Appendix I Public Comments and Responses Table of Contents
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appendix I Public Comments and Responses Table of Contents Introduction ......................................... 1(1)-1 Response to Public Comments European Beachgrass .............................................. 1(2)-3 Biodiversity . .. ..... 1(2)-6 Cultural Resources ............................................. 1(2)-10 Fish ....................................................... 1(2)-11 Interpretation and Education ...................................... 1(2)-12 Law Enforcement and Compliance .................................. 1(2)-13 Miscellaneous Comments and Responses .............................. 1(2)-14 Noise ...................................................... 1(2)-17 Planning Process .............................................. 1(2)-19 Plants ...................................................... 1(2)-22 Public Involvement ............................................. 1(2)-28 Recreation .................................................... 1(2)-31 Research Natural Areas ......................................... 1(2)-40 Snowy Plovers ................................................ 1(2)-45 Social and Economic Setting . .. ........................ 1(2)-49 W.ater ...................................................... 1(2)-52 Wetlands ..................... ; .............................. 1(2)-54 Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................... '.' ................. 1(2)-56 Wildlife . ........................ 1(2)-60 Habitat Protection ............................................ 1(2)-61 Wildlife and Recreation . ..... 1(2)-62 Letters from Elected Officials and Agencies .................... 1(3)~1 Environmental Protection Agency .................................... 1(3)-1 USDl - Office of Environmental Affairs ................................. 1(3)-3 State of Oregon. ........................ 1(3)-4 Department of Agriculture ....................................... 1(3)-12 Natural Resources Division ....................................... 1(3)-13 Department of Fish and Wildlife ................................... 1(3)-15 Department of Forestry .......................................... 1(3)-16 Land, Conservation and Development ................................ 1(3)-17 Division of State Lands .......................................... 1(3)-26 Economic Development Department . '.' ....................... 1(3)-29 Parks and Recreation Department .................................. 1(3)-29 Department of Transportation ..................................... 1(3)-34 Water Resources Department ...................................... 1(3)-35 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians ............. 1(3)-36 Coos County ................................................... 1(3)-37 Douglas County ................................................. 1(3)-38 City of Florence. ............ 1(3)-42 City of Reedsport. .. ................................. 1(3)-43 Oregon Dunes NRA - FElS Responses to Comments Introduction APPENDIX I RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Introduc This appendix contains three sections. Section 1(1) is the introduction. Section tion 1(2) contains a synopsis of comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and our responses to those comments. Section 1(3) contains comment letters from federal, state and local agencies, county governments, communities and tribes. We received 4,171 comments regarding the DEIS for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area (Oregon Dunes NRA) Management Plan. A listing of commentors and comment letters is available for public review at the NRA headquarters in Reedsport. Each letter was read and considered as the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was developed. Comment letters were, in part, a result of public involvement efforts associated with the planning process. A full discussion of public involvement is located in Appendix B. Most of the comment letters came from individuals and families. A large majority of them had first-hand knowledge of the Oregon Dunes NRA, having visited the area at some time in the past. Responses were also received from businesses, clubs and organizations, chambers of commerce, other federal agencies, state agencies, counties and local communities. Most commentors were from Oregon, but many comment letters also came from California and Washington. Residents of many other states and British Columbia also submitted comments. Comment letters varied from very brief, simple notes to several page, very detailed analyses. Comments addressed the full range of issues, concerns and opportunities discussed in the DEIS. Primary topics discussed in comment letters in approximate order of frequency include: off-road vehicles; encroaching vegetation/European beachgrass; non~ORV recreation; economics; wildlife, plants, and biodiversity; compliance; noise; research natural areas; Wild and Scenic rivers; and water. Many comments expressed strong emotional feelings toward the NRA, some specific aspect of the NRA and/or past experiences here. A minority of the comments were substantive, specifically addressing aspects of the DEIS. Every comment letter, regardless of form, content or length was read and cataloged. Oregon Dunes NRA - FEIS Appendix 1(1) - 1 Responses to COlnlnents Introduction Some substantive comments noted typographical, computational, grammatical or minor technical errors in the DEIS. We corrected many of those errors without mentioning the comments in this section. Some comments pertained to the Reader's Guide, an abbreviated version of the DEIS. Often the comment was addressed by information contained in the full DElS. A group of comments were beyond the scope of this decision and were not responded to in this section. Examples of such comments include, concerns regarding Sand Lake off-road vehicle (ORV) riding area which is managed by the Hebo Ranger District and concerns about transferring management of the Oregon Dunes NRA to the National Park Service. Other comments included requests for clarification, omissions in content, wrong information and suggestions. Those are listed by topic area in this section and each comment is followed with our response. In some cases we refer you to the portion of the FEIS that responds to the comment. In other cases, we respond directly to the comment. In many instances, we incorporated related comments from several letters into a single statement and responded to that "generic" comment. Appendix 1(1) - 2 Oregon DUlleS NRA - FEIS Responses to Comments Beachgrass Beachgrass Comment The table on page II-IS ofthe DEIS shows 100 acres of vegetation control for the PrefelTed Alternative, while the table on page II-33 shows 60 acres for the same alternative. Why the difference? Response Management area objectives often overlap on the same piece of ground, but acres can be shown in only one management area in a given alternative. Even though 100 acres is slated to be treated to control vegetation, only 60 acres might show up in MA 10(I), Vegetation Removal, meaning 40 acres ofland in other management areas would also be treated. In the FEIS, this situation now applies only to alternatives besides F. In Alternative F(PA), MA 10(1) was eliminated so that it is easier to refine the areas to be treated as more becomes known about methods and details of the control program. Comment Include discussion of how the Forest Service's limited program of control was resolved with the county's expanded eradication efforts. Response The county's program is focused on finding ways to control beachgrass with herbicides. The Forest Service has limited opportunities to use herbicides, and thus is focused more on physical control until more is known about other potential methods (see "Developing Vegetation Management Methods", Chapter II of the FEIS). Comment The amount of beachgrass control proposed is inadequate, and should at least equal the annual loss of open sand. Efforts should also include other plants like gorse and Scot's broom. Response Control methods are unproven (see "Developing Vegetation Management Methods", Chapter II, FEIS), so the Forest -Service's strategy is to proceed cautiously until more is known about them. A specialist position was established at the Oregon Dunes NRA to study methods and develop a more detailed plan for vegetation control. The effort includes non-native plants besides beachgrass (see Figure II-ll and "Scope of Program", Chapter II, FEIS). The Forest has initiated experimental treatments of small plots of gorse and is monitoring the results. Comment Don't use herbicides to control beachgrass if it harms native plants. Response Herbicides is one possible method, but at present - as directed by the The Pacific Northwest Region's Plan for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation - would not be considered for use unless no reasonable alternatives are available (see "Developing Vegetation Management Methods" and "Preparing a Strategy", Chapter II, FEIS). Oregon Dunes NRA- FEIS Appendix I(2) - 3 Responses to Comments Beachgrass Comment Report the overall cost of control and its impact on the federal deficit. Response Costs for other agencies to control European beachgrass have reached as high as $40,000 per acre (see "Developing Vegetation Management Methods", Chapter II, FEIS). Methods that will ultimately be used for control will depend on subsequent findings by the new vegetation management specialist (see "Preparing a Strategy", Chapter II, FEIS). The impact on the federal deficit is addressed annually by Congress when appropriating monies to the national forest system.