CERTIFIED RETURN 981 H Street, Suite 220 RECEIPT REQUESTED Crescent City, CA 95531

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: Date: January 10, 2008 Dohn Henion Del Norte County Counsel CERTIFIED RETURN 981 H Street, Suite 220 RECEIPT REQUESTED Crescent City, CA Dear Mr. Henion: On November 13, 2007, you filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) on behalf of the County of Del Norte pursuant to 36 CFR 215 of the Six Rivers National Forest District Ranger Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) approving Alternative 2, as modified of Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project Environmental Assessment (EA) that was signed on September 21, I have reviewed the entire appeal record, including your written Notice of Appeal (NOA), the DN/FONSI, EA, and supporting documentation. I have weighed the recommendation from the Appeal Reviewing Officer and incorporated it into this decision. A copy of the Appeal Reviewing Officer's recommendation is enclosed. This letter constitutes my decision on the appeal and on the specific relief requested. FOREST ACTION BEING APPEALED The decision will: 1) keep miles of system roads (OML 1 and 2), 2) remove miles of system roads from the system, 3) improve and add miles of non-system road as motorized trail or as system roads, and 4) not add miles of non-system road to the road system. APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER'S FINDINGS The Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) found that the District Ranger s decision failed to provide sufficient rationale for her decision to exclude motorized trails from the inventoried roadless areas. The project is in compliance with the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Smith River NRA Act, and Travel Management Rule, but is not in compliance with the 2001 Roadless Rule. The purpose and need for the project were clear. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

2 2 DECISION I agree with the ARO s analysis as presented in the recommendation letter. The issues in your appeal are very similar to those you raised in your comments on the EA. The record was inadequate to support the District Ranger s decision. All appeal issues raised have been considered. I reverse the District Ranger s decision to implement Alternative 2, as modified. My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR (c)]. Sincerely, /s/ Tyrone Kelley TYRONE KELLEY Appeal Deciding Officer Forest Supervisor Enclosure cc: Mary K Vandiver, ART Members, Linda J West, Brenda Devlin

3 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: Date: January 9, 2008 Subject: To: Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project Appeal No Six Rivers National Forest Tyrone Kelley, Appeal Deciding Officer I am the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer for this appeal. This is my recommendation on disposition of the appeal filed by Dohn R. Henion, County Counsel, on behalf of Del Norte County, appealing the Six Rivers National Forest Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project Environmental Assessment (EA) signed by District Ranger Mary Kay Vandiver. BACKGROUND Description of project Scoping - The Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions since Scoping document, including a copy of the Proposed Action and a map were sent to interested and affected parties, including three federally recognized tribes. Two public meetings were held. Additional public scoping was initiated on June 29 th and July 5 th, Twenty one written letters were received in response to public scoping. Based on public input, two issues were identified and carried forward in the analysis. Comments to the EA On January 11, 2007, the EA was mailed to 31 individuals or groups that had provided substantive comment during the scoping period or had expressed interest in receiving the EA for review. Timely comments were received from 71 people or groups (1 form letter with 40 signatures). Dohn R. Henion, County Counsel for Del Norte submitted timely comments, dated February 8, 2007, and has eligibility to appeal. APPEAL SUMMARY The legal notice of decision was published September 27, 2007; the deadline for filing appeals was November 13, The appeal was filed on November 13, 2007 and is timely. A informal disposition meeting was held on November 26, No resolution to the appeal was reached. Appellants request the following relief: 1) Withdraw the revised decision to adopt Alternative 3 and abandon the project, 2) Withdraw the revised decision to adopt Alternative 3 and order that the District conduct a new EA after collaborating with Del Norte County, 3) Alternatively, Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

4 2 withdraw the revised decision and reissue a decision selecting Alternative 4 to preserve access for recreation for the public. ISSUES AND RESPONSES Issue 1: The Agency failed to collaborate with Del Norte County as required by; 1) NEPA Regulations. 2) Del Norte County Ordinance. 3) Smith River NRA Act. 4) The Transportation Rule. Rule: Direction for coordination with affected Federal, State, and local agencies can be found within the following references: CEQ Regulations - 40 CFR Scoping (page 8) (a) As part of the scoping process the lead agency shall: (1) Invite the participation of affected Federal, State, and local agencies any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with the action on environmental grounds), unless there is a limited exception un (c). An agency may give notice in accordance with Subpart A Administration of the Forest Transportation System - 36 CFR Coordination with Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal governments. The responsible official shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, County, and other local government entities and tribal governments when designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System Trails, and areas on National Forest System lands pursuant to this subpart. (fed reg/vol 70. No 216, Nov 9, 2005/Rules and Regulation 68289) Application/Analysis: A review of the project record shows that the District Ranger consulted with Del Norte County throughout the process. As stated in the Environmental Assessment (pp ) and repeated in the Revised Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact (pp. 7-8), public involvement for this project began during the Smith River NRA Roads Analysis Process and OHV Strategy (NRA RAP/OHV). The public outreach for the NRA RAP/OHV included a news release sent out August 18, 2004; the Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy information package was mailed to respondents December 14, 2004 and included elected officials. The Road Analysis and OHV Strategy package was presented to Del Norte County Board of Supervisors and Del Norte County planning department (date: December 14, 2004). In addition public meetings were held in Crescent City on January 20, April 7, Letters were sent to interested parties on February 28, A legal notice was published in Del Norte Triplicate on March 2, 2005 requesting public comments on Roads Analysis and OHV Strategy by May 1, The RAP/OHV Strategy document was completed and mailed to those who provided comments, also posted on

5 3 internet. The recommendations in the NRA RAP/OHV were used to develop the proposed action for the Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project. The scoping process for the Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project continued with the listing on the Six Rivers National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions 2006, scoping documents were sent to interested parties including Del Norte County on July 5, Specific references to Del Norte County participation include: Del Norte County Board of Supervisors meeting agenda May 23, 2006, concerning OHV combined-use classification for County roads in Smith River National Recreation Area. Supervisor Sarah Sampels, Recommendation for Broad Action: Direct County Community Development Staff to work with California Highway Patrol, National Recreation Area staff, and others as needed to identify and designate county roads as combined-use roadways for OHV touring/access and street legal vehicles. Mentions Forest Service is nearing conclusion of their existing roads and trails in the Smith River NRA I am interested in a particular area that I have discussed and toured with Forest Service leadership and staff. In letter from County of Del Norte Board of Supervisors to District Ranger dated August 3, 2006, the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors commends the NRA for producing a document that would allow continued public access throughout the NRA. The letter also states The County has previously, in conjunction with a private recreation enthusiast and Road Division personnel, reviewed the draft maps and recommendations and submitted comments. Once again, staff has reviewed each road section shown on the draft map and compared it to the spreadsheets provided. The attached spreadsheets have been produced to specifically address road sections that continue to be important Environmental Assessment (January 2007) Appendix C: Response to Scoping Comments, references to Del Norte Board of Supervisors (BOS) pages 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, comment on specific road sections. On the advice of council, the Del Norte County Ordinance does not apply to Forest Service management decisions. A County Ordinance does not put requirements on a federal agency or subject a federal agency to any requirements under a county ordinance. Executive Order 1237 Intergovernmental review of Federal programs, including Section 401(a) of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C (a)), Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3334) and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code. Section 1. Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments. that would be directly affected, and Section 2 (b) Communicate with State and local elected officials as early in the program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.

6 4 Conclusion: I find that the level of collaboration between Del Norte County and the Forest Service were adequate and appropriate. Del Norte County was provided many opportunities to identify issues and provide comments, and Del Norte County took advantage of those opportunities. Del Norte County provided specific information related to access needs which were used in development of environmental assessment. Issue 2: Certain designated system roads were wrongly identified as nonsystem roads on the erroneous premise that they were user-created and thus not part of the designated system road network. Many such circa 1930s to 1960s routes are shown on pre-nepa agency maps and are by definition or reference system routes which may not be arbitrarily excluded from designation under the Travel Management Rule. Rule: Appellants cite a violation of the Travel Management Rule without specific section reference. (2005 Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212). Application/Analysis: Appellants provide no information supporting the assertion that some of the roads should have been classified as system roads other than the roads may date back to the 1930 s and have been variously shown on maps over time. The following roads were cited as examples: , A, , and In addition the point is moot. The District Ranger analyzed all routes, system (OML 1 & 2) and non-system, and applied the same set of Management Actions (RDN pg. 3, EA pg. 7). In the analysis, unclassified non-system roads were analyzed on the same need/risk ratings (EA pg. 19) as system roads. The Management Actions include a category for adding a desirable non-system road to the system as well as removing and decommissioning a road from the system. Therefore an initial listing as a non-system road is not relevant since the route was analyzed to the same degree as a system road and could have been added to the system if warranted. In fact four of the five roads cited in the appeal ( , , A, ) were analyzed for inclusion into the system as motorized trails in at least one of the alternatives. The decision to not include them in the system is based on the need/risk factors and not if the road was considered as part of the system in the past. No part of the 2005 Travel Management Rule suggests that legacy roads must be considered as a system roads. Section Criteria for designation of roads, trails and areas states in subpart (a) the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and availability of resources for that maintenance and administration. The District Ranger applied this analysis to each and every road as displayed in EA Tables 2 and 3.

7 5 Conclusion: The District Ranger properly followed the direction in the 2005 Travel Management Rule in evaluating system and non-system roads for management action. There is no supporting law, regulation or policy that roads must be included in the system solely based on their origin or history of use. Issue 3: The revised Decision failed to adequately consider the proposed action against the requirements of the Travel Management Rule (TMR). Rule: The requirements of the Travel Management Rule can be found in 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 216, November 9, 2005/ Rules Regulations Specific reference to the Travel Management Rule can be found in the Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project Environmental Assessment (EA) under section VIII Management Direction (p.10) and included reference to the Roads Rule (2001), Final Travel Management Rule (2005), Smith River NRA Act (1990), and the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Application/Analysis: The requirements of the Travel Management Rule include: (1) Designation of roads, trails, and areas, (2) Public involvement, public shall be allow to participate in the designation of National Forest System roads, trails, and areas and revising those designations. (3) Coordination with Federal, State, and county, and other local government entities and tribal governments, (4) Revision of designations, (6) Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas including natural and cultural resources, public safety, recreational opportunities, conflicts among uses, maintenance needs, and availability of resources for maintenance and administration, (7) Identification of designated roads, trails, and areas on a motor vehicle use map, and (8) Monitoring of effects of motor vehicle use. A review of the project record for the Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project EA demonstrated that the planning requirements outlined in the Travel Management Rule where adhered to. In 2005, the Smith River NRA Roads Analysis Process and OHV Strategy (NRA RAP/OHV) was completed (EA pp. 4-5). This road analysis included a public involvement process. The public involvement process allow for participation of other Federal, State and local governments as well as tribal governments (EA pp 16-17). The recommendations in the NRA RAP/OHV were used to develop the proposed action for the Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project. The Smith River NRA Road Management and Route Designation Project EA documents the criteria used for designation of roads, and trails including resources concerns, recreation needs, cultural uses and heritage resources, water quality and aquatic resource issues, and fire and fuels. Additional public involvement was included during the environmental assessment process (EA, Appendix C, Response to Comments). A complete listing and description of the roads was provided in (EA, Table 2, System Roads Proposed Action and Alternatives to Proposed Action) of the environmental assessment. A map showing road designations is provided in the decision notice

8 6 labeled (revised Decision Notice Map). Publishing of a Motor Vehicle Use Map would come at the conclusion of the decision making process. Conclusion: Based upon my review of the record, I find that the District Ranger did in fact give appropriate consideration to the Travel Management Rule. Issue 4: The revised Decision improperly justified the closing of additional roads on the basis that they were located within or near roadless areas. Rule: The 2001 Roadless Rule (36 CFR Part 294) applies per a court ruling on February 7, 2007 by the United States District Court for Northern California. (The DN was signed on September 21, 2007 so the Court Order applies.) Application/Analysis: 1) The RDN states that I have decided to revise my decision and not designate the following 14 miles of non-system roads as motorized trails: [list of 9 roads] {emphasis added}. The Roadless Rule defines and describes the disposition of roads in IRAs and not trails. The Rule is silent to motorized trails. In the strictest terms the Roadless Rule is not a justification for eliminating motorized trails in the absence of any additional rationale in the EA. 2) The EA contradicts the RDN with respect to the disposition of roads in IRAs. The RDN implies that the 14 miles of road will not be designated because they are within or adjacent to IRA. At three places (EA pg 19, Response to Comments pg. 21 and 39) the following contradictory statement is made Designation of these routes as motorized trails will meet the intent of the Rule as it will provide authorized OHV access and does not involve new road construction or reconstruction. 3) The rationale for not designating the roads/trails based on the Roadless Rule is not displayed in the EA/RDN. The only rationale presented states Public comments received on the EA expressed great concern about adding 6.5 miles of non-system roads to the system in the Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). Based on these comments, I have decided not to add roads with IRA. (RDN pg. 2) Invocation of the 2001 Roadless Rule is only presented in the letter of transmittal provided by the Forest not in the EA. As discussed in #2 above the EA presents conflicting direction. The letter of transmittal correctly identifies that the definition of road construction includes adding road mileage to the system (cite), but this is not presented in the public documents (EA and RDN). 4) Information in the RDN appears to be inconsistent regarding the mileage of subject roads in the IRA. The roads within the IRA are listed as 14 miles in the 1 st paragraph of the Decision section, then later it states that the public had concern about adding 6.5 miles to the miles already proposed to be removed from the IRAs (RDN pg. 2).

9 7 {14 vs } There is no clarity of exactly what is in the revised decision vs. the original decision. 5) The EA is essentially silent to IRAs providing no support for the Decisions regarding IRA. The IRA is not described or shown on the map. The 2001 Roadless Rule provides exemptions for seven categories of roads. There is no analysis in the EA why the roads in the IRA do not meet one of these criteria. Failure to meet any of the criteria would be justification for removal of the road from the IRA. Conclusion: 1) Appellants assertion that the 2001 Roadless Rule does not apply is legally erroneous. The 2001 Roadless Rule does apply to roads within the IRA. By definition in the Rule, designating an existing non-system route as a system road does constitute road construction and is thereby prohibited. 2) Other than responding to commenters, the rationale and justification for not designating non-system roads in the IRA is lacking in the EA/RDN. The EA/RDN in fact provides conflicting interpretations (see #2 above). 3) The 2001 Roadless Rule alone does not provide justification for elimination of motorized trails. There is no justification presented in the EA/RDN for not having trails (vs roads) in the IRA. The Decision should be remanded back to the District. The EA contradicts the RDN with respect to motorized trails in the IRA and there is no rationale provided for not designating roads/trails in the IRA. Issue 5: The revised decision improperly closed routes based on unsubstantiated claims advanced by opponents of motorized recreational access rather than basing the decision on the NEPA required site-specific analysis and meeting the considerable adverse affect standard. Rule: 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. NEPA 40 CFR subpart ), Environmental Consequences. Application/Analysis: The TMR applies the considerable adverse affect standard to temporary routes that may be closed if they are causing immediate resource damage. The TMR (pg , subpart Public Involvement) addresses considerable adverse effects in the context of temporary route closures (i.e. Pre-NEPA), for routes directly causing considerable adverse effects on public safety or soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural resources associated with that road, trail or area. This standard is applied prior to designation of routes under subpart (emphasis added)

10 8 The TMR (pg , subpart Criteria for designation of roads, trails and areas) outlines the criteria to be used by responsible official for route designation. In this subpart, the considerable adverse effect standard is not used, but rather directs the responsible official to consider the effects of route designation on natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of NFS lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration. The Environmental Assessment does contain site specific analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects of route designation to resources areas (Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences (pp ), and Appendix D, Cumulative Effects Analysis). Each route was evaluated for impacts to a specific resource area and documented in Tables 2 (System Roads) and 3 (Non-system Roads) (at end of EA). Resource Areas addressed in Chapter 3 include; Recreation, Vegetation Management, Water Quality and Aquatic Resources, Port Orford Cedar, TES & MIS (includes botany, noxious weeds, fisheries, wildlife), Fire and Fuels, Cultural Uses and Heritage Resources, Tribal Trust Resources, Environmental Justice Analysis. A sensitive plant analysis (EA, pp ) was conducted for the Environmental Assessment, including focused sensitive plant surveys that assisted in determining effects by alternative and the risk ratings for each route in Tables 2 and 3. Conclusion: I find the Responsible Official did consider the site-specific analyses by resource area and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in balancing resource protection with public needs in the designation of routes. My review of the record shows that the Responsible Official met the requirements of NEPA by addressing direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives in formulating her decision. Issue 6: The Decision s significant closures, well over 40% of the existing route network, will have a significant effect upon the human environment, as these closures will force recreationists to move and cluster their use in other areas. Thus, a full EIS is required. Rule: NEPA 40 CFR subpart (b)(4)), Significance Standard. Application/Analysis: The Recreation section of the Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences (pg 26) stated under cumulative effects that recreation opportunities from the action alternatives, combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are expected to be beneficial. Under the recreation analysis, the cumulative effects analysis did not regard any alternative as having significant effects, but rather concluded that cumulatively, the recreation opportunities would be expected to be beneficial. Therefore, the Revised Decision of providing recreational opportunities on miles of system roads, and then adding miles of non-system road as motorized trail or as system roads is expected to have a beneficial effect on recreationists.

11 9 The appellant s claim that closures will force recreationists to move and cluster their use in other areas and result in significant effects on the human environment is not substantiated by the record. The DN/FONSI found that the decision would not result significant effects to the quality of the human environment. This rationale is supported by consultations with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and federally recognized tribes which did not identify any significant environmental effects. In addition, the decision will not cause a trend toward federal listing of any potentially affected sensitive species (Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences (pp ). Conclusion: I find the Responsible Official did consider the significance standard in formulating her decision. My review of the record shows that no significant effects were identified through consultation with federal agencies and federally recognized tribes, that there would be no significant effects on sensitive species, and that the District s recreation specialist concluded that recreation opportunities under any of the action alternatives would be beneficial to the public. Based on these findings, an EIS is not required. Issue 7: The decision lacks the required cumulative effects analysis, which is critical in light of the significant closures which will have significant impact on the environment. Rule: NEPA 40 CFR subpart , Cumulative Impacts. Application/Analysis: The Environmental Assessment does contain site specific analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects of route designation to resources areas (Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences (pp ). Resource Areas addressed in Chapter 3 include; Recreation, Vegetation Management, Water Quality and Aquatic Resources, Port Orford Cedar, TES & MIS (includes botany, noxious weeds, fisheries, wildlife), Fire and Fuels, Cultural Uses and Heritage Resources, Tribal Trust Resources, and Environmental Justice Analysis. Additional analysis of cumulative effects is documented in Appendix D, Cumulative Effects Analysis. Cumulative effects analysis showed overall improvement and benefits to resources. For example, botany showed that conditions for TES plants were expected to improve under the RMRD project (pg. 13). For wildlife, the biologist concluded that the RMRD project will benefit TES, MIS and other wildlife species (pg. 16). In addition, each route was evaluated for impacts to a specific resource area and documented in Tables 2 (System Roads) and 3 (Non-system Roads) (at end of EA). For Threatened & Endangered Species, Section 7 Consultation requirements were met with the Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (DN/FONSI, pp. 12, 13). These consultations include the evaluation of significant effects and cumulative effects to Threatened & Endangered species.

12 10 Conclusion: I find the Responsible Official did consider the cumulative effects in balancing resource needs with the designation of routes. My review of the record shows that the Responsible Official met the requirements of NEPA by addressing cumulative effects by resource area for the proposed action and alternatives in formulating her decision. Issue 8: Every alternative, save the no-action alternative, proposed significant closures. The decision therefore failed to formulate a proper range of alternatives. Rule: NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, section 102(e)) requires federal agencies to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts of alternative uses of available resources. Application/Analysis: The District Ranger analyzed 3 alternatives to the Proposed Action in detail. These alternatives addressed the issues the District Ranger determined were significant (EA, pg. 18). She also considered 1 additional alternative, but dismissed that alternative from detailed study for various reasons (EA. Pg. 22). Conclusion: I find the Responsible Official considered an adequate range of alternatives as required by NEPA. Issue 9: SB742 was recently signed by the California Governor and will take effect on January 1, It will provide substantive funding for OHV related FS operations and maintenance including trail maintenance and trail development. This is new information and should be used to mitigate resource concerns via reroutes or trial improvement rather than mitigate via closures. Rule: SB742, California State Law. Application/Analysis: This law was signed post decision (date: October 12, 2007). This information was not available to District Ranger Vandiver on the date of her decision (date: September 21, 2007). In addition, funding available under SB742 does not guarantee the Six Rivers NF additional funding for operation and maintenance of trails or trail development. FS cannot commit itself to manage resources on the premise or assumption of receiving outside funding from a third party. Conclusion: SB742 is not an issue affecting the decision made by District Ranger Vandiver; therefore the issue is not of merit in this appeal.

13 11 Relief Requested 1) Withdraw the revised decision to adopt Alternative 3 and abandon the project, 2) Withdraw the revised decision to adopt Alternative 3 and order that the District conduct a new EA after collaborating with Del Norte County, 3) Alternatively, withdraw the revised decision and reissue a decision selecting Alternative 4 to preserve access for recreation for the public. FINDINGS Clarity of the Decision and Rationale The District Ranger s decision and supporting rationale are clearly presented in the Record of Decision for issues 1-3, 5-9. However, issue 4 lacks a clear rationale for supporting the decision to exclude motorized routes within the Inventoried Roadless Area. Comprehension of the Benefits and Purpose of the Proposal The purpose of the proposal is to designate routes within the Smith River NRA, Six Rivers National Forest in order to balance needs of the recreating public with risks to resources and operation and maintenance costs. Consistency of the Decision with Policy, Direction, and Supporting Information The decision is consistent with the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, but lacks consistency with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Effectiveness of Public Participation Activities and Use of Comments Public participation was adequate and well documented. The project was added to the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. The District mailed scoping letters, and distributed the EA to interested groups and individuals. Responses to the comments received are detailed and included as part of the EA (appendix A). The decision of the District Ranger indicates she considered and responded to public input. RECOMMENDATION My review was conducted pursuant to and in accordance with 36 CFR to ensure the analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I reviewed the appeal record, including the comments received during the comment period and how the District Ranger used this information, the Appellant's objections and recommended changes.

14 12 Based on my review of the record, I recommend the District Ranger's decision be reversed on issue 4. /S/PAT TRIMBLE Appeal Reviewing Officer District Ranger, El Dorado National Forest