Appeal # A215 Appellant: Steven Harshfield Johnson Creek Watershed Improvement Project EA APPEAL ISSUE 1: The Decision is unwarranted and

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Appeal # A215 Appellant: Steven Harshfield Johnson Creek Watershed Improvement Project EA APPEAL ISSUE 1: The Decision is unwarranted and unjustified. I did not find one location pinpointed for man-caused erosion on lower Johnson Creek in the Environmental Assessment (EA). I know of only two, but they are a Forest Service problem; not a public problem Until you can document where campers have caused more erosion than the Forest Service, you have no standing to take away their long term and respectfully used 300 foot access on lower Johnson Creek. Lower Johnson Creek is flat compared to side drainages. This flat and fairly porous ground does not allow water to run and cause erosion. Moreover, the river has high stable banks, which inhibits access and access related erosion. That is why there are few erosive features on lower Johnson Creek... Until you give logical reasons for your actions, you have no standing to take away the long term and respectfully used 300 foot access on lower Johnson Creek. RESPONSE: A thorough inventory of user created routes and associated impacts (e.g., erosion, unstable banks, soil detrimental disturbance, impacts to riparian vegetation) was completed between Johnson Creek and National Forest System Road (NFSR) 413 and NFSR 579, which includes lower Johnson Creek (EA, p. 1-3; Soil and Water Resources Technical Report, p. 67). Results, recommendations, and rationale for the inventoried access areas were incorporated into the Johnson Creek Watershed Improvement Project Travel Analysis Plan. The Interdisciplinary Team used the recommendations and rationale from the Travel Analysis Plan to design the action alternatives (EA, p. 2-3, Table 2-1). A photographic log of dispersed sites, which are described in the action alternatives, clearly shows examples of erosion, unstable banks, and other impacts to riparian areas. The EA was prepared pursuant to the National Forest (NF) Management Act (NFMA), and the Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). As directed by NFMA, the purpose and need of the project was tiered to specific Forest Plan management prescription categories and specific goals and objectives. The Johnson Creek Watershed Improvement Project purpose and need focuses on management prescription category 3.2 active restoration and maintenance of aquatic terrestrial, and hydrologic resources, and the associated goals and objectives for reducing impacts to riparian areas and habitat for listed fish, and assisting in de-listing State of Idaho impaired water bodies, while providing recreation opportunities for the public (EA, pp. 1-5, 6). The Decision Notice (DN) provides clear rationale for how implementation will contribute towards attaining the Forest Plan goals and objectives and will meet the intent of the management prescription category (DN, pp. 5-6). The EA demonstrates that after considering the current condition of the watershed (including predicted increases in sediment delivery from wildfire, and cumulative effects including past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that include road use and maintenance, and miscellaneous recreation), the project would meet the purpose and need of reducing sediment delivery to Johnson Creek and improving other watershed condition indicators (EA, Chapter 3; EA, Appendix B; DN, pp. 5-6). 1

11 APPEAL ISSUE 2: The decision is controversial and will lead to controversy. Put another way, granting the 300 foot access was a well reasoned decision by your predecessors, even if current rangers have yet to see the wisdom. Hence, until you can placate the public with reason and alternatives, you have no standing to take away the long term and respectfully used 300 foot access on lower Johnson Creek. RESPONSE: The Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan directed the Forest to identify and reduce road related effects on threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate (TEPC) species and their habitats, as well as identify potential concerns or problems contributing to adverse affects to TEPC species or degradation of their habitats, and to mitigate adverse effects. The purpose and need for this project was derived from and designed to meet those goals and objectives. The Boise National Forest made numerous efforts to include and inform the local residents of the proposal since January The Forest met with Yellow Pine residents in February to discuss the proposal, scoped the project to 94 recipients, placed news releases in the Long Valley Advocate and Star News, conducted a site visit with the County Commissioners in August, visited with concerned residents in July and August, and sent a Proposed Action Report for the 30-day comment period to 101 individuals. From this effort, eight Yellow Pine or Johnson Creek landowners commented during the scoping period (February/March) and three commented during the 30-day comment period (July/August). As a response to public input the Forest developed Alternative C, which made the following modifications to the proposed action: 1. NFSR 416W would be converted to a trail open to all vehicles. This would meet the public concern that Alternative B would eliminate current utility type vehicle and fullsized vehicle access greater than 50 inches in width, and still meet the purpose and need of the proposed action by allowing for an increased level of erosion control on the route. 2. Pave and chip seal up to 4.5 miles on steep grades between Rustican Creek and Ditch Creek. This would include improving and adding additional road drainage to reduce surface runoff on these steep grades. Provide road protection through streambank stabilization on Johnson Creek, with riprap or basket gabions at several locations between Halfway Creek and Ditch Creek. This action addressed public concern that sedimentation was resulting from this section of road. 3. Reforestation. This activity consists of planting conifers with hoedads on an estimated 40,000 acres (which burned at high or moderate burn severity in 2007) where competing vegetation is expected and/or where no seed source is present to facilitate natural regeneration. Depending on the availability of out-year funding, 4,000 to 10,000 acres could be planted on any given year and would take four to 10 years to complete. The 2

12 level of planting would be based on annual funding limitations. This action responded to the public concern over the effects of past fires on the watershed. The rationale for the motor vehicle use corridor is identified in the EA (pp. 1-3 to 1-7 and 2-3 to 2-7). In proposing the motor vehicle use corridor (motorized travel not authorized off designated roads) the scope was limited to the most sensitive and high priority Chinook salmon and steelhead trout habitat due to the proximity to the main travel routes and not the entire watershed. As a tradeoff to proposing this corridor, existing user-created routes were inventoried within the corridor and a proposal developed to either designate the route as a road or rehabilitate the route. Of the 35 routes inventoried 26 are proposed for designation. Access 300 feet off designated roads for dispersed camping purposes is still allowed on 137 miles of road within the watershed. In response to early scoping comments, parking areas would be provided at the other nine routes that would be rehabilitated. Walk-in access could still occur at these locations. The effects to recreation have been evaluated and weighed against the effects on other resources. The rational for the decision has been adequately documented in the DN, FONSI, EA and Project Record. APPEAL ISSUE 3: Time and again, the EA mentions upper Johnson Creek but it does not mention lower Johnson Creek. Table after table includes upper Johnson Creek, but not lower Johnson Creek. Pictures are provided of erosion on upper Johnson Creek, but not of erosion on lower Johnson Creek. The inventory of unimproved roads and camp sites was weighted about 6 to1 in favor of upper Johnson Creek, even though lower Johnson Creek has just as many sites. In other words, lower Johnson Creek was almost completely ignored in your analysis. Hence, extending conclusions derived from upper Johnson Creek to lower Johnson Creek is simply lazy or whimsical. In other words, it is capricious. Until you can show equal attention to detail on lower Johnson Creek, you have no standing to take away the long term and respectfully used 300 foot access on lower Johnson Creek. RESPONSE: The watershed-soils, and fisheries current condition and effects analysis in Chapter 3 of the EA are partitioned into subwatersheds that include lower Johnson Creek. Subwatersheds listed in Table 1-1 of the EA that are located in lower Johnson Creek below the confluence with Trout Creek, include Wardenhoff-Bear, Riordan Creek, Trapper Creek, Halfway, and Lower Burntlog (Soil and Water Technical Report, Figure 1, p. 5). A thorough inventory of user created routes and associated impacts (e.g., erosion, unstable bank, soil detrimental disturbance, impacts to riparian vegetation) was completed between Johnson Creek and NFSR 413 and NFSR 539, which includes lower Johnson Creek (EA, p. 1-3; Soil and Water Resources Technical Report, p. 67). Results, recommendations, and rational for the inventoried access areas were incorporated into the Johnson Creek Watershed Improvement Project Travel Analysis Plan. The Interdisciplinary Team used the recommendations and rational from the Travel Analysis Plan to design the action alternatives (EA, p. 2-3, Table 2-1). A photographic log of dispersed sites, which are described in the action alternatives, clearly shows examples of erosion, unstable banks, and other impacts to riparian areas. 3

13 The EA provides a thorough analysis of the current condition of lower Johnson Creek, as well as anticipated effects from proposed actions on the entire Johnson Creek watershed (including lower Johnson Creek). APPEAL ISSUE 4: The Environmental Assessment if misleading and incorrect. No proof was presented in the EA that blanket restrictions (i.e. removing the 300 foot access along all of Johnson Creek road) would provide substantially more benefit to sedimentation than localized restrictions or post-fire reclamation. The benefits of blanket restrictions were not shown to outweigh the loss of recreational resources. RESPONSE: Management direction for this project is derived from a variety of sources including the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Boise National Forest (USDA-FS, 2003a), and the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS, 2003b). The decision also addresses the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Assessment (IDEQ, 2002), the IDEQ 5 year review for the South Fork Salmon River Subbasin TMDL (IDEQ, 2010), and the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) approved total maximum daily load (TMDL) for percent fines and cobble embeddedness for the South Fork (SF) Salmon River (EPA, 1992). Alternative B and C address human induced actions that have and are causing sediment delivery: Recreation encroachment problems have been identified by various Forest Service employees, including the public. As identified in numerous assessments, sediment is one of the major driving factors for the project (EA, p. 1-2 thru 1-3). Review of the biological data and sediment impacts to aquatic habitat indicates that the historical habitat conditions within SF Salmon Subbasin are in the process of reestablishing. However, evidence remains that the existing road system contributes large quantities of sediment during storm events. These ongoing impacts to the water bodies, combined with the highly valued threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) beneficial uses suggests that further implementation of the 1991 TMDL would be beneficial to prevent the existing roads and sediment sources from impacting current water quality. Therefore, the IDEQ is recommending additional actions be taken by the designated land management agencies to ensure the current water quality is protected and beneficial uses are supported in the future (IDEQ 2002, pg. xii). Another inventory was completed on 35 existing access routes (not currently designated as NFSRs) to dispersed campsites between Johnson Creek and NFSR 413 and NFSR 579. On the Boise NF, for most areas the Forest Plan (2003) allows motor vehicle access 300 feet off designated roads for dispersed camping in the Johnson Creek Watershed. Over time this can result in user-created access spurs that become heavily used. These spurs are not and have never been forest system roads, thus do not get maintained, and are not always located in appropriate locations. Since these are not maintained they can cause adverse impacts to watershed characteristics and aquatic habitats. Such impacts include trampling and/or removal of riparian vegetation, stream bank erosion and instability, sedimentation to streams, and extensive soil compaction. Not all access routes or 4

14 dispersed campsites result in adverse impacts and many can be improved to reduce those impacts (EA, p. 1-6). Currently, these user-created access spurs have resulted in 35 undesignated routes identified in Table 2-2 of the EA (EA, p. 2-3). As documented in Table 2-2 and the dispersed campsite photo log (Johnson Creek Watershed Restoration Project Route Designation, Dispersed Site Improvements, and Rehabilitation Photos), 26 of these 35 undesignated routes can and do cause accelerated streambank erosion and sedimentation into Johnson Creek and its tributaries. These uses and associated impacts are preventing attainment of Forest Plan resource objectives for habitats of ESA listed Threatened and Endangered aquatic species (steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, and bull trout) and water quality improvement targets in the SF Salmon River TMDL (EA, p. 2-4). The EA adequately demonstrates that after considering the current condition of the watershed, (including predicted increases in sediment delivery from wildfire, and cumulative effects including past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that include road use and maintenance, and miscellaneous recreation), the project would meet the purpose and need of the project of reducing sediment delivery to Johnson Creek and improving other watershed condition indicators (EA, Chapter 3; EA, Appendix B; DN, pp. 5-6). APPEAL ISSUE 5: The Forest Service concludes that roads in the Johnson Creek drainage are a major contributor to sediment. [Why is this? Because it feels right? Note that many of these side streams do not have roads!]. RESPONSE: The assessment of road related sediment delivery to Johnson Creek was based on Forest Plan goals and objectives for reducing sediment delivery from roads, IDEQ recommendations, the South Fork Salmon River Subbasin Review, Forest Service road inventories, and site specific road related sediment modeling using BOISED and WEPP (EA, pp. 1-2 through 6, and Chapter 3). Examples of rationale regarding road related sediment concerns are as follows: Not all access routes or dispersed campsites result in adverse impacts and many can be improved to reduce those impacts. To determine which of these sites in the Johnson Creek corridor are of concern, 35 sites were inventoried. That survey is the basis for developing part of the proposed action. 26 sites were identified as contributing sediment to Johnson Creek (EA, p. 1-6). Not all roads were analyzed within the watershed to determine their long-term need, or if appropriate to relocate, close, or decommission additional roads. Therefore, no such conclusion could be, or was made, by the EA that Jonson Creek drainage was the major contributor for sediment to South Fork Salmon River (EA, p. 2-2). Review of the biological data and sediment impacts to aquatic habitat indicates that the historical habitat conditions within SF Salmon Subbasin are in the process of reestablishing. However, evidence remains that the existing road system contributes large quantities of sediment during storm events. These ongoing impacts to the water bodies, combined with the highly valued TES beneficial uses, suggests that further implementation of the 1991 TMDL would be beneficial to prevent the existing roads and sediment sources from impacting current water quality. Therefore, the IDEQ is 5

15 recommending additional actions are taken by the designated land management agencies to ensure the current water quality is protected and beneficial uses are supported in the future (EA, p. 1-2 thru 1-3). The EA adequately discloses and identifies the sediment sources, and those specific features studied. The Boise NF adequately discusses the analyses, the rationale used for analysis, the analysis results and the proposed actions with alternatives for sediment sources identified within the Johnson Creek Watershed. APPEAL ISSUE 6: The Forest Service does not restrict off road access on any side roads next to at-risk tributaries but restricts access from the main road where the river is not at risk. RESPONSE: In developing the purpose and need and proposed action, the Forest Service documents the rationale for action near Johnson Creek. The Forest identifies Johnson Creek as a TMDL limited stream and identifies it as an eligible Wild and Scenic River. In the EA, the Forest describes how Forest Plan objectives, TMDL limits, inventories, public comments and photo logs drive the development of the proposed action (EA, pp. 1-2 through 1-6). The Forest considered an alternative to complete an analysis for all roads within the watershed, but eliminated it from detailed study. Rationale for this can be found in the EA in the Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study section (EA, p. 2-2). The EA adequately discloses and identifies the specific at-risk water bodies, and the at-risk roads associated with these water bodies. The rationale for the restricted motor vehicle use corridor is clearly identified in the EA. The DN provides clear rational for restricting motorized travel along Johnson Creek as a measure to achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives (DN, p. 5). The EA also discloses that additional inventory and modeling of road related sediment is ongoing and may lead to future management actions related to reducing sediment delivery to streams in the watershed (EA, p. 2-2). APPEAL ISSUE 7: The decision to change the status of the 416W road is premature. Considering the likelihood of mining activity at Stibnite, there is a good possibility that a power line will need to be reconstructed along this route. Review of this road s status should come after mining activity at Stibnite has subsided. RESPONSE: The decision to convert NFSR 416W to a motorized trail (Jeep road) open to all motorized vehicles is consistent with 1872 mining law and will not prevent citizens from the right of reasonable access to explore and develop mines on National Forest Land open to mineral entry within the Johnson Creek Watershed. The Forest analyzed reasonably foreseeable actions. Because there is currently no proposal to construct a power line along road 416W this possible action was not analyzed at this time. This decision does not preclude consideration of a power line proposal in the future. This issue is adequately addressed in the project record. 6