NAME AND TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL

Transcription

1 Jim Pena, Regional Forester Objection Reviewing Officer, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service Attn Appeals and Objections P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR ed to: Objection of Oregon Dunes NRA Management Area 10 (C) Designated Routes Project DOCUMENT TITLE: Oregon Dunes NRA Management Area 10(c) Designated Routes Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project seeks to complete the designation and development of a comprehensive OHV route system within MA 10 (C) PROJECT LOCATION: Siuslaw National Forest, Central Coast Ranger District, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. NAME AND TITLE OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeremiah Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest. LEAD OBJECTOR: Cascadia Wildlands. REQUEST FOR MEETING TO DISCUSS RESOLUTION: Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Center for Biological Diversity hereby requests a meeting to discuss potential resolution of the issues raised in this objection. We also request to attend resolution meetings with other objectors. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED DECISION ADDRESSED BY THE OBJECTION: See six items described in the objection, starting on page 3 below. SUGGESTED REMEDIES THAT WOULD RESOLVE THE OBJECTION: Drop some reallocations and trail R3. Other suggested remedies are described below. DESCRIBE HOW THE OBJECTIONS RELATE TO PRIOR COMMENTS: All issues were raised in our comments, except for issues not described in the DEIS, such as part of A3. SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ACTION: See Issues numbers 1 through 6 starting on page 3 below. Cascadia Wildlands

2 In accordance with 36 CFR 218, this is an Objection from Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity and Oregon Wild, on the draft Record of Decision for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Management Area 10 (C) Designated Routes Project FEIS. The draft Record of Decision was made by Jeremiah Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor of the Siuslaw National Forest on September 17, A modified version of Alternative 4 was chosen. We submitted comments on the 10c DEIS on January 21, The DEIS included the following Alternatives: 1: No Action: Retain 34 miles of designated routes and 5,930 acres of open riding in 10B; 2. Proposed: Designate an additional 3.4 miles of routes and reallocate 234 acres from 10C to 10B; 3. Designate an additional 3.6 miles of routes and reallocate no acres from 10C to 10B; 4. Preferred: Designate an additional 2.1 miles of routes and reallocate 455 acres from 10C to 10B; 5. Designate an additional 2.9 miles of routes and reallocate 966 acres from 10C to 10B. The FEIS draft decision choose a modified version of Alternative 4: * Designate 2.3 miles of new trails beyond the 3-year window allowed in The Dunes Plan; * Reallocate 518 acres from 10C to 10B allowing more open riding; * Alternative 4 is also modified by: - adding 64 acres of a previously unanalyzed open riding area, A17 (north), - expanding A3 (north) from 6 to 28 acres, - reducing A16 (middle) from 132 to 109 acres. The Oregon Dunes is a critically important, unique habitat for plants and wildlife. The 1994 Oregon Dunes Plan says this is a rare and beautiful place. The uniqueness and variety of this extensive system of dunes, streams, freshwater lakes, wetlands, and coastal forests on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, make it a world-class attraction. The Oregon Dunes NRA is the most extensive and unique expanse of sand dunes along the Pacific Coast of North America. A variety of unique geologic features occur here including tree islands, huge parabola dunes, and oblique dunes, a formation found nowhere else in the world. 1 Wildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act found in the Oregon Dunes include the snowy plover nesting in open sand, the marbled murrelet and spotted owl nesting in upland forests, and coho salmon, which use lakes with outlets for rearing young coho salmon 2. The Oregon Dunes contains several globally significant plant communities 3 and at least five sensitive plants. 4 1 Oregon Dunes NRA Plan. Siuslaw NF. July 12, Page 1 and 4. 2 Oregon Dunes NRA Plan Oregon Dunes NRA Plan Glossary page 5. A plant community that is imperiled globally because of rarity (less than 20 occurrences) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. 4 Oregon Dunes NRA Plan Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 2

3 In 2003 botanists from Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 5 did a plant inventory 6 of the Umpqua Lighthouse State Park in the middle of the Oregon Dunes and the 10C EIS project area. As a result, they nominated several areas of the dunes as Oregon Heritage Sites. They found a number high quality, rare and important plant communities 7. They found the globally significant areas represent some of the rarest and most endangered plant communities in Oregon. 8 Large and intact examples of plant communities, like those found on the Dunes, are quite rare, with some ranked as threatened throughout their range 9 Some are only known from the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. They called this area a high priority for conservation. 10 In 1994 the Oregon Dunes Management Plan ordered large areas of these sensitive vegetated areas closed to cross-country motorized recreation. 18 years later the Forest Service has still not enforced this closure, even though in the interim, hundreds of miles of user-created motorized trails have since been created. The current acres designated to 10C are 4,455 acres and to 10B are 5,930 acres. In the FEIS modified Alternative Four, 518 acres, or about 12% of 10C protections would be lost to 10B as open riding areas. This is a significant change in the Dunes Plan. Issues Addressed in this Objection 1. Northern Part of A3 Should Be Eliminated We object to the portion of A3 that was never considered in the DEIS, but appears in the FEIS for the first time. It is slated to be transferred from 10C (closed to cross-country ATV use) to 10B (open riding anywhere). A3 only had 6 acres considered in the DEIS. The FEIS adds 23 more acres. In A3, the added 23 acres is mostly native vegetation. Table 29 shows it is over 77% native vegetation! 11 It also appears to contain wetlands. It is inappropriate to move, what could be a sensitive and rare block of native vegetation, into a cross-country riding area, especially without full disclosure and analysis for public comments in the DEIS. The expanded part of A3 was also left out of important analysis in the FEIS. For instance, Page 93 says that A3 is mostly European beachgrass. However, it is talking about the original 6-acre A3 proposed in the DEIS. Clearly, Table 29 shows this is not the case in 5 Jimmy Kagan and Susan Hawes, from the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 6 Natural Areas Assessment of the Umpqua Lighthouse Study Area for Vegetation, At-Risk Species, Natural Area Values, and Wildlife Habitats. Areas were classified according to the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center s vegetation classification, which is now part of the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). 7 An Inventory and Natural Areas Assessment of the Umpqua Lighthouse Study Area for Vegetation, At-Risk Species, Natural Area Values, and Wildlife Habitats. June Jimmy Kagan and Susan Hawes. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. Portland Oregon. Page 4. (Referred to as Oregon Heritage Study). 8 Oregon Heritage Study. Page 4. 9 Oregon Heritage Study. Page Oregon Heritage Study. Page C FEIS page 87. A3 Modified 4 is 50% Shore pine-sitka spruce/evergreen Huckleberry, 22% Hooker willow/slough sedge-pacific Silverweed, and 5% Slough sedge-pacific silverweed. Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 3

4 the expanded 28 acres. The FEIS failed to fully consider expanding A3. The FEIS (page 57) explains that the 23 acres were added to provide access to sand camps and to provide trail-riding experience. But the original purpose of the 6-acre A3 was to provide access to sand camps. The sand camps further to the north already have good access, and there are hundreds of acres already providing trail-riding experience. If the purpose is for trail-riding, the DEIS and FEIS could have considered trails through the vegetation of A3, instead of allowing all of the native vegetation to be destroyed by the cross-country allocation of 10(B). The FEIS states that Areas that are proposed to change to Management Area 10(B) are currently functioning as 10(B) 12 This is apparently wrong concerning the added portion of A3. The FEIS failed to fully consider the impacts of adding A3, or to justify its transfer to 10(B). These 23 added acres should be eliminated from the final decision. 2. A17 was not fully described in the FEIS A17 will add 64 acres to 10B, moved from 10C. A reallocation called A17 was never considered in the DEIS, and first appears in modified Alternative 4 in the FEIS. The FEIS failed to disclose the existing condition of A17, such the composition of the current vegetation or why A17 area has virtually no user-created trails already within it 13. A17 is not listed in Table 29 (page 87), describing Native Plant Communities within proposed reallocations. Table X on page 100 considers the effect of Alternative 4 on native plant communities. A17 is not included in Table X either. A17 was not included in Table 46, Soil Resources. Was A17 also left out of survey and manage and other important analysis in the FEIS? A17 is being moved from 10(C) to 10(B), for the purpose of trail riding through vegetation. Therefore, the FEIS could have considered trails through the 10(C) land allocation instead of changing the entire block to 10(B). Since there are no trails into the interior of A17 it is unclear how or if the Forest Service expects users to build the first pioneer where cross-country riding can take off from. Can riders use a chain saw, and if so, during what times of year? The FEIS states that Areas that are proposed to change to Management Area 10(B) are currently functioning as 10(B) 14 This does not appear to be the case with A17. Until A17 can be fully described and considered in the EIS, it should be dropped from the final decision C FEIS appendix A part 2, page See 10C FEIS figure 11, page C FEIS appendix A part 2, page 118. Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 4

5 3. Trail R3 is unnecessary The FEIS failed to explain a reasonable need for R3 in the Northern area, as there is already a designated trail (South Jetty A OHV Trail) connecting the open sand areas that R3 also connects. Additionally, R3 crosses the outlet of Cleawox Lake 15 causing direct impacts to riparian and aquatic habitat and fish. R3 should have been eliminated from the FEIS for this reason, and the fact that the Forest Service failed to provide a good reason to have two near-by parallel trails connecting the same areas. The FEIS Appendix A responds to this issue by saying the rational for R3 can be found in Table 26 of the FEIS. It says that R3: Contributes to a more comprehensive system by connecting open riding areas; relieves congestion in the South Jetty Hill riding area. 16 But neither the DEIS nor the FEIS documented there was congestion in the South Jetty Hill riding area, or that there was any problem that would be solved by putting two parallel trails connecting the same places. R3 has negative impacts. The FEIS says, page : Direct effects to fish can occur where new designated routes and rezones overlap with fish habitat. Proposed designated route R3 crosses the outlet of Cleawox Lake Direct effects to fish occur when OHVs drive through water occupied by fish. This mostly just disturbs the fish which can interfere with breeding, feeding, and sheltering. Direct mortality can also occur if fish get crushed under a vehicle s wheels. Sculpins, a bottom dwelling fish, would be more likely to suffer direct mortality than other species The FEIS also failed to describe the need to designate A7, near R3, as 10B. We fail to see the need for this reallocation along with two designated trails, especially since the area has been identified as problematic for fish and soils. Table 49, page 144 says of A7: Strict OHV mgmt. to keep Bear Lake access closed. This places additional burden on the Forest Service to implement Strict Management in this one area. A7 was also identified as causing trail incision and soil mobility (Table 47, page 139). A7 should be eliminated, especially if R3 is not eliminated. 4. Surveys for sensitive plants and lichens: Survey and Manage surveys should have been done in at least 3 kinds of areas: 1) suitable habitat areas with potential significant modification, such as vegetated areas that could be reallocated from 10C to 10B, 2) vegetated parts of the user-created trails that would become authorized trails, and 3) sensitive areas adjoining these new riding areas as they are under increased threat from new OHV incursions 17. The FEIS is unclear if all required habitat areas were surveyed. The FEIS says: C FEIS. page C FEIS page C FEIS. page 99. Invasive species such as Scotch broom, gorse, Portuguese broom, and a number of herbaceous plants could be expected to colonize areas along routes, potentially spreading from the trail and impacting nearby vegetation. Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 5

6 vascular plant, 2 moss and 10 lichen species were targeted for surveys, but No sites were located. 18 In the recent Riley Ranch project that designated a new trail through 10C, surveys revealed a rare lichen, Erioderma sorediatum, a species on the Survey and Manage list. This area is within the 10C FEIS project area, yet the Forest Service now says that no Survey and Manage lichens occur. This is conflicting data. The publication: Plant Associations of the Oregon Dunes (page 12) describes a high incidence of rare lichen species along the immediate coast in tree islands. How is it that the Forest Service found none? Plant Associations of the Oregon Dunes (page 20) also says: because old forests are rare in the dune sheet, the lichens occur instead on shrubs in these relatively long-lived seral plant associations, and also in mature stands of the Hooker willowcrabapple/slough sedge-skunk cabbage association (McCune et al. 1997). Did the Forest Service survey for lichens on shrubs? 5. Cumulative and Other Impacts The FEIS failed to consider the cumulative impact of all unauthorized trails. For instance, neither the DEIS nor the FEIS mapped the miles of user-created trails in land allocations other than 10(C). The bright yellow lines showing user-created trails suddenly stop at 10(F) and other sensitive areas,indicating there are no cumulative impacts of unauthorized trails were considered. The 1994 Dunes Plan DEIS did not consider the environmental impact of 135 miles of illegally created routes through 10(C), and this project didn t either. When will that disturbance be documented? Add to this the additional unauthorized trials through 10(A), 10(D), 10(E), 10(F), 10(G), 10(H), 10(J), 10(K), and 10(L). This FEIS assumes that 135-miles of unauthorized trails in 10(C) would be obliterated or allowed to revert naturally. The FEIS failed to quantify what damage was done, if the damage is fixable, or if permanent damage occurred. If the damage is fixable, how or when will restoration occur? The FEIS should have disclosed if obliterating or allowed to revert naturally is sufficient to halt the damage, restore the damage, or if the damage, such as erosion or spread of noxious weeds, would continue even after the trail is closed. We are aware of, and appreciate, the ongoing restoration projects in the Dunes. But what is the cumulative impact of needed restoration not being done in the near future, in the sensitive land allocations? 18 10C FEIS page 88. Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 6

7 All lakes and wetlands in the Dunes are riparian reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan. Riparian reserves overlay all other land allocations, such as administratively withdrawn lands, like the ODNRA. While the FEIS looked at the ACS in terms of the deflation plan and sand dunes, it failed to specifically address lakes that are being impacted by new trails and reallocations. 6. Roadless Rule The FEIS failed to identify which proposed areas and routes would be located within inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). The FEIS says, page 161: The 2001 Roadless Rule does not apply, because the Rule only prohibits the construction and reconstruction of roads We disagree. The Roadless Rule does apply because the Forest Service is proposing to designate 2-lane, 16 wide roads that will accommodate street-legal vehicles, including pick-up trucks, SUVs, Subaru s, 4x4 s, AWDs, and any vehicle that can drive on the designated routes. This meets the definition of roads. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits road construction in inventoried roadless areas except in exceptional circumstances. 19 The term road is defined as [a] motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. 20 The term trail is currently defined as a route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212.1). The FEIS incorrectly claimed (page 161) that:...the designation of motorized trails was tested in court (Umpqua Watershed v. USFWS, 2010) with the Riley Ranch Access project (USFS, 2009) and was found consistent with Road Area Conservation Rule. Umpqua Watersheds v. USFWS, 2010 did not find Riley Ranch road consistent with the roadless area rule. Instead, Judge Coffin found (page 7) that: as a matter of interest that the Forest Service's definition of trail - a route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail, 36 C.F.R (emphasis supplied), is reminiscent of the words of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll s classic Alice s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass: When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- nothing more nor less." 21 At oral argument, the government suggested that a trail invoked recreational use, while a road implicated the purpose of transport. Perhaps the regulation should be clarified to list the criteria that determine when a 14 foot-wide route becomes a "trail" as opposed to a road. Our DEIS comments asked that the mis-statement that the new Riley Ranch road was C.F.R (a) C.F.R ; see also 36 C.F.R Lewis Carroll, Alice s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass 188 (Penguin Books). Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 7

8 found consistent with the roadless rule should be corrected in the FEIS. The FEIS failed to do so, and simply repeated the mis-statement on page 161. We object to perpetuating this incorrect information. This concludes our Objection on the 10C FEIS. Sincerely Francis Eatherington Cascadia Wildlands P.O. Box Eugene Oregon, and Doug Heiken Oregon Wild PO Box Eugene OR and Noah Greenwald, M.S. Endangered Species Program Director Center for Biological Diversity Portland, Oregon Dunes 10C FEIS Objection Page 8