Deduct Pond Trail Link Categorical Exclusion Appeal Issues and Responses Walla Walla Ranger District Umatilla National Forest April 2010

Transcription

1 Deduct Pond Trail Link Categorical Exclusion Appeal Issues and Responses Walla Walla Ranger District Umatilla National Forest April 2010 Appellant Appeal Number Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC) Appellant Statement 1: Appellant asserts that the purpose and need is overly restrictive. HCPC at 4. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official identified an appropriate Purpose and Need given the scope of the project. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations provide direction for identifying the purpose and need: The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action. 40 CFR Also, the Forest Service Manual (FSM) on environmental policy and procedures specifies that the Responsible Official shall establish the scope of the analysis. FSM (1). In this case, the Responsible Official identified a need for users to legally and easily access two existing trails. Decision Memo (DM) at 1. This satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Responsible Official also expanded the purpose and need to offer a clearer picture of the purpose and need for the proposed action in response to comments from HCPC. See Project Record Item 17, District Response to Public Comment. Appellant Statement 1a: Appellant states that numerous non-motorized recreationists submitted detailed concerns to the Forest Service, which were poorly addressed. Appellant asserts that the Forest Service failed to adequately respond to the concerns of HCPC or the public. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official adequately involved the public for the purposes of this project. I also find the Responsible Official properly addressed concerns brought to its attention. Forest Service NEPA procedures state: The responsible official shall notify interested and affected parties of the availability of the EA, FONSI and decision notice, as soon as practicable after the decision notice is signed. 36 CFR (d). 1

2 The Responsible Official followed NEPA procedures regarding public involvement and comments outlined in 40 CFR 1506(6) and 36 CFR The Forest Service solicited and considered comments on the preliminary DM. Responses are included in Project Record Item 17, District Responses to Public Comment. Appellant Statement 1b: Appellant believes the Forest Service must analyze the proposed motorized loop trail in an Environmental Assessment (EA). RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official used the appropriate level of documentation given the scope of the action. CEQ regulations allow Federal agencies to exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) categories of actions that DO NOT INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on the human environment , Ch. 30. Routine circumstances and categories that may be excluded from a detailed analysis in an EA or EIS appear in 36 CFR These are referred to as Categorical Exclusions (CE). One CE in particular applies to construction or reconstruction of trails. 36 CFR 220.6(e)(1). The Responsible Official selected the proper CE given the scope of the project and the activities proposed. The Responsible Official documented his decision citing the lack of extraordinary circumstances on page 2 of the DM. The resource reports (Project Record items 12a-12f, 13, 14, 15, and 16) also support this decision. Appellant Statement 1c: Appellant states that numerous non-motorized recreationists have submitted detailed concerns to the Forest Service, which were poorly addressed. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official adequately addressed non-motorized recreation opportunities and the effects implementing this project would have on users of the area. OHV use is allowed on National Forest System lands within designated areas, which are explained in the Umatilla National Forest (UNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The UNF prepared an EA in 1993, which identified roads and trails that are available for use by the public. See Project Record Item 36, Decision Notice District Access and Travel Management Plan. This decision provided closed roads for nonmotorized use, closed areas to cross country travel, and designated cross country ski, horse, hiking, and mountain bike trails. All trails are open to hiking on the Walla Walla Ranger District and wilderness trails are also available for non-motorized recreation. This new trail is a link between two existing mixed use trails. There have not been any documented safety issues on the existing trails and safety issues are not expected in the future. See Project Record items 9 (Legal Notice of Decision), and 17 (District Response to Public Comments). 2

3 Appellant Statement 2: Appellant states that NEPA requires disclosure of connected actions and prohibits segmentation of actions. HCPC at 6. Appellant states that the cumulative impacts of these actions have never been studied by the Forest Service and that the proposed action would connect these existing trails to form a very large loop trail. Appellant states that the proposed Deduct Pond Trail Link and the existing North and South Fork Walla Walla trails are connected actions that must be analyzed together by the Forest Service in deciding whether to prepare an EA or an EIS. HCPC at 7. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official applied the appropriate level of analysis for the scope of the activities. This project does not meet the criteria for connected actions. Connecting existing trail systems is not a segmented action and is not dependent on any other project or activity. See 40 CFR 1508 and 36 CFR 220. The criteria for connected actions are: 1. Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. 40 CFR (a). In addition, the Responsible Official followed the appropriate level of analysis for consideration of past, present and foreseeable effects in accordance with the CEQ guidance memorandum as outlined in the Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.4(f). It states: CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. 40 CFR

4 The project record contains resource reports that document consideration of past present and foreseeable activities. See Project Record Item 12, Project Description and Resource Clearances. Appellant Statement 3a: Appellant states that the Forest Service must consider how the project is likely to increase use of the entire trail loop. HCPC at 7. Appellant asserts that a loop trail system has the potential to draw more motorized usage and is guaranteed to change riding behavior. HCPC at 8. Appellant states that the proposed action opens trails to Class I ATVs, whereas only Class III ATVs were previously permitted. HCPC at 8. Appellant cites the UNF s recreation trail website, which states that the South Fork Walla Walla Trail is not suitable for three or four-wheeled ATV s and they are not recommended; Vehicles over 40 are prohibited beyond the junction with Trail #3223. HCPC at 8. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official considered the potential this project has for increasing use on the trail loop and addressed the possibility for changes in riding behavior. This decision does not change the restrictions on Trail #3225 (South Fork Walla Walla Trail). The Responsible Official identified that Oregon Class I and Class III users currently like to ride the loop up the South Fork Walla Walla, down the North Fork Walla Walla and out. See Project Record Item 7a, Project Description. However, there is a need to provide a legal link for users. This project will not create any new motorized access to trails. The link is joining two trails that have historically been open to this type of motorized use. See Project Record items 17 (District Responses to Public Comments), 9 (Legal Notice of Decision), and 13 (Fisheries Report). Closure order # has not been modified by this decision. See Project Record Item 35, 2001 Closure Order. Trail 3225 will not be open to Class I ATVs, and the information provided to the public via the UNF website continues to display this information. Only the newly constructed links will be open to Class I ATVs. See Project Record items 17 (District Responses to Public Comments), and 15 (Soils Clearance). Use is currently estimated at six trips per week, May through October. See Project Record Item 16, Wildlife BE. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that the amount or type of use will change as a result of this decision. Appellant Statement 3b: Appellant asserts that the UNF must seek certification from the state under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that discharges from route construction, maintenance, or use comport with water quality standards. Appellant also asserts that the CWA requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-point sources that would result in water quality violations if they were not controlled, with which the Forest Service must comply. Also, that a federal agency may not allow an activity that contributes to the violation of a state water quality standard or fails to comply with a TMDL. HCPC at 10. Appellant asserts that the Forest Service has failed 4

5 to disclose ATV stream crossings, the current condition of those water bodies, and how new ATV routes and changes in volume of ATV vehicles will impact water quality. Appellant states that a new loop system with potentially dozens of stream crossings needs to be analyzed in an EA or EIS. HCPC at 10. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official considered compliance with the CWA through use of BMPs. This discussion appears on page 2 of the DM. It is the responsibility of the Forest Service, through implementation of the CWA, to protect and restore the quality of public waters under its jurisdiction. Protecting water quality is addressed in several sections of the CWA, including sections 303, 313, and 319. BMPs are used to meet water quality standards (or water quality goals and objectives) under Section 319. Current statewide water quality standards are expected to be met through the development and implementation of water quality restoration plans, best management, practices and aquatic conservation strategies. Under the current Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), to meet state and federal water quality rules and regulations, Forest Service responsibilities include management of NFS lands to protect, restore and maintain water quality so that Federal and state water quality laws and regulations are met or exceeded to support beneficial uses. In order to meet these responsibilities the Forest Service will implement site specific BMPs as specified in the Forest Service R6 General Water Quality Best Management Practices document, and standards and guidelines in forest plans and amendments to these plans. The Service will also review existing BMPs and adjust them as necessary to ensure that water quality improvement in the event effectiveness monitoring indicates the BMPs are not achieving water quality standards. The Service will work with DEQ to evaluate and/or develop BMPs by updating the Forest Service R6 General Water Quality Best Management Practices document. Appellant Statement 3c: Appellant states that the project does not sufficiently protect water quality and endangered fisheries, particularly for the bull trout. HCPC at 11. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official considered the protection of water quality through CWA compliance (see response to Statement 3b). Effects to endangered fisheries also were considered and, based on the fisheries BE, there is no effect to Region 6 sensitive or ESA-listed species associated with implementation of this project. DM at 2. Under Forest Service Manual (FSM) , the objectives for completing BAs for proposed Forest Service programs or activities within Forest Lands are: 1. To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward Federal listing of any species. 5

6 2. To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions of Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species. 3. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. FSM 2600, Section (Supplement ), provides direction on the review of actions and programs authorized, funded or implemented by the Forest Service relative to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The fisheries biologist states in the BE, The entire route is very high in the watershed, almost on the watershed divide, and distant from perennial streams and [m]ost of this area was logged a few years ago, probably with a cut-to length, harvester-forwarder type of equipment and I observed no erosion in the yarding routes, so it seems unlikely that construction of a motorcycle trail across the hillslope would cause erosion beyond the actual trail itself, and even that would probably be minimal, and the sediment would be trapped quickly by vegetation and other surface roughness after leaving the trail surface. The biologist concludes, [s]ite conditions and the distance from fish-bearing streams should assure that implementation of this project would have no effect whatsoever on Region 6 Sensitive or ESA listed fish. As demonstrated, the Responsible Official demonstrated water quality would be protected and there will be no effect to bull trout as a result of this project. Appellant Statement 3d: Appellant states that the entire motorized loop system that the project creates is within riparian areas and that the Forest Service failed to take the required hard look of the proposed action on riparian areas. HCPC at 12. Appellant states that the Forest Service failed to analyze the potential detrimental impacts on Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) from changes in motorized dispersed camping and firewood harvesting. HCPC at 13. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official appropriately considered the impacts of the proposed action on riparian areas and RHCAs. Standards and Guidelines associated with riparian areas come from the Forest Plan and the Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding Of No Significant Impact for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California, February 24, 1995 (PACFISH) direction. The LRMP Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Areas include: C5 RIPARIAN (FISH AND WILDLIFE) Goal 6

7 Maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a high level of potential habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife within the designated riparian habitat areas while providing for a high level of habitat effectiveness for big game. Description The management area is applicable to all designated riparian areas associated with Class I, II, and III streams, including adjacent floodplains and wetlands as shown on the management area maps. Riparian goals from PACFISH establish an expectation of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas and associated fish habitats. The PACFISH Standards and Guidelines apply to Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 streams. This project has no riparian areas associated with the LRMP. There are three small riparian areas on Category 4 streams (seasonally flowing or intermittent streams) associated with the existing road system that would be within PACFISH riparian areas. Standards and Guidelines associated with PACFISH riparian areas include For each existing or planned road, meet the Riparian Management Objectives and avoid adverse effects to listed anadromous fish (RF-2). Protection of riparian areas is addressed in FSH , Ch. 60: Road Maintenance. The roads with intermittent stream crossings associated with this project are Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads that maintain drainage structures as needed to keep structures functional and prevent unacceptable environmental damage. The fisheries BE states: The entire route is high in the watershed, almost on the watershed divide, and distant from perennial streams. It crosses two swales, but neither of them shows any channel formation at or near the crossing sites, and there is no evidence of soil erosion or sediment deposition. Project Record Item 13, Fisheries report. Therefore, I find the Responsible Official has adequately demonstrated that riparian areas are protected. Appellant Statement 3e: Appellant states that detrimental soil disturbance can result from off-road vehicle activities and can produce unacceptable levels of soil degradation by compacting, moving, eroding, or puddling the soil. HCPC at 13. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official considered the impacts associated with detrimental soil disturbances associated with this project. Response to Statement #3c discloses the likelihood of potential sedimentation. Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan include: 7

8 SOIL Plan and conduct land management activities so that reductions of soil productivity potential caused by detrimental compaction, displacement, puddling, and severe burning are minimized. C5 RIPARIAN (FISH AND WILDLIFE) Within 250 feet of all streams and wet areas associated with streams, limit the mineral soil exposed by ground-disturbing activities to 10 percent of the project area. F4 WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED Limit ground-disturbing activities within 250 feet horizontal distance of all streams, and wet areas associated with streams, to no more than 10 percent of exposed mineral soil per unit or project area. There is no new trail construction or reconstruction within 250 feet of any stream or wet area (using the National Hydrography Dataset), so there is no new exposed mineral soil within the area described for soil disturbance in the Standards and Guidelines for C5 Riparian or F4 Walla Walla River Watershed. Appellant Statement 4: Appellant asserts that the FS failed to analyze the effects of the project on potential Wilderness. HCPC at 13. Appellant states that the proposal would damage or disqualify possibly eligible wilderness (as in the case of any newly designated routes in roadless areas). Appellant states that the project would connect a motorized trail system that extends up the majority of the North Fork and South Fork Walla Walla Rivers on Forest Service lands. Most of this area is within the Walla Walla River IRA and this action essentially severs the Walla Walla IRA into three areas separated by motorized trails. HCPC at 14. Appellant states that because the Forest Service has been clear that no final decisions have been made and that additional areas may be recommended for Wilderness, the Walla Walla River IRA needs to be managed in a way that permits a fair evaluation of its Wilderness potential. Appellant states that at the very least, the impacts of a proposal that would create a motorized loop trail throughout the IRA on the Wilderness Potential of the area should be analyzed. HCPC at 15. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official appropriately applied criteria for evaluation of potential wilderness at the project level and it is consistent with those guidelines. FSH , Ch. 70, section 71.1 outlines the criteria to be applied to meet the statutory definition of wilderness. The area contains less than 5,000 acres, therefore criteria 1 does not apply. Criteria 3 cannot be used because the area contains forest roads. See Project Record Item 17, District Response to Comments, at 2. Therefore, the Responsible Official does not need to go further in evaluation of potential wilderness. 8

9 Appellant Statement 5a: Appellant states that the Forest Service failed to analyze effects of the motorized loop trail on the Walla Walla River IRA. HCPC at 15. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official analyzed effects of the project on the Walla Walla Inventoried Roadless Area at the proper context and intensity. The record shows that the project does not contain any IRAs, which are identified in the Appendix C of the Forest Plan. See Project Record Item 17, District Responses to Public Comment, at 2. Also, the DM states there would be no adverse effects to roadless areas. DM at 2. Further, the Forest Plan addresses effects related to adjacency on page C83 (Status of Roadless Area), page C-85 (Opportunity for Solitude and Primitive Experience), as well as Resource Potential. The effects of the project are well within parameters discussed in the Forest Plan. Appellant Statement 5b: Appellant states that the Forest Service failed to analyze the old-growth associated species that could be negatively impacted by this proposal, including effects to the Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Northern Goshawk. Appellant states that the entire loop proposal is within or near the most significant riparian habitat in the area and any changes in motorized use could result in the decline in already stressed wildlife populations. Appellant states that an in-depth look at the impacts of this proposal on old-growth dependent species has not occurred. HCPC at 16. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official adequately addressed effects to old-growth associated species and management indicator species (MIS). Based upon the evaluation and documentation of the wildlife biologist s conclusion, there were no effects to MIS, which include old-growth dependent wildlife species such as pine marten and Pileated woodpecker. See Project Record Item 12d, Project Description and Resource Clearances, Wildlife; and DM at 2. There would be no removal of live, green trees as a result of new trail construction (Project Record-7a), which indicates old growth habitat would not be adversely affected. See Project Record Item 7a, Project Description. The Forest Plan summarized old growth MIS in Table 4-7 at Forest plan consistency was stated in the DM. Appellant Statement 6: Appellant states that the Forest Service failed to analyze effects of the motorized loop trail on the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area. HCPC at 16. Appellant states that the project will involve motorized trail construction and designation of new motorized trails in very close proximity to the boundary of the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area, and that engine noise, propagation, and natural soundscapes were not analyzed. HCPC at 16. 9

10 RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official appropriately analyzed the effects of the project on the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area. See Response to Statement 3a. Appellant Statement 7a: Appellant states that this project threatens to increase and alter motorized use patterns between the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area and the North and South Fork Walla Walla River drainages, decreasing connectivity for wildlife in this critical linkage area. Appellant states that by permanently establishing a motorized loop trail in an area that is critical for wildlife movement, this project threatens to permanently degrade wildlife habitat throughout the entire North and South Fork watersheds. HCPC at RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official analyzed wildlife movement and connectivity at the proper scale. Based upon information provided by the wildlife biologist, the Responsible Official concluded the proposed project would not interfere with wildlife movement across the ridge. Furthermore, the most likely places for wildlife crossings have been mapped. See Project Record Item 16, Wildlife BE. The BE addressed the intent of the Regional Foresters Amendment #2 on providing connectivity for wildlife movements. In addition, the recommendations of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Position Paper regarding Off-Highway Vehicle Management on Public Lands were followed. See Project Record items 17 and 4 (Project Description and project area map). Based on the discussion above, the Responsible Official concluded wildlife movements between the North and South Forks of the Walla Walla River and the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness would be affected. Appellant Statement 7b: Appellant asserts that the Forest Service has failed to include a discussion of [p]ossible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned. HCPC at 20. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official appropriately considered other Federal, regional, State, and local tribal concerns for the area. The wildlife biologist reviewed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife position paper and found that the project is consistent with all 25 of its recommendations. See Project Record items 17 (District Response to Public Comments), and 16 (Wildlife BE). In addition, the appropriate level of government to government consultation occurred with the affected tribes. See Project Record items 8c through 8e (Correspondence with Tribal Governments). Appellant Statement 8a: Appellant asserts that the FS failed to prepare an adequate biological assessment for ESA-listed species. HCPC at 20. Appellant states that the 10

11 Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in delineating the analysis area within which effects of the project on listed species, such as steelhead and bull trout, was considered. HCPC at 21. Appellant states that the BE is deficient because of the overly narrow definition of action area, which resulted in the exclusion of certain relevant impacts from the environmental baseline. HCPC at 21. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official performed the appropriate level of analysis for aquatic resources. There would be no effects to listed species based on field reconnaissance, which determined the trail route was high in the watershed and distant from water. See Project Record items 13 (Fisheries report), and 12 (Project description and resource clearances) at 5. The Forest Service followed BE procedures as required in FSM A determination of no effect was stated in the fisheries report with rationale provided. The fisheries biologist completed a thorough assessment with field reconnaissance of the entire route and determined it was high in the watershed and adequately far from streams. Appellant Statement 8b: Appellant states that the project area and the motorized loop it establishes is within large unroaded potential wilderness quality forests, is adjacent to extensive wilderness and roadless habitat favored by wolves, and includes connective habitat identified by the OCS. Appellant states that the project threatens to decrease connectivity and result in unknown levels of unauthorized trail proliferation throughout the Walla Walla River IRA, and increase the damaging effects of motorized vehicles to riparian corridors. Appellant states that preparation of an EIS is essential to accurately addressing potential impacts of the proposed project upon these ESA, State of Oregon, and regional species of concern. HCPC at 22. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official, adequately analyzed the effects to the gray wolf and its habitat. Based on the wildlife biologist assessment, a determination of No Impact to gray wolf was made and the likelihood of disturbance to wolves is low. See Project Record Item 16, Wildlife BE, at 1. As addressed in the response to Statement 7a, wildlife connectivity would not be impacted and movements between wilderness areas would not be affected by the trail. Riparian corridors were addressed in the response to Statement 3d. The response to Statement 1b addresses concerns related to the level of documentation. Appellant Statement 9a: Appellant states that under NFMA and the implementing regulations, the UNF is required to manage wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of MIS. Appellant states that the UNF is ignoring the plain language of the FSM because it did not Evaluate the cumulative effects of proposed management activities on habitat capability for management indicators. Appellant states that a quantitative analysis of habitat is needed because the Project would create a new significant disturbance in the form of noise and increased visitor activity. Appellant states that a thorough cumulative effects analysis of project impacts on species such as 11

12 Rocky Mountain Elk, Pileated woodpecker, Pine Martin, Primary Cavity excavators, northern goshawk, and summer steelhead is necessary. HCPC at 23. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official followed the FSM for evaluating effects for MIS. Response to Statement 5b outlines the adequacy of the MIS documentation of effects. Because the finding was for no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Also, the response to Statement 3a finds there is no documented evidence there would be additional effects from the combination of the trails. As such, the Responsible Official is consistent with NFMA and the implementing regulations. Appellant Statement 9b: Appellant believes that the project is not consistent with the LRMP because an analysis of the significance of adverse effects on sensitive species populations, their habitats, and on the viability of the species as a whole was not completed in violation of NFMA and the LRMP. HCPC at 23. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official applied the appropriate level of analysis and correctly determined lack of significance for the project. A BE for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species was completed and is on file in the project record. See Project Record Item 16, Wildlife BE. It determined No Impact to affected Sensitive species and therefore there were no effects associated to them from the implementation of this project. The Decision Memo also correctly identifies lack of extraordinary circumstances and lack of significance. DM at 2. Therefore, the Responsible Official s actions are consistent with NFMA and the Umatilla National Forest plan. Appellant Statement 9c: Appellant states that impacts to elk from ATV use, as evidenced in research by Wisdom, undermines the Forest Services conclusion that this project falls within categories of actions which does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and can therefore qualify for categorical exclusion. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official conclusions regarding effects to elk are appropriate. The Forest Plan identifies elk as a MIS. Forest Plan at 2-9. The Project Record discloses a No Effect determination for those species. Project Record Item 12, Project description and resource clearances. Therefore, a CE was the appropriate document for this type of project. Appellant Statement 10: Appellant states that the North Fork Walla Walla Trail provides access to designated old growth stands and that the establishment of a loop trail will increase use and likely lead to more illegal trail proliferation. Appellant states that these unmapped roads are typically user-created, unauthorized routes created by firewood 12

13 gatherers or users of OHVs and that the Forest Service has not considered the effects of increased motorized use or the opening of the trail system to Class 1 vehicles on old growth stands and snags that are easily accessed on the trail system. Appellant states that this is a failure of the Forest Service to fulfill its commitment to take a hard look at these critical resource factors. HCPC at 24. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official took a hard look at designated old growth stands and fulfilled his commitment to all relevant critical resource factors. The response to Statement 3a discusses the amount of riders as a result of connecting two existing trails. The response to Statement 12 discusses law enforcement. Because the assumption is the use would not appreciably change, and appropriate law enforcement is in place, there would be no further effects to designated old growth to discuss. Appellant Statement 11: Appellant asserts that the Forest Service has failed to analyze the impacts of the motorized loop trail system on non-motorized recreation and thus has failed to ensure that non-motorized forms of recreation will be safe and enjoyable in this area in the future. HCPC at RESPONSE: The Responsible Official adequately addressed non-motorized recreation opportunities and the effects implementing this project would have on users of the area. OHV use is an allowed recreation use on National Forest System lands, within designated areas, as set forth in the Forest Plan. The UNF prepared an EA in 1993 which identified roads and trails that are available for use by the public. See Project Record Item 36, Decision Notice District Access and Travel Management Plan. This decision provided closed roads for non-motorized use, closed areas to cross country travel, designated cross country ski trails and horse, hiker and mountain bike trails. All trails are open to hiking on the Walla Walla Ranger District and Wilderness trails are also available. This new trail is a link between two existing mixed use trails. There has not been any documented safety issues on the existing trails and safety issues are not expected in the future. See Project Record items 17 (District Response to Public Comments), and 9 (Legal notice of decision). Appellant Statement 12: Appellant states that the Forest Service has not addressed critical implementation and enforcement realities and that these realities must be addressed before damage is done to rare and fragile natural resources. HCPC at 25. Appellants state that the Forest Service should not designate a trail system that requires an enforcement budget and staffing that cannot be met. Appellants state that the Forest Service has provided no analysis of existing unauthorized trails in the area. HCPC at 25. In addition, appellant states that the UNF has completely failed to consider the realities of enforcement in this remote backcountry area. Appellant states that the UNF has not even begun to fulfill its obligation of taking a hard look at enforcement and monitoring realities throughout the proposed new motorized loop trail. HCPC at

14 RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official considered the implementation and enforcement realities of this project. As documented in the Project Record, the Responsible Official responded to concerns raised during the public comment period. The Responsible Official proposed 1,850 feet of new trail construction to provide a legal loop for Class I and III ATVs between the South Fork Walla Walla and North Fork Walla Walla trails. This new construction will link existing restricted roads that currently allow for this type of use. The Responsible Official agreed to continue to pursue individuals who engage in illegal activities on the UNF. See Project Record items 17 (District Response to Public Comments), and 16(Wildlife BE). The UNF works cooperatively with other agencies in the monitoring and enforcement of laws and regulations on National Forest System Lands. See Project Record items 23b (HCPC , ODFW OHV article) at 5-7. Additional signing and barriers will be placed to prevent encroachment on the Class I trails on the route. See Project Record items 17 (District Response to Public Comments), and 27 (Chris Howard letter). Appellant Statement 13: Appellant asserts that the UNF does not mention invasive weeds in the DM and has failed to take a hard look at the potential for a new motorized loop trail to spread invasive weeds. RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official addressed invasive plants at the appropriate context and intensity. The DM states, Noxious weed sites will be treated consistent with the 1995 Umatilla noxious weed decision notice and consistent with 2005 R6 Invasive Plant ROD that amended the Umatilla NF Plan in March of As such, the Responsible Official appropriately addressed invasive weeds in the project area. Appellant Statement 14: Appellant asserts that through the use of a CE, the Forest Service fails to examine the cumulative impacts of the Project on various forest resources (i.e., streams, wildlife, wilderness, IRAs, soils, and riparian areas). Appellant states it has documented impacts from motorized use on BLM lands that will only increase from this project, and that the Forest Service needs to consider the cumulative impacts of this proposal on adjacent lands, especially areas designated as high priority for conservation, such as this BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official considered all relevant information, including management of adjacent lands, and made an informed decision. The response to Statement 2 addresses cumulative effects and the appropriate level of consideration for past, present, and foreseeable actions. The response to Statement 3a highlights this project as a connection between two existing trails, and documents there is no evidence that the amount or type of use would change. The response to Statement 12 talks about partnerships with other agencies, including the BLM, in managing resources. 14

15 Appellant Statement 15: Appellant asserts that the Project is inconsistent with Executive Order 11644, and the Travel Management Rule. Appellant states that the Forest Service is not locating this trail in a manner that minimizes harm to watersheds, wildlife populations and habitat, and other forest resources. Appellant states that the Forest Service also has failed to locate this trail in a manner that minimizes conflicts between OHV use and other recreational uses. RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official is consistent with the Travel Management Rule and analyzed the trail system at the appropriate scale. He connected two trails to foster safe and efficient travel in a manner that minimizes harm to forest resources. The DM and Project Record include a discussion of each affected resource as it relates to route designation. Project Record Item 36 (Decision Notice District Access and Travel Management Plan) identifies the selected alternative in regards to access and travel management. It also identifies a minimum road and trail system to be opened or remain open for public and administrative use, as well as roads to be closed. The response to Statement 1c discusses how the 1993 Access and Travel Management Plan addressed other non-motorized uses. 15