Table 2. Preliminary remarks on scoping comments...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


perspective.

19


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.


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


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.

Table 2. Preliminary remarks on scoping comments...

Documents

Transcript of Table 2. Preliminary remarks on scoping comments...