the harvest should not be performed<br />

by volunteer, un-skilled, or semiskilled personnel. Uneven-aged management implies some form of<br />

selection and this selection is critical (highly so) to the development of the forest until the next cutting<br />

cycle. Observations have been made on U.S.F.S. sales where there was obviously no silvicultural objective<br />

in the marking practice. Rather, there appeared to be a random selection of trees to meet some<br />

preconceived quantitative quote.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A silviculture prescription is written for each timber management activity and then monitoring occurs to<br />

make sure the prescription is properly applied. All prescriptions are certified as meeting management's<br />

objectives by a trained silviculturist.<br />

Comment<br />

We suggest that group selection be used in conjunction with uneven-aged management prescriptions.<br />

This would allow removal of groups of older, poor formed or defective trees that may not release well.<br />

It would also allow sunlight to the Forest floor to promote forage growth and provide edge conditions<br />

so important to wildlife. We would suggest these group selections to be made on areas from 1/4 to<br />

1/2 acre in size.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree. The plan has a maximum group size specified at 2 acres but most will be much smaller.<br />

Comment<br />

We suggest the 40,547 acres allocated to old growth as required by old growth indicator species in<br />

the LRMP could be reduced if uneven-aged management is used. Uneven-aged management will<br />

provide additional habitat in managed stands to provide a portion of these species requirements. A<br />

snag retention policy and requirements to leave prescribed numbers of cull logs in the woods during<br />

logging operations will insure additional habitat for none game species. We feel uneven-aged<br />

management can successfully be practiced in some pine, pine associated and lodgepole pine old<br />

growth areas with little if any detrimental affect on wildlife.<br />

As you can see we support uneven-aged management. That management system may produce slightly<br />

less forage and timber and it may not, but if it does produce less the trade offs are well worth it. We<br />

would expect a more natural appearing forest, a better dispersion of wildlife cover and more areas<br />

available for timber harvest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The ecologists and wildlife biologists do not feel the stands treated by a selection harvest meet the<br />

requirements for oldgrowth.<br />

Uneven-aged management should minimize many conflicts between the competing resources but it<br />

won't provide oldgrowth, unaltered stands which many folks seem to want.<br />

Comment<br />

We are concerned that the LRMP and DEIS did not adequately address management of wet and moist<br />

lodgepole pine stands. The management of these stands to enhance their wildlife benefits such as<br />

cover and fawning/calving areas need to be identified and addressed with wildlife as a priority<br />

consideration. We add however, that in the event of heavy Mountain Pine Beetle mortality they should<br />

be selectively logged. That logging should be wildlife oriented and leave healthy trees and as much<br />

reproduction and brush as is possible. If they are not logged the snags will fall in such concentrations<br />

that big game travel will be restricted to the point of loss of the habitat, a fire hazard will be created<br />

that could be devastating and the beetle would spread to adjoining stands.<br />

K - 201

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan contains the Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas. Wet and moist<br />

lodgepole pine areas are managed for their wildlife habitat.<br />

The plan does call for salvage logging the dead lodgepole pine and that should prevent the fire hazard<br />

and the loss of wildlife habitat to large accumulations of dead and down lodgepole pine.<br />

Comment<br />

Consideration should be given to clearing or thinning along high speed highways such as Highway<br />

97, where road kill is a problem due to lack of visibility. This would also help in letting sunlight to the<br />

road surface to allow natural ice melt.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Little of the Highway 97 corridor is near lands owned by the Winema National Forest. The State Highway<br />

Department has been working with private land owners along Highway 97 to purchase sufficient<br />

right-of-way so visibility can be improved along the highway.<br />

Comment<br />

Uneven-aged Management - The Winema is to be commended for this approach. Uneven-aged<br />

management is very acceptable to the public and certainly minimizes any conflicts. We do not, however,<br />

believe that we should see any reduction in yield potential on these lands. Many private lands have<br />

been managed without losses in yields and in fact the State of Oregon's response indicates that by<br />

using PROGNOSIS you will 'experience no falldown on yield for uneven-aged ponderosa pine<br />

management. Assuming no loss in yields we recommend the expansion of this system where applicable.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree. Our uneven-aged management yield tables were redone using the SORNEC version of the<br />

PROGNOSIS model. These new yield tables had similar yields to the even-aged tables.<br />

Comment<br />

Research Natural Areas - We do not sup-port the inclusion of the 852 acres of the Cherry Creek Basin<br />

lying outside of the Sky Lakes Wilderness Area. We certainly recognize that this is a very small land<br />

allocation and will have minimal impact on the timber sale levels. However, it does appear to be something<br />

of a wilderness buffer. If that was not the intent please inform us as to what the intent actually was.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The intent of the Cherry Creek Basin RNA was to include a 3rd order drainage. The additional acreage<br />

is needed to meet the intent of the RNA. In no way is Cherry Creek Basin a buffer to the wilderness.<br />

Comment<br />

We support the areas included in the draft plan except for that part of the Cherry Creek Basin which<br />

lies outside of the Sky Lakes Wilderness. This appears to us to be a wilderness buffer." Also, we request<br />

additional detailed inventory and classification efforts to insure that duplication is both minimal and<br />

intentional in land types set aside on wilderness, research natural areas, special management areas,<br />

and old growth. Excessive duplication would unnecessarily impact timber volumes.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The location of the RNAs are based upon inventoried needs. The Oregon Heritage Council keeps<br />

track of which plant communities are represent upon RNAs and recommends needed additions.<br />

Comment<br />

There is no way that alternative E proposed harvest levels will even let the Forest get through the first<br />

decade. I have personally looked at the plantations that have been created within the last eight years<br />

primarily on the Chiloquin and Chemult Districts, 50,000 to 60,000 acres, and the growth rates that are<br />

indicated in the plan do not correspond to the growth rates that are actually taking place on the ground.<br />

K - 202

The Forest has plantations that are 8 to 10 years old that are less than 3 1/2 feet tall, they are not<br />

providing cover for wildlife, and are seriously affecting permitted livestock grazing, by forcing livestock<br />

to concentrate more in the meadows and riparian areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has plantations that are both growing faster than the average yield table and some that are<br />

growing slower than the average yield table.<br />

I believe your point is that we would not be able to maintain the harvest level projected in decade one<br />

in Alternative E. This true. Alternative E is a departure alternative that has a much lower harvest in<br />

decade two.<br />

Comment<br />

One of the more serious limitations of the plan is that plantation growth and acreage is not properly<br />

accounted for, and this will cause timber harvesting to fall down even sooner if a more prudent harvest<br />

level is not ed that accounts for these plantations and for those areas that have recently burned within<br />

the last 8 years.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FORPLAN data base was updated to September, 1988 for all the cut over acres. The growth rate<br />

of the plantations was based upon actual measured growth rates.<br />

Comment<br />

The other factor is that the Chiloquin District has invested so many dollars in gopher control and replanting<br />

that the Forest will probably never realize any net return from the trees that finally do make it.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Plantation establishment is very expensive and was included in the cost data for the FORPLAN model.<br />

The model shows that it is cost effective to assure reforestation.<br />

Comment<br />

We are convinced that growth rates that form the basis for both the even-aged and uneven-aged<br />

management areas are understated. So while we believe the ASO should be a sustainable volume for<br />

all species but lodgepole pine, we also believe that the sustainable level is higher than your proposal.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The growth rates are based upon actual tree measurements. The growth rates are good representations<br />

of our average expected growth rate.<br />

Comment<br />

The compilation of the planning documents and the development of background data upon which<br />

they are based certainly represents a monumental and complex task. Nevertheless, I was somewhat<br />

disturbed by errors and mistatements occurring in the Plan. They made analysis difficult and lead me<br />

to suspect the ability of even many Forest Service personnel to grasp the significance of the proposals<br />

and to successfully implement the Final Plan. These include the figures in Table IV-9 and the description<br />

of Note 3 to Table IV - I which describes the 166.1M acres with 50-99% yield as including Management<br />

Area 12B (uneven-aged timber management).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Upon review, We don't see the problem with these tables. I'm sure there are some errors in the DEIS<br />

and I'm sure there will be some errors in the FEIS. The EIS and Plan are reviewed but some errors still<br />

seem to slide through. Errors discovered after the plan is published will be corrected with amendments.<br />

Comment<br />

The re-measurement of continuous forest inventory plots on Klamath Indian Trust lands over a fifteen<br />

year period indicates the diameter growth used in the Winema yield tables is too conservative. Many<br />

K - 203

of the plots are still available and would provide a 25-year history of growth and mortality, if re-measured.<br />

Measurements during the first 15 years indicate your allowance for mortality is too high. Excerpts from<br />

a growth report based on these plots are included in an exhibit to the attached Position Paper. Reference<br />

is also made there to growth data from the Flathead Indian Reservation which supports the use of<br />

higher diameter growth rates.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The yield tables were checked and we decided the uneven-aged tables were underestimating growth.<br />

The uneven-aged yield tables were redone using the SORNEC version of the PROGNOSIS model. This<br />

model is based upon our measured inventory growth rates and upon research measurements for<br />

managed stands.<br />

Comment<br />

It is my opinion that yields will suffer with thirty year cutting cycles as you propose - especially at the<br />

stocking levels suggested in your yield tables. Diameter growth will seriously be impaired toward the<br />

end of the cycle. Logic tells me that a stocking level should be sought that will produce near maximum<br />

diameter growth rates and that level of stocking should be maintained within fairly close limits. In my<br />

opinion, the cutting cycle should not exceed 15 years. Even at yields as low as predicted in your yield<br />

tables such as 32 cubic feet per acre, this would produce a harvest level of about 2600 board feet per<br />

acre which is reasonable as witnessed by the following limited list of sales with which I have been<br />

involved.<br />

Klamath Indian<br />

Acres<br />

Volume/Acre<br />

9,066 1,376<br />

1,950 4,100<br />

5,611 2,986<br />

790 2,806<br />

2,615 2,379<br />

760 2,485<br />

Private<br />

Acres<br />

Volume/Acre<br />

573 2,970<br />

596 2,438<br />

160 581<br />

40 2,575<br />

80 2,100<br />

240 1,600<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Selection harvest is a regeneration cut. It is necessary to lower the stocking level each entry sufficiently<br />

to allow regeneration to occur, not to just maintain diameter growth. Our prescriptions for uneven-aged<br />

management calls for reducing the growing stock to 25 percent of maximum stand density index or 45<br />

percent of maximum basal area. This is about 65 square feet of basal area in ponderosa pine stands.<br />

K - 204

It then takes 30 years for the stand to grow back to the point were suppression mortality would begin.<br />

These are the assumptions behind our entry cycle in the uneven-aged management yield tables.<br />

Comment<br />

These plots were installed at the rate of about 100 per compartment in 10 compartments. This spacing<br />

resulted in an intensity range of from 12 acres per plot to 215 acres per plot with an average intensity<br />

of 113 acres per plot. A much more intensive analysis of this data can provide many answers to questions<br />

concerning the application of the selection system (and uneven-aged management) on an historical<br />

basis rather than a theoretical basis. I recommend that such an analysis be made.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We would appreciate receiving such an analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

There is every indication at this time that the Winema staff is open to incorporating technical adjustments<br />

into the final plan. These should include a correction to the acreage of tentatively suitable forest land<br />

which was understated by some 24,000 acres. Increased ponderosa pine yields should also be included<br />

for uneven-aged managed stands, which were too conservative when compared with other data similar<br />

to those displayed in the attached Exhibit which shows growth and yield data from Indian forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These corrections were made.<br />

Comment<br />

There are some grave inconsistencies within the Forest Service data also. For instance, for one large<br />

component of the forest, growth is stated to be 18.2 cubic feet per acre while the Forest Service inventory<br />

indicates the measured growth for the same component is 25.4 cubic feet.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The differences between the empirical yield table growth and the measured inventory growth is a reduction<br />

to account for the growth which is not captured.<br />

Comment<br />

There is also some evidence that the use of improper cost data and the maximization of net present<br />

value may result in the establishment of lower yields than necessary. These factors should be examined<br />

more carefully by he Forest Service.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Managing for maximum timber yield does not achieve the highest possible net present value. The<br />

preferred alternative optimizes timber yield while still being cost effective.<br />

Comment<br />

The preferred Alternative E is a pretty good plan and I credit the Forest Service in it's development.<br />

However, the departure of Ponderosa pine from 90 MMBF to 80 MMBF will have serious implications<br />

on the economy of the basin at a time when the economy is already very shaky. If the Forest Service<br />

absolutely must reduce harvest levels of Ponderosa pine then I suggest they come up with some mitigating<br />

measures.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 shows the past harvest of ponderosa pine. Maintaining a harvest of 80 mmbf per year would<br />

take a departure from sustained even flow in ponderosa pine. We received several comments requesting<br />

we select an alternative that would maintain an even flow of ponderosa pine, which is done with the<br />

preferred alternative.<br />

K - 205

There are no mitigating measures to offset this loss in volume.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Service should start investing much more heavily into resource inventories. I am surprised<br />

that only 400+ permanent plots are the basis for all of these deliberations (Forest Plan). As a starter,<br />

for the first five years, until you get to a maintenance mode, you should be investing at least $.50/ac/year,<br />

or establishing a good, reliable, maintainable inventory.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current inventory is a stratified randomly sampled inventory. It is very accurate at determining the<br />

standing inventory on the entire Forest but loses its accuracy as the stratifications are further divided<br />

for land use planning purposes. The Forest is planning a new inventory which will have a computer<br />

based map system with ely four times as many satisfactions as the current inventory. It is being designed<br />

to give accurate inventories for the smaller stratifications needed for Forest Planning. This inventory is<br />

planned to be completed during the planning period covered by the FEIS and prior to preparing the<br />

next Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

No one has demonstrated sustainable forestry beyond one or two rotations. Recent data indicate that<br />

irreparable degradation must be expected if the Forest is not managed as a WHOLE SYSTEM. Habitat<br />

loss cannot be mitigated.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The management areas for the Forest Plan are a complex mix of harvest, partial harvest and no harvest<br />

prescriptions with Standards and Guideline to maintain soil structure and productivity.<br />

Comment<br />

Old growth is definitely seen as a commodity to be liquidated - the timber companies demand it - especially<br />

from the unroaded areas. And where in your plan, is the renewal of old growth? (One has to find some<br />

woodpeckers or owls in order to preserve a patch of old growth!) Where is the renewal of the forest,<br />

i.e., mixed age and species?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Old growth timber does have a very high value and is in demand by the wood products industries.<br />

Areas that will provide old-growth in perpetuity include wilderness areas, semiprimitive recreation areas,<br />

unique areas, research natural areas, and designated old-growth management areas. Table 2-4 shows<br />

the allocation to these management areas.<br />

Uneven-aged has been designated as the preferred silvicultural treatment in the ponderosa pine and<br />

pine associated timber types. This will maximize the mix of species and age classes in those timber<br />

types. We will be planting pine trees in the mixed conifer type to re-establish the historical levels of<br />

pine in that timber type.<br />

Comment<br />

How about setting aside some uneven-age mixed specie young Forests for the old growth Forests of<br />

the future?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We analyzed different ways to provide old-growth stand conditions, and found that designating stands<br />

in perpetuity was the most efficient way to achieve our old-growth objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

If the demand for timber is going to grow 'slowly' and projections for increased demand are 'considerably<br />

restrained and cautious,, and demand curves 'downward sloping," why are we departing from even<br />

flow and raising the harvest 25%?<br />

K - 206

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The preferred alternative has been changed as follows: ponderosa pine will be managed on a sustained<br />

even-flow basis; and the lodgepole pine will be harvested at an accelerated rate to minimize loss to<br />

the mountain pine beetle, but only to the extent possible while meeting minimum mule deer habitat<br />

requirements.<br />

Comment<br />

If Kiamath Falls depends largely on out-of-county logs, with the Winema supplying only 15%, why are<br />

we increasing harvest by 25%?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We did not receive support for our departure proposal so that has been removed from the preferred<br />

alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

Does uneven-aged management, as defined by the Forest, satisfy the needs of the Tribe? If the Tribe's<br />

definition of 'enjoyable experience' includes old growth ponderosa pine, uneven-age management will<br />

not fulfill the Tribe's wishes.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is very difficult to evaluate how folks will relate to uneven-aged management. An uneven-aged<br />

management demonstration area was harvested on the Chiloquin so we could get this type of feedback.<br />

I don't know of any tribal members who visited the site who were dissatisfied with the uneven-aged<br />

silvicultural system.<br />

Comment<br />

Why is the table in MMCF? MBF is more commonly used and may be more easily understood by the<br />

public.<br />

Is departure from even-flow consistent with the Forest Service Mission of 'Caring for the Land'? We<br />

may be serving a small number of citizens for a few years by subsidizing a declining timber market,<br />

but this is a national resource, not the Klamath Falls Tree Farm. What happens to 'historical levels' of<br />

county receipts when the Forest ASQ drops in Decade 3?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The table in the Forest Plan is in MMCF, because the Plan will be monitored in cubic feet. Wood products<br />

companies make many products out of sawlogs other than just boards, so the board foot measurement<br />

is becoming obsolete.<br />

A departure from even-flow is consistent with the concept of 'Caring for the Land." Standards and<br />

guidelines would be followed and the long-term productivity of the forest would not be impaired.<br />

The departure was proposed to help even out the availability of timber for the sawmills in the Kiamath<br />

timber shed as proposed in the Forestry Plan for Oregon. This was not supported by the public and<br />

has been removed from the final plan.<br />

Comment<br />

How many acres of lodgepole were historically cut to achieve 3.41 MMCF? Again - why do we keep<br />

switching from MMBF to MMCF?<br />

What does managing lodgepole to a 'a level of low risk for future MPB infestations' mean? Short rotations?<br />

Be specific.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The historical cut level of lodgepole pine has been 6320 board feet per acre; which equals 1254 cubic<br />

feet per acre. It would take 2719 acres to produce 3.41 MMCF of harvest.<br />

The board foot measure is becoming obsolete so the plan will be monitored using cubic feet. That is<br />

why the tables are presented in cubic feet. Board feet is also presented to help people familiar with<br />

board feet make the conversion.<br />

K - 207

Chapter 4 of the FEIS in Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Pests speaks to minimizing losses to<br />

mountain pine beetle.<br />

Comment<br />

The use of the words "resource constraints" is not appropriate in a multiple resource management<br />

approach.<br />

How will maintaining historic levels of ponderosa pine harvest affect our ability to maintain viable wildlife<br />

populations?<br />

How will we make lodgepole less susceptible to beetle attack? Be more specific.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Coordinating requirements is more appropriate than constraints. All the resource needs are evaluated<br />

together to meet the combined needs of all.<br />

Folks think in terms of resource constraints because the usual outcome of a specific requirement is to<br />

constrain or lower the potential output of another resource.<br />

The effects of maintaining the historic sell levels of ponderosa pine are discussed in Chapter 4 of the<br />

FEIS in the section titled Effects of the Alternatives on Wildlife Communities.<br />

A vigorous stand of lodgepole pine, which is open and free to grow, is not susceptible to mountain<br />

pine beetles. Our current lodgepole pine stands are overstocked and quite old. the mountain pine<br />

beetle will continue to kill trees until vigor is restored. This is discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS in the<br />

section titled Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Pests.<br />

Comment<br />

Please explain what a "regulated" forest looks like. Does the public have any idea what this means?<br />

Will a regulated forest still include any unmanaged lands? How much?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A regulated forest is a forest which is organized and achieves sustained yields. A regulated forest<br />

would have equal amounts of stands in each desired age class. If for example, the forest was to be<br />

grown on a 100 year rotation, 25% of the forest would be 0-25 years old, 25% would be 26-50 years<br />

old, etc. Since we have few regulated forests in the United States, most people do not have an<br />

understanding of a regulated forest.<br />

Table 24 in the FEIS shows the number of acres in each management area. See th e description of<br />

the management area in Chapter 2 of the FEIS to see which management area are left in a natural<br />

state.<br />

Comment<br />

What will happen to receipts to the county when all the pine is gone? Is it good economics to go to a<br />

high volume departure for the short term at the expense of long-term economic stability?<br />

Why aren't roadless ares included in the list of areas with no scheduled harvest?<br />

Where is "no scheduled harvest" defined? It should be made clear to all readers that no scheduled<br />

harvest does not necessarily mean no cutting.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 2-19 in the FEIS shows the projected returns to the County. The species mix is very important to<br />

the projected returns to the County. The ponderosa pine harvest raises the returns to the County where<br />

the lodgepole pine, with its low value, reduces returns to the County. The two can have an off-setting<br />

effect. The departure in the DEIS preferred alternative was designed to off-set the short-term projected<br />

decline in timber supply, as indicated in the Forestry Program for Oregon, which would improve long-term<br />

economic stability. The roadless areas were allocated to several management areas, some with a<br />

programmed harvest, others without. The roadless area acres allocated to management areas with a<br />

programed harvest would be entered when ever it was best for the overall management of the forest.<br />

Appendix C in the FEIS discusses each roadless area and management area allocation for each. Table<br />

C-3 shows the acres which would not be developed during the next 15 years for each roadless area.<br />

K - 208

Salvage harvest is permissible on some lands that do not have a programmed harvest. Table B-5 in<br />

the FEIS indicates if harvesting is permissible within a management area.<br />

Comment<br />

Need more specific information on how timber management plan would be modified with changing<br />

conditions/information.<br />

165,000 cords of firewood can hardly be called 'incidental.' How many MMBF does this equal?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The sale plan, as shown in Appendix A of the Forest Plan, is reviewed yearly. Planned areas may produce<br />

more or less timber volume than expected, updated logging plans may revise road needs, etc. These<br />

are the types of situations that cause a change in the sale plan.<br />

The 165,000 cords you speak of is an estimate of the total possible firewood that could be made available.<br />

165,000 cords is ely 82,500 MBF. The current harvest of firewood is about 7,000 MBF or 14,000 cords.<br />

Comment<br />

By the end of the 5th decade the ONLY 160+ age group trees to be found will be in the uneven-age<br />

management area (according to table). This is unacceptable in a multiple use forest. How many trees/acre<br />

over 160 years old will be maintained through decade 5 in the uneven-age area?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your comment references page IV-23 in the proposed Forest Plan. Table IV-4, which is on page IV-23,<br />

shows the planned silvicultural treatment by management area The question does not seem to relate<br />

to the table.<br />

Figure IV-1 in the FEIS shows the acres by age class projected through the planning horizon.<br />

The uneven-aged management acres are not included in the figures because all age classes are<br />

represented on every acre. The maximum residual tree size planned for varies between 24 inches DBH<br />

and 36 inches DBH depending on species and management area.<br />

Comment<br />

Are "desired" levels of mature and old growth the same as minimum levels? Just because harvest is<br />

not 'programmed' in these areas does not assure they will not be cut. Need to clarify language.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table B-5 in the FEIS indicates if harvesting is permissible within a management area.<br />

The alternative descriptions in Chapter 2 of the FEIS indicates if the 'desired' levels of old-growth are<br />

at or above the management requirements for old-growth.<br />

Comment<br />

In light of the fact that old growth ecosystems cannot be reproduced silviculturally, the only prudent<br />

course of action for the WNF is to institute a complete moratorium on the cutting of naturally evolved<br />

old growth forests. There is a major and complex qualitative difference between a true old growth<br />

ecosystem and a second growth forest. No matrix of indicator species MMRs and silvicultural prescriptions<br />

can recreate a naturally evolved old growth ecosystem. Though we favor plans to manage already<br />

disturbed sites so as to re-establish old age classes on the Forest, we believe that all remaining<br />

undisturbed, naturally evolved old growth communities on the Forest must be preserved and dedicated<br />

in habitat for the numerous dependent plant and animal species that inhabit these magnificent<br />

ecosystems. The WNF has a vital role to play in the long-term viability of an entire ecosystem and in<br />

the survival of the numerous old growth dependent wildlife and plant species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest has been researching old records and photographs to try to determine<br />

what an old growth, undisturbed stand really is for the Winema. Our ecologist hasn't completed the<br />

determination, but it appears the ponderosa pine old-growth forests were very open stands with few<br />

understory trees and little to no ground cover. Lodgepole pine forests were probably never very old<br />

K - 209

and regenerated often. The mixed conifer forests had a high component of various pine trees in the<br />

old growth condition.<br />

These conditions do not exist on the Forest any longer. Fire control activities have eliminated the frequent<br />

fires so now pine stands have become multistoried and quite dense, the lodgepole pine has become<br />

very old and is dying very quickly, and fir trees now dominate the mixed conifer forests. Logging has<br />

removed the largest, most valuable trees from most of forest open to timber management.<br />

We believe that a portion of the Forest may be set-aside for old-growth, and that we will need to manage<br />

these stands to actually maintain a naturally occurring old-growth stand. Without management, old-growth<br />

stands on the Winema will continue to become more dominated by fir trees until ponderosa pine will<br />

be completely excluded from the forest, except in ponderosa pine climax sites.<br />

Comment<br />

I have heard it said that your yield tables are too conservative. If you have some reservations about<br />

the tables you are using, I hope that further tests can be made to determine their validity.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We did review our yield tables and have elected to redo the uneven-aged management yield tables<br />

using the PROGNOSIS growth and yield simulator. PROGNOSIS is the "state of the arts in growth and<br />

yield simulation for the Winema. We compared the even-aged management yield tables against<br />

PROGNOSIS and found there to be no difference.<br />

Comment<br />

The preferred alternative proposes surpassing the sustained yield of both lodgepole and ponderosa<br />

pines. Logging, even at sustained yields, insures that residences, apartments, commercial structures<br />

and cabinetry will continue to be built almost exclusively of wood products, a practice that condemns<br />

inhabitants to premature deaths. The use of formaldehyde, a proven carcinogen, is common in trusses,<br />

beams plywood waferboard and particleboard. Chloridane, another deadly carcinogen, is necessary<br />

and legal for termite protection. Herbicide sprays used by the Forest Service in its 'tree farm' operations<br />

have been linked to the incidence of cancers and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in adjacent human<br />

populations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your concern for chemicals used during processing or for protection is outside the scope of this<br />

environmental impact statement.<br />

The use of herbicides on the Forests of the Pacific Northwest was studied and documented in the final<br />

Environmental Impact Statement titled Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest manages about 20,000 acres of O&C lands. These lands are particularly<br />

important to local governments since 50 percent of the timber revenue is transferred to the counties.<br />

The Final EIS should show the location of these lands, how they are treated in the various alternatives,<br />

and their contribution to county payments.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest manages acres of former O&C lands. These lands are to be managed<br />

just like any other National Forest land except the lands are subject to the O&C fund distribution formulas.<br />

A map showing the location of the former O&C lands has been placed in the land ownership section<br />

in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 speaks to the effect of the alternative on O&C receipts.<br />

Comment<br />

One of the major reforestation problems facing the Klamath R.A. and the Winema Forest is summertime<br />

frost. It is a well-known problem, and I have become very familiar with it. Even-aged management systems<br />

as you propose will not allow for the regeneration of frost susceptible species such as Douglas-fir,<br />

K - 210

white fir and Shasta fir. Traditional shelterwoods and clearcuts do not afford the necessary thermal<br />

protection that these species need for regeneration.<br />

The Klamath R.A. is ing a variety of silvicultural techniques in the lands we manage in Klamath county.<br />

Heavy shelterwoods (> 160 sq. ft. basal area), narrow strip clearcuts (< 120 feet wide), group<br />

shelterwoods and single tree selection are all being practiced in the frost prone areas.<br />

On page IV-1 25, it is stated that trees larger than 24" DBH are removed at each entry of an uneven-aged<br />

management area. I would encourage the Winema Forest to consider leaving trees larger than 24a. A<br />

classical uneven-aged forest has trees representing all diameter classes, ages and species. By removing<br />

all trees larger than 24e on each entry, the forest could be losing a significant component necessary<br />

for regeneration, site productivity, and wildlife.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Choosing a maximum residual tree for uneven-aged management stands is a compromise between<br />

maximizing yields, which would use a maximum residual tree size of 16 inches, and producing a stand<br />

that has expected characteristics. Twenty-four inches reduces yields slightly but gives the larger trees<br />

many people want to see. Visual sensitive areas will have maximum residual trees 30 to 34 inches i<br />

diameter. The 24 inch maximum residual tree size has no effect on regeneration, site productivity or<br />

wildlife. Twenty inches is the largest tree needed to meet wildlife habitat in eastern Oregon.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest yield tables are definitely overly optimistic.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The yield tables were developed using the latest stocking levels and growth information and then received<br />

a peer review before approval. We feel quite confident that the yield tables represent the growth and<br />

yield for the management intensity they represent.<br />

Comment<br />

The basic justification for the departure is the maintenance of economic stability in the Klamath Basin.<br />

The timber industry has stated that they desire a continued supply of clear, straight-grained lumber<br />

from large diameter ponderosa pine. The Winema National forest, seems to have accepted the idea<br />

that an economy based on smaller diameter fast growing trees will be superior to one based on lower<br />

volumes of mature ponderosa pine. This assumption is questionable since mature ponderosa is evidently<br />

the most economically desirable product. The departure would result in less wood being available in<br />

the future, as well as a trade-off of quality lumber for cheap wood fiber from young fast growing trees.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forestry Program for Oregon shows that there will be a decline in available timber from private<br />

lands in the Klamath Basin and that if Federal lands would increase their harvest during the time period<br />

that timber supplies are low, that the negative impact on the local economy could be minimized. The<br />

draft was designed to maintain the current harvest level of ponderosa pine for 40 years, which at that<br />

time, private timber would again be available. The local industry and general public did not support<br />

this concept so the final selected alternative has a sustained even-flow of ponderosa pine.<br />

Local industry felt ponderosa pine trees larger than 20 inches in diameter would meet their need for<br />

quality ponderosa pine. Our silviculture prescriptions for ponderosa pine will produce some trees larger<br />

than 20 inches.<br />

Comment<br />

The timber industry is in error when it blames declining local employment on a decline in the timber<br />

supply. The number of people employed in the timber industry has declined, and continues to decline,<br />

because of mechanization and not because of a decline in the timber supply. If the Winema converts<br />

to small fast growing stands of trees this trend toward mechanization will only be increased.<br />

K - 211

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, we agree that timber industry will continue toward mechanization. We don't agree that mechanization<br />

is necessarily tied to tree size, but instead is tied to the relationship between labor costs versus the<br />

cost of mechanization.<br />

Comment<br />

During the 1970's then Regional Forester, Richard Worthington, met with local Klamath Basin Industry<br />

and Tribal members concerned with the heavy use of clear cutting practices. He and the Winema<br />

Supervisor concurred that uneven-aged management was to be used to the maximum extent possible<br />

and there should be no need to reduce harvest levels. The draft forest plan seems to indicate 80 percent<br />

of the commercial base is to be managed by even-aged management techniques. Excluding the lodgepole<br />

that essentially requires a clearcut system, are we to assume the forest is returning to a heavy clearcut<br />

policy? If so, it violates past commitments. The forest can be largely managed without clearcutting.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No, the Forest is not moving toward a clearcut regeneration system. Uneven-aged management is<br />

planned for the ponderosa pine and pine associated working groups and uneven-aged management<br />

and shelterwood regeneration systems will be used on the mixed conifer working groups wherever it is<br />

practical and still control the Armillaria root rot.<br />

Comment<br />

Empirical yield tables - The tables reportedly developed by regional office staff - without use of many<br />

decades of plot growth data already on file and the reduction of these yield tables on the Winema by<br />

50 percent in order to be safe" make these estimates unreliable, erroneous and have flawed the analysis.<br />

I can find no documentation of the origin of these projections in the material made available in this<br />

nine pound document for public review. It appears to have been a subjective decision and should not<br />

be permitted when opportunity for jobs, community and national income are at issue.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Documentation of the process which has been used is on file in the Regional Forester's office. The<br />

process has been critiqued and modified in past planning and field review indicates that yield curves<br />

are reasonable. There are some recognized shortcomings in the process, however, there are established<br />

checkpoints for evaluation and possible modifications of yields.<br />

For the final all the empirical yields were updated to the midpoint of the planning period (1994). Also<br />

between the draft and final, all the lodgepole pine inventory plots were visited to determine the current<br />

mortality in the lodgepole pine. This information was then used to adjust the lodgepole pine empiricals<br />

for mortality so the ASQ in the final only includes live and green lodgepole pine.<br />

Comment<br />

Resolved, that western national forests presently making new management plans give full consideration<br />

to the necessity of maintaining a forestland base capable of high sustained levels of timber production.<br />

To assure the stability of natural resource-based economies, the Forest Service is urged to plan to<br />

meet or exceed the Resource Planning Act sawtimber targets toward achievement of maximum net<br />

public benefits. The Forest Service is also urged to retain or enhance the economic viability of the<br />

timber sale program during the first decade of the plan period.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There are many demands by the public to maintain a visually pleasing forest as well as maintaining a<br />

wide variety of wildlife habitats. Alternative J, the preferred alternative, only achieves 62 percent of the<br />

RPA planned output. This will definitely impact the local economies and cause some reduction in<br />

employment in the timber industry.<br />

K - 212

Comment<br />

It is noted that the Forest Service no longer cites (36 CFR-221) as being part of their authorization<br />

although these regulations have not been superseded and should remain in force. Perhaps an<br />

acknowledgement these regulations by the Forest Service would strengthen their emphasis on a<br />

continuous supply of timber, stabilization of communities and opportunities for employment. Excerpts<br />

from these regulations follow.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We do acknowledge Part 221 of the CFR 36. Most of our alternatives produced a sustained even flow<br />

of sawtimber but to look at a full range of alternatives, departures were also examined. We spend<br />

many hour trying to 'Provide for coordination of timber production and harvesting with other uses of<br />

national forest land in accordance with the principles of multiple use management."<br />

Comment<br />

A priority for the Winema should be to develop and adhere to a management strategy that attempts to<br />

prevent insect and disease problems rather than reacting to them after they become epidemic.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4, Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Pests, shows how the various alternatives address pest<br />

problems. The management strategy chosen must weigh the cost of preventing all losses to the values<br />

at risk. The selected alternative is a good compromise between the cost of prevention and the values<br />

at risk.<br />

Comment<br />

Based on the figures in table I1-3A of the DEIS, a ratio of 5.4 is used for board foot to cubic foot conversion<br />

in all alternatives. The use of an average factor for all alternatives does not accurately reflect the variation<br />

in the size of material produced by each alternative. For instance, alternative D, which emphasizes<br />

large diameter ponderosa pine would logically have a higher board foot to cubic foot conversion ratio<br />

than an alternative emphasizing production of smaller material. Since the ASQ and the LTSY are calculated<br />

using cubic feet, the conversion ratio has no affect on these figures. It does have an affect on the<br />

public's perception of the harvest level. We recommend the board foot to cubic foot conversion ratio<br />

reflect the material to be harvested in the first decade since that is the stated useful life of the new<br />

plan. This approach would provide a more realistic picture of the harvest level proposed by each<br />

alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The board foot/cubic foot conversions did vary by alternative and decade. Referring to page 11-80 in<br />

the DEIS, you will see that the board foot/cubic foot conversions varied from board 5.59 to 5.13 between<br />

alternative and that the board foot/cubic foot conversions for the preferred alternative vary between<br />

5.13 and 5.48 by decade.<br />

Comment<br />

The discussion on timber supply analysis starting on page 111-34 of the DEIS indicates that predictions<br />

of supply from adjacent forests are based on 1983 RPA projections. We are concerned that those<br />

figures will be irrelevant when the planning process is completed and the new plan is implemented. A<br />

number of adjacent National Forests have proposed reduced harvest levels in their preferred alternatives.<br />

We recommend the Winema's analysis of the timber supply situation reflect the preferred alternatives<br />

of other National Forests in the area. Additionally, proposed changes in the ponderosa pine component<br />

of adjacent forest's timber sale programs should be included in the analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Fremont is the only adjacent forest with a Forest Plan, at this time, so it didn't seem to work to<br />

use interim decisions to do this analysis. Instead, the analysis was done similar to the DEIS Chapter 4<br />

but was updated using new supply and demand information. (See Chapter 4)<br />

K - 213

Comment<br />

I request that you closely examine opportunities to maintain the high quality ponderosa pine component<br />

of your timber sale program. My definition of high quality is D.B.H. of 20 or more inches, 10 percent of<br />

the volume of a timber sale with log grades higher than Grade 4, and tree ages of 100 years or more.<br />

I request that you investigate uneven-aged management and pruning to achieve this goal.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The selected alternative prescribes uneven-aged management for the ponderosa pine and pine<br />

associated working groups. ely a third of the volume removed at each entry will be in trees larger than<br />

20 inches DBH. Pruning is not planned for in this planning period. A study has not been completed to<br />

analyze the cost effectiveness of pruning in ponderosa pine.<br />

Uneven-aged management is prescribed for the ponderosa pine and pine associated working groups.<br />

This should take care of most of your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Because of the failure to determine the land's existing productivity and potential, the Tribe believes<br />

that restocking times used in the plan are dramatically underestimated. This miscalculation in turn<br />

affects dispersion standards, re-entry times, visual standards, forage capacity and a host of other resource<br />

output estimates. The Tribe further believes that is accurate regeneration speeds were to be used,<br />

there would be little timber volume production difference between uneven-aged management and<br />

even-aged management acreages.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The revised uneven-aged management yield tables do have similar outputs as the even-aged yield<br />

tables.<br />

Comment<br />

For these reasons, the Tribe suggests that the Forest Service design its management scheme based<br />

on the 'clues' given by the land, using acreage treated for a specific purpose per year as the standard<br />

measurement, rather than the ASO of each alternative. The Forest Service is mandated to manage the<br />

forest lands for multiple purposes. This mandate is not only found in its statutory obligations, but also<br />

in its duties as trustee of tribal treaty rights. Using acreage treated as a unit measurement requires<br />

consideration of the varying productivity and potential to produce a range of resources of different<br />

areas in the forest. It also builds in flexibility to apply the appropriate harvest method based on the<br />

conditions of the acreage and taking in to account other resource objectives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our past experience has led us away from unit area control to controlling on the growth potential of<br />

the Forest. The ASQ is based on the standing inventory, the growth potential and the current stand<br />

condition. This is the best basis for planning future harvest levels.<br />

Comment<br />

The number of acres shown as scheduled for regeneration harvest in the first decade must be updated<br />

to account for the recent years' sales.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FORPLAN model was updated to September 1988.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS discloses that all acres scheduled for uneven-aged management will be harvested in the<br />

Chiloquin District and within the former reservation. In addition, 13% of the 'former reservation lands'<br />

according to DEIS) are scheduled for regeneration harvest in the first decade. DEIS 11-42. The scenic<br />

management dispersion standards will not be imposed in the first two decades and by decade 5, the<br />

average age of ponderosa pines which are important to the Tribe culturally drops from 125 years to 66<br />

years. The average programmed sale quantity exceeds average annual net growth for the first decade<br />

K - 214

y 100 MMBF, and exceeds long term sustained yield by 25 mmbf, assuming realistic productivity<br />

figures were used in calculating the yields. The Tribe can only conclude that the plan will allow a drastic<br />

over cut in the first two decades, seriously and adversely affecting the exercise of its treaty rights and<br />

the nature of the former reservation lands, as well as the long term economy of the Klamath Basin.<br />

These deficiencies must be remedied before adoption of the plan and EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative J was developed to address these concerns. All the ponderosa pine and pine associated<br />

working groups have a longterm goal of uneven-aged management. The selection harvesting has<br />

been leveled between decades. The ASQ of Alternative E was 199 MMBF where as Alternative J has<br />

an ASQ of 117 MMBF.<br />

Comment<br />

The NFMA requires that harvest levels be established to attain nondeclining even flow and limits departures<br />

from this level. Departures may occur to achieve multiple use objectives. If a schedule departure is<br />

justified by infestations of a stand or species, the timber must be substituted for timber that would<br />

otherwise be sold, unless not feasible. 16 USC 1611 (a) and (b).<br />

The plan provides for a two decade departure to convert lodgepole pine stands infested with beetles.<br />

There is no discussion of the feasibility of substituting the lodgepole for other scheduled harvests, as<br />

required by the NFMA. The final DEIS and plan should include this discussion. If substitution is feasible,<br />

other scheduled harvests should be delayed. The Act does not specify the parameters for determining<br />

feasibility, but it clearly requires more than a showing of infestation, and the justification cannot rely<br />

solely on perceived threats to community stability which is not a relevant factor under the NFMA. In<br />

addition, the Tribe questions the plan's assertion that the volume of lodgepole infested with beetles is<br />

so high. The final plan should also consider and account for the lodgepole departure harvest which<br />

has occurred since 1985.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your reference to 16 USC 1611 (a) and (b) is not correct. 16 USC 1611 (a) and (b) states 'The Secretary<br />

may either substitute such timber for timber that would otherwise be sold under the plan, or if not<br />

feasible, sell such timber over and above the plan volume.!<br />

I believe your concern was met in Alternative J. In Alternative J the dead lodgepole pine has been<br />

removed from the ASQ. Removing the dead lodgepole pine is still a goal in Alternative J but if our<br />

estimate of the amount of dead lodgepole pine is wrong or if some of the dead lodgepole is left to<br />

provide wildlife habitat or to protect riparian zones, it will not effect the ASQ. Alternative J is not a departure<br />

from sustained even flow.<br />

Comment<br />

The yield tables also indicate that departures for ponderosa pine, true fir and Douglas-fir stands are<br />

planned, although the plan does not refer to these as departures. Table 11-3A. Implementation of the<br />

plan will drastically change the species composition in the forest, reducing community diversity, and<br />

arguably violating the Act's requirement that existing diversity of species be preserved. NFMA, 16 USC<br />

1604(g)(3)(B). In addition, the overall harvest levels cannot be considered to represent non-declining<br />

even flow as required by the NFMA.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Act does not require the preservation of the existing diversity of species. The Act states: 'The<br />

regulations shall include, but not be limited to<br />

(3)specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of the Program<br />

which--"(B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and<br />

capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within<br />

the muftiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide<br />

where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of<br />

tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan;"<br />

K - 215

The Winema's Forest Plan will not change the diversity of tree species on the Forest but it will change<br />

the age of species on the forest.<br />

Also NFMA does not require non-declining even-flow, but requires the Secretary to plan to '(1) provide<br />

for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained..." from the National Forest.<br />

The implementing regulations for NFMA requires 'the planned sale for any future decade shall be equal<br />

to; or greater than, the planned sale for the preceding decade," but also gives instructions for departing<br />

from this principle when better multiple-use management is attained.<br />

Comment<br />

Maintaining local forest industries at an artificially high, unsustainable level is not an acceptable justification<br />

for continued over-harvest. The harvest levels proposed for the forest cannot be sustained, and must<br />

be reduced before adoption of the plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The implementing regulations for NFMA requires that a departure from sustained even-flow be analyzed<br />

if "(iii) Implementation of the corresponding base sale schedule would cause a substantial adverse<br />

impact upon a community in the economic area in which the forest is located.<br />

Comment<br />

The recent harvest has surely affected the standing inventory, cover forage ratios, available cover and<br />

forage, stream sedimentation, ability to meet dispersion standards, scenic qualities and other resources.<br />

The recent harvest must be accounted for in the final plan in all districts and as it affects all other resources<br />

and management requirements.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

FORPLAN was updated to September 1988 for the Final EIS and Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The Tribe is particularly concerned with the proposed lodgepole departure. The lodgepole has far<br />

more value as deer fawning habitat or sustaining other resources than it does as sawtimber sold, on<br />

occasion, at a loss. The accelerated lodgepole harvest in recent years has already affected other<br />

resources. The proposed harvest levels should be reduced to a sustained yield rate to allow adequate<br />

dispersion of harvest units and to provide adequate cover and forage for deer and elk.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative J has been designed to maintain a sustained even flow and has taken the dead lodgepole<br />

pine out of the ASQ. This will give the sale planners the latitude to meet other resource needs and in<br />

many cases they may use lodgepole pine acres to provide needed habitat.<br />

Comment<br />

The departure in the Ponderosa pine working group is justified by a 'substantial' contribution to community<br />

economic stability. Plan IV 20. Community stability is not a permissible justification for a departure<br />

under the NFMA. Even if it were, the plan sets up the local economy for a dramatic fall in twenty years.<br />

By anyone's standards, the plan fails to contribute to community stability and otherwise fails to justify<br />

the departure in Ponderosa pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Departing from an even-flow of ponderosa pine volume helps to maintain the local timber reduced<br />

harvests on private lands which have been recently harvested. The harvest from private lands will increase<br />

in 20 to 30 years, and then harvest from federal lands could be reduced.<br />

Comment<br />

No inventory of standing timber has been performed on the 135,000 acres of former reservation land<br />

acquired by the Forest in 1974. The Forest has continued to allow harvests of timber at ely the same<br />

rate as the previous bank managers. The land cannot continue to produce at this level. The continuing<br />

K - 216

over harvest has affected other resources, and has resulted in a timber deficit on the lands. The Forest<br />

must perform an inventory of these lands, calculate its long term sustained yield capacity and plan<br />

harvests only after the area has recovered sufficiently.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The entire Forest was inventoried in 1981, including the 135,000 acres of former reservation land acquired<br />

by the Forest in 1974.<br />

Comment<br />

The old growth definitions in the glossary should be clarified and references throughout the plan and<br />

EIS should specify what criteria were used in particular calculations.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The oldgrowth definitions used in the Regional Guide were used in the Forest Plan. These definitions<br />

are found on pages 3-40 through 3-41 of the Regional Guide.<br />

These definitions are under review and may be changed or clarified so we elected to keep the standard<br />

definitions in the plan at this time until a final decision is made on the definitions of oldgrowth.<br />

Comment<br />

Plan, p. IV-41, #2; the silvicultural prescriptions should be prepared or approved by a certified silviculturist.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Silvicultural prescriptions are prepared or approved by a certified silviculturist.<br />

Comment<br />

All of the proposed uneven-aged management in your preferred alternative concentrates on the 144,000<br />

acres of mature, multistoried ponderosa pine stands in and around the former Klamath Reservation at<br />

the cost of a timber harvest reduction of ely four million board feet per year. We request that you reevaluate<br />

those results to assess whether that harvest reduction has to occur. Your yield estimates were originally<br />

made with a model that had difficulty recognizing the existing condition of your timber stands. Now,<br />

the growth and yield model PROGNOSIS, that can accurately represent your existing stands, is available<br />

to you with a version especially calibrated for your area. We believe that careful analysis with this model<br />

can identify timber yield regimes that experience no fall-down on yield for uneven-aged ponderosa<br />

pine management. Please see the comments of the Oregon State Department of Forestry (OSDF) for<br />

more suggestions.<br />

An exception to this conclusion may occur if you combine your uneven-aged analysis with the specification<br />

of a larger target tree size, and associated heavier volume per acre, than recognized in your even-aged<br />

yields. Therefore, we request uneven-aged management or to the related attempt to grow bigger trees.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The uneven-aged management yield tables were recalculated using the PROGNOSIS yield simulator.<br />

The revised yields are very similar to the even-aged yields.<br />

Comment<br />

Beyond reducing the cost of uneven-aged management on the 144,000 acres identified in your preferred<br />

alternative, we request an evaluation of uneven-aged management on the remainder of your ponderosa<br />

pine, your pine-associated, and your mixed conifer. We realize that uneven-aged management becomes<br />

more and more difficult to achieve without a yield fall-down as proportion of the stand in ponderosa<br />

pine diminished and as the existing stand structure becomes less multilayered. However, numerous<br />

agencies, including OSDF, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Economic Development<br />

Department (EDD) and the State Economist all suggest that the Winema National Forest can increase<br />

resource compatibility through more uneven-aged management, especially in important visual, wildlife,<br />

and riparian land allocations. In some allocations, such as visual retention or partial retention middle<br />

ground, it may actually be possible to increase yield over that which would be possible under even-aged<br />

management.<br />

K - 217

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS Preferred Alternative prescribes uneven-aged management on the ponderosa pine and pine<br />

associated working groups. Uneven-aged management is not recommended in the mixed conifer working<br />

group, because the Armillaria root rot would be very hard to control in these stands.<br />

Comment<br />

In this comprehensive analysis of the benefits and costs of uneven-aged management on your three<br />

major forest types, we request that you: 1) stratify your stands so that those whose structure and species<br />

composition are most amenable to uneven-aged management will clearly stand out; 2) develop a number<br />

of yield regimes through time for each stand category to increase the probability that a regime is available<br />

that best meets the objective and constraints of your forest planning analysis; and 3) look beyond the<br />

classic textbook definition of uneven-aged management for your stands that are now two and three-storied<br />

and develop prescriptions, and associated yield regimes, that will maintain their multistoried character.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

1. The present inventory does not lend itself to the stratification you suggest. A new forest inventory is<br />

being designed which will allow us to make the needed stratifications to analyze varying uneven-aged<br />

management between different stand structures.<br />

2. The FORPLAN model was designed to allow the uneven-aged.management to come into solution<br />

as needed.<br />

3. A generic uneven-aged management prescription was used in the FORPLAN model but the standards<br />

and guidelines are written to allow the project level silviculturist the leeway to design an uneven-aged<br />

management prescription which is optimal for the particular situation.<br />

Comment<br />

We are concerned that the proportion of ponderosa pine in the timber harvest will be less than in the<br />

past and that high quality ponderosa pine may disappear entirely as you move to intensively managed<br />

stands. Your proposed plan will lower the offerings of ponderosa pine by over 10 percent from the<br />

recent past, while increasing the offerings of lodgepole pine. As we all know, lodgepole pine will not<br />

provide county revenues and employment as high as quality ponderosa pine. While such a switch in<br />

species mix is needed to deal with your mountain beetle problem, you should carefully examine whether<br />

you could maintain ponderosa pine offerings at recent levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS preferred alternative was designed to maintain a sustained even flow of ponderosa pine. We<br />

found that it was not possible to maintain the historic ponderosa pine sell.<br />

Comment<br />

Your DEIS states that the level of ponderosa pine harvest will stay constant at this lower level for four<br />

decades and then will decrease sharply in the fifth decade which is the last decade you report of your<br />

1 5-decade planning horizon. We realize that the forest plan only applies for a 10 to 15-year period and<br />

that these longer projections serve mainly to illustrate the long-term implications of your proposed<br />

actions. Still, these results concern us because they make us wary about the Forest's plans for ponderosa<br />

pine over time. As an example, we do not know the degree to which ponderosa pine will be favored,<br />

or discriminated against, in planting and precommercial thinning, nor do we know your plans to grow<br />

high quality pine in the future.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is no plan to discriminate against ponderosa pine in our reforestation or precommercial thinning.<br />

Ponderosa pine will continue to make up the historic proportion of the stand composition.<br />

Meetings were held with local industry representatives to get an understanding of high value ponderosa<br />

pine. They said it was ponderosa pine 20 inches in diameter or larger that had grown at a fast rate so<br />

there would be clear blocks of wood between the limb whorles. Our uneven-aged management<br />

prescriptions will provide high quality ponderosa pine.<br />

K - 218

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest should document and possibly reexamine its plans for maintaining the<br />

high quality ponderosa pine component of its timber sale program throughout the planning horizon.<br />

Intensive forest management methods and emerging technology in such areas as pruning and the<br />

uneven-aged management mentioned above, should be considered to allow sustained production of<br />

high quality ponderosa pine in the future. Such production potentially could provide a continuing stable<br />

forest industry in a forest setting that would also maintain the unique character of the Winema National<br />

Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Uneven-aged management is being prescribed to the ponderosa pine and pine associated working<br />

groups to maiantain high levels of timber harvest while maintaining a forested setting.<br />

Pruning was not specifically prescribed but if it proves to be cost effective it will be concidered.<br />

Comment<br />

We believe that conditions on the Winema may justify a departure because of the diseased lodgepole<br />

pine stands. Yet we do not believe there is adequate explanation of your reasons for the proposed<br />

departure, nor its impacts on other resource values. We are very concerned about impacts on cover-forge<br />

ratios for big game and habitat diversity for all wildlife and potential impacts on seasonal distribution of<br />

water yields. See comments of ODFW and the Water Resources Department for details.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The FEIS preferred alternative removed the dead lodgepole pine from the yield tables and is not a<br />

departure. The dead lodgepole pine is part of the planned timber sale program quantity but is not part<br />

of the allowable sale quantity.<br />

The salvage of the dead lodgepole pine will be coordinated with the other resource needs.<br />

Comment<br />

On page 111-43 of the DEIS you state that the cost of harvest now exceeds the value of lodgepole pine<br />

harvested. Given this, will anyone buy this timber? What will it be used for--fiber, firewood, stand board?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The lodgepole pine values go up and down with the fiber market. The market for lodgepole pine is<br />

very good at the present and is selling for almost double the historic selling values.<br />

Comment<br />

Your DEIS compares the timber harvest effects of the alternatives to those of the 1979 Timber Management<br />

Plan. While the plan reports timber sales and harvest for a 10-year period (1 976-1985), the FEIS should<br />

also consider harvest levels over the last three years as a benchmark for comparison. With the forest<br />

industry's major comeback leading to accelerated harvest levels between 1985-1987, allowable sales<br />

quantity under the Winema's preferred alternative would actually show a drop from this three-year<br />

level.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 3-8 has been updated to 1988. There has been a major increase in harvest in the last three<br />

years. The FEIS preferred alternative will not maintain this current level of harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

Ponderosa pine is the most valuable tree species for timber products in eastern Oregon. As pointed<br />

out by our State Economist and EDD, it has and will probably continue to increase in value more rapidly<br />

than other species. Yet your analysis combines all species together in applying a one percent real<br />

price increase over time. Such an approach masks the virtue of continuing to grow high quality ponderosa<br />

pine. We request that your Forest planning analysis be improved to project the value of ponderosa<br />

pine separately from other species.<br />

K - 219

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We elected not to make this change. The 1 percent real price inflator was based upon a long term<br />

data base. We do not have better data available to change this analysis. Other species, such as lodgepole<br />

pine, are increasing much faster in value than ponderosa pine.<br />

Ponderosa pine has a much higher value than any other species in our analysis. Changing the ponderosa<br />

pine value would not change the FORPLAN solution for the FEIS peferred alternative. Ponderosa pine<br />

is always chosen first for harvest.<br />

Comment<br />

As noted by OSDF, the Forest has tried hard to look at sawtimber supply and demand. Since your<br />

analysis was completed, considerable progress has been made on the plans for adjacent national<br />

forests. Also, newer OSDF projections are available for private land in the area and Oregon State University<br />

is currently completing a study along similar lines. All these analyses should be consulted in developing<br />

your FEIS.<br />

In this assessment, you should play close attention to your assumptions about the amount of timber<br />

entering and leaving Klamath County and the implications for sawtimber supply of all the Forests in<br />

your area proposing departures based on accelerated harvest of lodgepole pine that bottom out at<br />

about the same time. In addition, you should highlight the expected supply and demand for high quality<br />

ponderosa pine over time.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The supply and demand analysis was updated in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The timber industry could face a supply gap due to projected lower harvests from private lands over<br />

the next 10 to 20 years together with lower harvests in total from Southern Oregon National Forests.<br />

The degree to which declines in private and public lands overlap in the years ahead will have significant<br />

implications for the total timber supply available to mills. The mills could face higher stumpage prices<br />

as a result.<br />

The Forest Service should consider using the southwest Oregon Subregional Market Model that will be<br />

available soon to estimate stumpage demands for all ownerships in Oregon's timber sheds. This analysis<br />

should be incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and provided to the public for<br />

review.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This model was not used in the final but we do recognize the problem and additional supply and demand<br />

information has been included in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

More research should be devoted to examining the feasibility of pruning. The purpose of pruning<br />

Ponderosa pine would be to create more high quality, clear wood. As the supply of old growth Ponderosa<br />

pine becomes more scarce, it may be prudent to explore ways to ensure a stable supply of high quality,<br />

millable Ponderosa pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Pruning was not incorporated in the FEIS preferred alternative but it has been left open as an option if<br />

pruning proves cost effective.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-51<br />

(Last Paragraph) 'Half of the wet lodgepole pine communities on the Forest will be managed to provide<br />

optimum mule deer fawning habitat." How would the remaining half be managed? (DEIS 11-51-1). The<br />

Fremont National Forest has stated that they have not generally been successful regenerating wet<br />

K - 220

lodgepole pine sites. Has the Winema been successful at regenerating wet lodgepole pine sites? (DEIS<br />

11-51-2).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All of the wet lodgepole pine is managed to meet basic water quality standards. The half, not managed<br />

for fawning habitat, goes to several management areas.<br />

We are not having trouble getting regeneration on our wet lodgepole sites.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-67<br />

(Bottom of page) 'Management Area 7B is ed to maintain and create old-growth forest environments<br />

through the application of timber harvest practices.! ODFW makes a distinction between old-growth<br />

stands and old-growth habitat. With silvicultural practices, an old-growth stand can be created and<br />

maintained. The creation and maintenance of old-growth habitat through timber harvest has yet to be<br />

demonstrated. Disturbance to the duff layer, soil compaction and displacement, and removal of large<br />

amounts of wood fiber from the natural nutrient recycling process destroy a key component of the<br />

old-growth habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, this seems to be true.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-18<br />

(Paragraph 3). The Forest has identified ten major plant communities. How many acres are there in<br />

each plant community and how many acres by seral stage are in each plant community? (DEIS 111-18).<br />

Are any hardwood plant communities located on the Forest? (DEIS 111-18-2).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The acres by plant community are available in our forest data base. A query of the data base would<br />

be supplied if requested.<br />

The forest inventory does not include the seral stage of each plant community. Seral stage can be<br />

estimated by the number of acres by silvicultural condition class.<br />

We have a few acres of aspen on the Forest but hardwoods are very limited.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-18<br />

Precommercial Thinning (paragraph 1). Precommercial thinning, when considered with cumulative<br />

impacts of other forest management activities, can have negative impacts on big game cover and<br />

nongame habitat. Thinning can result in an area that meets neither cover nor forage requirements for<br />

big game, and a stand that has reduced structural diversity for nongame.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, this is true.<br />

Comment<br />

P.B-149<br />

Table B-24. Minimum rotation age for the riparian areas should be 250/120, not 120/80.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree. This has been changed in the FEIS preferred alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

D-26. 16. Landings must not be allowed in riparian zones.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Agreed. This has been added to the timber standards and guides for the riparian management area.<br />

K - 221

Comment<br />

D-80<br />

Timber 1. Change to read:<br />

Timber harvest will be programmed only to improve big game habitat.<br />

3. Strike 'hiding.'<br />

4. Strike "hiding.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines were rewritten for Winter Range for the FEIS preferred alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

PP V-15<br />

Appendices A and B of the Proposed Plan. ODFW recommends the addition of an M.A. column so the<br />

reviewer can determine which strategies apply to each proposed timber sale. The same recommendation<br />

would apply to Table B4.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area has been added to Appendix A but this information is not available for the other<br />

resources at this time.<br />

Comment<br />

The appendices to the DEIS explained the pricing assumptions used for all species. However, it was<br />

difficult to ascertain from the information provided whether there was any increase assumed in the<br />

price differential between species over time due to the increased scarcity of large diameter ponderosa<br />

pine. An assumption of this nature could produce a different higher present net value for an alternative<br />

that maximized the harvest of large diameter ponderosa pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is no price differential by species for the real price inflator.<br />

Comment<br />

Management practices have a significant impact on the Forest's potential to produce larger, high value<br />

pine. Practices that are being explored in other forests in the state, besides uneven-aged management,<br />

are pruning and burning. There is little discussion or analysis in the plan of the potential of these methods<br />

or the impacts they might have on harvest levels. Use of these methods should be discussed and the<br />

outputs associated with these management techniques should be portrayed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

High Value ponderosa pine was discussed with local industry representatives and we believe the<br />

uneven-aged management prescriptions will provide high value ponderosa pine. Pruning is not prescribed<br />

but is qin option if it proves to be cost effective and compatible with wildlife hiding cover requirements.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan suggests that economic stability may be achieved with a departure from long term sustained<br />

yield of smaller low value lodgepole pine and over the first four decades in ponderosa pine. The analysis<br />

to support this conclusion would be more useful if it included a discussion of the impacts on the community<br />

of a shift in the amount, size, and species mix of the volume coming of the forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of the alternatives on the local economy have been rewritten based upon the latest implan<br />

values.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan does not adequately address the issue of the mills' dependence on larger diameter logs, nor<br />

does it address the issue of secondary manufacturers' dependence on high quality pine. What will be<br />

K - 222

the economic impact of mills having to retool to handle the smaller species in the long run? The drying<br />

time for younger pine is longer than for the older large diameter trees currently processed by the mills.<br />

More kiln capacity may need to be added.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The impact will be very large for the mills to retool for smaller logs but local industry was more concerned<br />

with the loss of growth potential that goes along with growing large trees than the problems related to<br />

retooling and developing new processes.<br />

Comment<br />

In the LRMP the target tree size for those acres using uneven-aged management is 240 DBH. There<br />

should be further discussion as to whether this size of tree is large enough to produce the quality of<br />

pine currently ed in the area and what it may mean to the community to make a change.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We believe the uneven-aged prescription will produce large ponderosa pine trees currently being used<br />

by local industry.<br />

Comment<br />

On page IV-26 of the LRMP a table depicts that 17.5 mmbf of the annual ASO in the first decade will<br />

be from commercial thinning. However, there is not much discussion as to the demand for this type of<br />

volume. Yet it is a significant portion of the proposed ASQ.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have mills in both Klamath Falls and Medford that bid on the commercial thinning sales. These<br />

sales always sell after vigorous biding.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 11-7 of the LRMP indicates log processing and harvesting data by location. This is very useful,<br />

however in recent years there has been a large increase in the purchase of logs off the Winema National<br />

Forest that are processed out of Klamath County. In the final EIS 1986 and 1987 data should be included.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This information has been included as requested.<br />

Comment<br />

The FORPLAN model for the Forest does not differentiate between clearcutting, shelterwood and seed<br />

tree methods of regenerating even-aged timber stands. The DEIS, page 11-117, suggests the reader<br />

should not infer from the table on page 11-1 18 that 112,000 acres will be clearcut in the first decade<br />

because regeneration will be accomplished through planting as opposed to natural regeneration.<br />

However, DEIS Table 11-3A, beginning on page 11-79, does nothing to clarify harvest methods. The table<br />

indicates 709,600 acres are due to receive (have prescribed for them) clearcut/shelterwood silvicultural<br />

treatment. In addition, it further confuses readers by characterizing harvest type as overstory removal,<br />

regeneration harvest and selective harvest.<br />

It is not clear from the presentation of data how much timber will be harvested using clearcut, shelterwood,<br />

or selective cut methods in the first, second and fifth decade.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The information requested is on page 11-84 and 11-85 of the DEIS.<br />

The regeneration harvest acres are not split between clearcut, seed tree and shelterwood regeneration<br />

systems because this is determined on a case by case bases and depends upon the local situation.<br />

Comment<br />

Precommercial Thinning - (DEIS, page IV-1 8) Table IV-5 indicates 10,100 acres of precommercial thinning<br />

are planned per year during the second decade. If the first decade harvest is 9,700 acres, and every<br />

K - 223

acre of uneven-aged management receives stocking level control at each entry, then it appears that<br />

precommercial thinning must be applied to all of the even aged management stands. Why is PCT<br />

assumed for every acre which has been regeneration harvested for all managed stands? Silvicultural<br />

advances make it possible to plant with fewer seedlings per acre than has been the case in the past.<br />

Even with natural regeneration, it is highly unlikely that every acre that has been regeneration harvested<br />

will require precommercial thinning to gain optimum stand density and growth. An analysis and<br />

reexamination of the data with an appropriate reduction in costs should be made.<br />

In addition, PCT costs used on the Winema are ely double those of forest industry in the same area. A<br />

thorough discussion of the origin and efficiency of cost figures used is in order.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Stocking level control is planned on all the uneven-aged management acres. Sometimes that will be<br />

thinning and in other cases that will be planting. For modeling purposes, it was all shown as precommercial<br />

thinning.<br />

Our costs are higher than local industry costs for precommercial thinning but Federal Contracting laws<br />

add requirements that requires higher bid prices to complete government contracts.<br />

Comment<br />

Unfortunately, even though the Forest has addressed the FPFO in the format specified in the May 2,<br />

1985, July 15, 1985, and May 13, 1986 Regional planning directions, Alternative D and NC were placed<br />

in the incorrect levels for their combination of target and/or standards. As a result, the Winema has<br />

incorrectly compared the DEIS alternatives to the FPFO objectives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The new FPFO program objectives were used in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

We know that knowledge of root disease occurrence is increasing and that certain salvage operations<br />

can exacerbate disease losses. We also know that mistletoe can be managed by clearcutting or species<br />

manipulation. However, the plan does not present specific guidelines for managing these problems<br />

and, therefore, leaves the impression of a lack of commitment to reducing losses from diseases and<br />

parasites.<br />

It is suggested that the disease discussion be expanded to include specific approaches to managing<br />

root diseases, stem decay, and dwarf mistletoe.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have several manuals that give direction for minimizing losses to insects and diseases. It does not<br />

seem necessary to reprint that information in the plan documents.<br />

Comment<br />

The issue of harvest cutting method selection has been given significant emphasis by the public. The<br />

Winema should examine the analysis work done by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests on<br />

this subject as well as the practices of eastern Oregon industrial timber owners. The plan should strive<br />

to improve the knowledge of uneven-aged management application in eastern Oregon forests through<br />

silvicultural research, refined yield tables, and economic analysis.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This has been done.<br />

Comment<br />

Desired Future Condition of the Forest - (LRMP, page 4-3; DEIS, page IV-83, App. I) Embedded in<br />

most of the alternative formulations in the plan is the Winema's decision to emphasize the use of even-aged<br />

management systems. Under the preferred alternative, clearcutting is planned on nearly 80 percent of<br />

the lands scheduled for timber harvest as the most common harvesting treatment. Uneven-aged<br />

silvicultural systems will be applied on 144,000 acres or 14 percent of the lands. Are these the same<br />

K - 224

144,000 acres noted as former reservation lands in management area 128? On sites where ponderosa<br />

pine currently exists as a natural, and often dominant, component of these stands, this decision has<br />

significant social, economical, environmental impacts and implications that have not been addressed<br />

in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Yes, these are the same acres.<br />

We believe that we have addressed the impacts of uneven-aged management on all resources.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema should more closely examine the opportunities to maintain the high quality ponderosa<br />

pine component of its current and historic timber sale program throughout the planning horizon. Wise<br />

planning for the use and management of existing stands demands such an analysis. New alternatives<br />

should be developed which accomplish this goal in a cost effective manner while maintaining or increasing<br />

employment, personal income, and payments to counties. The set of alternatives presented in the<br />

DEIS fail to meet this important criteria.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We believe that our alternatives do address this issue. Page 11-84 of the DEIS shows the portion of the<br />

ASQ coming from stands with an average diameter of 18 inches or greater. Alternative D harvests a<br />

large portion of the large trees early while Alternative E gives a more even flow of large trees.<br />

Comment<br />

We suggest that, because of the formulation of departures in Alternatives D and E to allow the harvest<br />

of the lodgepole pine component to depart because of the pine beetle infestation, additional information<br />

should be provided to show the long term effects of this action. Ponderosa pine harvest levels by alternative<br />

should be displayed in MMBF and allowable sale quantity levels in decades 2 and 4 and beyond decade<br />

5 in the departure alternatives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Pages 11-82 and 11-83 gives the harvest by species for decades 1, 2, and 5.<br />

Comment<br />

Yield Tables - (App., page B-67) The Winema National Forest should consider the use of the PROGNOSIS<br />

model recently calibrated for south-central Oregon and northern California. A preliminary analysis of<br />

this state-of-the-art model has shown these stands to be capable of greater growth than earlier yield<br />

tables.<br />

The Winema's empirical yield table was developed using the regional system modified for commercial<br />

thinning; a shift to managed yields was made for overstory removal. Managed yield tables were developed<br />

using various sources: two different yield projection models, future mortality estimates from DFSIM (a<br />

westside model), etc. The PROGNOSIS system would allow a consistent approach to stand growth<br />

and management calibrated to the conditions in south-central Oregon.<br />

Another benefit of the use of the new PROGNOSIS model is the capability of interactive simulations<br />

using the CHEAPO economics program. By combining the use of the two models, it should be relatively<br />

easy to identify the most cost-effective timber management practices on the Winema and to identify<br />

opportunities to cost-effectively increase timber growth while increasing outputs of other resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The uneven-aged management yield tables were redone using the SORNEC version of the PROGNOSIS<br />

model. A comparison between the even-aged yield tables and PROGNOSIS was completed and it<br />

showed there were no major differences, so we elected not to redo the even-aged tables for this planning<br />

effort.<br />

K - 225

Comment<br />

Adjustments to yield estimates were not documented but vary from between 10 percent and 28 percent.<br />

The 10 percent adjustment may appear to be reasonable but the 28 percent appears to be high. The<br />

Forest should reexamine and document the yield reductions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The yield table adjustments are explained in the yield table documents.<br />

Comment<br />

Schedules and Real Price Trends - (App. B-81) Trends indicate that competition for a scarce resource,<br />

Oregon's timber stumpage, could increase dramatically in the coming years. This is particularly true<br />

for the area of economic influence for the Winema National Forest. The Rogue River and Siskiyou<br />

National Forests' Preferred Alternatives propose severely reduced timber sale levels. This coupled with<br />

reduced timber supplies from private lands in both the Medford and Klamath Timbersheds is expected<br />

to result in the dramatic fall of timber harvests over the next several decades.<br />

This will likely mean intense competition for Winema National Forest stumpage from both traditional<br />

purchasers and new bidders looking for additional timber supplies. It is therefore unrealistic for the<br />

Winema to conclude that a horizontal demand curve exits for the forest's timber. A demand function<br />

could be calculated for use in FORPLAN. If this is not possible at a forest level, it is possible at the<br />

timbershed level. The southwest Oregon Subregional Market Model will soon be available to make<br />

reasonable estimates of stumpage demands for all ownerships in Oregon's timbersheds. Region 6<br />

may use a similar model in their analysis of the cumulative effects of the forest plans. A similar analysis<br />

should be incorporated in the Final EIS for the Winema National Forest and provided to the public for<br />

review.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timber supply and demand discussions have been revised in both chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS.<br />

Tables and charts have been added to show log flows.<br />

We did not use the Southwest Oregon Subregional model.<br />

Comment<br />

Costs Incorporated into the FORPLAN Model - (App. B-82) Fixed costs are not those that vary with the<br />

levels of outputs, even if the variation is not in a linear relationship. Fixed costs are those necessary to<br />

maintain the forest at legal minimum standards. All other costs are variable, albeit not linear.<br />

An assessment was made as to whether particular programs (as a whole) would be applied in a particular<br />

alternative. Genetic tree improvement, for example. This is an incorrect methodology and should be<br />

revised. For example, in alternatives needing tree improvement programs, the basic, unchanging, costs<br />

of genetic tree improvement should be added to the variable costs of tree improvement for each alternative.<br />

The variable portion should be tied to particular forest outputs. The unchanging part should be tied to<br />

the particular alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We did not change our methods for dealing with fixed and variable costs between the DEIS and the<br />

FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Benefit Values - (App., B-91) Relative selling values for smaller diameter classes appear to be<br />

too high. Current Forestry Department planning for this area of the state uses a 10 inch minimum tree<br />

size; trees of lesser diameter will not pay their way out of the woods. An unrealistic high value for smaller<br />

logs would result if an average logging cost of $99/MBF is added to all stumpage values to derive mill<br />

pond value. Relative logging costs will be higher for stands with smaller trees. If the forest has not<br />

done so, mill pond values should be adjusted for logging costs by diameter.<br />

K - 226

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has done so.<br />

Comment<br />

Benchmark Analysis of the Effects of MMRs - (App., J-26) Results of analysis of the effects on present<br />

net values and the allowable sale quantity of achievement of MMRs are stated to be minimal. This is<br />

misleading. LTSY decreases by almost 5 percent and, while this is substantial in itself, it should be<br />

viewed within the cumulative harvest reductions occurring in Oregon.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management requirements are not optional and our analysis shows the efficiency of achieving these<br />

requirements on the Winema is relatively high.<br />

Comment<br />

Table 111-11 & Analysis - (DEIS, 111-37) 1982 was a particularly poor year to use in an analysis of the<br />

lumber and wood products industry. This table and the analysis should be updated to 1985 using<br />

data currently available (Oregon Forest Industries, Howard).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The tables were updated as suggested.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest did an excellent job of documenting potential timber availability in the Bend-Klamath County<br />

area. Realizing that data from the current round of NFMA planning was not available, the forest should<br />

update the National Forest portion of the analysis to reflect preferred alternatives.<br />

More localized projections are also available. In 1983, the Forestry Department made TREES projections<br />

for Klamath and Lake Counties private and other public ownerships at the request of the Winema National<br />

Forest and the Northwest Pine Association, (Attachments, Tables 1, 2, 3). Because the data was of<br />

unknown precision and accuracy, the results were presented to the major private landowners for their<br />

review. All major private timberland owners in the timbershed indicated that the projections were<br />

reasonable. Therefore, these projections should be used as well as those for the Bend-Klamath area<br />

to analyze the Winema's timber supply situation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that this would be good information but we feel that forests are making so many changes<br />

between the draft and final analysis that it would be misleading. We have elected to update our previous<br />

analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

Short- and Long-term Demand Trends - (DEIS, 111-41) The statement that current timber supply levels<br />

in the Pacific Northwest Region may be capable of meeting future demand is undocumented. It is not<br />

true in Oregon. The current preferred alternatives from Oregon's National Forests plan for timber harvests<br />

to be 10 percent below current levels (1 985-1987), in addition to the sizeable and probable falldowns<br />

projected for industrial private owners.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We recognize the that the reduction of timber harvest in the natural forests will impact timber industry<br />

by not meeting their sawlog needs.<br />

Comment<br />

Below Cost Timber Sales - (DEIS, 111-42) The analysis of below-cost sales in the DEIS is insufficient and<br />

fails to disclose important facts, such as the extent of current below-cost sales, or to provide an estimate<br />

of the number and volume of future sales which will lose money.<br />

K - 227

The forest does note that certain current and future sales are and will be below cost but the FORPLAN<br />

model is a powerful tool for this type of analysis and more in-depth analysis should be possible. The<br />

Forestry Department recommends that additional analysis be undertaken to better determine the supply<br />

of timber economically feasible to harvest, both currently and in the future.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Our analysis shows that our forest has a very cost effective timber sale program. Occasionally, we do<br />

sell sales which do not pay their total costs but these sales are made to meet other resource requirements.<br />

Comment<br />

Significant Interactions - (DEIS, 111-122) The text indicates that if large ponderosa pine is depleted from<br />

the Forest, mills may be forced to either close down or shift their processing abilities to produce other<br />

types of wood products. This is not necessarily so. Recent westside research shows that pruning can<br />

cost-effectively enhance the quality of smaller trees. Eastside research is currently underway and should<br />

show even greater gains. Therefore, even though tree size may be smaller, wood quality could be<br />

maintained. Cost-effectiveness of this treatment could be even greater if pruning were accomplished at<br />

the same time as other cultural activities such as PCT or commercial thinning.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We will keep pruning open as an option to maintain wood quality.<br />

Comment<br />

Ponderosa Pine Harvest Levels -(DEIS, IV-30) Under the preferred alternative, ponderosa pine harvest<br />

levels are projected to rise through the fourth decade. Ponderosa pine levels are the most important<br />

species to the local timber industry and create more jobs and personal income than other species<br />

harvested. With the fact that improvements in mill technology are continually allowing the lumber and<br />

wood products industry to e less desirable species. It would seem logical that ponderosa pine harvests<br />

would decrease over time rather than increase over time, then suddenly drop to half previous levels in<br />

the fifth decade.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There has been no support for a departure in ponderosa pine so the FEIS preferred alternative will<br />

maintain a sustained even flow of ponderosa pine.<br />

Comment<br />

Sawtimber Supply and Demand - (DEIS, IV-131) The Forest has made an honest attempt to look at<br />

sawtimber supply and demand. Since considerable progress has been made on the plans of adjacent<br />

forests and since other Forestry Department projections are available and since other timber availability<br />

projections are currently underway, this analysis should be updated prior to selection of a final plan.<br />

In addition, assumptions about sawtimber entering and leaving Klamath County should be reviewed in<br />

light of timber availability situations in surrounding timber sheds. For example, recent data show that<br />

66 percent rather than 53 percent of the logs milled in Klamath County originate in Klamath County.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The timber supply and demand analysis was updated in the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Management Costs - (App., page B-125) Tables B-20 and B-21 shows the sensitivity of the<br />

forest to price and cost trends. Over the long-run, timber harvests will depend on the cost-effectiveness<br />

of timber management. A 20 percent increase in costs results in an 11 percent reduction in first decade<br />

harvest. Therefore, the analysis should focus on the forest's cost and value discussion and how the<br />

forest can achieve increased efficiency. It should be kept in mind that just because a plan is developed<br />

for future management activities that may not be cost-efficient, doesn't mean that future foresters will<br />

follow that plan blindly, and do something that is unwise. In addition, a climate should be nurtured<br />

which promotes a healthy forest industry, one that can pay a premium for Oregon grown timber. A<br />

K - 228

decreasing supply because of shortages from private lands will tend to make companies forego the<br />

capital investments necessary to keep local mills competitive. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance<br />

that future timber supplies on national forest lands be assured through cost-effective management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A common objective to all alternatives is cost effective management.<br />

Comment<br />

At a minimum, the final EIS should provide two additional sets of data:<br />

First, a description of the reduction from full timber yield that would result from allocation of forest land<br />

of various productivity to each of the management areas. The Final EIS should also describe the potential<br />

to retain timber harvesting at a high level while maintaining visual quality through the use of active<br />

management techniques, such as uneven-aged (multiaged) management, and intensive management<br />

activities such as pruning and stocking level control.<br />

Second, while Table C4 contains a description of the timber inventory and tentatively suitable acres of<br />

each unroaded area the potential allowable sale quantity contribution of each unroaded area is needed.<br />

The second item is especially important since it would allow the public to measure the relative economic<br />

importance of each area and to then use that information in decision making.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We were not able to provide the analysis requested. The analysis becomes very involved because the<br />

most controlling factor is the scheduling effects, the land available for timber harvest. The scheduling<br />

effect changes for each management area for each alternative.<br />

The FORPLAN model was given the choice of both even-aged and uneven-aged management for<br />

visual areas. The model did choose uneven-aged management as being slightly more efficient.<br />

Table C-7 in the DEIS shows the timber yield potential for each unroaded area<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Inventory - (DEIS, page IV-40) The discussion of resource tradeoffs among the Winema's proposed<br />

alternatives should include information on the long-term effects of these alternatives on the timber<br />

resource. Data on the relationship between timber inventory, harvests and growth, as well as the changes<br />

over the planning horizon in the number of working group acres by age class for each alternative should<br />

be provided in the final EIS. These reports are readily available from the FORPLAN model (Reports<br />

10.6 and 10.8) and should be constructed to provide the public and the decision makers with this<br />

information for suitable, tentatively suitable, and total forested lands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Some of the information requested is in the FEIS in the Information for Selected Benchmarks and<br />

Alternatives Table in Chapter 2.<br />

The additional information you suggest is available in the process records at the Winema N.F.<br />

headquarters.<br />

Comment<br />

The Department of Forestry supports the research program outlined by the Winema. In addition, we<br />

believe more research is needed to:<br />

1. Develop new technology to return some of the 57,949 acres removed from the suitable land<br />

base because of regeneration difficulty back to timber management status.<br />

2. Improve riparian area protection in range areas.<br />

3. Improve knowledge of marketing smaller, less economical trees on timber sales and less<br />

valuable species (white fir).<br />

4. Gain better knowledge about recreational users to improve projections of recreational uses of<br />

the Forest and the forests ability to meet that demand. Studies should include information on<br />

wilderness based on documented use studies.<br />

S. Gain better silvicultural knowledge on understory management and uneven-aged (multiaged)<br />

management.<br />

K - 229

6. Improve the forest's ability to anticipate and prevent significant mortality and growth losses<br />

from insects and diseases.<br />

7. Improve the knowledge of the habitat needs of old growth preferring wildlife species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These items are all part of current research programs.<br />

Comment<br />

Table IV-3 shows a large increase in acres of regeneration harvested for the above departure alternatives,<br />

however, the proportion that is from lodgepole stands are not identified. Additionally, the lodgepole<br />

departure harvested during the first decade of the preferred alternative doesn't seem to be reflected in<br />

the 9.7 thousand acres shown in this table, when compared with acres harvested under Alternative C<br />

and D.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table I-1 3 in the DEIS gives the information requested.<br />

Comment<br />

Data on the relationship between timber inventory, harvests and growth for lodgepole pine as well as<br />

changes over the departure planning horizon should be provided in the final EIS. For example, Table<br />

11-3A indicates relatively large fluctuations in the pine and pine associated species harvests during the<br />

decades shown. Harvest levels should also be provided by decade by alternative in MMBF, relating to<br />

both total harvest and ASO levels. The text also states (page IV-37) that '...Alternatives B and 'C are<br />

the only alternatives with sufficient stocking level control in lodgepole pine to prevent future timber<br />

losses from mountain pine beetle...' Discussion of future lodgepole pine management to reduce the<br />

risk of repeated beetle epidemics also needs to be included in the Final EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We did not see the need to provide the inventory and growth by working group in the FEIS. This information<br />

wasn't used in the decision. Alternative J was constrained to provide a sustained even flow of ponderosa<br />

pine and the dead lodgepole pine was removed from the lodgepole pine yield tables so the ASQ no<br />

longer includes dead material. These two actions seem to have leveled the ASQ by species.<br />

Table 2-5 contains the harvest by species for decades 1,2 and 5.<br />

The risk to mountain pine beetle is discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. Lodgepole pine is a very low<br />

value species compared to the other commercial species on the forest. Mountain pine beetle attacks<br />

are prevented by full stocking level control on all acres at all times. The value of the species does not<br />

warrant this investment. Alternative J, the preferred alternative, does not manage lodgepole pine to<br />

minimize damage by mountain pine beetle but is a compromise between values and expected loss.<br />

Comment<br />

Discussion of the environmental consequences of this choice of harvest dispersion was not found in<br />

the DEIS. A precise statement of the dispersion factor and its effects on harvest unit selection and<br />

economic performance is not provided. The final EIS should include this information.<br />

What rationale supports this very restrictive harvest dispersion constraint, when the Deschutes National<br />

Forest satisfied the requirements with a 58 percent constraint?<br />

The Region's Planning Issues Task Force working paper describes an alternative to this assumption.<br />

The California Forest Practices Act uses an opening duration of 5 years. This is based on allowing 2<br />

years for regeneration followed by a 3 year verification period to confirm adequate stocking has been<br />

achieved. The working paper concludes that:<br />

'It is not apparent from the available documentation why the same standards used buy the<br />

State of California would not satisfy this minimum requirement. ...[lt]... may be appropriate to<br />

address the implications of not having used this proposed standard.!<br />

The Department of Forestry requests that such an analysis be provided in the Final EIS along with<br />

information on actual 'closing time' measurements on the Winema National Forest. This information is<br />

needed to evaluate the harvest dispersion constraint.<br />

K - 230

<strong>Response</strong><br />

First, it is important to note that the dispersion constraint was never binding in the analysis. Appendix<br />

B and J contain the discussion of the dispersion constraint.<br />

The 25 percent in openings is not vary restrictive. It never became binding in the analysis. The dispersion<br />

constraint defines an opening as having crop trees less than 4.5 feet tall. This condition lasts about 10<br />

years from the time the unit is planted.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest Products Industry cannot survive as we know it today, with constant decreases in the amount<br />

of timber we are allowed to cut each year. We need these revenues to support our schools and maintain<br />

our roads.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The number of saw mills will continue to decline and the Forest Products Industry will change in the<br />

next few years as the supply to logs decline. Schools and roads will need to be financed by taxes on<br />

the industries and people associated with the new industries in the State.<br />

Comment<br />

I believe the USFS needs to understand the desires and needs of the people whose lives and jobs<br />

and welfare are dependent on these controversial ideas. We must be taken into consideration first!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service must choose an alternative that maximizes the net public benefit. Some people are<br />

bound to be hurt by the final decision, but the general public will benefit.<br />

Comment<br />

As described only 1% of the Forests are harvested per year and it regrows and animals habitats are<br />

not effected to the point of any danger.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Generally 2 to 3 percent of the suitable timber land is harvested each year.<br />

Effects of the Alternatives on Wildlife Communities in Chapter 4 of the FEIS indicates how the alternatives<br />

impact wildlife.<br />

Comment<br />

The explanation of the relationship between private and public timber supply is rather weak when<br />

considering the justification of projected sale and harvest levels on public lands over the next five decades.<br />

A two-paragraph discussion of private and public and interrelationships found on p. 111-41 does not do<br />

justice to the complex macroeconomic factors involved in meeting timber and wood products demand.<br />

It appears an accepted fact that previous forest practices on private forest lands must automatically be<br />

compensated by harvest on public lands. Inconsistencies in figures (e.g., Table 111-9) from the past ten<br />

years raise suspicions about this assumption.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Local Timber Supply and Demand discussion was rewriten in the FEIS.<br />

The values in Table 111-9 are gathered by the State Department of Revenue and is quite accurate.<br />

Most respondents to the DEIS did not support the departure to help offset the projected decline in<br />

harvest from private lands so the Forest Plan calls for sustained even flow of sawtimber.<br />

Comment<br />

Harvest Methods--Silviculture. We understand that the Regional Guidelines generally specify clear-cutting<br />

followed by monoculture replanting with e 90-year rotations planned. We question the advisability of<br />

this practice. Newest research (including some in Region 6) shows that significant problems occur in<br />

the third cycle of short rotation silvicultural practices. Problems associated with this practice, which<br />

K - 231

emphasizes timber production over other forest uses, include slower growth rates and increased<br />

susceptibility to insects and disease. An epidemic in an even-age monoculture plantation could prove<br />

disastrous. The so-called super tree with its limited genetic base could exacerbate these results.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The harvest cutting methods selection criteria for the Region are found in the Regional Guide, pages<br />

3-2 through 3-7. The Regional Guide does not specify clearcutting, but gives the criteria to use to<br />

determine cutting method. The Winema is planning to use a wide range of harvest cutting methods.<br />

Table 2-9 and 2-10 show the range of timber management intensifies that are planned.<br />

Our tree improvement program has a large genetic base. We have 5300 parent trees selected and<br />

that is sufficient to maintain a broad genetic base.<br />

Comment<br />

To cite an example, Dr. Larry Irwin, with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, has<br />

suggested use of a modified shelterwood system to meet wildlife objectives in areas managed for<br />

'old-growth dependent' wildlife species rather than setting up dedicated old-growth zones where timber<br />

harvest is severely restricted or totally prohibited.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

I will respond to your concern in the context of your letter. I do agree that we should try to minimize<br />

the conflicts between competing resources and we should use all the silvicultural systems available to<br />

achieve this goal. The final plan uses uneven-aged management on the ponderosa pine and pine<br />

associated working groups to minimize the conflicts between resources and still maintain the desired<br />

level of timber harvest.<br />

Early in the planning process the impact on the allowable sale quantity for providing old-growth was<br />

analyzed. That analysis showed that dedicated old-growth acres has less impact on ASQ than managing<br />

multiple acres of land for old-growth dependent species.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS has this to say about lodgepole prices (p. 11-112): 'Recent lodgepole pine values are much<br />

lower than the historical values used in this analysis. However, in the alternatives, most of the lodgepole<br />

pine types are considered suitable for timber production even though recent sales indicate marginal<br />

economic returns."<br />

In other words, lodgepole is DEFINED as being suitable for harvest, even when it is sold below cost.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As the DEIS said - the recent selling values for lodgepole pine are lower than the historical values, but<br />

during the last few months the value of lodgepole pine has risen. That is why the values used in FORPLAN<br />

are for an extended period of time from April 1977 through September 1983 to get both high and low<br />

market conditions. The economic suitability of lodgepole pine is based upon this historic value. The<br />

selling values for lodgepole pine in calender year 1989 was almost double the value used in FORPLAN.<br />

The value is very sensitive to market conditions.<br />

6,746 acres of the suitable lodgepole pine is allocated a minimum management prescription in Alternative<br />

J because the acres were not cost effective.<br />

Comment<br />

The EIS is deficient, we believe, in not specifying the future economics of lodgepole pine more precisely.<br />

The portrayed data seems overly optimistic to us in terms of price without an accompanying discussion<br />

of products that will justify the price projections. The opportunities for departure are addressed by<br />

NFMA. The criteria are not met by the Draft Plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The values for lodgepole pine were developed from the actual cut volume stumpage values between<br />

April 1977 and September 1983. We feel that time period adequately represents the long term value of<br />

lodgepole pine.<br />

K - 232

We feel that the departure in the alternatives meet the crit<br />

in the Departure Analysis included in Appendix B.<br />

Comment<br />

mria in 36 CFR 219.16 (a) (3). See the explanation<br />

We also suggest you look at pruning as a viable option for producing quality product. It is one of the<br />

few TSI programs with a positive B/C ratio in low site cl ass forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We talked with industry representatives to find out whal they considered a high value ponderosa pine<br />

tree. They said they were looking for a tree 20 inches D 3H or larger that had fast enough height growth<br />

between the whorls to produce clear blocks of wood. T hat product can be produced without pruning<br />

so we will wait on pruning until new information shows t is needed.<br />

Comment<br />

Old Growth: You need a precise definition of old growth in the plan. You should have maps that identify<br />

the current base of old growth on the forest and where the old growth will be by alternative following<br />

implementation of the plan.<br />

We ask that you delineate between the suitable and capable areas on the old growth map.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The old-growth stand definition on page A-11 of the Re gional Guide for the Pacific Northwest Region<br />

was used. A more precise definition for east side conditions is not available at this time, but Bill Hopkins,<br />

Ecologist, is trying to develop a definition for old-growth stands in Central Oregon.<br />

A map is available at the Winema Forest Office that shois the current old-growth and the acres allocated<br />

to old-growth in each alternative.<br />

We don't have the ability to delineate between suitable and capable old-growth at this time.<br />

Table 2-14 shows how the amount of old-growth acres change over time.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Prices - The Winema National Forest recently rcceived an average of $169 per thousand board<br />

feet for its timber. Timber prices in FORPLAN average o226 per thousand and are thus about one-third<br />

higher than can realistically be expected. While FORPL AN values for ponderosa pine are almost equal<br />

to high bids, values of other species -- especially lodgE pole pine -- have been greatly overestimated...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The values used in FORPLAN were taken directly from<br />

timber harvested during the period from April 1977 thrc<br />

The timber values vary from year-to-year, but we feel tt<br />

comparison of alternatives. Current stumpage values fc<br />

the Timber Sale Statement, of Accounts for the<br />

ugh September 1983.<br />

e values are representative adequate for the<br />

r ponderosa pine are well over $400 per MBF<br />

which is much higher than the $257 value in the plan, Ibut that does not detract from the values when<br />

comparing alternatives. Lodgepole pine values are alsc higher now than during the period used for<br />

the values, but alternative comparisons are still valid.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Price Trend -- High prices are compounded by the assumption that timber values will increase<br />

at a rate of I percent per years for the next 50 years. Cor ribined, high prices and the trend have significant<br />

effects on FORPLAN economics and can change the e rconomic ranking of some alternatives...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effect of timber price trends is discussed in Apper dix B in the Price Trend and Cost Sensitivity<br />

Analysis Section. In summary, the timber price trends cid not effect the land base or total harvest level,<br />

but did effect species mix and management intensities<br />

K - 234

Comment<br />

Mixed Conifer and Lodgepole Pine Management -- If road costs are counted against timber receipts,<br />

management of these timber types loses money. These types made up about one-third of recent timber<br />

sales but contributed only 6.3 percent to the revenue. These findings are significant in regard to proposed<br />

roadless area development whose timber stands are almost exclusively mixed conifer and lodgepole<br />

pine...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The roadless areas on the Winema are quite small and scattered. The larger roadless areas are mainly<br />

unsuitable for timber production and only have a fringe of suitable timber lands. The arterial and collector<br />

road systems on the Forest are essentially complete so only local roads are needed to access the<br />

roadless area. Mixed conifer is the dominate timber type in the roadless areas. The mixed conifer sales<br />

on the Forest have ample value to build the roads necessary to access the roadless areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Below-Cost and Cross-Subsidized Timber Sales -- Only three of 52 timber sales sold since October<br />

1985 were below-cost, but at least 17 of the sales CHEC examined cross-subsidized low-valued timber<br />

stands with high-valued ones, resulting in an under-appraisal of $255,000. Bids of three sales were<br />

reduced by $74,000 because of cross-subsidization...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is normal on the Winema for the lodgepole pine to appraise below cost and its removal is<br />

cross-subsidized by the other species on the timber sale.<br />

But of course, it is not logical to just high grade a stand of trees. The entire stand must be managed<br />

to achieve management's objectives.<br />

Comment<br />

Second-Growth Investments -- Even using inflated FORPLAN timber values, second-growth timber<br />

management on the Winema Forest cannot return more than 4.4 percent on the investment, no matter<br />

which management prescription is used. Replanting lodgepole pine stands is especially uneconomical...<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your assessment of return on investment is correct. We also agree that planting lodgepole pine is<br />

uneconomical and most lodgepole pine sales on the Forest are planned for natural regeneration.<br />

Comment<br />

Sustained yield of large sawtimber should be managed into the future in the mixed conifer, pine-associated<br />

and ponderosa pine plant communities. The growth rates should not exceed 15 growth rings per inch<br />

to assure high quality wood and the diameters should range between 18 to 28 inches on general forest<br />

land.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Between the draft and the final, we tried to find out what local industry felt would be high quality wood.<br />

The final determination was trees that were larger than 20 inches in diameter and trees that have fast<br />

height growth so there is clear wood between the limb whorls.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest, seems to have accepted the idea that an economy based on smaller<br />

diameter fast growing trees will be superior to one based on lower volumes of mature ponderosa pine.<br />

This assumption is questionable since mature ponderosa accounts for over 90% of the revenue received<br />

on Winema N.F. timber sales. The departure would result in less ponderosa pine being available in the<br />

future, and would result in a trade-off of quality lumber for cheap wood fiber from young fast growing<br />

trees. Mature large diameter ponderosa pine gives local mills a competitive edge in the wood products<br />

industry.<br />

K - 234

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Based on your comment and other comments received during the planning process, the Forest is<br />

planning to maintain a sustained even-flow of ponderosa pine volume.<br />

During the planning process we tried to determine what is considered a Ohigh valued" ponderosa pine.<br />

Industry representatives generally agreed that ponderosa pine trees; larger than 20 inches in diameter<br />

with rapid height growth was a high valued ponderosa pine. The uneven-aged management in ponderosa<br />

pine will produce trees larger than 20 inches so no additional work is planned to produce 'high valued'<br />

ponderosa pine.<br />

Comment<br />

While a variety of harvest methods are described and Timber Foresiwide Standards and Guidelines<br />

are presented in the PLRMP, no details are provided to describe what timber harvest cycles would be<br />

implemented or what particular method of timber harvest would be employed. Thus, cumulative impacts<br />

of any alternative in which 'timber management' is the dominant land use within the adjacent ecosystem<br />

and/or viewshed of the Park cannot be discemed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Table 2-10 shows the timber management intensities for all acres in each alternative. To get more<br />

detail for a specific analysis area, a person would need to review the FORPLAN outputs. FORPLAN<br />

would show when the area is planned for entry and which timber management intensity is applied.<br />

The Forest Plan prescribes uneven-aged management for all the ponderosa pine working group and<br />

will be the preferred silvicultural system on the pine associated working groups. That change in silvicultural<br />

direction will reduce the visual impacts of timber management as seen from Crater Lake National Park<br />

because a continuous high Forest cover will be maintained.<br />

K - 235

Water<br />

Comment<br />

Marsh, which is mostly water, need to protect and consideration of transferring it of the adjacent Refuge<br />

considered.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An attempt was made in the late 1970's to transfer the Marsh to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At that<br />

time there was not enough interest at the upper levels to make the transfer. It would probably take<br />

Congressional action to make the transfer and someone to push for this action to take place.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest has a huge inventory of springs and wet meadows that provide significant<br />

riparian habitat and water resources that need to be mentioned in the management area guidelines.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 8 Riparian standards and guidelines have been designed to protect all riparian<br />

areas including springs and wet meadows. Habitat values as well as hydrologic values are preserved.<br />

Comment<br />

Water Rights - The State of Oregon has established a Water Rights Board that records and establishes<br />

any water rights that the Forest may have for activities on Forest such as recreation, irrigation or domestic<br />

use. This may have a future impact on others and we may need to address how we will deal with this<br />

in the future.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is continually updating its water rights for new developments that require a water right.<br />

Existing water rights will be protected through participation in the Klamath Adjudication. Standards<br />

and Guidelines are designed to protect water uses.<br />

Comment<br />

Stream side management on the east side is different from the west side. Overland flow of water is not<br />

significant compared to the west side. It is our opinion that buffer strips for shade may make sense<br />

but have little value as a filtering mechanism for sedimentation. Please make appropriate adjustments<br />

in buffer strip widths.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Streams on the Forest vary from completely forested to meadow. Our standard is to manage at least<br />

100 feet on both sides of the stream for protection of all streamside values, including hydrologic, wildlife<br />

habitat, and fishery.<br />

Comment<br />

We generally support the management proposals in the draft plan. We do believe that careful selective<br />

logging in riparian areas can be accomplished and cannot only assist in correct riparian management<br />

but also can prevent waste of timber output on these very productive sites. Studies in Arizona and<br />

Central Oregon indicate that modern grazing management systems can improve quality and increase<br />

vegetation production better than elimination of grazing. We urge that such techniques be reviewed<br />

and installed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

MA8 Riparian has been revised to specify management allowed in riparian areas. Logging is permitted<br />

in certain riparian areas under careful management, but is normally restricted within 100 feet of streams.<br />

Standards and guidelines require that allotment management plans be revised to incorporate proper<br />

grazing systems to protect riparian values.<br />

K - 236

Comment<br />

The plan provides for some harvest restrictions in riparian areas. It is not clear how these restrictions<br />

relate to those imposed along rivers planned for scenic management. The plan should explain this<br />

relationship. In particular, the plan and final DEIS should analyze the effect of the dispersion standards<br />

for each of these management areas. If the scenic management constraints override the riparian area<br />

constraints, it is critical that the plan evaluate the effects on fish habitat and water quality of not applying<br />

the dispersion standards the first two decades.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No harvest is planned along scenic corridor of the Sycan River and within 100 feet of class I and If<br />

streams and within 50 feet of class IlIl streams. In most other riparian areas where timber harvest is<br />

allowed, uneven-aged management is prescribed and the dispersion standard does not apply. The<br />

exception is lodgepole pine where limited openings are allowed as described in management area 8<br />

riparian.<br />

Compliance with Oregon water quality standards is a Forest-wide standard and guideline described in<br />

Chapter 4 of the Plan that applies to all activities. Management Area 8 Riparian standards and guidelines<br />

apply to all riparian areas except those located within more restrictive management areas such as<br />

wilderness, research natural areas, special management area, bald eagle management area, etc.<br />

Comment<br />

In addition, the plan should identify the sensitivity of riparian areas by watershed to allow analysis of<br />

the effects of harvesting on soil productivity and water quality. The Tribe urges that no timber harvesting<br />

be allowed in riparian areas if it would result in any further degradation of water quality or fish habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Timber harvest in riparian areas would not be allowed to further degrade water quality and fish habit.<br />

No harvest is allowed within 100 feet of class I and 11 streams and within 50 feet of class Ill streams.<br />

Sensitivity of riparian areas will be identified at the project level and Standards and Guidelines and<br />

Best Management Practices will be applied to protect those resource values. Results will be monitored<br />

to see if those values were protected. Restrictions are the same regardless of watershed. No watershed<br />

was determined to be sensitive.<br />

Comment<br />

Water quality standards. The Plan and DEIS need to include a clear, unambiguous statement that<br />

compliance with state water quality standards promulgated under the Clean Water Act is mandatory.<br />

The Plan and DEIS refer to compliance with and monitoring of BMP's as a means of achieving compliance<br />

with water quality standards. While compliance with BMP's is intended to result in compliance with<br />

water quality standards, it does not necessarily insure it. Compliance with BMP's will not substitute for<br />

compliance with water quality standards or excuse violations. See e.g., Northwestern Indian Cemetery<br />

Protective Association v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688 (ithCir., 1986); ONRC v. United States Forest Service,<br />

F.2d _, (9th Cir. 1987) (D.C. Cv. No. CV-86-6504-BU). Moreover, the Tribe believes it imprudent<br />

to rely solely on Oregon Forest Practices Act standards which are designed for use on private lands<br />

where management objectives and uses are significantly different than on National Forest lands. Greater<br />

protection of riparian zones, particularly those in a degraded condition, is needed to achieve multiple-use<br />

objectives on National Forest Lands to maintain and enhance water quality, and to protect the Kiamath<br />

Tribe's treaty rights.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix C of the FEIS has been added to discuss the Clean Water Act, Oregon Forest Practices Act,<br />

and Best Management Practices to protect water quality. The State of Oregon has determined that<br />

properly applied Forest Best Management Practices meet or exceed the requirements of the Clean<br />

Water Act.<br />

Monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of BMP's will ensure that water quality is maintained or<br />

improved. Forest-wide and management area standards and guidelines will protect multiple riparian<br />

K - 237

area values and define water quality standards that will be met. Those riparian areas in degraded condition<br />

will be rehabilitated. The monitoring program for water quality is described in Chapter 5 of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The projected sedimentation levels are of concern for an additional reason: there is no stated relationship<br />

between sedimentation rates and projected turbidity increases in the streams. This information is<br />

necessary to insure compliance with turbidity standards and the nondegradation standard. OAR<br />

340-41-026.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Generally, sedimentation and turbidity go hand-in-hand, however the exact relationship is unknown.<br />

The sedimentation levels are expected to be rather low.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS and Plan should provide information on present and projected water quality in the remaining<br />

roadless areas. As timber harvesting and road construction proceed, the present high quality waters<br />

must be protected to comply with the state nondegradation standard. OAR 340-41-026. The Final EIS<br />

and Plan should specify how activities planned for these areas of high quality water will comply with<br />

the nondegradation standard. General references to implementation and monitoring of BMP's is<br />

inadequate. As stated previously, implementation of BMP's while commendable, will not substitute for<br />

compliance with water quality standards, nor excuse their violation. This applies to the nondegradation<br />

standard as well as the turbidity standard.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Discussion has been added to Chapter 4 and Appendix H of the Plan concerning how Best Management<br />

Practices will be implemented to protect water quality. BMP's will be identified during project level planning<br />

and will be implemented and monitored to ensure compliance with the non-degradation standard.<br />

Forest-wide and riparian area standards and guidelines will further protect water quality.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS includes little detail on the status of current water quality. There is some general discussion,<br />

but no organized summary is presented. A watershed inventory would be a logical place to present<br />

information documenting water quality conditions. It is difficult to evaluate effects on water quality which<br />

would result from implementation the various options without documentation on the current status.<br />

The text indicates that state and Forest Service monitoring has shown high water quality on the WNF.<br />

Of the 567 miles of streams on the WNF, how much has been monitored? What parameters were include<br />

in the surveys and during what times of the year?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 3 of the FEIS was revised to discuss water quality in more detail. Some water quality data has<br />

been collected on most class I and 11 streams on the Forest, specifically, temperature, turbidity, and<br />

dissolved oxygen. However, the number of samples at a given site is very limited in most cases, so the<br />

data must be used with caution. Most streams originating on the west part of the Forest have high<br />

quality. Daily maximum temperatures on many of the streams on the east part of the Forest frequently<br />

exceed 58 degrees F. during late summer. A summary of data collected by the Forest is available for<br />

review in the Forest Headquarters. Chapter 5 of the Plan describes the future water quality monitoring<br />

program for the Forest. Additional monitoring has been done on some of the streams by the State, the<br />

Klamath Tribe and other agencies.<br />

Comment<br />

How does the approximately 50,000 acres of riparian ecosystems referenced here relate to the 15,775<br />

management acreage on page IV-63 of the plan?<br />

K - 238

<strong>Response</strong><br />

MA8 Riparian has been expanded to include all streams, wet meadows, wet conifer, seeps, and springs,<br />

as well as strips of non-wetland along streams and wet meadows to provide protection of riparian<br />

values. This includes over 50,000 acres. Standard and guidelines for this area have been revised and<br />

enhanced.<br />

Comment<br />

From information provided, there is no guarantee that Oregon Water Quality Standards will be met. For<br />

instance, increases in sediment from grazing which adversely affect the fishery could constitute a violation<br />

of the anti-degradation part of Oregon's Water Quality Standards. These issues are not addressed in<br />

the DEIS in terms of Oregon's Water Quality Standards and anti-degradation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest will meet Oregon water quality standards through implementation of best management<br />

practices and standards and guidelines. Implementation and effectiveness will be monitored to determine<br />

whether the Forest is meeting Oregon's water quality standards.<br />

Comment<br />

Restriction of domestic livestock grazing, timber harvest, or road construction in areas adjacent to<br />

streams and wetlands is described as a mitigation measure. The FEIS/Plan should include an explanation<br />

of how these measures will be implemented (e.g. allotment plan and timer sale contract conditions).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Project level planning will implement standards and guidelines and will identify Best Management Practices<br />

to be implemented for protection of water quality and riparian area values. Standards and guidelines<br />

are found in Chapter 4 of the Plan. The procedure for implementing BMPs is explained in Appendix H<br />

of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The cumulative effects on water quality are difficult to evaluate at the project level. It is usually more<br />

appropriate to study at the area analysis or plan level for sensitive watersheds.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

None of the watersheds on the Forest are considered particularly sensitive as explained in Chapter 3<br />

of the FEIS. Cumulative effects are studied at area analysis and project level planning.<br />

Comment<br />

The instruments used to implement the State Water Quality Management Plan on lands administered<br />

by the Forest Service should be updated. It is our understanding that the Oregon Department of<br />

Environmental Quality is currently updating these instruments. It would be very desirable for the FEIS/Plan<br />

to include references to the updated instruments.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest Service Best Management Practices for compliance with the Clean water Act have been updated.<br />

The procedure for implementation and monitoring BMPs is described iin Appendix H of the Plan. The<br />

State of Oregon has determined that Forest Best Management Practices meet or exceed the requirements<br />

of the Clean Water Act. Monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of BMP's will ensure that water<br />

quality is maintained or improved. Management Area 8 standards and guidelines will protect multiple<br />

riparian area values. Those riparian areas in degraded condition will be rehabilitated. A monitoring<br />

program is described in Ch.V of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The text incorrectly interprets the water quality standards when it states that they are met through<br />

application of best management practices. It is correct to state that best management practices aid in<br />

K - 239

compliance with water quality standards. The numerical limits of water quality standards as indicated<br />

on page IV-50 of the Plan would apply.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Implementation and monitoring of Best Management Practices is the mechanism the Forest will use to<br />

meet water quality standards. Implementation and effectiveness of BMP's will be monitored to ensure<br />

that standards are met. The procedure is further explained in Appendix H of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Objectives for management of riparian areas, especially for water quality and fisheries needs to be<br />

done on a stream by stream basis at the Forest Plan level, not the project level. Plan implementation<br />

and compliance with water quality standards is then easier to manage and link to monitoring.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This will actually be done on an area by area basis as management activities are planned in an area.<br />

We have not collected all of the site specific data necessary to put all of the streams into the plan at<br />

the detail requested. This information will be collected during the next few years.<br />

Comment<br />

The development of a detailed water quality monitoring plan should be based on a list of current beneficial<br />

uses, present condition, and desired future condition for each stream or a watershed unit which is<br />

small enough to adequately protect the beneficial uses. The present condition and desired future condition<br />

can best be expressed in terms of the beneficial use (e.g., percent fish habitat capability that is discussed<br />

in the DEIS). The monitoring plan should include types of surveys, location of sampling, parameters to<br />

be monitored, indicator species, budget, procedures for using data or results in plan implementation,<br />

and availability of results to interested and affected groups. Enclosed is a copy of our monitoring guidance.<br />

Appendices A and 0 of the Final Nez Perce National Forest Plan, October 1987, includes a level of<br />

detail and approach to water quality and fishery monitoring which we believe will accomplish the stated<br />

objectives.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The water quality monitoring plan described in Chapter 5 of the plan addresses most of your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft plan does not identify drainage objectives or include a watershed resource inventory. A<br />

watershed resource inventory summarizes facts, recorded measurements, observations, and other<br />

evidence which can be used to determine management objectives for rivers and streams. Oregon's<br />

water quality standards and water quality management plans, for instance, were developed using<br />

inventory information. An inventory is a key element needed for effective resource management. The<br />

drainage objectives derived from the resource inventory then provide a means of implementing the<br />

plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management objectives are to maintain State water quality standards in all drainages through application<br />

of BMP's, standards and guidelines, and monitoring. Data was not separated by watershed because<br />

there are no sensitive watersheds on the Forest. Watershed information has been included in Chapter<br />

3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Achievement of these drainage objectives, conservation practices, and improvement projects can only<br />

be evaluated by water quality monitoring and fishery habitat surveys. The Plan does not identify a<br />

water quality monitoring program, nor criteria for evaluating riparian areas (temperature, streambank<br />

erosion, etc.). Native trout habitat monitoring is mentioned, however, specific sites or sampling/survey<br />

frequencies are not identified. We would support the recommendation to establish a multiagency technical<br />

K - 240

work group in Oregon to address these concerns and to advise the USFS in developing a water quality<br />

monitoring program.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A water quality monitoring plan has been developed to ensure compliance with State water quality<br />

standards. Fishery habitat surveys have been initiated using methodology described in Stream Inventory<br />

Handbook, Region 6, July, 1989.<br />

Comment<br />

Plans for future monitoring on the WNF are not detailed and no explicit monitoring sites are identified.<br />

It is unclear, in the Plan, how the results of monitoring efforts will be displayed to resource managers<br />

in a way that will identify where modifications are needed to protect water quality. Without an effective<br />

monitoring program there is no assurance that adverse changes in the streams will be detected.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A monitoring program has been described in Chapter 5 of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The standards and guidelines (page IV-50) indicates that numeric limits for temperature and turbidity<br />

will be achieved. However, the monitoring plan does not make provision for checking against this standard.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The monitoring plan now describes how water quality will be monitored against these standards.<br />

Comment<br />

The riparian area method of monitoring refers to an 'Activity Review.' This needs to be explained further<br />

as it appears to be very important.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An activity review is an inter-disciplinary team review of a management activity and is an example of<br />

one type of implementation monitoring. People knowledgeable in riparian management would be members<br />

of the team. They would assess whether implementation of the Standards and Guidelines concerning<br />

the riparian area was effective.<br />

Comment<br />

National Forest Water Quality Monitoring Recommendations<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The monitoring plan can be found in Chapter 5 of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

We encourage the implementation of a strict monitoring system with firm dates for accomplishment of<br />

the plan and with Stop Action mandate on all activities that are found adversely impact water quality.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The monitoring plan can be found in Chapter 5 of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

We encourage the addition of qualified fisheries biologists to your staff with greater emphasis on riparian<br />

zone management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is considering adding a fishery biologist to the staff, however no decision has been made.<br />

The Forest has relatively few miles of fish bearing stream, compared to many forests. The forest biologist<br />

and forest hydrologist will work together with the assistance of district biologists in the administration<br />

of the riparian and fishery resources on the forest.<br />

K - 241

Comment<br />

The time frame of 50 years to improve riparian ecosystems, water quality, and stream habitat capability<br />

from 30% to 80% is completely inadequate.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This has been revised in the goals and objectives statements.<br />

Comment<br />

The standards and guidelines for management area 8: Riparian management are less restrictive than<br />

the forestwide standards described in "managing riparian ecosystems for fish and wildlife ---' mentioned<br />

above.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines apply to all management areas equally. Riparian management<br />

area standards and guidelines, to be applied in addition to the forest wide standards and guidelines,<br />

have been revised to be more specific and restrictive in protecting riparian area values.<br />

Comment<br />

Monitoring plans (Table V-1, p. V-1 0), for recovery of riparian areas simply to involve "District IDT review<br />

of EA's' are inadequate.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Monitoring plans have been revised to be more thorough.<br />

Comment<br />

IV-3 para. 2. Wildlife and fish program goals should include all riparian zones, not just 'key" (undefined)<br />

riparian areas, to be managed to maintain or improve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Correct. All riparian zones will be managed according to Forest-wide and management area Standards<br />

and Guidelines to protect the riparian values for habitat and water quality.<br />

Comment<br />

The Plan should also provide standards for wastewater systems. We request that the following language<br />

be added to the forest-wide standards section beginning on page IV-36 of the proposed Plan: 'Sewage<br />

treatment and disposal facilities shall be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality or its<br />

contract agents and shall be in compliance with rules of the Environmental Quality Commission.'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A standard similar to the above proposed standard for wastewater systems has been added to the<br />

final plan under Forestwide Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

To demonstrate consistency with the Clean Water Act, the Winema Final EIS should discuss how the<br />

alternatives will satisfy the requirements of the Forest Practices Act. Particular attention should be given<br />

to the newly adopted rules for riparian area management. The forest's standards and guidelines for<br />

riparian areas should reflect the full intent of the Forest Practices Act as well as demonstrating consistency<br />

with the approved rules.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Implementation and monitoring of Best Management Practices and standards and guidelines that apply<br />

to all the alternatives will meet or exceed the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Forest Practices<br />

Act, including riparian area management. Discussion has been added to Chapter 4 of the FEIS explaining<br />

how the requirements of the Clean Water Act will be met.<br />

K - 242

Comment<br />

Sediment Yields - (DEIS, page 11-95) Table 11-3A shows projected sediment rates by alternative providing<br />

a tons per acre index as a point of reference and comparison. Footnote 25 (page 11-95) states that this<br />

figure includes 2,800 tons/year of background sediment not related to management activities (emphasis<br />

added). At this rate the, background level would be about nine times the index level for the no action<br />

alternative (A). The document provides little information about how the estimates of erosion were obtained<br />

or the source of data for the 2800 tons/year background sediment rate.<br />

The Department of Forestry recommends that historic levels be used to provide a firm base from which<br />

to describe the level of sedimentation caused by additional logging and road construction activities.<br />

Further analysis, discussion and documentation is needed in the final EIS to provide credible estimates<br />

of off-site soil loss (sedimentation). Accurate sedimentation estimates are of great value to decision<br />

makers.<br />

The Winema should provide credible estimates of sedimentation to the public and describe the benefits<br />

and costs, if they are measurable, of the projected changes and discuss the margin or error of these<br />

sediment production estimates.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The sediment indices in Table 2-3A should be in tons per year, not tons per decade. The figures in<br />

the table include 2800 tons per year background sediment. All of the erodible acres on the Forest<br />

were put into an erosion and sediment delivery model (Anderson, 1969). The model took into consideration<br />

slope, soil erodibility, vegetation cover and recovery period from management treatments. Not surprisingly,<br />

highest sediment yields came from timber harvest on steep slopes. Sediment delivery is very low compared<br />

to other Forests because of relatively flat topography on the Forest and the low erosion hazard of<br />

most Forest soils.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft plan could further acknowledge the role of local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD's)<br />

in addressing and resolving local resource issues. The publicly elected directors of local SWCD's can<br />

be a key link to the community on such issues and provide additional expertise for assistance in forest<br />

management as related to private lands affected by that management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is currently working with the Klamath Soil and Water Conservation District on projects such<br />

as the Williamson River Coordinated Resource Management Plan, where impressive riparian management<br />

benefits on Forest and private land have been achieved. A new standard and guideline has been added<br />

to ensure that the Forest will continue to work with SWCD's where mutual concern exists.<br />

Comment<br />

Water resources are not identified as an issue and are not very thoroughly discussed in the DEIS and<br />

the LRMP. Yet the Klamath River Basin is one of the most heavily used in the state from a water resources<br />

standpoint. We believe the treatment of water resources needs to be improved in the FEIS and LRMP.<br />

The most important issue is water yield and seasonal distribution.<br />

The DEIS indicates that water yield will not change in all decades among all of the alternatives. There<br />

are no data or studies to support this conclusion. Even though total yield may not change, the literature<br />

suggests that timber harvest can affect the timing and rate of run-off. The Water Resources Department<br />

is particularly concerned that the proposed large lodgepole pine harvest may allow snow to melt faster<br />

and accelerate discharge or later groundwater recharge and discharge. These potential impacts need<br />

to be analyzed in the EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3 covering your concerns. To our knowledge, no<br />

scientific studies have been done to establish these relationships on local conditions. Our conclusions<br />

are based upon watershed studies done elsewhere in the western U.S. and on professional judgement.<br />

K - 243

Comment<br />

The riparian management area focuses discussion on wildlife habitat concerns. These objectives may<br />

be sufficient to assure the integrity of riparian communities, but specific goals directed to maintaining<br />

or preferably improving hydrologic conditions should be included. The goal should be to maintain or<br />

improve habitat and hydrologic conditions to retain diversity and provide for the continued production<br />

of riparian resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Correct. The management area goals and objectives have been revised to cover this concern and<br />

standards and guidelines have been included to protect hydrologic values.<br />

Comment<br />

It would help us considerably in our analysis if information on water yield and discharge and timber<br />

harvest activity were broken out by major watersheds on the Forest: the Williamson, Sycan, Sprague<br />

and Wood Rivers. This type of presentation would assist us in evaluating the cumulative impacts of<br />

other management activities in these watersheds.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Harvest activity was not broken out by watersheds because no sensitive watersheds have been identified<br />

and because much of the water from the forest flows underground and may not reflect any measurable<br />

change from timber harvest. A generalized watershed map was included in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Water yield data has been included in Chapter 3 to show average water yields from several important<br />

gaging stations that are reflective of major watersheds. It is the intention of the Forest to begin recording<br />

timber harvest activity and certain other data according to major watersheds, but currently this information<br />

is not available.<br />

Comment<br />

Riparian area management is a critical concern in semi-arid eastern Oregon, where the lands around<br />

streams, lakes and other wet areas are so important to water flow management, fisheries, and species<br />

diversity. Unless done carefully, land management activities in riparian areas can compact soils and<br />

remove needed vegetation, thus changing water flow rates and raising water temperatures. A full<br />

understanding of the affected resources is essential to ensure that riparian zones are not degraded<br />

through land management activities. Their importance is underscored by the many State agencies<br />

which expressed concerns over possible degradation of these areas including the Department of<br />

Agriculture, Department of Water Resources, DEQ, and ODFW.<br />

We found insufficient detail in the DEIS and LRMP on riparian zones and evaluation of their condition.<br />

We request that you provide us, if possible, (with a map of riparian zones by condition class, or at<br />

least a compilation of this information by subbasin, and more information on the allowable livestock<br />

use rate in these zones.)<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 8 and Forest wide range standards and guidelines have been revised to strengthen<br />

the protection of riparian areas. Range utilization standards have been tightened to ensure that riparian<br />

values are maintained or improved. The standards take into account existing condition of the riparian<br />

area. Riparian condition class has not been summarized to the detail you request. A new riparian survey<br />

is scheduled for 1990-1992. Discussion of watershed and riparian areas needing rehabilitation has<br />

been included in chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Regarding water quality, DEQ's main concern is that the LRMP be consistent with Oregon's adopted<br />

Statewide Water Quality Management Plan for forest practices as required by the Clean Water Act.<br />

The DEIS and LRMP recognize goals of meeting water quality standards and protecting beneficial<br />

uses of water. However, these documents lack information needed to assess adequately the water<br />

quality effects of proposed activities on the Forest, including sediment production and management<br />

K - 244

controls in specific watersheds. Findings need to be made on the relationship between baseline water<br />

quality conditions and the effects of proposed Forest activities. In Oregon, the Forest Practices Act<br />

and administrative rules aid in meeting Clean Water Act requirements. These rules should be addressed<br />

in the DEIS. See DEQ comments for a more detailed discussion.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Information has been added to Appendix H of the Plan describing how the forest will comply with the<br />

Clean Water Act. Chapters II and IV of the FEIS discuss the anticipated effects of management on<br />

water and riparian resources.<br />

Comment<br />

Regarding water quality, the Department's concern is that the Plan be consistent with Oregon's adopted<br />

Statewide Water Quality Management Plan for forest practices as required by the Clean Water Act. It is<br />

important to ensure that the proposed activities of timber harvest, road construction, chemical handling<br />

and usage, sewage disposal, livestock grazing and other forest land activities comply with Oregon's<br />

Water Quality Standards and Guidelines and be monitored for their effectiveness in complying with<br />

these and protecting beneficial uses of the water. However, important information is lacking in the Plan<br />

and DEIS to adequately assess the water quality effects of the activities in a multiple use forest, including<br />

sediment production and management controls in specific watersheds. In addition, findings need to be<br />

made regarding the relationship between baseline water quality conditions and the effects of the planned<br />

forest activities.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See response to previous comment. The State of Oregon has determined that Forest Best Management<br />

Practices meet or exceed the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Monitoring of implementation and<br />

effectiveness of BMP's will ensure that water quality is maintained or improved. Management Area 8<br />

standards and guidelines will protect multiple riparian area values. Those riparian areas in degraded<br />

condition will be rehabilitated. The process for implementing BMP's is described in Appendix H of the<br />

Plan. Monitoring program is described in Chapter 5 of the Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The draft Winema Forest Plan provides a goal for meeting state water quality standards. The Plan also<br />

provides standards and guidelines for water that will meet standards through application of Best<br />

Management Practices (BMP) at the project planning level. We believe these are compatible statements,<br />

both of which, if achieved will maintain or improve water quality in the forest. To strengthen these<br />

statements and avoid misinterpretation of goals, we suggest specific references to Oregon's water<br />

quality standards (OAR Chapter 340, Division 41) and Oregon's forest practice rules (OAR Chapter<br />

629, Division 24) be added to the water resources goal statements (p. IV-2, proposed Plan) and the<br />

statements in the forest-wide standards section beginning on page IV-36 of the proposed plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Oregon State water quality standards have been referenced in soil and water goal statements and in<br />

standards and guidelines. Appendix H of the Plan has been added to discuss the Clean Water Act,<br />

Oregon Forest Practices Act, and Best Management Practices to protect water quality.<br />

Comment<br />

If the proposed preferred plan alternative can maintain or improve water quality, then the DEQ could<br />

support the preferred alternative. However, the Plan has a basic flaw that concerns us. The Plan and<br />

DEIS, collectively, display a lack of concern for water quality. We agree that the amount of water leaving<br />

the forest via surface and groundwater may be relatively small. But, this by no means should suggest<br />

a reduced emphasis on water quality. For example, the statements on page S-29 for Management<br />

Area 14, Minimum Management, concerning water are inappropriate and contrary to policy stated in<br />

Oregon Revised Statute (OAR 468.710) regarding the need to provide for adequate water quality to<br />

protect beneficial uses of water. The statements on page S-29 lead the reader to believe that water<br />

quality is not important.<br />

K - 245

Furthermore, the DEIS (pgs. 111-59-60) suggests that native trout is the indicator of water quality. The<br />

DEIS mentions that these trout populations are depressed because of stream and riparian habitat<br />

abuse by a long history of grazing. These statements prompt the reader to see what the plan is going<br />

to do about these poor conditions. Much to our disappointment, the proposed Plan identifies only 1%<br />

of the damaged riparian areas in the forest receiving rehabilitation efforts each year (1,000 acres needing<br />

improvement, 10 acres per year rehabilitation). We request that the forest staff be more aggressive<br />

and obtain complete rehabilitation in the first decade of the Plan. In so doing, the staff would start the<br />

native trout and water quality on the path to recovery rather than giving the appearance of maintaining<br />

the status quo.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All lakes, streams, wetlands, and other riparian areas have been included in Management Area 8 --<br />

Riparian, unless otherwise protected by other management areas such as wilderness. Forest-wide and<br />

management area standards and guidelines have been strengthened for the protection of the water<br />

resource.<br />

Only a small portion of the class 1, 11, and 11 streams on the Forest have unstable banks, and these<br />

areas are receiving treatment (see Chapter 3 FEIS). Excessive water temperature is a major limiting<br />

factor for trout populations in some streams, particulary those streams that receive most of their flow<br />

from off the Forest. Temperature in Forest streams will be lowered by enhancing overhanging bank<br />

vegetation and improving channel characteristics through implementation of standards and guidelines<br />

for control of livestock grazing. Water flowing onto the Forest frequently has excessive temperature<br />

due to degraded riparian conditions on private land upstream from the Forest. The Forest is currently<br />

participating in Coordinated Resource Management Plans to improve riparian and watershed conditions<br />

on streams with multiple ownerships. By these means, degraded streams will be improved and streams<br />

currently in good condition will be maintained. However, the healing process is often slow, so complete<br />

recovery may take longer than one decade.<br />

Comment<br />

We also suggest that the sediment production figures displayed in Table 11-3A of the DEIS be broken<br />

down by watersheds so that a more accurate watershed-by-watershed portrayal of sediment production<br />

can be made. The way in which the sediment production figures are depicted are meaningless when<br />

trying to assess management strategy impacts in various watersheds.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The sediment production figures are meant to be a relative comparison of the alternatives. The sediment<br />

production rates are very low, reflecting the low erosion hazard of the Forest. Given the low rates, it<br />

was felt that portraying sediment production by watersheds would have little value.<br />

Comment<br />

The monitoring plan given in Table V-1 of the Plan does not address water quality, per se. One would<br />

assume that it is covered in the native trout habitat/monitoring question #8). We request a specified<br />

plan for water quality, in some detail, be added to the monitoring plan.<br />

The goal of a Monitoring program to protect the water resource should be to assess the changing<br />

water quality conditions, not assessment of BMP implementation. The BMPs are tools to achieve water<br />

goals and should be monitored for their effectiveness to achieve water quality protection. However,<br />

BMPs are not the end products. Good water quality is the end product and, therefore, should be the<br />

focus of monitoring.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Water quality monitoring plan is now described in Chapter 5 of the Plan. Water quality monitoring is<br />

not limited to implementation of BMP's. It includes monitoring of implementation, effectiveness, and<br />

validation (see BMP discussion in Appendix H of the Plan).<br />

K - 246

Comment<br />

Adequate and guaranteed funding of a monitoring program is necessary. The proposed plan displays<br />

costs for monitoring, but this does not ensure that the monitoring will actually take place. It is our position<br />

that plan implementation monitoring is not voluntary or optional, but mandatory. Our position is based<br />

on the monitoring requirements inherent in the national Forest Management Act (NFMA) which states,<br />

"(E) insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where:<br />

(iii) protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies<br />

of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits<br />

of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish<br />

habitats (Section 6, NFMA).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree. With adequate funding for implementation and monitoring of standards and guidelines and<br />

best management practices, the risk of damaging water and riparian resources is rather low. Without<br />

adequate funding the risk is high. The Forest will make every effort to secure adequate funding.<br />

Comment<br />

The Plan virtually ignores the groundwater component of the hydrologic cycle. The Plan and DEIS do<br />

recognize that 95% of the forest is a groundwater recharge area with thousands of acre feet of water<br />

surfacing down gradient, some of which is becoming stored in Klamath Lake (DEIS, pg. 111-5). With this<br />

magnitude of groundwater storage, the Plan should recognize the importance of groundwater protection<br />

and discuss the following points.<br />

1. Activities that affect groundwater quality will eventually affect surface water quality. Conversely, changes<br />

in surface water quality might be reflected in groundwater quality.<br />

2. Lakes with unique pristine water quality may need special groundwater protection requirements to<br />

prevent nutrient enrichment, particularly with regard to sewage disposal practices associated with<br />

intensive recreational use.<br />

3. All sewage disposal practices need to be in compliance with state requirements. Please state those<br />

requirements by reference in the Plan.<br />

4. Groundwater protection planning should be included in all chemical handling practices, in the forest.<br />

This would include, but not be limited to herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and degreasing solvents at<br />

maintenance shops.<br />

5. Activities and procedures that minimize erosion, and surface water runoff also will increase infiltration,<br />

allowing for more stable year round stream flow.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Information and Standards and Guidelines have been added to the FEIS and Forest Plan, for those<br />

items above.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest needs to use the interagency standards for rating riparian ecosystems found in "Managing<br />

Riparian Ecosystems for Fish and Wildlife in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington' (1979). The<br />

DEIS disclosed no inventory information using the above standards. These standards were adopted<br />

by Region Six in 1979 for use in evaluating riparian ecosystems and as input to the planning process.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards in the stated report were used in formulating our Standards and Guidelines. The report<br />

was listed in the reference section. Our Standards and Guidelines will equal or exceed the standards.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW recommends as a Forest-wide standard no programmed timber harvest in riparian areas of<br />

Class 1, 11, Ill, and IV streams, nor in wet and moist lodgepole pine sites subject to regeneration problems.<br />

ODFW recommends no grazing be permitted in riparian areas in less than "good' condition.<br />

K - 247

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There will be no programmed timber harvest within 100 feet of class I and 11 streams and within 50 feet<br />

of class Ill streams. With standards and guidelines and best management practices, programmed<br />

timber harvest can be permitted on the remaining riparian while still protecting or enhancing riparian<br />

values and water quality. Standards and guidelines for grazing will maintain or enhance riparian values<br />

since they are more restrictive when condition is less than good.<br />

Comment<br />

The goal for riparian habitat management should be at least 80 percent of potential. ODFW recommends<br />

the Forest implement protective measures necessary to achieve functional recovery of 80 percent of<br />

potential fish and wildlife habitat characteristics within 10 years; ecological recovery of native plant<br />

communities should be reached in 20 years. This recommendation is consistent with the Forest goal<br />

of maintenance or recovery of riparian values and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526 policy to give<br />

preferential consideration to riparian-dependent resources over nonriparian-dependent resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is not clear what is meant by 80% potential. It could mean climax or could mean the condition before<br />

white settlers; there is no sure measuring point. Ecological recovery is an objective that could be achieved,<br />

but would most likely take much longer than 20 years. The goal stated in Chapter 4 of the Plan, "maintain<br />

and/or enhance structure and function of wetland ecosystems ... to maintain ecological integrity," will<br />

in all probability achieve the same objective.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS did not describe the condition of springs, seeps, and associated riparian vegetation. Most<br />

such water sources on grazing allotments have been degraded and the potential exists for disease<br />

transmission between livestock, wildlife, and man. Region Six range improvement handbooks describe<br />

the protective measures needed for springs and seeps.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Riparian management area 8 has been expanded to include springs and seeps and standards and<br />

guidelines have been added to ensure their protection.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-7.<br />

(Paragraph 1) What is the cause for the temperature and dissolved oxygen problems in the Sprague<br />

River during the late summer months? (DEIS 111-7-1) What causes the turbidity problems to the tributary<br />

intermittent streams flowing into the Sprague River? (DEIS 111-7-2).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Water coming onto the Forest has been impacted by intensive agricultural use up stream from the<br />

Forest (channelization, overgrazing, removal of streambank vegetation, irrigation, etc.). This has caused<br />

the high temperature and low dissolved oxygen problem.<br />

Intermittent streams flowing from Forest land south of the Sprague River will have some elevated turbidity<br />

levels during spring run-off. This area does not have a pumice and ash soil mantle and consequently<br />

can have rapid run-off that picks up some sediment on both private and Forest Service lands. Copperfield<br />

Draw has been identified as a high priority area for rehabilitation.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-8.<br />

(Paragraph 2). What is the current condition of riparian habitats on the Forest? (DEIS 111-8-1).<br />

(Paragraph 5). What is the problem with the three areas that need watershed improvement work? (DEIS<br />

111-8-2).<br />

K - 248

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information has been added to Chapter 3 concerning current condition of riparian habitats.<br />

Three of the areas with watershed problems (Telephone Draw, Bull Pasture, and Copperfield Draw) are<br />

associated with livestock and past logging and roading activities. One area (Great Meadow) involves a<br />

drainage ditch cut into a tufted hair grass meadow to drain the meadow for a landing strip.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-5.<br />

(Paragraph 1). Soil productivity and water quality will be protected in all alternatives... The sediment<br />

outputs displayed in Table 11-3A indicate the degree of protection varies significantly among the<br />

alternatives. Most alternatives show a significant increase in sediment yield from decade one to decade<br />

five.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Sediment outputs do vary by alternatives, but the total magnitude in each alternative is very low. Higher<br />

output are associated with more logging on steep ground. Implementation and monitoring of standards<br />

and guidelines and BMP's will ensure that sedimentation will remain low.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV42.<br />

Paragraph 2). The Forest states "...less than 5 percent of the total streambanks on the Forest are in<br />

degraded conditions." When was the inventory for the level of degraded conditions conducted and<br />

what were the criteria used to judge conditions? (DEIS IV-44).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

F<br />

The inventory was made in 1979 and 1980. A standard Regional process was used which considered<br />

vegetation, rock content, slope gradient and other factors.<br />

Comment<br />

D-17.<br />

2.a Define sufficient amount.'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

OSufficient Amount! will vary somewhat depending upon the riparian community present. This will be<br />

determined during project level planning.<br />

Comment<br />

D-17.<br />

2.b. Change to read *... along at least 80 percent of a stream's length within the project area.'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Was changed to read a... in a stable condition along at least 85 percent of a stream's length in any<br />

given drainage.'<br />

Comment<br />

D-17.<br />

2.c. Add class Ill streams to line four.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Class IlIl streams have been added to standard and guideline.<br />

Comment<br />

D-17.<br />

3.a. Add class IlIl streams to line one.<br />

K - 249

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Class IlIl streams are protected under 3c.<br />

Comment<br />

D-17.<br />

3.c. Strike class III on line one and add class IlIl to lines three and five.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We feel that it should remain as stated.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-50.<br />

2.a. Define sufficient amounts."<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

oSufficient amountN will vary somewhat depending upon the riparian community present. This will be<br />

determined during project level planning.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-50<br />

2.c. Class Ill needs to be included in this paragraph.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Class Ill streams was added to this paragraph.<br />

Comment<br />

Wildlife and Fish Program Goals, IV-3: Paragraph 2 which states, To maintain or enhance the unique<br />

and valuable...or improve water quality," also should include water quantity.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

That is stated as a Soil and Water (Watershed Management) goal.<br />

Comment<br />

Resource Outputs and Activities, Table IV-1, IV-9: The table indicates that water yield will remain constant<br />

at 700,000 acre feet annually from decade one through decade five. On the surface this analysis seems<br />

questionable considering that 87,000 acres of lodgepole pine will be harvested during the first decade,<br />

primarily from the upper Williamson River drainage (chemult RD).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An explanation has been added to the Water section of Chapter 3 FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The Department is concerned with the effect the proposed large lodgepole pine harvest will have on<br />

surface water discharge. Removing the canopy cover over such a large area may allow snow to melt<br />

faster and accelerate discharge or alter ground water recharge and discharge. The potential effects of<br />

large-scale lodgepole pine harvest on downstream water uses need to be examined in both the LRMP<br />

and DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3 to address your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Soil and Water Program, Monitoring the Effects of Forest Plan Implementation, IV-1 8: This section fails<br />

to include a water quantity monitoring program. There is no mention of monitoring for water quantity<br />

changes which might result from implementation of the forest plan. Table V-1 does not break out the<br />

K - 250

frequency of monitoring to meet provisions of the LRMP or the costs associated with monitoring water<br />

supply. Riparian monitoring is expected to be undertaken through the Interdisciplinary Team review of<br />

each environmental assessment. In addition, neither Table B-i or B-2 includes budgets for monitoring<br />

the effects of management decisions on water supply.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We will not have a water quantity monitoring program because we do not believe there will be a significant<br />

change in runoff and because flow is adequately measured by U.S.G.S. monitoring stations. This is<br />

explained in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The monitoring plan for water and riparian quality has been expanded.<br />

Comment<br />

There is no specific guideline addressing water quantity. The Department suggests including a<br />

standard/guideline stating management activities, such as timber harvest, will not accelerate the timing<br />

or rate of seasonal runoff. These activities may produce some temporary acceleration of runoff, but<br />

runoff will not be affected over a period of more than two runoff seasons.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3. Standards and guidelines limit intensity and spacing<br />

of harvest if it will negatively affect hydrologic conditions.<br />

Comment<br />

1. Riparian area management objectives (LRMP, IV-50) for a management unit should explicitly include,<br />

in addition to the 1 00-foot minimum management zone on either side of a stream, sufficient upland<br />

transition zone required to meet all the riparian standards.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards include 100 feet from a streams plus the farthest reaches of riparian vegetation as a<br />

minimum, and would include additional area if needed.<br />

Comment<br />

2a. The term sufficientw should be replaced with a minimum quantifiable standard for maintenance of<br />

ground cover. Require that a percentage of ground cover by area (for example, 80 percent per square<br />

meter) or percentage of ground cover by management unit (80 percent of the unit) be maintained to<br />

stabilize soil movement and prevent erosion in the two major soil types. This would not be conceptually<br />

different than the guideline which requires stable streambanks along 80 percent of the streams on the<br />

Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Refer to the Effective Ground Cover Table (4-12) in the soils section of the Forest-wide standards and<br />

guidelines, Chapter 4 of the Plan. "Sufficient Amount" will vary somewhat depending upon the riparian<br />

community present. This will be determined during project level planning.<br />

Comment<br />

2c. This guideline calls for development of specific quantitative criteria on a stream-by-stream basis.<br />

For planning purposes, maximum and minimum parameters would prove useful for establishing the<br />

acceptable range of management options for woody debris and structural habitat for fish.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Specific recommendations will be made during project level planning.<br />

Comment<br />

3b. This standard states that an increase of no more than 10 percent in natural stream turbidities will<br />

be allowed, and that temporary changes will be allowed but must be 'minimal' and adequately monitored.<br />

A temporary variance allowing no more than a specific percentage (for example, 35 percent) for a<br />

period of hours, days or weeks would be more useful than the term "minimal.' This would establish an<br />

K - 251

upper limit which would make monitoring changes in, and environmental effects of, turbidity more<br />

meaningful.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This would depend on the stream system and the timing. We believe this Oregon water quality standard<br />

is acceptable.<br />

Comment<br />

5. Amend the wetlands and floodplains standard to include maintenance of wetlands and floodplains<br />

to store and route ground and surface water, including floodwaters.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Standards and guidelines have been amended accordingly.<br />

Comment<br />

In conjunction with the Forest's ongoing discussions with the Klamath Tribe and the Oregon Department<br />

of Fish and Wildlife on development of minimum streamflows, a standard addressing streamflow volumes<br />

might be useful. One suggestion might be to include a standard which maintains or increases stream<br />

pool volumes during low streamflow conditions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A statement has been added in Standards and Guidelines, that the Forest will conform with any minimum<br />

stream flow established and maintain or increase stream pool volumes during low stream flow conditions.<br />

Comment<br />

Under alternative D, almost 102,000 acres of lodgepole pine will be converted (harvested) during the<br />

second decade alone. Coupled with the total potential acreage subject to even-aged management,<br />

clearcutting, and associated soil disturbance, the natural inference, although difficult to determine, is<br />

that the timber harvest contained in this alternative will have an impact on water resources. Yet Table<br />

S-2, DEIS page S-32, indicates water yield will not change in all decades among any of the alternatives.<br />

While total water yield may not change, the Water Resources Department is concerned with potential<br />

changes to the timing and rate of seasonal runoff. Literature suggests that forest practices can affect<br />

the timing and rate of runoff. This alternative, along with all the alternatives, fails to discuss the affect<br />

timber harvest practices may have on seasonal runoff patterns.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3, covering this concern.<br />

Comment<br />

Although the management strategies developed to meet wildlife habitat management objectives may<br />

be sufficient to ensure the integrity of riparian communities, specific goals which maintain or improve<br />

hydrologic conditions, in addition to habitat requirements, should be identified.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Standards and guidelines for hydrologic protection have been strengthened. Management strategies<br />

for wildlife are designed to also maintain or improve hydrologic conditions.<br />

Comment<br />

Riparian areas are highly productive, sensitive and geographically limited ecosystems. A variety of<br />

important resources, including wildlife, depend totally on riparian areas. The management goal for<br />

riparian areas should include provisions emphasizing maintenance or improvement of habitat and<br />

hydrologic conditions to retain diversity and provide for the continued production of riparian resources.<br />

The goal may restrict levels of management for nonriparian dependent resources to those activities<br />

that exhibit a high probability of benefitting riparian resources and produce few adverse effects.<br />

K - 252

Site-specific riparian management objectives should be developed for each riparian unit. Programmed<br />

timber harvest may not be suitable for specific riparian units.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Standards and guidelines for riparian management have been strengthened. The riparian management<br />

area [8] has been revised to include management intensities for specific types of riparian areas. Timber<br />

harvest is not programmed near class 1, 11, and Ill streams.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema National Forest does not break out information by watershed or drainage area. Both the<br />

DEIS and LRMP could be improved with additional data on water resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information has been added to Chapter 3 about watersheds. It was determined that watersheds<br />

were in relatively good condition and management would not benefit from breaking out information on<br />

a watershed or drainage area basis. However it is the intention of the Forest to begin summarizing<br />

data according to watershed.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS briefly describes forest hydrology in general terms, and lists the major streams and miles of<br />

class 1, 11 and Ill streams. It points out that forest streams respond differently to precipitation than do<br />

other northwest streams because of pumice and ash soils. The discussion suggests forest soils have<br />

a high infiltration rate and water is released gradually to discharge zones. However, the discussion<br />

fails to discuss stream density or document whether streams respond directly to precipitation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information has been added to Chapter 3 covering your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS states the Forest yields roughly 700,000 acre feet per year, 95 percent of which flows into<br />

Upper Kiamath Lake. Yield and discharge information is not broken out by watershed or drainage.<br />

Furthermore, there is no discussion of the effects of land treatment on discrete watersheds. Nor is an<br />

attempt made to examine in more than a cursory fashion the cumulative effects of land treatment on<br />

the water resources of the forest, and on downstream water users.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Information was not broken out by watershed because no watersheds were determined to be sensitive.<br />

However additional information was added to Chapter 3 of the FEIS concerning watersheds.<br />

Comment<br />

Discussion of the affected environment on page 111-8 of the DEIS points out that total flows from the<br />

Forest will remain essentially unchanged in the future, although there may be some minor changes of<br />

flows due to lodgepole pine mortality... None of these activities will significantly affect the availability of<br />

water.' This may be so, but these statements lack documentation for independent analysis of the effects<br />

on seasonal runoff patterns and total water yield of the large-scale lodgepole pine harvest envisioned<br />

by the plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3 covering your concerns. To our knowledge, no<br />

scientific studies have been done to establish these relationships on local conditions. Our conclusions<br />

are based upon watershed studies done elsewhere in the western U.S. and on professional judgement.<br />

Comment<br />

To its credit, the Forest states it is not manipulating vegetation for the purpose of increasing or altering<br />

stream flows. However, although the Forest indicates there may be incidental changes from timber<br />

K - 253

management activities, it does not provide any further discussion or analysis of what the effects might<br />

be. Again, further documentation or analysis would be useful for independent assessment of these<br />

assertions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3 covering your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

There is no information included in the DEIS describing watershed boundaries, watershed conditions,<br />

or the importance of Forest watersheds to downstream, off-Forest water users.<br />

Additional useful data needed are:<br />

a. Watersheds location, area, elevation, slope and aspect, estimated annual,<br />

flood and low flows, and condition (the DEIS mentions areas<br />

needing watershed improvement but includes no inventory of conditions.<br />

b. Forest map of watersheds<br />

c. Forest map indicating improvement areas<br />

d. Inclusion of Soil and Water Improvement Inventory<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Necessary information has been added to Chapter 3 covering your concerns. Not all the requested<br />

information is available at this time.<br />

Comment<br />

Paragraph four, page B-1 9 of the Appendices, states that the Forest has classified streams based on<br />

Regional standards for streamflow and use characteristics. Including this information in an appendix<br />

would be useful for examining the interaction of land treatment practices on streamflow and water use.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Stream class definitions have been added to the Description of Management Area 8 Riparian in the<br />

Plan and to Chapter 3 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS emphasizes the impacts of forest roads on wildlife, page 111-104, and does not discuss potential<br />

water quality or hydrologic impacts. Water quality impacts are alluded to in the discussion of affected<br />

environment for soil, water and air quality, page 111-4. Erosion, because of the type of soils occurring in<br />

the Forest, apparently is not a serious problem. Hydrologic impacts are not discussed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information concerning these relationships has been added to Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the<br />

FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Effects of the alternatives on soils and water, page IV-4, fails to identify potential hydrologic impacts.<br />

The DEIS makes clear that soil-disturbing activities such as road building will be subject to the guidelines<br />

contained in Appendix D. Appendix D, page D-1 9, adequately sets standards to protect soils from<br />

disturbance and minimize erosion, but does not specifically set standards to protect hydrologic values.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Hydrologic values are protected by the revised Forest-wide and Management Area 8 - Riparian Standards<br />

and Guidelines.<br />

K - 254

Comment<br />

The Forest should discuss whether or not high road densities accelerate water runoff.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information has been added in Chapter 3. High road densities are not accelerating water<br />

run-off on most of the Forest since most of the soils on the Forest are highly permeable (greater than<br />

20 inches per hour) and there is very little run-off water to be collected on roads. On approximately 20<br />

percent of the Forest the roads can accelerate water run-off, but these roads are mostly gravelled and<br />

properly drained.<br />

Comment<br />

The lack of timber resources and harvest information by watershed or drainage makes hydrologic<br />

analysis extremely difficult. At a minimum, data should be arrayed for the major watersheds of the<br />

Forest: the Williamson, Sycan, Sprague and Wood Rivers drainages. Further segregation of data at a<br />

finer scale for specially affected environments, such as the upper Williamson watershed, would be<br />

useful. A summary table of proposed harvest activities by watershed/drainage would make it easier to<br />

examine the potential impacts to a stream system, and whether dispersion constraints are being followed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional information has been added to Chapter 3 about watersheds. It was determined that watersheds<br />

were in relatively good condition and management would not benefit from breaking out information on<br />

a watershed or drainage area basis. It is the intention of the Forest to begin summarizing certain information<br />

by watershed.<br />

Comment<br />

Further definition of dispersion constraints by watershed would be useful to assess hydrologic impacts<br />

of land treatment.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3 covering your concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Plans to harvest insect-damaged lodgepole pine highlight the previous two points of the timber harvest<br />

comments. Volumes, acreages and reforestation figures and methods are listed for lodgepole pine,<br />

but location of proposed actions in relation to watersheds and drainages is missing. Table IV-13, page<br />

IV-36 of the DEIS, indicates that under the preferred alternative 139,200 acres of lodgepole pine will be<br />

harvested in the first two decades, 87,000 acres in the first 10 years. This information is broken down<br />

by ranger district in other sections of the documents. However, as significant as this action is, there is<br />

no way to determine potential water resource impacts because the information is not arrayed in suitable<br />

maps and accompanying tables and site-specific harvest plans.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional discussion has been added in Chapter 3. Refer to the watershed map that has been added<br />

to Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Most of the impact from lodgepole pine harvest will be on the Williamson<br />

River watershed.<br />

Comment<br />

Generally, data are presented in a consistent manner. Unfortunately, the structure of the documents<br />

consistently provides no succinct description of hydrologic data.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Little data about timber harvest and other activities has been collected and organized by watershed in<br />

the past. Due to the rather flat topography on the Forest, it is difficult for a person traveling on the<br />

ground to know when one watershed is left and another entered. Also, erosion, sedimentation, slumps<br />

and slides are relatively minor problems on this Forest. Consequently, watershed analysis has not<br />

K - 255

eceived the priority that it might otherwise have had. However, it is the intention of the Forest to begin<br />

to collect and organize certain data according by watershed. Additional flow data on the major rivers<br />

has been furnished in Chapter 3.<br />

Comment<br />

Riparian values are consistently dealt with through wildlife habitat issues and range activities. It appears<br />

that there is an opportunity to expand upon management objectives for riparian areas in order to provide<br />

water resources benefits.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management objectives for wildlife and range activities are designed to protect or enhance the water<br />

resource values. However, standards and guidelines for protection of hydrologic values have been<br />

strengthened.<br />

Comment<br />

Under the Water, Soil and Air Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, on p. IV-50, insert a new #13 to<br />

read:<br />

13. Meet aquatic resource protection standards of Oregon's Removal-Fill Law (ORS 541.695).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This has been added to the Forest wide Standards and Guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema Forest has not developed a management strategy for watersheds. ORC urges the Forest<br />

to develop such a strategy; this need is supported by a wealth of watershed and stream ecology research.<br />

The strategy should be applied to all watersheds, including terrestrial areas. It should allow no<br />

programmed timber harvest within 150 feet of riparian zones; extend the rotation of timber harvest in<br />

all terrestrial areas that influence water quality and flow regime, to no greater than 10% occurrence of<br />

trees in age-class 0-50 at any one time; prohibit exposure of mineral soil in excess of 5% in any area<br />

that contributes directly to a watershed; manage all potential wild and scenic rivers with a 1/4 mile no<br />

impact boundary on each side of the waterway.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Timber harvest is not programmed near class I and 11 streams. Activities are limited in and near all<br />

other riparian areas. Generally, uneven-aged management is prescribed in riparian areas, except<br />

lodgepole where other restrictions apply. Watershed, riparian, and wild and scenic values are protected<br />

by Forest-wide and Management area standards and guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

Page A-4, number 10. Riparian habitat and wetlands should be added to the items of concern listed in<br />

number 10 in the final document.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These concerns were identified under Water on page A-4 item 14.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-7, para 1. Specific reasons and possible management solutions for the high water temperature<br />

and turbidity levels in the Sprague River should be provided in the final statement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Discussion has been added to Chapter 3.<br />

K - 256

Wild and Scenic Rivers<br />

Comment<br />

If the Sycan River does not have or gain special designation at this time in history, it can never gain<br />

special designation as it now is forever in the flow of history. This river is probably the most sensitive<br />

water way ecosystem in Oregon. It is a very small ecosystem and a short river.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest determined that the Sycan was eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River<br />

System. The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988 included most of the sycan river as<br />

a portion of the National System. See Appendix E of the FEIS for additional information.<br />

Comment<br />

Your analysis of Wild and Scenic Rivers does not reflect informed views on the Upper Williamson where<br />

rehabilitation now underway is expected to restore and support remarkably productive trout water, and<br />

on the Sprague which does have recreational potential as well as a good trout fishery. Both should be<br />

reexamined.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Concerning the Upper Williamson River: We agree that in the future after the restoration work is complete<br />

there is a potential to have a good trout fishery. Our evaluation of this river segment did not indicate<br />

that this condition exists today and therefore we found no outstandingly remarkable values. Please see<br />

Appendix E of the FEIS for additional details.<br />

Concerning the Sprague River: Our evaluation of the Sprague River revealed that the fish and recreation<br />

values of the river segment were about standard for a river in Central Oregon. We found no outstandingly<br />

remarkable values. Please see Appendix E of the FEIS for additional details.<br />

Comment<br />

The Sprague was determined to be ineligible due to absence of outstanding remarkable features. In<br />

contrast, the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Division believes that the Sprague has outstanding<br />

recreational values and should be considered for possible eligibility. We recommend that you discuss<br />

the Sprague with State Parks and reconsider your conclusion. In all rivers studies, you should ensure<br />

that all eligible rivers are examined in this assessment and fairly considered for the different designation<br />

categories.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In order for a river segment to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System it<br />

must be free flowing and contain one outstandingly remarkable value. We agree that the Sprague<br />

River down to the Chiloquin dam is free flowing. No information was submitted which would lead us to<br />

believe that we should change our findings concerning the lack of outstandingly remarkable values.<br />

Our analysis of the river is that the recreation values are about average for a river in central Oregon.<br />

See Appendix E of the FEIS for additional information.<br />

Comment<br />

The potential population status of the upper Williamson downstream from the Wickiup Springs area<br />

has been misinterpreted. We believe that the river down to about Irving Creek has the potential to<br />

produce trout comparably with the segment just below Wickiup Spring. The difference in forecast<br />

population level would result from angling mortality, those fish caught and removed from the population<br />

by anglers.<br />

K - 257

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that the fisheries values in the Wickiup Spring area are significant but this value can only be<br />

attributed to a very small area around the spring on private land. From the spring to Irving Creek the<br />

fisheries values are about average for a river in central Oregon. We agree that this section has the<br />

potential for higher concentrations of fish because of the habitat work currently under way on the river,<br />

but those values do not exist today.<br />

Comment<br />

Basic eligibility information for some of the river segments addressed were not presented in the DEIS<br />

appendix. This includes segment mileage, land ownership and current Forest management prescriptions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Segment mileage and land ownership have been added in the FEIS Appendix E for the Lower Williamson<br />

River. This was not done for the rivers that do not qualify for inclusion in the System. The current Forest<br />

management prescriptions are detailed in Alternative A and NC in Chapter 11 of the DEIS and FEIS.<br />

Additional information on ownership and current and probable use of land has been added to the<br />

suitability section in Appendix E and Chapter III and IV of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema Forest erred in its eligibility analysis of the Upper Williamson River. From 0.5 miles upstream<br />

of Wickiup Spring to Irving Creek the Williamson satisfies the two requirements for eligibility set forth<br />

by the Act: the river is free-flowing and possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable values. The<br />

fact that the highest population of native rainbow and brook trout in the state exists preferentially in<br />

the vicinity of the spring does not disqualify the river downstream. ORC urges the Forest to reassess<br />

for eligibility the Upper Williamson, using requirements set forth in the Act and Handbook. Poor habitat<br />

conditions are the result of inadequate resource management; Wild and Scenic designation would<br />

compliment the current habitat enhancement work. We also recommend adding recreation and scenic<br />

to the list of outstandingly remarkable values. We recommend a scenic classification.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that the river segment is free-flowing but do not agree that the river offers outstandingly<br />

remarkable scenic and recreation values. We find the scenic and recreation values to be about average<br />

for a river in central Oregon.<br />

We agree that the fisheries values in the Wickiup Spring area are significant but this value can only be<br />

attributed to a very small area around the spring on private property. From the spring to Irving Creek<br />

the fisheries values are about average for a river in central Oregon. This is due in part because of<br />

habitat conditions and also because the fish populations tend to migrate to the Wickiup Spring area<br />

and cooler water as the water down stream warms.<br />

Our studies do not support eligibility of the upper Williamson River as a candidate to the National Wild<br />

and Scenic river system (see Appendix E).<br />

Comment<br />

Standard progression for a Wild and Scenic River assessment, as outlined in the Act and detailed in<br />

the Handbook is to start with eligibility, then classify the river into appropriate segments, then proceed<br />

to suitability. The DEIS assessment of the Lower Williamson shows the river was first classified into<br />

segments, then assigned outstandingly remarkable values.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A Wild and Scenic River study is not conducted in a clear step by step process. In fact, the eligibility<br />

and classification process tend to be interrelated and occur at about the same time. We have modified<br />

the text of the study to clarify the study process.<br />

K - 258

Comment<br />

The same problems with methodology outlined above apply to the Sprague River assessment. Page<br />

E-1 6 in the DEIS the river is freeflowing, yet goes on to say the private lands are impacted by dikes<br />

and irrigation facilities. The implication is that these impacts disqualify the entire river, including the<br />

portions on Forest lands. The finding of ineligibility for the Sprague is incorrect and a new study should<br />

be completed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We have modified the text to clearly state that the reason for the finding of ineligibility is that no<br />

outstandingly remarkable value was found on private or public land. We agree that the impacted private<br />

land would not necessarily disqualify the river from inclusion in the national system.<br />

Comment<br />

We could find no indication of a suitability study in the DEIS. The introduction in Appendix E explains<br />

the suitability process, but that is the only reference. Without documentation of this portion of the study<br />

ORC has no means of commenting on the recommendations in any of the Forest's alternatives. Eligibility,<br />

classification and suitability should be assessed for all rivers, per the Act and Handbook, and the results<br />

presented in a study report. ORC cannot recommend simply adding this information to the Final Plan.<br />

Without reassessing the rivers and presenting the results for comment, the public has no way of influencing<br />

this portion of Forest planning.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As pointed out on page E-3 of Appendix E of the DEIS, several factors must be considered including<br />

public, state or local government interest. The method we selected to determine *interest' was through<br />

public participation on the DEIS. We have rewritten suitability section to reflect public input. Other factors<br />

of suitability are displayed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The two rivers given consideration as potential wild and scenic rivers in the Winema Draft Plan were<br />

each identified through the NRI; no mention is made of attempts to identify other potential candidates.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Please see the first paragraph under RIVER SEGMENT ANALYSIS in Appendix E of the DEIS. This<br />

paragraph identifies the Upper Williamson River above the Klamath Forest National Wildlife Refuge and<br />

the Lower Williamson River below Chiloquin as being added to the study process. These two Segments<br />

were not identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema Draft Forest Plan/DEIS Fails To Provide Adequate Interim Protection For Eligible River<br />

Segments. The standards contained in Management Area 5 (Wild and Scenic Rivers) are inadequate<br />

for the protection of eligible wild and scenic river candidates. While the intent of the standards may be<br />

to protect eligible rivers in their present condition, they do not provide specific protections mandated<br />

through the USDAIUSDI Interagency Guidelines and the Forest Service Handbook, Chapter 8.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines for Management Area 5 have been revised to conform with Chapter 8 of<br />

the Forest Service Handbook. Please see Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan for the revised standards and<br />

guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

The Draft Plan fails to contain any detailed description of the management scenic river protection. The<br />

Final Plan should contain specific standards which adequately protect eligible river segments according<br />

to their classification. These standards should be consistent with the above mentioned USDA/USDI<br />

Guidelines, and the Forest Service Handbook, Chapter 8. All river segments found eligible should be<br />

placed within this management zone pending full suitability determinations.<br />

K - 259

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative E was the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS and therefore was displayed in the Draft Forest<br />

Plan. The Draft Plan only displayed Management Area standards and guidelines which pertained to<br />

the allocation of Alternative E. Because of congressional action which declared the Sycan River a part<br />

of the National System, the Final Forest Plan now contains standards and guidelines to protect the<br />

Sycan under a Scenic Classification. Segment two of the Lower Williamson River was found eligible for<br />

inclusion in the System (see Appendix E). This segment is not being recommended for inclusion in the<br />

System under the new Preferred Alternative but will be managed to protect the scenic, recreational<br />

and scientific values of the area. See Chapter 4 of the Final Forest Plan for details.<br />

Comment<br />

The Planning Handbook directs that special management areas be defined along all rivers where<br />

evaluations are deferred into the future (Section 8.23). We recommend that the Final Plan and EIS<br />

designate such areas along the entire length of the Sprague, Sycan and Williamson Rivers, and that<br />

these rivers be managed as de facto Wild and Scenic Rivers until full evaluations are completed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A complete study of the rivers was conducted as a part of the Forest Planning process. This study is<br />

contained in Appendix E of the FEIS.<br />

K - 260

Wildlife Habitat Management<br />

Comment<br />

To classify this National Forest as a National Wildlife Biological Preserve and National Critical habitat<br />

area, so as to save all life, including the peregrine falcon, bald eagle,, northern spotted owl, goshawk,<br />

marten, ferruginous hawk, Swainson's hawk, Klamath largescale sucker, short-nose sucker, western<br />

pond turtle, Lost River sucker, greater sandhill crane, wolverine, long-billed curlew, white-faced ibis,<br />

western spotted frog, bull trout, American white pelican, Townsend's big-eared bat and mountain lion.<br />

To establish then, this Winema National Forest as a permanent dedicated National Natural Wilderness<br />

Wildlife - Biological Preserve; with no surface - subsurface activities - developments.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

To change the mission of the Forest to a "National Wildlife Biological Preserve and National Critical<br />

habitat area,m would require an act of Congress. This is considered by us to be outside our authority<br />

and inconsistent with the National Forest Management Act or the regulations regarding the National<br />

Forest Planning process.<br />

Comment<br />

Your current proposed plan only addresses mule deer for big game indicator species. It is my<br />

understanding that elk, bear and antelope are included under this indicator species.<br />

Each of these species require different habitat type for survival. So, how can we say that what is good<br />

for the deer is good for the bear, or the elk, or the antelope?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Management Indicator Species Theory is explained in the DEIS on page 111-56, with species and<br />

habitat descriptions on following pages. The main commonality of mule deer, elk, antelope, bear and<br />

other species represented in this group is that early successional vegetation changes following Forest<br />

land disturbance, Timber Management or fire, generally provide their most desirable food sources.<br />

Mule deer use virtually all plant communities on the Forest. If habitat effectiveness is maintained to<br />

meet mule deer needs, viable populations of the other species will be maintained.<br />

Comment<br />

I am very concerned for wildlife. The sterile plantations won't feed a bear or deer, right?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Areas of land either harvested or burned can appear to be non-productive for wildlife. However, early<br />

plant successional vegetation changes following such activities can provide desirable forage conditions<br />

for wildlife, for approximately twenty years.<br />

Bear use all vegetative stages to varying degrees. Denser old forests provide habitat for hiding and<br />

denning. Food habitat surveys show a larger portion of the bears diet is plant life associated with openings,<br />

either natural or manmade.<br />

Comment<br />

Elk habitat requirements are not covered in the plan and are more stringent than deer.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Management Indicator Species Theory is explained in the DEIS on page 111-56, with species and<br />

habitat descriptions on following pages. The main commonality of mule deer, elk, antelope, bear and<br />

other species represented in this group is that early successional vegetation changes following Forest<br />

land disturbance, Timber Management or fire, generally provide their most desirable food sources.<br />

Mule deer use virtually all plant communities on the Forest. If habitat effectiveness is maintained to<br />

meet mule deer needs, viable populations of the other species will be maintained. Elk habitat management<br />

was not initially identified as a Forest Planning issue. Standards and guidelines for elk calving areas<br />

K - 261

are included. Additional study is needed to assess Elk habitat management needs in the general forest.<br />

This study will be completed prior to the next Planning cycle.<br />

Comment<br />

I am also very concerned over the rapid reductions in big game hiding and thermal cover. Mule deer<br />

populations are well below management objectives in the Klamath Falls and Sprague units and<br />

populations are declining further, buck ratios are declining, and fawn survival is declining. I believe<br />

that one of the causes for this is the decline in hiding (escape) cover, thermal cover, and the reduction<br />

of fawning habitat (riparian areas). The high levels of roading on many parts of the forest only compound<br />

these problems.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Mule deer populations can fluctuate greatly from year to year or a period of years due to many factors.<br />

They have the reproductive capability to recover to high population levels in a short period of time.<br />

Certainly the habitat factors you are concerned about are key in this issue. General standards and<br />

guidelines which will be implemented on the Forest to maintain habitat effectiveness for mule deer are<br />

described in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Another suggestion I wish to offer is: The feasibility of restocking the remote parts of the National Forests<br />

with nature's original game managers--the timber wolves and the cougars. They did it so well for thousands<br />

of years. Note: Have you ever read the study of the Isle Royale Wolves and Moose of Lake Superior?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Under a long standing agreement the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is responsible<br />

for regulation and control of animals and the Forest Service is responsible for managing habitat. The<br />

ODFW in their Non-game Wildlife Management Plan published in 1986 provide the following statements<br />

regarding wolves in Oregon. "While the wolf was a major component of Oregon's fauna, there are no<br />

plans to re-introduce it. It is not felt Oregon has sufficient wolf habitat of adequate size that is free from<br />

potential livestock damage problems to make wolf re-introductions feasible. This is based on the large<br />

expanse of territory required by each wolf pack and the fact several packs would be needed to provide<br />

a viable population.' Cougar are managed as game animals in Oregon by the ODFW. The 1987 Cougar<br />

Management Plan prepared by ODFW indicates medium population levels of cougar occupy the general<br />

area of the State encompassing the Winema National Forest. This indicates the habitat is occupied<br />

and introduction not necessary.<br />

Yes, we are familiar with the studies mentioned.<br />

Comment<br />

Experts say that somewhere between one third and one half of deer and elk range land should remain<br />

in cover.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines listed in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan are designed to maintain habitat<br />

effectiveness for deer were developed from a review of literature and contact with recognized experts<br />

on the subject.<br />

Comment<br />

In the interest of preserving the richness of our forests and providing habitat for such species as the<br />

white-headed woodpecker, at least 10% of each timber type in Winema should be preserved as true<br />

old growth stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service is required to manage fish and wildlife habitat in such a way as to maintain viable<br />

populations of existing and desirable introduced species of wildlife. This will be achieved through allocation<br />

K - 262

of special habitat areas in some cases and in the implementation of Forestwide standards and guidelines<br />

for wildlife.<br />

Based on the planning direction for indicator species and management requirements for wildlife, the<br />

species used as indicators for these ecosystems will provide for the needs of white-headed woodpeckers<br />

and black-backed woodpeckers. The white headed woodpecker would be covered by management for<br />

pileated woodpeckers and goshawks. It's habitat will also be maintained through the standards and<br />

guidelines for cavity nesters (snags and wildlife trees) which is a management requirement discussed<br />

in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan. We have set aside about 10% of the Forest for preservation of old-growth.<br />

Comment<br />

Include the white headed woodpecker and the black backed woodpecker for indicators of old growth<br />

ponderosa and lodgepole pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service is required to manage fish and wildlife habitat in such a way as to maintain viable<br />

populations of existing and desirable introduced species of wildlife. This will be achieved through allocation<br />

of special habitat areas in some cases and in the implementation of Forestwide standards and guidelines<br />

for wildlife.<br />

Based on the planning direction for indicator species and management requirements for wildlife, the<br />

habitat retained for species used as indicators for these ecosystems will provide for the needs of<br />

white-headed woodpeckers and black-backed woodpeckers. The white headed woodpecker would be<br />

covered by management for pileated woodpeckers and goshawks. It's habitat will also be maintained<br />

through the standards and guidelines for cavity nesters (snags and wildlife trees) which is a management<br />

requirement discussed in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan, if implemented, would not provide sufficient cover for the elk herd currently in the Winema.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The main commonality of mule deer, elk, antelope, bear and other species represented in this group is<br />

that early successional vegetation changes following Forest and disturbance, timber harvest or fire,<br />

generally provide their most desirable food sources. Mule deer use virtually all plant communities on<br />

the Forest. If habitat effectiveness is maintained to meet mule deer needs, viable populations of the<br />

other species will be maintained.<br />

Comment<br />

I see nothing for managing antelope.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The main commonality of mule deer, elk, antelope, bear and other species represented in this group is<br />

that early successional vegetation changes following Forest and disturbance, timber harvest or fire,<br />

generally provide their most desirable food sources. Mule deer use virtually all plant communities on<br />

the Forest. If habitat effectiveness is maintained to meet mule deer needs, viable populations of the<br />

other species will be maintained.<br />

Comment<br />

With respect to stands of aspen, I believe we should protect the stands and manages them. Since<br />

aspen is so valuable for food and cover, the plan should include management of all aspen stands.<br />

Aspen stands, (in addition to being a source of autumn splendor), are highly valuable as wildlife habitat.<br />

The Forest has not addressed aspen in particular and hardwoods in general. ODFW recommends<br />

baseline data covering pure and mixed aspen stands and hardwood components be provided. Aspen<br />

regeneration is valued for big game browse and the stands also provide valuable habitat for nongame<br />

such as the Williamson's sapsucker. Livestock use of aspen sites often prevents stand regeneration.<br />

K - 263

ODFW recommends all pure aspen stands be managed to ensure that the intrinsic values of this unique<br />

habitat are restored and/or protected. All mixed aspen stands should be retained and managed so<br />

habitat and fauna diversity is maintained.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest contains very few stands of pure aspen, unlike many of the Forests in Central Oregon. Our<br />

planning mapping system does not contain any stands of pure aspen so no allocation can be made at<br />

the Forest Planning level. Treating aspen to increase regeneration will be considered during project<br />

specific environmental analysis.<br />

We agree that aspen are highly valuable as wildlife habitat. On the Winema Forest, aspen occur primarily<br />

as inclusions with other tree species, usually in moist sites, rather than in pure stands. The stand size<br />

is usually not large enough to be mapped separately in normal timber stand or vegetative mapping<br />

processes. It should, however, be recognized in individual project level planning and implementation.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan should address protection criteria for snags and downed timber as habitat for non-game<br />

species of wildlife.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Regional planning guidelines for incorporating management requirements (MR) established that habitat<br />

requirements for the primary cavity excavators, as a group, be addressed. The Winema habitat situation<br />

is discussed Chapter 3 of the FEIS. General Forest Standards and guidelines for providing this type of<br />

habitat are found in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The Williamson River above the Klamath Marsh is in need of extensive rehabilitation due to bank erosion,<br />

a lack of thermal cover and instream cover. At present an effort is underway to accomplish some of<br />

this work. I believe this reach of the river could provide an excellent wild trout fishery. To this end, I<br />

would like to see a long range plan developed in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Fish and<br />

Wildlife to provide a solution to the high water temperatures in the summer, bank erosion and instream<br />

cover for trout.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Winema National Forest is a part of a group made up of private land owners, public agencies,<br />

Klamath Tribe and the local fly casters club, working through the Klamath County Conservation District<br />

on a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for the Upper Williamson River. This is a long term plan<br />

to improve water quality and the fishing by stablizing bank erosion, improving bank and instream water<br />

temperatures. Agencies and groups working within this group are the Soil Conservation Service, Extension<br />

Service, Winema National Forest, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Klamath Tribe, and the<br />

Klamath County Flycasters. Numerous private landowners are also cooperating in this effort. Various<br />

sources of funds for the work are being sought. Work is progressing within the plan area.<br />

Comment<br />

Would like to see larger areas with log and snag residues. Such areas are alive with fauna and flora,<br />

including bushes and plants. (I lived on a farm which had several acres of land without large trees but<br />

which had all the smaller stuff.) Riparian areas, too should be generously endowed with wide stream<br />

side protected borders.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

More emphasis is being placed on leaving log and snag residues. Much less is being piled and burned.<br />

There are Standards and Guidelines requiring a certain amount of logs to be left for flora and fauna.<br />

Standards and Guidelines also require protection of streamside borders. Some woody debris will be<br />

left for instream fauna. We have added protection for riparian areas (see Management Area 8, Chapter<br />

4 of the Forest Plan).<br />

K - 264

Comment<br />

This letter is to comment on your Preferred Alternative Plan, which, in my opinion, leaves very little<br />

alternatives for the wildlife we are obligated by law and by morality, to protect. Overgrazing of livestock<br />

on our public lands should cease.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Preferred Alternative meets management requirements necessary to maintain viable populations<br />

for all wildlife species.<br />

Comment<br />

Adequate protection of deer and elk habitat should be included. This would mean that at least 40% of<br />

big game range should remain in cover and that 10% or more of each timber type would be preserved<br />

as true old growth stands for wildlife habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

General standards and guidelines which will be implemented on the Forest to maintain or improve<br />

habitat suitability for mule deer are described in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan. Cover is only one of the<br />

factors considered. Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative, proposes to retain approximately 10% of<br />

each major timber type in old growth to provide for wildlife habitat, ecological diversity, and aesthetics.<br />

Comment<br />

Why is there no consideration for bringing fisheries habitat up to full biological potential?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The overall goal is to bring fisheries up to as near to full biological potential as possible. More surveys<br />

may be necessary to adequately establish what that potential may be. Biologists feel that 80% of potential<br />

is what can be achieved before unknown or uncontrollable factors in the natural system come into<br />

play. Also, beyond a certain point in achieving potential the cost of investment would far outweigh the<br />

gains made by habitat enhancement.<br />

Comment<br />

I also feel that not enough old growth timber is being preserved for the long-term; the Forest Service<br />

should protect at least several thousand additional acres of those magnificent old stands of ponderosa<br />

pine for which the upper Klamath Basin was once famous.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

FEIS Table 2-14, gives the acres of old growth available by decade by alternative. About 59,000 acres<br />

will be managed specifically as old growth. A wide range of acres were allocated and analyzed in the<br />

Alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

I think that existing Wilderness areas should be inventoried and included in set asides for single purposes,<br />

such as elk winter range, spotted owl habitat, botanical areas, old growth stands, etc., and thereby<br />

increase the percent of the forest that is available for Multiple Use Management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We recognize and account for the various habitats that occur within the wilderness. They are<br />

representatives of high elevation ecosystems. Spotted owl and elk winter ranges in general occur in<br />

lower elevation ecosystems. A key to maintaining viable wildlife populations is providing habitat dispersal<br />

which provides for genetic exchange within species groups.<br />

Comment<br />

Elk habitat requirements are not covered in the preferred plan. These animals require taller cover and<br />

fewer roads. Both deer and elk forage needs regeneration. The plan does not include management for<br />

K - 265

elk habitat. You should include sufficient habitat in your management prescriptions to assure a healthy<br />

elk population.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We do not have adequate knowledge of elk numbers or their habitat relationships on the Forest at this<br />

time to develop specific direction for them. The ODFW does not have firm objectives yet for elk<br />

management in the area. Some intensive surveys and coordinated planning must be done in the future<br />

to analyze the situation. This will be completed prior to the next planning period. The standards and<br />

guidelines proposed for mule deer will provide some habitat for elk.<br />

Comment<br />

The white-headed woodpecker and black-backed woodpecker should be designated indicator species<br />

for Ponderosa pine and Lodgepole pine forests, respectively.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Based on the planning direction for indicator species and management requirements for wildlife, the<br />

species used as indicators for these ecosystems will provide for the needs of white-headed woodpeckers<br />

and black-backed woodpeckers.<br />

Comment<br />

Aspen groves are delicate areas which are in need of protection by the management plan from both<br />

logging and grazing. These special areas of critical habitat for many species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We agree that aspen are highly valuable as wildlife habitat. On the Winema Forest, aspen occur primarily<br />

as inclusions with other tree species, usually in moist sites, rather that in pure stands. The stand size<br />

is usually not large enough to be mapped separately in normal timber stand or vegetative mapping<br />

processes. It should, however, be recognized in individual project level planning and implementation.<br />

Comment<br />

Undisturbed forest land is vital to population of deer and elk, as well as cavity-nesters inhabiting dead<br />

and down logs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service is required to manage fish and wildlife habitat in such a way as to maintain viable<br />

populations of existing and desirable introduced species of wildlife. This will be achieved through allocation<br />

of special habitat areas in some cases and in the implementation of Forestwide standards and guidelines<br />

for wildlife, see Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

We strongly support your proposal that over 140,000 acres of former Reservation lands, principally<br />

Ponderosa pine forest lands, receive uneven-aged timber management. We agree with your assessment<br />

that this silvicultural practice is more compatible with wildlife values.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

We did not make an assessment indicating uneven-aged timber management is compatible with wildlife<br />

values. It may be true for some species and the opposite for others.<br />

Comment<br />

Wildlife Habitat. Provide necessary forage and winter and summer range for large game animals and<br />

sufficient habitat for a diverse blend of other equally important non-game wildlife as well as provide for<br />

plant diversity. Tree farms do not meet this goal.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Service is required to manage fish and wildlife habitat in such a way as to maintain viable<br />

populations of existing and desirable introduced species of wildlife. This will be achieved through allocation<br />

K - 266

of special habitat areas in some cases and in the implementation of Forestwide standards and guidelines<br />

for wildlife, see Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Roadlessness? Wildlife in general gravitate to roadless areas -- protecting wildlife, increasing wild game<br />

herds, increasing habitat for shy raptors -- all goes hand in hand with roadless areas. Let's make more<br />

roadless areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Roadlessness in itself does not equate to large numbers or increases in wildlife. The key to producing<br />

optimum numbers of any wildlife species is through provision of adequate basic habitat needs; food,<br />

water and cover to support the projected populations. Man induced harassment of wildlife due to roading<br />

can be controlled through gating, obliteration or general area closures. The standards and guidelines<br />

listed in Chapter 4 of the Plan are designed to provide habitat for viable populations of wildlife.<br />

Comment<br />

The northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, and the three-towed woodpecker show a downward<br />

trend of numbers in all alternatives. What is the answer?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 4 of the FEIS discussed the relationship of the alternatives on these species. Mitigation measures<br />

discussed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS provide the methodology for maintaining viable populations of all<br />

wildlife species.<br />

Comment<br />

It is important that the riparian zones along all the streams and tributaries, not just the wild and scenic<br />

river drainage, be afforded protection. Mature and large dead trees, standing and down, need to be<br />

present in these zones so that there will be a future supply of large woody debris for these streams.<br />

Recent studies in the Northwest indicate that this large woody debris is very important for the well<br />

being and productivity of the streams. Many other plants, insects, birds and animals including big<br />

game need a forested riparian zone for their home at least part of their lives. The zone needs to be<br />

150 to 200 feet on each side of the Class I & II streams and lakes and meadows, that wide totally along<br />

Class Ill streams and at least 50 feet of either side of the Class IV headwater streams.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines for Management Area 8 (Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan) addresses these<br />

concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Marsh, which is mostly water, need to protect and consideration of transferring it to the adjacent Refuge<br />

considered.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An attempt was made in the late 1970's to transfer the Marsh to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At that<br />

time there was not enough interest at the upper levels to make the transfer. It would take Congressional<br />

action to make the transfer.<br />

Comment<br />

The so called Preferred Alternative of the Winema Forest plan is completely unacceptable. It allows<br />

for too little roadless areas and does not adequately provide for the protection of wildlife.<br />

K - 267

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan provides a modified approach to these concerns.<br />

Comment<br />

Deer seem to be increasing, but they are staying closer to farmland and are even in town. Do we need<br />

more range for food supply?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Many species of wildlife, deer included, are very opportunistic in filling artificially created habitat niches<br />

around farms or towns. Usually these areas have historic deer use patterns and the upeople use' has<br />

encroached over the area often resulting in a change of animals normal movement patterns.<br />

Comment<br />

A better plan is needed to support wildlife habitat so that certain bird species do not become endangered.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The mission of wildlife and fish programs as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Plan, requires that viable<br />

populations of all wildlife species will be maintained. These population levels are designed to recover<br />

species currently listed as threatened or endangered and keep other species from being listed.<br />

Comment<br />

The species that was omitted from the DEIS that the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base tracks on the<br />

Winema National Forest is the Great Gray Owl. The Data Base lists 17 occurrences of Great Gray Owls<br />

on the Winema. The species is included in lists of species of concern in the Forest Plan (p. IV-42),<br />

implying that the species is indeed in need of monitoring. The Great Gray Owl is an important species<br />

in the East Cascades managed forest systems as it is almost wholly dependent upon lodgepole pine<br />

forests. Given the emphasis of the Forest Plan with regards to greatly accelerated harvests of beetle<br />

killed lodgepole pine, upwards of 50% of the stands to be harvested in the next decade, the Great<br />

Gray Owl is deserving of concern. For these reasons the Nature Conservancy is recommending that<br />

the Forest include the owl as a sensitive species on the Forest and that the owl population be closely<br />

monitored. The owl has all the characteristics of a Management Indicator Species for lodgepole pine<br />

forests and should receive the consideration that is afforded other indicator species, especially with<br />

the planned harvests projected for lodgepole pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Great Gray Owl is not on the Region 6 Sensitive species list, which is the parent document for the<br />

plan list. We have the Natural Heritage Data Base, most of which we coordinated in gathering.<br />

Comment<br />

Non-forested communities are not specifically addressed in Chapter IV of the DEIS with regards to the<br />

effects of the alternatives on vegetation diversity but certain areas such as cliffs, talus slopes, and<br />

caves are mentioned in the mitigation section (p. IV-3) as being protected. Of particular concern, however,<br />

are the extensive wet and dry meadows that occur on Forest. In the Forest Plan under the Standards<br />

and Guidelines section, natural openings are mentioned with reference to adjacent timber sales (created<br />

openings.) Instead of allowing created openings to occur directly adjacent to the meadows, as the<br />

Standards call for (Plan, IV-46), we recommend instead that a sufficient buffer (100-200') be provided<br />

around these sites so as to avoid changes in the microclimate of these areas (i.e., shading) and to<br />

lessen the invasion of weedy species into the meadows. When natural meadows are included in sale<br />

areas the surrounding management of the landscape can result in loss of part or all of the meadow<br />

habitat. This occurs as a result of timber removal from the site, soil compaction, draining of small wet<br />

meadows and ponds, and tree planting in meadow fringes. To avoid these disturbances natural openings<br />

or meadows should be included under the category of unique wildlife habitats and afforded the same<br />

protection they are given in the Forest Plan (p. IV-41).<br />

K - 268

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Additional standards and guidelines have been developed which provide for the protection of wet and<br />

moist meadows. These areas are now included in Management Area 8.<br />

Comment<br />

Old growth stands need to be at least 300 acres to avoid edge effects that diminish the actual effective<br />

habitat of the site. The small wildlife habitat sites are most evident in the eastern portion of the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The size of old growth stands needed for various species are discussed in Appendix J of the DEIS<br />

which is now a part of the planning records. Some species (e.g., bald eagle and Goshawk) require<br />

smaller areas and some (e.g., pileated woodpecker) require larger areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Population levels for one of the indicator species, the goshawk, appears to fall below MMR population<br />

requirements due to the extensive departure cutting of lodgepole pine called for in the preferred alternative.<br />

In decades 3 and 4 the projected population level of goshawks falls below 87 pairs (DEIS. IV-46). This<br />

is unacceptable and the rationalization for the low levels that there is habitat for the species adjacent<br />

to the National Forest is not founded and cannot be relied upon. In truth the private timber lands have<br />

been extensively cut and are not managed for wildlife species. Also it is realized that the National Forests<br />

will need to take the lead role in maintaining habitat for the State's wildlife. Therefore, the preferred<br />

alternative must be adjusted to meet the legal MMR requirements for this species, which probably<br />

means slowing the planned harvest of lodgepole pine on the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix J of the DEIS is a Sensitivity Analysis of Management Requirements dealing with your concern.<br />

Comment<br />

Standards prescribing the amount of snags and downed woody materials are inadequate in the proposed<br />

plan. You should maintain at least 60% of potential dependent species in timber management areas<br />

and 100% in other areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Page IV-40 of the draft plan referred to the forest policy, which does contain the levels you state. The<br />

Forest Plan includes a revised approach that, more ralistically, achieves the 40% level with a combination<br />

of individual trees and snag patches.<br />

Comment<br />

Do we really need to disturb the home range of a pair of spotted owls in Aspen?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Plan will provide spotted owl habitat based on The Record Of Decision by the Chief of the Forest<br />

Service on the Final Supplement to The Environmental Impact Statement on Spotted Owl guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

All know, suitable eagle habitat should be managed as such. The area should not, as proposed, be<br />

reduced by 50%.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No comment necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

And, all 23 known spotted owl territories should be protected from logging, not just the 9 owl territories<br />

proposed (on only 12,000 acres).<br />

K - 269

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Plan will provide spotted owl habitat based on The Record Of Decision by the Chief of the Forest<br />

Service on the Final Supplement to The Environmental Impact Statement on Spotted Owl guidelines.<br />

Comment<br />

Planting fish at the headwaters, I think, is a waste of time and money. The only people who benefit are<br />

a few owners of cabins down creek, who think they were planted for them alone and only come up<br />

creek on days that fish are planted and make 5 or 6 trips a day at high rates of speed so they can get<br />

all they can.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is the responsible agency for stocking fish.<br />

Comment<br />

I would like to see the area made into a game preserve of some kind. We have beaver, martin, mink,<br />

wolverine, mountain lion, all the native animals in this small area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan are designed to maintain viable populations<br />

of all species.<br />

Comment<br />

I'd like to see you clearcut 1 or 2 acres every 5 square miles and plant it with alfalfa or sweet clover for<br />

the deer and other wildlife. And a little bitterbrush and mountain mahogany would be helpful too, I<br />

think. I'd like to see more raptor nesting and perch sites like the one on Lake Ewana<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No comment necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

I bemoan the loss of Grey Owl habitat from logging the thickets under Fuego Mountain on the Sycan,<br />

and the Bald Eagle nest that is endangered from a lodgepole sale.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No comment necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

We get the false impression that our world is going to support us indefinitely. The Amazon Rain Forests,<br />

the elephant, the rhino, the condor, the Great Gray Owl--how long can we push and shove, in the<br />

name of economics--before it's too late? We are forcing our wildlife into those *visual corridors the<br />

Alternative E-Plus plan talks about. Isn't that a little like putting them in a zoo? I can point out several<br />

such corridors, those narrow strips of trees left to buffer the destruction behind them, caused by logging<br />

operations. There's a half-mile strip south and north of Williamson River Road at the 18-22 mile markers.<br />

Another is the northwestern ridge-top above the old Bray Mill on the Sprague River Highway and on<br />

the Whitehouse Road, north of Williamson River Road by the Lone Pine junction, the area is marked<br />

for complete clearcut--no visual corridors allotted. (How many other such places exist?) But these corridors<br />

themselves are already marked for clearcutting, with the marks away from the road where people might<br />

see them. I don't understand this!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Visual corridors, are managed for scenic purposes in a predominantly mature forest condition overtime,<br />

with a balance of age classes from young to old. Wildlife may use these areas for forage or cover, and<br />

the public may benefit by viewing wildlife from the roads. However, it is not intended that wildlife be<br />

limited to these areas. It is known that many species utilize the early successional stages of vegetative<br />

growth that returns when harvesting of trees occurs.<br />

K - 270

In marking timber sale units, tags and marks are generally placed on the side of trees that face away<br />

from the road in scenic areas to reduce evidence of management activity, which is an objective for<br />

managing for scenic quality. It is not intended that we 'hide' management activities from you, but maintain<br />

a natural appearing forest as long as possible for your viewing pleasure.<br />

Comment<br />

We have serious doubts about the data and knowledge concerning wildlife habitat needs. The method<br />

used to develop minimum management requirements is flawed from a National Environmental Policy<br />

Act process point of view.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The process is discussed in detail in Appendix J of the DEIS, which is now part of the planning records.<br />

Comment<br />

We agree that roosting habitat is important for species like the Bald Eagle. We also have seen numerous<br />

studies that show the Bald Eagle is very adaptable to changes in its habitat as long as it has an adequate<br />

food supply and protected roosting areas. We support growing some stands at wide spacing to develop<br />

quality roosting habitat. Unless studies prove this is not possible, we do not support the setting aside<br />

of suitable timberland for roosting habitat. We do support avoiding harvest in roosting ares until the<br />

necessary research is completed. But removal of the lands from all harvest should only be done when<br />

it is determined adequate roosting habitat cannot be provided by careful management of second growth<br />

forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

You misinterpreted the direction regarding timber harvest. To maintain these areas may require a<br />

considerable amount of stand manipulation, including timber harvest. Such timber harvest will be done<br />

as directed to meet habitat goals, not as a part of the regular programmed timber harvest. See the<br />

standards and guidelines for Management Area 9. (Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan)<br />

Comment<br />

How do wildlife populations react to even-aged versus uneven-aged management. We suspect<br />

uneven-aged management will provide a significant improvement in available wildlife habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Some species will react favorably to oneven-aged management, others will not.<br />

Comment<br />

Once areas are harvested, roads should be put to bed to minimize human harassment of wildlife of all<br />

forms. This impact alone may be far greater than the change in habitat caused by timber harvesting.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Your statement is valid. There are other reasons also for putting roads to bed. Chapter 4 of the Forest<br />

Plan contains statndards and guidelines dealing with this concern.<br />

Comment<br />

The bald eagle protection activities should be included as part of the old growth MMR requirements as<br />

no harvest is allowed within a 30-acre area around each nest site. Our experience has shown that<br />

carefully timed selective harvest is not detrimental and we suggest this option be explored with wildlife<br />

biologists.<br />

K - 271

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Management Area 9 address the requirements for the bald eagle.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP states that these old growth areas represent a 'minimum management requirement...for<br />

northern 3-toed woodpecker and pine martin habitat.' The proposed standards and guidelines for old<br />

growth areas further state that *developed recreation is not compatible with the goals of this management<br />

area." However, neither the LRMP nor DEIS explain how the proposed old growth areas on Pelican<br />

Butte are expected to co-exist with a winter sports area if they are incompatible.<br />

The City urges the Forest Service to not designate old growth areas inside the proposed winter sports<br />

area; and to address the issue of other surrounding old growth areas; compatibility with the winter<br />

sports area in the final LRMP and EIS. Guidance is needed as to how these different designations can<br />

be implemented in a complementary fashion, including possible mitigation measures.<br />

Additionally, the old growth management guidelines for each indicator bird species states that 'disturbing<br />

human activities: will be discouraged or minimized within 1/4 mile of active nest sites. Presumably, this<br />

would apply if an active nest is identified at the perimeter of an old growth management area, such<br />

that the 1/4 mile protection zone would extend a 1/4 mile outside the old growth management area.<br />

Depending on where old growth management areas are designated in the final LRMP, a winter sports<br />

area access road might have to be placed in an old growth management area. The LRMP does not<br />

state whether it is possible to build a road in such an area, and, if so, what design constraints might<br />

apply. As with the bald eagle habitat areas, road closure during specific periods is included within the<br />

management standards for old growth, and the standards also include the reference to 'transportation<br />

and utility corridors' that are to be 'avoided.'<br />

Both of these standards seem incompatible with the placement of an access road. Whether or not this<br />

is the intent of the Forest Service, the City recommends that these standards be clarified to provide<br />

guidance on the construction and use of a road through old growth management areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The proposed winter sports area is included within a semiprimative recreation area until further studies<br />

which specifically address the developed recreation proposals, are completed.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP also states that is a bald eagle pair 'chooses to establish a new nest in an area already<br />

receiving human use, the human activities occurring at that time should be evaluated for continuance."<br />

Discussions with Winema staff indicate that if an eagle pair choose to relocate next to what is called a<br />

'high hazard' area, such as an existing road, human activities will not be curtailed. The final LRMP and<br />

EIS should include discussion to this effect.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The statement as written, follows the Bald Eagle Management guidelines for Oregon and Washington<br />

and processes included in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan and has been through formal<br />

Section 7 consultation. Any changes in practice may require further consultation on a case by case<br />

basis.<br />

Comment<br />

The LRMP further states that bald eagle habitat management areas may include 'recovery' nest sites<br />

that contain suitable nesting habitat. Neither the LRMP nor DEIS indicate whether the bald eagle habitat<br />

area designated on the east side of Pelican Butte contain any recovery nest sites. Winema staff have<br />

informed the City that they do not, and the City therefore, asks that this be stated as such in the final<br />

LRMP and EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is felt that biologically the Bald Eagle nesting habitat on the East side of Pelican Butte is occupied to<br />

capacity. None of the recovery sites for additional nests were placed in this area. However, the overall<br />

K - 272

management strategy for that area will maintain adequate stand structure for recovery nesting, should<br />

a catastrophic event destroy one of the existing sites.<br />

Comment<br />

The City urges the Forest Service to reopen a brief public comment period for the Winema LRMP and<br />

DEIS when the final Regional habitat management standards become available, so that their impact on<br />

the LRMP can be definitely assessed, particularly in regard to winter sports area planning on Pelican<br />

Butte.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A site-specific EIS is being developed to address the issue.<br />

Comment<br />

The minimum management requirements (MMRS) set forth in the Winema draft forest plan do not<br />

comply with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental<br />

Policy Act, or the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). NFMA requires public participation and<br />

interdisciplinary analysis. In addition, the MMRS were not subject to the rule-making procedures required<br />

by the APA. The consequence of the Forest Service's failure to comply with proper procedure is the<br />

artificial narrowing of the range of alternatives and resource outputs. SOTIA recommends that the Forest<br />

Service not use MMRS in the forest plan and EIS until public participation and rule-making for MMRS<br />

is completed as required by NFMA and NEPA.<br />

The Forest Service devoted an entire environmental impact statement to developing MMR requirements<br />

for the spotted. MMR levels for species other than the spotted owl have not been developed as the<br />

result of an integrated scientific process, with public involvement at each step of the development<br />

process.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) set legal guidelines for management of the National<br />

Forests. The guidelines were interpreted by the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with a Committee<br />

of Scientists and with public and professional involvement, to develop regulations. Direction from the<br />

Chief of the Forest Service and Region 6 resulted in MR's which reflect the requirements of the laws<br />

and regulations in NFMA. The MR direction ensures that minimum legal requirements are applied to all<br />

alternatives in Forest plans consistently across all National Forests. MR's exist for dispersal of created<br />

openings, water quality, riparian and wildlife habitat as required by NFMA.<br />

The MR's were shown to have an insignificant effect on this Forest as discussed in Appendix J of the<br />

FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS violates these regulations by not considering a reasonable range of alternatives for indicator<br />

species. The alternatives considered in the DEIS would maintain indicator species significantly above<br />

the MMR levels necessary to ensure continued viability of the species. This is inconsistent with multiple<br />

use management of the Forest. For example, the MMR level for spotted owls on the Winema National<br />

Forest is nine pairs. All of the alternatives provide at least twice the MMR level of spotted owls (DEIS p.<br />

IV-45). Thus, it can hardly be said that the spotted owl population on the Forest is distributed between<br />

the maximum resource potential and the minimum resource potential within the alternatives considered<br />

for implementation on the Winema National Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternatives vary between providing for MR levels only to levels well above MRs for all species. Regarding<br />

spotted owl: the nine pair of owl for which the Forest will manage is part of a network developed throughout<br />

Oregon, Washington and northern California Distributional networks were developed for the Forest for<br />

woodpeckers and goshawk. These were overlapped as much as possible on the owl network to avoid<br />

overallocation.<br />

K - 273

Comment<br />

No nesting or population surveys exist for pileated woodpeckers on the Winema National Forest. Thus,<br />

it is improper for the Winema to use the pileated woodpecker as an indicator species. An indicator<br />

species is a species whose health is an indicator of the health of other species who use the same<br />

habitat. Since the Winema has no idea how many pileated woodpeckers exist on the Forest, the<br />

populations of this species cannot be used to indicate anything.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The responsibility of the Forest is to provide habitat in quantity and distribution that will support viable<br />

populations. The pileated woodpecker is a reasonable indicator of the requirements of primary cavity<br />

nesters requiring large trees and characteristics of old growth for nesting, and small dead trees for<br />

feeding. The provision of adequate habitat does not necessarily mean that that habitat will be occupied,<br />

however, the potential for the species exists.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema did not examine the alternative of using management techniques to provide healthy<br />

populations of these animals without the need for such extremely costly measures. For example, the<br />

use of nest boxes and artificial nesting substrates should have been examined as a means to increase<br />

the population of these animals in areas designated as general forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is obligated to provide habitat for viable populations of vertebrate species. This is interpreted<br />

to mean natural habitat or Forest habitat, not artificial structures. Artificial structures may be used to<br />

enhance populations, we agree. However, reliance on artificial structures sets the stage for drastic<br />

population declines if not maintained at the artificially high levels with a great deal of investment. Also,<br />

many of the species represented by indicator species have not had demonstrated reproductive success<br />

using artificial structures.<br />

Comment<br />

The failure to examine alternatives which employ intensive wildlife management techniques to increase<br />

the populations of wildlife in areas otherwise suitable for timber harvest violates 36 CFR 219.19(a)<br />

which requires that each alternative establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat<br />

for indicator species to the degree consistent with overall multiple use objectives of the alternative."<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is obligated to provide habitat for viable populations of vertebrate species. This is interpreted<br />

to mean natural habitat or Forest habitat, not artificial structures. Artificial structures may be used to<br />

enhance populations, we agree. However, reliance on artificial structures sets the stage for drastic<br />

population declines if not maintained at the artificially high levels with a great deal of investment. Also,<br />

many of the species represented by indicator species have not had demonstrated reproductive success<br />

using artificial structures.<br />

Comment<br />

In its current form, the monitoring program for indicator species would only detect changes that would<br />

result in action being taken to reduce the flow of timber from the Forest. This is because the threshold<br />

of concern for the indicator species relates only to a decline in populations and not increases. If plan<br />

revision only occurs when a decline in these values takes place, then the only decision that can be<br />

made will be to increase protection of indicator species at the expense of timber production.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Monitoring of indicator species as revised in the Forest Plan includes monitoring the implementation of<br />

standards and guidelines, and the effectiveness of those guidelines. This may include monitoring use<br />

of habitat areas by the species in question. The monitoring plan also calls for validation of many of the<br />

assumptions that have gone into the plan. Validation is, generally, research-oriented and will be most<br />

dependent upon adequate funding.<br />

K - 274

Comment<br />

In summary, we have found no documentable reason in the scientific literature to assume that a<br />

well-designed timber management program would adversely affect the Winema's big game populations,<br />

especially in view of the fact that the Forest's current deer population uses winter range off the Forest.<br />

We believe that an alternative that emphasizes forage production, direct habitat improvement projects<br />

and road management to reduce disturbance by humans would largely mitigate any adverse effects<br />

resulting from timber harvest activities and changes in cover availability. Greater reliance on uneven-aged<br />

management would further mitigate any adverse impacts associated with increased emphasis on timber<br />

production.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An interagency technical advisory committee consisting of biologists from several agencies including<br />

the Klamath Tribe reviewed literature and developed a habitat suitability model which addresses forage,<br />

cover, water, and livestock competition. The concepts of the model were used to derive an index of<br />

habitat suitability for each alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

The coalition supports any measures needed to ensure the survival of all of Oregon's wildlife species.<br />

Nevertheless, given: (1) the scientific uncertainty currently surrounding the questions of which wildlife<br />

species truly depend on old growth for their continued survival and how much old growth is needed to<br />

meet their minimum requirements; (2) the acreage of old growth permanently protected in the Forest's<br />

designated wilderness and other classified areas; and (3) the urgent need to maintain an adequate<br />

timber sale program on the Forest, we question the need to restrict timber management activities on<br />

extensive acreages of nonwilderness old-growth stands.<br />

Congress has already permanently set aside more than 87,000 acres of forested lands on the Winema<br />

in three designated Wilderness Areas that will never be logged (DEIS Table 111-5). Barring natural disasters,<br />

these lands will provide a vast reservoir of old-growth timber to meet wildlife objectives. The draft forest<br />

plan would permanently protect an additional 40,500 acres of old-growth stands outside of wilderness<br />

areas to meet the needs of old-growth dependent wildlife species (DEIS Table 11-2). This old-growth<br />

acreage would include approximately 10,000 acres more than needed to meet the MMR requirements<br />

for the spotted owl (DEIS Appendix B-1 71). The DEIS does not describe the impact on timber production<br />

potential; however, it is probably significant. The volume and PNV tradeoffs resulting from the MMR<br />

requirements and any additional old growth allocations should be clearly disclosed in the FEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The volume and PNV trade-offs of the MR's were found to be insignificant as discussed in Appendix J<br />

of the FEIS. Trade-offs of additional old-growth allocations are discussed in the contexts of alternatives<br />

which vary widely in this regard.<br />

Comment<br />

We disagree with the Forest's MMR development process and seriously question the need to permanently<br />

set aside any productive forested lands at all to provide habitat for so-called mold-growth dependent'<br />

wildlife. Other eastside national forests have stated in their draft planning documents that 'there is no<br />

wildlife species that has been identified as requiring solely old-growth forest, although some species<br />

require conditions that are best represented in old-growth stands." (Wallowa Whitman DEIS 111-28,<br />

emphasis added).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The MR's were found to have an insignificant effect on this Forest (FEIS, Appendix J).<br />

Comment<br />

The procedure used to develop MMR's is crucial since the MMR's are imposed as minimum standards<br />

which must be met by all alternatives. If MMR's are unnecessarily restrictive, they could significantly<br />

limit the decision space available to line officers and involve significant and unnecessary opportunity<br />

K - 275

costs. Our analysis indicates that the Forest's MMR constraints decreased the first-decade ASQ by<br />

about 5 to 6 million board feet per year (Appendix A). The sensitivity analysis included in Appendix J<br />

of the DEIS is a step in the right direction, but still incomplete and not legally acceptable in our opinion<br />

(Appendix B).<br />

First, the development of MMR's must take place through an interdisciplinary process, including public<br />

participation. The Winema's MMR's were developed in secret, without public participation. The Winema<br />

also ignored the direction of the regulation which it cites as a basis for MMR's, which requires that<br />

management objectives shall be considered in determining what management practices may be<br />

performed in MMR areas (36 CFR 219.27(e)).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The development of MRs was an interdisciplinary process. Public participation was encouraged in<br />

review of the Forest Plan and EIS. Management objectives were considered in determining what practices<br />

can be performed in MR areas. The areas addressing MRs for wildlife species, specifically old growth<br />

areas, are allocated to MA 7: Old growth Ecosystems which has a specific objective as stated in Chapter<br />

4, Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

Second, the Forest should have, but did not, examine alternative ways to achieve the MMR objectives<br />

in the most cost-efficient manner, not just the effects of alternative levels of protection. A hypothetical<br />

example could involve use of nesting boxes for pileated woodpeckers as an alternative to taking old-growth<br />

stands out of the suitable land base.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Since the effects of the MR's were found to be insignificant on this Forest (FEIS, Appendix J), it is not<br />

necessary to examine alternative approaches.<br />

Comment<br />

Need to address road closure on F.S. Road #3456. Road goes through bald eagle habitat management<br />

area and if Pelican Butte is developed as a ski area, this road would be closed during the ski season.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A site-specific EIS is being developed to address resource issues regarding the application by the City<br />

of Klamath Falls to build a ski resort on Pelican Butte.<br />

Comment<br />

In our Mixed Conifer Plan Association, we should consider uneven-aged management due to major<br />

frost problems. Plan does not address retention of thermal cover.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Standards and guidelines in Management Area 10 require retention of thermal cover for big game on<br />

winter range. We have proposed very little uneven-aged management in the mixed-conifer (Klamath<br />

District) working group due to continuing problems with root rot.<br />

Comment<br />

Trees and other plants that provide cover, should receive as much priority as forage plants when<br />

considering planting and seeding for habitat improvement. Mountain Mahogany is a very important<br />

specie that should be planted/seeded and protected when ever reasonable and possible. This specie<br />

is not reproducing naturally at a fast enough rate, is difficult to reproduce artificially and yet is vital to<br />

big game. We suggest the Forest Service research methods to bring this plant back to a more vital<br />

condition on the winter range.<br />

K - 276

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

In regard to grazing on winter range we ask that livestock be rotated off critical winter range to insure<br />

that any fall green up of forage is reserved for wildlife. We are not compelled to offer a date for that<br />

removal as it may change each year but would normally occur in July.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest-wide standards and guidelines for range management provide forage for the plant first, then for<br />

wildlife, then for livestock. Allotment management plans and annual operating plans are the appropriate<br />

tool to determine seasonal removal of livestock for wildlife purposes.<br />

Comment<br />

A forage/cover ratio of 60/40 is generally considered optimum for mule deer if road dispersion is minimum<br />

and cover is 100% effective a ratio of 70/30 will satisfy deer needs. That ratio may not provide enough<br />

cover to offer the deer escapement ODF&W would prefer during hunting season. We suggest summer<br />

range cover be managed to provide 40% cover in areas capable of producing that ration. Areas that<br />

are incapable of producing 40% cover should be retained in as close as is reasonable to the maximum<br />

cover they will produce.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forest-wide standards and guidelines that apply to summer range require 30 percent of area as cover<br />

unless special circumstances such as catastrophic insect damage occur, then 15 percent cover is<br />

acceptable only if removal below 30 percent will show long-term benefits for deer.<br />

Comment<br />

We understand ODF&W manages populations through hunting regulations and tag availability. They<br />

too are concerned about mule deer populations, they feel the Forests projected population is 30%<br />

under their planned population. We feel a much more positive approach to your planning would be: a)<br />

establish habitat improvement criteria; b) in conference with ODF&W establish what positive affect that<br />

will have on surplus animals left after hunting season; and c) plan for that increasing population in the<br />

final LRMP.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Currently mule deer populations are lower than ODFW management objectives in all but the Fort Rock<br />

and Silver Lake units. The standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan provide guidance to maintain or<br />

improve habitat.<br />

The Forest offers hunting season recommendations annually to ODFW in conference.<br />

Projections of deer populations based on habitat suitability indices indicate an increase over time for<br />

most alternatives. Refer to Chapter 4, FEIS for further information.<br />

Comment<br />

OHA has several concerns and some major disagreement with the LRMP in regard to elk. Some of this<br />

may be due to the fact the DEIS and LRMP are already outdated regarding the elk on the Forest.<br />

Please be aware that many comments we have made in regard to mule deer also apply to elk, we ask<br />

you to regard them in that light.<br />

As you are aware elk populations on the Forest are growing rapidly and will likely continue to expand.<br />

OHA supports the increasing population growth. If ODF&W plans to allow the elk number to increase,<br />

and we understand they do, the Forest Service must address elk habitat management practices with a<br />

higher priority. Even if they don't suggest a higher base population, more improved habitat will mean<br />

additional surplus animals available for harvest, which we also support.<br />

As yet the elk have not been in competition with mule deer, nor have they caused what we feel have<br />

been significant damage to private agricultural lands. Until these potential problems occur there is no<br />

K - 277

logical reason not to allow elk numbers to increase, they likely will anyway. When and if we get into<br />

these problems they can and should be addressed at that time.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is participating in funding a cooperative interagency elk study east of Highway 97. The<br />

Forest will provide for the protection of elk calving areas where they are identified. Management of<br />

calving areas includes seasonal road closures. An elk management plan will be developed upon<br />

completion of the study.<br />

Comment<br />

Therefore, we ask the Forest Service to proceed with the following:<br />

1. Obtain elk habitat management research date and use it in relation to the elk population on the<br />

entire forest, including the areas east of Highway 97.<br />

2. Give elk habitat where it exists or is needed on the Forest the same consideration as mule deer<br />

habitat, cover requirements are essentially the same with some efficiency differences such as height.<br />

3. Administer a road closure program in critical elk habitat areas, open roads are dramatically detrimental<br />

to habitat effectiveness to elk when in excess of 1.5 miles of open road per square mile.<br />

4. Consider grazing and riparian area management in regard to elk as well as other wildlife.<br />

5. Develop in cooperation with ODF&W a long term elk habitat management plan that addresses the<br />

expanding elk population, particularly on the east side of Highway 97.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is participating in funding a cooperative interagency elk study east of Highway 97. The<br />

Forest will provide for the protection of elk calving areas where they are identified. Management of<br />

calving areas includes seasonal road closures. An elk management plan will be developed upon<br />

completion of the study.<br />

Comment<br />

Antelope - there is a hunting demand for antelope on the Forest and it is true that habitat is somewhat<br />

limited. There has been little, if any habitat improvement directed toward antelope on the part of the<br />

Forest. Some mule deer habitat improvement projects may have been of benefit to antelope. OHA<br />

feels the Forest needs to commit a higher priority in habitat improvement to these animals. Study of<br />

research currently available should point out improvements that can be made. We would certainly<br />

support such effort and if it would also benefit mule deer that is so much the better.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Mule deer are identified as a key issue species for ODFW and the Klamath Tribe. The particular issue<br />

regarding the Tribe is subsistence hunting rights. Habitat improvements for mule deer, particularly<br />

road closures and water developments, will also benefit antelope.<br />

Comment<br />

Planned projects should involve ODF&W cooperation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

ODFW is involved with planned projects either directly or through the environmental analysis process.<br />

Comment<br />

In heavy and unharvested lodgepole pine mortality areas where significant amount of dead trees have<br />

fallen, opening trails with equipment may be necessary to allow wildlife the opportunity to use these<br />

areas and reduce the threat of wildfire spread. Wood cutters may be able to accomplish similar end<br />

results if areas for down tree removal is designated on the ground. This practice may be especially<br />

important in riparian areas.<br />

K - 278

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Mule Deer habitat improvement projects that also benefit antelope should be high on the list of mule<br />

deer project priorities. Projects that would enhance use of other potential winter range areas should<br />

also be considered.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Recent scientific investigation indicates managed stands, especially under uneven-aged management,<br />

will provide many of the components used by old growth dependent species. We accept the proposed<br />

29,000 acres of old growth protection on a temporary basis but request objective scientific monitoring<br />

be carried out to assess the impacts of timber production on these species. In this way the amount of<br />

old growth acreage permanently protected could be adjusted up or down as determined necessary.<br />

There is sufficient old growth to delay this decision for twenty years.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

There is much conflicting information and opinion regarding old growth. The Forest is taking the<br />

conservative stance of old growth retention until other methods of management are proven to assure<br />

viability of old growth dependent species. Much study is being conducted regarding old growth<br />

characteristics, ecological significance, and fragmentation at this time.<br />

Comment<br />

I cannot believe that a ski resort in a place inhabited by elk is compatible. Those desiring the development<br />

do not seem to care whether they displace, disturb or destroy the habitat of the elk.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The potential impacts of a ski resort on Pelican Butte will be evaluated in a separate NEPA process.<br />

Comment<br />

More emphasis needs to be put selecting and improving wildlife intermediate habitat zones. This would<br />

help take some of the pressure off the limited winter habitat we have left. Everything that can be done<br />

to protect our winter habitat, must be done.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Finally, it is important that you provide the public an opportunity to comment on the development of<br />

MMR's. Too much of the MMR process was carried out in secret and did not meet the requirements of<br />

NEPA. Viable populations should be protected, but we the people should have some say in what a<br />

Viable populations is and how much is protected at what cost.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects of the MR's were insignificant on this Forest (see FEIS, Appendix J).<br />

Comment<br />

Why can't we come up with data for small game & fish harvest levels on Table 11-5?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Small game and fish harvest is not reported by the hunter and fisherman. Estimates of take are not<br />

made on the Forest level. Estimates made from estimates would not be reasonably reliable.<br />

K - 279

Comment<br />

From a wildlife perspective, development of the Pelican Butte Ski area is inappropriate, given the high<br />

wildlife values of the old growth bald eagle habitat. NO MENTION is made of the wildlife (or aesthetic)<br />

consequences associated with building the resort. Retention of Sky Lakes B (and other roadless areas)<br />

in an unroaded condition will be more and more critical to maintaining viable wildlife populations as<br />

other ares of the forest are subjected to intensive timber management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A site-specific EIS is being developed which will determine the effect of the City of Klamath Falls proposed<br />

ski area on Pelican Butte.<br />

Comment<br />

The assumption that only winter range conditions affect deer numbers may be short-sighted: increased<br />

harvest and road densities will very likely result in decreased effectiveness of summer habitat, which<br />

could in turn lead to declines in population levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Estimates of deer numbers in the FEIS are now based on a habitat suitability index which considers<br />

forage, cover, roads, water, and livestock competition. The estimates indicate improving condition over<br />

time for many alternatives with resulting increase in potential population.<br />

Comment<br />

Where is management unit 8? What % of existing riparian areas is 15,775 acres? How are we going to<br />

double fish populations while we increase harvest 25%?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The description of MA 8 is included in both the FEIS and the Forest Plan. The acres allocated to this<br />

management area have been increased in the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The 16,000 acres referred to<br />

are approximately 27 percent of the total.<br />

The 16,000 acres are the riparian areas associated with fish-bearing streams. The other acres are<br />

associated with wet forest, wet meadows, etc. that have very little influence on fish populations.<br />

Management of these areas is primarily for other wildlife needs, such as mule deer fawning. Improvement<br />

of streamside riparian areas along with instream habitat enhancement should increase fish population<br />

potential.<br />

Comment<br />

How can we maintain viable populations of wildlife with 95% of the tentatively suitable lands managed<br />

for timber? Will we be able to meet manual direction or NFMA law at this level of management?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Timber management can occur at many intensities. Provision for viable populations restricts management<br />

on the lands allocated for timber. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines regarding viable populations<br />

of species applies to all Forest lands.<br />

Comment<br />

Clarify mule deer management: does Nearly successional stage' mean plantations? If so, we should<br />

state that clearly. 'Improvement' of deer habitat by harvest activity is not a fact, but an opinion, and if it<br />

has some merit, it also has an upper limit. This is a misleading and arguable statement that ODFW will<br />

certainly contest. Cover needs are totally ignored. 'Wildlife' forage - this should read 'mule deer forage.,<br />

Further, the act of removing the forest canopy from a piece of land does not guarantee that the area<br />

will then automatically provide quality forage for deer.<br />

K - 280

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Early successional stage includes plantations. Successional stage is defined in the Glossary in the<br />

Forest Plan. Cover needs of deer are provided in the standards and guidelines. Forage is available for<br />

all wildlife, not just mule deer.<br />

Comment<br />

Is the old growth acreage calculated at the minimum? If so, why? Managing at the rock bottom minimum<br />

is biologically unsound and does not meet the mission of Caring for the Land. We should be managing<br />

enough acres to provide for viable populations, not minimum viable populations - managing for the<br />

minimum gives us no room to cope with unforeseen problems such as fire or blowdown.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Acres in old growth management vary by alternative. Alternative C manages at levels sufficient to maintain<br />

viable populations. Other alternatives provide old growth for viable populations plus ecosystem diversity<br />

plus aesthetic preservation.<br />

Comment<br />

The Plan does not clearly state that of the 24% of the Forest that would remain in old growth by Decade<br />

5, almost 1/2 is located in high elevation wilderness areas that receive little wildlife use, particularly by<br />

management indicator species. This is a misleading way of presenting the levels of old growth<br />

management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Chapter 2 of the FEIS contains a table which indicates acres of old growth inside and outside of wilderness<br />

areas.<br />

Comment<br />

Why are we managing only 32% of our riparian areas? We should be working to maintain/enhance all<br />

of this critical resource. Again, how can we more than double trout production while ignoring > 60% of<br />

our riparian habitat?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The description of MA 8 is included in both the FEIS and the Forest Plan. The acres allocated to this<br />

management area have been increased in the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The 16,000 acres referred to<br />

are approximately 27 percent of the total.<br />

The 16,000 acres are the riparian areas associated with fish-bearing streams. The other acres are<br />

associated with wet forest, wet meadows, etc. that have very little influence on fish populations.<br />

Management of these areas is primarily for other wildlife needs, such as mule deer fawning. Improvement<br />

of streamside riparian areas along with instream habitat enhancement should increase fish population<br />

potential.<br />

Comment<br />

How can we 'maintain or enhance' snag habitat if we are to manage at 60% of biological potential?<br />

We are already deficient in snag habitat under existing conditions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The objective level for snag habitat management is now 40% of potential. The Forest will manage no<br />

less that that objective. To achieve that objective may require enhancing areas that are deficient in<br />

snags by creating snags from live trees.<br />

Comment<br />

How will 'most' riparian areas be managed with emphasis on wildlife values? Need more detail. Does<br />

'most' include more than the 16,000 acres in Management Area 8?<br />

K - 281

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The description of MA 8 is included in both the FEIS and the Forest Plan. The acres allocated to this<br />

management area have been increased in the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The 16,000 acres referred to<br />

are approximately 27 percent of the total.<br />

The 16,000 acres are the riparian areas associated with fish-bearing streams. The other acres are<br />

associated with wet forest, wet meadows, etc. that have very little influence on fish populations.<br />

Management of these areas is primarily for other wildlife needs, such as mule deer fawning. Improvement<br />

of streamside riparian areas along with instream habitat enhancement should increase fish population<br />

potential.<br />

Comment<br />

What are current (1988) acres of existing old growth? Are we operating on out-dated figures? This<br />

could be critical in the case of old-growth associated wildlife species.<br />

Definition of old growth is inadequate and inconsistent with Regional definition.<br />

Given the extensive changes in available habitat that would result from this alternative and the inadequate<br />

acreages established for the MMRs, the numbers of pairs projected seems overly optimistic. Population<br />

levels projected for goshawks in the 3rd and 4th decade are UNACCEPTABLE in that they violate both<br />

Regional minimum guidelines and NFMA.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current acres of old growth are discussed in Chapter III of the FEIS. An inventory of old growth<br />

will have been completed but not analyzed by October 1990. Acres of old growth by alternative are<br />

displayed in the FEIS, Chapter 2.<br />

Currently, the Forest is using the Regional definition of old growth. These definitions are found on<br />

pages 3-40 through 3-41 of the Regional Guide.<br />

These definitions are under review and may be changed or clarified so we elected to keep the standard<br />

definitions in the plan at this time until a final decision is made on the definitions.<br />

Comment<br />

(Notes, #21) Martens are frequently observed at lower elevations within the commercial forest zone on<br />

Chemult District. Please cite references for assumption of 1 individual/1000 ac.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The references and process pertaining to marten are in the process records file at the Forest Supervisor's<br />

office.<br />

Comment<br />

(Notes, #23) Nest tree dbh stated for pileated woodpecker is too small: also, trees this small will not<br />

stand very long.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The minimum nest tree size for pileated woodpecker is 20 inch d.b.h. Reference 'Wildlife habitats in<br />

managed forests, Thomas et al 1979.'<br />

Comment<br />

(Notes, #25) Misleading statement: mule deer may often be associated with early to mid-successional<br />

plant communities, but to say "dependent! is an overstatement and very arguable. Deer numbers are<br />

not linearly related to forage production. How does the model predict amount and quality of forage<br />

produced on different sites?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has revised mule deer population projections based on concepts in Interagency Technical<br />

Advisory Committee Mule Deer Model. The relationship between the habitat suitability index developed<br />

using the concepts and population is assumed to be linear for lack of any other defined relationship<br />

between HSI and population. Forage amount is projected based on level identifiers in the FORPLAN<br />

K - 282

model. These include ponderosa pine, pine associated, mixed conifer, meadows, rock, water, and<br />

others. These have average assigned forage values which vary over time and by treatment. Forage<br />

quality is not addressed.<br />

Comment<br />

(Notes, #26) Unclear as to what 'birds seem to partition themselves as to size of territory' means.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Birds tend to group by size of territory. This is because of the type of forage or the type of nesting<br />

substrate they require. Example: red-winged blackbirds and yellow-headed blackbirds tend to have<br />

similar territory sizes and could be found in similar areas.<br />

Comment<br />

(Notes, #27) Would like to see data to support 60 ac. as an adequate size for goshawk nesting, especially<br />

since minimum numbers of goshawks would not be maintained under this alternative.<br />

Poor sentence structure: *old growth allocations IS.'<br />

Method for calculating pairs is seriously inaccurate if it only addresses foraging habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

References supporting territory or home range sizes is within process documents at the Forest<br />

Supervisor's office.<br />

Comment<br />

(last paragraph) Plantations do not necessarily provide optimal, or even adequate foraging habitat,<br />

particularly as they begin to fill in. This paragraph ignores the need bty elk for both hiding and thermal<br />

cover.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

As plantations mature they become cover. Until they become cover, they are assumed to provide some<br />

forage, usually more that the original forested stand. The use of the concepts of the Interagency Tech.<br />

Adv. Com. Mule Deer model recognizes that even mature forest stands provide forage.<br />

Comment<br />

If riparian habitats and water quality are already good, how do we propose to double trout populations?<br />

Factors limiting trout production in these streams may not yet have been determined.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Potential production was based on ODFW and Forest Biologist estimates. Riparian habitat and water<br />

quality are not the only factors that influence fish populations. Instream cover, above stream cover,<br />

and substrate are also factors that have influence. Improvements such as woody material placement,<br />

spawning gravel placement, increasing pools, planting vegetation for above stream cover will increase<br />

the potential population.<br />

Comment<br />

(Par. 3) What silvicultural systems will be used to maintain eagle habitat? Has control of competing<br />

vegetation been analyzed to determine any possible detrimental effects to eagles or their prey base?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All silvicultural systems are available to achieve the objectives of maintaining or improving eagle habitat.<br />

Thinning to leave pine and douglas fir is the primary method currently used. This is a removal of competing<br />

vegetation which allow the remaining trees to grow to a larger diameter.<br />

Comment<br />

Changes in habitat quality also need to be accurately measured. If habitats such as old growth are so<br />

important, why are we planning to reduce this resource by more than half on low elevation lands?<br />

K - 283

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is attempting to achieve a balance of resources, providing for timber harvest while providing<br />

old growth habitat values.<br />

Comment<br />

Still no mention of potential loss of eagle or spotted owl habitat if Pelican Butte is developed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

A site-specific EIS is being developed by the City of Kiamath Falls that will address these issues.<br />

Comment<br />

Too many loopholes here, what is the purpose of this statement?<br />

Two hard snags/ac is minimal, 1 O is too small for a pileated woodpecker (minimum dbh for the smaller<br />

three-toed is 120).<br />

Be more specific about what constitutes disturbance.<br />

Assumptions on nest activity need to be re-thought: renesting may still occur for some species after<br />

June 1, and just because we are not able to detect activity from the ground, we should not assume<br />

the nest is inactive unless we closely monitor.<br />

Who is responsible for monitoring?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Pileated nest trees are minimally 20 inches d.b.h. Pileated will feed in trees 10 inches or greater.<br />

The responsibility for monitoring ultimately rests on the appropriate line officer of the Forest. These<br />

would be the Forest Supervisor and District Rangers. The person that would actually do the monitoring<br />

is the appropriate resource specialist (see Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan).<br />

Comment<br />

Does this mean the Winema will manage at only 20% of biological potential? Statement is unclear and<br />

inconsistent with the 60% level stated on 111-7.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The minimum management requirement to maintain viable populations is 20 percent. The Pacific<br />

Northwest Region has as policy to manage for no less than 40 percent. Alternative J, FEIS Preferred<br />

Alternative manages general forest at the 40% level.<br />

Comment<br />

To iffy-8shouldn leaves lots of loopholes.<br />

Only addresses cover/forage ratio, this is inadequate: need to address distribution and quality as well.<br />

Measuring ratios on Forest-wide basis could leave large areas totally devoid of cover.<br />

What does 'will be avoided' include? Again, too vague.<br />

Roads are not the only factor here: clearcuts remove cover needed for safe travel. Saying roads MAY<br />

be closed is inadequate, too vague.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

We are particularly concerned with the continued logging of old growth ponderosa pine forests. Few<br />

such areas of high quality remain, and retention of old growth ponderosa pine should be a high priority.<br />

This is especially crucial in that the WNF has failed to identify an old growth indicator species or MMR<br />

standards for ponderosa pine old growth forests. How will you assess and monitor the effects of the<br />

major reductions of such habitat proposed in the PA? While few species are entirely dependent on<br />

this habitat, many, such as the White-headed Woodpecker, are close associates and could serve as<br />

effective indicator species.<br />

K - 284

<strong>Response</strong><br />

True, there is not a good indicator species for old growth ponderosa pine. The Forest has attempted<br />

to remedy this by providing additional old growth in ponderosa pine for ecosystem diversity and aesthetic<br />

reasons as well as for wildlife. This is incorporated into Alternative J: FEIS Preferred Alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

In several cases, an adequate range of appropriate indicator species has not been selected. One of<br />

these cases is that of indicators of riparian/wetland community types. Thee are a number of ecologically<br />

and structurally distinct classes of riparian/wetland vegetation, and each of these should have a valid<br />

indicator species. Riparian ecosystems are extremely diverse, extremely complex, and extremely important<br />

to the maintenance of a host of both plant and animal species. Avian and small mammal diversity<br />

reach their maximum values in riparian communities. While the designation of the Trout and Bald Eagles<br />

to represent general riparian and old growth/mature hardwood riparian are good choices in themselves,<br />

they do not represent the full range of riparian community types.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Riparian ecosystems are indeed diverse. Much analysis at the Forest and Regional level determined<br />

that there are no appropriate individual riparian indicator species that would be better than trout. Trout<br />

is used as the riparian indicator because the effect on trout can be quickly and readily determined.<br />

Also, riparian areas are defined in a general sense in the Forest Plan, so a general indicator is appropriate.<br />

Finer resolution of riparian communities will require more detailed inventory.<br />

Comment<br />

Inadequate Management Guidelines for Old Growth Indicators - Management guidelines for the Spotted<br />

Owl are particularly poor and will not be sufficient to maintain viable populations of this species on the<br />

WNF. Catastrophic reductions in habitat and nesting pairs predicted by the PA, when combined with<br />

the totally inadequate SOHA size guidelines and the untested and entirely experimental proposal to<br />

progressively cut the timber within the SOHAs themselves, combine, in our view, to spell out a program<br />

that is little more than a blueprint for the extirpation of the Spotted Owl from the Forest. The Spotted<br />

Owl S&Gs are quite simply not adequate to maintain these pairs over the long run. They are too small,<br />

there are not enough of them, and the old growth in them should be dedicated, not cut in some long-shot,<br />

conjectural shell game!<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest will manage spotted owl in accordance with the SEIS. The designated SOHAs are part of a<br />

network across Oregon, Washington and northern California. There has been recent analysis which<br />

indicates that this may be insufficient for owl viability, however that is outside the scope of the plan at<br />

this time. If changes are made in the network, or research indicates other management approaches<br />

are required, and these changes are approved by the Region in terms of appropriate for the network,<br />

the Forest will amend the Forest Plan and FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Yellow Rail - This extremely rare species in Oregon is known to occur as a nesting species on Upper<br />

Klamath Lake and may well occur on or near the Marsh roadless area. Despite the fact that this species<br />

is listed as Endangered by the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base (1987), it is not even mentioned in<br />

the WNF's draft documents! We request that you add this species to the list of Endangered taxa on<br />

the Forest and immediately institute a management program and census to identify any populations<br />

found in the National Forest marshlands on Upper Klamath Lake. Full protection, including the prohibition<br />

of motorboats, should be instituted in and near any occupied or suitable habitat.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The yellow rail is now listed in the R6 Sensitive Species Ust for the Forest. Prohibition of motorboats<br />

falls in the jurisdiction of the State Marine Board except where specific federal legislation prohibits their<br />

use (such as Wilderness).<br />

K - 285

Comment<br />

In summary, NFMA requires the FS to take all necessary measures to assure maintenance of viable<br />

populations of declining species, such as the Yellow Rail, Great Grey Owl, Bull Trout, and Purple Martin.<br />

The PA is clearly inadequate in this regard.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

We believe that a minimum of 10% of each timber type should be preserved as true old growth. Old<br />

growth provides habitat and cover for big game and for species dependent on old growth. Even flows<br />

of clear water are also found in streams flowing from old growth stands.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Old growth is allocated at varying levels by alternative. Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative allocates<br />

old growth at nearly ten percent of each timber type.<br />

Comment<br />

The indicator species approach to assessing wildlife viability in relation to specific habitats is a theoretical<br />

model of questionable validity. According to an evaluation by Dr. Larry L. Irwin (NACASI Technical<br />

Bulletin No. 522, April 1987) the concept as applied by the Forest Service, including the Winema is<br />

probably in error.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

The indicator species concept represents a poor surrogate for inadequate knowledge of the basic<br />

ecological requirements of the species which may find optimal living conditions in climax forests. The<br />

three MMR indicator species of concern in this report (spotted owl, pine marten and pileated woodpecker)<br />

are presumed to need old growth (it has been shown the components within old growth are the key<br />

items). This implies that old growth is presumed to be limiting to all species which prefer old growth,<br />

and that alterations procedure declines in the associated species. Neither implication has strong research<br />

support. Rosenburg and Raphael (1986) found only 5 of 46 bird species to be negatively affected by<br />

forest fragmentation in northern California, including the spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, sharpshin,<br />

ruffed grouse, and winter wren. It is highly unlikely that trends in populations of the three indicator<br />

species as affected by management reflect similar trends in other species.'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

PWP is a common, adaptable species whose abundance in numerous habitats that differ greatly from<br />

snag-riddled old growth forest belies the Forest Service habitat model and strongly indicate that the<br />

subject rather describes the ideal, preferred environment when the species inhabits eastern Oregon<br />

conifer forests.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

At the very least the DEIS should disclose acres by age class for the forest's major plan communities<br />

listed on page 111-18. Identification of additional management indicator species for riparian, wet meadow,<br />

dense second-growth conifer and high elevation stream habitats would also be an improvement.<br />

K - 286

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix J of the DEIS summarizes the indicator species selection process.<br />

Comment<br />

The minimum management requirements for the Northern Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactyles)<br />

appear inappropriate for species viability. I also do not believe there is biological evidence that this<br />

species represents a habitat niche for elevation below 5,000 feet in south-central Oregon.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Acres retained for three-toed woodpecker habitat as part of the woodpecker group are distributed<br />

across both high and low elevations in a grid pattern that will provide for other species.<br />

Comment<br />

Personal observations and some research suggest that the Northern Three-toed nests only above<br />

5,000 feet in this area. There is also reason for concern regarding the habitat acreage per pair of 75<br />

acres. Research conducted by the U.S. Forest Service (Raphael and White, 1984) indicates a larger<br />

area, almost twice that provided, is required. Unpublished information from an area on the Deschutes<br />

National Forest found home ranges over 400 acres.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Acres retained for three-toed woodpecker habitat as part of the woodpecker group are distributed<br />

across both high and low elevations in a grid pattern that will provide for other species.<br />

The Forest is constrained to operate under the Regional Guides.<br />

Comment<br />

It seems that an appropriate species should represent the lodgepole plant communities below 5,000<br />

feet. The Blackbacked woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) might be appropriate, however, this needs to<br />

be further evaluated for true representation. This would require changes in size of habitat and spacing<br />

between MMR areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Acres retained for three-toed woodpecker habitat as part of the woodpecker group are distributed<br />

across both high and low elevations in a grid pattern that will provide for other species.<br />

Comment<br />

The forage table on page 11-144 of the DEIS states the number of pounds per acre of forage produced<br />

in each working group. Projections for the volume to be produced in Decade 5 are also provided. The<br />

Tribe believes the asserted volumes ar significantly over-estimated. Also, the type of forage produced<br />

is not identified. Does the term include only forbs and grasses, or are shrubs also included? If shrubs<br />

are included, which species and in what volume? The DEIS should define this and describe and quantify<br />

the activities proposed to increase forage production to the stated decade 5 levels, as well as justifying<br />

the stated present levels.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Shrubs are included as a browse component. Bitterbrush was used as the primary browse species.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan assumes current demand for fish and wildlife equals current annual harvest. Plan p. 11-8. This<br />

is a wildly inaccurate statement with respect to tribal demand, and probably with respect to general<br />

public demand. The plan should attempt to accurately reflect demand for fish and wildlife.<br />

K - 287

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Recreation demand has been reevaluated. Refer to the discussion of Recreation in Chapter 3, FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS projects the same increase in fish populations on the forest over time under all of the proposed<br />

alternatives. Table 11-7. This assertion strains credulity, given the differences in projected sedimentation<br />

rates. DEIS Table 11-3A. The final plan must fully explain the fish population projections and amend<br />

them to reflect the actual differences among the alternatives. The final plan projections should break<br />

down the forest by watershed and provide full disclosures of effects specific to the former reservation<br />

lands. The Tribe retains fishing rights on these lands. The DEIS must disclose the effects of the plan<br />

on the Tribe, and the Forest Service must protect the rights from infringement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

All fish-bearing streams are protected by standards and guidelines. Increases in potential populations<br />

will be through continued long-term improvement of the streamside vegetation condition and through<br />

habitat improvement. The estimated numbers is based on habitat potential which increase is the same<br />

for all alterntives.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan does not provide an indicator species for snags in Ponderosa pine communities. The Tribe<br />

suggests the use of the white-headed woodpecker. Minimum habitat requirements would require 100<br />

acres area on a grid within the Ponderosa stands with no less than 45 snags in the area. In addition,<br />

at least 200 replacement trees would be necessary. Old growth habitat will not substitute, as the snag<br />

level is not high enough.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is constrained by the Regional Guide.<br />

The Preferred Alternative proposes retaining ponderosa pine old growth for ecosystem diversity and<br />

for aesthetic reasons. This old growth would provide for species that use ponderosa pine.<br />

Comment<br />

The Tribe suggests the use of the blue grouse (denigrates obscures) as an indicator species for the<br />

shrub component of the forest. Habitat areas of 50 acres at 5 mile spacing will provide minimum habitat.<br />

These areas must maintain structural diversity of shrubs, trees and herbaceous vegetation. The harvest<br />

projections should be amended to reflect this management requirement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is constrained by the Regional Guide.<br />

Comment<br />

The Wildlife Forestwide Standards fail to provide a dispersion standard. This omission must be remedied.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Dispersion contraints are appropriate to even-aged management. Dispersal of units adequate for wildlife<br />

can be achieved through created opening constraints that apply forest wide. Uneven-aged management<br />

will not require dispersion constraints.<br />

Comment<br />

Numbers of catchable trout is used as an indicator of responsiveness of Plan alternatives. A better<br />

indicator for land management is quality of trout habitat (stream production capability).<br />

K - 288

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Even though the acreage for the riparian management area varies among the alternatives, the DEIS/Plan<br />

does not provide a disaggregation by alternative. This should be included in Table 11-3A since page<br />

111-74 indicates that management of riparian areas directly affects the fish population.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Discussion of the riparian resource has been revised in all documents. The area was increased in<br />

Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative, to include all riparian areas, not just areas associated with<br />

fish-bearing streams.<br />

Comment<br />

Table 1l-3A, Quantifiable Resource Outputs and Environmental Effects by Alternate, reports 12,000<br />

resident trout for all the alternatives and a 26% difference in tons/decade of sediment between alternative<br />

D and alternative I (page 11-95). Although not clearly described, page 111-60 seems to indicate a relationship<br />

between sediment and fish populations. This needs to be explained in the DEIS/Plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Sediment that gets to streams can affect fisheries. The levels of sediment projected as output are not<br />

considered enough to affect the fish resources. Over time other factors such as stream shade, instream<br />

cover and woody material would improve fish habitat and potentially provide for an increase in fish<br />

numbers.<br />

Comment<br />

Table 11-7 indicates a range of 1 to 47% of riparian areas in riparian management areas between<br />

alternatives. These differences need to be explained in terms of resident trout fishery and water quality.<br />

Is this a percentage of the 15,775 acre figure used on page IV-63 of the Plan?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Riparian habitat on the Winema National Forest includes wet meadows, wet lodgepole and other wet<br />

forested communties that have no effect on fish bearing streams. The 16,000 acres applies only to<br />

fish-bearing streams and is constant throughout the alternatives.<br />

Comment<br />

There are 167 miles of Class 1, 11, and Ill fish supporting streams on the WNF. What portions of these<br />

stream segments have been inventoried for fish habitat capability and riparian condition? What are th<br />

plans and schedule to fill in the data gaps?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Most fish-bearing streams were inventoried in 1979 using methods available at that time. Those methods<br />

did not identify habitat capability and riparian condition. The monitoring section of the Forest Plan<br />

indicates plans for inventory and monitoring of stream systems.<br />

Comment<br />

Stream aquatic habitat with a current resident fish habitat capability of 30% are listed as being in good<br />

condition. With an apparent potential of 80% habitat capability for these streams 'good condition' would<br />

seem to be an overly favorable description. This needs to be explained.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Good condition refers to low water temperature and stable streambanks. Production at 200 fish/mile is<br />

estimated as current which is good production. Instream habitat enhancement can increase production<br />

above these levels.<br />

K - 289

Comment<br />

The riparian area management standard and guideline (1.) is written more vaguely than the riparian<br />

MMR on page 11-14 of the DEIS. This standard and guideline should be rewritten.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Riparian standards and guidelines for MA 8 have been revised.<br />

Comment<br />

The standard and guideline for vegetation management (2.c.) is based on future development of woody<br />

debris criteria. How will this standard be applied before the data becomes available? What is the schedule<br />

for collecting this data?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The implementation and monitoring section of the Forest Plan indicates the schedule for data acquisition.<br />

Comment<br />

We encourage you to reclassify much of the riparian zones in your forest as areas of critical environmental<br />

concern and that they be managed separately from the general forest as distinct and unique.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Riparian areas are recognized as very important and are managed as a separate management area<br />

(MA 8).<br />

Comment<br />

Where historical abuses have occurred, we sanction compensating habitat restoration projects. However,<br />

we strongly favor protection above compensation.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Both OSDF and ODFW believe insufficient information is provided in the DEIS to determine the current<br />

condition and proposed management direction for dead and down material. OSDF is particularly<br />

concerned about the effects of managing forest-wide snag potential at 20, 40, and 60 percent levels in<br />

terms of timber harvest levels, present net value and fire risk. By expanding your discussion of this<br />

issue, we may be able to identify a better alternative.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest will manage snags at the 40 percent level consistent with Regional direction to accept this<br />

level as the minimum for management and consistent with neighboring Forests.<br />

Comment<br />

Both ODFW and OSDF had difficulty understanding your treatment of old growth. The total present<br />

acres of old growth are not stated in the DEIS and the definition of old growth is not the same as the<br />

one used in the Regional Guide. We do not understand the difference between 3 suitablew old growth<br />

and capable' old growth. We cannot make recommendations on old growth management until we<br />

have a better understanding of your terminology, its application and implications for management<br />

decisions.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current acres of old growth are stated in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. The definition is<br />

the same as used in the Regional Guide.<br />

K - 290

Comment<br />

ODFW objects to management that creates an extensive area of even-aged stands across the Forest.<br />

Under even-aged timber management, structural and vegetation diversity would be greatly simplified<br />

and it may be difficult to maintain the desired amounts of dead and down woody habitats. A mix of<br />

even-aged and uneven-aged timber management across the Forest would provide diversity necessary<br />

for the variety of wildlife inhabiting the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The mix of even-aged and uneven-aged management varies by alternative. Alternative J, FEIS Preferred<br />

Alternative provides all ponderosa pine and half of the pine associated for uneven-aged management.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest manages several habitat types for which no management indicator species have been<br />

selected. Therefore, there is no assurance that species dependent on those habitats will be maintained<br />

at viable population levels. For that reason, ODFW recommends the Forest adopt additional MIS as<br />

follows:<br />

1. The white-headed woodpecker as an indicator species for old-growth ponderosa pine. ODFW will<br />

assist the forest in determining habitat size.<br />

2. The yellow warbler as an indicator species for riparian habitat.<br />

3. The sandhill crane as an indicator species for wet meadow habitat.<br />

4. Small accipiters as indicator species for dense second growth coniferous habitat; and<br />

5. Bull Trout as an indicator species for high elevation trout stream habitat.<br />

ODFW also recommends the black-backed woodpecker be substituted for the northern three-toed<br />

woodpecker s the MIS for mature/old-growth lodgepole pine habitat. The black-backed is a better<br />

indicator of this habitat type. ODFW also recommends the habitat area be increased from 75 acres per<br />

site to 550 acres. (R. Goggins, 1987 unpublished).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest is constrained to use the Regional Guide.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW objects to departure alternatives because forest wildlife resources would be rapidly diminished<br />

by accelerated modification or loss of habitat. Departure timber harvesting risks the evenflow of<br />

recreational and commercial opportunities associated with fish and wildlife. ODFW recognizes the<br />

insect-infested overmature lodgepole pine is a serious management dilemma facing forest managers.<br />

Recently (1986), the Forest and ODFW have agreed on lodgepole pine management strategies that<br />

provide minimal habitat safeguards.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW recommends the habitat area for pileated woodpecker be increased from 160 acres per site to<br />

495 acres. (K Mellan, 1987).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest Plan allocates 300 acres of old growth for pileated nesting habitat and manages 300 adjacent<br />

acres for feeding areas.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW habitat protection criteria requires a minimum of 5-15 percent of each major plant community<br />

be dedicated old-growth stands; well-distributed by slope, aspect, and elevation throughout the Forest.<br />

The amount of existing old growth by plan community on the Forest cannot be determined with the<br />

data provided. ODFW recommends the final plan provide for dedicated old-growth habitats and managed<br />

K - 291

old-growth stands located in a five to six mile grid pattern in the areas of sufficient size to meet habitat<br />

requirements of pileated and black-backed woodpeckers.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative, provides approximately 10 percent of each timber type as old<br />

growth. Management requirements for indicator species for old growth provide a grid of old growth<br />

patches approximately 5 miles apart.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest needs to provide more explicit information on wildlife in these categories, including more<br />

data on habitat requirements and habitat protection measures for sensitive species such as the northern<br />

spotted owl, great gray owl, and bull trout. See ODFW's comments for more detail. We agree with the<br />

Forest that special bald eagle management prescriptions should apply in the Marsh roadless area.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Information about species on the R6 Sensitive Species list is in Chapter 3 FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The "old growth' definition in the glossary is not the definition provided in the Regional Guide. If the<br />

amount of old growth under the Forest's definition does not concur with the amount that would exist<br />

under the Regional guide definition, the Forest should make corrections in the final EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This has been corrected. The old growth acres in the FEIS reflect, as near as possible, the definition in<br />

the Regional Guide.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest should indicate how many acres of dedicated old growth are 'suitable as opposed to capable,'<br />

as well as how many acres of dedicated stands have been thinned or have provided salvage.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

It is not known at this time how many acres of old growth are suitable versus capable. The old growth<br />

acres identified in the FEIS and Plan are aggregations of age class and timber types from FORPLAN<br />

based on timber inventory. The aggregations were made to best fit the definition in the Regional Guide.<br />

Old growth acres have been allocated by alternative. The precise location of the stands that are allocated<br />

is not determined at this time, but will be determined as part of implementation. An inventory of existing<br />

old growth will be completed by October 1, 1990. Currently the old growth stands are selected on a<br />

site specific basis in project planning to most nearly approximate the location of the grid proposed in<br />

the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest has not provided detailed information on the condition of meadows. Where moist meadows<br />

are key livestock foraging areas, ODFW recommends grazing be tightly controlled in accordance with<br />

sound range management principles. There should be no forage allocated from wet meadows (Forest<br />

Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.21); because of soil problems on wet sites, most wet meadows are<br />

unsuitable for livestock use. The recommendations need to be Forest-wide standards, since all meadows<br />

are important wildlife foraging/nesting areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Detailed information is not available on the condition of meadows. The last range analysis was done in<br />

the 1970's on a few of the allotments on the Forest. Areas not in allotments have never had condition<br />

surveys conducted on them. Standards and guidelines for range vegetation management have been<br />

revised to include utilization standards. Allocation of forage on wet meadows is a process of allotment<br />

management planning after range analysis.<br />

K - 292

Comment<br />

The Forest proposes to "manage' old growth lodgepole pine stands. The management prescription is<br />

acceptable to ODFW for 5-15 percent of the plant community; however, ODFW recommends that 5-15<br />

percent of the lodgepole plant community be retained in a dedicated prescription to ensure no old-growth<br />

values are precluded.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's approach to management of old growth environments is to identify suitable areas and to<br />

maintain their natural characteristics. This does not allow for the harvest of commerical timber from the<br />

area. This approach was adhered to in all alternatives presented in the DEIS except alternatives A and<br />

NC which were to reflect current plans.<br />

Comment<br />

The Forest must adhere to the lodgepole agreement (1986) to ensure dead and down tree habitat will<br />

be retained in lodgepole pine harvest areas.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Implementation of Forest-wide standards and guidelines and monitoring will provide for retention of<br />

dead and down habitat in all forested areas. Adequate numbers may be provide individually or in clumps<br />

as directed by safety considerations and may be met by creating snags where numbers are currently<br />

low.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW recommends the Forest adopt a policy requiring monitoring of snags by 80 acre sampling units.<br />

This size would help maintain proper distribution of dead and down woody habitats across the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Monitoring of habitat for various species is provided for in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW also recommends that the Forest provide adequate snags to meet 100 percent of potential<br />

population level in the 1,000 acre supplemental foraging area (1,000 acres) adjacent to dedicated<br />

stands of old growth. This should be adopted as a Forest-wide standard.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest will provide 300 acres of old growth for nesting and 300 acres additional for feeding. The<br />

additional feeding area will meet approximately 100 percent potential population level for smaller cavity<br />

nesters but not for pileated woodpecker.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-68.<br />

Management Area 8. The emphasis for this MA must include streamside and in-stream habitat conditions.<br />

ODFW recommends no programmed timber harvest in this management area. This direction would<br />

assure meeting the goal of protecting water quality, wetlands, floodplains, and wildlife resources.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

MA 8 has been revised to include emphasis on all riparian areas, not just streamside areas. Alternative<br />

J, FEIS Preferred Alternative provides for no programmed harvest within 100 feet of a Class I or 11 stream<br />

and 50 feet of a Class Ill stream.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-1 44.<br />

Table 11-7 Wildlife Forage. The Forest has planned for a departure in Alternative E by which most of the<br />

lodgepole pine sites would be harvested in the first two decades. With this in mind, how can the lodgepole<br />

K - 293

pine sites produce more forage in decade 5 than decade 1? (DEIS 11-144). ODFW is concerned that<br />

half or more of the alternatives offer no winter range or fawning area habitat management.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Forage output in FORPLAN varies by timber working group and treatment. Forage in decade 5 may be<br />

responding to harvest that is ocurring or to silvicultural practices such as thinning.<br />

Winter range and fawning habitat management varies to exhibit a range of management and the effects<br />

of management.<br />

Comment<br />

P.11-147.<br />

Common <strong>Response</strong> Factors. It is unreasonable to expect fish and deer populations to be the same for<br />

all alternatives. Variations in timber and especially grazing management intensities will significantly<br />

affect riparian habitat and fish populations.<br />

Winter range habitats off the Forest and hunting pressure are not the only limiting factors in herd population<br />

size. Studies have indicated that deer condition upon entering winter range is an important factor in<br />

deer survival and productivity' Management practices that affect food, cover, habitat effectiveness and<br />

winter range on the Forest vary by alternative and will have impacts on herd size and surplus animals<br />

available for harvest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has developed a habitat suitability index based on concepts of the Interagency Technical<br />

Advisory Committee Mule Deer Model. From this index and based on fawn production, estimates of<br />

population have been derived for all alternatives. Factors considered in the model are cover, forage,<br />

roads, water availability, and livestock competition.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-56. MIS<br />

What are current habitat conditions on the Forest for spotted owl, goshawk, pileated woodpecker, and<br />

marten? (DEIS 111-56-1). What is the current level of snags on the Forest? (DEIS 111-56-2). Why was no<br />

indicator species selected for riparian habitats? (DEIS 111-56-3). (See Recommendations).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The current conditions for spotted owl are discussed in Chapter 3. Old growth acres that could be<br />

used by the other species is discussed in Chapter 3. The current level of snags on the Forest is not<br />

known. Some areas have abundant snags, others are deficient. Snag levels are currently estimated on<br />

a project specific basis.<br />

Trout is the indicator for riparian habitat because it will best reflect changes in the riparian habitat<br />

adjacent to streams.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-59. The Woodpecker Group<br />

The group consists of ten species, but only two are discussed. What are the other eight species and<br />

their habitat requirements? (DEIS 111-59-1).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The two species discussed are the indicators for the group. The other species are black-backed,<br />

white-headed, Lewis', hairy, downy, Williamson's sapsucker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, and common<br />

flicker. These species requirements for nesting and feeding are met by the requirements of the indicator<br />

species.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-59.<br />

Marten. Marten are frequent users of lower elevation lodgepole pine and mixed-conifer sites where<br />

suitable habitat exists. What are the reasons for declining populations at lower elevations? (DEIS 111-59-2).<br />

K - 294

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The most probable reason would be decline in amount of habitat due to timber harvest and other<br />

human disturbance.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-60.<br />

(Top of Page). The Dolly Varden trout is now officially referred to as the bull trout. The bull trout may<br />

be expired from some or all of its former habitat. This species is extremely sensitive to habitat degradation<br />

and needs special habitat considerations. The discussion needs to include recognition that shortnose<br />

and Lost River suckers are being considered for Federal listing.<br />

(Paragraph 3). Bank stability may be in fair to good condition but riparian and aquatic habitats are far<br />

from optimum.<br />

What has reduced the trout production on the Forest? (DEIS 111-60).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The name change to bull trout has been incorporated. The suckers are currently Federally classified<br />

as endangered species.<br />

Trout productivity on the Forest was reduced primarily by past grazing practices degrading streams<br />

and riparian areas. Grazing changes made around a decade ago have resulted in improvement in the<br />

riparian ecosystem and gains are expected to continue.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-61.<br />

Table 111-1 7. Add the red-band trout to the list of fish found on the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The red-band trout has been added to the list of fish and is also on the R6 Sensitive Species list.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-63.<br />

Table 111-1 8. The scientific name for the Lost River sucker has been changed to Deltistes luxatus. Add<br />

the bull trout to the sensitive species list.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These changes have been incorporated into the FEIS and Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

P.111-66.<br />

Paragraph 2. Forage allocations in allotment plans should provide forage for big game at desired<br />

population levels. It is doubtful that 'high concentrations' of big game have or will significantly impact<br />

availability of forage for livestock.<br />

Grazing improvement projects are not necessarily positive for wildlife unless specific wildlife objectives<br />

are planned for and met. Forage development that favors grasses at the expense of cover and browse<br />

can have negative impacts on specific wildlife species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Allotment management plans are the appropriate place to make site-specific allocations of forage.<br />

Range analysis will be conducted for each allotment and allotment management plans will be updated<br />

or revised to reflect current conditions on the ground and management direction in the Forest Plan.<br />

K - 295

Comment<br />

P.IV-16<br />

Below-cost Timber Sales. The potential short-term and long-term negative impacts of accelerated<br />

lodgepole pine harvest on big game and nongame habitat would exceed the possible impacts of debris<br />

built up resulting from dead lodgepole pine.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Perhaps in a very short-term sense this is true. However the high likelihood of high intensity fire that<br />

would result from the debris would have negative impacts that would probably outweigh harvest. Harvest<br />

of the dead lodgepole would have beneficial impacts to big game by permitting ease of travel and in<br />

many instances allowing more rapid regeneration of cover.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-37.<br />

(2nd Paragraph). -... experience future epidemics because no stocking level control...." The Forest needs<br />

to explore alternatives for managing lodgepole pine sites to promote more stable habitat conditions for<br />

wildlife.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has applied current knowledge of silvicultural practices to make the predictions.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV.44.<br />

Old-Growth Habitat. The amount of old-growth habitat meeting Region Six definitions is not addressed.<br />

The Forest's term Nold-growth characteristics" needs to be defined.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The total acres of old growth meeting Regional Guide definition is addressing in Chapter 3, FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-48.<br />

Trout. What methods and standards were used to rate riparian and aquatic habitat conditions? (DEIS<br />

IV-48-1).<br />

If riparian and aquatic habitats are in good condition, why would it take 50 years to restore habitat<br />

capability for trout to 80 percent of potential? (DEIS IV-48;-2).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The rating of riparian condition is based on 1979 surveys and more recent ocular estimates. Fish habitat<br />

and stream condition are dynamic. It is not known what past conditions in relation to potential has<br />

been. It is assumed that 100 percent potential is "perfection' and that 80 percent is achievable using<br />

improvement and enhancement techniques. Regarding the time frame...vegetative condition takes a<br />

relatively long time to improve and the rate of improvement slows as it improves.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-49.<br />

(Top of Page). Where is the expenditure of K-V funds speeding the rate of stream recovery? (DEIS<br />

IV-49). The Forest should not discount the possibility of improving streams to greater than 80 percent<br />

of potential capability. The Forest should proceed to achieve optimum riparian/aquatic habitat conditions.<br />

A table of K-V expenditures for fish habitat improvements should be displayed in Chapter IlIl.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The 80 percent level is an upper level determined as feasible but does not preclude greater increases<br />

in capability. After a certain level, though, investment becomes greater than benefit.<br />

K - 296

A table of total anticipated expenditures which includes KV is in Chapter IV, Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-53.<br />

Developed Recreation. Development of a ski area on Pelican Butte would increase angling pressure<br />

on Francis Lake; which would exceed the current capacity for the lake. Increased pressure on the lake<br />

would require a more restrictive management strategy for the lake.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

An EIS addressing the site specific effects of development of the ski area is being written.<br />

Comment<br />

P.IV-1 03.<br />

(Last Paragraph). As lodgepole pine firewood becomes less available, measures will need to be<br />

strengthened to protect dead and down woody material needed for dependent wildlife species.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Implementation of standards and guidelines regarding dead and down material will provide for dependent<br />

species at the 40% potential population level.<br />

Comment<br />

B-147.<br />

Table B-23. The maximum percentage in created openings for riparian zones should be zero. There<br />

should be no clearcuts or shelterwoods in the riparian zones. The riparian habitats on the Forest are<br />

very important to a large number of species and need to be maintained.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Protection of riparian areas and particularly streamside riparian area is addressed in Management<br />

Area 8. The standards and guidelines for this management area were significantly changed between<br />

draft and final.<br />

Comment<br />

D-7.<br />

5. The protection criteria to prevent human disturbance of active nests is supported by ODFW. What<br />

protection criteria will be used to protect the nest tree when there is no nesting pair? (App. D-5).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The tree will be protected until it is determined that the tree is no longer used, but no seasonal restrictions<br />

will be in effect if there is no nesting activity.<br />

Comment<br />

D-9.<br />

6. What is the Forest's policy for cavity-dependent wildlife habitat management? (App. D-9).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest's policy is to provide habitat to maintain viable populations of all vertebrate species.<br />

Implementation of standards and guidelines regarding dead and down material will provide for dependent<br />

species at the 40% potential- population level.<br />

Comment<br />

D-9.<br />

7.a Definitions for 'fawning cover and *hiding cover need to be provided. See recommendation for<br />

Big Game Habitats.<br />

K - 297

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See the Glossary for definitions provided.<br />

Comment<br />

D-9.<br />

Standards 8 and 9 are very good and supported by ODFW. For number 8, change April 1 to May 1<br />

and June 15 to July 15.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

D-1 0.<br />

14. Why has the Forest not referred to 'Wildlife Habitat Relationships of South Central Oregon?' (App.<br />

D-1 0).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The publication in question was not used. The reference in question contains much information but<br />

much is unusable. For example, species data by land type is no longer usable because the Forest no<br />

longer uses land type classification.<br />

Comment<br />

D-14.<br />

(Paragraph 1). The standard to harvest up to one-third of the perimeter of a natural opening is<br />

unacceptable. ODFW criteria is for no more than 10 percent of the perimeter to be open at any one<br />

time; this standard allows for more secure use of natural openings by wildlife.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

K - 298

Comment<br />

D-67.<br />

Wildlife and Fish. 2. There were no native fish in lakes in the wilderness areas of the Forest.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

E-10.<br />

Fish (Sentence 2). Water temperature, not turbidity, is the more limiting habitat element along with a<br />

lack of cover.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-3.<br />

Wildlife and Fish Program Goals. What are 'key riparian areas' and where are they? (PP IV-3). All riparian<br />

areas are important and should be managed for their intrinsic resource values.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

'Key' riparian areas are those that have identified significance as relates to the major issues on the<br />

Forest. These are specifically fish habitat and mule deer fawning areas. The Forest recognizes the<br />

importance of all riparian areas by identifying all riparian areas in a separate management area in<br />

Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-5.<br />

(Paragraph 8). "Most riparian areas will be managed emphasizing wildlife habitat values." Page 111-7<br />

states only 32 percent of the riparian acres on the Forest would be allocated to MA 8 (Riparian<br />

Management). How would the remaining riparian areas be managed to emphasize wildlife habitat values?<br />

(PP IV-5-2).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative, identifies all riparian areas except those that fall into allocations<br />

such as Wilderness which preclude direct management, as a separate Management Area.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-28.<br />

Wildlife and Fish Program. (Paragraph 3). This paragraph should state that some special habitats (e.g.,<br />

deer, trout, woodpeckers) will be managed at higher than minimum levels to allow for consumptive<br />

and nonconsumptive recreation use.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-29.<br />

(Paragraph 1, Sentence 2). Wild trout' is more appropriate than 'native trout. Many streams have<br />

brook and brown trout that are not native but are self-perpetuating 'wild' populations.<br />

This is a statement of present condition and does not indicate what the Forest objective is for riparian<br />

and aquatic habitats. The Forest has identified improvement methods and areas where rehabilitation<br />

or improvements are needed but has not included a clear statement of intention.<br />

K - 299

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The goals for Management Area 8 are stated in Chapter 4 Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-117.<br />

A.2. Restrictions should be from November 1 to March 15.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-117.<br />

C.2. This standard is an addition to the standards found in DEIS App. D-92. Firewood cutting in these<br />

areas wouild need close administration to ensure the habitat values for bald eagles are protected.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW habitat protection criteria require dead and down tree habitat be provided to maintain<br />

cavity-dependent species at a level of at least 60 percent of potential populations on timber management<br />

lands, and at 100 percent of potential populations on all other lands. Insufficient information was provided<br />

to determine the current condition and proposed management direction for dead and down woody<br />

habitats. There is no discussion of protection methods for dead and down woody habitats.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Dead and down tree habitat will be provided to maintain cavity-dependent species at a level of at least<br />

40 percent of potential populations on timber management lands. There are several protection methods<br />

available. These should be chosen depending upon the landscape, and the site-specific problems with<br />

protection.<br />

Comment<br />

Forest management activities have not protected dead and down tree habitat. Therefore, on Forest<br />

lands adjacent to where this has occurred, an equivalent number of forested acres should be maintained<br />

with sufficient habitat to meet the 100 percent level until replacement stands meeting the 60 percent<br />

potential population criteria have been developed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest objective is to provide 40 percent potential population level. Deferring harvest in adjacent<br />

stands until replacement stands have reached the objective level is one way to provide this. Creating<br />

snags from green live trees is another. The method of achieving the objective level is site specific and<br />

will be addressed in site-specific analysis.<br />

Comment<br />

PP IV-128.<br />

Monitoring. There is serious doubt existing biological staffing levels can carry out the monitoring plan.<br />

Sufficient biological personnel and seasonal help will be required to assure standards and guidelines<br />

for wildlife habitat are being followed. A key element is biological input at the planning level on all<br />

management activities. A minimum of one biologist in each ranger district, with permanent or seasonal<br />

support personnel, will be needed.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Staffing will be increased or decreased to reflect the implementation needs and the budget. As of July,<br />

1990, each Ranger District has one or more permanent full-time biologists.<br />

K - 300

Comment<br />

PP V-9.<br />

Suggested methods for monitoring need to be more specific. For example, the method listed for reserved<br />

old-growth areas is m10-year action plan, on-the-ground inspection.' How many sites will be looked at<br />

each year? what parameters will the inspection evaluate?<br />

For spotted owl habitats, the method is 'field review.' Again, how many sites and what parameters?<br />

These comments apply to all of the fish, wildlife, and water monitoring methods.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The monitoring plan has been revised between draft and final to be more specific.<br />

Comment<br />

PP V-15. Monitoring Questions.<br />

A fifth question needs to be added: 'f. Are fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects producing the<br />

estimated outputs?'<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This concept has been included in the monitoring plan for all resources.<br />

Comment<br />

10. This guideline, page IV-40, should include quantitative standards for habitat maintenance or restoration<br />

of riparian ecosystems. The benchmark from which to gauge whether standards are being met might<br />

include a provision to maintain a specific percentage in excellent, good, fair, or poor condition. Or the<br />

guidelines might include a provision to improve to 'excellent' a specific number of miles or acres of<br />

riparian zone condition per year or decade.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

Riparian areas are discussed almost exclusively in terms of wildlife, water quality, wetland and floodplain<br />

values. In most cases, management for these values would adequately address water quantity values<br />

such as stream channel stability. It appears as if the use of even-age timber harvest practices in riparian<br />

areas would be inappropriate to meet some fishery objectives such as trout habitat (tree shade<br />

requirements, water temperature).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The standards and guidelines for Soil and Water and for Management Area 8 have been revised and<br />

address fisheries as well as other resource values.<br />

Comment<br />

Management Area 8 - Riparian Management, 11-69, does not identify riparian locations other than that<br />

they are buffers along class 1, II, and IlIl streams. It is clear from the DEIS that the areas have been<br />

mapped for management purposes, and allowable sale quantities (ASQ) and acreage figures developed<br />

for them by ranger district. However, there is no indication of riparian area condition in the DEIS. Paragraph<br />

one, page IV-29 of the LRMP, states that riparian habitat and water quality are favorable in most of the<br />

fish-bearing streams. An inventory of the riparian condition of specific areas would be useful for<br />

corroboration of this statement.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

In Alternative J, FEIS Preferred Alternative, riparian areas have been expanded to include riparian areas<br />

such as wet forest and wet meadows that are not just associated with streams. Riparian condition is<br />

based most recently on ocular estimates. The monitoring section identifies the need for riparian surveys.<br />

K - 301

Comment<br />

Need for Further Documentation and Analysis<br />

1. Data Uncertainty -The credibility of the plan could be increased significantly if the MMR's were submitted<br />

to peer review. That review would help assure that the most current data and a broad base of professional<br />

expertise are reflected in the plan.<br />

2. Alternative MMR Strategies - Only one set of MMR strategies is proposed in the plan and the sensitivity<br />

analysis provided in Appendix J only varies the intensity of that one set. Where alternative methods for<br />

achieving the same objectives are available, displaying them would be beneficial and possibly avoid<br />

later conflicts with NFMA and NEPA public disclosure requirements.<br />

3. Inconsistency Among National Forests - Based on the information provided in the forest plans published<br />

in Region 6 to date, it appears that similar national forests may be modeling their MMRs differently,<br />

thereby providing inconsistent levels of protection and inconsistently applied constraints on other<br />

resources. No published documentation supports these differences or explains how each forest's MMR<br />

package provides for the minimum level of protection, as required or suggested by NFMA. If alternatives<br />

are displayed, as recommended in number 2 above, this concern would be overcome.<br />

The need for and design of each MMR should be clearly explained in the forest plan. A display similar<br />

to the August 22, 1984 Wildlife MMR matrix produced by the Region should be included in the Final<br />

EIS. This now outdated matrix provided important data on the number of habitats being designated by<br />

each national forest for each indicator species, the acres of suitable land involved, and a measure of<br />

the effect of these allocations on timber management. Similar displays could be constructed for soil,<br />

water quality, and riparian MMRs.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix J contains a discussion of Management Requirements.<br />

Comment<br />

In the Winema's planning process to date, the decisions and assumptions used in developing the<br />

MMRs were finalized and incorporated into all alternatives without the provision of any opportunity for<br />

full public review, as required by NEPA and NFMA. This action by the Forest Service makes the planning<br />

process vulnerable to legal challenges and prevents the agency from gaining the valuable input that<br />

the public and other resource professionals could have provided the Forest Service.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) set legal guidelines for management of the National<br />

Forests. The guidelines were interpreted by the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with a Committee<br />

of Scientists and with public and professional involvement, to develop regulations. Direction from the<br />

Chief of the Forest Service and Region 6 resulted in MR's which reflect the requirements of the laws<br />

and regulations in NFMA. The MR direction ensures that minimum legal requirements are applied to all<br />

alternatives in Forest plans consistently across all National Forests. MR's exist for dispersal of created<br />

openings, water quality, riparian and wildlife habitat as required by NFMA.<br />

Comment<br />

The process for implementing MMRs must be opened up fully to public review. By doing so, the Forest<br />

Service may be able to develop new alternatives that are more responsive to public concerns.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The planning process, including MRs, is open for public review.<br />

Comment<br />

The effects of managing the forest-wide snag potential of all alternatives at 20, 40 and 60 percent level<br />

need to bed provided to display changes in timber harvest levels, present net value, and fire risk. If the<br />

high levels of snag retention were possible without significant reductions in timber harvest levels or<br />

significant increases in wildfire risk, the Department of Forestry would support managing snag habitat<br />

K - 302

at a higher level. The full costs of maintaining the higher levels of snag retention at 20, 40 and 60 percent<br />

levels should be included in the final EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The trade-offs associated with various snag levels are similar to the trade-offs associated with most<br />

other alternative management scenarios. These are assessed in the context of the alternative comparison<br />

process wherein a variety of snag levels are provided. Individual costs of this consideration along with<br />

most other individual concerns are not separated.<br />

Comment<br />

Old Growth Habitat - (DEIS, page IV-44; App.) Information in the text is inadequate to describe the<br />

effects of each alternative on old growth management. Total present acres of old growth habitat are<br />

not provided in the DEIS. The text states '...currently 68 percent of the Forest is estimated to retain old<br />

growth characteristics [and] about 20 percent of the Forest will always retain old growth characteristics<br />

as wilderness and lands unsuited for timber production...." Since the forest is approximately 1.04 million<br />

acres in size, some 707,200 acres should be characterized as old growth and 141,400 acres in the<br />

second category as Wilderness and unsuitable lands. However, this information does not seem to<br />

compare with data in Table II-3A.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

This information has been included and can be found in Chapter 2 and 4 of the FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

The application of the glossary definition of an old growth stand (App. page GL-1 9) to the variety of<br />

descriptions of old growth used throughout the planning documents also adds to the confusion. Acres<br />

of old growth forest in an old growth condition are summarized in Table II-3A; however, mold growth<br />

forest communities' are discussed in management area 7,' forest with old growth characteristics' on<br />

page IV-44, and mold growth habitat' in Appendix page J-24. Do these terms all provide acres in old<br />

growth habitat? If so it seems that similarities should be reflected by the common definition. The basis<br />

for the range of acres described as old growth in the DEIS needs to be explained. If possible, extended<br />

totals in the tables showing old growth should be comparable to old growth habitat acreage in Table<br />

11-3A. The Department also recommends that the planning document include a table showing the amount<br />

of old growth timber that will continue to exist in each alternative during the first five decades projected<br />

by this plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Old growth can be defined in several ways depending upon the scale of the area, the purpose for the<br />

old growth, and the viewpoint of the definer. The definition used for deriving acres is from the Regional<br />

Guide. Chapter 2 (FEIS), also provides the total old growth remaining at the end of decades 1, 2, and<br />

5.<br />

Comment<br />

Another important comparison missing from the planning documents is a clear statement of the total<br />

number of acres of old growth needed (required by MMRs) for old growth preferring wildlife. According<br />

to Table J-2 (App.page J-24), this figure is about 20,909 acres.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The total old growth in additional to that in Wilderness, etc. needed for minimal viable populations of<br />

wildlife is about 21,000 acres.<br />

Comment<br />

The Winema conducted only a composite sensitivity analysis to the effect of varying individual MMRs<br />

remains unknown. Also, the Forest has displayed only the effect on present net value and allowable<br />

sale quantity of increasing or reducing the MMR constraints. There is no information on how these<br />

K - 303

different levels of protection would affect the target resources in the short and long term. A more<br />

comprehensive analysis should be provided in the final EIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Appendix J of the EIS addressed the effects of MRs. Altogether the MRs were determined to have less<br />

than 5% effect. This is an insignificant effect in the context of the inherent variability in natural systems<br />

and the abstractions of realilty necessary to model these systems. Individual MRs would have even<br />

smaller effects. Therefore, further analysis would be fruitless.<br />

Comment<br />

ORC supports priority management of native resident trout species. The Winema Forest is rich in<br />

outstanding wild salmonids and management should reflect this. Please establish additional management<br />

indicator species for high elevation trout streams: bull trout, for riparian habitat: yellow warbler, and for<br />

wetlands and meadows: sandhill crane.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

See Appendix J of the DEIS for a discussion on indicator species.<br />

Comment<br />

Your plan provides for Northern Spotted Owl habitat as it should. Does it also recommend funding for<br />

ongoing studies of this elusive animal? I somehow missed this in the discussions on environmental<br />

consequences. Mentioned in the verbage were "currently evaluated factors which were beyond the<br />

scope of this analysis which, to me does indicate that some type of funding is underway.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

One basic assumption is that whatever alternative is chosen, the funding levels are requested to do<br />

the job. However, funding is a congressional decision, which if history is any indicator, not always<br />

geared to identified field needs.<br />

Comment<br />

The plan evidently overvalues mule deer. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department data indicate diminish<br />

sales and interest in mule deer statewide. Conversely, tag revenues and interest in elk has increased.<br />

The proposed plan ought to consider reductions in populations of mule deer and domestic livestock<br />

and manage for greater elk numbers. Additionally, effects of timber harvest on elk escape cover and<br />

winter foraging habitats should be evaluated.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Mule deer were identified through public process as a key issue species in this area. Elk are currently<br />

being studied through interagency cooperative funding. Until the dynamics of the elk in the area are<br />

known and recommendations can be made, the Forest will not manage specifically for elk habitat other<br />

than calving areas especially east of Highway 97.<br />

Comment<br />

A map of transition range should be prepared. We recommend that at least 50% thermal cover be<br />

provided on transition range, and that it be managed as for winter range with respect to road density.<br />

We recommend that fall greenup on transition range be reserved for wildlife.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest will manage winter range and summer range. Many areas of the Forest do not have potential<br />

for 50% thermal cover. Road density is one of the factors considered in both winter range and summer<br />

range management.<br />

Comment<br />

Finally, we anticipate that managed stands and areas managed for visual quality, riparian values and<br />

big-game wildlife will provide many of the habitat components used by 'old growth dependent' wildlife<br />

K - 304

species, especially where uneven-aged management is emphasized. As noted above, we believe that<br />

opportunities exist to creatively manage the forest to maintain healthy wildlife populations without taking<br />

land entirely out timber production. The planning team should fully explore these kinds of opportunities<br />

and incorporate them into the final plan.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Stands managed for visual quality may provide some of the characteristics of old growth. However is<br />

many instances it may not provide for desired characteristics. Uneven-aged management in the classical<br />

sense has not been applied to the Forest. Thus, it is unknown what the effects on old growth<br />

characteristics, big game cover and forage, and other wildlife populations will be. It is projected that<br />

uneven-age management will leave a few large old trees but will not provide enough large trees to<br />

meet old growth stand characteristics required by many species. Stands in uneven-aged management<br />

will retain some minimal cover value for big game and may provide some short term forage. Alternative<br />

J, FEIS Preferred Alternative proposes all of the ponderosa pine and half of the pine associated timber<br />

types for uneven-aged management.<br />

Comment<br />

Actually, there doesn't seem to be any organized monitoring of the eagle population, despite repeated<br />

calls for review in KBEHMA. To cite a few:<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Bald eagle populations are currently monitored by OSU Cooperative Extension Units in cooperation<br />

with Region 6. Biologists on the Winema also monitor use and activity of winter roosts and nest sites.<br />

Monitoring of bald eagle has been included in Chapter V Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

This is unusually rich and diverse wildlife habitat found nowhere else on the forest. Here is an opportunity<br />

to preserve intact a complete elevational transect in a fairly pristine condition. Do we need lumber so<br />

badly that we are willing to sacrifice our very best wildlife habitat for those extra marginal acres?<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Reviewer opinion. No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

We consider the need to get back to sound snag management throughout the forest to be a high<br />

priority. In addition to leaving snags, we would like to see assurances in this plan that you have a plan<br />

to protect snags. We fear that as the forest continues to dump large amounts of lodgepole on the<br />

fuelwood market, and as that resource begins to crash, snags will come under great pressure. Providing<br />

for near minimum amounts of snags as a policy, when portions of the forest are already deficient of<br />

snags, almost guarantees failure on this habitat front.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Implementation of Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines will provide snags at the 40 percent potential<br />

population level of woodpeckers in all timber types in the Forest.<br />

Comment<br />

The total acres of old growth existing on the Winema is not listed in the Draft Environmental Impact<br />

Statement. The definition of old growth is not the same as the one used in the Regional Guide. It is<br />

not clear what is meant by suitable old growth. It is difficult to comment on old growth management<br />

when we are not sure of what your definition of old growth is or how much old growth is available.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

These acres are identified in Chapter 3, FEIS as is the definition of old growth. The definition used to<br />

derive the acres displayed is the Forest's closest approximation to the Regional Guide.<br />

K - 305

Comment<br />

Threatened and Endangered Species. Effects of the various alternatives on federally listed and proposed<br />

threatened and endangered species and their potential habitat, namely Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon,<br />

Shortnose Sucker and Lost River Sucker, have not been assessed in the DEIS.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The effects on these species have been addressed in Chapter 4, FEIS.<br />

Comment<br />

Minimum Management Requirements endoresed by the Forest do not coincide with management<br />

philosophy of maintaining Park wildlife populations in their natural abundance and distribution.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The National Park System and the National Forest System have different management mandates.<br />

Comment<br />

Timber Harvest. NPS is very concerned about the timber harvest levels of Alternative E and the impact<br />

this would have on the wildlife populations that inhabit the Park and surrounding Forest. For the area<br />

of Thielsen south to Sky Lakes, and east to Antelope Desert, Alternatives I or F would provide the<br />

lease disturbance to the Park ecosystem.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The National Park System and the National Forest System have different management mandates. The<br />

Forest mandate is to manage for multiple use, which use includes timber management and range<br />

vegetation management. The Forest Plan attempts to provide a balance in resource management.<br />

Comment<br />

Page 111-60, para. 3. The Forest states that the portion of the Williamson River under Forest management<br />

produces only 30 percent of its potential fishery production capability (this also includes sections of<br />

the Sycan and Sprague River fisheries). The final document should address what options, if any, the<br />

Forest will pursue to increase the productivity of these streams.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Forest has as an objective to increase the capacity of fish production to 80 percent of potential.<br />

The specific methods are site-specific and must be dealt with in a site-specific manner which is outside<br />

the scope of this document. However, both the Forest Plan and FEIS discuss possible methods available.<br />

These are improvements in riparian vegetative condition and instream enhancement.<br />

Comment<br />

The DEIS-Chapter 3, should give additional consideration to anticipated conditions regarding the<br />

peregrine falcon. While occupation by this species is not currently noted on Forest lands, its status on<br />

Forest lands can be expected to change in the near future as a result of recovery activities within the<br />

region. Since a variety of Forest actions could adversely affect this listed species, annual inventories of<br />

potential and historic habitats are necessary to avoid possible adverse affects to this species and its<br />

recovery.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Consideration for the peregrine falcon is given in Chapter 3, FEIS; Chapter 4 Forest Plan.<br />

Comment<br />

DEIS 11-70, Management Area 9, Bald eagle: There is no mention as to whether or not potential habitats<br />

for bald eagle are designated for management as bald eagle habitat. Those areas identified by the<br />

Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Forest Service Region 6 as potential bald eagle territories<br />

should be included in Management Area 9 so that they can be given additional management<br />

consideration.<br />

K - 306

<strong>Response</strong><br />

Active nest sites and recovery nest sites have been identified in cooperation with other agencies. In<br />

addition to the particular sites, replacement habitat is identified for management to in the future provide<br />

habitat suitable for nest sites.<br />

Comment<br />

DEIS 11-84, Bald Eagle, Habitat and Historic Trend: References to the Bald Eagle Management Guide<br />

should be deleted. The Bald Eagle Management Guidelines do not reflect the current state-of-the-art<br />

measures for the management of bald eagles. The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan has been<br />

finalized and should be utilized as the current reference document. The current strategy for bald eagle<br />

management emphasizes the development of site-current management plans.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan is used as a reference document as well as more recent<br />

research data. The Recovery Plan directs the use of at that time current management guides.<br />

Comment<br />

Enclosed is the map referred to in our comments to the Winema DEIS and Proposed Plan. The map<br />

displays winter range and transition range for deer. This is a first effort at identifying deer transition<br />

range for the Winema. I suggest further refinement of the transition range boundaries by the Technical<br />

Advisory Committee (ODFW, Klamath Tribe, Winema N.F., and Fremont N.F.).<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

Comment<br />

ODFW is currently managing elk in south central Oregon that are increasing in numbers and expanding<br />

their range. Elk have been observed on almost all portions of the Winema National Forest. We will<br />

have better information on the distribution and needs of elk in south central Oregon when the proposed<br />

cooperative elk study is completed. At this time, however, ODFW considers all of the Winema National<br />

Forest as elk range.<br />

<strong>Response</strong><br />

No response necessary.<br />

K - 307

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!