DRAFT Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Byway Lakes Enhancement Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service August 2013 DRAFT Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Byway Lakes Enhancement Project Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest Custer & Pennington Counties, South Dakota T02S, R05E Sections 11 T02S, R06E Sections 27, 28 T03S, R05E Sections 15, 22 Horsethief Lake 1938 For Information Contact: David Pickford 330 Mt. Rushmore Road Custer, SD Phone: (605)

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large-print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 DECISION NOTICE & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BYWAY LAKES ENHANCEMENT PROJECT USDA FOREST SERVICE HELL CANYON RANGER DISTRICT, BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST CUSTER & PENNINGTON COUNTIES, SD Introduction A Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are provided here. The DN documents my decision and provides my explanation of the management and environmental reasons that I used to make my decision in selecting an alternative to implement. The FONSI presents the reasons why I find this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and therefore why an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The completed Byway Lakes Enhancement Environmental Assessment (EA) is incorporated by reference. Decision Based upon my review of the Byway Lakes Enhancement Environmental Assessment, I have decided to implement Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action. Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action was developed to address the key issues identified during scoping: 1. Sediment Disposal concern that the sites for sediment deposit and hauling sediments by truck to these sites could affect other resources including scenery, wildlife, vegetation, birds, wetlands, water quality, public traffic and recreation. 2. Downstream Water Quality concern that this project could negatively impact water quality by increasing sediments to downstream water resources. To address issue #1, Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action does not use the back sides of the dams as sediment deposit sites nor does it propose to use removed sediments in other projects. This alternative has no need for any new road construction, has proposed more simplified sediment erosion control methods, and reduces the risk of sediment entering sensitive stream environments. This alternative also will reduce the risk to public motorists along Highway 244 by removing access needs by construction trucks on Highway 244 to access the backside of Horsethief dam. Transportation of the removed sediments is reduced due to the location of sediment deposit sites being located reasonably close to the lakes in the project area. Bismarck Lake sediment deposit site will be 0.75 mile from the lake and accessed on gravel Forest Service Road (FSR) 349 & 349.1A. Horsethief Lake sediment deposit site #1 will be 0.60 mile from the lake on an unclassified native surface campground maintenance road. Horsethief Lake sediment deposit site #2 would be 0.70 miles from the lake and accessed adjacent to Highway 244. Lakota Lake sediment deposit site will be 0.10 mile from the lake and accessed by Lakota Lake Recreation Site gravel parking lot. 1

4 Two of the proposed sediment deposit sites, one near Horsethief Lake and one near Bismarck Lake are abandoned gravel pits which will be reclaimed to a forest opening by this project. The other proposed sediment deposit site located near Horsethief Lake will reclaim a non-native brome grass meadow back to a native grass meadow. All proposed sediment deposit sites will include removing small non-commercial size pine trees and help maintain openings for wildlife habitat. The Horsethief Lake proposed gravel pit sediment deposit site is also the location for a section of the existing Centennial Trail 89 trail tread. An approximate 1,000 foot section of the affected trail will be permanently relocated to the other side of the gravel pit, out of the way of construction equipment, and built by a hand crew to hiking/horse trail standards. This will be an improvement over the existing trail section currently located on a native surface road used for maintaining campground utilities and a gravel pit. 2 Under this alternative the lakes will be drained beginning the week after the Labor Day holiday when recreation sites normally close to public use. The work to remove sediments would take place during the winter months and the lakes re-filled from spring run-off and precipitation. Recreation facilities at each lake will open as normal during the high-use recreation visitor period in mid-may. Based on hydrologist estimates, refilling the lakes is expected to be complete by mid-june for all lakes. Eroded lake shoreline areas will be repaired by placement of native rock (granite) while each lake is drained. Osprey nesting platforms may be placed at each lake to improve osprey habitat. Drained lake bottoms will be contoured and fish structures may be placed on lake bottoms to improve fisheries habitat. Wildlife exclusion areas, areas of no disturbance, have been determined and mapped for each lake to protect sensitive lake and shoreline habitat. Permits for this project will be obtained from appropriate agencies to help ensure it meets all state and federal water protection requirements. To address key issue #2: Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action does not use the back sides of dams for sediment deposit. This eliminates the potential of sediments to escape erosion control methods on steeper slopes and enter downstream water resources located below each dam. There are no water resources located downstream from proposed sediment deposit sites, with the exception of Lakota Lake, where erosion protection measures will be effective. Lakota Lake itself will be buffered by a thick matt of meadow vegetation. In addition, the proposed sediment deposit sites represent areas that are naturally shaped to help hold sediments. Two of the proposed sediment deposit sites, one near Horsethief Lake and one near Bismarck Lake are abandoned gravel pits which will be reclaimed back to a natural forest opening from this project. Downstream water quality will be protected during the drawing down of lake water levels by the use of dam valves or if necessary gravity siphon pipe in the event that mechanical valves are not working. Dam valves can control disturbing lake bottom sediments or causing downstream erosion by adjusting the valve opening to the minimum necessary for water discharge. The siphon pipe method draws water from the top most layers of the lake which contain no sediment. The siphon pipe is positioned, sized and adjusted to prevent outlet water from creating downstream erosion/sedimentation. During project implementation plastic piping will be temporarily placed from lake inlet streams to each lake outlet, to maintain water flow and prevent downstream sedimentation.

5 To minimize erosion and protect water quality, mitigation measures such as compost matting, silt fencing, compost socks, seeding of native vegetation, mulching, etc., will be applied until newly planted vegetation becomes established on sediment sites. Planting of vegetation will occur during the growing season following the winter hauling of sediments. Annual herbicide treatments will be applied to each sediment deposit site as needed until native vegetation becomes established. This alternative does not consider the use of lake sediments for other projects located elsewhere. The use of sediments for projects located elsewhere such as for highway construction or mine reclamation was too ambiguous to determine the effects to resources including downstream water quality. Table 1: Estimated Project Totals Estimate Lake Sediment Name Volume (Cubic Yards) Sediment Haul Miles FS Road/Paved Hwy Wildlife Exclusion Qty/Acres Sediment Sites Qty/Acres Horsethief 25, /0.70 1/0.32 2/1.0&1.2 Bismarck 24, /0 4/0.60 1/1.8 Lakota 22, /0 1/1.70 1/1.8 Total 71, /0.70 4/5.8 4/5.8 Decision Rationale The Byway Lakes Enhancement project was initiated to respond to recreation related needs identified within the Byway Lakes: Horsethief Lake, Lakota Lake, and Bismarck Lake. First, there is a need to take action to improve water quality in Horsethief, Bismarck and Lakota Lakes for recreation and fisheries. Over the year lifespan of these dammed lakes, sedimentation has caused a decline in water quality. Water depth has decreased, water temperatures have become warmer, near shore areas have become choked with mostly cattails which are preventing public access; water is more nutrient laden, prone to algae blooms, and habitat for fish survival has declined. Second, there is an overall decline of the quality environment for lakeshore recreation activities such as fishing, picnicking, and canoeing. These resource conditions could worsen over time as the lakes continue to accumulate sediment negatively affecting the quality of experience for future visitors to the Black Hills, as well as, the ability to provide quality fisheries. The purpose and need for action is to remove sediments from Bismarck, Lakota and Horsethief Lakes to improve water quality for fisheries and recreation. The Byway Lakes Enhancement project purpose and need provides the focus and scope for the proposed action and alternatives under direction of the 1997 Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2006 Phase II Amendment (Forest Plan). Forest Plan direction is summarized in Chapter 1 of the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA. Given the purpose of and need for action, I reviewed Forest Plan direction, public comments received, key issues identified from those comments, information contained within the project record, and the analysis disclosed in the EA. My decision to implement Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action is based on this review. Two alternatives were considered. Alternative 1-No Action and was used as a baseline to assess the effects of taking action versus maintaining the current management situation. Under Alternative 1-No Action, none of the proposed lakes enhancement activities would be 3

6 implemented. Alternative 1-No Action was rejected due to the need to improve water quality for fisheries and recreation. Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action was developed to address key issues brought up during scoping, sediment disposal and downstream water quality. Under Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action, the back sides of the dams will not be used as sediment deposit sites nor does this alternative propose to use removed sediments in other projects. This alternative has no need for any new road construction, has proposed more simplified sediment erosion control methods, and reduces the risk of sediment entering sensitive stream environments. This alternative also will reduce the risk to public motorists along Highway 244 by removing access needs by construction trucks on Highway 244 to access the backside of the dam. Transportation of the removed sediments is reduced due to the location of sediment deposit sites being located reasonably close to the lakes in the project area. Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action was chosen because it best addresses the purpose and need for action, key issues, and public comments. The Byway Lakes Enhancement EA documents the analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected action, I considered two other alternatives. A brief summary of these alternatives is presented below. Further information on the alternative can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA. Alternative 1 No Action NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requires the study of the No Action Alternative and that it be used as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes no implementation of any elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives would take place in the project area. Actions analyzed under past projects or proposed by future projects may still occur. This alternative was not selected for reasons stated earlier. Alternative 2 Proposed Action This alternative was the original proposed action alternative. This alternative would have implemented dredging and sediment removal as described during scoping, which included the backside of dams as sediment deposit sites and considered the use of sediments for other projects located elsewhere, such as mine reclamation or highway projects. The use of the backside of dams for sediment storage was found to not be necessary as other more favorable sites with fewer effects to natural resources for this project were found during project planning. The use of the back side of lake dams would have created a number of potential challenges as sediment sites including transportation (hauling, construction activity & road building), presence of nearby sensitive streams and their associated flora and fauna located below dam faces, more complex erosion control and construction activity on steeper dam slopes. It was found to be too ambiguous and would not have been possible to analyze the effects for sediment disposal elsewhere for other, unidentified projects. Other alternatives not considered in detail include an alternative to that excluded sediment sites from the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Some commentors suggested that sediment disposal within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve would negatively impact game animals and birds, and therefore sediment sites should be located outside of the Preserve. This alternative was considered but deferred from detailed analysis because suitable disposal sites were identified within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve which could benefit or maintain habitat for game animals and birds. For example, proposed sediment deposit sites within the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve would reclaim a gravel pit near Horsethief Lake and remove pine encroachment from meadows near Lakota Lake 4

7 and Horsethief Lake. From public comments, the effect of hauling large quantities of sediments on public roads was a concern. Due to the location of the project lakes within the boundaries of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve an alternative to haul sediments outside of Norbeck would have meant greater impacts to public roads, recreation travelers, safety and vehicle traffic. Public Involvement Scoping The original proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in April The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping on July 8, As part of the public involvement process the Forest Service mailed a detailed scoping document to approximately 62 individuals, groups, tribal representatives, government agencies, and other interested members of the public. Federal, state, local, and Tribal governments and interested parties provided input during scoping efforts. South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) personnel joined members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) in an initial planning meeting held in December 2010 and on a field review of the project area in March Scoping comments were used to confirm issues analyzed in this document and identify a reasonable range of project alternatives. EA Distribution On June 12, 2013, a legal notice was published in the Rapid City Journal notifying the public of their opportunity to comment on the Byway Lakes Enhancement Environmental Assessment (June 2013 EA). Copies of the June 2013 EA were mailed to 10 individuals, groups and state and local agencies who expressed interest in the project and to 33 tribal representatives. The EA was also posted on the Forest website. The comment period concluded on July 12, Four responses were received within the comment period; all were supportive of the project. See Appendix G in the EA for responses to comments. None of these comments generated a need for re-analysis or required major substantive changes in the document. All letters received are contained within the project file. Best Available Science My decision is based upon consideration for the best available science. I have reviewed the record and found it contains a thorough review of relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views. Where appropriate, the record acknowledges incomplete or unavailable information, and scientific uncertainty and risk. Specifically, the extensive literature citations in both the specialists reports in the project record and in Chapter 5 of the EA shows that relevant literature was reviewed and considered by resource specialists. Resource specialists acknowledge in the project file their use of the best science available to them in preparation of the EA. Finding of No Significant Impact I have reviewed the environmental effects of the selected alternative as disclosed in the EA. I have also evaluated whether the selected alternative constitutes a significant impact on the quality of the human environment or whether the environmental impacts would be significant based on their context and intensity, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the criteria in the implementing regulations (40 CFR ). After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. 1. Context This project is local and would affect only the project area. The issues identified during scoping and considered in alternative development and analysis are local in nature. 5

8 Effects are limited to the vicinity of the planned activities. The selected alternative is consistent with the requirements of the Forest Plan and contributes to moving toward or meeting the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. None of the effects disclosed in the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA are different from those anticipated in the FEIS for the Forest Plan or the FEIS for the Phase II Amendment. 2. Intensity 6 My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. Effects on public health and safety were considered. No significant public health and safety issues were identified during the analysis process. Public health and safety may be improved by the reduction sediment and improvement of water quality in the project area. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area. No adverse direct and indirect effects will occur to wetlands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecological critical areas, as they are either not present or will be protected by project design features, as shown in Chapter 3 of the EA. Project design criteria (EA, Appendix B) include measures to protect riparian areas and to protect and monitor cultural resources. There are no known eligible or unevaluated cultural sites within the project area. For these reasons, there will be no adverse effects on unique characteristics of the area. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects. The action does not represent a decision in principle about future considerations. Similar projects conducted in the future will have to be evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the significance of the effects of those specific actions. The cumulative impacts considered in the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA are discussed by resource in Chapter 3. The cumulative impacts of the proposed action, including connected actions, were considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (EA, Chapter 3). The potential effects on cultural resources have been considered in the analysis. No adverse effects are anticipated. A heritage resource inventory was completed for the project area; results of the analysis were reported to the South Dakota SHPO and affiliated Native American Tribes for comment and concurrence on March 18, The South Dakota SHPO concurred with the findings of this report on March 26, The project will have no adverse effect on heritage resources. The action will not adversely affect endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 because none exist within the project area. A determination for Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species for the selected Alternative found that there will be no trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area, including fish, wildlife and plants (EA, Chapter 3). The BA/BE s are part of the project record and were used in preparation of the EA. In addition, a Management Indicator Species (MIS) analysis for this project was completed and it determined that the

9 proposed action, and its relationship to MIS species and the habitat types they represent, is not expected to impact the viability of these species in the future (EA, Chapter 3). As described in more detail below, the selected action will not violate federal, state, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA, Chapter 3). All state water quality requirements will be met as well as other federal, state, and local requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Effects on water quality, floodplains, and wetlands are documented in the EA and project file. Design criteria will be used to protect water quality and to meet standards imposed by the Forest Plan and the State. No violations of environmental laws and requirements were identified through the environmental effects analysis. The action is consistent with the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations Forest Plan This decision is consistent with the Black Hills National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project was designed in conformance with the following Forest Plan direction: Goal 1: Protect basic soil, air, water and cave resources. Objective 103: Maintain or improve long-term stream health. Achieve and maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide stream-channel stability and aquatic habitats for water quality in accordance with state standards. Objective 104: Maintain or enhance watershed conditions to foster favorable soil relationships and water quality. a. Implement projects to improve watershed conditions on an average of at least 300 acres annually over the plan period. b. Achieve and maintain stable stream beds and banks, diverse riparian vegetation and effective ground cover that controls runoff and erosion. Objective 106: Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams. Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and protection of heritage resources in response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest visitors and local communities. Objective 40: Review all existing projects and areas that do not meet the adopted Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) specified for each management area, and set priorities for rehabilitation. Goal 7: Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while coordinating planning and project implementation. Objective 701: Continue to cooperate with interested parties and organizations in the development of plans and projects. Objective 703: Seek partnerships with other service providers federal, state, county, local and private sector to define complementary roles that best meet customer needs. 7

10 A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and EA were considered. I determined these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. Federal Laws The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended All surveyed and inventoried cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be buffered and avoided during resource management activities. New sites discovered during operations will be protected. Any identified Traditional Cultural Properties and sacred areas will be protected. Reference is made to the consultation with the South Dakota State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) under State Laws section below. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA and DN/FONSI was completed in accordance with NEPA. The Endangered Species Act, 1973 A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared to document possible effects of any activities on endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive species in the project area. A determination was made that no threatened or endangered species currently exist in the project area nor does the project area contain critical habitat for any listed species. Therefore, the project would have no effect on threatened or endangered species and no impact on critical habitat. Effects of the project on Region 2 Sensitive Species were analyzed and documented in the Wildife and Fisheries BE and in the Botany BE, which are summarized in Appendix D of the Byway Lakes Enhancement EA. A determination was made that the proposed activities may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The Clean Water Act, 1982 The proposed action will conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The proposed action is not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices and other design criteria of project activities. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1976, which amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 The 1982 and 2000 planning rules are no longer in effect. Pursuant to the 2012 planning rule, project decisions must be consistent with the Forest Plan (36 CFR (c)). The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan s Management Indicator Species (MIS) is determined by the Forest Plan s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project-specific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, p. I-11, Objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan as Amended, p. I-11, Objective 238). The Byway Lakes Enhancement Wildlife and Fisheries Report analyzed the following MIS because habitat for these species is available in the project area: beaver, white-tailed deer, song sparrow, and mountain sucker. 8

11 Administrative Review (Objection) Opportunities This decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. A written objection must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Rapid City Journal (Rapid City, South Dakota). It is the responsibility of the objector to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the legal notice of the decision in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Objectors should not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any other source. Only those organizations or individuals who submitted a comment during the 30-day Notice and Comment are eligible to object this decision pursuant to 36 CFR 218.7(a). Paper objections must be submitted to: Black Hills National Forest Supervisor s Office Appeal Deciding Officer Attn: Ed Fischer 1019 N. Fifth Street Custer, SD Phone: (605) Fax: (605) appeals-rocky-mountain-black-hills@fs.fed.us Objections may be hand delivered to the office address above between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. For objections filed electronically, the name of the project decision being objected to should appear in the subject line. Electronically filed objections must be readable in Word, Rich Text or pdf formats. When an objection is electronically mailed, the objector should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. If the objector does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the objector s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means ( (c)(2)). It is an objector s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. At a minimum, an objection must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 218.8(c) and include the following information: 1. Objector s name and address (36 CFR 218.2), with a telephone number, if available; 2. Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection); 3. When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector (36 CFR 218.2). Verification of the identity of the lead objector upon request; 4. The name of the project or activity for which the draft-decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the name(s) of the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project will be 9

12 implemented; 5. Sufficient narrative description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, specific issues related to the proposed project, and suggested remedies that would resolve the objection. Notices of Objections that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 218.8(c) will be dismissed. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Pursuant to 36 CFR , no decision on this project will be signed until the reviewing officer has responded to any and all objections, nor until all concerns and instructions issued in any objection response have been addressed. If no objection is filed, a decision could be issued no sooner than about October 4, If objections are filed, a decision could be issued no sooner than about November 6, Implementation of this project may occur immediately after decision is signed. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact Scott Haas, Acting District Ranger, or Dave Pickford, Recreation Specialist, Hell Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mt. Rushmore Road, Custer, SD 57730, by phone ( ), or (sschwenke@fs.fed.us or dpickford@fs.fed.us). Sherri Schwenke District Ranger Hell Canyon Ranger District Date 10