1. FLOW has monitored the ecological health of all of Oregon’s Wild and Scenic Rivers since we began our operations as an Oregon nonprofit corporation in the summer of 2001. In this process we have reviewed current management plans or draft plans for all of Oregon’s designated rivers and river segments. The most common failure of these plans is to not recognize the requirements of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (NWSRA) to create a protection and enhancement-based management plan to guide the decisions. The NWSRA charges that "each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System will be administered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration, primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its aesthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic, and scientific features." We are pleased that the Upper Klamath Plan/DEIS recognizes natural resource enhancement/restoration as the overriding goal of river management. Our following comments will focus on elements of Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, with recommendations for improvement.

2. The identification of ORVs should be accompanied by a detailed plan aimed at protecting those values and providing management direction to which all other planning efforts and agency actions must comply. The BLM has correctly identified the leading threats to the ORVs of the Upper Klamath River. These are manipulation of flow from hydropower operations affecting the riverine habitat and off-road vehicle use impacting terrestrial habitat.

3. The most important decision in choosing which alternatives will be analyzed in an EIS is what "reasonable alternatives" are available for public review and comment. NEPA strives for broad range of alternatives to foster informed decision-making and full public involvement.

We are encouraged by the alternatives prepared by the BLM for the Upper Klamath. We strongly support, with limited modifications, selection of Alternative 3 (the Preferred Alternative). The voters of Oregon intended for the Upper Klamath River to be managed for its natural values and cultural history.

4. The standard to consider the mitigation of adverse impacts was not applied. The FEIS should include the means to mitigate adverse environmental effects and disclose the effectiveness of mitigation measures in minimizing adverse effects. There was no documentation to mitigate impacts identified in Environmental Consequences section.

The FEIS should contain mitigating measures consistent with the "hard look" it is required to render under NEPA. "Mitigation must be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated."

5. We support the decision by the BLM to restrict public use of the trail system to hiker only. In addition, we support the measures under Alternative 3 with respect to reducing the impacts of the present road network. We encourage the BLM to take steps to adequately close access to areas that are being impacted by off-road vehicles and erosion sensitive areas.

6. The Record of Decision must be contingent on an adequately funded and scientifically sound monitoring plan.  Monitoring is a non-discretionary legal requirement in all of the major laws pertaining to land management. Key items to monitor include the effects of hydropower flow variations on river ecology and the impacts of off-road vehicle use (legal and illegal) within the river canyon.

7. The BLM should adequately explain and consider the concept of "carrying capacity". Please consider the management directions outlined in the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Guidelines" published in the Federal Register on Sep.7, 1982. These guidelines were set forth to give a more detailed interpretation of the NWSRA.

Carrying capacity is defined as the quantity of recreation use, which an area can sustain without adverse impact on the outstandingly remarkable values, and free-flowing character of the river area, the quality of recreation experience, and public health and safety. Studies will be made during preparation of the management plan and periodically thereafter to determine the quantity and mixture of recreation and other public use which can be permitted without adverse impact on the resource values of the river area. The carrying capacity being redefined may produce different results than the existing data.

According to these guidelines "public use may be controlled by limiting access to the river, by issuing permits, or by other means available to the managing agency through its general statutory authorities."

8. FLOW and the RGSC support the designation of Segment 1 of the Upper Klamath as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. In addition to resource reasons identified in Appendix I of the DEIS, the area’s designation as an ACEC will bring further consistency to river management within the designated stretch of the Upper Klamath on the Oregon side.

9. On p.23 the DEIS states "PacifiCorp has submitted a map to the BLM that identifies parcels of their land to be considered for possible land trade, acquisition, or a mutually beneficial land management arrangement." In the FEIS it would be helpful to the public if these lands were identified to help the public understand the need for acquisition. Once resource values have been assessed the public should be given a chance to comment on the adequacy of these findings.

10. According to the DEIS, p.29, "Off-highway vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails within the Klamath River ACEC; however, some unauthorized or illegal travel off of designated routes occurs, especially in Segment 2 by full-sized vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and motorcycles." Without consistent regulations and clearly posted signs and means of enforcement off-road vehicle problems within the canyon will continue. Our field reconnaissance identified off-road vehicles as the most significant environmental impact (besides fluctuating flow levels) adversely affecting outstandingly remarkable values within the river canyon. As off-road vehicles use the canyon area legally and illegally new impacts are occurring. The final river plan should set up a mechanism whereby off-road vehicle access routes can be closed. Enforcement and signing for off-road vehicles to stay on the existing road system is severely lacking in the river canyon. New road closures that take effect should also be clearly signed as off-limits to off-road vehicles.

11. FLOW and RGSC strongly support the River Plan’s protection of cultural resource values. The richness of cultural history within the planning area is truly remarkable and should benefit and educate future generations.

12. According to page 36 of the DEIS, "Due to their location and/or condition, some road segments may be contributing to resource degradation. Damage to cultural sites has been documented both along the river and elsewhere in the canyon. Noxious weeds may be dispersed by vehicle traffic and road maintenance activities. In areas of poor drainage, on steep grades, and near stream crossings and riparian areas, road use may be causing sediment contributions, enhanced runoff, or damage to vegetation and soils. The 2001 road inventory documented no sites with obvious resource damage (in this case, meadow damage or braided roads) in Segment 1, 21 sites in Segment 2, and 12 sites in Segment 3." We encourage the BLM to ensure that all of these sites are returned to normal functioning. In the FEIS additional specific measures should be included so the reader understands specifically how each site of resource damage will be protected.

13. All of the respective sections of the DEIS did an adequate job of describing the impacts to the riverine environment from hydropower operations associated with the J.D. Boyle complex. Both FLOW and RGSC are ensuring that our comments and participation is heard in the upcoming FERC Relicensing process. The Final River Plan should concisely state the impacts from current hydropower operations and identify specific mitigating measures for impacts or requirements to avoid adverse impacts.

14. It is important that findings regarding the impacts of hydropower operations are described in adequate detail. The DEIS does an adequate job of describing the impacts (dewatering of side channels, fluctuations of water temperatures, reductions in quality of aquatic habitat/vegetation). The Final River Plan/FEIS should go into at least as much detail and explain the impacts of hydropower operations. This will set the stage for reference to the River Plan in the upcoming FERC Relicensing process.

15. FLOW and RGSC members had 2 reconnaissance field trips to the Klamath River Canyon in advance of preparing these comments. The primary issue we identified were also identified by the DEIS in adequate detail. This was very encouraging to both organizations membership. For future management concerns and monitoring both organizations will help monitor the conditions of the canyon environment. Our focus will be on impacts from hydropower operations and off-road vehicles.

16. We support the goals and actions listed on p.161 of the DEIS concerning cattle grazing within the canyon. These allotments were leased in the mid-1990’s according to the DEIS and this specific grazing interest in the canyon does not pre-date designation of the Klamath River as a National Wild and Scenic River. FLOW and RGSC supports the proposed River Plan’s removal of cattle grazing from the Klamath River canyon. Our respective membership will also do field reconnaissance in the future to ensure that cows are not able to access the river canyon.

17. Page 241 of the DEIS does an adequate job of stating the benefits of "run of the river" mode of operation for the J.C. Boyle Complex. In the Final River Plan these benefits should be clearly delineated to "make the case" in the upcoming FERC Relicensing process that a "run of the river" mode is the best option for restoring river ecology.