
Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Appendix E – Response to Comments Results of the Comment Period The comment period for the environmental assessment resulted in the receipt of 525 comment letters, including 40 unique letters and 453 form letters, and 32 form letters that included additional information (“form-plus letters”). Comments were identified in these letters regarding issues and concerns raised by the author that are directly related to proposed project activities. These comments were then categorized according to the primary topics of their content. Within these topics areas, comments were grouped together and summarized along with similar comments. The interdisciplinary team then responded to these summary statements to address the issue or concern identified, or clarify where more information was requested. As you will see below, each topic area begins with this summary “concern statement,” followed by the Forest Service’s response, and then a table of the quoted comments as they appeared in submitted letters. If a comment was unique in its subject from any other comments, it was addressed individually. Any comments that provided substantive new information were considered and necessary revisions made to the environmental assessment and supporting documents or addressed in the draft decision notice. Literature provided in support of a comment that was not previously considered was reviewed by resource specialists and considered in their final analyses where applicable to the Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project. A table is included below which lists the names of commenters who submitted letters with a unique identifying number assigned to each commenter. Form letters are included once in this list with one identifying number, although form plus letters are uniquely numbered. All letters submitted during the EA comment period are available for review in the public reading room on the project website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52933 Quoted comments included in this response document are identified by unique comment number which is first the number of the letter submitted, and second a unique identifying number for the comment itself. Should commenters seek to find responses to their own specific comments, this letter number identifier can be used to search for where the Forest responded to their comments in this document. Finally, a table of comment topics is provided to allow for navigation to topics a reviewer may be interested in reading. Regarding the comment response topic numbers themselves, they are not intended to provide any prioritization for the topics discussed (the topics are randomly ordered) and are not continuous (some numbers are missing). These numbers were generated by the database used to process and analyze comments and do not represent any intention of the responders. Missing numbers do not mean that responses or comments are missing or not included. The environmental assessment (EA) referenced in this response to comments is the EA that was available at the time of its release for the public review and comment period unless it is identified specifically as the updated EA. 1 Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Commenters by Name, Organizational Affiliation (if provided), Letter Number and Letter Type Letter Name Organization Letter Type # Michelle Bienick 1 Unique Vickie Simmons Seiad Resident 2 Unique Debbie Taylor Seiad Resident 3 Unique Dustin Kuykendall 4 Unique Courtlandt Jennings 5 Master Form Andrew Schwarz Ridgeline Meadows Farms 6 Form Plus Patrick Ayres Seiad Fire Safe Council 7 Unique Sandra Baker 8 Unique Anon Anderson 9 Master Form Hannal Cate 12 Form Plus Cindy Cordova 15 Form Plus Jeff Davies 16 Form Plus Anon Ellis 18 Form Plus Kelley Harding 21 Form Plus Mark Harlings 22 Form Plus Patricia Hine 24 Form Plus Anonymous 25 Form Plus Anonymous 26 Form Plus Anonymous 30 Form Plus Andrea Anon 31 Form Plus Anonymous 32 Form Plus Michelle Lute 35 Form Plus Anon Meyer 37 Form Plus Ann Millhollen 38 Form Plus Lynda Pries 41 Form Plus Hallie Roberts 44 Form Plus Max Ha Sierra Pacific Industries 46 Unique 49 to 51 George Sexton KS Wild Unique and 69 Ian Nelson PCTA 52 Unique 53 Klamath Forest Alliance Luke Ruediger and Unique (Siskiyou Field Office) 56 Dominick DellaSala, Ph.D Geo Institute 54 Unique Luke Breit 57 Form Plus Gary Rainey Horse Creek Resident 58 Unique Kimberly Baker Klamath Forest Alliance 59 Unique 2 Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Letter Name Organization Letter Type # Christopher Lish 60 Unique 62 to Tom Wheeler EPIC Unique 65 Greeley Wells 66 Unique Gail Battaglia 67 Unique Casey Slezak 68 Unique Park Walker 70 Unique Georgina Wright 71 Unique Wendy Lawrence 111 Form Plus Doug Heiken 148 Unique Charlene Woodcock 176 Form Plus Bill Gardner 203 Form Plus John Livingston 213 Form Plus Nancy Schimmel 231 Unique Nuri Pierce 238 Form Plus Bojan Ingle 264 Form Plus John Rogerson 288 Unique Carolyn Ayres 316 Unique Bonnie MacRaith 368 Form Plus Tanya Marseille 435 Unique Lawrence Jimenez 437 Form Plus Tena Scruggs 453 Unique Jared Laiti 475 Unique N.D. Fenton 554 Unique Siskiyou Chapter Native Suzie Savoie 572 Unique Plant Society of Oregon Klamath-Siskiyou Native Suzie Savoie 573 Unique Seeds Roarke Ball 574 Unique Christie Nelson 575 Form Plus Mike Nelson 577 Form Plus Brodia Minter 578 Unique Skye McKnight 868 Form Plus North Coast Regional Fred Blatt Water Quality Control 1067 Unique Board 3 Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Table of Comment Response Numbers and Topics Comment Response #1: Support for prescribed fire and private property fuels treatment ............ 7 Comment Response #2: Activity Fuels Treatment ......................................................................... 8 Comment Response #3: Susceptibility of plantations to fire ........................................................ 12 Comment Response #4: Fish habitat and reproduction ................................................................ 18 Comment Response #7: Tribe, community, and stakeholder involvement .................................. 20 Comment Response #8: Abney Fire suppression activities .......................................................... 21 Comment Response #9: Water Board Waiver and Permits Required .......................................... 25 Comment Response #10: Legacy Sediment Site Treatment Effects ............................................ 27 Comment Response #11: Fire Regime Characterization .............................................................. 29 Comment Response #12: Natural Recovery ................................................................................. 32 Comment Response #13: Fuel Break Effectiveness and Feasibility ............................................ 42 Comment Response #14: Large versus small diameter fuel removal effects ............................... 42 Comment Response #15: Use of RAVG data for post-fire assessments ...................................... 45 Comment Response #16: Treat more area and in a timely manner .............................................. 46 Comment Response #19: Effects to Soil Stability ........................................................................ 47 Comment Response #22: Soil Effects Analysis............................................................................ 49 Comment Response #23: Implementation Costs versus Benefits ................................................ 50 Comment Response #25: Effects to Soil Compaction .................................................................. 51 Comment Response #26: Application of the Watershed Analysis ............................................... 53 Comment Response #27: Visual impacts of salvage near the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) ............. 55 Comment Response #30: Support for artificial reforestation ....................................................... 60 Comment Response #31: Hazard tree removal near the Pacific Crest Trail................................. 60 Comment Response #33: Large Woody Debris Removal ............................................................ 61 Comment Response #34: Bee Camp Road (47N80) should be closed ......................................... 62 Comment Response #35: Support for roadside hazard tree removal ............................................ 64 Comment Response #36: Hazard Tree Removal in Riparian Reserves ........................................ 64 Comment Response #37: Application of Hazard Tree Guidelines ............................................... 66 Comment Response #40: Too Much Large Woody Debris .......................................................... 67 Comment Response #41: Sale Administration Marking .............................................................. 67 Comment Response #43: Temporary Road Locations ................................................................. 68 Comment Response #44: Roadside Hazards in Cook and Green SIA.......................................... 69 4 Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Comment Response #45: Green Tree Harvest .............................................................................. 70 Comment Response #46: Salvage Harvest near Inventoried Roadless Area ................................ 72
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages199 Page
-
File Size-