Response

trout and deer are estimated in Chapter II of the FEIS. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Klamath Tribe determine levels of animal and fish harvest, which directly relate to population levels.
Comment
Protection of Cultural and Religious Sites and Uses. The DEIS includes a section describing the 'affected
environment' of the proposed plan. Part of that description relates to the Forest's cultural resources.
DEIS 111-93-95. The description is notable for its complete lack of recognition of the tribal interest in
cultural sites and of the tribal role in identification and assessment of sites. The DEIS states: Cultural
resources, in general, are of national interest to both the public and to the scientific community.
The description should include specific reference to the strong tribal interest in these sites, and the
ongoing consultation with the tribe relating to known sites and newly discovered sites.
An additional weakness of this description stems from the definition of cultural resource sites. The
definition omits those sites currently used for cultural and religious purposes. Some currently used
sites also have historic or archaeological value. All sites currently used should be protected. The
management activities allowed near these sites could vary, depending on the particular use and
significance of a site.
The tribe suggests the Forest adopt a 'buffer zone concept for protection of these sites. The necessary
size of the zone will vary depending on the use and significance of the site. For example, if the use of
a site or corridor requires isolation, the buffer may need to be larger than a buffer zone around another
site. Management activities may be allowable seasonably or selectively or prohibited altogether.
It is critical that the Forest continue to work with the tribe to identify these areas, their uses, and the
degree of protection necessary, and incorporate this information in the final plan.
Response
The sections of the FEIS dealing with the Klamath Tribe and cultural resources have been revised. The
Klamath Tribe's strong interest in cultural resources is recognized and direction is provided, in the
Final Forest Plan standards and guidelines, for coordination with the Tribe in the long term management
and protection of tribal sites.
Comment
The DEIS states that Alternative F is based on information and concerns of the Kiamath Tribe. The
tribe did provide a map of important areas to Forest planning staff in 1985. However, Alternative F
cannot reasonably be considered to reflect tribal concerns. The scenic management designation of
former reservation lands provides no protection except from viewpoints along roads and waterways.
Failure to impose dispersion standards in this area for 20 years renders any scenic management protection
worthless. In addition, all of the acreage designated for uneven-aged management is scheduled for
harvest the first decade. The tribe vehemently opposes both of these concepts. The DEIS states that
the alternative is based on tribal suggestions. This misleading and incorrect assertion must be withdrawn.
Response
Alternative F was formulated to reflect the proposed management for specific land areas as suggested
by a representative of the Klamath Tribe. The scenic management proposed in Alternative F is not
limited to areas seen from roads or waterways; but, rather includes all lands identified for a scenic
management objective by the Kiamath Tribal Representative. There appears to be a misunderstanding
of the harvest dispersion requirements in Alternative F. The dispersion requirement applied in the Draft
EIS was designed to limit the amount of openings created by harvest treatments. Because in Alternative
F uneven-aged management would be applied to these lands with scheduled timber harvests, no openings
would be created and therefore, no dispersion requirements were necessary. The uneven-aged
management proposed in this alternative is implemented over a 30-year period of time and not all in
the first decade.
Comment
Plan, p. IV-56. The standards and guidelines provide no protection of treaty rights nor any acknowledgement
by the Forest Service of its affirmative obligation to protect the exercise of these rights. How are
K- 15