Fossil Creek CRMP: Questions and Answers

 

Due to the complexity of the Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River planning effort, it is natural that public participants will have questions. These questions and answers address aspects of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) [rivers.gov], requiring a Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [fs.fed.us] process.

 

Questions

 

Answers

How long does a comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) typically take to complete?

The length of time required to complete a CRMP depends on many factors ranging from the resources present in the river corridor to recreational use to the location of the river itself. Some CRMPs could potentially be completed in a few years while others have taken over a decade. The Fossil Creek CRMP has been under development since 2009. This long timeline has been influenced by the complexity of the Fossil Creek environment.

Top

 

What coordination has happened between the Forest Service and the public, as well as tribes, concerning the CRMP?

Since 2010, the Forest Service has engaged with the public about development of the CRMP on several occasions—as described in chapters 1 and 2 of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Public comments provided throughout the planning process serve as the basis for the range of management alternatives and analysis presented now. Additionally, the Forest Service has dialogued with groups, such as the Verde Front and Fossil Creek Working Group, and has worked closely with area tribes to develop the DEIS and CRMP. At this time, a 125-day comment period is occurring from Dec. 1, 2018, to April 4, 2019. 

Top

 

Can the seasonal permit reservation system be Fossil Creek’s management plan?

The Forest Service and other federal agencies are required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) to develop a comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) for the long-term management of a wild and scenic river. The current seasonal permit reservation system is an “interim measure” to help manage the recreational use that is occurring in Fossil Creek but, in and of itself, does not meet the legal requirements of a CRMP. The Fossil Creek draft CRMP and DEIS propose a continued reservation system as needed in five of the six alternatives but also provide guidance for management of all aspects of the river corridor, including natural and cultural resources, recreation sites, roads, trails, and visitor capacities. The DEIS alternatives present a range of options, from managing Fossil Creek much as it is today to increasing visitor capacity numbers and recreation site developments incrementally.

Top

 

Will public comments collected during the November 2016 scoping period be considered now?

Yes. Public comments collected during the 2016 scoping period serve as the basis for the range of alternatives presented now in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). All previous comments, since 2010, have helped the Forest Service understand the issues important to people who visit or are interested in Fossil Creek, namely how people are able to recreate in Fossil Creek, the impacts that use has on natural and cultural resources, the amount and type of recreational development in the Fossil Creek corridor, and public health and safety. Comments submitted in earlier phases of planning for the Fossil Creek CRMP need not be re-submitted in response to the Nov. 30, 2018, Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

Top

 

Is Fossil Creek’s proposed action (Alternative E) the same thing as a preferred alternative?

In broad terms, a “proposed action” may be, but is not necessarily, the “preferred alternative” in an EIS. An agency, like the Forest Service, may or may not have a “preferred alternative” at the draft EIS (DEIS) stage. The agency may decide at the final EIS stage, on the basis of the DEIS and the public and agency comments, that an alternative other than the proposed action is the agency's “preferred alternative.” In the case of the Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River DEIS, no preferred alternative has been identified; however, the degree of environmental analysis devoted to each of Fossil Creek’s alternatives is the same as that devoted to the proposed action.

Top

 

Why does Fossil Creek CRMP’s proposed action consider an increase in visitation, even though large numbers of people have caused problems in the past?

Several alternatives, including the proposed action (Alternative E), allow for more daily visitors than the current reservation system’s 148 vehicles and 780 people at one time (PAOT). This is out of recognition that demand for access to Fossil Creek is high (and will likely increase in the future) and special places like Fossil Creek present opportunities for people to connect with and enjoy their public lands. Impacts seen in the past, such as traffic congestion and the proliferation of bare soil and trash, occurred in a relatively unmanaged recreation environment. With careful management addressing recreation site, road, and trail design and managing the location and timing of recreational use, it is anticipated that Fossil Creek could support more visitors than today without negatively impacting natural and cultural values and the recreation experience. Incrementally increasing visitor numbers, as is proposed in alternatives D, E, and F, would further ensure Fossil Creek’s outstandingly remarkable values are protected.

Top

 

Will it be necessary to close areas within Fossil Creek to recreational use?

Certain areas of the Fossil Creek corridor are especially sensitive to the impacts of human use or present specific management challenges. The Forest Service is required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) to identify and protect and enhance the “outstandingly remarkable values” of Fossil Creek through the CRMP; in some cases, doing so may require reducing the number of recreation sites or closing certain areas. When reviewing the six alternatives, notice that some propose closing sensitive areas (such as the Dixon Lewis Trail and Fossil Springs) while others do not. The analysis in the DEIS will help determine what closures may be necessary. Additionally, monitoring and adaptive management proposed in the CRMP provides future flexibility for changing the locations visitors can access in the corridor based on monitoring. Should closures occur, it is recognized that they will take time to implement. Education will be critical, as will ensuring visitors to Fossil Creek have other opportunities to recreate within the river corridor away from the especially sensitive areas.

Top

 

Will the CRMP analysis address the access roads, including maintenance?

Each of the alternatives present road use details, in particular regarding the currently closed section of Forest Road (FR) 708 between Strawberry and Fossil Creek. Two of these alternatives allow for repair and stabilization of a currently closed 4.1-mile portion of FR 708 with the goal of restoring public access. Alternative D (Motorized Use and Refugia) would open the road to all vehicles while Alternative E (Enhanced Recreation Opportunities with Phased Implementation) would open the road to motorized trail vehicles less than 62 inches wide. A study completed in 2014 assessed the work required to stabilize and maintain this section of road. The study found that a substantial amount of work would be required to complete initial stabilization and safety improvement activities, after which annual maintenance would be required. Repair is estimated to cost $5 million-$6 million, with substantial annual maintenance required thereafter. Costs are considered in the analysis of the DEIS alternatives to inform the decision on how roads and motorized trails will be managed in the CRMP.  Congress allocates a limited budget to the Forest Service for road maintenance across all National Forest System lands. Regardless of the alternative selected, FR 708 would continue to be available to travel by emergency response vehicles.

Top

 

Which alternative(s) would be most costly to implement?

In terms of cost, alternatives in the Fossil Creek DEIS that allow for increased visitor capacity—as compared to the interim management permit reservation system—would be more costly to implement than those that reduce visitor capacity. Specifically, alternatives D-E-F propose construction of increased infrastructure and facilities to accommodate a higher number of people while protecting Fossil Creek’s river values. In addition, two of these alternatives allow for repair and stabilization of a currently closed 4.1-mile portion of Forest Road 708, which is estimated to cost $5 million-$6 million. Alternative D (Motorized Use and Refugia) would open the road to all vehicles while Alternative E (Enhanced Recreation Opportunities with Phased Implementation) would open the road to motorized trail vehicles less than 62 inches wide. Detail about implementation of specific components of the alternatives, including projected costs, can be found in Chapter 2 of the DEIS.

Top

 

How to begin reading the Fossil Creek’s draft CRMP and DEIS?

To determine how to manage the Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Corridor, both a draft comprehensive river management plan (CRMP) and a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) are needed. The CRMP is required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) while the DEIS is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During the planning process, two documents work hand-in-hand.

  • CRMP: Contains the river boundaries; river values; management direction, including desired conditions, standards, and guidelines; and monitoring plan with adaptive management.
  • DEIS: Contains the purpose and need for the plan, alternatives, and environmental analysis.

When the planning process is complete, the final CRMP will contain selected actions to guide management for the next 15 to 20 years.

Start with the following to understand basic project components:

  • CRMP Ch. 1: River setting (pp. 1-4)
  • CRMP Ch. 2: River values (pp. 27-40)
  • DEIS Ch. 1: Purpose of and need for action (pp. 1-8)
  • DEIS Ch. 2: Summary of alternatives (pp. 21-22); grid alternative comparison (pp. 37-45); grid visitor capacity comparison (p. 46)
  • DEIS Appendix A: Maps of the alternatives (pp. 1-7)
  • DEIS Ch. 2: Alternative components (pp. 23-36)—including recreation opportunities (pp. 31-33) and vehicle access and roads (pp. 34-35) with cost (p. 36)

For information on how the project was developed:

  • DEIS Ch. 2: Identification of key issues (pp. 11-12) with grid how key issues crosswalk with alternative (pp. 18-20)
  • CRMP Ch. 1: Purpose and goals of the Fossil Creek plan (pp. 4-5)
  • DEIS Ch. 2: Alternative development since 2010 (pp. 13-20) and alternatives considered but eliminated (p. 58)

For review of the documents in more depth:

  • CRMP Ch. 3: Management direction, including desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and objectives (pp. 69-90)
  • CRMP Ch. 4: Steps to address user capacities within Fossil Creek (p. 94) with user capacities by alternative (pp. 105-107)
  • DEIS Ch. 3: Environmental analysis—effects of actions on the environment (pp. 59-398)
    • Watershed and Soils (pp. 76-104)
    • Geology (pp. 104-120)
    • Wildlife and Vegetation (pp. 120-230)
    • Aquatic Resources (pp. 230-273)
    • Heritage Resources (pp. 273-293)
    • Recreation (pp. 293-320)
    • Socioeconomics (pp. 320-361)
    • Scenery (pp. 361-398)
  • CRMP Ch. 6: Monitoring & Adaptive Management (pp. 115-142)

Top

 

What are the next steps?

After the comment period, the Forest Service will review and respond to comments it receives. This comment response will be located in an appendix to the final EIS. The Forest Service will then finalize the CRMP and EIS and issue a draft Record of Decision (ROD), which will document the alternative selected for the CRMP. This draft ROD will be subject to the objection process, pursuant to 36 CFR 218. Upon completion of the objection process, a final ROD will be issued, and implementation of the CRMP can begin.

Top

 

When and how will be the CRMP be implemented?

Implementation of the Fossil Creek CRMP may begin 30 days after the release of the final record of decision, anticipated to occur in winter 2019/2020. At that time, Fossil Creek’s management direction will go into effect. An implementation plan will be developed for recreation and infrastructure development as outlined in the selected alternative along with the final decision. If an alternative is selected that reduces visitor capacity from the interim management reservation permit system, then the number of parking spaces at recreation sites would be reduced in the year following finalization of the CRMP to bring visitor use at recreation sites to levels consistent with capacities specified in the selected alternatives. If an alternative is selected that increases visitor capacity, then visitor capacity would increase incrementally and be contingent on funding and on facilities and infrastructure able to support higher amounts of use. Development of new facilities and infrastructure and corresponding increases in visitor capacity would require determination that river values would continue to be protected with additional visitor use. This determination would be based on assessment of monitoring data and management observations. Alternative F (Demand-based Access) would strive to meet recreation demand the most quickly while protecting river values, in order to achieve the goal of eliminating the need for a reservation system efficiently.

Top

Back to the Fossil Creek CRMP home

 

 


Alerts & Warnings

View All Alerts