QLG DIALOG ON RANGE ISSUES
I. Community Stability Proposal Statements That Are Of Concern Among Some Range Permittees
Community Stability Proposal (CSP) Item 2 - In order to promote forest health we believe that three ecosystem management strategies must be implemented simultaneously:
i. Silviculture- group selection and single tree selection
ii. Implement Fire and Fuels management objectives recommended in CASPO Technical Report.
iii. "in order to protect fisheries and watershed health a network of riparian habitats and a watershed restoration program must be established throughout those areas managed for uneven-age structure. The initial emphasis should include increases in Forest Service to restore appropriations for improvements in range management and road maintenance to restore and protect riparian areas. (emphasis added)
The CSP elaborated further to say: "Riparian systems protection during timber harvest activities will be provided by implementation of the Scientific Analysis Team's (SAT) guidelines. Grazing allotment renewal plans will include financing and provisions for restoration and protection of these riparian networks." (emphasis added)
II. Discussion and Statements Related to Range Permittee Concerns extracted from meeting notes
July 5, 1993 meeting
During discussions at Coates Tire office when developing the CSP, Bill Coates specifically said "we want to hold the rancher harmless".
August 9, 1993 meeting
Todd Swickard expressed concern for riparian protection areas. Questioned how it will impact livestock grazing?
Bill Coates said that the group is "sensitive to riparian areas rather than manage one species at a time. Establish Ecosystem Management across the landbase. Don't want to put permittees out of business. The statement in the CSP provides for Forest Service funding for fencing and riparian restoration."
Lenny Gallegos said that "cattle interests need to be considered". Linda Blum said she had questions on What is the effect of cattle grazing on prey habitat. It needs to be studied. What are the food chain impacts? Rose Comstock questioned Linda, asked how connected?
Fred Mallory "Managing in a manner of high intensity-short duration grazing. Work with the permittee in management."
Holly George asked question about 300 foot protection zone.
Ed Murphy said that 300 foot zone is no harvest zone unless condition is not in desired state for maintenance of anadromous fisheries. He also said that "SAT guidelines don't state no management; they encourage it".
Someone asked who bears cost of fencing Forest Service or permittee?
Michael Jackson said that the timber industry has recognized the importance of the riparian zone and decided to get in front of the curve and take SAT.
Jerry Spurlock expressed concerns for fencing.
Fred Mallory Request to get together with environmentalists.
J. Spurlock has questions on Biological Survey (Dept. of Interior monitoring effort)
Mike Kossow pointed out that when McClellen Canyon was being discussed those involved felt that it was best to work with the Cattle Industry.
John Redd suggested specific language maintaining access to cattle.
B.Coates suggested that if riparian areas removed then grazing fiber is removed, then suggested a committee to review CSP and recommend how to improve it to address needs of Permittees. Holly George to chair Range Permittee Committee.
August 30, 1993 meeting at Plumas County Library, Quincy.
Range Permittee Committee submitted suggested modifications to the QLG CSP.
The changes were as follows:
QLG - CSP Summary (Bullet list)
Editor's Text conventions: strikethrough means to
deletetext, underline means to add text.
5 iii.) A program of riparian management must be implemented including
wide appropriateprotection zones and an active site specific restoration effort.
In the elaboration of the QLG CSP concepts Item c on page 2 the Permittee Committee made the following suggestion:
c) Riparian systems protection during timber harvest activities will be provided by implementation of the Scientific Analysis Team's (SAT) guidelines. Grazing allotment renewal plans will include financing and provisions for restoration and protection of these riparian networks. Recognize that restoration and protection efforts need to be site specific.
Discussion of the Committee's work resulted in no changes to the original wording of the QLG -CSP. It was the intention of the QLG to have it be site specific management.
February 7, 1994 meeting at Catholic Community Hall, Loyalton.
Wally Roney had questions on SAT guidelines.
M.Jackson said SAT standards apply and that they include grazing. He said that we are not nearly as far along with grazing as we are with timber. Timber industry (QLG) is OK with SAT standards. We told Gary Lempke (?) that the grazing issue is not resolved.
B.Coates said that we don't want permittees dinged economically. He said that there appears to be concern for words and how they may be interpreted. He said he wants to start with heart to heart discussions.
T.Nelson said that silvicultural treatments will improve range conditions.
Linda Blum said that she is working with QLG on timber issues and that she is overwhelmed already.
B. Coates established standing Range Permittee Committee with W. Roney as chair. Committee to include Roney, Tony Madelena, Ken Wemple, Harry Reeves, Mike Kossow, Leah Wills and Brian West. Committee to reexamine SAT guidelines, develop white paper and F. S. budget concerns.
March 28, 1994 meeting at Fair Board Room, Quincy
B. Coates noted that the "Communities aren't on edge with range community as we are with timber issues" but don't shut off the debate.
W. Roney said that he wanted to get items of concern on the table and maybe procedure should be focus.
M. Jackson moved to table grazing discussion. 2nd by J. Redd.
E.Murphy asked does grazing need to be under QLG?
S.Baremore said that she has questions on grazing issues, she needs more information.
Mark Shaeffer suggested having the QLG table the range issues but have the QLG facilitate communication.
M. De Lasaux asked what does table the issues mean for clarification? Tables means a resting period for individuals to move forward.
W. Roney requests a list of concerns.
III. California Spotted Owl Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Quincy Library Group sought a broad base of support in its effort to fund the development of a comprehensive response to the DEIS. Concern that the QLG is a "timber only" consensus effort was expressed by Lassen County that resulted in withdrawing previously pledged funds and redirecting them to Cheyenne Attorney Karen Budd-Falen to develop a Lassen County response to the DEIS.
The Lassen County Board felt that the DEIS response should address issues related to cattle grazing.
In the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section of the DEIS discussion related to Riparian and Aquatic Systems (page 3-136), Question 14 asked "How will humans continue to interact with the aquatic and riparian ecosystems within the Sierran Province?" Response: The EIS is developing policy for human interaction with the Sierran landscape in regard to vegetation manipulation, prescribed fire, fuels reduction. New policy relating to other interactions with the landscape-- including recreation, mining, grazing, domestic water use, agriculture water use, commercial water use (springs), wildlife water developments, range water development, and the application of herbicides, pesticides, rotenone, and other chemicals -- is not proposed in this assessment (emphasis added).
April 11, 1995 meeting in Sierraville
Paul Harris quoted W. Roney as stating at a Lassen County Board of Supervisors meeting that the "QLG views the Cattlemen as zero or very low priority."
Claud Neely (Supervisor Lassen County) stated that to the Cattlemen "the bottom line is that the QLG cut them out".
One Member's Perspective (Susan Baremore)
The grazing issue was tabled for the following reasons:
It was the second situation that caused the tabling, but the motion to "table" included a statement to the effect of "table" until the grazing issues as they pertain to the QLG proposal can be better identified, explained and otherwise calmly discussed. Further discussion included the recommendation that the grazing issues might best be developed in the CRMs and RCDs, and that the discussions should include cow-friendly enviros like Mike Kossow. (This recommendation has not occured despite Kossow's attempts to promote positive discussion.)