▪ Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Program
Sign up to receive action alerts via e-mail
Links
June 11, 2002
Joel King c/o Environmental Coordinator
Rogue River National Forest
P.O. Box 520
Medford, OR 97501
RE: Deadwood Allotments Revised EA 2002 Comments
FROM: Joe Serres, FLOW and Tom Dimitre, Rogue Group Sierra Club
Dear Joel King,
We are writing on behalf of Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW) and the Rogue Group Sierra Club. FLOW is a group of conservation advocates in Oregon advocating for the protection and restoration of Oregon's waters. FLOW uses legal oversight and public education to help protect Oregon's rivers, watersheds, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater from the impacts of pollution and development. FLOW’s office is based in Ashland, OR and we have statewide membership, including members whose interest is the protection and restoration of the area impacted by the Deadwood Allotments. The purpose of the Sierra Club and its local body, the Rogue Group Sierra Club, is to restore the quality of the natural environment and to maintain the integrity of ecosystems, to educate the public to the need to understand and support the objectives, and to study, explore and enjoy the wildlands. The Rogue Group Sierra Club has many members who actively use and enjoy the area impacted by the Deadwood Allotments.
INTRODUCTION
Overall, past and current grazing practices have extensively degraded the Deadwood Allotment area. The EA calls for alternatives that would attempt to remedy the problem through increased monitoring and controls of the livestock herd. This mitigation is not proven effective and the USFS did not offer any evidence supporting how a monitoring program may avoid Aquatic Conservation Strategy and other environmental law violations. In addition, the effects upon water quality, plants, soils, wildlife, and recreation are severe. As stated in the reasons below, FLOW and the Rogue Group Sierra Club recommend the selection of Alternative 6 (no grazing).
Riparian Concerns (Aquatic Conservation Strategy)
- The Preferred Alternative will not be consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. There would still be significant riparian degradation with the Preferred Alternative. The fencing is proposed for a small proportion of the riparian areas in the project area. The unfenced riparian areas will receive increased grazing pressure therefore shifting ACS violations to different locations. Furthermore, there is a likelihood that the fences will be affected by snow/wind blowdown and not be effective thereby not preventing cattle damage in riparian areas and ACS violations.
- The important phrases in the standards and guidelines of the NFP, on page B-9, are “meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives,” “does not retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives,” and “attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.” These phrases, coupled with the phrase “maintain and restore” within each of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives define the context for agency review and implementation of management activities.” Furthermore, “Complying with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives means that an agency must manage the riparian-dependent resources to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to restore conditions. The baseline from which to assess maintaining or restoring the condition is developed through a watershed analysis. Improvement relates to restoring biological and physical processes within their range of natural variability.” Allowing any entry of livestock into riparian reserves will not meet the maintenance or restoration standard but will further degrade the biological and physical processes of streams. This is especially true at the site-specific scale, which was not adequately analyzed in the EA.
The NFP states, on page B-9, that “In order to make the finding that a project or management action ‘meets’ or ‘does not prevent attainment’ of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, the analysis must include a description of the existing condition, a description of the range of natural variability of the important physical and biological components of a given watershed, and how the proposed project or management action maintains the existing condition or moves it within the range of natural variability. Management actions that do not maintain the existing condition or lead to improved conditions in the long term would not ‘meet’ the intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and thus, should not be implemented.” The EA failed to explain how the Deadwood Allotment maintains the existing condition or moves it within the range of natural variability.
3. The Forest Service may not use mitigation to reach a Finding of No Significant Impact if there is any impact to the riparian reserves. The Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (WR-3) instruct the Forest Service: "Do not use mitigation or planned restoration as a substitute for preventing habitat degradation." NFP at C-37. The Preferred Alternative relies completely on mitigating riparian damage through a “monitoring” plan. RRNF can select Alternative 6 and avoid habitat degradation without a costly, unworkable monitoring plan.
4. According to the EA (p. II-16): “In Key Areas, where monitoring shows that ACS objectives are not being met and forage utilization standards are exceeded, management of cattle (i.e., movement and distribution) or adjustments in the numbers of cows or the season of use would be required.” The EA does not adequately explain how the monitoring would be conducted or provide assurances that funding is available for such monitoring. Furthermore, ACS violations are happening outside “Key Areas” and RRNF and the permittees have demonstrated an inability to maintain and restore all riparian sites within the Deadwood Allotment.
- According to the EA (p. III-4) “riparian communities are the most biologically diverse habitats within the five allotments.” Further, the page states “the quality of fisheries habitat is directly related to the health of the riparian community. Overhanging riparian vegetation provides escape cover for fish and amphibians, keeps summer water temperatures low through shading, and reduces streambank erosion…”
The Forest Service states (EA p. III-5) that riparian areas can recover hydrologically if they are allowed to rest and if they have not been too severely damaged.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy can be met by choosing Alternative 6. Otherwise RRNF is simply providing for varying degree and locations of ACS compliance yet site-specific violations of ACS Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,7,8, and 9 are still occurring in riparian areas throughout the allotment.
6. RRNF must meet the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy at the site-specific and basin-wide scale.
Water Quality
1. Note the State of Oregon’s official definition of water pollution:
Such alteration of the physical and chemical or biological properties of any water of the state, including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, silt or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance into the waters of the state, which will or tends to, either by itself or in connection with any other substance, create a public nuisance or which will or tends to render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or legitimate beneficial uses or to livestock, wildlife, fish or other aquatic life or the habitat thereof.
2. Clean Water Act Best Management Practices, specifically W-8, state that Management by Closure to Use is acceptable. The objective is “to exclude activities that could result in damage to either resources or improvements resulting in impaired water quality.” Further, it states “Closures are made when the responsible line officer determines that a particular resource or improvement needs protection from use.”
3. Under the CWA, specifically for livestock grazing, cattle must be managed properly to: a) prevent trailing and trampling of streamside vegetation; b) prevent utilization from exceeding the standards; c) prevent repeated use during the growth stages of plant development; and protect, maintain and improve existing riparian vegetation.
4. Alternative 6 (no grazing) is absolutely the best alternative to for water quality. Referring to water quality, the EA states that Alternative 6 “is the least impactive relative to impacts from grazing” (p. IV-4). The Preferred Alternative depends completely on a “monitoring plan” to meet state and federal water quality standards. The EA failed to adequately describe how this monitoring plan would work on the ground and be implemented. The duty of RRNF under NEPA is to provide the public with an opportunity to make informed comments.
5. Nonpoint sources of pollution may be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Specifically for livestock grazing, cattle must be managed properly to: a) prevent trailing and trampling of streamside vegetation; b) prevent utilization from exceeding the standards; c) prevent repeated use during the growth stages of plant development; and protect, maintain and improve existing riparian vegetation. Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Dead Indian Creek, North Fork Little Butte Creek, South Fork Little Butte Creek are listed as “Water Quality Limited” due to excessive water temperatures. Grazing increases stream temperatures by removing streambank shading and promoting channel widening. South Fork Little Butte Creek is also listed as “Water Quality Limited” due to sedimentation. Grazing along streams and in meadows allow erosion/sediment that is ultimately transported to South Fork Little Butte Creek. There is no Water Quality Management Plan in place for these listed streams. There should not be any grazing, as there is not a Water Quality Management Plan in place to avoid violations of the Clean Water Act.
Fisheries (including Coho Salmon)
1. There is an effect from grazing on fisheries and Coho salmon, a threatened species. The USFS should ensure that their management actions do not lead to “take” of Coho salmon. Due to the serious nature of this issue there should be formal consultation with NMFS specifically for the Deadwood Allotment. This is reinforced by the fact that part of the Deadwood Allotment area is in critical habitat for the Coho Salmon.
- Sediment impacts are considered in Environmental Analysis. Degraded conditions exist along streams and meadows in each of the Allotments. The erosion and sedimentation conditions in the Conde, Deadwood, and South Butte Allotments allow for sediment to be transported to South Fork Little Butte Creek.
- The effects of grazing on fish are clear: 1) Direct effects from cattle trampling on individuals… and on streambanks that cause bank degradation and fine sediment to enter the waterway; 2) Grazing and browsing on streamside vegetation, and thus inhibiting the growth and survival of riparian vegetation necessary for streambank stability, pool/riffle sequence formation and streamside shade; and 3) Compaction of riparian and meadow soils by livestock that changes the porosity and water retention qualities of areas that provide groundwater and surface water to adjacent streams.
Soils
1. One concern of with the Revised EA is that there is notably less soils analysis than the original EA. According to page 34 of the original Deadwood EA, “The Conde allotment consists of soil types that have a moderate, high or severe erosion potential and can produce moderate to high amounts of sediment. Twenty-six percent of the Conde allotment (RRNF portion) has a high, severe or very severe rating for erosion potential.” What is the erosion potential for soil erosion in all the allotments?
- What levels of soil compaction are frequent throughout the units? This key data should be included.
- Besides vague assurances that monitoring may prevent soil damage what steps will be taken to keep cattle away from sensitive or previously disturbed soils?
- As stated on p.35 of the original Deadwood EA, the soil and meadow conditions are severely degraded. “Meadow conditions within the allotments have changed substantially as a result of years of livestock grazing. Meadows have been grazed beyond established utilization standards and stream riparian vegetation has been eaten or trampled. Stream channels are often raw and exposed. Physically, this allows higher stream flows to erode the banks and leads to deteriorated channels with higher width-to-depth ratios. In some cases, stream channels have active headcuts that are advancing upstream in the meadows. Removal of streamside vegetation allows the streams to absorb more solar radiation causing an increase in water temperature. Soil compaction within the meadows has decreased their ability to absorb water from rainfall and snowmelt and contributes to higher peak flows during storm events and lower summer flows.” Further, p.39 of the 2000 Deadwood EA supports this with the statement that, “During 1999, heavy grazing occurred and most meadow areas were heavily used. Utilization standards were exceeded in many of the meadows in each of the allotments.” Clearly the best alternative for soil restoration is to select Alternative 6.
Botanical issues
- Clearly Alternative 6 is in the interest of botanical health and restoration. Removing cows from the allotment area will allow for rare species to recover and prevent further trampling and eating of plants by cows.
2. Species in particular risk of removal and harm in the allotment area include Sierra Onion, Howell’s Yampah, Quaking Aspen (sprouts killed), Drooping Bulrush, Ashland Thistle, Coville’s Lip-Fern, Calypogeia, and Blandow’s Feather Moss. The Forest Service may not take actions that lead to a trend towards listing for any of these species and must ensure that their populations will remain viable.
For the protection of rare plants Alternative 6 is the best alternative. The EA (p.IV-15) supports this recommendation: “Under Alternative 6, livestock would no longer affect these habitats and native plant communities in all wetlands, riparian areas, and meadows that have previously been altered by livestock would be free to recover to the extent that baseline conditions allow.”
4. Livestock must be excluded from Walch fen. That this rare place has been allowed to be severely degraded is offensive to the public trust. Deadwood Fen, Frey Creek/Fantail Spring, Imnaha Spring, and the Beaver dam colonies should all be excluded from livestock grazing pressure.
Noxious Weeds
1. Consumption of native vegetation and soil disturbance by cattle has caused severe noxious weed infestations throughout the allotment area. The primary cause of noxious weed problems in the Deadwood area is cattle grazing. Clearly the best alternative for noxious weed infestation is Alt. 6.
2. The original Deadwood EA states on p.49 that official ODA noxious weeds exist on the allotment. Most serious infestations- Spotted knapweed, Yellow Star Thistle, St. Johnswort, Bull thistle, Houndstongue. Spotted knapweed is very intense. It is an aggressive noxious weed that can spread 20 feet or more for a year. The plant produces a “chemical that keeps all other vegetation from growing and produces thousands of seeds that can remain in the soil for 20 plus years.” This situation needs to be remedied and future spread avoided. Alternative 6 is the best alternative to achieve these goals.
3. The effect of Houndstongue is severe and could impact wildlife. According to the original Deadwood EA, “Houndstongue is toxic; it causes liver cells to stop reproducing, animals may survive for six months or longer after they have consumed a lethal amount.”
Wildlife Concerns
1. In addition to the effects on the Klamath Mountain Steelhead and Coho Salmon, the Preferred Alternative “May Impact” many other Region 6 Sensitive Species. The Preferred Alternative “May Impact” the Northwestern Pond Turtle as livestock grazing tramples nests, breaks turtle eggs, compacts soils to prevent baby turtles from digging out of their nest, or tramples baby turtles traveling to their aquatic habitat. Furthermore, since turtles consume aquatic and terrestrial grasses and forbs (as do livestock), livestock use reduces available food for turtles. The Preferred Alternative “May Impact” the Spotted Frog as livestock grazing degrades their riparian habitat. There is also a “May Impact” rating for the Black Salamander, also dependent on riparian habitat that would be degraded with cattle grazing.
Two other “May Impact” determinations were found in the Biological Evaluation. These were for the California Wolverine and the Pacific Fisher. According to the BE (p.11) the “higher elevations of the project area contain suitable wolverine habitat, such as the Sky Lakes portion of the Imnaha Allotment.” Wolverines are dependent on natural riparian conditions that would allow prey species to increase in size and distribution. Livestock grazing prevents these natural riparian conditions from occurring. The effects are similar for the Pacific Fisher.
For all of the wildlife put at risk by the allotments, only Alternative 6 provides assurances of eliminating grazing impacts to these species by removing the cows. The Forest Service should not take actions, which may lead towards a trend towards listing or reduce the viability of populations of sensitive species.
2. Steps should be taken to protect all wildlife through adequate surveying and protection thereof.
3. As stated in the original Deadwood EA on p. 51, “Forested riparian areas are important for species dispersal (Machtans, et. Al., 1995), especially for smaller mammals and amphibians that cannot travel through large areas of non-habitat (Croonquist and Brooks, 1991). Several species of amphibians and reptiles are also dependent on wetland and riparian ecosystems. Good bank development, stabilized with vegetation, is essential in these areas because they are used as corridors for dispersal and genetic continuity between populations. Severe habitat disruption due to timber harvest and grazing can lead to isolated populations. Seasonal grazing in these ecosystems can limit tree and shrub regeneration that provides cover and forage for beaver, amphibians, reptiles and a variety of other wildlife.”
- The RRNF-LRMP requires a minimum of 20% thermal cover in Summer Range and 50% in Winter Range. The current condition on these five allotments meets or exceeds the minimum standard for thermal cover in the Summer Range. In Winter Range, however, only Deadwood Allotment meets the minimum standard. There is no elk Winter Range in Conde Allotment, and Lodgepole, Imnaha, and South Butte are all below the minimum standard.
Recreation/Sky Lakes Wilderness
Due to significant impacts from cattle grazing in the Sky Lakes Wilderness there should not be grazing allowed. The RRNF LRMP (p. 4-160) allows for livestock to be removed from wilderness areas when the “soil, water, recreation and wilderness resources are adversely affected.” Cattle grazing is continuing to have significant impacts on Three and Four Mile Meadow and areas along the Alta Lake and King Spruce Trails. The soil is being compacted and disturbed; water quality is being degraded; recreation conflicts exist with those wishing a non-polluted wilderness experience; and rare plant and wildlife species are also being affected within the wilderness by cattle grazing. Clearly, the public interest is to eliminate cattle grazing from the Sky Lakes Wilderness.
Monitoring Plan Concerns
1. As with the original EA, the revised EA fails to explain how increased monitoring will avoid violations of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The riparian concerns, the ACS violations, are not just occurring in the Key Areas identified by RRNF. Those Key Areas are subjected to ongoing violations but so do many other sites along numerous streams and wet meadows throughout the 84,318 acres of the Deadwood Allotments.
2. The Preferred Alternative states that the next three years of monitoring will establish trends, or to document the need for adjustments in capacity, numbers of head, or season of use. RRNF has documented numerous ACS violations and failures of the permittees to adequately monitor the cows to keep them out of riparian areas. There are no assurances, or a specific plan, for how cows will be kept out of riparian areas and avoid ACS violations. The only way to assure ACS compliance is to select Alternative 6.
Economics
- “Most environmental groups favor removal of livestock on federal land, placing more importance on the ecology of ranching than on the economics of ranching.” (EA p. III-31) The ecology of ranching supports selection of Alternative 6 yet the economics of ranching also supports Alternative 6.
Each permittee pays $1.35 per cow/calf pair per month to graze on public lands for the season. The General Accounting Office has concluded that the average private market rate for Western rangeland is at least $9.22 per cow/calf pair. The Deadwood Allotments range from 2-3 ½ month seasons, therefore the permittees pay as little as $2.70-4.73 per cow/calf pair. The Deadwood Allotments represent 47% of the cows that Rogue River NF allows on public land. Rogue River NF spent $104,000 on grazing costs in 2001 and had income from grazing fees of only $11,045. That is a taxpayer loss of $92,955 and this figure represents only direct costs from the grazing program and does not include grazing costs passed on to other agency programs such as recreation, fisheries, etc.
- “The cost to the government for administering livestock grazing permits on these five allotments under all Alternatives (1-6) is likely greater than the return from the grazing fees.” (EA p. IV-19) As the facts presented in #1 demonstrate, the costs to the government for administering these livestock permits WILL be greater than the return from the grazing fees.
- “In smaller communities, reductions in business and permittee economic activity could lead to reduced revenue for local infrastructure and services.” (EA p. IV-18). Public lands graziers frequently make the argument that their fees support the local economy because 25 percent of the fees come back to the county of origin for roads and schools. For the Deadwood allotments that would be $981.45 of $3,925.81 in fees paid by Deadwood permittees (based on fees paid in 2001).
- Subsidized grazing on National Forest lands place small-scale producers who operate on their own lands at a competitive disadvantage, creating costs in terms of lost revenues and jobs. While the Forest Service takes credit for creating jobs in the grazing industry, in many cases, the agency is simply displacing jobs that would otherwise be available for grazing cows on private land. “As a general rule, the ranching operation with a federal grazing permit is worth more and is more likely to succeed than a similarly situated ranching operation that does not possess a federal grazing permit.” (EA p.IV-17) The public land grazing permit artificially benefits the federal land grazier and puts the private land grazier at a competitive disadvantage.
- On National Forest lands, ecosystem service values dwarf the value of our National Forests for grazing permits. Present day economic valuation does not include the value of maintaining wild fish species, recreation, or the cost savings to municipalities who have reduced filtration costs because water from National Forests is so clean.
By law, the Forest Service must maximize the net social and economic benefits of its management programs for all Americans and fully account for the benefits of ungrazed forests and the costs of grazing in its grazing permit program decisions. If the Forest Service took ecosystem service values and externalities into account, it is likely that few, if any, grazing allotments could be justified on National Forest lands.
6. According to 16 U.S.C. § 1606: “It is the policy of the United States (a) forests and rangeland, in all ownerships, should be managed to maximize their net social and economic contributions to the Nation’s well being, in an environmentally sound manner.” It is also the policy of Congress that all national forest lands shall be managed “to secure maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management.” (16 U.S.C. § 1606 (d)(1))
Congress passed the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) (16 U.S.C. § 528-531) to establish the principle of multiple use on national forest lands, authorizing the Forest Service to administer national forests for a variety of uses including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish purposes. The MUSYA requires that decisions regarding appropriate land uses be based upon an analysis of the “relative values” of particular forest areas for these various uses (16 U.S.C. § 529) and that the combination of uses chosen “best meet the needs of the American people.” (16 U.S.C. § 531) Under MUSYA the Forest Service must complete a relative values analysis which demonstrates that grazing is the highest and best use of a particular forest area before issuing a grazing permit. Further, such an analysis gives “equal consideration” to the various uses and values: “One of the basic concepts of multiple use is that all of these resources in general are entitled to equal consideration.” (H.R. Rep. No. 1551, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, (1960), reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2377, 2379)
7. NEPA also directs the Forest Service, and other federal agencies, to develop environmental analysis procedures which “insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations.” (42 U.S.C. § 4332 (B))
8. There are creative opportunities available for buying out and permanently retiring grazing allotments. Discussions could take place between permittees, the U.S. Forest Service, and public supporters of buying out/permanently retiring any allotments. According to the EA this proposal was “received from some of the affected permittees”. (EA p.II-2)
“This alternative is infeasible and it is not in alignment with the Forest Service mission and various policies.” (EA p. II-3) This alternative is feasible and federal funds may be available through government conservation and land acquisition funds, from private organizations, and due to pending legislation. Researching this alternative is in the public and permittee interest.
9. Fencing is not a cost effective way to deal with riparian damage. In addition to often not working due to poor maintenance and snow/wind fences are prohibitively expensive. The Preferred Alternative proposes fences for selected ACS violations.
Under the Preferred Alternative RRNF proposes $107,500 in “Restoration” activities (EA p.II-17). This includes only $6,750 in actual spring/meadow restoration work and the other $100,750 is for fences (which usually don’t work), water piping, guzzlers, and corrals.
10. FLOW supports Alternative 6 due to the fact that “adverse impacts to ecosystem services that result from the presence of livestock would be eliminated, and other long-term adverse impacts of past grazing would gradually recover.” (EA p.IV-16)
Suitability Analysis
Forest Service regulations specify, “In forest planning, the suitability and potential capability of National Forest System lands for producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for management indicator species shall be determined…” (36 C.F.R. § 219.20)
Has RRNF actually determined if these lands within the Deadwood Allotments are suitable for cattle grazing? There is no record of such determination. Suitability is defined under 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 as “the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices.”
Summary
According to the EA the decisions to be made are:
RRNF Forest Supervisor must:
1) Select an appropriate strategy for each of the five allotments to be documented in an AMP-
Recommendation: Alternative 6
2) Decide whether the alternative selected would result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment, and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Recommendation: Alternative 6 would not require an EIS, Alternatives 1-5 would.
3) Decide whether the decision and alternatives considered meet all applicable federal, state, and local laws and policies, including consistency with the RRNF-LRMP, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan.
Recommendation: Alternatives 1-5 will violate a number of laws and policies including the NFP, RRNF-LRMP, NFMA, and NEPA.
Thank you,