Dog Mountain Permits: Behind the Scenes

[chrisca]

On Sunday, I had a conversation with Lynn Burditt after sending her my recent letter in another thread on the situation at Dog Mountain. I got some useful information from her that I'll share. The permit is implemented as a "safety closure" which allows the Forest Service to not do a public comment process. The odd thing about this closure is that typically safety closures are for a period of time with a start and end date due to some natural disaster or other impact. In this case, the closure is on weekends only, but the law allows for this kind of implementation.

Hikers are granted a permit to enter the closure area on weekends, and the Forest Service can set the number of hikers allowed into the area. That's why the permits are issued per person rather than per vehicle. This allows them to skirt the issue of regulating parking, which requires a much more involved process. The end result is a parking restriction, but it's indirect and apparently legal until challenged.

For those unaware, the safety issue is that a 2015 car crash killed two West Linn teenagers, after a car in front of them missed the Dog Mountain turnoff and stopped on the highway, triggering a three-car wreck. The actual safety problem isn't the trail itself, it's the limited parking lot spaces causing people to park elsewhere along SR-14 and walk on the shoulders or the BNSF tracks to reach the trailhead and/or stopping on the highway to enter the lot where there's no turn lane available. The Forest Service limited the number of spaces in the lot to 75 in 2016, but this backfired, causing more hikers to park along the highway and walk to the trailhead. Since limiting parking didn't fix the problem, the Forest Service has moved to limit the number of hikers on the trail system instead, unless they take a shuttle from Stevenson to the trailhead.

Safety closures must have a boundary, so there is a map of the closure area at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 576346.pdf Some of us may wish to use off-trail routes in the area, but those could require a weekend permit due to there being an actual boundary that can't be crossed without one.

The permit system appears to not be thrown together; it was done in a way that follows the law and leaves little room to challenge. I must hand it to their lawyers for creativity. At least one nonprofit evaluated a legal challenge but could not find a way to do it.

Burditt indicated that because this permit system is a safety closure, it is unlikely that other trails will see similar restrictions without public comment. An overuse problem is different and would likely have public participation. She also mentioned that funding problems prevent extending the shuttle bus hours or running it on weekdays. That's a shame, but it's due to our broken Northwest Forest Pass program which has a number of issues I've covered in the past.

We as hikers would do well to remember that if we create a safety problem, it allows the Forest Service to act unilaterally to do things we'll likely be unhappy with. Walking along roads, getting injured due to negligence, doing stupid things that require a rescue, and ignoring safety warnings are all things that could cause these kinds of "closures," which are access restrictions in disguise. As we all know, while ostensibly this was done for reasons of safety, it has the side effect of being a major access restriction to a favorite trail. The two can often be difficult to untangle so there's no guarantee against some other situation arising with similar results.

All this said, it appears that my comments did spur some thinking. It's important for all of us to let the agency know how we feel about the trail issues in the Gorge and what process we should follow to try to address them. If we keep quiet, we get what we deserve.

[Aimless]

The odd thing about this closure is that typically safety closures are for a period of time with a start and end date due to some natural disaster or other impact.

Did Lynn Burditt happen to mention what risk to public safety the FS had identified that only occurs on weekends within that boundary? I would be very surprised if the implementing regulations did not require the safety risk to be named and some justification for the imposition of the closure be documented, including an explanation for the duration of the closure and the placement of the boundaries.

While your explanation of the procedural differences between a safety closure and other types of closures is very plain, the only explanation I can derive from your report is that the FS wanted to impose limits on the public use of those trails, and selected this procedure as being the simplest way of imposing those limits. The actual risks they are seeking to manage got left out of the explanation.

[pcg]

...
Did Lynn Burditt happen to mention what risk to public safety the FS had identified that only occurs on weekends within that boundary? ...the only explanation I can derive from your report is that the FS wanted to impose limits on the public use of those trails, and selected this procedure as being the simplest way of imposing those limits. The actual risks they are seeking to manage got left out of the explanation.

The reasoning seems obvious and logical to me. The risk is not within that boundary, but it occurs from traffic congestion caused by people driving to the area to hike within that boundary. Personally I think it's a good move by the USFS.
http://katu.com/news/local/safety-is-th ... s-continue

[Bosterson]

Chris, thanks for following up with the USFS and posting your analysis. Though I don't agree with the permit system itself, or think that it's the best way to address the parking safety issues, it does make sense that they would do it this way so as to get their "parking safety" solution implemented as quickly as possible. It is a relief to hear that this means that their permit system will be unable to spread to the rest of the Gorge without public comment.

Did Lynn address whether their choice of using a unilateral "safety closure" is due to projected stress on the Dog parking situation this year as a result of so much of the Gorge being closed after the fire, or whether this is going to be their "solution" to the problem going forward?

Safety closures must have a boundary, so there is a map of the closure area at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 576346.pdf Some of us may wish to use off-trail routes in the area, but those could require a weekend permit due to there being an actual boundary that can't be crossed without one.

That map is pretty blank and shows no land features demarcating the boundary of a closure, so I'm assuming that "zone" is really just meant as reference to the trails themselves (especially considering the Augspurger Mountain portion of that trail is not closed north of Dog). The USFS web page for the closure describes the actual closure area as being the "trail system" (emphasis added):

Permits are required Saturdays & Sundays from March 31 to July 1 for each individual using the Dog Mountain Trail System. The system includes Dog Mountain Trail (#147 and #147C), Dog Augspurger Tie Trail #147A, and the lower portion of Augspurger Trail #4407. Hikers on the system will be required to carry a hard copy permit or electronic proof of purchase.

I interpret this to mean that off trail is permissible during the (thankfully brief) permit season, though you can't use any of the trails en route. It would certainly be fun to try to explain this to the ticket-takers in the parking lot.

While your explanation of the procedural differences between a safety closure and other types of closures is very plain, the only explanation I can derive from your report is that the FS wanted to impose limits on the public use of those trails, and selected this procedure as being the simplest way of imposing those limits. The actual risks they are seeking to manage got left out of the explanation.

This was discussed at length in the other thread and has been made clear in various reports elsewhere about the permit system. The reason for using a "safety closure" to address a parking issue is made clear in Chris's summary above: the USFS found a loophole to create a unilateral stopgap to try to fix the problem (which is a safety issue, even if it doesn't occur on the trails that are "closed"). Whether it will work remains to be seen, though by numerous accounts, the TH is now somewhat empty during the weekend.

[arlohike]

Interesting info -- thanks for posting.

[chrisca]

...
Did Lynn address whether their choice of using a unilateral "safety closure" is due to projected stress on the Dog parking situation this year as a result of so much of the Gorge being closed after the fire, or whether this is going to be their "solution" to the problem going forward?

I did ask this. Lynn's response was the closure is because they were already seeing increased visitation before the flower season and were worried about what could happen if nothing were done (as has been the case for the prior two years.)

She also said that there is work underway to look at expanding parking. It can't be done at the existing lot due to tight property boundaries so a new lot would need to be located to the west and north of SR-14 off of Bergen Rd. That land requires an involved permitting process and there are development costs. She gave no timetable, but the impression I got is don't expect it any time soon.

[Waffle Stomper]

Thanks for the info. I think the system is an interesting solution, and no doubt something does need to be done about the congestion on weekends, both on the trail and parking. I hope it works.