United States Forest Hoosier National Forest 811 Constitution...

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Hoosier National Forest

Supervisor’s Office

811 Constitution Avenue

Bedford, IN 47421

Phone: 812-275-5987

Fax: 812-279-3423

TDD: 1-800-877-8339

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: December 4, 2013

Mr. Robert Graves

Hoosier Back Country Horsemen of America

12784 E. Rollins Lane

Springville, IN 47462-6321

RE: Appeal of the Decision Memo for the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Closure Project

Environmental Assessment, Brownstown Ranger District, Hoosier National Forest,

Appeal # 14-09-12-0006 A215

Dear Mr. Graves:

On November 6, 2013, you filed a notice of appeal for yourself and representing the Hoosier

Back Country Horsemen of America, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 215 for the Saddle Creek

Project, Hoosier National Forest. The Decision Memo was signed by District Ranger Chris

Zimmer on September 16, 2013. The legal notice for the decision was published in the Hoosier

Times (Bloomington, Indiana) September 22, 2013.

I have reviewed the Project Record and considered the recommendation of District Ranger

Christopher Mattrick, the Appeal Reviewing Officer, regarding the disposition of your appeal. The

Appeal Reviewing Officer’s review focused on the decision documentation developed by the

Responsible Official for this project and the issues in your appeal. The Appeal Reviewing Officer’s

recommendation is enclosed and incorporated by reference. This letter constitutes my decision on

your appeal and on the specific relief that you requested.

FOREST ACTION BEING APPEALED

This decision closes approximately 0.5 mile of trail known as the Saddle Creek Bottom trail in

the Charles C. Deam Wilderness, on the Hoosier National Forest. The trail will be closed by

posting trail closure signs, dragging brush on to the trail and felling biologist approved trees at

the trail intersections. Native seed and erosion control measures will be used to prevent further

erosion and sedimentation.

APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

The Appeal Reviewing Officer found no evidence the Responsible Official’s decision violated law,

regulation, or policy. He found the decision responded to the comments raised during the decision-

making process and public comment period. In addition, he found the issues in the appeal were

addressed in the decision documentation. Based on this review, the Appeal Reviewing Officer

recommended the decision set forth in the Decision Memo for this project be affirmed.

Please refer to the enclosed recommendation letter, dated November 27, 2013, for further details.

Mr. Robert Graves 2

DECISION

After careful review of the Project Record and your appeal, as well as the recommendation of the

Appeal Reviewing Officer, I have decided to affirm the decision for the Saddle Creek Project. I

found no violation of law, regulation, or policy with respect to the issues in your appeal. The

Appeal Reviewing Officer’s recommendation is enclosed and incorporated by reference.

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 215.18(c), this decision constitutes the final administrative determination

of the United States Department of Agriculture. This decision may be implemented on, but not

before, the 15th

business day following the date of this letter (See 36 C.F.R. § 215.9(b)).

Sincerely,

/s/ Ralph E. Rau/s/ Ralph E.

Rau

RALPH E. RAU

Appeal Deciding Officer

Acting Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Christopher Zimmer

Daniel McKinley

Jay Strand

Christopher J Mattrick

Brenda Quale

Shawn A Olson

Jennifer A Dean

Patricia R Rowell

Forest

Service

Green Mountain National Forest

Rochester Ranger District

www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl

99 Ranger Road

Rochester, VT 05767-9431

Tel. (802) 767-4261

FAX (802) 767-4777

America’s Working Forests-Caring Every Day in Every Way. Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: November 27, 2013 Route To:

Subject: Appeal of the Decision Memo for the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Closure Project,

Brownstown Ranger District, Hoosier National Forest, Appeal # 14-09-12-0006

To: Acting Forest Supervisor Ralph Rau

This letter constitutes my recommendation for the Notice of Appeal (NOA) filed by Robert

Graves, representing himself and the Hoosier Back Country Horsemen of America, on the

Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Closure CE, Brownstown Ranger District, Hoosier National Forest

(HNF). District Ranger Chris Zimmer signed the Decision Memo (DM) on September 16, 2013.

The legal notice was published in the Hoosier Times (Bloomington, Indiana) September 22,

2013.

My review was conducted pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 215 – “Notice, Comment, and Appeal

procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities.” To ensure the analysis and

decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and orders, I have

reviewed and considered each of the Appellant’s issues and the decision documentation

submitted by the HNF. My recommendation is based upon review of the Project Record (PR)

including, but not limited to, the scoping letter, public comments, and the DM.

Appeal Issues

The Appellants raised 12 issues in their NOA of the Saddle Creek decision. The Responsible

Official and Appellants held an informal appeal resolution meeting on November 21, 2013.

Representatives of the Hoosier Back Country Horsemen of America included; Robert Graves,

Kim Huphries, and Yvette Rollins. No resolution was reached so it was decided to proceed with

the review of the merits of the appeal.

The Appellants’ issues are addressed here in the order found in the NOA.

Issue 1: This trail provides access for people with partial disabilities to the Deam

Wilderness. The Appellants state, “It has also been brought to my attention that for many

persons with partial disabilities use of this trail because it is the only clear marked access to the

Deam Wilderness.” (NOA, p. 1)

Response: The closure of the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail eliminates access for all equestrian

users, not just equestrian users with disabilities. Section 504, Rehabilitation Act states that “No

otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States…, shall, solely by reason of

his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency.”

Mr. Robert Graves 2

Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Closure Project, Hoosier NF, Appeal # 14-09-12-0006 A215

The USDA implementation guideline for Section 504 is USDA 7 C.F.R. 15(e), states “qualified

person with the disability” must be able “to achieve the purpose of the program or activity

without modification to the program or activity that fundamentally alters the nature of that

program or activity.”

The closure of the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail also complies with the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA). ADA Title V Section 508c provides specific direction for Federally Designated

Wilderness, which states that “… nothing in the Wilderness Act prohibits wheelchair use in a

wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires its use. The Wilderness Act requires

no agency to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to construct any

facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.”

No facilities will be constructed or altered in this decision so the Architectural Barriers Act

(ABA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151) does not apply. The ABA includes, “Any facility that is

constructed, altered or leased by, for, or on behalf of a Federal agency is to comply with the

applicable accessibility guidelines. The facility is to be appropriate for the setting and comply

with the applicable accessibility guidelines.”

Forest Service Objectives for Wilderness include, “[m]aintain wilderness in such a manner that

ecosystems are unaffected by human manipulation and influences so that plants and animals

develop and respond to natural forces” (Forest Service Manual 2320.2). Forest Service Policy

for trails in wilderness areas is to “[d]esign, construct, and maintain the transportation system in

wilderness to provide access to and within a wilderness that meets the wilderness objectives

described in the forest plan.” (Forest Service Manual 2323.13f)

Janet Zeller, Forest Service National Accessibility Program Manager describes the Wilderness

experience for people with disabilities in Wilderness and Accessibility (Published in the

International Journal of Wilderness, April 2008, Volume 14, Number 1.

http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/nr/recreation/accessibility/documents/ZellerApril08IJW.pdf ):

The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) ensures an opportunity for

challenge, solitude, and self-renewal for each person who is willing to make the effort it

will take to pursue those goals. Through the Wilderness Act we all have the right,

regardless of ability, to enjoy a wilderness experience in an area untrammeled by modern

motorized and mechanized civilization.

The effort it takes each of us to visit a Wilderness area is an essential part of this

experience. People with a wide range of significant disabilities value their right to that

same opportunity to challenge themselves and, thereby, to gain the unique experience

wilderness offers, either on their own or with the assistance of family or friends.

I find no violation of law, regulation or policy in the analysis of the effects of closing Saddle

Creek Bottom Trail on access challenges in the Project DM.

http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/nr/recreation/accessibility/documents/ZellerApril08IJW.pdf

Mr. Robert Graves 3


Issue 2: Closing the trail due to periodic flooding creating resource and maintenance

challenges is flawed. The Appellants state, “Parts of every trail in the Deam Wilderness area

are flooded on occasion. Shannon Phelps Lake Monroe Park Manager for the US Army Corps

of Engineers says the lake has only reached the 545-550 MSL "several times since the lake was

built". This trail is built on level ground. The elevation varies only 5 feet in less than a half

mile. The soil is actually well drained with creek gravel underlying the entire area. This gravel

not only drains the area but provides a huge source of nearby construction material to reinforce

the few soft areas involved. The HNF resource and maintenance problems with this trail seem to

be somewhat self-induced.

Per the Soil and Water Resources Working Paper prepared by John W. Depuy, Soil Scientist,

dated May 2, 2013. Determination "As a result of this evaluation it is my professional

determination that the proposed trail closure is not likely to impact watershed resources." This

means the closure will have no beneficial or detrimental impact.” (NOA, p. 1)

Response: The PR supports that the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail stream crossing floods more

frequently and severely than other crossings in the area. Saddle Creek Bottom Trail crosses the

Monroe Lake floodplain in a location which consolidates and concentrates surface runoff from

an area of approximately five square miles. Heavy precipitation events can cause a very rapid

and severe increase in water levels at such a bottle neck. Shannon Phelps, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineer Park Manager for Lake Monroe, elaborates further beyond the Appellants’ citation in

their response to the proposal to state: “more frequent (than 545-550 MSL flooding) is the

inundation of the area in question due to heavy rainfall”… “[t]his portion of the trail lies at the

confluence of three major drainages that converge to create Saddle Creek, making it more

susceptible to flooding”… and “[t]hese conditions could cause safety concerns.” (Document

No. G.1, Phelps Comment). The Appellants state, “, “Any creek crossing has the potential for

danger during and after heavy rains, regardless of where it's located…” the record demonstrates

that the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail stream crossing is potentially more dangerous than smaller

stream crossings in the area.

The 545 Trail, in contrast to Saddle Creek Bottom Trail, crosses Saddle Creek about one-half

mile further upstream and at 6 tributary locations, according to the map: “Saddle Creek Proposed

Trail Closure; T7N, R1E Section 14 & 15 Monroe County” (Document No. A.1). Use of 545

Trail instead of Saddle Creek Bottom trail minimizes the potential safety risk to trail riders

during heavy rainfall.

The Charles C. Deam Wilderness Trail Project Environmental Assessment (EA) dated June

2001, originally evaluated the Saddle Creek Trail crossing and the 545 Trail reroute provided

information on the frequency of flooding and indicates that Monroe Lake flooded the stream

crossing 34 times in the past 15 years and most frequently between the months of March and

June (EA, p.15). The EA also cites U.S. Army Corps of Engineer data that the crossing was

flooded to an impassable level 9 times in the past 15 years. The Decision Notice for the 2001,

EA, referenced by the Appellant created the 545 Trail reroute to be used when the Saddle Creek

Trail stream crossing is flooded. The Decision Notice states, “[t]he additional route proposed

for segment C will reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation in the Lake Monroe watershed.

This will be accomplished by providing a dry and safe route for hikers and horse riders to use

Mr. Robert Graves 4


when the existing route is flooded by high water. The existing route will also be available when

the water level is not flooding the trail. The existing trail will be improved to reduce the potential

of erosion and sedimentation in the Lake Monroe watershed.” (Decision Notice, p. 2).

Although the Appellants believe the trail to be on well-drained soil, the Soil Scientist’s report

states “[b]ecause the trail is in a flood prone area, soil and water quality is compromised due to

erosion and sedimentation. Off trail riding is occurring because of the deteriorating condition of

the trail and lack of adequate drainage.” (Document F.1, Soil and Water Working Paper,

DePuy, 2013). The Appellants reference the Soil Scientists report (DePuy, 2013) as stating

“..the proposed trail closure is not likely to impact watershed resources” suggesting that existing

trail has no effect on the watershed condition. The review team interprets this portion of

DePuy’s “Determination” (DePuy, 2013, p. 6) as referring to the actions associated with the

closure (brushing in and seeding). DePuy goes on to state in his “Determination” that “’[c]losure

of the proposed trail segment will serve to decrease sediment into Saddle Creek and improve

watershed condition.”

This documentation supports the District Ranger’s conclusion that the Saddle Creek stream

crossing is a higher safety risk than smaller, higher elevation tributaries on the trail system. I

find that his decision does not violate law, regulation or policy.

Issue 3: Closing the trail due to construction of an alternative trail is flawed. Appellants

state, “The idea that a route entailing a length of 4-5 hours can somehow be considered an

alternative to a 1-11/2 hour route is puzzling. Handicapped individuals are provided a very

convenient mounting area at the trailhead but expected to ride the only loop trail that will

remain that entails 4-5 hours.” (NOA, p. 1)

Response:

The Appellants apparently are referring to the response to Comment 19 in Appendix B of the

DM which states, “[u]pon completion of the NEPA process [for the 2001 Wilderness Trail

Project EA] it was determined to leave Saddle Creek Bottom trail open and let the 545 trail serve

as an alternative route when flooded.” (Document No. B.2, Response to Comment 19). The

purpose and need for this project was never intended to retain the short loop trail that the existing

trail system provides. In fact, the DM states, “[b]y eliminating this trail, the opportunity for

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation will increase by encouraging and

promoting more challenging long distance loop trails…” (DM, p. 2). Further, the description of

the decision states, “[c]losure of this trail segment will not interrupt the continuation of this trail

system due to the 545 trail segment serving as a connector.” (DM, p. 1). Although the intent is

to encourage longer loop trail experiences, the Forest Service recognized that the loss of a short

loop trail opportunity within the wilderness would result in trail users “to have the option of

utilizing the trail and turning around and heading back once they’ve reached a desirable

distance” (Document No. B.2, Response to Comment 2).

The ADA states that “…nothing in the Wilderness Act prohibits wheelchair use in a wilderness

area by an individual whose disability requires its use. The Wilderness Act requires no agency

to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to construct any facilities or

Mr. Robert Graves 5


modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such use.” (ADA Title V

Section 508c).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act directs that programs are not required to guarantee

successful participation. The law requires equal opportunity not exceptional opportunity. A

qualified person with a disability must be able to achieve the purpose of the program or activity

without modification to that program that fundamentally alters the nature of that program or

activity (i.e., wilderness trails).

The District Ranger did not violate these principals in this decision.

I find no violation of law, regulation or policy in the purpose and need regarding the closure of

Saddle Creek Bottom Trail in the Project DM.

Issue 4: Closing this trail due to cave vandalism is flawed. The Appellants state, “Access to

the cave being referenced in the decision can be made by illegally using a side trail. This

narrow steep illegal trail could easily be closed by using two of the 24 trees the FS would use to

close the Saddle Creek Trail. No matter what is done to the Saddle Creek trail access to the cave

would still be available to boaters and hikers at will.” (NOA, p. 1)

Response: This decision would comply with the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act

(FCRPA). The DM states that “[t]his purpose of this act is to secure, protect, preserve, and

maintain significant caves, to the extent practical… [a] cave is located adjacent to the decision

area and analysis has determined that this decision will assist in minimizing access to the cave,

thus a benefit to cave resources and support for the Forest Plan” (DM, p. 7). District Ranger

Zimmer explained this by stating, “[t]his project will mitigate illegal trail riding to a nearby

cave and promote the protection of cave resources by removing a primary mode of access, the

Saddle Creek Bottom trail (Harriss 2013)” (DM, p. 2).

This decision will help implement the direction in the Hoosier Forest Plan. One of the main

goals identified in the Forest Plan is to Maintain and Restore Sustainable Ecosystems, a

component of which is to “[p]rotect cave resources from potential surface and subterranean

impacts” (Forest Plan, p. 2-3).

The DM discloses that “[t]his project is consistent with direction in the Hoosier National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)….[t]he Forest Plan also indicates that we

are to not promote caves as available for general public use unless the Forest develops adequate

protection measures to control and manage this use and can clearly establish that no substantial

risk, harm, or vandalism of the cave would occur (3-10)” (DM, p. 3).

Though neither the District Ranger nor the district staff said all access to the cave would be

closed, they did indicate that closing the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail would be consistent with

Forest Plan direction. The District Biologist found that “[c]losing the trail would be consistent

with Forest Standard of not promoting caves. In this case, a trail leading directly to cave…

Mr. Robert Graves 6


[b]y removing the trail, less traffic would be directed to cave resources. This would in turn help

protect sensitive species residing in the cave system” (Document No. C.5, Caves & Wildlife

Preliminary Project Proposal, Harriss, 2013, p. 5).

I find that the District Ranger followed law, regulation, and policy when making the decision to

close the trail as it pertains to removing a primary mode of access to the cave.

Issue 5: This trail was determined to be sustainable during the LAC discussions for this

wilderness. If the trail was maintained, it would be sustainable. The Appellants state, “Prior to

1985 we could ride anywhere we wanted to in the Hoosier National Forest. In the Deam

Wilderness there were over 100 miles of trail alone. In 1985 the Limits of Acceptable Change

took place and closed more than 60 miles of trail in the Deam Wilderness. During the

discussions and final determination of the trails to keep and that were sustainable was the Grubb

Ridge Saddle Creek Bottom Trail. Since that time thousands of horseback riders and hikers have

used this trail with little or no change in the trail and sedimentation in the adjacent steam along

the trail and the Saddle Creek Trail crossing. In the past 10 years the section in question and

since the inception of the 545 trail this section of trail has received little or no maintenance even

though the Hoosier Back Country Horsemen have volunteered to do routine maintenance on the

trail removing the berm that caused the water to stay on the trail that created the post holing

mentioned in the scoping letter.” (NOA Attachment, p. 1)

Response: The Hoosier Forest Plan provides guidance and direction to maintain and restore

watershed health (Forest Plan, p. 3-13), as well as not construct trails in riparian corridors unless

no practical alternative exists (Forest Plan, p. 3-14). Priority will also be given to stabilize areas

discharging soil into watercourses, especially those that affect the watershed of municipal or

recreational reservoirs (Forest Plan, p. 3-13). Saddle Creek drains into Monroe Lake (Reservoir)

which is a recreational water body (Forest Plan, p. 3-25) (Charles C. Deam Wilderness Trail

Project EA, pp. 15, 25)

The Forest Plan provides adequate and clear guidance for trail management and sustainability

guided by ecological principles. The Forest Plan (Maintain and Restore Watershed Health - soil

and water conservation) directs the Forest to “[g]uide soil protection and management for all

activities according to site capabilities as identified by interpretation of soil and other ecological

site factors” (Forest Plan, p. 3-13). Additionally, it directs the Forest to “designate the location

of roads, trails, main skid trails, and similar features that disturb soils.” (Forest Plan, p. 3-14)

Specifically contained in the PR are references that support the impacts to soil and water

occurring from the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail. The Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Soil and Water

Resources Working Paper states the following regarding the sustainability of this trail from a

user and soils perspective. Page 2 of this report states that the Forest “is proposing to close

approximately ½ mile of poorly located trail. The Saddle Creek Bottom Trail segment is located

too close to backwater of Lake Monroe. Trail deterioration and lack of adequate drainage is of

concern. Additionally, in order to utilize this segment of trail, a substantial stream crossing must

be passed. This stream crossing is prone to seasonal extreme flooding and is not crossable at

times. Because the trail is in a flood prone area, soil and water quality is compromised due to

Mr. Robert Graves 7


erosion and sedimentation. Off trail riding is occurring because of the deteriorated condition of

the trail and lack of adequate trail drainage. Multiple braided trails exist in the Saddle Creek

Bottom and “post holing” from horseback riding is occurring in some locations to a depth of 18-

24 inches.” (Document No. F.1, Soil and Water Resources Working Paper, DePuy, 2013).

Sustainability of soils is further discussed on pages 3 and 4 of the same report stating that the

“project area is located on three soil mapping units… [i]n general, trails located on relatively

gentle slopes are rated as having no limitations and those located on steeper slopes are rated as

very limited due to water erosion and/or slope. Nearly all trails are located on soil mapping

units having a moderate to severe or severe potential for rutting and compaction.” The Trail

Segment Closure Map contained in Appendix A of the project record reveals that the entire

stretch of trail proposed for closure is relative flat ranging from 550 feet to 590 in elevation with

the vast majority varying less than 10 feet in elevation. The majority of the elevation gain takes

place in the last 300 feet of the trail. (Document number B.3, Appendix A Map, Kreiger, 2013)

A comment received for the proposal from Shannon Phelps (Park Manager for Lake Monroe)

also addresses the trail’s sustainability. It states “[t]hat portion of trail that crosses Saddle

Creek bottoms lies between 545' and 550' msl and the lake has surpassed this elevation several

times over the last 50 years of the lake's existence. Second, and more frequent is inundation of

the area in question due to heavy rainfall. This portion of the trail lies at the confluence of three

major drainages that converge to create Saddle Creek making it more susceptible to flooding”

(Document No. G.1, Phelps Comment).

I find no violation of law, regulation or policy in determinations regarding the sustainability of

the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail in the Project DM.

Issue 6: This trail was intended to be a part of a loop trail with the 545 trail – when the

trail was maintained up until 2001 water retention on the trail wasn’t an issue. The

Appellants state, “In the scoping letters for building the 545 trail was to provide a shorter loop

trail and an alternative trail if the lake flooded in the lower saddle creek trail area. This trail sits

on a level bottomland that is occasionally flooded when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raises

the level of Monroe Reservoir for flood control. Prior to building and the opening of the 545 trail

in 2001 the Saddle Creek trail had been routinely maintained by the Hoosier Back Country

Horsemen with little supervision from the forest service and had no problem with water retention

on the trail that created the post holing. In addition when the scoping letter went out for

comments for the 545 trail, user comments wanted to make sure that this was a loop trail and we

would not lose any section of the saddle creek trail it was not mentioned in the scoping letter that

any section of trail would be closed if the 545 trail was built.” (NOA Attachment, p. 1)

Response: The Charles C. Deam Wilderness Trail Project Environmental Assessment (EA)

dated June 2001 and associated Decision Notice referenced by the Appellants stated the

following Purpose and Need:

“This analysis focuses on four locations along existing trails in the wilderness that are wet or

muddy for much of the year, are eroding, and/or are seasonally flooded by backwater from

Mr. Robert Graves 8


Monroe Lake. These situations cause trail users to go around the muddy spots or create new

crossings to bypass the high water and continue along the trail. The result has been widening

and braiding of trails, creation of user trails off the main trail system, and accelerated erosion of

certain trail sections. The proposed project is needed to protect soil and water resources by

relocating certain segments of the trail to more suitable locations.” (EA, p. 1).

This does not support the Appellants’ assertion that the horseman’s group was successful at

maintaining the trail well enough to protect soil and water resources.

It is clear from the June 2001, EA and Decision Notice that the Forest Service intent was to keep

the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail as requested by the public during scoping. The Decision Notice

authorized the construction of the 545 Trail reroute to be used when the Saddle Creek Bottom

Trail stream crossing is flooded. The Decision Notice states, “[t]he additional route proposed

for segment C will reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation in the Lake Monroe watershed.

This will be accomplished by providing a dry and safe route for hikers and horse riders to use

when the existing route is flooded by high water. The existing route will also be available when

the water level is not flooding the trail. The existing trail will be improved to reduce the potential

of erosion and sedimentation in the Lake Monroe watershed.” (Decision Notice, p. 2).

The response to Comments 19 and 20 received for the proposal document that the Forest Service

does not have the resources to monitor when conditions are suitable for horses on the Saddle

Creek Bottom Trail nor is there adequate resources to enforce seasonal closures (Document No.

B.2, Response to Comments 19 and 20). Response to Comment 20 states that the “[t]he

rationale for the 545 trail was to serve as a reroute and to close the Saddle Bottom Trail.

However, the decision was made to keep the trail with the understanding that it was not to be

used if flooded or wet”. The response continues with “…the trail continues to have use

regardless of the trail condition and creek crossing depth.”

I find no violation of law, regulation or policy in the Responsible Official’s rationale on this

point.

Issue 7: This trail has not flooded since the 545 has been built – the Corp of Engineers says

this trail is not an issue for soil and water quality in the area. The Appellants state, “There

has been no flooding since the inception of the new 545 trail. Reference to that is also found in

the documentation from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The study also states “The Saddle

Creek trail is not a factor in soil erosion and water quality in the area”. The scientific evidence

cited in the Decision memo also states that there will be no impact on soil or water quality by the

closure. In addition to that there have been no scientific studies done in the area to support

District Ranger Zimmer’s opinion on the purpose of his decision citing protection of the soil,

water, and cave resources and to uphold visitor safety and wilderness character.” (NOA

Attachment, p. 1)

Response: No reference can be found in the PR or the June 2001, Charles C. Deam Wilderness

Trail Project EA and associated Decision Notice, or Scoping Letter that includes the “study”

referred to by the Appellants stating “[t]he Saddle Creek trail is not a factor in the soil erosion

and water quality in the area.”

Mr. Robert Graves 9


The EA that originally evaluated the Saddle Creek Trail stream crossing and the 545 Trail

reroute provided information on the frequency of flooding and indicates that Monroe Lake

flooded the stream crossing 34 times in the past 15 years and most frequently between the

months of March and June (EA, p.15). The EA also cites U.S. Army Corps of Engineer data that

the crossing was flooded to an impassable level 9 times in the past 15 years. This supports the

District Ranger’s conclusion that the Saddle Creek stream crossing is a higher safety risk than

smaller, higher elevation tributaries on the trail system.

The Appellants reference to “[t]he scientific evidence cited in the Decision memo also states that

there will be no impact on soil or water quality by the closure” refers to the Soil Scientist’s

report (Document No. F.1, Soil and Water Working Paper, DePuy, 2013, p. 6). The review team

interprets this portion of DePuy’s “Determination” as referring to the actions associated with the

closure (brushing in and seeding). DePuy goes on to state in his “Determination” that “[c]losure

of the proposed trail segment will serve to decrease sediment into Saddle Creek and improve

watershed condition.” This supports the District Ranger’s decision that the trail closure will

protect soil and water resources.

The protection of cave resources in the project area is documented in the Wildlife Biologist

Preliminary Project Proposal (Document No. C.5, Harris, 2013). The report states that “cave

resources do occur adjacent to a spur trail leading from the trail segment to be closed”… and

“[b]y removing the trail, less traffic would be directed to cave resources. This would in turn

help protect sensitive species residing in the cave system”.

The Wilderness Act states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency

administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the

wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for

which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” (Public Law

88-577). The Forest Service Manual directs wilderness managers to protect the wilderness

resource, “[w]here a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any other

activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value. Economy, convenience,

commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of wilderness.” (Forest

Service Manual 2320.6 - The Wilderness Management Model and the Wilderness Act). The

purpose of the decision recognizes the need to follow manual direction for wilderness

management to “plan and manage public use of wilderness in such a manner that preserves the

wilderness character of the area” (DM, p. 2).

Safety is a concern due to the substantial stream crossing at Saddle Creek that must be passed

(Document No. H.1, Photos 011 and 014). This was emphasized by the response to the proposal

by Shannon Phelps, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Park Manager for Monroe Lake who stated

there are safety concerns specific to the periodic inundation of the area in question due to the

water level of Monroe Lake and heavy rainfall (Document No. G.1, Phelps Comment). In

response to comments received for the proposal the Forest stated “[t]his portion of the trail lies

at the confluence of three major drainages that converge to create Saddle Creek making it more

susceptible to flooding. These conditions cause safety concerns. The speed of inundation is also

of concern.” (Document No. B.2, Response to Comment 16). In another response to a comment

received for the proposal that stated there has been no loss of life and no rescues along this

Mr. Robert Graves 10


section of trail due to flooding the Forest countered that “[l]osses of life or rescues do not have

to occur in order to determine if there is a safety concern.” (Document No. B.2, Response to

Comment 22).

I find no violation of law, regulation or policy in determinations regarding the District Ranger’s

decision to close the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail in the Project DM.

Issue 8: Closing this trail will not protect the cave resources. The Appellants state, “Citing

protection of cave resources has no bearing on this decision due to the fact that horseback riders

are not allowed to ride to the cave but would still be allowed to hike to the trail as do other

hikers and boaters who come in off Lake Monroe and who have direct access to the cave from

the lake. There are no restrictions in place or signage to restrict users from entering the cave

and the cave entrance has not been sealed or gated in anyway. This is a direct target against

horseback riders and does not have anything to do with the Saddle Creek section of the trail

being closed.” (NOA, Attachment, p. 2)

Response: This decision would comply with the FCRPA. The Decision Memo states that

“[t]his purpose of this act is to secure, protect, preserve, and maintain significant caves, to the

extent practical… [a] cave is located adjacent to the decision area and analysis has determined

that this decision will assist in minimizing access to the cave, thus a benefit to cave resources

and support for the Forest Plan” (DM, p. 7). District Ranger Zimmer explained this by stating,

“[t]his project will mitigate illegal trail riding to a nearby cave and promote the protection of

cave resources by removing a primary mode of access, the Saddle Creek Bottom trail (Harriss

2013)” (Decision Memo, p. 2).

This decision will help implement the direction in the Hoosier Forest Plan. One of the main

goals identified in the Forest Plan is to Maintain and Restore Sustainable Ecosystems, a

component of which is to “[p]rotect cave resources from potential surface and subterranean

impacts” (Forest Plan, p. 2-3).

The DM discloses that “[t]his project is consistent with direction in the Hoosier National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)….[t]he Forest Plan also indicates that we

are to not promote caves as available for general public use unless the Forest develops adequate

protection measures to control and manage this use and can clearly establish that no substantial

risk, harm, or vandalism of the cave would occur (3-10)” (DM, p. 3).

Though neither the District Ranger nor the district staff said all access to the cave would be

closed, they did indicate that closing the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail would be consistent with

Forest Plan direction. The District Biologist found that “[c]losing the trail would be consistent

with Forest Standard of not promoting caves. In this case, a trail leading directly to cave…

[b]y removing the trail, less traffic would be directed to cave resources. This would in turn help

protect sensitive species residing in the cave system” (Document No. C.5, Caves & Wildlife

Preliminary Project Proposal, Harriss, 2013, p. 5).



I find that the District Ranger followed law, regulation, and policy when making the decision to

close the trail as it pertains to removing a primary mode of access to the cave.

Issue 9: District Ranger does not have the authority to make this decision, letter of Sept.

16th

was misleading. The Appellants state, “In the June 17th, 2013 decision made by District

Ranger Zimmer to close the trail this was not a decision that District Ranger Zimmer had the

authority to make and is clearly stated in his letter dated September 16, 2013. This letter was

clearly designed to be misleading beginning with the first paragraph, “Dear Interested Party:

This letter is to inform you that I am withdrawing my decision to close the Saddle Creek Bottom

Trail in the Charles C. Deam Wilderness that was signed on June 17, 2013. Responsibility for

the trails management decisions in Wilderness Areas lies with the Forest Supervisor and not the

District Ranger. This direction can be found in Forest Service Manual 2300, Chapter 2320.”

A person reading this letter and who had opposed this decision would naturally think that was

the end of it and not read any further.” (NOA, Attachment, p. 2)

Response: The September 16, 2013, letter cited by the Appellants is only one page long,

consisting of four short paragraphs. The first paragraph concisely informs the public that the

District Ranger was withdrawing his June 17, 2013, decision citing his lack of delegated

authority. The very next paragraph states that the authority for trails management within the

wilderness was delegated to the District Ranger on September 13, 2013, and thus he was

“issuing a new Decision Memo closing the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail that was signed on

September 16, 2013.” He concludes that there is no change in the description or purpose of the

decision.

I find that the letter is not misleading and in fact, provides a concise notification to the public

that the original decision was withdrawn and a new decision issued based on the proper authority

delegated to the District Ranger by the Acting Forest Supervisor. I find no violation of law,

regulation or policy regarding the District Ranger’s authority to sign the Saddle Creek Bottom

Trail Project Decision Memo.

Issue 10: There is a list of other options to address safety and resource concerns that were

not considered. The Appellants state, “In considering safety issues.

1. During times of high water the forest service should clearly sign the trail as closed due to high

water. That has never happened.

2. Closure of this section of trail eliminates the only short loop trail in the Deam Wilderness.

Hikers coming in on the Hayes trail will be forced to walk the 545 trail placing more users on

this section of trail that has more climbs and switchbacks before they can connect with the

Grubb Ridge section of the trail. Currently hikers walk along the Saddle Creek trail mainly to

the saddle creek crossing walking their dogs or young children along this flat bottom area that is

much safer and easier to traverse than walking the 545 trail. Hikers will still be allowed to walk

that section of trail but without any trail to get there. The horseback riders keep this section of

trail open by riding it and doing routine maintenance to keep the stinging Nettles (itch weed) at

bay.



3. Horseback riders also know it is much safer to ride a loop trail than ride out several miles and

then turn your horse back the same direction you came. A horse knows which way is back to

camp and will want to get back quicker instead of the rider being able to enjoy a much more

leisurely ride provided by using a loop trail system” (NOA, Attachment, p. 2)

Response: There are three points raised in this issue which will be addressed separately.

The first “[d]uring times of high water the forest service should clearly sign the trail as closed

due to high water. That has never happened.”

The Hoosier Forest Plan, in regards to Management Area 5.1 containing the Charles C. Deam

Wilderness area, states “[u]se signs to close trails, protect the environment, and provide

direction to help correct environmental damage when needed.” (Forest Plan, p. 3-36). Although

this action is allowed under the guidance provided by the Forest Plan there is no requirement set

forth. In the response to comments received for the proposal, the Forest states “[a] seasonal

closure or a closure as needed for flooding was determined to not be practical. A lack of

adequate personnel to enforce such closures as well as personnel to monitor and determine when

to close the trail would not allow for proper enforcement. Trail use would likely still occur, even

if a temporary or seasonal trail closure was instated.” (Document No. B.2, Response to

Comment 6).

The second point in this issue states “[c]losure of this section of trail eliminates the only short

loop trail in the Charles C. Deam Wilderness. Hikers coming in on the Hayes trail will be forced

to walk the 545 trail placing more users on this section of trail that has more climbs and

switchbacks before they can connect with the Grubb Ridge section of the trail. Currently hikers

walk along the Saddle Creek trail mainly to the saddle creek crossing walking their dogs or

young children along this flat bottom area that is much safer and easier to traverse than walking

the 545 trail. Hikers will still be allowed to walk that section of trail but without any trail to get

there. The horseback riders keep this section of trail open by riding it and doing routine

maintenance to keep the stinging Nettles (itch weed) at bay.”

In the Forest Plan, guidance for Management Area 5.1 Charles C. Deam Wilderness Area

indicates that the “area provides a recreation experience offering a degree of solitude, physical

and mental challenge and risk, inspiration, and primitive recreation. Opportunities exist for non-

mechanized recreational activities such as hiking, backpacking, camping, horseback riding,

scientific study, hunting, fishing, and nature study.” (Forest Plan, p. 3-34). Additionally, the

Forest Plan provides that trails should be maintained “to a standard as low as possible while still

protecting the resources and providing for visitor safety” (Forest Plan, p. 3-36), and to “restrict

horses and pack stock to those portions of the trail system specifically designated for their use.

Prohibit off trail riding” (Forest Plan, p. 3-35). The Forest Plan does not specify the need or

requirement for a specific length of trail or loop within wilderness other than to limit the overall

trail mileage in MA 5.1 “to 40 miles with no connecters to trails outside of the wilderness”

(Forest Plan, p. 3-35).

The DM for the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Closure states the closure of this loop will encourage

and promote “more challenging long distance loop trails” (DM, p. 2, paragraph 6) within the



wilderness area. Shorter loop opportunities remain available on the Forest. “The Hoosier

National Forest provides multiple short loop trail opportunities on general forest trails (i.e.

Hickory Ridge Trail system). Trail users also have the option of utilizing any trail and turning

around and heading back once they’ve reached a desirable distance.” (Document No. B.2,

Response to Comment 18).

The third and final component of this issue states that “[h]orseback riders also know it is much

safer to ride a loop trail than ride out several miles and then turn your horse back the same

direction you came. A horse knows which way is back to camp and will want to get back quicker

instead of the rider being able to enjoy a much more leisurely ride provided by using a loop trail

system.”

The Forest Plan states that “[t]he recreation program strives to provide a range of opportunities

from wilderness to developed recreation areas” (Forest Plan, p. 2-4). Some components of this

goal are to provide a trail system for use by hikers, mountain bikers, and horse riders and to

protect and enhance wilderness values. Specific to MA 5.1, the Forest Plan provides the

following areas of guidance specific to this issue. “Allow horses, and other pack stock, on trails

designated as open to horse use and on roads open to public vehicle travel, unless prohibited”

(Forest Plan, p. 3-20), and “Provide single and multiple-use trails” (Forest Plan, p. 3-20).

In the response to comments received for the proposal and in the DM, the District Ranger

indicates that “trail standards for wilderness typically reflect a more challenging opportunity”

(Decision Memo, p. 2, paragraph 5; and Document No. B.2, Response to Comment 14). He also

discloses that “[t]he Hoosier National Forest provides multiple short loop trail opportunities on

general forest trails (i.e. Hickory Ridge Trail system). Trail users also have the option of

utilizing the trail and turning around and heading back once they’ve reached a desirable

distance.” (Document No. B.2, Response to Comment 2).

I find that the District Ranger followed law regulation and policy in making the decision and his

consideration of safety and resource concerns.

Issue 11: The DR cites the 1964 Wilderness Act. This area was designated in 1982 and its

LACs allow for more flexibility. The Appellants state, “The Charles C. Deam Wilderness was

designated by Congress in December 1982. The limited of Acceptable Change (LAC) designating

trails in the HNF was adopted in 1985. If the HNF was following the guidelines of the

Wilderness Act designated trails in the Deam Wilderness should not have been allowed and

users would not be confined to designated areas of use.” (NOA, Attachment, p. 3)

Response: The Wilderness Act states that “[e]xcept as otherwise prohibited by this Act,

wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,

educational, conservation, and historical use.” (Public Law 88-577). While the Wilderness Act

defines wilderness as “undeveloped”, trails are defined as an acceptable improvement

(Wilderness Stewardship Desk Guide, p. 82). Forest Service policy allows the design,

construction and maintenance of a trails system in wilderness to provide access to and within a



wilderness that meets the wilderness objectives described in the Forest Plan (Forest Service

Manual 2323.13f).

The Hoosier Forest Plan provides direction and guidance for the management of trails within the

Charles C. Deam Wilderness whereas horses and pack stock are restricted to those portions of

the trail system specifically designated for their use. Off trail riding is prohibited. (Forest Plan,

p. 3-35).

I find no violation of law, regulation or policy regarding the designation of horse trail use within

the Deam Wilderness in regards to the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Project DM.

Issue 12: The DR did not work with the public before coming to this decision. The

Appellants state, “At no time prior to District Ranger Zimmer’s decision did he attempt to

consult with any volunteer or service organization. No attempt was made to overcome the

problems that have been created by Ranger Zimmer and the Forest Service over the past several

years. This section of trail can be corrected easily to eliminate the reasons behind his decision.

This state only has 4% percent of its land in public lands with a large population per capita to

recreate on as opposed to larger states with less population so every mile of trail is valued

highly in terms of having a place to get outdoors and recreate. We have demonstrated our

dedication and strong work ethic over the years by continuing to volunteer to maintain and keep

every inch of trail and areas we have to recreate in open to the public in general and not just

exclusively for use by horseback riders.” (NOA, Attachment, p. 3)

Response: The District Ranger did notify the public of his intention to close the trail

approximately four months prior to his initial June 17, 2013, decision. The proposal to close the

Saddle Creek Bottom Trail was sent to 52 interested individuals and organizations including the

Appellants via a scoping letter dated February 25, 2013 (Document No. G.1, Scoping Letter;

DM, p. 6). In that letter, District Ranger Zimmer specifically invited comments on the proposal

and provided clear directions on how to submit comments during a 30-day period following the

March 3, 2013, publication of the legal notice announcing the proposal in The Hoosier Times

(Document No. D.2). In addition, the project proposal was listed in the Hoosier National Forest

Schedule of Proposed Action beginning in March 2013. The Forest Service received 58

responses by letters, emails and phone calls that were noted prior to making a decision

(Document No. G-1, Comments; and DM, p. 6). These comments were summarized and

addressed in Appendix B of the Decision Memo (Document No. B.2).

The purpose of the project is to protect soil, water and cave resources, and to uphold visitor

safety and wilderness character (DM, p. 1). The Saddle Creek Bottom Trail segment is located

close to backwater of Lake Monroe within a municipal watershed (DM, p. 4). The trail is

considered unsustainable in terms of its poor location in a riparian corridor that is subject to

periodic flood conditions (DM, pp. 1 and 2).

The project area is located on three soil mapping units that are rated to have very limited trail

suitability, and moist soil conditions that can cause trails to be more vulnerable to rutting,

compaction and erosion. Sedimentation from eroding soils into Saddle Creek is a concern.

(Document No. F.1, Soil and Water Working Paper). The Decision Notice for the Charles C.



Deam Wilderness Trail Project EA dated June 2001, selected Alternative 2 which authorized the

construction of Trail 545 to address existing erosion and sedimentation along the Saddle Creek

Bottom Trail and provide an alternate route when the trail was impassable due to wet or flooded

conditions: “The additional route proposed…will reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation

in the Lake Monroe watershed. This will be accomplished by providing a dry and safe route for

hikers and horse riders to use when the existing route is flooded by high water. The existing

route will also be available when the water level is not flooding the trail. The existing trail will

be improved to reduce the potential of erosion and sedimentation in the Lake Monroe

watershed.” (Decision Notice, p. 2).

Monitoring the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail for flooding and closing and enforcing a trail closure

on an intermittent/seasonal basis was determined to be ineffective and impractical due to a lack

of Forest Service personnel and law enforcement availability (Document No. B.2, Comment 20).

Safety is also a concern due to a substantial stream crossing that must be passed. This was

emphasized by the response to the proposal by Shannon Phelps, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Park Manager for Monroe Lake who stated there are safety concerns specific to the periodic

inundation of the area in question due to the water level of Monroe Lake and heavy rainfall

(Document No. G.1, Phelps). In the Charles C. Deam Wilderness Trail Project EA dated June

2001, one of the purposes for the construction of Trail 545 was to increase user safety on

designated trails one of which was the existing Saddle Creek Bottom Trail (EA, p. 1). The EA

disclosed that the “Saddle Creek…crossing is impassable… when the pool elevation of Monroe

Lake reaches 550 feet. According to data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the monthly

maximum water level has reached or exceeded 550 feet nine times during the past 15 years. The

pool elevation stayed above 550 feet for nearly two months in 1996. Water levels of Monroe

Lake did not reach 550 feet in 11 of the past 15 years. Water levels reached 555 feet once during

this time.” (EA, p. 15).

The Wilderness Act states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency

administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the

wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for

which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character”. (Public Law

88-577). The Forest Service Manual directs wilderness managers to protect the wilderness

resource, “[w]here a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any other

activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value. Economy, convenience,

commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of wilderness.” (Forest

Service Manual 2320.6 - The Wilderness Management Model and the Wilderness Act). The

purpose of the decision recognizes the need to follow manual direction for wilderness

management to “plan and manage public use of wilderness in such a manner that preserves the

wilderness character of the area” (DM, p. 2).

The Hoosier Forest Plan provides specific management guidance for preserving wilderness

character when considering recreation use: “Provide for recreation use in harmony with natural

communities” (Forest Plan, p. 3-35). The District Ranger explained in the DM his consideration

of balancing the need to address ongoing impacts to the wilderness resource versus the loss of

existing trail opportunities in his decision making process. The DM discloses that “[c]losure of



the Saddle Creek Bottom trail will improve the soil, water and cave resources within the area…”

(DM, p. 5).

The District Ranger concludes that “[t]his project will remove a segment of trail located in a

floodplain and municipal watershed, Monroe Lake (Engstrom 2013). A potentially dangerous

creek crossing (Saddle Creek) that is prone to flooding and at times is impassable will be

eliminated from the trail system, improving visitor safety. This project will mitigate illegal trail

riding to a nearby cave and promote the protection of cave resources by removing a primary

mode of access, the Saddle Creek Bottom trail (Harriss 2013). Closure of Saddle Creek Bottom

trail will enhance wilderness character through encouraging solitude and challenge. Trail

standards for wilderness typically reflect a more challenging opportunity and minimal imprint

on the land. Designated wilderness areas are to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude

(WSDG2010). This decision will support wilderness character by eliminating a short loop trail

that also parallels the 545 trail (see map).” (DM, p 2).

The District Ranger explained his reasoning for closing the trail and I find no violation of law,

regulation or policy in the decision.

I find that the Saddle Creek Bottom Trail Closure Project does not violate any law, policy or

regulation. I find the project to be consistent with the CEQ guidance related to mitigation and

monitoring.

Recommendation

After reviewing the PR materials for the Saddle Creek Project and after reviewing and

considering the concerns raised by the Appellants, I find no merit in this appeal. I recommend

that the decision for this project be affirmed.

/s/ Christopher Mattrick

CHRISTOPHER MATTRICK

Appeal Reviewing Officer

District Ranger

cc: Patricia R Rowell

United States Forest Hoosier National Forest 811 Constitution...

Documents

Transcript of United States Forest Hoosier National Forest 811 Constitution...