table 2. preliminary remarks on scoping comments...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Scoping Report for the Government Camp – Cooper Spur Land Exchange Project Scoping letters received between February 16, 2016 and March 17, 2016
Table 1. List of respondents from the scoping period (February 16, 2016 to March 17, 2016). Letter # Respondent Letter # Respondent
1 Jeff Kohnstamm, RLK and Company 9 Barbara Wilson, Vice-Chair of the Friends of Mt. Hood
2 Art Carroll 10 Tonya Moore, Assistant District Biologist for the North
Willamette Watershed District
3 Russell Pascoe, Conservation Chair of the Lower
Columbia Canoe Club 11 James Howsley, Attorney
4 Janine Blaeloch, Director of the Western Lands Project 12 Kathleen Sloan, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
5 Brenna Bell, Staff Attorney of Bark 13 Mike McCarthy
6 Kris Nelson 14 Heather Staten, Hood River Residents Valley Committee
7 Hugh McMahan 15 Ralph Bloemers (Crag Law)
8 Lee Kreutzer, Cultural Resource Specialist/Archeologist
for the National Park Service 16 Scoping comment letters received in 2010
Table 2. Preliminary remarks on scoping comments received February 16, 2016 to March 17, 2016. Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
1.0 Appraisal
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government Camp - Copper
Spur Land Exchange between the Forest and Mt. Hood Meadows Oregon LLC.
Consistent with our stance all along, RLK and Company, owners of Timberline
Lodge wholly supports it taking place. Also consistent with our support is our
continued concern that a fair and accurate appraisal of comparable properties be
made in the land swap process. We want to ensure that the government’s
appraised values reflect recent land transactions and current commercial real
estate value in the Government Camp area. It will be very important to local
business and home owners that the valuations used to calibrate the land
exchange are realistic, and that they don’t undermine their own investments.
Thank you for your continued support with this
project. The appraisals will be based on specific
federal appraisal standards and conducted by a
qualified, licensed appraiser. The Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions requires that
appraisals are based on market value for the highest
and best use of the property. In one approach to value,
relevant sales are analyzed, compared with the subject,
and considered in an appraiser's value conclusion.
1 As stated in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.10, Chapter 10, the results of scoping can assist in selecting an interdisciplinary team, refining the proposed action, identifying preliminary issues, and exploring possible alternatives and their probable environmental effects. To help serve those purposes, this document was initially created in April 2016 and first presented to the Interdisciplinary Team for discussion in June 2016; since that time, it has been subject to minor revision and was available for use and periodically referenced by the Interdisciplinary Team during development of the DEIS.
2
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
2.0 Easements
When these lands are conveyed the documents of the various special use
permits for utilities, storage tank, etc. “would be converted into easements.”
Who is the holder of these easements? Does the USFS administrate those
easements or does that responsibility transfer to the new owner?
Once the land is conveyed and the land exchange is
complete, Clackamas County will be the holder of the
easements (with the exception of the wetland
conservation and trail easements), and they will be
responsible for administering them.
2.1 Facilities at
Cooper Spur
Does the USFS really want to take on being administratively responsible for all
these base area facilities and structures many of which will likely need upgrade
one?
The facilities at Cooper Spur will be analyzed in the
DEIS. Currently, as part of the proposed action, the
Forest Service is proposing to issue a special use
permit per regulations at 36 CFR 251 to authorize the
use of these facilities. The proposed action will also
analyze decommissioning the site if there is no interest
in obtaining a special use permit to maintain and
operate the Cooper Spur Ski Area and Resort.
2.2 Forest Plan
Amendment
The Forest Plan does not specifically address non-federal areas to be acquired.
Given that the exchange has been talked about for years the Forest Plan should
be amended to adopt criteria to be used in possible purchase or exchange of
lands outside of National Forest ownership. It is not normal for any Forest Plan
to convert lands outside the National Forest boundary, but in this case it is part
of a significant proposal. With an amendment with approved criteria for
acquisition/exchange of any lands outside the existing National Forest boundary
would help the District Ranger and Forest Supervisor to indicate what does fit
National Forest administration and what doesn’t fit. Hopefully, this criteria
would create a better balance of public lands for the forest versus being put in a
place of accepting lands with significant administrative costs vs. acquiring some
acres to enhance the National Forest for the long haul.
While we appreciate this perspective, a Forest Plan
amendment of this nature would be very difficult to do
for several reasons. First, land exchanges are unique
and situational; therefore, it would be difficult to
prescribe Forest Plan direction for an action where the
location and circumstances directing the exchange are
not yet known. Second, land exchanges are directed by
factors outside of Forest Plan direction; therefore, it
would be difficult to predict what management
direction would be prescribed by the exchange. In
sum, a Forest Plan amendment of this type would be
very difficult to write as it would be too speculative.
For example, this land exchange is the result of
legislative action and includes specific provisions for
how the land acquired should be managed (e.g.,
designation of the Crystal Springs Watershed Special
Resources Management Unit).
2.3 Acquired
Lands
The lands to be acquired should automatically become part of the area where
they are located without further action. This is a good stroke!
Yes, acquired lands typically take on the management
direction of those Forest Service lands that are
adjacent to them (36 CFR 254.3(f)). However, the type
of management prescribed by Congress in the
Omnibus Act is different from the management
direction of the adjacent lands; thus, a Forest Plan
amendment is proposed as part of this project and will
be fully described in the DEIS.
3
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
2.4 Forest Plan
Designations
The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the Cooper Spur Ski Area and
Crystal Springs Watershed all make sense as proposed.
Thank you for your support. All of the proposed
Forest Plan management direction will be discussed in
the DEIS.
2.5 Forest Plan
Designations
It is sensible management direction to allow “certain types of fuel reduction and
forest health management treatments.” I support the stated goal for the Cloud
Cap-Tilly Jane area. I support the stated goal of the Cooper Spur Ski Area and
Crystal Springs Watershed. I support the proposal/existing management
direction as presented under the Northwest Forest Plan and the Non-federal
lands to be acquired. It might help to specifically define “Matrix lands.”
Thank you for sharing your perspective. All of the
proposed Forest Plan management direction will be
discussed in the DEIS.
3.0 Timing of
the EIS
Your recent letter asked if the Lower Columbia Canoe Club has additional input
to the USFS for the EIS on the Government Camp-Cooper Spur Land
Exchange. Our only input is that the EIS and exchange should have been
completed long ago. Please proceed as hastily as possible to complete the
Exchange.
Thank you for your input. The Forest Service has been
dedicated to implementing this exchange and
continues to work hard to see the project completed.
4.0 Land
Exchanges
For a variety of reasons, the Western Lands Project generally opposes land
exchanges proposed through legislation rather than the agency process. We
particularly strongly object to this exchange on the basis that it was conceived
by private interests—the Hood River Valley Residents Committee and Mt.
Hood Meadows— for their mutual benefit, and did not originate from an
intention to improve public land management to serve the public interest. In
fact, we believe that acquisition of the Cooper Spur ski area and its aging
infrastructure is substantially counter to the public interest.
While we appreciate the perspective of the Western
Lands Project, the Forest Service is responsible for
implementing the direction stated in the Omnibus Act.
In regards to the public interest, the agency will
analyze the factors related to the public interest in the
FEIS consistent with the regulations at 36 CFR
254.3(b)(1). The analysis will also be informed by
relevant direction in Forest Service Handbook
5409.13, Chapter 30, Section 33.41b, which states:
“The authorized officer has the responsibility to
determine if the proposed exchange serves the public
interest (36 CFR 254.3 (b)(2)) and supports the
direction and guidance in the forest land management
plan. Factors that must be considered in a public
interest determination for a proposed land exchange
are listed in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations,
section 254.3(b)(1) (36 CFR 254.3(b)(1)). The public
interest determination must show that the resource
values and the public objectives of the non-Federal
lands equal or exceed the resource values and the
public objectives of the Federal lands and that the
intended use of the conveyed Federal land would not
substantially conflict with established management
objectives on adjacent Federal lands, including Indian
trust lands.”
4
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
4.1 NEPA and
FLPMA
Both the environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the public interest determination under Federal Land Policy &
Management Act (FLPMA) will be useful in clarifying the consequences to the
public of this land exchange.
In compliance with FLPMA (and in accordance with PL 111-11 Section
1206(a)(2)(B)), please provide a detailed public interest determination.
The DEIS will analyze the social, economic and
environmental impacts of this project per NEPA
regulations. Also, a public interest determination will
be included in the FEIS, pursuant to Title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations, section 254.3(b)(1) and in
accordance with section 206 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716).
4.2
Altering or
Declining the
Land
Exchange
In the section addressing laws and regulations applicable to the exchange, we
request that you include a discussion of the meaning of Public Law 111-11 (i.e.,
Omnibus Act) Section 1206(a)(2)(C)(ii) in terms of the extent this language
gives the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to alter or decline to implement the
exchange.
As required by NEPA, the DEIS will include a No
Action Alternative. However, although Section
1206(a)(2)(C)(ii) provides that the conveyance of
Federal land and non-Federal land shall be subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
require, this section must be interpreted within the
context of the purpose of the Omnibus Act which
directs the United States to implement the land
exchange. It does not give the United States the
authority to alter or decline to implement the exchange
without Congressional approval.
4.3 Appraisals
Should the appraisals determine that values of the public and private land are
not equal, how will the Forest Service prioritize which federal lands to eliminate
from the exchange?
The Forest Service and Mt. Hood Meadows have
provided lists of priority parcels for exchange (as
documented in a letter signed by Lisa Northrop on
July 5, 2016). Those choices are reflected in the
appraisal instructions. The appraiser will first appraise
all of the federal and non-federal property. If the value
of the federal and non-federal property is not equal,
the appraiser will refer to the prioritization schedule
provided in the assignment instructions for direction
regarding priorities for conveyance and will value only
those parcels. If equal values are not possible, the
Agreement to Initiate states that cash payment may be
required by either party to equalize exchange values.
4.4 Easements Please provide a discussion of the potential impact the conservation easement
on the Government Camp lands will have on the market value of the land.
The appraiser will consider the conservation easement
and analyze how it may affect the value of the federal
property.
4.5 Existing
Condition
Please describe in detail the current condition and past management of the
private lands that would come to the public and the environmental
characteristics that make it desirable or undesirable to bring into public
ownership.
The historic and existing conditions of the lands to be
acquired will be described in the DEIS.
5
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
4.6 Existing
Condition
Likewise, please describe in detail the characteristics of the public land and its
suitability for retention in public ownership or for disposal.
The historic and existing conditions of the lands to be
exchanged will be described in the DEIS.
4.7 Facilities at
Cooper Spur
Under the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act, the Forest
Service is actually selling some properties it cannot afford to maintain in order
to raise funds to maintain others. What is the current facility maintenance
backlog in the Mt. Hood National Forest? How will the Forest Service maintain
or manage the buildings and infrastructure that would come under its
management after this exchange? Have particular properties been identified for
future sale in order to raise funds to manage the newly acquired Cooper Spur
infrastructure? If so, please identify them.
The existing condition for facility management on the
Forest will be described in the DEIS. Further, the
facilities at Cooper Spur and how the Forest Service
intends to manage them will also be discussed in the
DEIS. For example, as part of the proposed action, the
Forest is proposing to issue a special use permit per
regulations at 36 CFR 251 to authorize the use of these
facilities. However, making decisions regarding other
properties on the Forest are outside the scope of this
NEPA analysis. The proposed action will also analyze
decommissioning the site if there is no interest in
obtaining a special use permit to maintain and operate
the Cooper Spur Ski Area and Resort.
4.8 Facilities at
Cooper Spur
What plans does the Forest Service have for future use and management of the
Cooper Spur ski area and infrastructure? What is the condition of the buildings
and fixtures that would come into public ownership?
The existing condition of the facilities at Cooper Spur
will be disclosed in the DEIS. Currently, the proposed
action includes proposing to issue a special use permit
per regulations at 36 CFR 251 to authorize the use of
these facilities. The proposed action will also analyze
decommissioning the site if there is no interest in
obtaining a special use permit to maintain and operate
the Cooper Spur Ski Area and Resort.
6
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
5.0
History of
the Land
Exchange
In November, 2010, Bark signed on to scoping comments on this project
submitted by the Cooper Spur Wild and Free Coalition. We incorporate those
comments by reference, and submit the following new comments to be included
in the administrative record for this decision.
Land management of this part of Mt. Hood National Forest has many
stakeholders: local communities, businesses, outdoor recreationalists,
conservationists, timber companies, and the Forest Service with its multiple use
directive. Often these stakeholders have found ourselves in intractable conflicts
over land management and resource use. However, the land exchange originally
legislated in 2009 is the result of nearly a decade of struggle, compromise and
collaboration. This land exchange was one piece in a larger legislative package
stemming from extensive negotiation between all the invested stakeholders
including Bark.
Other parts of that package, such as substantive protections for the municipal
drinking watershed and designation of a new wilderness area, will not enact
until this legislated land exchange is finalized. This was part of the original
compromise to ensure that all parts of the bill would come to fruition at the
same time.
Thank you for your comment and sharing your
perspective.
5.1
History of
the Land
Exchange
Now, six years after the Omnibus Bill, the land exchange has still not taken
place. The municipal drinking water protections have not become enforceable.
The proposed wilderness is not protected. The hard work of many diverse
stakeholders has not birthed tangible results.
As an organization committed to sound ecological management of Mt. Hood
National Forest, we recognize the need for dialogue and discussion between
all parties and interests. This type of negotiation can be frustrating and,
honestly, is often ineffective. However, the legislative package that included
the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange, stands out as a truly effective
collaboration between the interested parties which is why it is so disappointing
that the provisions of the bill have not taken effect. The delayed
implementation of this exchange has caused strain on earnest, valuable
efforts to build relationships between our organization and the agency.
As such, we are glad that the Mt. Hood National Forest chose to re-initiate
scoping on this project, instead of using its limited resources fighting the
HRVRC’s Failure to Act litigation. Bark hopes that the agency stays on track
with this process and completes the land exchange in as expeditious a manner as
possible.
Thank you for your continued interest in this land
exchange.
7
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
5.2 Polallie
Cooper
The scoping notice recognizes that completing the Land Exchange will result in
the connected action of protecting the Crystal Springs Watershed Special
Management Unit from road building and logging. The scoping notice fails to
acknowledge that in the time lapse between when the land exchange should
have been completed and the present, the Forest Service planned the Polallie
Cooper Timber Sale, which includes management actions that run counter to the
language and intent of the 2009 Omnibus Bill.
The intent of this legislation was to permanently protect this important
watershed and aquifer from the impacts of commercial logging and road
building that often occur on Forest Service-managed land. While active
management was not prohibited, it was limited to occur only in the service of
“protect[ing] the water quality, water quantity, and scenic, cultural, natural, and
wildlife values of the Management Unit.” Treatments to maintain and restore
fire-resilient forest structures containing late successional forest structure
characterized by large trees and multistoried canopies, are permitted as
ecologically appropriate, with priority given to activities that restore
previously harvested stands, including the removal of logging slash, smaller
diameter material, and ladder fuels.
As described in the Draft Environmental Assessment
for the Polallie Cooper Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Project on pages 18-20, the Forest believes that the
project is consistent with the Omnibus Act. Also,
while we agree that the Omnibus Act states that
priority will be given to activities that restore
previously harvested stands, it does not mean that
activities are restricted only to previously managed
stands. The primary purpose of the Polallie Cooper
project is to move the landscape toward more historic
conditions by restoring forest resiliency. By reducing
fuel loading and restoring forest structure to historic
conditions, the project would increase the quantity of
water available in the watershed, and reduce the risk
of impacts from wildfire on the quality of water as a
clean water source for the residents of Hood River
County. For these reasons, the actions proposed in the
Polallie Cooper project would not prevent the land
from its future designation described in the Omnibus
Act and they would aid in protecting the many
important ecological and social values associated with
the area.
5.3 Polallie
Cooper
However, while allowing active management in the service of restoration, the
act specifically prohibits constructing new roads, or renovating of existing non-
System roads, except as necessary to protect public health and safety, and
projects undertaken for the purpose of harvesting commercial timber.
Despite the prohibition on road building, the proposed Polallie Cooper Timber
Sale would construct 1.4 miles of new road and renovate 3.26 miles of
existing temporary roads in the Crystal Springs Management Unit. Polallie
Cooper would also log 782 acres of commercial timber in the management unit.
We incorporate by reference Bark’s Feb. 25, 2015 comments on the Polallie
Cooper Timber Sale, which contain an extensive discussion of whether the
proposed action in the Crystal Springs Watershed Special Management Unit
complies with the intent of the legislation.
As stated above, the Forest believes the Polallie
Cooper Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is
consistent with the Omnibus Act, which allows the
Forest Service to utilize temporary roads to
accomplish fuels reduction objectives. As defined in
36 CFR 212.1, the Forest Service does not consider
temporary roads to be new road construction since
these access routes would not be considered part of the
National Forest System roads or included in the
agency’s transportation atlas.
8
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
5.4 Polallie
Cooper
The important point for these comments is that because the Forest Service
delayed completing this land exchange, it created the conditions where the
protections for Crystal Springs may not be legally enforceable, and then planned
a project that does not comply with those protections. Bark requests that the
Forest Service move with all due speed to complete the land exchange so the
other aspects of the Omnibus Bill are enacted, and delay a decision on the
Polallie Cooper Timber sale until after the exchange is complete.
As stated above, the Forest believes the Polallie
Cooper Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is
consistent with the Omnibus Act. Further, the need to
treat conditions in the area that are outside the range
that historically occurred on the landscape were
identified in 2006, in the Hood River County
Community Wildlife Protection Plan (CWPP). In fact,
prior to completing the CWPP, a collaborative group
gathered for a series of meetings and fieldtrips in 2005
and 2006 to discuss the need to reduce overstocked
trees and fuel created by beetle-killed lodgepole pine
near the Cooper Spur Ski Area. The group agreed that
although a need for fuel reduction on National Forest
System lands adjacent to private land exists on a much
wider scale in the Cooper Spur area, their desire was
to see a smaller project completed first. Therefore, in
2008, a year prior to the Omnibus Act, the Forest
Service completed the DB Cooper Fuel Reduction
Demonstration Project.
The Forest Service has been dedicated to
implementing this exchange and continues to work
hard to see the project completed.
6.0 Timing
I would like to submit my comments on the Mt. Hood Land Trade that is yet to
be completed, although the Forest Service agreed to complete the land trade as
its duty in the settlement of the Cooper Spur-Mt. Hood Meadows case. The
onus remains: When will the N. Side land trade be completed? Will it be this
year? If not, I’d like to know about the basis for any delay…as would the
public.
The land exchange is proposed to occur in 2018 once
the Record of Decision, exchange agreement, and final
title opinion have all been completed.
9
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
7.0 Background
information
By way of pertinent personal background, I have been recreating on Mount
Hood for 45 years as a climber, hiker and skier. Since retiring to the hamlet of
Mount Hood sixteen years ago, I have hiked and skied 100s of miles on mostly
the north side of the mountain. I enjoy the solitude of the non-mechanized side
and was involved with the congressional efforts of the Cooper Spur Wild and
Free Coalition and the Hood River Valley Residents Committee which
culminated in the Mount Hood portion of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (Omnibus Act). I have been a member of the Hood
River County Water Planning Group for eight years, and in addition have an
intense personal interest in the Crystal Springs Zone of Contribution (ZOC), a
majority of which lies within the Mount Hood National Forest. Crystal Springs
provides domestic water for more than 25% of Hood River County, including
my family.
Thank you for your continued interest in the Mt. Hood
National Forest.
7.1 Timing
First let me say I am glad the land exchange process has begun, albeit too many
years, for whatever unstated reasons, after Congress mandated it to start. The
exchange should be expedited in whatever way possible. My knowledge of
the land exchange scoping process is confined to the contents of the scoping
letter and my comments and questions are based on that.
The Forest Service continues to work hard to complete
the land exchange, but there are many steps required
in the process per federal regulations.
7.2
Level of
NEPA
Analysis
Having just completed my comments on the draft EA for the Polallie Cooper
Hazardous Fuels Reduction project two weeks ago, I am left mystified as to
how and to what end the Forest Service is complying with the NEPA process.
Logic would indicate that the former project should have been an EIS, not an
EA. Which brings me to my first question from the first sentence of the Land
Exchange scoping letter: How and why does a land exchange justify an EIS?
The scoping letter provides administrative details such as “Lands to be
Conveyed” and “Lands to be Acquired” but makes no mention of possible or
probable environmental impacts. The decision to do an EIS begs for an upfront
paragraph or two of explanation. It would seem a land exchange could be
accomplished as an administrative action or by a Categorical Exclusion. Either
would certainly be accomplished in a much quicker time frame and with much
less expense than an EIS. And if there are, in fact, some potential
environmental concerns, is not the Environmental Assessment the first step? It
is unfortunate that the land exchange was not accomplished before the current
Polallie Cooper Hazardous Fuels Reduction process. See below.
Based on our preliminary analysis of the potential
impacts of this project, we believe there could be
potentially “significant” impacts warranting
documentation in an EIS (40 CFR 1508.27). For
example, it has been determined that the project would
have an adverse effect on a known cultural resource.
Also, since Northern spotted owl habitat would be
permanently removed as a result of this project, it was
concluded that the land exchange may have an adverse
effect to the Northern spotted owl.
10
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
7.3
Level of
NEPA
Analysis
One possible answer to my question above is that the unstated intent of an EIS
for the Land Exchange is to provide the full evaluation of the environmental
impacts of the potential B6 treatments on the Crystal Springs Zone of
Contribution. Is this the case? If so, excellent!
The primary purpose of the project is comply with
congressional direction to exchange lands, which also
sets forth two related actions that are triggered into
effect upon completion of the exchange: the creation
the Crystal Springs Watershed Special Resources
Management Unit; and the wilderness addition.
Therefore, the analysis in the DEIS will include a
Forest Plan amendment to assign land use allocations
to the acquired lands and wilderness designation. This
project does not proposed any “treatments” for the
acquired lands.
7.4 Forest Plan
I cannot find a “Watershed Special Resource Management Unit” in my copy of
the 1990 Mount Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, so
assume this was a special designation created for the Crystal Springs ZOC by
the Omnibus Act, which also included paragraphs on Purposes, Administration
and Prohibited Acts.
Yes, the Omnibus Act created the designation for the
Crystal Springs Watershed Special Resources
Management Unit and therefore is not included in the
1990 Forest Plan. Because this designation does not
currently exist in the Forest Plan, the proposed action
includes assigning management direction for the
Crystal Springs Watershed Special Resources
Management Unit. The Forest Plan amendment will be
discussed in detail in the DEIS.
7.5
Management
Area
Direction
It seems puzzling that the ZOC land use allocation is being immediately
changed upon the consummation of the exchange from the Crystal Springs
Watershed Special Resource Management Unit to a B-6 Special Emphasis
Watershed, especially when the B6 Standards are being retooled, or added to,
to reflect the mandates of the Omnibus Act. The B6 Special Emphasis
Watershed standards and guidelines were written for surface water sources, not
groundwater spring fed sources. This is an important distinction which should
be recognized with a land use allocation classification with its own unique
standards and guidelines tailored, in this case, to the Crystal Springs ZOC.
There are other spring fed sources with some of their ZOCs on Forest Service
lands such as the City of Hood River and possibly the Ice Fountain Water
District. Therefore, a designation such as “Crystal Springs Zone of
Contribution Special Resource Management Unit” would be appropriate, if
not done, retain Crystal Springs Watershed Special Resource Management Unit.
The Bull Run Watershed has its own designation, also created by legislative
action, so a designation for special circumstances or conditions is not
unprecedented.
The Forest Plan’s management direction for Special
Emphasis Watershed (B6) is most similar to the
designation set forth in the Omnibus Act. Although it
does not wholly meet the management direction
prescribed by Congress in the Omnibus Act, this land
designation was used as a starting point for further
establishing the management direction for the new
land allocation. Further, the Omnibus Act directs the
area to be known as the “Crystal Springs Watershed
Special Resources Management Unit; therefore, upon
completion of this project, the area will be referred to
as such and reflected in the Forest Plan.
11
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
7.6 Omnibus
Act
Unfortunately, there is a very wide latitude between the Omnibus Act’s Section
1205, (a) Crystal Springs Watershed Special Resources Management Unit,
paragraph (2), Purpose (A) “to ensure the protection of the quality and quantity
of the Crystal Springs watershed as a clean drinking water source …” and the
stipulations in paragraph (4) Administration and paragraph (5) Prohibited
Activities. As described in the scoping letter, it appears that these stipulations
have been carried over to the B6 category and depending on interpretation could
lead to activities very detrimental to Purpose (A).
Thank you for your comment and sharing your
perspective.
7.7 Omnibus
Act
I am very uncomfortable with the standards language, coming mostly from the
Omnibus Act, of the B6 for the Crystal Springs ZOC:
- B6 Goal, quoted on fourth paragraph, page 5 of scoping letter: “A
secondary goal is to maintain a healthy forest condition through a variety of
timber (italics mine) management practices.” What exactly does that mean on
the ground?
- Standard B6-030, page 5: “…new road construction and renovation
of existing non-System roads shall only be permitted to protect public health
and safely (sic).” (Italics mine). What, exactly, does “to protect public health
and safety” mean or allow in this context?
- Standard B6-018/B6-019: “Regulated timber harvest shall not occur,
other than activities related to the harvest of merchantable products that are
byproducts of activities conducted to further the designated purposes (italics
mine) of the Crystal Springs Watershed Special Resource Management Unit.”
B6-042 also refers to the designated purposes of the CWSRMU. It is assumed
these purposes are (A) and (B) from the Omnibus Act. To me these standards
say “timber harvest/pesticide applications shall not occur except when they do!”
Unfortunately, the final version of the Omnibus Act contained loopholes big
enough to drive a logging truck through.
Analysis in the DEIS will describe the goal, as well as
Standards and Guidelines, of the Crystal Springs
Watershed Special Resources Management Unit.
Language in the proposed Forest Plan amendment will
reflect the language in the Omnibus Act. For example,
the DEIS should include in the description of the
Forest Plan amendments that the Omnibus Act
specifically states, “the Secretary may conduct fuel
reduction and forest health management treatments to
maintain and restore fire-resilient forest structures”
(Section 1205(a)(4)(B)).
12
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
7.8 Timber
Harvest
Many, myself included, believe adamantly that there should be no
commercial/mechanized logging in/on the Zone of Contribution. Period.
The known risks of logging (fuel spills, road building, soil erosion and
degradation, loss of canopy, etc.) exceed the risks of a potential wildfire as
hydrologist Ed Salminen’s April 27, 2006 report to the Crystal Springs Water
District entitled “Likely effects of catastrophic wildfire on Crystal Springs water
quality and quantity” concludes. In my opinion, ladder fuels reduction should
be carried out with hand crews or horse logging. There are studies dealing
with the impacts of wildfire on watersheds (surface water sources), however to
my knowledge, other than Salminen’s report, minimal work addresses wildfires
on groundwater spring fed sources. Therefore, the Precautionary Principle and
Primum Non Nocere (First, do no harm) should prevail until such time as we
know more about the impact of wildfire on ground water sources. Hopefully,
the Crystal Springs ZOC will never be a case study (the 2008 Gnarl Ridge Fire
and the upper elevations of the ZOC’s Zone 3 not withstanding).
The proposed Forest Plan amendments for the Crystal
Springs Watershed Special Resources Management
Unit will be consistent with the direction outlined by
Congress in the Omnibus Act. The effects from project
proposal will be addressed in the project-specific
analysis using the best available science.
7.9 Polallie
Cooper
Hood River District Ranger Tervo will be coming out with the Polallie Cooper
Hazardous Fuel Reduction project final EA and her decision sometime this
summer and the draft EIS for the Land Exchange is due out in November. Will
a moratorium be placed on any activities on the Crystal Springs ZOC
resulting from the Polallie Cooper decision until the Land Exchange EIS
and process has been completed?
As previously stated, the Forest believes that the
Polallie Cooper Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is
consistent with the Omnibus Act.
7.10 Questions
I intend to be involved with all the commenting opportunities associated with
this Land Exchange process and wish to be educated and informed in so doing.
Accordingly, would you or one of your staff please reply to this letter
answering my three main questions: 1) How and why an EIS vs.
administrative action or CE, 2) Is the EIS being done for the Crystal
Springs ZOC? and 3) How will any discordance (in timing and/or findings)
between the Polallie Cooper EA and the Land Exchange EIS be handled?
The Forest Service has been in contact with the
commenter to answer his questions as best as possible.
Also, responses to these questions are included in the
responses above.
8.0 Mailing List
The National Park Service asks that National Trails Intermountain Region,
which administers the Oregon National Historic Trail, be added to the contact
list for this project.
The NPS will be added to the mailing list for this
project.
13
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
9.0 Background
Information
Friends of Mount Hood, founded in 1988 to protect Mount Hood from rampant
urbanized development, expresses its strong support for the proposed land
exchange between the Forest Service (120 acres next to Government Camp) and
Mt Hood Meadows (770 acres of privately owned land on the north side of the
mountain). The land exchange proposal was approved by Congress as part of
the 2009 Mount Hood Wilderness bill. Although the Forest Service was directed
to fulfill certain responsibilities within a 16-month period, seven years have
elapsed, and the Forest Service has not completed the exchange. We urge the
Forest Service to move ahead with this proposal, with diligence.
Thank you for your interest in the exchange; the Forest
Service continues to work diligently on the project.
9.1 Background
Information
As you are aware, Government Camp is an already urbanized area of Mount
Hood. Condominium development would potentially be appropriate at that
location. Much of Mount Hood is already logged and developed. The
undeveloped areas on the north side require protection. This is an opportunity
to protect some still undeveloped sections of the forest, for use by future
generations.
Because of Mount Hood's close proximity to Portland, it is vulnerable to the
public's propensity to "love it to death." There is public demand for the
protection of the natural beauty, the hydrology, biology, and ecological
attributes of the mountain. Areas like the north side of Mt Hood are becoming
more and more scarce as the population and recreation needs increase and such
areas need protection from development.
Thank you for your comment.
9.2
Crystal
Springs
Watershed
Two thousand acres of the Crystal Springs watershed are included in the
proposed land exchange. The watershed provides drinking water for a large
number of Hood River residents. Friends of Mount Hood objects to old growth
logging and roadbuilding in that watershed. We ask the Forest Service for a
management plan to protect this historic backcountry.
The primary goal of the land exchange is to permanently protect a large amount
of acres of Mount Hood's north side, while providing land of equal value to
Mount Hood Meadows at Government Camp. We support that goal.
As stated in the scoping letter dated February 11,
2016, the Forest Plan would be amended to meet the
congressional direction described for the Crystal
Springs Special Resources Management Unit.
14
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
10.0 Wildlife/Big
Game
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Government Camp –
Cooper Spur Land Exchange between the Forest and Mount Hood Meadows,
LLC on the Zigzag and Hood River ranger districts. Under the Mt. Hood
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the land use allocation of
the parcels to be conveyed is A11 – Winter Recreation Areas, and includes a
future desired condition that embraces summer recreation activities. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) does not object to the land exchange,
but would like to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of summer
range habitat for big game species like deer, elk, bear, and cougar. Mt. Hood is
a unique landscape in the local region that possesses summer range habitats that
benefit wildlife, particularly migratory big game species. For example,
according to emerging research on elk, summer range habitat may directly
affect the growth of young animals, pregnancy rates of adult females, and body
fat levels of animals entering wintering. ODFW began a pilot telemetry study in
2015 of elk that utilize summer range habitat on Mt. Hood and have collected
location data of elk in the vicinity of the parcels to be conveyed. ODFW is
concerned that future management of summer recreation could displace elk and
other wildlife species. ODFW anticipates an opportunity to coordinate with
Clackamas County during their review of land use development proposals on
the conveyed parcels in order to minimize adverse effects to vegetation,
fisheries, and wildlife. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input on
this proposal.
Big game and other wildlife species will be analyzed
in the DEIS. We look forward to continued
coordination with ODFW.
11.1 Tram
Corridor
As proposed, the land exchange could thwart the eventual development of an
aerial tram connecting the Timberline and Ski Bowl ski areas with Government
Camp. The USFS needs to carefully consider the requirements set forth not only
in the Mt Hood Forest Bill Authorization and the United States Code (“U.S.C.”)
governing land transactions, but also the Clackamas County Code and
Comprehensive Plan and other support for this corridor. A tram between
Government Camp and the ski areas will significantly reduce vehicle trips,
lessen greenhouse gas emissions, provide for a safer means of access to the ski
areas during the winter months, and provide economic development
opportunities for the Mt Hood communities.
In the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
November 4, 2010, Mt. Hood Meadows evidenced an
intent to honor the terms of the MOU – namely
working collaboratively with Timberline and Skibowl
ski areas for an appropriate corridor should it be
determined that a gondola is feasible. As the Forest
Service indicated in an April 23, 2013 letter submitted
to your organization, the agency believes it is
unnecessary for the United States to reserve an
easement for the potential future development of a
gondola connection.
15
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
11.2 Tram
Corridor
Section 1207(a)(1) of the Mt Hood Forest Bill mandates that the Secretary of
Agriculture participate with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
on its Mt. Hood transportation plan. The purpose of this plan is to find
comprehensive solutions to the specific transportation challenges on Mt Hood.
In particular, this section calls for an integrated, multi-modal transportation
plan. Congress requires that the Secretary of Agriculture and ODOT look for
transportation solutions other than the automobile. Congress declared their
preference for a gondola connecting Government Camp to Timberline Lodge by
authorizing a feasibility study for the project. The authorization act went as far
as specifying that the gondola should be located in the proximity of the historic
gondola corridor. The authorization act also provides a blueprint for developing
funding mechanisms to implement the transportation plan with the gondola,
stating such financing tools as Federal Government funding.
In order to meet the direction included in the Omnibus
Act, the Forest Service, along with its partners,
completed the Mt. Hood Multimodal Transportation
Plan in 2014. In regards to the aerial tram, the
Omnibus Act requires the Forest Service to seek to
address the feasibility of establishing a gondola
connection, which has been completed.
11.3
Easements
and Tram
Corridor
The Mt Hood Forest Bill calls for the land exchange with Mt Hood Meadows.
But it specifically requires that the Secretary of Agriculture reserve easements
for non-motorized use by the public, and for roads, utilities and infrastructure
facilities to cross the trails.
Congress’ intent and will is clear with this law. They want to accomplish the
land exchange while preserving the ability of the public to access trails currently
on the land. And Congress is very firm that they want to develop a gondola or
tram that will connect Government Camp and Timberline. Protecting the right-
of-way with a reserved easement for the gondola or tram thus becomes an
essential part of any exchange.
Forest Service policy and directives advise against the
type of deed restriction that you seek as part of the
exchange. The easement you are requesting primarily
addresses a political or social issue, which Forest
Service policy states such deed restrictions should be
used only for addressing environmental issues. Deed
restrictions create a perpetual responsibility on behalf
of the United States to monitor and enforce the
restrictions. Due to these restrictions encumber the
estate conveyed, they have the potential to reduce the
appraised value of the land, which would necessitate
adjustments of the acreage to be exchanged to equalize
the values. Agency policy is to the effect that, if a
restriction significantly reduces value or creates
obligations to the United States, those lands should be
removed from an exchange proposal. However, in this
instance, Congress specified the lands to be
exchanged.
16
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
11.4 Tram
Corridor
The land exchange documents are needed to reserve the necessary right-of-way
to ensure that the tram will be constructed. In fact, the U.S.C. requires that
within the land exchange conveyance documents, the Secretary of Agriculture
will mandate ant “..terms, covenants, and reservations as he deems necessary to
insure proper land use and protection of the public interest…”. The Mt Hood
Forest Bill proclaims that the land exchange must be carried out under “..section
206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716).”The Secretary of Agriculture must consider these requirements and the
specific language of the Mt Hood Forest Bill.
As stated above, Congress already told the Secretary of Agriculture what
conditions, terms, and reservations must be in the exchange. First, that there will
be an easement to preserve trails for non-motorized public access. This is stated
very specifically in the act. But Congress was even more detailed in regards to
the gondola. First, they stated that there should be a gondola connection
between Government Camp and Timberline, and the location should be in close
proximity to the historic alignment. And in the land exchange section, it
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to reserve necessary infrastructure
easements. This would naturally include the right-of-way/easement for a
gondola.
Please see the response above.
11.5
Local
Planning
Law
The land exchange between USFS and Mt. Hood Meadows also carries with it
limitations on development. Namely, that the land exchange does not alter or
limit Oregon or Clackamas County from enforcing any “..law (including
regulations), rule or standard relating to development…” Oregon, Clackamas
County, and other public and private organizations have already included a
gondola/tram in their planning documents, laws, and regulations. The USFS
must therefore examine what these plans, laws, and regulations state and
incorporate them into the land exchange. A brief overview is provided below (a
number of local ordinances are included).
Please see response to 11.3.
11.6 Tram
Corridor
On behalf of our clients, we request several action items form the USFS. First,
that the USFS affirms the proposed corridor for the aerial tram between
Timberline and Government Camp in any exchange documents. More
specifically, that the USFS explicitly reserve easements for the aerial tram
corridor to ensure the fulfillment of the stated goals, policies and statutes
mentioned in detail above.
Please see response to 11.3.
11.7 Trail
Easements
Second, the USFS must preserve the existing trail network through the
reservation of easements over the exchanged property. Protection of these
public trails is mandated in the Mt Hood Forest Bill. The assurances that have
been given by the USFS thus far are inadequate.
Non-motorized trail easements are included in the
proposed action, as described in the Omnibus Act; and
more details will be available in the DEIS when it is
available.
17
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
11.8
Land
Exchange
with Collins
Lake
Development
Third, the USFS must exchange to the Collins Lake Development the strip of
land between Government Camp Loop Road and the Collins Lake development.
By deeding over this small strip of land, the USFS will correct a deed error and
will further a previously agreed-to memorandum of understanding between the
ski areas.
The strip of land mentioned in this comment lies South
of the Southerly Right-of-Way line of Government
Camp Loop Road (in Section 13, T3S, R8E). The
Federal Land Status report identifies the land as
Reserved Public Domain Land under the Creative Act
of March 3, 1891. It is included within the limits of the
Mt. Hood National Forest. Thus, this strip of land is
being conveyed as part of this land exchange.
12.0 Treaty
Rights
As you know, the CTWSRO have treaty rights for hunting, gathering and
utilizing for cultural uses resources that exist throughout their lands ceded by
treaty in 1855. These are referred to as Usual and Accustomed (U&A) Places
and include significant cultural resources such as berries, fish, plants used for
foods, medicines and ceremonies, sacred sites and traditional use areas. The Mt.
Hood National Forest is one of those areas for the CTWSRO.
The Forest has been engaged and will continue to be
engaged with the CTWSRO on treaty rights associated
with the lands subject to this exchange. The DEIS will
analyze impacts to both treaty rights and cultural
resources.
12.1
Culturally
Significant
Resources
CTWSRO THPO concerns about land transfers/exchanges that is owned by the
federal government to non-federal entities include concerns about potential
impacts to significant cultural resources, gathering and use areas, hunting and
other traditional uses as a result of taking the land out of federal ownership. One
resource of concern for that area is Huckleberry gathering areas, but there are
potentially other culturally-significant resources important to CTWSRO that
need to be considered as part of your agency’s review under NEPA and NHPA.
The DEIS will analyze impacts to both treaty rights
and cultural resources.
12.2 Treaty
Rights
It is the position of the CTWSRO that there should be No Net Loss of lands,
access to lands for traditional cultural uses, or treaty resources and rights for the
CTWSRO in federal land exchanges that occur within CTWSRO ceded and
U&A lands. It is important that these potential impacts be considered in the
Final EIS for the proposed exchange. We would request that not only
archaeological sites be considered in this review pursuant to NEPA and NHPA,
but also Historic Properties of Cultural and Religious Significance to Indian
Tribes (HPRCSITs). To-date it does not appear that the DEIS has covered some
of these resource issues adequately. This issues should be matters of tribal
consultation with both the CTWSRO Council and the CTWSRO THPO, plus
with the CTWSRO Culture and Heritage Committee.
The DEIS will analyze impacts to both treaty rights
and cultural resources. Additionally, the agency will
consult on the land exchange with the CTWSRO.
18
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
13.0
Benefits of
Omnibus
Act
The 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act will benefit our farming and
timber production interests by:
1. Maintaining lands in non-developed uses which means fewer uses and
people in the area that are incompatible with our farm and forest
practices.
2. Less escalation of land prices, which helps farmers stay on the land
and expand their operations.
3. Less trespass and vandalism.
4. Less traffic to interfere with farm operations and slow moving tractors
on highways.
5. Less competition for water so that we can irrigate our crops.
6. Less harvest of USFS lands will help maintain log prices so private
forest land owners can afford to keep their lands.
Thank you for your comment and sharing your
perspective.
13.1
Benefits of
Omnibus
Act
Community and environmental interests will be served by completing this
Congressional Act because:
1. The Crystal Springs Watershed which serves the domestic water needs
of over 50% of the area of the Hood River Valley will be protected by
the Crystal Springs Special Resources Watershed Management Unit
(2267 acres).
2. Backcountry recreational areas (1710 acres) will be protected for
perpetual public use by the new Wilderness Area.
3. Designation of these two large units will maintain natural habitat for
big game and plant species.
4. Cooper Spur Ski Area and Cooper Spur Inn will be leased to private
managers so that these facilities can continue to serve the public in the
same low impact manner.
Destination resorts and subdivisions will be prevented in this special natural
area on Mt. Hood and the wishes of the community will be realized.
Thank you for your comment and sharing your
perspective.
19
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
14.0
History of
Land
Exchange
Since 2001, HRVRC has been working in collaboration with Oregon’s
Congressional delegation, local county governments, Mount Hood Meadows,
citizen groups and businesses to resolve three decades of dispute over the future
of the north side of Mount Hood. In 2009, that broad collaboration worked
together on the passage of the Public Lands Omnibus Act. The Mount Hood
Cooper Spur Land Exchange was the keystone component of that settlement
and is the perfect Oregon solution to the threats that would otherwise face
Oregon’s iconic peak. In the seven years that followed passage of the act we
have been dismayed by the Forest Service’s slow progress at completing the
exchange. Last year we filed suit against the Forest Service for the agency’s
unreasonable delay in completing the trade as directed by Congress. Given the
slow progress in recent years, we were heartened to receive the scoping letter
for the EIS for the land trade. We salute the Forest Service for their recent
willingness to devote more attention to the land trade and their efforts to
accelerate its completion.
Thank you for your comment and sharing your
perspective.
14.1 Polallie
Cooper
The Cooper Spur-Government Camp Land Exchange provides tremendous
public benefits; however, we are concerned about the proposed Polallie Cooper
logging project in the Crystal Springs Watershed Special Management Unit.
The proposed forest treatment is inconsistent with the 2009 Act. We request that
Forest Service postpone any forest treatment in the Crystal Springs area until
after the land exchange is complete and a specific management plan has been
adopted for the Crystal Springs watershed. The 2009 Act was intended to
provide substantive protections for the Crystal Springs area; proposed road
building and the logging of older, “previously unmanaged stands” is outside the
management protocol intended by the Act.
Please see responses to #5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 7.9.
20
Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development1
15.0 Crag Law
Submissions
Ralph Bloemers of Crag Law submitted several attachments on behalf of two of
his clients: 1) Hood River Valley Residents Committee; and 2) Cooper Spur
Wild and Free Coalition. Five emails submitted on his clients’ behalf contained
the following:
A letter and press release from Senator Wyden and Congressman
Blumenauer regarding the Polallie Cooper Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Project;
Comments submitted by his clients for the Polallie Cooper Hazardous
Fuels Reduction Project;
A Government Accountability Office report from 2006 to be shared
with the appraiser;
A Clackamas County memo from 2013 regarding the density
calculations and allowed uses for Low Density Residential; and,
Submission of the comments submitted for this land exchange in
November 2010.
Also, Ralph Bloemers of Crag Law submitted several attachments on behalf of
his clients – the Hood River Valley Residents Committee – which included
appraisals completed in 2005 by Steve Hall for the Cooper Spur and
Government Camp parcels; sales data from Clackamas County for properties
within the Mt. Hood corridor to be shared with the appraiser; and a proposed
amendment to the Omnibus Act.
Ralph Bloemers also submitted other emails where he did not state that he was
submitting the information on behalf of his clients. These emails included: sales
data from Clackamas County to be shared with the appraiser; and a written
statement of Congressman Blumenauer on the Mount Hood Cooper Spur Land
Exchange Clarification Act.
Most of the comments about the land exchange in
these documents has already been addressed in the
responses provided above. It is important to note that
the proposed changes to the Omnibus Act (i.e., Mount
Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act)
will be analyzed in the DEIS. Also, all of the
documents submitted will become part of the project
record for this land exchange. In regards to the
requests to provide information to the appraiser, the
information has been sent to the Acting Regional
Appraiser and the Assigned Senior Review Appraiser.
The Review Appraiser will provide the list of sales
included in the spreadsheet titled "mt hood corridor
2005" to the Contract Appraiser for consideration;
however, the Contract Appraiser will determine what
data will be used in the appraisal. Also, our
understanding of the appraisals completed in 2005 by
Steve Hall were not instructed by Forest Service
Review Appraisers and were not approved for Agency
use.
16.0 Previous
Comments
The scoping comments from did not bring up any different topics than the scoping comments received in 2016. All of the comments from
2010 are either addressed above, opinion, or outside of the scope of the land exchange.
21
Table 3. List of respondents from comments received outside of the designated scoping period (received after March 17, 2016). Letter # Respondent Date Received/Submitted
1 Ralph Bloemers (Crag Law) on behalf of the Hood River Valley Residents Committee March 21, 2016
2 Ralph Bloemers (Crag Law) April 10, 2016
Table 4. Preliminary remarks on comments received outside of the designated scoping period (received after March 17, 2016). Letter # Subject Comment Preliminary Remarks for DEIS Development
1.0 Appraisal Sales data received from Clackamas County for properties in the Mt. Hood
Corridor to be shared with the appraiser. Please see response to #15.0 in Table 2.
2.0 Wetlands
Letter from Clackamas County Board of Commissioners to Senator Wyden,
Senator Merkley, and Congressman Blumenauer dated September 16, 2015,
which discusses information about policies and regulations to protect wetlands,
stream corridors, and other natural resources in the County.
Thank you for sharing this information.