Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan Appeal Issues and Responses Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area March 2011

Transcription

1 Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan Appeal Issues and Responses Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area March 2011 Appellants Appeal Number Roy and Debbie Griffiths (RDG) Sustainable Travel International (STI) Steve Watrous (SW) Appellant s Statement 1: Appellant states there is no limit to the number of mountain bikers that may use the trails, thus creating a situation with insufficient parking that results in safety issues for an already unsafe and, at times, impassible road. RDG at 1. Appellant also states that use of this area and the subsequent parking of vehicles in the winter cause a safety hazard because snow plows cannot plow properly because people are parking on Atwood Road. RDG at 1. Response: I find the Responsible Official considered current and anticipated use levels and impacts from mountain bikes and designed parking to safely accommodate that use. I also find the Responsible Official considered that Courtney Road and Atwood Road are Klickitat county roads. In an EA, the Agency conducts scoping to determine if any issues regarding the effects of the proposed action exist (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) (12.42)). In the case of the Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Recreation Plan (Project), the Area Manager determined that an issue existed regarding the lack of parking areas in the planning area that caused congestion, specifically on Courtney Road and Old Highway 8. EA at 11. In the EA, the Responsible Official considered that there are no formal trailheads or parking areas in the planning area. This results in congestion along Courtney Road and impacts adjacent and nearby private land owners in the form of trespass. Parking is proposed at the junction of Hwy 14 and Courtney Road to alleviate part of the concern. EA at 20, 27, and 28. Parking was not considered at this time at the junction of Courtney Road and Atwood County Road because of private land concerns and the perceived usefulness of this parking area. EA at 27. The Scenic Area will continue to work with the County to implement appropriate signing and user education. EA at CFR 220.7(b)(3) states that in an EA, the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives shall be described in terms of context and intensity. The impacts from mountain bikers were considered throughout the EA at 78, 103, 105, 107, 108, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 126, 128, 131, 132, and 233. Mountain bike use was eliminated on some trails in the Catherine Creek area, while other trails have seasonal closures to protect resources. EA at 128. Trails were also designed or re-designed to reduce speeds, helping to limit user conflicts and resource Page 1 of 5

2 damage. EA at 131. The EA recognized that the Forest Service has no jurisdiction over county roads, but would work with Klickitat County to resolve issues regarding safety, shoulder parking and signage. EA at 11, 12, 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 36, 62, 130, 131, 132, and 233. The Responsible Official chose an alternative that provides for parking at the junction of Hwy 14 and Courtney Road, protects private land owners property, and allows the Forest Service to work with Klickitat County to provide for safety, shoulder parking and signage. DN at 4, 5, and 8. Appellant s Statement 2: Appellant states that increased use by user groups (mountain bikes and shuttle riders) at the west end of Atwood Road is causing resource damage. Appellant requests a seasonal closure to protect the resources. RDG at 1. Response: I find the Responsible Official considered sensitive natural resources (soils, water, flora, and fauna) in relationship to the existing condition of non-system trails. The proposed action and alternative to the proposed action help protect those sensitive resources. Scoping, a process used to surface issues, is required under 36 CFR 220.4(e)(1). During scoping, the Agency determined that development of trails and recreation activities may impact sensitive natural and cultural resources. As such, the proposed action and its alternative both incorporate mitigation measures and project design features to minimize impacts to these resources. EA at 41 and 42. Additionally, 36 CFR 220.7(b)(3) states that in an EA, the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives shall be described in terms of context and intensity. The EA documents the impacts from mountain bike users who ride loop trails and mountain bike users that drive to the top of the trail and ride down (shuttling) at 11, 12, 18-20, 24, 27, 28, 36, 40-42, 63, 77, 78, 84, 85, 88, 89, 103, 105, 107, 108, , and 131. The Responsible Official also responded to this concern during scoping, stating the Forest Service does not currently prohibit shuttle riders, but if additional resource impacts occurred, the possibility of discouraging this type of use would be considered. EA at 220. Mountain bike use was eliminated on some trails in the Catherine Creek area, while other trails have seasonal closures to protect resources. EA at 128. Trails were also designed or re-designed to reduce speeds, helping to limit user conflicts and resource damage. EA at 131. In his decision, the Responsible Official chose the alternative that would provide protection to sensitive natural resources that does not require a seasonal closure for mountain bikes. DN at 4, 6, 7 10, 11, and 15. The monitoring provisions identified will determine if the decision is effective at protecting resources and, if not, how to adapt management so adequate resource protection occurs. DN at 6 and 15. Page 2 of 5

3 Appellant s Statement 3: Appellant states that fire danger has not been properly addressed. RDG at 1. Response: I find the responsible official recognized that risk of fire is high in this area and acted in accordance with current policies regarding public use restrictions of fire. The responsible official addressed this comment during scoping by stating that the Forest Service is addressing fire resilience on federal lands with the Burdoin Mt. and Catherine Forest Restoration projects. EA at 202. FSH directs the responsible official to identify cause and effect relationships (issues) that are expected to result from a proposed action, thus highlighting unintended consequences or effects that may occur. Once issues are identified, alternatives to a proposed action or mitigation can be proposed to reduce or eliminate the unintended consequence. CEQ regulations direct the agency to reduce paperwork by deemphasizing issues that do not highlight unintended consequences. 40 CFR (g). During scoping (a process used to surface issues) for this project, no cause and effect relationship between this project and fire danger was identified that would have led to an alternative course of action for this project or the development of any mitigation measure that could be implemented. While the responsible official did note that he recognized that there is a high fire danger in the area, no actions being proposed were highlighted by the public that were thought to increase fire danger. As a result, no alternatives or mitigation were developed. Although no alternatives or mitigation measures were developed regarding fire danger, the world wide website for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area hosts a page dedicated to fire information and fire safety. During periods of high fire danger, public use restrictions are posted on the web page and in closure areas, thus lessening the risk of human caused fires occurring by all users, including user groups who might recreate in this recreation area. Therefore, because there are current administrative actions that can be taken to reduce the fire danger at the time that it occurs, I find that no other policies or procedures need be taken by the responsible official in order to reduce the risk of fire in this area. Appellant s Statement 4: Appellant states that a comprehensive environmental and economic impact analysis has not been undertaken. STI at 1. Response: I find that a comprehensive environmental analysis was completed for this project and that an economic impact analysis was not necessary. 36 CFR 220.7(b)(1) states that the Agency must briefly describe the need for the project in an EA. For this project, the stated need is to identify and establish an approved, environmentally sustainable trail system that resolves associated issues and concerns. EA at 9. Page 3 of 5

4 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) generally requires the Agency to analyze the effects of the proposed action on the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. 36 CFR The analysis should address factors which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision. 40 CFR Finally, in preparing an EA, Forest Service implementing regulations require that the agency analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 36 CFR In considering economics, a cost-benefit analysis may be prepared to discuss the relationship between that analysis and any analyses of unquantified environmental impacts, values, and amenities. The analysis comparison need not be displayed in monetary terms and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations. FSH (22.32). In the case of this project, the recreation analysis focused on recreation use, and disclosed both qualitative and quantitative assessments of recreational uses and patterns. EA at In addition, the Responsible Official was guided by the Management Plan for the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area which included a comprehensive economic analysis that was used in the development of Part 3, Chapter 2, Economic Development. EA at 7. This information sufficiently informed the Responsible Official of the potential for use of the area and the potential for impacts to scenic and cultural resources. Neither the public or Forest Service identified economics or impacts to local economies as an issue in this project. An economic analysis is not needed to provide sufficient evidence and analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, impacts in terms of context and intensity, or direct, indirect or cumulative impacts. For evidence of the Responsible Official s rationale, see the EA at 11, 12, 18-20, 24, 27, 28, 36, 40-42, 63, 77, 78, 84, 85, 88, 89, 103, 105, 107, 108, , and 131. Appellant s Statement 5: Appellant states that they are appealing the project because there are no documented user conflicts. STI at 1. Response: I find the Responsible Official did document user conflicts and recognized conflicts or potential conflicts between recreational user groups. This was identified as an issue by the public. Scoping, a process used to surface issues, is required under 36 CFR 220.4(e)(1). The effects section and scoping comment section of the EA documents several examples include trail conflicts between mountain bikers and pedestrians; trail conflicts between the equestrian user group and all other user groups; and dog owners and non-dog owners. EA at 12, 22, 28, 36, 43, 124, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 196, 198, , 204, 205, 208, 209, 221, and 236. An alternative to the proposed action was developed to further address user conflicts. EA at Ultimately, the Responsible Official chose the alternative that best addressed user conflicts, while protecting sensitive resources. DN at 7. Page 4 of 5

5 Appellant s Statement 6: Appellants state that dogs harassing deer in the Burdoin and Coyote planning area during the proposed "off leash" period is well documented and illegal under both federal law (36 CFR 2.15) and Washington State law (RCW , , & ); as such, a FONSI cannot be supported. Appellant asserts that this is not new information and has been noted in writing to both Mr. Harkenrider and others in his office on numerous occasions. SW at 1. Response: I find the Responsible Official considered allowing dogs in the area in a variety of manners throughout the analysis (on-leash, off-leash, and a mix of the two). The Responsible Official fully recognized that there are private residences in portions of the area, wildlife and special resources throughout, a variety of users (hikers, bikers, horseback riders), and various types of landscapes. He understood that whether dogs should be on leash only or allowed to run but be in voice control is a difficult issue. DN at 10. The analysis addresses dogs in numerous places, including the EA at 12, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 44, 101, 103, , , 158, 177, 178, 180, 184, 185, ; specialist s reports (wildlife BE/Appendix A), response to comments, DN and FONSI at 2, 3, and 10. In addition, the analysis did consider input from individuals, groups, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Project Record at Section C). Appellant s assertion that the proposed off-leash period is illegal under 36 CFR 2.15 is incorrect; the referenced CFR applies only to National Park Service managed lands, not Forest Service lands. For the Forest Service, an area must be specifically closed to dogs running at large for there to be a violation. 36 CFR Appellant s assertion that the proposed off-leash period violates Washington State law is noted. However, a review of the Revised Code of Washington citations provided by the appellant documents that unlawful use of a dog occurs if the dog is not prevented from pursuing or injuring deer, elk, endangered species, or destroying a nest of a game bird. As documented in the decision, this project requires dogs to be leashed in order to protect these resources during mating/nesting season. DN at 10. Therefore, I find the Responsible Official s decision to be compliant with federal regulations and with Washington State law. The Responsible Official chose to protect wildlife and resource values from further degradation by allowing dogs in one portion of the area with an on-leash requirement during parts of the year, then allowing off-leash other parts of the year. In another location, full-time leashing will be required year round. This decision recognizes the needs and desires of pet owners who have always recognized the National Forest as a favorite place for their pets. DN at 10. Page 5 of 5

6 Forest Service Colville National Forest Headquarters Office 765 South Main Colville, WA Fax: File Code: 1570 Date: March 30, 2011 Route To: Subject: To: Appeal Reviewing Officer Recommendation, Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Recreation Area Plan Regional Forester, R6 This memorandum documents my recommendations regarding the disposition of the appeals on the Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall, and Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan Environmental Analysis and Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. I have enclosed a summary of the appellants issues, along with a short description of my findings. The appeal review was conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 215 and regional procedures. I recommend affirming the decision made by the Responsible Official. I have reviewed the project documentation provided by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and considered the appellants issues. The decision documentation is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan, and the Gifford Pinchot Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. I believe the project analysis adequately supports the decision and is consistent with law and policy. Specifically, the decision includes actions to establish a multi-use non-motorized trail system totaling 19.7 miles in length; authorize parking, kiosks, and other support facilities in the planning area; determine dog use in the area; and, provide seasonal closures to protect natural and cultural resources. These actions are needed to help manage user created trails, reduce user conflicts and provide an environmentally sustainable trail system that resolves resource concerns. The individual appellants include Roy and Debbie Griffiths, and Steve Watrous, and the group Sustainable Travel International. Their issues they raised included ensuring safety on two county roads; requesting seasonal closures for resource protection; concerns regarding fire danger; concerns about ensuring a comprehensive analysis was complete; doubt about user conflicts; and concern about dogs harassing wildlife. After reviewing the appeal record, I recommend that the requested relief be denied and the Responsible Official s decision be affirmed on all points. Enclosed with this memo are my responses to each appeal issue. /s/laura Jo West LAURA JO WEST Forest Supervisor Enclosure cc: Debbie Anderson, Bradley Paul It s Cool to be Safe Printed on Recycled Paper

7 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 333 SW First Avenue PO Box 3623 Portland, OR File Code: 1570 Date: March 30, 2011 Mr. Steven G. Watrous CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN 1012 SE 125th Ave RECEIPT REQUESTED Vancouver, WA NUMBER: Dear Mr. Watrous: This constitutes my decision, pursuant to 36 CFR 215, on your appeal of Area Manager Daniel Harkenrider s Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall, and Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan Environmental Assessment. I received your dated March 24, 2011, in which you withdrew appeal point #2 as listed in your February 16, 2011, appeal. You also stated you were not withdrawing appeal point #1. As such, I have considered the appeal record for the project and the recommendations of the Appeal Reviewing Officer. The Appeal Reviewing Officer focused her review on the appeal record and issue #1 as raised in your appeal. A copy of her recommendation is enclosed. A review of the decision documentation indicates that consideration was given to relevant, sitespecific issues raised in your appeal. I find that the Decision is in compliance with law, regulation, and policy, and there is no indication that the Decision should be withdrawn. I affirm the Responsible Official s decision and deny your requested relief. This decision constitutes the final administrative determination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is not subject to further administrative review. Sincerely, /s/ Dale L. Hom (for): CALVIN N. JOYNER Acting Regional Forester, R6 Enclosures cc: Lynn K Oliver, Daniel T Harkenrider, Debbie Anderson, Bradley Paul Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper