ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

for the 

Klickitat 

Rails-to-Trails 

USDA Forest Service 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest 

Region 

Columbia River 

Gorge National 

Scenic Area 

August 2003 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Table of Contents i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

for the 

Klickitat 

Rails-to-Trails 

USDA Forest Service 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

August 2003 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Table of Contents ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

List of Tables............................................................................................ iii 

List of Figures, Maps and Photos.................................................................... iv 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action........................................................ 1 

1.0 Background.................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Location........................................................................................ 2 

1.2 Proposed Action............................................................................. 3 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.............................................. 3 

1.4 Decisions to be Made........................................................................ 5 

1.5 Public Involvement Summary.............................................................. 6 

1.6 Issues........................................................................................... 7 

1.7 Existing Land Use Regulations............................................................. 12 

1.8 Other Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Required Coordination................. 15 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action..................................... 17 

2.0 Process used to Formulate Alternatives.................................................... 17 

2.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study............................................. 17 

2.2 Alternatives....................................................................................

Alternative 1 – No Action................................................................

Alternative 2 – 31 Mile Low Development Trail....................................

Alternative 2a.........................................................................

Alternative 3 – 13 1⁄2 Mile Higher Development Trail.............................. 

Alternative 3a.........................................................................

Trailheads for Alternatives 2 and 3.....................................................

Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3.............................................

Design Guidelines for Alternatives 2 and 3...........................................

18 

18 

19 

20 

20 

20 

26 

31 

36 

2.3 Monitoring...................................................................................... 38 

2.4 Phasing Plan.................................................................................... 38 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..................... 43 

3.1 Recreation Use ............................................................................... 43 

3.2 Cost for Trail Development and Long-Term Management............................. 57 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities.............................................................. 60 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Table of Contents iii

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners ........................................... 69 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management and Law Enforcement............. 80 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional American Indian Uses................ 86 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources .............................................................. 94 

3.8 Scenic Resources.............................................................................. 125 

3.9 Transportation................................................................................. 134 

3.10 Air Quality ................................................................................... 140 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations.................................................. 145 

3.12 Consistency with National Recreation Trail Criteria.................................... 154 

3.13 Other Disclosures............................................................................. 156 

Chapter 4: Consultation and List of Preparers................................................. 158 

4.1 Results of Consultation.......................................................................158 

4.2 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted.................................................. 159 

4.3 List of Preparers................................................................................ 160 

4.4 Appendices......................................................................................160 

Sources.................................................................................................. 161 

Appendix A SEPA Checklist 

Appendix B Assumptions for Use Figures and Assumptions for Economic Benefits 

Appendix C Washington State Parks Policy 55-01-1: Policy Governing Leases, Permits 

and Easements for Non-Recreational Uses of State Park Lands 

Appendix D Biologcal Evaluation 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Table of Contents iv

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Table 1: Responsibilities for Decisions/Permits.................................................. 15 

Table 2: Trailhead Locations........................................................................26 

Table 3: Trailhead Parking Capacities and Facilities............................................. 26 

Table 4: Klickitat Rails to Trails – Summary of Alternatives.................................. 40 

Table 5: Klickitat Rails to Trails – Summary of Effects........................................ 41 

Table 6: Trail Segments..............................................................................43 

Table 7: Visitor Use and Average Visitor/Day by Trail Segment, Alternatives 2 and 2a... 51 

Table 8: Visitor Use and Average Visitor/Day by Trail Segment, Alternatives 3 and 3a... 53 

Table 9: Participation by Activity as a Percent of State Population........................... 53 

Table 10: Summary of Costs of Trail Development and Maintenance.................. .. ... 58 

Table 11: Phasing Costs............................................................................. 59 

Table 12: Employment by Sector in Klickitat County, 2000.................................... 62 

Table 13: Recreation Related Economic Impacts ................................................ 65 

Table 14: Development Cost per user (over 20 years)........................................... 66 

Table 15: Annual O&M Cost per user............................................................. 66 

Table 16: Recreation Expenditures, Income and Employment.................................. 66 

Table 17: Benefit / Cost per year (Development & O&M Costs).............................. 67 

Table 18: Recreation Users Per Day by Segment................................................ 79 

Table 19: Existing Habitat Adjacent to the Railbed............................................. 98 

Table 20: Summary Table of Conclusion of Effects for Federal and State Threatened, 

Sensitive and Priority Species........................................................... 124 

Table 21: Applicable ROS Guidance .............................................................. 130 

Table 22: ADT and DHV for the State and County Road System without Trailheads ...... 134 

Table 23: ADT and DHV for the Trailheads by Alternative .................................... 135 

Table 24: LOS (Level of Service) for State Roads with and without Trailheads..............136 

Table 25: State Roads Risk Assessment for Trailhead Road Approaches and for Trail 

Crossings. ..................................................................................137 

Table 26: ADT for County Roads with and without Trailheads............................... 137 

Table 27: County Roads Risk Assessment for Trailhead Road Approaches and for Trail 

Crossings.................................................................................. 138 

Table 28: Applicable County Land Use Permits.................................................. 152 

Table 29: Consistency with Land Use Regulations............................................... 153 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Table of Contents v

List of Figures, Maps and Photos 

Figure Page 

Figure 1: Vicinity Map.............................................................................. 2 

Figure 2: Maps of Alternatives..................................................................... 22-25 

Figure 3: Conceptual Trailhead Designs......................................................... 27-30 

Figure 4: Native American dipnet fishing on the Klickitat River............................. 89 

Figure 5: Native American dipnet fishing on the Klickitat River............................. 89 

Figure 6: Erosion of the rail bed by the 1996 flood downstream of Pitt...................... 96 

Figure 7: Air photograph showing constriction of the Klickitat River at Suburbia 

Bridge...................................................................................... 97 

Figure 8: Mid-Winter Counts of Wintering Bald Eagles....................................... 100 

Figure 9: Bald Eagle Pairs.......................................................................... 100 

Figure 10: Air photo showing rail bed blocking access to a meander bend and 

straightening the stream channel in upper Swale Canyon just below Harms 

Road....................................................................................... 102 

Figure 11: The transition between grassland plateau in upper Swale and the mixed forest 

on north-facing slope in lower Swale Canyon........................................ 103 

Figure 12: Swale Canyon, middle and upper sections, where habitat adjacent to railbed 

transitions to grassland steppe.......................................................... 104 

Figure 13: Actively eroding site about 3 miles downstream from Pitt......................... 109 

Figure 14: Typical layout of eagle wintering habitat in the 10 1⁄2 miles of railbed on the 

Klickitat River in relation to Highway 142........................................... 112 

Figure 15: Natural Ponderosa Pine recruitment within the edges of the railbed that may 

help visually screen trail users from wintering eagles in the near future of 4-7 

years.......................................................................................

114- 

115 

Figure 16: Upper reaches of Swale Creek 116 

Figure 17: Lyle-Fisher trail segment within CRGNSA and Wild and Scenic River 

Boundary from Rowena Plateau........................................................ 125 

Figure 18: Wahkiacus-Warwick trail segment from trail........................................ 125 

Figure 19: Remaining Structure from the Bridge over the Klickitat River at Suburbia...... 127 

Figure 20: Typical Trestle in Wahkiacus-Warwick Segment.................................... 128 

Figure 21: Trail Surface is Rough, Rockfall is Common in Wahkiacus-Warwick 

Segment....................................................................................128 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Purpose of and Need for Action 1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails project. The history and location 

of the rail corridor are presented. A summary of the public involvement process and the 

planning issues related to trail development are included. Land use regulations and the 

implementation process are summarized. 

1.0 BACKGROUND

The USDA Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, administers the lower 

10.8 miles of the Klickitat River as a Federal Wild and Scenic River. Until 1992, Burlington 

Northern operated a railroad within the Wild and Scenic River boundary. The Lower Klickitat 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1991) recognized the potential for Burlington 

Northern (BN) to abandon its railroad line along the river. The river plan determined as a desired 

future condition: 

"If BN ceases this use, the right-of-way is either maintained as open space or to 

provide recreation consistent with Roaded Natural opportunities. Compatible 

uses include a tourist train, bike path, or hiking trail; incompatible uses include a 

paved road open to vehicle traffic, or a corridor of residential or commercial 

development". 

In late 1992, Burlington Northern filed notice with the Interstate Commerce Commission to 

abandon the rail corridor from Lyle to Goldendale. The Forest Service sought to preserve the 

railroad corridor to fulfill the purposes of the river management plan. The National Trails 

System Act allows certain non-federal entities to “railbank” rail corridors which are about to be 

abandoned. Railbanking is the legal process that preserves rail corridors for possible future reestablishment for rail use, with interim use as public trails. Concurrently, the Rails-to-Trails 

Conservancy (RTC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to converting vacated rail lines to public 

use trails, did “railbank” 31 miles of the rail corridor, from Lyle to Uecker Road near Warwick. 

In August 1993, Burlington Northern Railroad Company sold its rights in the Lyle-Warwick 

portion of the rail corridor to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which had railbanked the 31 mile 

line. This interest was approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (now the Surface 

Transportation Board). The transaction was completed and RTC took title to the rail corridor in 

March 1994. In April 1994, RTC donated its rights in the rail corridor to the Washington State 

Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks), which now owns the railbanked rights to the 

right-of-way. 

In fulfillment of its responsibility to protect the Klickitat Wild and Scenic River values, the 

Forest Service has cooperated with State Parks to investigate trail management. State Parks and 

the Forest Service are cooperating during the current National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

trail planning phase under a Memorandum of Understanding, dated January 27, 2003. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 1

There are two avenues by which the Forest Service may participate in management of the trail 

with State Parks. 

First, for the trail within the Klickitat Wild and Scenic River corridor, and potentially an 

additional three miles up to the town of Klickitat (since this is a logical start/end and important 

connecting point to the community), the Forest Service could participate in trail management 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act authorities. The Secretary of Agriculture (as delegated), 

in administration of any component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System area, may 

utilize the general statutory authorities relating to the national forests in such manner as deemed 

appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(d). 

Second, any portion of the corridor not subject to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act authorities 

would need to be designated as a National Recreation Trail (pursuant to the National Trails 

Systems Act section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1243)) by the Regional Forester (as delegated by the Secretary 

of Agriculture) in order for the Forest Service to participate in trail management. The National 

Recreation Trail designation would authorize the Forest Service to expend federal funds in the 

operation and management of the trail. A National Recreation Trail designation is an 

administrative decision; it is not a decision subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, nor 

is it appealable. 

Alternatively, the Forest Service could designate any trail portion as a National Recreation Trail, 

even the portion within the Wild and Scenic River boundary. 

Claiming taking of their land without compensation, eight landowners adjacent to the rail rightof-way brought suit against the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and the 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in April 1994. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by 

the Eastern Washington Federal District Court in September 1994 and by the 9th Circuit Federal 

Court of Appeals in March 1996. No further legal challenges have been filed as of the writing of 

this document. 

In February 1996, portions of the railbed suffered considerable flood damage, with most damage 

occurring between Fisher Hill and Wahkiacus. Several sections between Fisher Hill and Pitt 

were partially damaged. One section of about 150 feet between Pitt and Skookum Flat 

completely washed out. The railbed surface was highly damaged for several thousand feet 

between Suburbia and Wahkiacus. The Suburbia trestle was highly damaged and eventually 

removed by Washington State Parks. The original railbed through Swale Canyon (Wahkiacus to 

Warwick) is largely usable. This segment suffered relatively minor damage consisting of several 

landslides covering the railbed and minor bridge damage. The former railbed is passable by foot 

for its entire length except for the Suburbia trestle and the washout between Pitt and Skookum 

Flat. 

The Forest Service conducted a planning process between 1994 and 1997, and in 1997 published 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) proposing six alternatives for management of the 31-mile 

corridor as a National Recreation Trail. No decision was made by then Regional Forester Bob 

Williams. No project planning took place between 1998 and 2003. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 2

Project planning was reinitiated in 2003, leading to an Environmental Assessment (EA) with 

different alternatives, updated information and revised analysis from the 1997 EA. This EA is 

considered a new EA; it is not a supplement or revision to the 1997 EA. 

1.1 LOCATION

The project area is the 31-mile Klickitat Rails-to-Trails right-of-way corridor, from Lyle to 

Uecker Road near Warwick, Washington (see Figure 1). The right-of-way varies from 60 to 200 

feet wide and (with a few exceptions) is measured 30 feet, 50 feet or 100 feet wide on each side 

of and parallel with centerline of the railroad. For the most part, any recreation use of the trail 

would be limited to the railbed, and would not require full use of the right-of-way. Proposed 

facilities along the trail would be placed well within this right-of-way. Surveys would be 

conducted as necessary to ensure trailhead development is located within the right-of-way, or on 

adjacent land agreed to by the adjacent landowner. 

The corridor begins in the Lyle Urban Area of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

(CRGNSA). The first approximately 1.6 trail miles are within the CRGNSA General 

Management Area (GMA); the first approximately 10.5 trail miles are within the Klickitat 

National Wild and Scenic River corridor, Recreation Classification (because the trail does not 

start at the mouth of the Klickitat River, the trail mileage is not exactly the same as the Wild and 

Scenic River mileage). The next approximately 6 trail miles continue along the Klickitat River, 

passing through the communities of Pitt, Klickitat, and Wahkiacus. The trail corridor then leaves 

the Klickitat River at the confluence of Swale Creek to ascend about 14 miles in Swale Canyon. 

The railbanked portion of the rail corridor ends at Uecker Road, a county road near Warwick. 

The Rails-to-Trails corridor has the following legal description: Washington State, Klickitat 

County, T.3N, R.12E, Sections 24, 25, 26 and Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19; T.4N, R.13E, 

Sections 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32; T.4N, R.14E, Sections 19, 20, 21, 28, 33; T.3N, R.14E, 

Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 W.M. (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Vicinity Map 

 PROJECT

AREA 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 3

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION

The Forest Service proposes to develop and manage all or part of the 31-mile rail corridor, from 

Lyle to Uecker Road, as a public use, non-motorized trail. For planning purposes, the project is 

named the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails. 

Included within the proposed action are the following facilities and activities: 

• trail improvements (surface improvements, trestle decking and railings, short bridges, 

short boardwalks) 

• trailheads with parking, restrooms, drinking water, signage and plantings 

• foot bridge at Suburbia 

• educational, regulatory and interpretive signing 

• trail reroutes in limited areas 

• trail regulations regarding camping, fires, smoking, dogs 

• trail patrol 

• identification of vehicle turn-around areas 

• identification of helispots 

• identification of water access points 

• riparian planting to stabilize the railbed 

• vegetative screening 

• noxious weed survey and treatment 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

In 1994, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) agreed to accept 

title to the 31-mile railbanked corridor, with the understanding that the Forest Service would 

undertake the necessary trail planning, development and associated management responsibilities. 

By initiating the Klickitat Trail project proposal, the Forest Service is acting to fulfill its 

commitment to the Commission. 

The purpose and need for the proposed trail is based on recreation opportunities, economic 

benefits to local communities, and compatibility with the Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River 

Management Plan. 

Recreation Opportunities

Management of all or part of the 31-mile rail corridor as a trail could serve recreationists’ needs 

that are currently underserved in the area. There is a relative scarcity of flat trails, wheelchair 

accessible trails, equestrian terrain, and bicycle trails in the National Scenic Area. 

Opportunities are very limited in the Gorge area for mountain bikes, the physically challenged 

and equestrians. The Forest Service currently manages 180 miles of trail in the Gorge. Fifteen 

percent are mountain bike trails, 16% provide equestrian opportunities and less than 1% meet 

barrier free standards. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 4

Other agencies offer limited equestrian and mountain bike trails, most notably Oregon State 

Parks (Deschutes River Trail), Washington State Parks (Beacon Rock State Park equestrian 

trails) and Washington Department of Natural Resources (Buck Creek Trail System). Mountain 

biking has increased in the area; the most noteworthy example is Coyote Wall (near Burdoin 

Mountain). 

A few short wheelchair accessible trails are found in Washington (Catherine Creek, SamsWalker, St. Cloud, Fort Cascades). Longer wheelchair accessible trails are found in Oregon, 

including the Historic Columbia River Highway and The Dalles Riverfront Trail. Few of these 

trails are as flat as the proposed Klickitat Rails-to-Trails. Due to flat grade (2%) and wide width 

(up to sixteen feet wide), this rail corridor could provide an outstanding opportunity to serve 

these, and other, recreation needs. 

Trails and trail use are disproportionately distributed in the Columbia River Gorge area. Over 

60% of the recreational facilities and trails are concentrated west of Cascade Locks, particularly 

on the Oregon side. The rail corridor could provide additional trail opportunities on the eastern 

end of the Gorge; and especially on the Washington side of the Gorge, a need documented in the 

CRGNSA Management Plan. 

The proposed trail would help fulfill two of the three highest priority objectives for public use 

trails in the General Management Area (GMA) of the CRGNSA (Management Plan page I-152), 

as well as one of the five other trail objectives (Management Plan page I-153): 

• “Increase trail opportunities on the Washington side of the Scenic Area and in the eastern 

portions of the Scenic Area.” (The trail is located both in Washington and in the eastern 

portion of the Scenic Area.) 

• “Provide trails linking Urban Areas and the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area to 

recreation opportunities in the Scenic Area.” (Originating in Lyle, the trail would link the 

Lyle Urban Area to recreation opportunities in the General Management Area of the 

Scenic Area). 

• “Establish trails along the major tributaries of the Columbia River.” (The trail would be 

located along the Klickitat River, a major tributary of the Columbia River.) 

While there is a relatively large inventory of trails on the neighboring Gifford Pinchot and Mt. 

Hood National Forests, many of these trails are only accessible during the summer months. 

Hiking closer to home in a natural setting also seems to be preferred by busy recreationists of 

today. The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails could provide a unique year-round trail opportunity for 

multiple user groups to experience their activities in a natural setting, close to the 

Portland/Vancouver Metro area and local Gorge communities (within a 1 hour drive). 

Economic Benefits to Local Communities

A trail could provide some level of economic benefit to the previously timber-dependent 

community of Klickitat, a goal of the Northwest Forest Plan; and to the community of Lyle, a 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 5

goal of the CRGNSA Act National Scenic Area Act and Management Plan. The unemployment 

rate in Klickitat is twice that of the county as a whole and over four times the Washington State 

average. More families in Klickitat are ranked below the 1999 poverty level income than any 

other community in the county. 

Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Management Plan.

The Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (page B-14) states: 

“If BN (Burlington Northern) ceases this use, the right-of-way is either maintained as 

open space or to provide recreation consistent with Roaded Natural opportunities. 

Compatible uses include a tourist train, bike path, or hiking trail; incompatible uses 

include a paved road open to vehicle traffic, or a corridor of residential or commercial 

development.” 

The proposed trail would ensure the right-of-way would be retained in a use compatible with the 

Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. The Forest Service, as the federal 

managing agency for the Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River, is an appropriate agency to 

manage the proposed trail. If the Forest Service does not manage the trail, it is not known if 

another entity would manage the right-of-way as a trail. 

1.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE

The Forest Service will decide whether to manage all, part, or none of the 31-mile rail corridor as 

a recreational trail. If it elects to a management role, it will decide how trail management would 

take place. Included in this decision are: 

• segments of the trail to be managed by the Forest Service (if any), 

• conditions associated with Forest Service management of the trail, 

• appropriate trail uses (e.g., hiking, bicycling, horses), 

• support development (e.g., trailheads, gates, safety devices, trail surfacing), 

• management strategies (e.g., law enforcement, search and rescue, fire prevention, timing 

of use (e.g., dawn to dusk), 

• phasing for trail use (e.g., safety improvements before trail opening) 

The National Scenic Area Manager is the decision maker for the first approximately 13 1⁄2 trail 

miles in the Klickitat Wild and Scenic River corridor, and up to the town of Klickitat/Suburbia 

(since this is a logical start/end and important connecting point to the community), under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act authorities. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act authorities have been 

delegated from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Forest Supervisors/National Scenic Area 

Manager. 

The Regional Forester must decide to designate the corridor as a National Recreation Trail in 

order for the Forest Service to participate in trail management beyond Klickitat. The authority to 

designate a National Recreation Trail has been delegated from the Secretary of Agriculture to the 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 6

Regional Foresters, but has not been further delegated to the Forest Supervisors/National Scenic 

Area Manager. 

Alternatively, the Regional Forester could designate any portion of the trail as a National 

Recreation Trail, even the portion within the Wild and Scenic River boundary. 

The criteria for a National Recreation Trail are four (FSM 2353.33(b)): 

1. Readiness. Designate a trail only if it is in place and available for public use. 

2. Use and Availability. The trail must provide a variety of trail-related recreation 

opportunities within approximately 2 hours of automobile travel time from the population 

centers of the Region under consideration. 

3. Length. The length of a proposed National Recreation Trail or Trail System may vary, 

depending upon its use and purpose, but it must be continuous. 

4. Location. The trail incorporates the significant natural and cultural features of the area 

through which it passes. The trail may utilize a variety of locations if the location is in 

accordance with planned trail use and reasonably provides for public safety. 

Consstency of the proposed trail with these criteria is provided in Chapter 3, Section 3.12. 

 

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY

The Forest Service conducted an extensive public involvement process in its planning effort 

from 1994 to 1997. No further planning by the Forest Service took place between 1998 and 

2003. 

The Forest Service reinitiated the public involvement process for this project with two public 

Open Houses in February 2003. It held one meeting in Lyle, Washington on February 25, and 

the second in Klickitat, Washington on February 27, 2003. Notice of these meetings was sent to 

over 1,000 contacts. Over 200 people attended the two workshops. 

In early April 2003, the Forest Service requested comment on a preliminary range of alternatives 

and a list of preliminary mitigation/conflict resolution ideas. A summary of the public meetings 

was also included in the package. Over 1,200 contacts were notified of these materials. Over 

100 responses were received. 

The Forest Service held three workshops on May 31, June 14 and June 28. The objectives of the 

workshops were to bring together interest groups and adjacent property owners to develop 

mitigation measures that would be acceptable to all parties. Two workshops were held in the 

town of Klickitat, and one in the town of Lyle. All three workshops were facilitated by 

professional consultants. Approximately 150 parties were notified, and between 10 and 15 

people attended each workshop. 

Forest Service staff met with or telephoned a range of tribal and public entities: 

• Yakama Tribal Council 

• Yakama Tribal Fisheries Staff 

• Yakama Tribal Cultural Staff 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 7

• Klickitat County Commissioners 

• Klickitat County Planning Department 

• Klickitat County Road Department 

• Klickitat County Sheriff 

• Klickitat County Health Department 

• Klickitat County Fire Chiefs from a number of Rural Fire Districts 

• Klickitat County P.U.D. 

• Klickitat Fire Department 

• Klickitat School District 

• Washington State Department of Transportation 

• Washington State Department of Ecology 

• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

• Washington State Department of Natural Resources (fire protection division) 

• Klickitat Community Council 

• Lyle Community Action Council 

Forest Service staff met with the following groups at their request: 

• Landowners along the Klickitat River 

• Klickitat Trail Conservancy 

• Citizens Review Committee for Salmon Recovery in Klickitat Watershed 

Forest Service staff also provided information to a number of individual landowners and private 

citizens. 

1.6 ISSUES

An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or concern regarding the environmental effects of a 

proposed action. Identification of issues guides the analysis by determining which issues are 

important to address or mention for clarification and information. Significant or "key" issues are 

used in the environmental analysis for formulating alternatives, developing mitigation measures, 

and tracking effects. Issues are deemed “significant” because of the extent of their geographical 

distribution, duration of effects, or intensity of interest or resource conflicts. 

Issues were developed from the following sources: the two February 2003 public Open Houses, 

meetings with public entities and private groups, written and verbal comments, the Washington 

State Parks and Recreation Commission’s Klickitat Trail public meetings, and the Forest 

Service’s earlier (1994-1997) planning effort. 

 

Alternatives have been created in response to issues 1, 2 and 3. Measures have been designed 

into the alternatives to address issues 4 though 7. In addition, three issues were considered 

beyond the scope of this analysis and are not addressed further,

Issues Leading to Distinct Alternatives 

Distinct alternatives were created in response to the following three issues: 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 8

1. Recreation Use 

2. Cost of Trail Development and Long-Term Management 

3. Economics Benefit to the Local Communities 

Issue 1. Recreation Use – A central issue to this proposal concerns the types and amount of 

recreation use on the proposed trail. The flat grade and width (up to 16 ft) provide an 

opportunity for a wide range of recreation uses. Possible recreation uses include hiking, biking, 

horseback riding, wheelchairs, wagon trains, horse-drawn carts, pack animals, dog walking, or 

other non-motorized uses. (Only non-motorized recreation uses would be allowed, because 

Washington State Parks does not normally allow motorized vehicles on its trails, unless it is 

designated as an off-road-vehicle trail. One exception would be motorized wheelchairs.) Some 

potential users have suggested paving; others state a preference for a native surface. The 

hardness of the surface affects whether certain recreationists, such as those with wheelchairs and 

road bikes, will likely use the trail. Questions have been raised whether to allow boat launching 

or commercial uses. Carrying a loaded weapon or discharging firearms would be prohibited on 

the trail pursuant to Washington State Parks regulations. 

Possible recreation support facilities include trailheads, parking, restrooms, drinking water, 

informational/educational signs, or other facilities. Horse riders have requested adequate parking 

space for horse trailers, horse hitching posts at trailheads and identification of water places on 

long trail stretches. Connection of this trail to other area trails and roads has also been 

suggested. The Forest Service identified the need to develop design guidelines for facilities. 

Conflict among different users is possible. Types and amount of recreation use could influence 

the extent of potential resource damage. Amount of use could affect economic benefits from the 

proposed trail, as well as livability for nearby residents. There is concern that the potentially high 

number of trail users could lead to sanitation problems. 

The effects of the alternatives are measured by comparing amount of trail use, the pattern and 

types of use, conflicts among trail users, conflicts at parking areas, accessibility and ROS 

compatibility. 

Issue 2: Cost of Trail Development and Long-Term Management - Both initial development 

and long-term management of the trail and its support facilities would require funding. Forest 

Service and Washington State Parks budgets are not increasing. The Forest Service already has a 

maintenance backlog on its existing trails. The public questions the Forest Service’s ability to 

fund trail improvement and maintenance. Local community members and volunteer groups have 

offered assistance in trail maintenance, including the Klickitat Trail Conservancy. 

The effects of the alternatives are measured by development cost and by maintenance cost. 

Issue 3: Effect on Local Communities –The rail corridor passes through several small 

communities, the largest being Lyle and Klickitat. The community of Klickitat is particularly 

economically distressed. Klickitat’s lumber mill, its only industry, closed in the mid 1990’s. 

While Klickitat County’s 2000 unemployment rate was twice that of the Washington State 

average, the community of Klickitat was four times the State average. Both the number of 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 9

individuals and the number of families in poverty is higher in Klickitat than in any other 

Klickitat County community reported in the 2000 Census. Some people have stated the trail 

could be an economic asset for Klickitat by attracting tourism. 

While economic indicators reflect a healthier economy for Lyle, its community members and 

local businesses have expressed interest in the potential economic benefits of the proposed trail. 

Some residents believe the trail would be a community asset, providing a safe place for residents, 

especially children and senior citizens, to walk. Others fear that the trail may lead to an influx of 

new people, which could have unintended consequences such as population growth, increased 

development along the trail, or crime. 

The effects of the alternatives are measured by the income and employment generated by trail 

development, and by comparing the income generated by the trail to the cost to develop and 

maintain the trail (a benefit to cost ratio). 

Issues Leading to Design Features in the Alternatives

Measures were incorporated into the alternatives to address the following issues: 

4. Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners: Quality of Life/Resident Privacy, Access 

Across/Along the Trail and Cattle/Sheep Conflicts 

5. Safety, Law Enforcement, Emergency Response, Fire Management 

6. Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

7. Natural and Water Resources 

4. Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners - Numerous concerns have been raised about 

potential effects of the proposed trail on adjacent and nearby residents and landowners. This 

issue has been divided into three categories: A) Quality of Life/Resident Privacy; B) Access 

Across/Along the Trail; and C) Cattle/Sheep Conflicts 

A) Quality of Life/Resident Privacy - Some landowners along the rail corridor fear the trail 

would diminish their quality of life. These landowners moved to a rural area for peace and quiet, 

and now they feel their privacy would be invaded by trail users. Some houses are located less 

than one hundred feet from the trail. Landowners worry they may face increased vandalism, 

garbage, litter, fire danger, trespass or crime from people who have access to their property from 

the trail. Residents next to and near the proposed trail are concerned that trail users may leave the 

trail and approach residences. People accessing nearby residences may be a security risk, or an 

intrusion on privacy. Other misgivings stem from a perceived potential liability from persons 

injured on the right-of-way, or those who trespass onto private lands and injure themselves. 

Further concerns revolve around the burden to pay for repair or cleanup from illegal uses. 

B) Access Across/Along the Trail- Some landowners fear they may not be able to cross the trail 

to access their property, or be able to put utility, water, irrigation, or other connections across the 

trail. Other property owners have expressed the desire to use the railbed for vehicular access to 

their properties. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 10

C) Cattle/Sheep Conflicts - The rail corridor passes through range land. Some ranchers are 

concerned that cattle would not be able to cross the trail to access land or water. They are 

concerned that gates or fences put up to control motor vehicles may block cattle access; that 

recreationists may leave gates open, and cattle could stray onto the trail, other property, or even 

the highway; that cattle could harm recreationists (leading to liability for the cattle owner); that 

recreationists’ dogs could harass their livestock; that gates and fences could affect wildlife 

mobility; or that they may have to pay for additional gates or fences and their maintenance. One 

sheep rancher is concerned that sheep/guard dogs will protect private property and attack 

recreationists’ dogs if they cross a fence. 

The alternatives evaluate impacts to quality of life and privacy in terms of number of recreation 

users expected along the trail and at trailheads, and potential increased access for unlawful 

activity, such as trespass, crime, and vandalism. The alternatives also evaluate adjacent 

landowner use of the right-of-way, and potential conflicts between recreationists and cattle or 

sheep. 

5. Safety, Law Enforcement, Emergency Response, and Fire Management - Numerous 

safety hazards have been identified. The trestles have broken ties, and lack safety railings. The 

trail crosses State Route 142 three times, and it borders the highway in places without guardrails 

or fences. The trail crosses four county roads. Rocks and debris slide or fall onto the trail. 

There is no cell phone coverage in remote portions of the trail. Rattlesnakes inhabit Swale 

Canyon. 

Public agencies and surrounding landowners have concerns about emergency response along the 

trail. Concerns include which jurisdiction will respond to emergencies and who will be liable to 

pay for that response. The County Sheriff and local fire departments are concerned the trail 

would create additional enforcement or response burdens, putting additional pressure on their 

limited resources. Increased fire danger from trail users, smoking or setting campfires has been 

mentioned. In some sections, there are no access roads other than the trail for emergency, fire or 

law enforcement vehicles. As a result of the 1996 flooding, vehicle access along the corridor has 

been limited in some areas. 

Trail users are concerned about what to do if they are confronted by adjacent landowners while 

on the trail and landowners are concerned about security issues dealing with their property and 

trespassing. Another safety issue that has been raised is what to do about hunting and firearms 

both on the trail and the land adjacent to the trail. 

The alternatives are evaluated in terms of safety, vehicle access, fire prevention, fire suppression, 

emergency response, search and rescue, communications and law enforcement. 

6. Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional American Indian Uses - The rail corridor 

passes through some lands held in trust for Native American families, and other lands owned in 

fee by Native Americans. There are traditional fishing, hunting, gathering, and ceremonial lands 

along the rail corridor (potentially a Traditional Cultural Property as defined in 35 C.F.R. 800). 

For instance, a cemetery, extremely important dip-net fishing area, and the site of an annual First 

Foods Ceremony are adjacent to the right-of-way. Native Americans are concerned that 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 11

increased access on the trail by recreationists could degrade these lands, lead to harassment, 

interrupt their ceremonies, and infringe on the cemetery. Other concerns include the potential 

effects on sensitive and significant archaeological sites. 

The alternatives are evaluated in terms of effects to historic or archaeological sites, and to the 

traditional use area at Fisher Hill. 

7. Natural and Water Resources - The railbed, located along the Klickitat River and Swale 

Creek shorelines, has been in place for decades, although it was significantly damaged in places 

by flood waters in 1996. New construction is needed for support facilities such as trailheads. 

Placement of these support facilities could affect shorelines, floodplains or sensitive resources. 

Remote areas with little current access (e.g., Swale Canyon) would be opened to increased 

recreation use. Some people predict increased access could affect wildlife or fisheries. For 

instance, increased numbers of people could harass fish in isolated summer pools in Swale 

Creek. Trail construction could impede the movement of water at the approaches to the Logging 

Creek crossing. 

Concerns have been raised about the effect of flooding on the trail facility itself. The railbed 

historically cut off a number of seeps and springs from their natural drainage pattern into Swale 

Creek or the Klickitat River. Lack of maintenance has caused culverts to fail, and small wet 

areas to form adjacent to and on the surface of the railbed. These wet areas could be maintained, 

or if the culverts were replaced, the cool water could reach the bigger streams. 

Knapweed, yellow-star thistle and other noxious weeds are growing along the rail corridor. 

Landowners, ranchers, and Klickitat County want to ensure that these weeds will be located, 

controlled, and prevented. 

The effects of the alternatives are evaluated in terms of area of impervious surface, impacts to 

floodplains and shorelines, impacts to threatened, endangered and sensitive plant, fish and 

wildlife species, and impacts to critical habitats. 

Issues Identified by the Forest Service

Forest Service staff identified the need to evaluate impacts to scenic resources, transportation and 

air quality. 

Effects to scenic resources are evaluated against scenic resource standards, the Built 

Environmental Image Guide, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. 

Effects to transportation are measured by increased traffic, and Level of Service classification. 

Effects to air quality are measured by dust from construction activity, dust on unpaved access 

roads and increased vehicle emissions. 

Issues Beyond the Scope of the Analysis

Three issues were considered beyond the scope of this analysis and are not addressed: 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 12

i) Ownership and Status of the Right-of-Way: Numerous comments related to 

ownership and legal status of the right-of-way. Numerous commenters asked for a 

complete legal survey of the right-of-way. Since proposed facilities along the trail 

would be placed well within the right-of-way, a survey would not be needed. Surveys 

would be conducted as necessary to ensure trailhead development is located within 

the right-of-way, or on adjacent land agreed to by the adjacent landowner. 

Some commenters asked whether the right-of-way width could be reduced. This 

question is under the jurisdiction of Washington State Parks, as the holder of the 

right-of-way, and is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

ii) Restoration of Swale Creek: The Yakama Nation has developed detailed plans to 

rehabilitate Swale Creek. Rehabilitation treatments propose to alter the railbed by 

such means as breaching or removing portions of the railbed. The Forest Service 

considers rehabilitation of Swale Creek a separate proposal and does not evaluate 

Swale Creek rehabilitation as part of the analysis, since the purpose of the current 

analysis is to determine whether or not the Forest Service will participate in 

management of the trail. The Forest Service does recognize the influence the railbed 

has on modifying natural channel function in Swale Canyon. 

iii) Modification of the Fisher Hill Trestle: Klickitat County officials have relayed 

concerns to Washington State Parks that tall logging and hay trucks on Fisher Hill 

Road cannot pass underneath the Fisher Hill trestle. As a result, these vehicles must 

drive farther to reach the State highways. This issue pertains to a conflict between 

vehicles on a county road and the trestle; it is not related to recreational use of the 

trestle. This conflict would exist whether or not the Forest Service assumes 

recreation management of the trail. Therefore, the Forest Service considers this issue 

as beyond the scope of this analysis. However, the Forest Service is willing to 

coordinate with Klickitat County and Washington State Parks to ensure any plans to 

alter the trestle are compatible with Forest Service recreation management strategies, 

should the Forest Service decide to mange the trail. 

1.7 EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS 

The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails corridor is affected by a number of land use controls and 

regulations. The first approximately 1.6 miles are within the Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area, and the first approximately 10.5 trail miles are within the Lower Klickitat River 

National Wild and Scenic River. Since the proposed trail is located on a right-of-way owned by 

Washington State, some State and Klickitat County plans and ordinances also apply. The 

following land use regulations apply: 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 13

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) Act (P.L. 99-663, 16 U.S.C. 

544) and Management Plan

The CRGNSA Act and Management Plan determine guidelines for new developments and 

uses, and for protection of scenic, cultural, natural and recreation resources. The CRGNSA 

Management Plan applies between the Lyle Urban Area Boundary and the National Scenic 

Area boundary (approximately the Fisher Hill trestle). 

Lower Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan

Congress designated the lower Klickitat River (the 10.8-mile segment from Wheeler Canyon 

downstream to the confluence with the Columbia) as a National Wild and Scenic River 

through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986 (PL 99-663). The 

"outstandingly remarkable" resource values for which the river was designated (in addition to 

its free-flowing nature) are: Native American dip-net fishery; anadromous and resident fish; 

hydrology and geology. 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

SEPA is intended to ensure that environmental values are considered during decisionmaking by state and local agencies. These decisions may be related to issuing 

permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, 

policies or plans. SEPA applies to decisions by every state and local agency within 

Washington State. 

SEPA allows the use of NEPA documents to meet SEPA requirements [WAC 197-11-610]. 

A NEPA document (EA or EIS) may be adopted or incorporated by reference. 

Environmental documents that analyze the environmental impacts of a proposal may be 

adopted, treated as addenda to other documents, or incorporated by reference. 

Washington Shoreline Management Plan (R.C.W. 90.58) as updated by Klickitat 

County's Shorelines Master Plan (Ordinance #070990-1, 1990) 

In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Klickitat 

County has developed a Shoreline Master Plan "to protect shoreline areas against poor 

management and destructive uses". The Shorelines Master Plan creates a zoning overlay for 

the non-federal land area along streams whose mean annual flow exceeds 20 cfs. This 

overlay extends laterally 200 horizontal feet from the waterway, and also includes contiguous 

wetlands. Shoreline areas are divided into environmental zones (called environments in the 

Act), which specify land uses that are allowable, conditional, or prohibited. 

Klickitat County's Flood Plains Management Ordinance (#0110788-1, 1988) 

The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, 

and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. 

Klickitat County's Critical Areas Ordinance (#O022601, 2001) 

The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Use 

and improper use of areas defined by the State of Washington as critical to public health, 

safety, and welfare can result in increased local government costs. Sprawl and unwise 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 14

development in areas susceptible to natural hazards may lead to inefficient use of limited 

public resources, jeopardize environmental resource functions and values, subject persons 

and property to unsafe conditions, and affect the perceived quality of life. 

The ordinance provides standards for classification and designation, and guidance for 

protection of wetlands, and critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. It provides 

standards for classification and designation of geologically hazardous areas and frequently 

flooded areas, and guidance for reducing or mitigating hazards to public health and safety. It 

provides standards for classification and designation of areas with a critical recharging effect 

on aquifers used for potable water and whose protection is necessary to public health and 

safety. The County may condition land use developments that may affect the critical areas 

described above. 

Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance #62678, as amended through 

November 20, 2000)

The Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance relates to planning and zoning for land use and 

developments in the unincorporated territory of Klickitat County. It creates uniform districts 

in which compatible uses are allowed, prescribes standards for each district, density controls, 

off-street parking, procedures and conditions for granting variances in hardship cases, 

procedures of administration, appeal, amendment and enforcement, and provides for 

penalties. 

Consistency with the resource protection guidelines of the CRGNSA Plan, Lower Klickitat Wild 

and Scenic River Plan, Klickitat County Shorelines Master Plan, Floodplains Management 

Ordinance and Critical Areas Ordinance was incorporated into the relevant sections of Chapter 3. 

For instance, consistency with scenic guidelines is found in the Scenic Resources section, 

consistency with recreation guidelines is found in the Recreation Use section. Consistency with 

the allowable use regulations of the CRGNSA Management Plan and the Klickitat County Land 

Use Ordinances are found in Section 3.11. 

A summary of consistency with all land use regulations is found in Section 3.11. Appendix A is 

a SEPA checklist. It is not an application for determination of significance under SEPA. It is 

included to document how the analysis responds to the SEPA requirements for the convenience 

of readers who are accustomed to the SEPA checklist format. 

If the Forest Service chooses to manage the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails, then application for 

necessary approvals and permits as required by law would be acquired prior to new construction 

activities. 

With the exception of the consistency evaluation for the Lower Klickitat River Wild and Scenic 

River Management Plan, entities other than the Forest Service are responsible for issuing 

approvals or permits for the above-mentioned land use regulations. This EA provides an 

evaluation of the proposed trail’s consistency with these land use regulations, understanding that 

a subsequent permitting phase is necessary before the project can be implemented. 

Responsibilities for decisions/permits for the following regulations are as follows: 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 15

Table 1: Responsibilities for Decisions/Permits 

Regulation Responsible Entity 

CRGNSA Management Plan Columbia River Gorge Commission 

Lower Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River 

Management Plan 

U.S. Forest Service, CRGNSA 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act Washington State Parks 

Klickitat County's Shorelines Master Plan Klickitat County 

Klickitat County's Flood Plains Management Ordinance Klickitat County 

Klickitat County's Critical Areas Ordinance Klickitat County 

Klickitat County Land Use Ordinances Klickitat County 

1.8 OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS/REQUIRED COORDINATION 

Federal Laws

This proposal is subject to the following federal laws: 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and the National 

Environmental Protection Act both require consideration be given to the potential effect of 

federal undertakings on historic and prehistoric resources. The guidelines for assessing 

effects and consultation are provided in 36CFR800. In accordance with these guidelines a 

cultural resource evaluation was conducted for this project and consultation initiated with the 

Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, and the Warms Springs Tribes, as well as the Washington State Historic 

Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. For further 

discussion on consultation results the reader is referred to Chapter 4 of this EA. 

Endangered Species Act

This Act provides for the protection and conservation of Threatened, Endangered and 

Sensitive plant, fish and wildlife species. Biological Evaluations and Assessments, 

consistent with the requirements of this Act, were prepared as part of this environmental 

document. More information may be found in Section 3.7, and Appendix D, Biological 

Evaluation. 

Federal Clean Water Act

Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act has been delegated to Washington State’s 

Department of Ecology (DOE). Projects need to comply with all applicable state water 

quality standards, and the anti-degradation policy of the State of Washington and the Federal 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Portions of Swale Creek are listed as 303(d) water quality 

impaired for water temperature and in-stream flow. More information may be found in 

Section 3.7 of this EA 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 16

Americans with Disabilities Act 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted by Congress and signed by the 

President in the summer of 1990 (P.L. 101-336). The ADA prohibits discrimination based 

on physical or mental disabilities in private places of employment and public 

accommodation. Additionally, it requires reasonable accomodation to persons with 

disabilities in all government facilities and developments. 

National Recreation Trail 

Although no federal permits or licenses are required for implementation of an action alternative, 

the portion of the trail corridor outside of the Wild and Scenic Rivers segment must be 

designated a “National Recreation Trail” (NRT) pursuant to the National Trails Systems Act 

section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1243) before the Forest Service is authorized to expend federal funds in the 

operation and management of the trail. 

Regional Foresters have authority to designate National Recreation Trails (F.S.M. 2353.04f(2)(a) 

(1994)). In order for a trail to be designated as an NRT, it must meet certain requirements. The 

regulations define four specific criteria: 1) Readiness; 2) Use and Availability; 3) Length; and 4) 

Location. (F.S.M. 2353.33b (1994)). The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails corridor meets these four 

requirements since the right-of-way is in place and available for public use; provides a variety of 

trail-related recreation opportunities within two hours of population centers; is continuous; and 

incorporates the significant natural and cultural features of the area through which it passes. 

Permits 

A number of other permits may be required prior to project implementation, including 

• Road access permits from Washington State Departments of Transportation (SR142) and 

Klickitat County Road Department (several county roads). 

• Permits to hook up to county water and sewer lines in Lyle. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 17

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 

Chapter 2 presents two Action alternatives, each with a sub-option, for development and 

management of the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails, in addition to a No-Action alternative. Each trail 

management alternative is characterized by a particular theme. The themes are developed 

through the adoption of particular trail characteristics (surfaces, trailhead facilities, etc.), which 

enhance a particular type of experience, encourage a particular type of use, or respond to public 

issues. In addition, numerous management actions are presented, and are incorporated into the 

Action alternatives, as applicable. 

2.0 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives 

The Forest Service’s Klickitat Rails-to-Trails Interdisciplinary Team developed a preliminary 

range of two Action alternatives (Alternative 2 and Alternative 3), in addition to a No Action 

alternative (Alternative 1). (The No-Action alternative is a requirement of NEPA as per 40 CFR 

1501.14(d).) These preliminary alternatives were created to address significant or driving issues 

that came from the internal and public scoping process identified in Chapter 1. The preliminary 

alternatives were presented for public comment in early April 2003. The preliminary 

alternatives were then revised in response to public comment, subsequent meetings with public 

entities, and subsequent field inventories. 

An “option” was developed for each of the two Action alternatives (Alternative 2a and 

Alternative 3a). Each option represents a single, but important, variation on the alternative. The 

resulting four Action alternatives meet or exceed the purpose and need for action identified in 

Chapter 1. 

2.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 

This section presents trail options or trail facilities proposed, but eliminated from detailed study. 

The options or facilities were eliminated if they were considered infeasible, did not meet the 

purpose and need for action, were outside the authority of the Forest Service, or were a slight 

variation of a proposed alternative. 

A. Trailheads at Fisher Hill, and at SR142 Mile 14 near Klickitat. The Forest Service 

considered developing a trailhead at Fisher Hill, but found no suitable location. Space within 

the right-of-way is very limited, and sight distance is very poor due to the trestle. One 

landowner proposed his property at SR142 Mile 14 for a trailhead. The Forest Service 

considered a trailhead in central Klickitat to better meet the need for economic development 

in that community. 

B. “Haul Road” between Klickitat and Wahkiacus. The Forest Service considered 

requesting landowners’ permission to utilize the “Haul Road” as the trail route between 

Klickitat and Wahkiacus. This option would have also required construction of a short 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 18

amount of new trail between the “Haul Road” and SR142, crossing SR 142, then utilizing the 

county’s Horseshoe Bend Road and Schilling Road to reach the railbed at Wahkiacus. This 

alternative would have avoided the necessity to build a new trail bridge at Suburbia, and 

would have avoided the flood-damaged right-of-way between Suburbia and Wahkiacus. The 

Forest Service did not develop this alternative in detail because a number of property owners 

would have to agree to designation of the utilized portions of Haul Road, connecting trail, 

and Horseshoe Bend Road and Schilling Road as a National Recreation Trail. In addition, 

cultural resources were avoided by eliminating this option. 

C. Horse Trailer Parking at Klickitat and Harms Road: The Forest Service considered 

horse trailer parking at Klickitat and Harms Road. Horse trail parking was not provided at 

Klickitat due to the desires expressed by the Klickitat Community Council. It was not 

provided at Harms Road due to space limitations. 

2.2 Alternatives 

This narrative describes the No Action alternative, and two possible trail development 

alternatives, each with a sub-option. If an Action alternative is ultimately chosen, it could be a 

combination of alternatives, not just alternative two or alternative three. For example, the 

development levels in alternative two could be chosen, but only for the first 13 1⁄2 miles of trail. 

Another example could be choosing alternative three for the first 13 1⁄2 miles and then using 

alternative two for the remainder of the trail. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative. It reflects the current condition of the railbed. While 

the right-of-way has not been developed for recreation use, it is open to public use. 

Recreationists currently use the railbed in its existing condition. There are no designated 

trailheads, no support facilities, a rough trail surface in many areas, and trestles with no railings 

or decking. There are no management strategies in place other than response to incidents by 

Washington State Parks and the Klickitat County Sheriff. 

In the No Action alternative, the Forest Service would not be involved in trail development or 

management. The Forest Service would not build trailheads, improve the surface of the railbed, 

make safety improvements to trestles, or provide any support facilities such as toilets, drinking 

water, 

However, even with the No Action alternative, the railroad remains railbanked and remains in 

public (State of Washington) ownership. If the Forest Service chooses not to participate in trail 

development and management, future trail management decisions would remain with the 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and/or the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy retains a right of re-entry should Washington State Parks decide 

it no longer wished to serve as title holder and manager of the railbanked corridor for recreation 

purposes. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 19

The No Action Alternative would have one of three possible outcomes: 

1. Washington State Parks would continue ownership and management of the railbed as 

public property, 

2. The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy would resume ownership and manage the railbed as a 

trail directly or through a second not-for-profit party, or 

3. The railbed would revert to private ownership. 

Alternative 2 – 31 Mile, Low Development Trail

Alternative 2 would develop all 31 miles (Lyle to Warwick) of the trail for a relatively 

“primitive” recreation experience. 

The trail would generally be four feet wide for its entire length and would be constructed of 

compacted existing surface. In Swale Canyon, it would be located on the side of the railbed 

away from the creek, to accommodate some level of potential future restoration of Swale Creek. 

The Suburbia trestle (now removed) would be replaced with a 6 ft wide trail bridge. 

The trail would be re-routed within the right of way in three flood-damaged locations: at about 

trail mile 8, mile 11 (adjacent to SR142) and several spots between trail miles 15 and 16 

(Suburbia and Wahkiacus). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife agreed to Forest 

Service analyzing an approximately 3⁄4 mile reroute of the trail onto their land between Suburbia 

and Wahkiacus, in order to move the trail out of the floodplain. 

The existing surface would be compacted creating a level, semi-hard surface, with finer material 

added where needed to achieve the desired level of compaction. This type of surface would 

create a moderate to difficult level of accessibility for wheelchairs, strollers, and street bikes. 

The railbed adjacent to the compacted surface would be graded to provide a level surface for 

administrative and emergency vehicles. Between Fisher Hill and Pitt, four six-foot wide 

boardwalks, ranging from 50 ft to 100 ft long would be constructed over four wet areas. At the 

Logging Camp Creek bridge, ramps would be added ramps to the abutments to achieve a 10% 

grade. A six-foot wide boardwalk, 200 ft long would be constructed over a wet area between Pitt 

and Skookum Flat, and another of 20-30 ft length would be constructed over a wet area between 

Klickitat and Suburbia. 

A toilet would be located along the trail at about trail mile 3 1⁄2 between Fisher Hill and Pitt, and 

at about trail mile 22 1⁄2 between Wahkiacus and Harms Road. Initially, portable toilets would be 

installed. After monitoring the amount and season of use, the Forest Service could consider 

converting the portable toilets to permanent vault or composting toilets. 

Alternative 2 provides for six trailheads located at Lyle, Pitt, Klickitat, Wahkiacus, Harms Road, 

and Warwick. The size and facilities at each trailhead vary, and are summarized in Table 3 (see 

trailheads discussion following the alternative maps). 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 20

Alternative 2a: An option to alternative 2 would close Swale Canyon from June 15 until 

September 30 in order to address the Federal Endangered Species Act, and prevent harassment of 

Steelhead in the few summer pools in Swale Creek. 

Alternative 3 – 13 1⁄2 Mile, Hard Surface Trail

Alternative 3 would develop about 13 1⁄2 miles of the trail, from Lyle to Klickitat, for a semiprimitive/rural experience. 

All 13 1⁄2 miles of trail would have a hardened surface such asphalt or bituminous surface 

treatment. The railbed adjacent to the hardened surface would be graded to provide a level 

surface for horses, administrative and emergency vehicles. The width of the hardened surface 

varies in this alternative. The first 1.6 miles, from Lyle to the Fisher Hill trestle would have a 12 

foot wide hardened surface. The next approximately 11 miles, from the Fisher Hill trestle to the 

start of the town of Klickitat, would have a six-foot wide hard surface. Finally, the portion of the 

trail within the town of Klickitat would have a 12 foot wide hardened surface. The hardened 

surface would create an easier accessibility level for wheelchairs, strollers, and street bikes. 

The trail would be re-routed within the right of way in two flood-damaged locations, at 

approximately trail mile 8 and trail mile 11 (adjacent to SR142). 

In areas where the railbed has eroded, but still has some usable area, a minimum four-foot width 

would be hardened. Because the width of the railbed varies in eroded places, the hardened width 

could be between four and six feet, with remaining railbed wider than eight feet being graded.

Between Fisher Hill and Pitt, four six-foot wide boardwalks, ranging from 50 ft to 100 ft long 

would be constructed over four wet areas. At the Logging Camp Creek bridge, a long 

(approximately 300 ft) boardwalk-type ramp would be added to extend over the entire alluvial 

area. This ramp would accommodate future changes in the creek course. A six-foot wide 

boardwalk, 200 ft long would be constructed over a wet area between Pitt and Skookum Flat. 

A toilet would be located along the trail at about trail mile 3 1⁄2 between Fisher Hill and Pitt. 

Initially, a portable toilet would be installed. After monitoring the amount and season of use, the 

Forest Service could consider converting the portable toilet to a permanent vault or composting 

toilet. 

Alternative 3 would provide three trailheads; at Lyle, Pitt, and Klickitat. The size and facilities 

at each trailhead vary, and are summarized in Table 3 (see discussion on trailheads following the 

alternative maps). 

Alternative 3a: An option to alternative 3 would alter the surface trail material between Fisher 

Hill and Pitt. For these approximately 8 1⁄2 miles, soil hardeners or compacted fine graded 

aggregate would be used instead of asphalt or bituminous surface treatment. 

 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 21

The following four pages display maps of the Action alternatives.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 26

Trailheads for Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternative 2 proposes six trailheads, at Lyle, Pitt, Klickitat, Wahkiacus, Harms Road, and 

Warwick. Alternative 3 proposes three trailheads at Lyle, Pitt, and Klickitat. Trailhead locations 

and facilities are the same for the three trailheads common to both alternatives (Lyle, Pitt, and 

Klickitat). 

Trailheads were located in the towns of Lyle and Klickitat to facilitate economic benefits to these 

communities. The Pitt, Wahkiacus, Harms Road and Warwick trailheads were considered as end 

points of trail segments recreationists would likely use. Trailhead capacities at Lyle, Pitt and 

Klickitat were established to control use in the Wild and Scenic River corridor and along the 

Klickitat River to a level more compatible with needs of riparian-dependent wildlife. Space is 

very limited at the Wahkiacus, Harms Road and Warwick trailheads, and trailhead capacities 

were limited by the width of the right-of-way (Harms Road and Warwick) and proximity to 

water resources (Wahkiacus). The trailhead locations are as follows: 

Table 2: Trailhead Locations 

Trailhead Location 

Lyle Junction of SR14 and SR142, access from SR142 

Pitt East of SR142 Bridge, between SR142 and River 

Klickitat In Town; adjacent to Fire Hall (shared parking with Fire Dept & School District) 

Wahkiacus West of where Schilling Road crosses the R-O-W 

Harms Road East side of Harms Road 

Warwick Junction of Uecker Road and Lyle/Centerville Highway 

Parking capacities and facilities for each trailhead are as follows: 

Table 3: Trailhead Parking Capacities and Facilities 

Trailhead Alt 

Total 

Parking 

Spaces 

Car 

Spaces

Large 

Vehicle 

Spaces 

Horse 

Trailers;

Hitching 

Racks 

Toilet 

(Initially 

portable toilets 

would be used) 

Drinking 

Water 

Lyle 2,3 26 20 6 Yes Flush Yes 

Pitt 2,3 21 15 6 Yes Vault No 

Klickitat (shared) 2,3 26 20 6 No Flush (shared) Yes 

Wahkiacus 2 13 10 3 Yes Vault No 

Harms Road 2 10 10 0 No Vault No 

Warwick 2 21 15 6 Yes Vault No 

All trailheads utilize the right-of-way. In four locations (Lyle, Klickitat, Wahkiacus and 

Warwick), additional space outside of the right-of-way is also considered, with permission from 

the landowners. Areas of proposed trailhead development would be surveyed to determine 

property boundaries. Signs would be placed to discourage parking outside of designated areas. 

Conceptual site plans for each proposed trailhead are found on the following four pages.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 27

LYLE TRAILHEAD 20 CARS 6 PULL-THROUGH

1”=150’ NORTH 

SR 142

PITT TRAILHEAD 15 CARS 6 PULL-THROUGH

1’=150’ NORTH 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 28

KLICKITAT TRAILHEAD 20 FS CARS 6 FS PULL-THROUGH

1”=150’ NORTH 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 29

WAHKIACUS TRAILHEAD 10 CARS 3 BACK-IN

1”=150’ NORTH 

HARMS ROAD TRAILHEAD 10 CARS

1”=150’ NORTH 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 30
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 31

Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

The Action alternatives contain numerous development, management and resource protection 

measures. Rather than repeat them in each alternative, they are presented here. Most of the 

measures apply to Alternatives 2/2a, and 3/3a. Some measures apply only to Alternatives 2 and 

2a because they apply to the trail segment beyond Klickitat. These measures are noted as 

applying only to Alternatives 2 and 2a. 

Recreation Use 

Users

• Allow any type of non-motorized recreation use, including hikers, bikers, horseback riders, 

skiers, etc. Allow motorized wheelchairs as the only motorized recreation use. Allow 

administrative and emergency vehicles. 

• Work with Washington State Parks to develop a permitting system for large groups and 

events (e.g. a race). Determine upper limit for group size, considering parking lot capacities. 

Trail Support Facilities: 

• Include trail etiquette information for all users, respect for private property, “Stay on Trail” 

except at designated areas and leave-no-trace concepts at trailhead information signs and 

brochures. 

• Do not provide garbage cans, either at trailheads or along the trail. Inform users to “Pack-itin and pack-it-out”. 

• Discourage parking outside of designated areas, including Fisher Hill and Suburbia, if 

monitoring indicates there is a safety problem or impact to neighbors. 

• Place signs at the Pitt Trailhead informing the public that no boat launching is allowed. 

Direct boaters to the boat launch shortly downstream. 

• Incorporate turnouts in board walk design to reduce conflicts where sight distance is limited. 

• Designate one site for horse drinking water between Fisher Hill and Pitt. In Swale Canyon, 

no water would be available for horses. 

• Provide horse hitching racks at river access sites and portable toilet locations. 

• Provide trail patrol to the extent possible along the most popular sections of the trail. 

Cost of Trail Development and Long Term Management 

Maintenance Costs

• Maintain trail with volunteers and other partners, including litter patrol. 

• Explore a parking fee with Washington State Parks. 

Effects to Nearby Residents and Landowners 

Quality of Life/Resident Privacy: 

• Provide adequate services (e.g. toilet), to minimize users bothering residents. 

• Request payphones from the telephone company at all trailheads except Harms Road (note: 

placement of pay phones is a telephone company decision.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 32

• Locate toilets at all trailheads. In addition, locate one portable toilet along the trail in Swale 

Canyon, and another along the trail between Pitt and Fisher Hill. 

• Locate portable toilets at all trailhead locations until permanent toilets can be constructed. 

• Post signs near residential areas asking trail users to respect the privacy of nearby residents 

(e.g. control dogs, keep noise down). 

• Post information at trailheads to educate public to respect private property. 

• Designate and sign safe and resource appropriate Klickitat River and Swale Creek access 

points on public land to reduce temptation to use private land. Post signs in advance of 

public river access points, informing trail users of upcoming public river access. Use 

Carsonite-type signs to mark the boundaries of public and private land at the public river 

access sites. 

• Inform trail users to stay on the trail, except at designated river access points. 

• Place Carsonite-type signs informing users to stay on the trail; respect private property in 

areas people might be tempted to stray from the trail (attractive river front, attractive flats, 

etc). 

• Place Carsonite-type signs indicating the boundary of public and private land where 

requested by adjacent residents. 

• Note: any Carsonite-type signs would be located well within the easement width, as 

measured from the approximate center of the railbed. Carsonite-type sign locations 

would not be the result of a survey, and such should not be interpreted as the definition of 

the right-of-way limits. 

• Relocate trail between Pitt trailhead and SR142 into existing trees to provide screening for 

nearby residents. 

• Add vegetation along trail near the house at Warwick to provide screening for nearby 

residents. 

• Allow dogs on leash only. If this measure is not effective, consider prohibiting dogs in 

certain areas. 

Vehicle Access 

• Prohibit motorized recreation vehicles, except for motorized wheelchairs. 

• Allow administrative and emergency vehicles. 

• Allow private vehicles to cross the railbed, with prior written approval of Washington State 

Parks, per State Parks policies (see Appendix C- Washington State Parks Policy 55-01-1: 

Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements for Non-Recreational Uses of State Park 

Lands) 

• Allow short-term private vehicle access within the right-of-way (eg tractor in season) with 

prior written approval of Washington State Parks. (Washington State Parks policy would 

allow temporary agricultural, forest management or other uses, parallel to, but not on the 

recreational trail with the right-of-way corridor; see Appendix C) 

• Washington State Parks policy (see Appendix C) does not typically allow the railbed or rightof-way to be used as the private vehicle access route to private property. A property owner 

would have to seek an easement from Washington State Parks. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 33

Cattle and Sheep/Recreationist Conflicts 

• When a cattle owner requests a permit for cattle on the State Parks right-of-way, Washington 

State Parks would work with the cattle owner and the Forest Service to develop appropriate 

measures. 

Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

Safety

• Deck all trestles for user safety, and add safety rails to all trestles. Deck the entire trestle 

width to allow passage of administrative and emergency vehicles. 

• Prohibit carrying a loaded weapon or discharge of firearms. 

Highway and Road Safety: 

• Lyle Trailhead: No access from SR-14; access trailhead from SR-142 a minimum of 300’ 

from the junction of SR-14. 

• Trail Crossing SR142 at Mile 10.1 (Pitt): Westbound: minor brushing on inside of curve. 

Eastbound: construct trail on low fill on inside of curve so approaching vehicle drivers can 

see trail users over bridge rail. 

• MP 12 and MP 13.5 Vicinity Clear Zones: Locate trail beyond clear zone or mitigate with an 

approved barrier along SR-142, such as weathering steel guardrail. 

• Trail Crossing SR142 at Mile 12.6: Painted crosswalk south side of 7th. Street. 

• Klickitat Trailhead and Trail Crossing SR-142: Paint crosswalk to access shared restroom at 

ball fields north side of Ball Field Road. 

• Klickitat Trailhead and Trail Crossing Durkee Road: Define intersection adjacent to fire 

station. Designate (paint) crosswalk for trail crossing at Durkee Road near (stop sign) 

intersection with SR-142. 

• Trail Crossing SR142 at Mile 14: Limb-up existing trees to increase sight distance on inside 

of curve. 

• Wahkiacus Trailhead and Trail Crossing: Minor limb-up of trees on the inside of curve for 

northbound vehicles on Schilling Road. Minor brushing within the intersection radii of 

Schilling Road at Horseshoe Bend Road. Provide advance warning signs for trail crossing. 

• Horseshoe Bend and Schilling Roads, One Lane Sections: Recommend 22’ maximum 

vehicle length for recreation traffic in these sections.

• Harms Road Trailhead and Trail Crossing: Provide advance warning signs for trail crossing. 

• Warwick Trail Crossing/Centerville Road: Paint crosswalk, provide advance warning signs.

• Warwick/Uecker Road Trailhead: Substitute “stop” sign for current “yield” sign on Uecker 

as stopping sight distance will be reduced by trailhead development. 

Emergency Response 

• Clear and maintain railbed to a width that allows emergency and administrative vehicles, to 

the extent practicable. 

• Inspect trestles to ensure they meet weight specifications to allow emergency response 

vehicle use. Deck trestles to a width that allows emergency and administrative vehicles. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 34

• Map areas the trail is constricted to a width that would not allow vehicle access. Sign areas 

with no vehicle access; and locate a vehicle turn-around on each side of the constricted area. 

• Map vehicle turn-around areas at least every two miles (these areas have been identified). 

Distribute map to emergency responders. 

• Add mile markers along the corridor. 

• Use gates/removable bollards to control access to the trail, rather than permanent barricades. 

• Give gate/bollard keys to fire departments, DNR, ambulance departments, search and rescue, 

sheriff, State Patrol, etc. 

• Identify heli-spots for helicopter access. 

• Develop emergency response plans with State, County, adjacent land owners and USFS. 

• Use a human repeater in an emergency, until such time as a radio repeater is placed on the 

Columbia Hills. (A human repeater is a person placed on a high point so that a radio can hit 

an existing repeater and contact the folks on the ground via a line of site or direct radio 

frequency). 

Fire Prevention

• Prohibit overnight use (camping), campfires, and fireworks. 

• Prohibit smoking when Klickitat County enacts a ban on open fires. 

• In extreme fire conditions, close portions of the trail as needed. 

• Require trail maintenance vehicles and administrative vehicles to have spark arresters, fire 

extinguisher, etc. 

• Develop fire prevention plans with State, County, adjacent land owners and USFS. 

Law Enforcement

• Develop cooperative trail regulations with Washington State Parks. 

• Identify a primary river ranger and work with volunteers to provide necessary 

patrols/prevention. 

Cultural Resources and Traditional American Indian Uses 

• Add vegetative screening along railbed near Fisher Hill to reduce visibility of cemetery and 

fishery if requested. 

• Close trail seasonally during First Food Ceremony if requested. 

Natural and Water Resources 

Alternatives 2, 2a and 3, 3a

Water Resources 

• Develop a storm water management plan for all trailheads, to minimize runoff effects. 

• Prepare an erosion control plan prior to any ground disturbing activities. This plan would 

utilize measures, such as operating in the dry period of the year, utilization of erosion 

barriers, revegetation and mulching of exposed soil on reroutes, to ensure erosion and 

sedimentation from ground disturbing activities will be minimized. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 35

• Limit ground disturbing activity within the shoreline area to between May 1 and September 

30 to minimize the chance of erosion and sedimentation. This work window may be 

extended in dry years after consultation with the Scenic Area Hydrologist or Fish Biologist. 

• Minimize impacts to small seeps and springs along the right-of-way. Ditch many of the 

smaller wet areas to keep the water off the trail bed, while maintaining the functionality of 

the wet areas. Carefully remove plants associated with wet areas for replanting after the 

ditching work. Construct board walks over larger wet areas. 

• Construct dips in the trail at smaller intermittent streams to channel water across the trail. 

Construct bridges over intermittent streams with more capacity. 

• Place “Grade sags” (to an accessible grade) where infrequent big flood events can be 

expected. Surface “grade sags” consistent with the alternative. 

• Bridge a 20 ft channel where an infrequent big flood event can be expected. 

• For trail maintenance (such as to repair washouts and flood damage) consider trail bridges, 

boardwalks and re-reroutes rather than replacing any railbed fill. Significant damage to the 

railbed from natural events would prompt additional analysis and consultation with affected 

agencies. 

• Plant several thousand feet of existing rail bed fill with riparian plants to stabilize the bank 

and protect the trail. 

Fish and Wildlife 

• Limit construction, involving heavy machinery to the Bald Eagle work window of April 1 to 

October 30. Implement no construction work outside of this work window unless the 

construction noise can be kept at or below ambient noise levels, such as may be the case 

within or adjacent to urban areas or residential sites. 

• In areas of western gray squirrel habitat (mixed pine/oak woodland outside of urban and 

residential areas), consult with the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to identify 

if any active nests occur within 200’ of the trail. If nests exist within this buffer, then plan 

appropriate mitigation with WDFW before heavy machinery construction takes place. 

• In severe winters, cooperate with WDFW areas closures for deer and elk winter range, by 

closing the trail to help provide low elevation refugia. 

• Minimize clearing brush at edge of trail during trail maintenance.

• Accommodate fish passage around trail development. At Logging Creek, accommodate the 

dynamic creek when making the grade accessible. 

• Post interpretive signs urging the conservation of Bald Eagles, western gray squirrels, and 

Steelhead that share the riparian habitat with the trail users. 

• Retain naturally recruiting pine (many hundreds of trees are at the 1-6’ height size) and other 

potential bald eagle perching and screening trees adjacent to, and on the outer edges, of the 

railbed 

• Plant at least 800’feet of bank area with pine and other tree species where natural recruitment 

has been slow, as well as thinning of a dense 400’ length stand of 1-3” dbh pines to 

accelerate remaining tree growth and cover /canopy closure. 

• Add bird boxes to mitigate for loss of undisturbed riparian habitat. 

• Plant several thousand feet of riparian habitat to mitigate for loss of undisturbed riparian 

habitat. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 36

• In the long term, as the area becomes increasingly developed, identify and protect refugia and 

wildlife corridors need to be identified and protected to ensure the viability of the flora and 

fauna. 

Plants 

• Protect all sensitive flora sites during trail work. Monitor trail work to ensure no negative 

impacts occur. Keep trail reconstruction to the rail bed unless it is ascertained that no 

sensitive flora is present. 

• During construction or maintenance, protect all basalt cliffs adjacent to the trail unless 

specifically surveyed for sensitive flora, fauna, and special habitats. 

Noxious Weeds 

• Appropriately treat new infestations which threaten to impact the trail and/or the natural 

resources. Possible treatments range from manual removal to herbicide application 

depending on the weed types and the size of the infestation. All herbicide applications shall 

follow EPA requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved 

triclopyr (Garlon 3A) for use in and around seasonally dry wetlands and floodplains, and 

glyposate (Round-up, Rodeo) for wetland use. Only glyposate would be applied near (within 

0 to 10 feet) surface waters. The use of herbicides will be strictly applied as spot sprays 

targeting only those weedy species of concern. Use of herbicides near water or wet areas 

will be applied diligently to only contact specific weedy species to be controlled (largely 

blackberries). There will be no broadcast sprays along right-of-way. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a only (Swale Canyon)

• Require trail users to stay on the railbed except designated water access points. Designate 

two creek accesses points in Swale Canyon where they would not be near one of the isolated 

pools. 

• Post signs in areas adjacent to perennial pools in Swale Creek, closing them to disturbance 

(eg. Swimming, pet use). 

• Ask WDFW to close Swale Creek to fishing, to reduce direct and cumulative impacts to 

Steelhead. 

• Create physical barriers/add vegetation to pools in Swale Creek to reduce harassment of fish, 

and signs. 

• Provide extra patrols in Swale Canyon in the summer to monitor/prevent fish harassment. 

Air Quality 

• In dusty conditions, apply water to surfaces during construction. 

 

Design Guidelines for Alternatives 2 and 3 

This section addresses recreation facilities and design guidelines common to the Action 

alternatives. It presents: 

1. Design guidelines for all facilities. 

2. A list of trail support facilities, and applicable design guidelines. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 37

3. Trailhead locations, facilities, design guidelines and conceptual drawings. 

Design Guidelines for all Facilities 

• Important influences are ranching and rugged natural environment 

• Locate structures at the edges of clearings 

• Use simple, compact forms 

• Repeat simple forms 

• Use large scale building materials 

• Avoid complex multiple roof forms 

• Expose structural elements 

• Use local and indigenous materials when available. Use stone, wood, heavy timbers and 

other natural materials (synthetics if they can achieve the appearance of natural 

materials). 

• Use color schemes that are inspired by rock outcrops, leaves, needles, tree trunks, bark or 

colors found on the ground. Accent colors from accents in the natural setting. 

• Minimize site disturbance and size of new roads and parking. 

• Restroom characteristics: strong roof with protected entry, strong base 

Design Criteria for Trail and Trail Support Facilities 

The trail and trail support facilities are proposed to be designed according to the applicable 

guidelines from the Built Environment Image Guide and the project visual quality objective. 

• Trail surface-boardwalks, trestle decks, and the new trail bridge over the Klickitat River 

at Suburbia: use decking that reflects and repeats elements from the historic railroad 

trestles. Utilize large dimensional lumber. Utilize either natural woods that will weather 

to a natural color (e.g. cedar) or utilize a natural dark stain such as linseed oil. 

• Proposed bridge over the Klickitat River at Suburbia should have the same design feel 

and borrow visual elements from the historic trestles. (Alternative 2 only) 

• Repair trail wash-out repair to naturally appearing slopes and plant with native riparian 

vegetation. 

• Port-a-potties are not in accordance with any ROS class. Ensure they are a dark earthtone color found in the shadows of the landscape, have no advertising on their sides, and 

screen with wood panels from at least three sides. 

• Ensure signing visible from Highway 142 has a color scheme that will blend with the 

existing environment. Paint or stain the supporting elements and backs of signs a dark 

earth-tone color taken from the surrounding natural landscape shadows. 

• Replace approaches to the bridge at Logging Camp Creek with a boardwalk/trestle bridge 

that borrows design elements from the historic railroad trestles, while allowing the 

natural function of the stream (alternative 3 only). 

Design Criteria for Trailheads 

In order to meet scenic quality objectives within foregrounds of recreation developments, the 

Forest Service uses handbooks to facilitate meeting required standards. The applicable 

handbook for this discussion is The Built Environment Image Guide (FS-710, 2001). 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 38

The trailheads would be designed according to the applicable guidelines from the Built 

Environment Image Guide and the project visual quality objective. 

• All Trailheads: Locate toilet buildings to minimize dominance at the site. Use vegetative 

screening and island planting. Route trail around the trailheads with vegetative islands 

between the trail and the trailhead. Plant area around toilet buildings with native 

vegetation except at Klickitat and Lyle (appropriate non-native plantings may be 

considered in town). 

• Lyle Trailhead - Retain most on-site trees, plant the right-of-way setbacks from SR 14 

and SR 142 with deciduous trees and shrubs and occasional pine trees. 

• Pitt Trailhead – Blend any fill with the natural grade. Maintain all existing vegetation 

between the River and the new trail. Route the trail between the trailhead and SR142 into 

the existing trees, and plant the right-of-way between the trailhead and SR 142 where 

feasible. Maintain existing pine trees in proposed parking area. 

• Klickitat Trailhead-Plant the right-of-way setback and the areas between the trail and the 

parking lot. Plant trees in parking lot islands. 

2.3 Monitoring 

• Monitor parking outside of designated trailheads, particularly Fisher Hill and Suburbia. 

Identify and implement appropriate actions if parking outside of designated trailheads creates 

traffic safety problems, or impacts nearby residents. 

• Monitor noxious weed infestations and appropriately treat new infestations that threaten to 

impact the trail and/or the natural resources. 

• Monitor eagle reaction to users for several winters once the trail is open, to see if they are 

habituating to the use, as well as noting flushing distance and total eagle numbers. This 

study would be actively coordinated with USFWS and WDFW biologists as well as other 

mid-winter bald eagle counts, 

• Monitor archaeological sites for signs of natural and man-caused disturbance as negotiated 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal governments. 

• Monitor human activity in Swale Canyon or selected pools (e.g. by camera or extra patrols). 

2.4 Phasing Plan 

Implementation of the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails project is expected to take many years. A 

preliminary phasing plan has been developed, in which some management actions would be 

implemented to address existing recreation use, and then trail and trailhead improvements would 

be phased in over time for different trail sections, as funding is available. The cost of each phase 

is identified in Section 3.2 

Initial Management Actions (Phase 1)

Even before trail improvements are implemented, some management actions are needed to 

address existing recreation use. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 39

Public Safety Improvements

• Deck the Fisher Hill trestle and add safety railings. 

• Designate cross walk and add highway warning signs where the trail crosses SR142 in 

accordance with WSDOT standards, and where the trail crosses county roads to Klickitat 

County standards. 

Sanitation Improvements

• Place portable toilets at all trailheads (depending on alternative selected). 

Develop Cooperative Trail Regulations with Forest Service and State Parks

• Prohibit motorized recreation vehicles, except motorized wheelchairs. 

• Prohibit overnight use (camping), campfires, and fireworks. 

• Prohibit smoking when Klickitat County enacts a ban on open fires. 

• In extreme fire conditions, close portions of the trail as needed. 

• Prohibit carrying a loaded weapon or discharge of firearms. 

• Require trail maintenance vehicles and administrative vehicles to have spark arresters, 

fire extinguisher, etc. 

• Allow dogs on leash only. 

• Add signing at portable toilets explaining, “Stay on Trail”, “Respect Private Property” 

and other rules of the trail. 

Patrol and Maintenance

• Identify a primary river ranger and work with volunteers to provide necessary patrols. 

• Give gate/bollard keys to fire departments, DNR, ambulance departments, search and 

rescue, sheriff, State Patrol, etc. 

• Develop volunteer trail patrol agreements with partners. 

• Develop trail maintenance agreements with partners. 

• Pursue trail development grants. 

Cultural Resources and Traditional American Indian Uses

• Add vegetative screening along railbed near Fisher Hill to reduce visibility of cemetery 

and fishery, if requested. 

• Close trail seasonally during First Food Ceremony if requested. 

Natural and Water Resources

• Add 100 ft boardwalk over one wet area at about trail mile 4. 

Trail Improvement Phases: Timing as funding is available

Phase 2: Improve Trail and Trailheads from Lyle to Pitt 

Phase 3: Improve Trail and Trailheads from Pitt to Klickitat 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 40

Phase 4: Improve Trail and Trailheads from Wahkiacus to Warwick (Swale Canyon), 

(Alternatives 2 and 2a only) 

Phase 5: Improve Trail and Trailheads from Klickitat to Wahkiacus, (Alternatives 2 and 2a only) 
TABLE 4: KLICKITAT RAILS TO TRAILS – SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 

 Trail Features Alternative 1 (No Action) * Alternatives 2 and 2a 31 Mile Trail 

Length of Trail Lyle to Warwick Lyle to Warwick 

 Development Level

Segment 1: Mile 0-Lyle to Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle Mile 2-Fisher Hill Trestle to Mile 14-Klickitat Mile 14-Klickitat to Mile 15-Klickitat Mile 15-Klickitat to Mile 31-Warwick 

None None None None 

Low: Unpaved, 4 foot trail Low: Unpaved, 4 foot trail Low: Unpaved, 4 foot trail Low: Unpaved, 4 foot trail 

Hig

Mod

Hig

 Accessibility (e.g. wheelchair access) No Yes 

Width of Improved Trail Surface 

Segment 1: Mile 0-Lyle to Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle Segment 2: Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle to Mile 10-Pitt Segment 3a: Mile 10-Pitt to Mile 12.6-Klickitat  Mile 12.6-Klickitat to Mile 13.6-Klickitat Segment 3b: Mile 13.6-Klickitat to Mile 16.5-Wahkaikus Segment 4: Mile 16.5-Wahkaikus to Mile 31-Warwick

Existing Railbed Existing Railbed Existing Railbed Existing Railbed Existing Railbed Existing Railbed 

4 ft compacted, adjacent level cleared surface 4 ft compacted, adjacent level cleared surface 4 ft compacted, adjacent level cleared surface 4 ft compacted, adjacent level cleared surface 

4 ft compacted, cleared. New 6ft bridge at Suburbia 

4 ft compacted on side away from Swale Creek, cleared

12 ft ha

6 ft hard, adj6 ft hard, adj

12 ft ha

 Surface Type 

Segment 1: Mile 0-Lyle to Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle Segment 2: Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle to Mile 10-Pitt Segment 3a: Mile 10-Pitt to Mile 13.6-Klickitat Segment 3b: Mile 13.6-Klickitat to Mile 16.5-Wahkiacus Segment 4: Mile 16.5 -Wahkiacus to Mile 31-Warwick

As is: Rough As is: Rough As is: Rough 

As-is: Rough As-is: Rough 

Compacted Native Surface Compacted Native Surface Compacted Native Surface Compacted Native Surface Compacted Native Surface 

Option 3

 Trailheads

Lyle - Junction of SR14 and SR142 Pitt - East of SR142 Bridge, between SR142 & River 

 Klickitat - In Town 

Wahkiacus – West side of Schilling Road Harms Road - East side of Harms Road Warwick - Junction of Uecker Road & Centerville Hwy 

NO NO NO NO NO NO 

20 Vehicles, with 6 large vehicle pull-throughs 15 Vehicles, with 6 large vehicle pull-throughs 

20 Vehicles, 6 large spaces; no horse trailers 

10 Vehicles, with 3 large vehicle pull-throughs 

10 Vehicles, no horse trailers 

15 Vehicles, with 6 large vehicle pull-throughs 

20 Vehicle15 Vehicle

20 Vehicl

Users 

 Hikers, Bikers, Horses, Wheelchairs, Leashed Dogs Yes Yes 

 Use Level

Segment 1: Mile 0-Lyle to Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle Segment 2: Mile 1.6-Fisher Hill Trestle to Mile 10-Pitt Segment 3a: Mile 10-Pitt to Mile 13.6-Klickitat Segment 3b and 4: Mile 13.6-Klickitat to Mile 31-Warwick

Low Low Low Low 

Moderate: 16,000 per year Moderate: 15,500 per year Moderate: 19,000 per year Moderate: 14,700 per year 

M

M

M

 Support Facilities  Toilet at Trailheads  Toilet along trail: Pitt -Fisher Hill; Wahkiacus-Harms Road Request Pay Phone from Phone Company  Interpretive/Educational Materials  Horse Trailer Parking  Designated Horse Drinking Water Sites  Designated Klickitat River, Swale Creek Access Sites 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

All Trailheads (initially portable toilets) 

YES 

Pursue at all trailheads, except Harms Rd 

YES 

4 Trailheads (all except Harms Rd, Klickitat) 

Between Pitt and Fisher Hill; none in Swale 

YES 

All Tra

YE

Pursue 

B

* Alternative 1 reflects the current condition of the trail. If the Forest Service chooses not to manage the trail, future trail made by Washington State Parks or the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 

TABLE 5: KLICKITAT RAILS-TO-TRAILS SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Issue Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 2a 

Potential Annual Visitors 

Local Lyle, Klickitat Residents Mid Columbia Residents 

Out-of-Region Residents 

Unknown 

Alt 2

49,500 

Local - 19,500 

Mid Columbia - 3,000 

Out Of Region - 27,000

Alt 2a

44,900 

Local - 19,500 

Mid Columbia - 2,600 Out Of Region – 22,800

Cost: Full Trail Development 

One Time Costs (Development) 

Operations/Maintenance 

0 

Alt 2

$5,619,000$ 102,000

Alt 2a

$5,619,000

$ 94,000

$

Economic Benefit (Klickitat Co.) 

Annual Direct Expenditures Annual Income 

Employment (# of Jobs) 

Unknown 

Alt 2

$458,300 

167,800 

11 

Alt 2a

$385,500 

141,100 

9 

Benefit to Cost Ratio 

Annual Direct Expenditures 

 Annual Income 

Unknown 

Alt 2

$1.09 

0.60 

Alt 2a

$1.01 $0.54 

Cost: Phase 1 

Trail Development Trail Patrol, Management 

0 

Alternatives 2 and 2a

$150,000 

$20,000 

Landowners and Residents Low Quantity Sight and Sound of Users Increased Sight and Sound of Users InCattle and Sheep Grazing 

Some Current 

Interaction with 

Recreationists 

Increased Interaction with Recreationists 

Safety No Safety Measures Safety Measures Emergency Access No Access on Railbed One Mile Better Access between Fisher Hill and Pitt, Access through Swale Canyon 

b

Fire Prevention Few Prevention Measures Prevention Measures Law Enforcement No Patrol Prevention Patrol 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives 

Issue Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 2a Cultural Resources 

Potentially Less 

Protection without 

Federal 

Management 

One Archaeological Site may be Adversely 

Affected 

Water Resources 

Wetlands Floodplains Shorelines

Current Use Current Use Current Use 

Protected Protected Protected 

Botany – TES No Effect No Effect Wildlife and Fish – TES 

Columbia River Bull Trout Lower Columbia River Steelhead Western Gray Squirrel Bald Eagle

NE 

NLAA 

MIIH 

LAA 

NE 

LAA (Alt 2), NLAA (Alt 2a) 

MIIH 

LAA 

Wildlife – State Priority Species 

Mule/Blacktail Deer Wild Turkey 

Some Displacement 

NE 

Some Displacement 

NE 

State Priority Habitats 

Oak Woodlands Riparian Zones Disturbance 

NE 

24 miles low 

could move toward 

Alt 2/2a 

NE 

2 miles low 

(plus 15 miles low seasonal in Alt 2a) 

c

Scenic Resources Unknown Protects Scenic Resources if Design Guidelines Implemented PTransportation Unknown No Change to LOS Air Quality Unknown Minimal Impacts 

Notes:LOS: Level of Service NE = No Effect MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute toward Federal Listing or loss of viability to thNLAA = May Affect, but Not Likely to adversely affect habitat or individuals. LAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 44 

3.1 Recreation Use 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Where applicable, this chapter presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of 

alternatives displayed in Chapter 2. The “Affected Environment” is discussed as “Existing 

Condition” in this chapter. Probable consequences of implementing the proposed action are 

disclosed for the resources affected. Consequences are described for each alternative in the 

context of direct, indirect, short and long-term effects. Each section concludes with a discussion 

of cumulative effects. 

The trail is discussed in segments in many sections of this chapter. Trail segments are as 

follows: 

Table 6: Trail Segments 

Segment From Trail Mile To Trail Mile 

1 Lyle 0 Fisher Hill Trestle 1.6 

2 Fisher Hill Trestle 1.6 Pitt 10 

3 Pitt 10 Wahkiacus 16.5 

3a Pitt 10 Klickitat 13.6 

3b Klickitat 13.6 Wahkiacus 16.5 

4 Wahkiacus 16.5 Warwick 31 

3.1 RECREATION USE (KEY ISSUE) 

Existing Condition 

The recreational use potential of the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails corridor can best be described by 

evaluating the four segments delineated in Chapter 2 in terms of the “Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum” (ROS). ROS is a Forest Service recreation management system that classifies 

recreation activities, settings and experience opportunities provided. “Urban”, “Rural”, and 

“Roaded Natural” are ROS classifications that apply to the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails project area. 

Segments 1 and 2: Lyle-Fisher Hill and Fisher Hill-Pitt

The very scenic Lyle-Pitt segments are directly adjacent to the Klickitat River. The most 

dominant human visual modification is State Road 142 (SR142), which is visible from most 

locations on the trail. The natural river noise, vegetative buffers and distance minimize evidence 

of human noise. Little data exists on current recreation use; however, use is low relative to other 

recreation areas in the Columbia River Gorge area. Recreation use is expected to increase, 

following trends on similar rivers in the region. Recreation currently consists mainly of bank 

fishing, drift boat fishing and sight-seeing. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 45 

3.1 Recreation Use 

The Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Management Plan classifies these segments as ROS 

classification “Roaded Natural”. The first mile near Lyle would approach a more Rural ROS 

class, because the railbed is adjacent to a residential area and SR142. 

Segment 3: Pitt-Wahkiacus

This segment is characterized by Rural (Pitt to Klickitat), Urban (Klickitat to Suburbia), and 

Roaded Natural (Suburbia to the mouth of Swale Canyon) ROS settings. The landscape adjacent 

to this segment has been modified by past and current evidence of farming, housing development 

and a small rural town. In many places the trail is adjacent to private residences and businesses. 

Existing use in this area is high compared to other segments of the trail. This segment is already 

being used as a trail, particularly through the town of Klickitat. Use consists mostly of 

walking/hiking. 

Segment 4: Wahkiacus-Warwick

Wahkiacus-Warwick is the most primitive and remote segment of the entire trail. Swale Canyon 

(from the mouth of Swale Creek to Harms Road) is characterized Roaded Natural. Human 

activity, such as houses, roads, natural gas pipeline right-of-way, power lines and fences, can be 

observed along a number of trail locations in Swale Canyon. There are also large areas where 

the surrounding landscape is predominantly natural or natural appearing. Although signs of 

human activity are evident in many places, there is a general feeling of isolation in the majority 

of the canyon. The Harms Road to Warwick section of this segment is Rural as described in 

ROS. Signs of human activity, such as roads, agricultural activities, fences and houses, are more 

evident. Existing use is probably lowest in this section and consists of mountain biking and 

hiking. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines

A. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) Management Plan 

Applies from the Lyle Urban Area boundary to the CRGNSA boundary near the Fisher Hill 

trestle. 

General Management Area Guidelines 

Recreation Intensity Class (RIC) 1 will be used as the guideline, since it is most restrictive. The 

majority of the trail within the CRGNSA is in RIC 1. 

y Recreation Intensity Class 1 (Allowable Uses): 

- Trails for hiking, equestrian, and mountain biking use. 

- Pathways for pedestrian and bicycling use. 

- River access areas. 

- Simple interpretive signs and/or displays, not to exceed a total of 50 square feet. 

y Signage shall be limited to that necessary to provide relevant recreation or facility 

information, interpretive information, vehicular and pedestrian direction, and for safety 

purposes. 

B. Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Plan 

Applies from the trail’s beginning in Lyle to the Wild and Scenic River boundary above Pitt. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 46 

3.1 Recreation Use 

• Recreation Setting: Provide a variety of Roaded Natural opportunities. A generally natural 

environment characterizes the setting with moderate evidence of sights and sounds of 

people. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the 

natural environment. 

• Use Level: Concentration of users is low to moderate with equal opportunities for 

affiliation with others and isolation. 

• Native American Fisheries: Recreation use in lower gorge area does not conflict with 

Native American dip-net fishing. If conflicts occur, the higher priority will be given to 

maintaining dip-net fishing and the use of the lower gorge area by Native Americans, rather 

than to recreational use by the public. There are opportunities to view and learn more about 

Native American dip-net fishing activities, carefully designed to avoid any conflicts with 

these activities. 

• Support facilities: Rustic facilities primarily provided for user safety and resource 

protection and secondarily for user convenience and comfort. The number of recreational 

access sites will not change from 1990 levels. 

• Onsite Controls: Onsite controls and restrictions are limited to those necessary for health, 

safety and maintenance of Roaded Natural opportunities. 

• Marketing: None to limited publicity to minimize increases in uses. Plan relies on indirect 

measures to limit use. 

• Applicable ROS Guidance

Social Setting Roaded Natural Rural Urban 

Reflects contacts between 

groups. It indicates 

opportunities for solitude and 

interaction with others. 

Frequency of contact 

is low to moderate 

on trails and away 

from roads. 

Frequency of 

contact is 

moderate to 

high on trails. 

Large numbers 

of users onsite 

and in nearby 

areas. 

C. Klickitat County Shorelines Ordinance 

General Use Policies and Regulations for Use Activities: 

• Public access shall be required for all shoreline development and uses. 

• Developments, uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid blocking, 

reducing or adversely interfering with the public’s visual or physical access to the water 

and shorelines. 

• Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street and shall 

include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible. 

• The design and development of recreational areas shall protect natural features of the 

land, its vegetation, wildlife, water quality, aquatic life and habitat, and take into account 

the biophysical capabilities of a site. 

• The removal of on-site vegetation shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the 

development of campsites; selected views or other permitted structures or facilities. 

• No recreational building or structure shall be built over the water. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 47 

3.1 Recreation Use 

• Valuable shoreline resources and fragile or unique areas such as marshes, estuaries and 

accretion beaches, shall be used for non-intensive and non-structural recreation activities. 

• In proposing shoreline recreational developments, the applicant shall ensure that the 

development will maintain, enhance or restore desirable shoreline features including 

unique and fragile areas, scenic views, and aesthetic values. 

• Recreational developments shall provide facilities for non-motorized access to a shoreline 

such as pedestrian, bicycle and/or equestrian paths. 

• Proposal for recreational development shall include plans for sewage disposal. Where 

treatment facilities are not available, the appropriate reviewing authority shall limit the 

intensity of development to meet city, county and state on-site sewage disposal 

requirements. 

• Recreational use limitation in shoreline environments: 

- Natural – Conditional Use (limited to such facilities as access trails or other passive 

activities) 

- Conservancy – Conditional Use 

- Rural – Conditional Use 

- Community – Permitted 

- Urban/Industrial – Permitted 

• Signs in the Natural Buffer Zone and Natural Environment shall be for the purpose of 

safety information and direction only. 

Environmental Consequences

The alternatives are evaluated in terms of impacts on recreation use and Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) compatibility for social encounters, the pattern and type of use, user conflicts, 

parking, and accessibility.

Recreation Use and ROS Compatibility for Social Encounters: Recreation Use is discussed as 

number of recreation users per segment, per season. Social encounters in ROS are described as 

the frequency of contact between groups and individuals. Frequency of encounters is described 

as low to moderate on trails and away from roads in Roaded Natural settings, as moderate to high 

on trails in Rural settings, and as large numbers of users onsite and in nearby areas in Urban 

settings. 

No specific number of group encounters is specified in Roaded Natural, Rural or Urban Settings. 

However, a starting point can be provided by examining a more primitive ROS setting. Up to 16 

encounters per day is a normal condition found in Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized, which is 

characterized by having a high probability to experience solitude. In contrast the Eagle Creek 

trail in the western end of the Columbia River Gorge would be characterized as having a high 

frequency of contacts at approximately 40 groups encountered per day. Further guidance is 

provided by the Forest Service Region 6 ROS for River Management, which states that 6-15 

encounters per day is a normal condition found in Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized and that 

moderate to low encounters on a trail are normal for Roaded Natural settings along Wild and 

Scenic Rivers. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 48 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Pattern and Type of Use: The expected types of users (e.g., hiker, mountain biker or equestrian) 

and relative amount of each type of user is discussed. 

User Conflicts: Recreation user conflict occurs when the behavior of one individual, group or 

sub-population of users interferes with the goals and/or violates the norms of another individual, 

group or sub-population of users. Conflicts can be related to: 

y Degrees of Specialization – User groups tend to attach personal meaning to their activity. 

For example experts and novices may not mix well. 

y Place Attachment – Some groups or individuals tend to attach special meaning to the 

setting. 

y Expectations or Focus of Trip – To what extent does the experience require an individual 

to focus on certain attributes of the setting rather then on the requirements of their activity. 

For example, bird watchers who are focused on the natural environment may not mix well 

with ATV riders seeking speed and thrill. 

y Lifestyle Tolerance – Does one group tend to have a lower tolerance for lifestyles 

different from their own? 

Notice that the factors above are not necessarily related to a particular trail activity a user might 

be engaged in at the time and that no actual contact need occur for conflict to be felt. 

“Past research has consistently found that recreationist are well satisfied with their recreational 

experiences. Still conflicts are a serious threat to satisfaction, but serious conflicts may not be 

the norm” (Moore, 1994, Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trail). 

“Several studies of multiple-use rail-trails have included questions related to user conflicts. In a 

survey of rail-trail managers conducted by the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy in 1991, over half of 

the 83 managers responding reported no conflicts or "few if any" conflicts on their trails. The 

most common type of conflicts reported was between hikers and bikers, followed by conflicts 

between equestrians and bikers. Conflicts involving in-line skaters, cross-country skiers, and 

dogs were also reported. A study of three rail-trails in Iowa, Florida, and California found that 

users reported little problem with conflict on average. More than 2,000 users were asked to rate 

"conflicts with other activities" and "reckless behavior of trail users" on a 7-point scale where 

"1" represented "not a problem" and "7" represented "a major problem." The mean response was 

less than 2 on each trail for "conflicts with other activities" and ranged from 1.5 to 2.8 for 

"reckless behavior of trail users" (Moore, Graefe, Gitelson and Porter 1992, III-26). 

The same study included an open-ended question that asked "What things did you like least 

about the trail?" The top three responses were recorded for each user. Of a total of 2,128 

comments, 316 (14.8 percent) related to the behavior of other users. The most common of these 

(239) were about bicyclists being inconsiderate, riding two-abreast, passing with no warning, 

going too fast, and other unspecified concerns about bikers. An additional 72 (3.4 percent) 

identified crowding, as the thing liked least. Similar results were found in a study of trail users 

on 19 multi-purpose pedestrian and bike trails in Illinois (Gobster 1990, 32). "Use problems" 

(crowding, conflict, and reckless users) received mean ratings of less than 2 on a 5-point scale 

where "1" represented "not a problem" and "5" represented a "major problem." (Moore, 1994, 

Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trail) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 49 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Conflict is expected to occur on the Klickitat Rails to Trail. Each contact has the potential to 

result in conflict and in general trail users enjoy meeting their own kind, but dislike uses that are 

faster and more mechanized then there own (Moore, 1994, Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trail). 

Based on past studies, however, it is not expected that conflicts will have a serious threat to over 

all recreation satisfaction. Mitigation measures will also to reduce the potential for user 

conflicts. Posting the trail as a multiple use trail will reduce the potential for unmet expectation 

and conflicts. Promoting trail etiquette through signing and personal contacts by trail patrols will 

also minimize conflicts. 

For the purpose of this analysis the degree of potential conflict is a relative to each alternative. 

Parking: Parking is discussed in terms of potential illegal and unwanted parking. 

Accessibility: Accessibility is discussed in terms of compatibility with the universal access 

standard in terms of firmness, grade, cross slope and tread obstacles. 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

Recreation Use and ROS Compatibility: Long-term recreation use is difficult to determine in 

this alternative, since no facilities are planned to accommodate potential use, and it is unknown 

whether another entity would manage the railbed as a trail. In the short tem, use should increase 

at a relatively slow rate, but would be limited by the lack of support facilities and access. Word 

of mouth would be the most significant form of marketing in this case. Use levels would 

probably be highest in Segments 1, 2 and 3 due to the ease of access and proximity to population 

centers. Social encounters would be low. Existing ROS classifications for all segments would 

not be altered under this alternative. 

Pattern and Types of Use: In the short-term, hikers and mountain bike riders would be the most 

dominant form of use in Segment 2. Most recreationists would most likely start from either 

Fisher Hill or Pitt (the county park) where some parking does exist. Use in Segments 1 and 3 

would predominantly be hikers and bicyclists from Lyle and Klickitat area. Use in Segment 4 

would be relatively low compared to the other segments and should consist mostly of mountain 

bikes. Equestrian use would be low in all sections, because of the lack of support facilities. 

What equestrian use does occur would most likely be from the local communities 

(Lyle/Klickitat) and private landowners adjacent to the trail. 

User Conflict: In the short-term, conflict between users would be relatively low as a result of 

overall low use levels. Conflict between bikes, hikers and horses may occur, but should not be 

significant given that bike speeds would be low on the unimproved trail surfaces. 

Parking: In the short-term, Alternative 1 would probably have the greatest potential for parking 

conflicts and illegal parking of any alternative. Without trailhead facilities, parking would occur 

on side streets and along the shoulder of SR 142. Existing parking areas at Fisher Hill and the 

County park areas at approximately river mile 1, Pitt and Suburbia would continue and probably 

increase. Conflicts with nearby and adjacent private property owners would occur and increase 

over time. Illegal and unsafe parking situations could occur along SR 142. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 50 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Accessibility: Barrier free access would be limited under this alternative in the short term and 

would not meet current standards. The existing ballast surface is characterized by tread obstacles 

that exceed the maximum of 3” and tread surfaces in many places are not firm or stable enough 

to support a wheelchair (Draft USDA Trail Accessibility Guidelines, 3/31/03). A rule of thumb 

to determine surface firmness is if a person riding a narrow-tired bike or a heavy child in a 

folding umbrella style stroller were easily pushed across without sinking into or distorting the 

surface. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

The discussion of effects includes both Alternatives 2 and 2a, except where specifically noted. 

Recreation Use and ROS Compatibility: The highest recreation use is projected under 

Alternative 2 at about 49,600 visitors annually. Local use is estimated to comprise about 39% of 

the total use. See Appendix A for a description of assumptions and methodology used to 

generate recreation use numbers. 

Recreation use in Alternative 2a, which would close Swale Canyon from June 15 to September 

30 of each year, is projected to be 45,000 visitors annually. Local use is estimated to comprise 

about 44% of the total use. 

In both Alternatives 2 and 2a, segment 2 would receive the highest amount of use, followed by 

Segments 1, 3, and 4. Overall it is anticipated that there would be a moderate degree of social 

interaction with other groups and individuals in Segments 1 and 2. Segment 3 would have a 

more moderate degree of social encounters through out most of the year. Local residents make 

up the bulk of the use in this segment so use is less likely to be seasonal in nature. Segment 4 

would probably offer the best chance for solitude during busy periods. While encounters in 

Segments1, 2 and 4 would be moderate to high on weekends during the summer months, 

weekday encounters, however, are expected to be moderate to low. Weekdays during the spring 

and fall and weekends and weekdays during the winter months should offer more than an equal 

chance to experience solitude in Segments 1, 3 and 4. 

During peak uses, standards for encounters in Segments 1 and 2 could exceed the social ROS 

standards for roaded natural; however, it should be relatively short in duration. It is anticipated 

that standards would only be exceeded on some high use weekends during the summer months. 

ROS standards for social encounters would be within normal limits for the other sections. 

Pattern and Types of Use: In Segment 1, hiking and walking are expected to be the dominant 

recreation uses, followed by mountain bikes and equestrian use. Equestrian use is expected to be 

relatively low, and come mainly from outside users accessing Segment 2. Local users would 

share this segment with outside users, because this segment is a portal to Segment 2. Local use 

is projected to be 13% of all users. Use is expected to be heaviest during the spring, summer and 

fall months. Local use would occur year round. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 51 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Segment 2 is expected to be very popular due to the very dramatic scenery of the Klickitat River 

and surrounding landscape. Hiking should be the most popular recreation use, with mountain 

biking close behind. The trail does provide mountain bike opportunities for novice to beginner 

riders and should be popular during the winter and spring when mountain snow closes most 

mountain bike trails in the area. Fishing would also be very popular due to easy access to bank 

fishing along the river. Equestrian use should be relatively low compared to hiking and biking, 

with most of the users coming in from outside the local area. Recreation use should be highest 

during the spring, summer and fall months; however, there would be almost year-round 

opportunities for trail-related recreation. 

In Segment 3, characterized by its residential character, hiking/walking would be the most 

dominant recreation use. Mountain biking would come mostly from local users or “through 

riders”. Equestrian use in this segment would be the lowest of all segments. The rural/urban 

setting of this segment would not draw a significant amount of use from non-local hikers, horse 

enthusiasts and bikers, since most trail related recreationists prefer a natural setting 

(Oregon/Washington SCORP). This segment would be dominated by local users (74%) and 

remain popular year-round. 

Mountain biking and hiking should be the most dominant uses in Segment 4. However, there 

should be a smaller difference between the proportion of hikers versus bikers due to the length of 

this segment and the scarcity of water in this segment. Hiking is expected to remain the 

dominant form of use in this segment, since overall participation by hikers in the Gorge is 

significantly higher then bike riding. Approximately 63% of all visitors in the Gorge participate 

in hiking or walking while only 5% participate in biking (National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Report, 2001). Again, equestrian use is expected to be relatively low compared to bikers and 

hikers. The majority of users would come from outside the local area. In Alternative 2, use 

would be highest during the spring, early summer and fall months when Swale Canyon weather 

moderates. Use would be highest in the same periods in Alternative 2a, and the trail would be 

closed in Swale Canyon from June 15 to September 30 of each year. 

User Conflict: Potential conflicts between users would be lowest among the action alternatives. 

Conflicts are predicted to be relatively low, since an 8-foot wide corridor would be maintained. 

The cleared corridor should provide adequate room to separate uses. For example, horseback 

riders would most likely ride the unimproved surface leaving the adjacent improved 4-foot 

surface for hiking and biking. Good sight distances would also help to reduce conflicts since it 

would provide enough warning for users to make way for other uses. Segment 2 would have the 

greatest potential for conflicts, based virtually on the number of users. The highest potential for 

conflict would be between bikes and other uses, since bikes would tend to stay on improved trail 

surfaces, rather than spread out on unimproved surfaces adjacent to the trail. Bike speeds would 

also be higher on these improved surfaces, thus increasing the potential for conflicts. 

Parking: This alternative provides the most trailhead facilities and parking spaces. Illegal and 

unwanted parking should not be a significant problem in the near future. However, as the trail 

gains popularity, illegal and unwanted parking may become a problem. Parking at many popular 

trailheads in the NSA exceeds capacity during busy weekend days. The same potential exists for 

trailheads on the proposed trail. Illegal and unwanted parking could occur in Lyle, Pitt and 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 52 

3.1 Recreation Use 

possibly the Wahkiacus areas on the shoulder of SR-142 or on side streets. Existing parking 

problems at Fisher Hill and Suburbia could also be exacerbated if mitigation measures are not 

implemented when recreationists discover this site would provide quicker access to the more 

scenic Segment 2. 

Accessibility: Both Alternatives 2 and 2a would meet standards for universal access for 

firmness, grade, cross slope, and tread obstacles. However maintaining the tread surface to the 

level of compaction required for wheelchair access may be difficult in the long run. 

Table 7: Visitor Use and Average Visitor/Day by Trail Segment, Alternatives 2 and 2a; 

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 

Alt 2 only 

Segment 4 

Alt 2a only

Use 

Season 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

High 8,503 92 9,610 104 5,151 56 9,129 99 5,754 63 

Shoulder 5,311 35 4,710 31 8,225 54 4,475 29 3,300 22 

Low 2,189 18 1,112 9 5,618 47 1,053 9 1,0530 9 

Total 16,008 44 15,432 42 18,994 52 14,657 40 10,107 28 

Note: The sum of use by segment would exceed total use, because of overlapping use from other 

segments. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail- Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

The discussion of effects includes both Alternatives 3 and 3a, except where specifically noted. 

Recreation Use and ROS Compatibility: In both Alternatives 3 and 3a, total use is projected to 

be approximately 38,412 visitors annually. Local use is estimated to comprise about 51% of the 

total use. Although the percentage of local use has increased from Alternatives 2 and 2a, total 

local use remained constant. See Appendix A for a description of assumptions and methodology 

used to generate recreation use numbers. 

The overall experience would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 2a in Segments 1, 2, and 3. (There 

is no Segment 4 in these alternatives.) Segment 2 would receive the highest amount of use, 

followed by Segment 1 and 3. Overall it is anticipated that there would be a moderate to high 

degree of social interaction with other groups and individuals in Segments 1 and 2. Segment 3 

would have a more moderate degree of social encounters through out most of the year. Local 

residents make up the bulk of the use in this segment so use is less likely to be seasonal in nature. 

While encounters in Segments 1 and 2 would be high on weekends during the summer months, 

weekday encounters, however, are expected to moderate. Weekdays during the spring and fall 

and weekends and weekdays during the winter months should offer more than an equal chance to 

experience solitude in Segments 1 and 3. 

During peak uses, standards for encounters in the Segments 1 and 2 could exceed the social ROS 

standards for Roaded Natural; however, it should be relatively short in duration. It is anticipated 

that standards would only be exceeded on some high use weekends during the summer months. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 53 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Segment 3 would be within ROS social encounter thresholds. 

Pattern and Types of Use: In Segment 1 hiking and walking are the expected dominant 

recreation uses, with mountain and road bikes a close second. Equestrian use is expected to be 

relatively low, and come mainly from outside users accessing segment 2. Other uses such as 

jogging, in-line skating and skateboarding would be apparent in this segment. Local users would 

share this segment with outside users, because this segment is a portal to Segment 2. Local use 

would occur year round. 

Segment 2 pattern and types of use are expected to be similar to Alternatives 2 and 2a with the 

expectation of road bikes. The hard surface, either asphalt or soil hardeners, would be conducive 

to road bikes. 

In Segment 3, characterized by its residential character, hiking/walking would be the most 

dominant recreation use closely followed by mountain and road biking. Equestrian use in this 

segment would be the lowest of all segments. Horse enthusiasts would most likely avoid this 

segment, due to the high degree of interaction with conflicting uses and other distractions. Local 

horse use should be relatively low in this segment. Other uses such as jogging, in-line skating 

and skateboarding would be apparent especially through the town of Klickitat. This segment 

would be dominated by local users and remain popular year-round. 

User Conflict: Conflicts between recreationists should be highest in this alternative. The 6 foot 

paved trail in Segment 1 and 3 would accommodate more user groups, which would increase the 

potential for conflict. The maintained 8 foot wide corridor would provide opportunities to 

separate uses such as horse back riding. Equestrian use would most likely occur on the 

unimproved surface leaving the adjacent improved 6-foot surface for other uses. The hard 

surface trail width should provide enough space to mitigate most conflicts; however, when they 

do occur they would likely be between hikers/equestrian use and bikers (both mountain and road 

bikes). The hardened surface would provide the opportunity for increased bike speeds. Other 

users perceive high bike speeds as a conflict. Good sight distances, however, would mitigate 

conflict by allowing bikers to slow down prior to an encounter. 

Potential for conflicts in Segment 2 would be slightly higher than those with Alternatives 2 and 

2a. Conflicts would most likely involve bikes and other users. The improved surface would 

provide the opportunity for increased bike speeds. Again, good sight distances would help 

reduce the frequency of surprise encounters. 

Parking: Illegal and unwanted parking should not be a significant problem in the near future in 

this alternative. However, as in Alternatives 2 and 2a, as the trail increases in popularity, illegal 

and unwanted parking could become a problem. Existing parking problems at Fisher Hill would 

continue if mitigation measures were not implemented. While segment 4 would not be adopted 

in this alternative, illegal or unwanted parking could become an issue at Wahkiacus, or Harms 

Road. Recreationists are bound to discover this section of trail in the near future. 

Accessibility: Both Alternatives 3 and 3a would meet standards for universal access, for 

firmness, grade, cross slope, and tread obstacles. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 54 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Table 8: Visitor Use and Average Visitor/Day by Trail Segment, Alternatives 3 and 3a. 

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 

Use Season Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

Annual 

Visitors 

Visitors 

Per Day 

High 8,503 92 11,692 127 7,233 79 

Shoulder 5,311 35 5,731 37 9,245 60 

Low 2,189 18 1,424 12 5,930 49 

Total 16,003 44 18,847 52 22,409 61 

Note: The sum of use by segment would exceed total use, because of overlapping use from other 

segments. 

Cumulative Effects

Participation rates reflect a high demand for trail opportunities in the Columbia River Gorge. 

For example the recent National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (September 2001) showed that 

60% of all visitors to the CRGNSA participated in hiking or walking. Both the Washington 

(October 2002) and Oregon (January 2003) Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans 

(SCORP) also support this high level of demand for walking and hiking opportunities. Nearly 

74% of the Washington State population participated in walking or hiking opportunities while in 

Oregon 53.9% of the state’s population participated. 

Table 9: Participation by Activity as a Percent of State Population 

State 

Walking for 

Pleasure 

Hiking Biking on Local 

Community and 

Backcountry Trails 

Horseback Riding on 

Local Community and 

Backcountry Trails 

Washington 56.6 % 17.1 % 5.2 % 1.9 % 

Oregon 33.3 % 20.6 % 6.1 % 2.7 % 

Both Oregon and Washington SCORPs conclude there is a relative large inventory of 

recreational trails. However, the Washington SCORP concludes: “....most trails are not located 

where they are needed the most (in or near town). The majority of trails are located on remote 

lands above 3000 feet.” This explains why trail use is so high in the Columbia River Gorge. 

The majority of trails in the Gorge are close to urban populations (within 30 minutes to 1 hour’s 

drive from the Portland/Vancouver Metro Area) and tend to be accessible year round. Recent 

studies also support the Washington SCORP, in that time and distance are now the main barriers 

to participating in outdoor recreation activities. 

In Oregon nearly 76% of recreationists who participated in trail, road and beach activities 

preferred the Primitive, Semi-primitive and Roaded Natural settings while only 53.6% actually 

used them. This is probably related to the lack of supply of the more primitive settings close to 

population centers rather than the opportunities that actually exist. 

Trails and trail use are disproportionately distributed in the Columbia River Gorge area. Over 

60% of the recreational facilities and trails are concentrated west of Cascade Locks, particularly 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 55 

3.1 Recreation Use 

on the Oregon side. Dramatic scenery and waterfalls are the main attractions. Trail use in this 

area is very heavy and can exceed capacity on many summer weekends. 

Opportunities are very limited in the Gorge area for mountain bikes, the physically challenged 

and equestrians. The Forest Service currently manages 180 miles of trail in the Gorge. Fifteen 

percent are mountain bike trails, 16% provide equestrian opportunities and less than 1% meet 

barrier free standards. Other agencies offer limited equestrian and mountain bike trails, most 

notably Oregon State Parks (Deschutes River Trail), Washington State Parks (Beacon Rock State 

Park equestrian trails) and Washington Department of Natural Resources (Buck Creek Trail 

System). Mountain biking has increased in the area; the most noteworthy example is Coyote 

Wall (near Burdoin Mountain). The area provides good, early season opportunities when 

mountain snows close most trails open to mountain bikes. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative 

While use is likely to continue to occur in an unmanaged situation, an unmanaged trail would not 

become a destination for recreationists. This alternative would not meet the growing demand for 

trail opportunities close to the Portland/Vancouver Metro area and local Gorge Communities. 

Nor would it provide opportunities for under-served trail users. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2 and 2a and Alternatives 3 and 3a 

Gorge-wide, the cumulative effects to recreation resources from the proposed Klickitat Rails-toTrails should be positive, because it would increase both trail miles and opportunities. While 

there is a relatively large inventory of trails on the neighboring Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood 

National Forests, many of these trails are only accessible during the summer months. Hiking 

closer to home in a natural setting also seems to be preferred by busy recreationists of today. 

The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails could provide a unique year -round trail opportunity for multiple 

user groups to experience their activities in a natural setting, close to the Portland/Vancouver 

Metro area and local Gorge communities (within a 1 hour drive). It could also provide additional 

opportunities for the underserved mountain biking, physically challenged and equestrians user 

groups. It is difficult to project recreation growth, however it is reasonable to expect 

recreation/trail use to grow with an expected increase in overall population. The Klickitat Rails 

to Trails would provide an opportunity to meet future supply needs. At first glance, the project 

could be seen as a way to draw recreationists from the crowded west end of the Gorge; however, 

it is more likely to provide an opportunity for a less crowded experience. Significant distribution 

of use from the west to the east would probably not occur, since the dramatic scenery, amenities, 

and proximity to the Metro area of the west end would always continue to attract high visitor use. 

Findings of Consistency for Land Use Regulations, Alternatives 2 and 2a, Alternatives 3 

and 3a 

A. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan 

Both action alternatives meet applicable Recreation Intensity Class (RIC) 1 guidelines. The 

proposed recreation trail/pathway use (pedestrian, bicycling, hiking, equestrian and mountain 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 56 

3.1 Recreation Use 

bikes) is considered allowable uses in RIC 1. Proposed signs would be designed not to exceed 

the 50 square feet guideline. Signs would be limited to those that provide general trail 

information, to protect private property rights, to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources 

and to provide for visitor safety. 

B. Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Plan 

Recreation Setting – The trail and use would meet Roaded Natural setting as described in the 

Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Plan. Roaded Natural opportunities such as hiking, horse back 

riding and biking would be provided. The trail and associated facilities would harmonize with 

nature and generally there would be a moderate evidence of sights and sounds of people from the 

trail and river. The trail would not change the existing setting, since it is an existing feature in 

the landscape. 

Recreation Use - Overall it is anticipated that there would be a moderate degree of social 

interaction with other groups and individuals in the Klickitat Wild and Scenic River segment. 

While encounters in this section would be moderate to high on weekends during the summer 

months, weekday encounters, however, are expected to be moderate to low. Weekdays during 

the spring and fall and weekends and weekdays during the winter months should offer more than 

an equal chance to experience solitude. 

Roaded Natural, as described in the River Management Plan, provides for settings where 

frequency of encounters are low to moderate with an equal opportunities for affiliation with 

others and isolation. The draft ROS for River Management provides additional guidance in that 

it states that 6-15 parties met per day is a normal condition found in Semi-primitive 

nonmotorized and that moderate to low encounters on trail are normal for Roaded Natural 

settings along Wild and Scenic Rivers. Although there is no specific number of group 

encounters specified in Roaded Natural, it appears that the number of encounters during peak use 

in Segments 1 (25 contacts) and 2 (29 contacts) falls within the range of moderate use levels 

albeit on the high end. For example, up to 16 encounters per day is a normal condition found in 

Semi-primitive Nonmotorized, which is characterized by having a high probability to experience 

solitude. In contrast, the Eagle Creek trail in the western end of the Columbia River Gorge 

would be characterized as having a high frequency of contacts at approximately 40 groups 

encountered per day. 

Native American Fisheries –Mitigation measures could be implemented at the request of the 

Tribal government and are described in Chapter 2. Opportunities for viewing and interpretation 

of dip-net fishing activities would be provided from the Fisher Hill trestle. 

Support Facilities – Support facilities would be designed to meet Roaded Natural ROS 

guidelines and the Built Environment Image Guide (see Chapter 2 – Mitigation Measures). The 

trailheads provide for both visitor safety and resource protection. Toilet facilities should mitigate 

potential sanitation issues and protect water resources. Providing safe parking off of SR-142 

would enhance visitor safety. No additional river access (for boaters) would be provided. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 57 

3.1 Recreation Use 

Onsite Controls – All onsite controls (see Chapter 2 – Mitigation Measures) are all designed to 

protect natural resources, reduce conflicts between user groups and private property. The onsite 

controls would not restrict Roaded Natural opportunities such as hiking, bicycling and horseback 

riding. 

Marketing – Marketing by the Forest Service would be limited to identifying the trail on the 

CRGNSA maps, trail information handouts and the NSA web site. Marketing by local 

communities and potential outfitters and guides could occur. It is expected these groups would 

implement some marketing. Trailhead parking capacity and unwanted parking mitigation 

measures should limit use to acceptable levels. 

C. Klickitat County Shoreline Management Ordinance 

Access and Use – The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails would be open to the public. All 

trailheads/facilities would be directly accessible from SR-142 or the Centerville Highway and 

meet current ADA accessibility requirements. The trail would enhance visitor access to the 

Klickitat River and its shoreline. Access on the west shore of the Klickitat River currently is 

limited. Trail use would be low to moderate. Encounters on weekends during the summer 

months are estimated to between 12 to 30 groups per day. However, weekdays during the spring 

and fall and weekends and weekdays during the winter months should offer more than an equal 

chance to experience solitude. Use would consist mainly of pedestrian, hiking, biking and 

horseback riding. Motorized use would be prohibited, except for emergencies or administrative 

purposes. 

Protect Natural Resources and Aesthetics – The trail and trailhead would be designed to protect 

and/or to enhance natural resources. For example, boardwalks would be used to protect fragile 

wet areas, riparian vegetation would be planted to stabilize the river bank, trail and trailhead 

construction season would be limited to protect Bald Eagles, buffer zones would be established 

around active western gray squirrel, and fish passage would be accommodated (see Chapter 2 – 

Mitigation Measures). Removal of onsite vegetation would be limited to accommodate trailhead 

facilities and 8 feet trail width. No recreational structures would be constructed over the 

Klickitat River, other than the Suburbia trestle, which is a replacement structure. The trail and 

associated facilities would harmonize with nature along the Klickitat River and Swale Creek. 

Trailhead facilities would be designed to meet the appropriate ROS setting (see Chapter 2 – 

Mitigation Measures). 

Sewage Disposal – The proposed trailhead toilet facilities are planned to be a vault system at 

Pitt, Wahkiacus, Harms Road and Warwick. Installation would meet current City, County and 

State Codes. A new flush toilet is proposed at Lyle and would connect to the city sewer system. 

Initially, all of these trailheads would be supplied with a portable toilet. At Klickitat, an existing 

flush toilet would serve trail users. 

Signs – Signs would be limited to those that would provide general trail information, to protect 

private property rights, to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources and provide for visitor 

safety.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 58 

3.2 Cost for Trail Development and Long-Term Management 

3.2 COST FOR TRAIL DEVELOPMENT AND LONG-TERM 

MANAGEMENT (KEY ISSUE) 

For all alternatives, construction costs were estimated for developing facilities to Forest Service 

standard specifications. Maintenance and operation costs were estimated to maintain facilities to 

the design standard and assumed any damage would be immediately repaired. However, in 

actuality, maintenance costs for action alternatives would be much lower than indicated for the 

first several years because the facilities would be new. In addition, minor damage would likely 

be deferred for several years until it became more cost-effective to implement many repairs with 

one maintenance contract. 

The Forest Service would pursue grants, partnerships, volunteers and federal appropriations to 

fund development and operation of this trail. A phasing plan has been developed to ensure 

available funding goes to high priority items. (See Chapter 2 for phasing plan.) 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

No Forest Service development and maintenance costs would be associated with Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

Alternatives 2 and 2a would cost the most to develop (about $5.6 million) and maintain 

($102,000 annually for Alternative 2; $94,000 annually for Alternative 2a) of any alternative. 

$435,000 of the development cost is to replace the Suburbia trestle with a six-foot wide trail 

bridge. This alternative proposes 31 miles of unpaved trail and six trailheads. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail- Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

Development (about $5.0 million) costs for Alternative 3 would be slightly lower than 

Alternative 2. Annual maintenance of about $66,000 is about one third lower than Alternative 2. 

This alternative is less than half the length of Alternative 2, but is developed to a higher standard 

with trail paving. Three, rather than six trailheads are proposed. Cost to maintain pavement 

would be very low for many years, but costs of periodic repaving would be quite high. 

Alternative 3a is the lowest cost Action alternative at about $4.0 million to develop and about 

$56,000 a year to maintain. Costs are lower because soil hardeners are substituted for pavement 

in the nine miles between Fisher Hill and Pitt. 

Cumulative Effects 

Since federal recreation funding is not unlimited, and has been declining in recent years, Forest 

Service capital expenditures on the proposed trail could result in foregoing other recreation 

development opportunities in the Pacific Northwest Region. Maintenance and operation 

expenditures by the Forest Service’s National Scenic Area office on the proposed trail could 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 59 

3.2 Cost for Trail Development and Long-Term Management 

result in less maintenance on other Gorge trails. The addition of the proposed trail to the 

National Scenic Area’s trail system would likely increase reliance on volunteer development and 

maintenance efforts for all Gorge trails. 

Table 10: Summary of Costs of Trail Development and Maintenance 

One Time Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 & 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a 

Development 1

- Trail 

- Trailheads 

- Bridge Deck/Rails 

- Suburbia Trail Bridge 2

Subtotal 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

 $ 786,000 

1,822,000 

683,000 

 435,000 

3,726,000 

$1,992,000 

1,144,000 

218,000 

 0

3,354,000 

$1,283,000 

 1,144,000 

 218,000 

 0

 2,645,000 

Engineering (25%) + 

Contingencies (25%) 0 1,863,000 1,677,000 1,323,000 

Resource Mitigation 3 30,000 15,000 15,000 

Total 0 $5,619,000 $5,046,000 $3,983,000 

 

Annual Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 & 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a 

Trail/Trailhead O & M 0 $85,000 

(2a = $77,000) $50,000 $40,000 

Mitigation

- Trail Patrol

- Noxious Weed Control 

- Resource Monitoring 

Subtotal 

0 

0 

0

0 

 

 12,000 

3,000 

2,000

 17,000 

12,000 

2,000 

2,000

16,000 

 

12,000 

 2,000 

 2,000

 16,000 

Total 0 2 = $102,000 

 2a = $ 94,000 $66,000 $56,000 

1: “Development” includes costs for signs, boardwalks, road safety measures, mile markers, etc. 

2: Cost indicated is for construction utilizing the existing abutments. The cost to construct a 

bridge to improve flood flow conditions (per Sargent Engineers, Inc. report of 1996) is 

$1,255,000. 

3: “Resource Mitigation” includes costs for vegetative screening at Fisher Hill, revegetation, 

planting, bird boxes, etc. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 60 

3.2 Cost for Trail Development and Long-Term Management 

Table 11 below, displays the costs of the phases identified in Section 2.4. 

Table 11: Phasing Costs 

Phase Alts 2 and 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a 

Phase 1: Initial Management Actions $150,000 $148,000 $148,000 

 Phases 2 – 5: Trail Improvement 

Phase 2: Lyle to Pitt $1,960,000 $3,838,000 $2,998,000 

Phase 3: Pitt to Klickitat 646,000 1,208,000 985,000 

Phase 4: Wahkiacus to Warwick 1,668,000 n/a n/a 

Phase 5: Wahkiacus to Warwick 1,25,000 n/a n/a 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 61 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

3.3 EFFECTS ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES (KEY ISSUE) 

Existing Conditions 

Klickitat County is largely a rural county. About two-thirds of its 19,161 residents (2000 

Census) live in unincorporated areas and one-third live in the three incorporated areas of 

Goldendale (population 3,760), White Salmon (population 2,193), and Bingen (population 672). 

Characteristics that contribute to the county’s rural atmosphere include low-density housing, 

natural resource-based livelihoods, low traffic and little congestion, as well as fewer services 

such as fire, police and health care. Recreational opportunities span all seasons. The rail corridor 

passes through several small communities, the largest being Lyle and Klickitat. 

The Klickitat County Planning Department conducted a community development and housing 

needs survey in 1995 entitled "Community Development in the Unincorporated Areas of 

Klickitat County". A majority of survey respondents in Klickitat, Lyle and Wahkiacus rated job 

creation in the local area and county as a medium or high priority and unemployment as a 

moderate or serious problem. When asked the three top problems the county faces, 

unemployment and low income were consistently among the top choices for respondents from 

this area. A majority also rated development of recreation facilities to attract tourists a medium 

or high priority. 

The County Planning Department survey's written responses revealed a certain "tension" 

between keeping the county as it is, and the changes brought by newcomers. This was evident in 

public survey statements such as "too many people moving in" vs. "close-mindedness and a 

minority who feel they have special rights because they were born here." Recurrent concerns 

were focused on the rise of drug use in the area and the perception that, "too many ‘welfare’ 

families were moving in." Four respondents specifically mentioned the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

as a potential benefit to the community. 

The existing conditions section reports several demographic and economic characteristics, 

including population, race, employment, income and poverty. Most of the data is from the 1990 

and 2000 U.S. Censuses (http//:factfinder.census.gov). 

This report provides comparisons of the Rails-to-Trails project area to Klickitat County, and to 

Washington State as a whole. The “project area” for this analysis is defined as a compilation of 

four U.S. Census “Zip Code Tabulation Areas”; for Centerville (98613), Klickitat (9828), Lyle 

(98635), and Wahkiacus (98670). A Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) is defined as “a 

geographic area that approximates the delivery area for a five-digit or a three-digit ZIP Code. 

ZCTAs do not precisely depict the area within which mail deliveries associated with that ZIP 

Code occur.” (These four ZCTAs more closely approximate the project area than Census Tract 

9502.) Only the 2000 web-based census provides a map of these four ZCTAs; it is not known if 

the boundaries of the 1990 and 2000 ZCTAs are precisely the same. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 62 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

The 2000 Census provides population data for the communities of Lyle and Klickitat; this 

information is not available from the 1990 Census. The 2000 Census data for Lyle and Klickitat 

are included where available. 

Population

Klickitat County has experienced periods of both population decline and growth in the past four 

decades. The county population dropped by 10% in the 1960's, but grew by 30% in the 1970's. 

Growth slowed to 5% in the 1980's, then increased to 15% in the 1990’s. Both incorporated and 

unincorporated areas grew in population by about the same amount between 1990 and 2000, at 

14% and 16% respectively. 

Population for the Rails-to-Trails project area (defined for this report as the U.S. Census Zip 

Code Tabulation Areas for Klickitat, Lyle, Wahkiacus and Centerville) grew a little slower in the 

1990's (about 13%) than the rest of the county (about 15%). Both the Rails-to-Trails project area 

and the county grew at a slower rate than the rest of Washington State (about 21%). The 2000 

Census provided population data for Lyle (530 people) and Klickitat (417 people). 

Race

Over 85 % of Klickitat County’s population is white, compared to 79 % for Washington State. 

The project area, Lyle and Klickitat all are between 85 % and 90 % white. 

Employment

Klickitat County has traditionally relied on resource-based industries such as agricultural crops, 

lumber and wood products as the main economic drivers, and more recently, aluminum 

production. County agricultural production includes wheat, orchard crops, some row crops, 

vineyards, cattle and dairy operations. The role of lumber and wood products is diminishing, 

while government employment continues to play a significant role in the county. The Columbia 

River Gorge’s strong winds have led to an international destination point for windsurfers. There 

are other opportunities for economic growth in recreation and tourism in addition to windsurfing. 

The 2000 Census reports that people living in the Klickitat River region are commuting to work 

about 23 minutes (at Lyle) to almost 50 minutes (at Klickitat), presumably to jobs in The Dalles, 

Hood River or other cities. 

The 2002 Klickitat County Profile prepared by the Washington State Employment Security 

Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch, highlighted the following unique 

aspects about Klickitat County employment when compared to Washington State and the Nation 

(acknowledging “the gross differences in size”): 

• “Klickitat (County) has far more of its employment in agriculture—17 percent compared 

to 3 percent for the state and 1.5 percent for the nation. 

• Klickitat (County) has substantially more of its employment base in manufacturing. The 

higher concentration is due to the aluminum smelter and lumber and wood products. 

• Klickitat (County) has about the same percentage of jobs in construction, transportation 

and utilities, and wholesale trade. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 63 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

• Klickitat (County) has significantly fewer retail jobs, reflected in the leakage of retail 

spending to Oregon (where there’s no sales tax). The leakage has ramifications for the 

county’s tax base due to lost sales tax revenue. 

• Klickitat (County) has only half the proportion of jobs in finance, insurance, and real 

estate. The corporate side of these industries is concentrated in large metro areas. 

• Klickitat (County) has far fewer jobs in services—about a third of the state and national 

average. In part this is due to the public ownership of hospitals in the county, but also is 

due to the lack of corporate-oriented services such as legal, engineering, software, 

advertising, and so on. Also, the county is not a tourist mecca, so there are relatively few 

jobs in lodging and recreation. 

• Finally, Klickitat (County) has a higher percentage of its employment in government, due 

to public ownership of the hospitals and the Public Utility District, and the captive 

audience for K-12 education.” 

The following table depicts a breakdown of employment, by sector. 

 Table 12: Employment by Sector in Klickitat County, 2000 

Employment Sector Percent

 Employed

 Manufacturing 

 Lumber and Wood Products 7.6 %

 Other Manufacturing 12.5 % 

20.1 % 

 Construction and Mining 4.4 % 

 Transportation, Communications, and Utilities 5.9 % 

 Wholesale Trade 5.0 % 

 Retail Trade 10.4 % 

 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2.1 % 

 Services 9.8 % 

 Government 

 Federal 1.9 % 

 State 3.1 % 

 K-12 9.4 % 

 Other Local Government 10.6 % 

24.8 % 

 Agriculture 17.4 % 

Source: 2002 Klickitat County Profile, Washington State Employment Security Department, 

Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch 

Unemployment

Klickitat County suffers from high unemployment and relatively low income. Unemployment 

figures for Klickitat County are consistently about twice the statewide average. 

In 2000, Klickitat County was considered a distressed county; that is, its unemployment rate was 

20 % higher than the state average for three consecutive years (1998, 1999 and 2000). Overall, 

unemployment in the project area is similar to the entire county. However, the unemployment 

rate in Lyle is about half the County’ rate, while the unemployment rate in Klickitat is more than 

twice the County’s rate, and over four times the State rate. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 64 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

Income

The Washington State average per capita income for 1999 was $22,973. The Klickitat County 

average per capita income for 1999 was $16,502, almost 30 % lower than for the State. The per 

capita income averages slightly higher in the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails project area than the rest of 

the county. However, per capita income in the community of Klickitat is almost 30 % lower 

than the county as a whole and about half that of Washington State. 

Poverty

The 2000 Census reports the community of Klickitat as the highest-ranking Klickitat County 

community in percent of families with 1999 income below the poverty level (27.8%). Klickitat 

is one of 26 communities statewide with more than 25% of families with 1999 income below the 

poverty level. In contrast, Lyle is the second lowest-ranking (after Centerville) Klickitat County 

community in percent of families with 1999 income below the poverty level 8.2%. Klickitat 

County and Washington State were reported with 12.6% and 7.3% of families with 1999 income 

below the poverty level, respectively. 

Environmental Consequences 

Background Assumptions

The economic effects of the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails alternatives are assessed using the following 

indicators: the number of trail users, construction, operation and maintenance costs, recreation 

user expenditures, and the resulting effects on employment and income. The employment and 

income effects of user expenditures are estimated for the greater Columbia Gorge area. As 

service industries such as lodging and eating places and retail stores expand in the project area, 

more of the increases in employment and income can be captured locally. 

The estimates for expected trail use and expenditures are based on previous recreation use 

studies for the Gorge, other Rails-to-Trails studies, and the professional expertise of Gorge 

recreation planners. See Appendix B for further elaboration. 

Expected Trail Use

The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails complements the recreation gamut in the Gorge. High numbers of 

windsurfers participate in hiking and biking when they are not sailing. The Klickitat Rails-toTrails offers this recreation market an alternative on windless days. People from Portland and 

other areas outside the Gorge would also likely use the trail and thus impact the economy. Many 

users, ranging from in-line skaters to horseback riders to the physically challenged, would 

perceive this trail as an excellent recreation opportunity. 

Estimates of the expected number of users are based on recreation use figures for similar trailbased sites in the Gorge, and on trailhead capacity of each alternative, incorporating differences 

for seasons and weekdays/weekend use. A complete list of assumptions used to generate use 

figures for local, Mid-Columbia and out-of-region users may be found in Appendix B.

 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 65 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

Economic Impacts

In addition to the short-term and direct economic activity associated with the development, 

operation and maintenance of the project, indirect and long-term economic effects can be 

measured in terms of direct expenditures on such things as food, lodging, equipment, and other 

services, and the resulting changes in employment and income. 

The spending by recreationists directly supports jobs and wages in eating, lodging places, retail 

stores and automobile service stations. These direct jobs and the associated income include both 

owners and employees of these businesses. The purchases of equipment and supplies by these 

businesses from other businesses, such as restaurant purchases from a food wholesaler, generates 

additional business activity and indirect jobs and income. The personal purchases of the owners 

and employees also generate induced jobs and income. The additional business activity along 

with the indirect and induced jobs and income are only realized if the purchases by businesses or 

employees are made within the area being considered. 

The spending profiles were applied to two regions developed using the Implan input-output 

modeling system and 2000 data. The first region is represented by Klickitat County, the site of 

the proposed trail. The second region adds Hood River County for a more comprehensive view 

of the central Columbia River Gorge economy. The impacts associated with this two county 

region are larger due to less leakages (purchases) from businesses outside the impact area. The 

expenditures of the trail users are considered to be captured in the modeled area as long as the 

businesses supplying the goods or services exist. Whether or not the expenditures would 

actually be captured by local businesses is not known. 

Two types of trail users are identified – local and non-local. The local users are residents 

considered to be within 50 miles of the site. For this project, local users would include both 

“Mid-Columbia” visitors, and local residents of Lyle and Klickitat. The jobs and income 

generated by their expenditures portrays the amount of existing local economic activity that 

could be attributed to trail use. The economic activity generated by local users is not usually 

considered economic growth since local residents would spend money in other local recreational 

activities if the trail is not constructed. If it can be shown that local residents would substitute 

their recreation pursuits out of the area with the new trail, local use could be classified as new 

economic activity. Non-local trail users are from further than 50 miles away and their 

expenditures represent new money to the local economies and is considered economic growth. 

This analysis only considers non-local use. Local and Mid-Columbia trail users are not included 

when calculating economic benefits from visitors. 

The job and income response coefficients in the following tables are based on 10,000 parties. In 

order to use these response coefficients, visits need to be converted into parties by dividing by 

2.6. In other words, the 10,000 parties is equivalent to about 26,000 visitors. 

Total expenditures per party for each type of use are about $30 for resident day trip, $44 for nonlocal day trip, and $85 for non-local overnight trip. The non-local overnight expenditure is 

reduced from the standard expenditure profile amount of $205 to convert the average trip length 

from 4.8 days to 2 days. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 66 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

Due to economic linkages in the economy, income is distributed among different sectors. The 

service sector is the most highly stimulated by tourism in the Gorge. It includes lodging, eating 

and drinking, and auto repair and service. Retail trade is the second most highly impacted sector 

(Morse & Anderson 1988). The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails project area does not have the capacity 

to fully capitalize in all of these areas. For instance, there is only one overnight accommodation 

in Lyle, and none in Klickitat. However, the opportunity exists for the local communities to 

expand into these niches. 

The response coefficients are summarized in the following table, for both the Klickitat County 

Model, and the Klickitat and Hood River Counties Model. 

Table 13: Recreation Related Economic Impacts 

Income Employment Multiplier 10,000 

Parties Direct Total Direct Total Income Employment 

 Klickitat County 

Day Trip $113,462 $141,447 8.3 9.5 1.25 1.14 

Overnight $256,116 $319,995 17.7 20.4 1.25 1.16 

Klickitat / Hood River Counties 

Day Trip $120,470 $164,916 8.6 10.6 1.37 1.23 

Overnight $271,591 $372,468 17.8 22.2 1.37 1.23 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

No development or maintenance costs are associated with Alternative 1. Very minor economic 

benefits would be expected from use of the trail. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail, and Alternatives 3 and 3, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail – Direct, 

Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

The following tables summarize the projected economic impacts of the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails. 

Table 14 displays the cost per user to develop the trail, taken over a 20-year trail life span. Table 

15 expresses the cost per user of annual operation costs. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 67 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

Table 14: Development Cost per user (over 20 years) Table 15: Annual O&M Cost per 

 user 

Alt 

Users 

per year 

Users in 

20 yrs 

Construction

Cost 

Cost/User

over 20 

years 

Alt 

Annual 

Cost 

Annual 

Users 

Annual 

Cost/User

Alt 1 unknown unknown 0 0 Alt 1 0 unknown 0 

Alt 2 49,654 993,080 $ 5,619,000 $5.66 Alt 2 $102,000 49,654 $2.05 

Alt 2a 44,876 897,520 $ 5,619,000 $6.26 Alt 2a $ 94,000 44,876 $2.09 

Alt 3 38,412 768,240 $ 5,019,000 $6.57 Alt 3 $ 66,000 38,412 $1.72 

Alt 3a 38,412 768,240 $ 3,983,000 $5.18 Alt 3a $ 56,000 38,412 $1.46 

Table 16 displays the recreation expenditures, income and employment that could be realized 

from the proposed trail, for both the Klickitat County Model, and the Klickitat and Hood River 

Counties Model. 

Table 16: Recreation Expenditures, Income and Employment 

 

Alternative 

Direct 

Expenditures 

Income 

Klickitat 

County 

Model

Income 

Klickitat and 

Hood River 

Counties 

Model

Employment 

(# of Jobs) 

Klickitat County 

Model

Employment 

(# of Jobs) 

Klickitat and 

Hood River 

Counties 

Model

Alt 1 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 

Alt 2 $458,300 $167,800 $195,500 11 12 

Alt 2a $385,500 $141,100 $164,500 9 10 

Alt 3 and 3a $287,000 $105,100 $122,500 7 8 

Figures are rounded to the nearest $100

Table 17 relates the benefits expressed in Table 16 to the costs of development and operations. 

For instance, Alternative 2 would realize the highest economic benefits, but is also the most 

expensive to develop and maintain. In Table 17, the dollar of direct expenditure and income 

realized is displayed for every dollar spent on trail development and operation. This table also 

displays results for both the Klickitat County Model, and the Klickitat and Hood River Counties 

Model. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 68 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

Table 17: Benefit / Cost per year (Development & O&M Costs) 

Alternative 

Direct 

Expenditures 

Klickitat County 

Model

Direct 

Expenditures

Klickitat and 

Hood River 

Counties 

Model

Income 

Klickitat 

County Model

Income 

Klickitat and 

Hood River 

Counties 

Model

Alt 1 unknown unknown unknown unknown 

Alt 2 1.09 1.09 0.60 0.70 

Alt 2a 1.01 1.08 0.54 0.63 

Alt 3 0.84 0.84 0.42 0.49 

Alt 3a 1.03 1.03 0.53 0.62 

Summary

The Klickitat Rails-to-trails project could bring anywhere from about $287,000 to about 

$458,000 in direct expenditures to the local economy, depending on the development alternative. 

Expenditures by recreationists could translate from about $105,000 to about $195,000 dollars in

income, and between 7 and 12 jobs. This economic activity could help the local area recover 

from the loss of other employment, such as the closure of Klickitat’s lumber mill. 

According to the 1998 Klickitat County Profile prepared by the Washington State Employment 

Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch, tourism is a relatively 

undeveloped area of enterprise in Klickitat County. The statewide tourism industry accounted 

for 3.9 percent of all statewide employment while in Klickitat it accounted for 2.4 percent. 

Klickitat County has many attractions to draw tourists, particularly the Columbia River Gorge. 

Employment in the travel-related, or tourism, industry is increasing in the county. For example, 

from 1993 to 1996, employment in this industry grew 14 percent, while total covered 

employment throughout the county grew by only 9 percent. The total payroll for the travel (or 

tourism) industry was estimated at $1.75 million in 1996. Given the attractions of Klickitat 

County and the Columbia River, the relatively sparse population of the county compared to the 

state, and the lesser share of tourism-related employment, the Employment Security Department 

concluded that tourism-related enterprise remains relatively undeveloped. 

Tourist-related industries include restaurants, food stores, gas stations, travel agents, etc. Jobs 

related to recreation and tourism tend to be lower paying and more seasonal than the lost timber 

industry jobs. However, the travel-tourism industry provides broad-based employment. 

Cumulative Effects

Many parts of the American West are becoming more urbanized, and open spaces are changing 

to rural residential. City people are moving to rural areas for a quieter pace, open spaces, natural 

surroundings and recreational opportunities. Klickitat County is part of this regional trend. 

Many new residents are moving to the county’s west end. The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails project 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 69 

3.3 Effects on Local Communities 

may act as an additional factor in this trend. Some recreationists drawn by the trail may decide 

to move to, or buy a second home in, the area. 

If the proposed trail contributes to recreation and second home purchases in the county, housing 

prices and property taxes could increase. The combination of lower wages and higher housing 

prices could contribute to loss of affordable housing in the Lyle-Klickitat area. 

Where these migrations patterns have occurred elsewhere, newcomers have sometimes brought 

values and demands different than the local culture. Some aspects of the rural way of life have 

changed in response. 

By attracting out-of-area recreationists, the Rails-to-Trails could influence these migration 

trends. The changes brought by these newcomers, however, are likely to continue with or 

without the Rails-to-Trails, since these migration patterns are part of a much bigger trend.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 70 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

3.4 EFFECTS ON NEARBY RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS

Existing Conditions 

Some 125 different property owners have land adjacent to the right-of-way, most of it privately 

held. Adjacent lands are tribal, federal (Bureau of Land Management), state (Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife) Klickitat County, Klickitat School District, Klickitat County 

Special Districts (e.g., PUD and Fire Department), and private. All land adjacent to the corridor 

in Swale Canyon is privately held. 

Concerns have been voiced by the Yakama Nation and private property holders, particularly 

nearby residents, and landowners who graze cattle and sheep. Concerns of the Yakama Nation 

are addressed in Section 3.6. 

Concerns have been expressed regarding the impact the trail could have on the quality of life and 

privacy for nearby residents, access over or along the right-of-way, and potential conflicts 

between recreationists and cattle or sheep. Numerous residences are adjacent to the rail corridor. 

Cattle and sheep are grazed in two segments of the corridor. Specific information is provided 

below for each of the four potential trail segments concerning number of residences, proximity 

of residences to the proposed trail and trailheads, existing access to residences, and cattle and 

sheep grazing. 

Segment 1: Lyle to Fisher Hill

Residences

Homes near the railbed are clustered in the Lyle area, and are found only in the first half-mile of 

the proposed trail. The right-of way is immediately west of SR 142, and three homes are located 

to the west of the right-of-way. Private access roads to these residences cross the railbed. 

Numerous homes are located east of SR142 in Lyle. A business is located across SR 14 from the 

proposed Lyle trailhead. 

Segment 2: Fisher Hill to Pitt 

This discussion focuses on the west side of the Klickitat River, since the trail is buffered to the 

east by the Klickitat River and SR142. 

Residences

One home is located within 100 ft of the railbed at almost trail mile 7. This home does not have 

road access; the residents use a cable over the river from SR142. About a half dozen homes are 

located west of the railbed from approximately trail mile 9 to trail mile 9 1/2. There are also 

several structures such as tepees and campers. One of these houses is well screened by 

vegetation from the trail, the other homes are within sight and sound of the railbed. These 

residents have a private road for vehicle access. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 71 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

A cluster of eight homes is located at Pitt. The railbed passes in front of one home, and then 

crosses SR142. This group of homes is located across SR142, and between 200 ft and 1,000 ft 

west of the proposed Pitt trailhead. 

Cattle Grazing

One landowner grazes cattle in this segment in the spring and early summer. The area is within 

Klickitat County designated Open Range. This means that it is lawful to allow livestock to run at 

large and it is incumbent upon landowners to fence off their lands if they do not wish livestock to 

enter it (RCW 16.24.010). However, state and federal lands are exempted from Open Range 

designation and livestock may run at large on such lands only when the owner of the livestock 

has been granted grazing privileges in writing (RCW 16.24.065). State Parks currently has not 

received any request to permit grazing on this right-of-way. 

The number of cattle and the timing of their use of the area varies from year to year. Very little 

of the land along the rail corridor is fenced, typically only the areas around existing houses. The 

rail corridor bisects grazing land and the Klickitat River, and cattle now move freely across the 

rail corridor. In at least one place of several thousand feet in length, cliffs limit any cattle from 

moving off the railbed. 

Segment 3a: Pitt to Klickitat 

Residences

Houses are located on both sides of the railbed in the Skookum Flat area. One house is relatively 

close to the railbed, the other houses are several hundred feet from the railbed, but within sight 

and sound of it. Numerous houses are near the railbed in Klickitat. Several residences are 

adjacent to the railbed on the southern end of Klickitat, then the railbed crosses SR142 and all 

residences are across the highway from the railbed until it enters the denser business/school area. 

In the core area of Klickitat the railbed is adjacent to the Klickitat School, businesses, and a few 

residences. The proposed Klickitat trailhead is not proposed near any residences; it would be 

located near the current school and businesses. 

Segment 3b and Segment 4: Klickitat to Warwick

Residences

The railbed is across SR142 from about a half dozen residences at Suburbia. The railbed crosses 

SR142 at Suburbia, and is then adjacent to the sixth house. The railbed is across Horseshoe 

Bend Road from one house at the proposed Wahkiacus trailhead. About two miles up Swale 

Canyon from Wahkiacus, the railbed is within sight and sound of several houses. These 

residents have a private road for vehicle access; a road crosses the railbed to access some of the 

houses. About three miles up Swale Canyon from Wahkiacus, the railbed is adjacent to one 

residence. This resident appears to use the railbed for vehicle access; it is not known if 

alternative vehicle access currently exists. 

Swale Canyon is not further populated until beyond Harms Road. One house is directly across 

the Lyle-Centerville Highway from the railbed at Warwick. The Warwick trailhead is proposed 

about a half mile east of the residence. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 72 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

Cattle and Sheep Grazing

Several landowners graze cattle, and one landowner grazes sheep, adjacent to the rail corridor. 

Much, but not all, of the grazed land adjacent to the right-of-way is fenced. The sheep operation 

is located adjacent to the proposed Warwick trailhead. The land is well fenced between the 

sheep operation and the railbed. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines 

No Land Use Regulations apply standards or guidelines relevant to this issue. SEPA requires an 

analysis of noise impacts, which is incorporated into the discussion of Environmental 

Consequences. 

Environmental Consequences 

Impacts to nearby residents and landowners are evaluated in terms of concerns regarding the 

impact the trail could have on the quality of life and privacy for nearby residents, adjacent 

landowner use of the right-of-way, and potential conflicts between recreationists and cattle or 

sheep. Quality of life and privacy are evaluated in terms of number of recreation users expected 

along the trail and at trailheads, and potential increased access for unlawful activity, such as 

trespass, crime, and vandalism. 

For Action Alternatives, the discussion begins with effects common to all action alternatives, 

then evaluates effects specific to certain segments. 

1) Recreation Users: The first category involves potential impacts to adjacent residents and 

landowners from recreation users lawfully on the trail. Potential impacts include noisy 

recreationists, more people in view from homes along the trail, users requesting services (such as 

telephone or water) from nearby residents, noisy dogs, dogs off leash entering private property 

(causing problems such as harassing landowners’ dogs or children), litter blowing onto private 

property, human sanitation, and potential for people to inadvertently wander off the trail onto 

private land. Impacts are evaluated both for the trail itself, and for the trailheads, where use 

would be concentrated. The potential for increased fire risk from recreationists is addressed in

Section 3.5. 

2) Increased Access for Unlawful Activity: The second category involves increased access to 

private property for deliberate illegal activities, such as deliberate trespass, crime and vandalism. 

3) Adjacent Landowner Use of the Right-of-Way: A third category involves use of the right-ofway for private property access, either across the railbed, parallel to it within the right-of-way, or 

along the railbed itself. Landowners may be interested in access for vehicles, boats, utilities, or 

other activities. 

4) Cattle and Sheep Grazing: A fourth category involves cattle and sheep grazing in Swale 

Canyon and along the Klickitat River between Fisher Hill and Pitt. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 73 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

The trail bed is in place and is public property. The right-of-way is technically open for public 

use (even though use is not encouraged). People are recreating on the railbed. There are no 

sanitation facilities either at trailheads or along the railbed. Public river access points are not 

designated, so users cannot tell if an access point is on public or private land. No measures to 

reduce trespass are incorporated into the “No Action” alternative. Low use is expected in this 

alternative, but there is no public information to differentiate public and private land. As a 

result, recreationists may inadvertently wander onto private land. There are no regulations to 

prohibit overnight use, use of fires, or smoking. The corridor is not patrolled by either the Forest 

Service or Washington State Parks. 

Dogs are not currently allowed without any required restraints, as per the conventional State 

Parks policy for its lands. Enforcement is presently sporadic, however. Recreationists’ dogs 

may bother cattle, or nearby residents. Recreationists and cattle both used the railbed in Spring 

2003, although recreation use was believed to be quite low. 

No designated trailheads exist to provide parking, toilet, phone, or other services. People 

currently park at the SR14/SR142 junction in Lyle, Fisher Hill, Pitt, Wahkiacus (off Schilling 

Road) and Harms Road to use the trail. 

Washington State Parks would continue to permit use of the Right-of-Way per its policies (see 

Appendix C). 

If the Forest Service does not undertake trail management, it is not known if another entity 

(Washington State Parks, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, or a partner of these entities) would 

manage the trail, and under what type of management strategy. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail, and Alternatives 3 and 3, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail – Direct, 

Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

The discussion begins with effects common to all action alternatives, then evaluates effects 

specific to certain segments. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

1) Recreation Users

A number of measures are proposed to help lessen impacts of trail users on nearby residents’ 

privacy. Adequate services (such as toilets) at trailheads would minimize recreationists asking 

residents for these services. Portable toilets on longer trail segments would reduce sanitation 

problems. Dogs would be leashed. 

Measures are incorporated into all “Action” alternatives to reduce trespass problems. The 

railbed would be posted “Stay on Trail”. Signing could be added where inadvertent trespass is 

found to be a problem. Klickitat River and Swale Canyon access points would be designated on 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 74 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

public lands to reduce river access temptation on private lands. Signs would be placed at river 

access point intersections with the main trail, as well as at some distance before the access point. 

Other measures include trailhead information regarding corridor width and private lands adjacent 

to the corridor, and trail patrols. Finally, public information would inform recreationists to 

respect private land and residents’ privacy. 

Short-term noise impacts would be generated from trail construction activities, which may 

include heavy machinery, blasting or crews or workers. Long-term noise impacts would be 

associated with noisy recreationists and increased traffic at trailheads. 

2) Increased Access for Unlawful Activity

Trespass, Crime, Vandalism: The railbed allows public access to properties on a route that was 

previously accessible by the railroad tracks. Relatively more trespass problems may be 

expected in the Action alternatives than in No Action simply from more people on the right-ofway. However, an alternate perspective maintains that increased use by law-abiding 

recreationists would deter people intent on illegal activity. The Action alternatives would 

provide more agency patrol of the railbed. The railbed surface would be improved to allow 

vehicular access on the railbed by law enforcement, thereby reducing response times to some 

remote locations. 

In other areas of the Columbia River Gorge where trail and recreation facilities are adjacent to 

residential areas, impacts to local residences are not considerable. For example, Park Rangers 

report that for sites such as the Beacon Rock State Park (WA) moorage facilities and Latourell 

State Park (OR), vandalism to nearby residences is virtually nonexistent (pers. comm.1992). In 

most cases, litter is confined to the recreation facility. 

Liability for Trespassers: Some landowners along the rail corridor are concerned they would be 

liable for injuries sustained by trail users who wander off the trail bed, out of the right-of-way, 

and on to private land. Since these individuals would be trespassing, a landowner owes no duty 

except to refrain from causing willful or wanton injury. In any event, the location of the trail is 

apparent and trail user would be asked to stay on the trail except at designated points on public 

land. It should be noted that Washington’s Recreation Use Statute, RCW 4.24.210, generally 

protects both public and private landowners from tort liability if they allow recreational use of 

their lands without charging a fee. 

Regardless of this protection against liability for injuries sustained by trespassers, landowners 

may have concerns with trespassing due to its possible interference with their use and enjoyment 

of their land. 

3) Adjacent Landowner Use of the Right-of-Way 

Washington State Park regulations allow some use of the right-of-way, by permit or easement. 

Permitted uses include vehicular access across the right-of-way, utility access across the right-ofway, and temporary use of the right-of-way adjacent to the trail. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 75 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

4) Cattle and Sheep Grazing 

Many other trails in the Pacific Northwest region have similar issues with recreationist/cattle 

interactions. On the Wenatchee National Forest, many trails run through cattle and sheep 

grazing allotments. Trail users can expect to see cows and cow pies. According to the 

Recreation Forester for the Wenatchee N.F., from 1986-1991, there were no reports of injuries to 

either livestock due to harassment by recreationist, or to trail users caused by livestock. All user 

complaints revolved around grazing in designated Wilderness areas. Similar complaints may 

arise along the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails corridor due to the Wild & Scenic River designation of 

the lower Klickitat River. However, grazing along this part of the river is not prohibited by this 

federal designation nor by the County’s Shorelines Management Plan. 

The Milwaukee Road, a Rails-to-Trails corridor from the Columbia River to the Idaho border in 

eastern Washington, permits grazing within the trail corridor itself by adjacent landowners. 

According to the managing agency, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Southeast 

Office in Ellensburg, there have been no injuries to recreational users of the Milwaukee Road 

caused by livestock since the trail opened over a decade ago. 

This issue is addressed more specifically in the discussions of Segments 2 and 4. 

Segment 1: Lyle to Fisher Hill

Trail Use: Estimates of trail use for this segment range from about 18 users per day on winter 

weekdays (10 local Lyle residents and 8 visitors) up to 92 users per day at peak use on summer 

weekends (10 local Lyle residents and 82 visitors). Peak use is expected to occur 25 days per 

year. Lyle residents are expected to use the trail for fitness and recreation, but not for 

transportation within the community, since the railbed is located on the edge of town. Ten or 

eleven Lyle residents a day are assumed to use the trail, which would translate into about 3,900 

uses per year by Lyle residents (10.6 users for 365 days). In all, about 16,000 users per year 

would use Segment 1 (again, of which about 3,800 uses are by Lyle residents during the year.) 

For the homes east of SR142, the sights and sounds of trail users would be similar to current 

traffic and pedestrian use, and would not be expected to be greater than existing noise generated 

by vehicles on the State highway. For the three homes west of SR142, human activity from the 

proposed trail would be higher than current low levels of use in Alternative 1. Dogs would be 

required to be leashed. Signs and user information asking users to respect residents’ privacy may 

help reduce these impacts. 

Lyle Trailhead: Traffic and human activity would increase near the Lyle trailhead over that of 

the current situation. Twenty-six parking spaces are proposed. At peak use (about 25 days per 

year, typically during summer weekends), 29 vehicles would enter and leave the trailhead. (It is 

expected that 90% of spaces (23) would get used once a day, the other 10% (3) would get used 

twice a day.) The number of vehicles is expected to be lower during other seasons and on 

weekdays. 

WSDOT reports an average daily traffic count (in year 2002) of 3000 on SR14 at the SR142 

junction, and 860 at the Junction of SR142 and Tacoma Avenue. Trailhead use would, at peak 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 76 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

use, add about an additional 0.1 % of vehicles to existing SR 14 traffic and about an additional 

3.3 % of vehicles to existing SR 142 traffic at this location. 

No homes are located within about 500 feet of the trailhead on the west side of SR142. Several 

homes are located within about 100 feet of the trailhead across SR142. The trailhead is proposed 

in an urban setting at the junction of two State highways. Other permitted uses at this location 

range from single-family dwellings to (conditionally) multi-family units, mobile home parks, 

school, or church. The proposed trailhead would generate traffic and activity similar to other 

possible uses. 

Segment 2: Fisher Hill to Pitt

Trail Use. For Alternatives 2 and 2a, estimates of use for this segment range from about 9 users 

per day on winter weekdays up to 104 per day at peak use on summer weekends. About 15,400 

users per year are estimated to use Segment 2. 

For Alternatives 3 and 3a, estimates of use for this segment range from about 12 users per day on 

winter weekdays up to 127 per day at peak use on summer weekends. About 18,800 users per 

year are estimated to use Segment 2. Peak use is expected to occur 25 days per year. 

The sight and sound of trail users would be evident to the residents between trail mile 7 and trail 

mile 9 1⁄2. Dogs would be leashed in this segment, which would reduce potential problems from 

dogs entering private property. A portable toilet would be located at about trail mile 3 1⁄2 cutting 

the distance between restrooms to about 6 1⁄2 miles (toilet at Pitt at trail mile 10, and at Lyle at 

trail mile 0). Signs and user information asking users to respect residents’ privacy may further 

help reduce these impacts. 

The trail would be located directly across SR142 from the Pitt residents. The trail west of SR142 

would pass in front of one the houses. East of SR 142, the trail would be relocated a short 

distance from the railbed, into the existing trees to provide screening for residents. Sounds and 

sights of trail users would be evident to Pitt residents, with most of the trail related activity 

across the highway from the residents. Signs and user information asking users to respect 

residents’ privacy may help reduce these impacts.

Pitt Trailhead: The Pitt trailhead was intentionally proposed as far east of the houses as 

topography and public ownership would allow to minimize impacts to residents. Residences at 

Pitt would range from about 200 ft to 1000 ft from the trailhead, although across SR142. 

Traffic and human activity would increase near the Pitt trailhead. Twenty-one parking spaces 

are proposed. At peak use (about 25 days per year, typically during summer weekends), 23 

vehicles would enter and leave the trailhead. (It is expected that 90% of spaces (19) would get 

used once a day, the other 10% (2) would get used twice a day.) The number of vehicles is 

expected to be lower during other seasons and on weekdays. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 77 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

WSDOT reports an average daily traffic count (in year 2002) of 690 at Pitt (the Klickitat River 

Bridge). Trailhead use would at, at peak use, add about an additional 3.3 % of vehicles to 

existing SR 142 traffic at the Pitt Trailhead. 

Cattle Grazing

Cattle are typically grazed in this segment between March and July. March, April and May are 

considered “shoulder season” for recreation use for this segment, and an average of about 31 

users per day (alternatives 2 and 2a) or 37 users per day (alternatives 3 and 3a) are expected to 

use the trail in the spring season. Use would be higher on weekends, and lower on weekdays. 

June and July are considered part of the “high season” for recreation use, with projections of 104 

people per day (alternatives 2 and 2a) or 127 users per day (alternatives 3 and 3a) on the trail; 

again, higher on weekends, and lower on weekdays. 

Dogs would be leashed. The public would be notified that the trail passes through private land, 

and that cattle are on the trail in certain seasons. The public would be asked to allow cattle time 

to move off the trail when they meet cattle. Over time, the cattle may learn to move across and 

along the trail when fewer people are using the trail, for instance early morning and evening. 

Segment 3a: Pitt to Klickitat

Trail Use. For Alternatives 2 and 2a, estimates of use for this segment range from about 47 users 

per day on winter weekdays up to 56 per day at peak use on summer weekends. About 19,000 

users per year are estimated to use Segment 2. For Alternatives 3 and 3a, estimates of use for 

this segment range from about 49 users per day on winter weekdays up to 79 per day at peak use 

on summer weekends. In Alternatives 2 and 2a, about 19,000 users per year are estimated to use 

Segment 2. Yearly estimates for Alternatives 3 and 3a are 22,400 users. Peak use is expected 

to occur 25 days per year. Dogs would be leashed in this segment. 

Segment 3 estimates a higher level of local use than any other segment. The railbed is located in 

the heart of Klickitat, and the trail would serve as a community pedestrian route. About 33 or 34 

Klickitat residents a day are assumed to use the trail, which would translate into about 12,200 

uses per year by Klickitat residents (33.36 users for 365 days). In addition, Klickitat school 

officials assumed about 20 school children use the railbed to get to school. Using a 176-day 

school year, school children would use the trail about 3,500 times per year. In all, about 19,000 

users per year would use segment 3, of which about 15,700 are by Klickitat residents during the 

year. 

In Klickitat, sights and sounds of trail users would be similar to current traffic and pedestrian 

use. At Skookum Flat, the sight and sound of trail users would be evident to residents. Signs 

and user information asking users to respect residents’ privacy may help reduce these impacts. 

Klickitat Trailhead: The trailhead would be located near the current school and businesses where 

traffic and human activity are expected. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 78 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

Segment 3a and Segment 4: Klickitat to Warwick: (Alternatives 2and 2a only)

Trail Use. Estimates of use for this segment range from about 9 users per day on winter 

weekdays up to 99 per day at peak use on spring weekends. In Alternative 2a, the trail would be 

closed from June 15 to September 30 of each year. Peak use is expected to occur 25 days per 

year. 

The sights and sounds of trail users would be evident to the Suburbia residences, with most of 

the trail related activity across the highway from the residents. People currently park near the 

trestle location at Suburbia to use the river. If Alternatives 2 or 2a were implemented, potential 

parking at the Suburbia trestle could be blocked to prevent an undesignated trailhead without 

user facilities, if monitoring indicated a safety problem or impact to neighbors. This action could 

improve resident privacy at Suburbia compared to Alternative 1. 

The sights and sounds of trail users would be evident to the one residence near the Wahkiacus 

trailhead, the residences in lower Swale Canyon, and the residence near the Warwick trailhead. 

Dogs would be leashed in this segment, which would reduce potential problems from dogs 

entering private property. Signs and user information asking users to respect residents’ privacy 

may help reduce these impacts. 

A portable toilet would be located at about trail mile 22 1⁄2, cutting the distance between 

restrooms to 6 miles (a toilet would be placed at Wahkiacus at about trail mile 16.5, and at 

Harms Road at about trail mile 28). 

Wahkiacus Trailhead: Traffic would increase on Horseshoe Bend Road and Schilling Road. 

Thirteen parking spaces are proposed. At peak use during spring weekends, 14 vehicles would 

enter and leave the trailhead. (It is expected that 90% of spaces (12) would get used once a day, 

the other 10% (1) would get used twice a day.) The number of vehicles is expected to be lower 

during other seasons and on weekdays. In Alternative 2a, the trail would be closed between June 

15 and September 30 of each year. People would still likely use the Wahkiacus trailhead to hike 

from Wahkiacus to near Suburbia. The house at Wahkiacus is vegetatively screened from the 

proposed trailhead, but sights and sounds of trail users would be evident to people in the house. 

Currently, an average of 46 vehicles a day use Horseshoe Bend Road and 22 vehicles a day use 

Schilling Road at Wahkiacus. 

Harms Road Trailhead: No residences are in the immediate vicinity of the Harms Road 

trailhead. 

Warwick Trailhead: Twenty-one parking spaces are proposed. At peak use during spring 

weekends, 23 vehicles would enter and leave the trailhead. (It is expected that 90% of spaces 

(19) would get used once a day, the other 10% (2) would get used twice a day). The number of 

vehicles is expected to be lower during other seasons and on weekdays. Currently, an average of 

140 vehicles a day use the Lyle-Centerville Highway at Warwick. 

The Warwick trailhead was intentionally located as far east of the Warwick house as possible, to 

the very end of the railbanked railbed to minimize impacts to residents. Traffic and activity 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 79 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

associated with the trailhead would be located about a half mile from the residence. While the 

trailhead would be located a half-mile east of the house, the trail would be located directly across 

the Lyle-Centerville Highway from the Warwick residents. Sights and sounds of trail users 

would be evident to these residents, with most of the trail related activity across the highway 

from the residents. Vegetative screening would be added adjacent to the trail across from the 

structures to help visually screen trail users. Signs and user information asking users to respect 

residents’ privacy may also help reduce these impacts. 

 

Cattle and Sheep Grazing

Cattle are typically grazed in this segment between March and July. March is part of the 

“shoulder season” for recreation use in this segment, and an average of about 29 users per day 

are expected to use the trail in March. Use would be higher on weekends, and lower on 

weekdays. April, May and June are considered the “high season” for recreation use, with 

projections of 99 people per day on the trail, again, higher on weekends, and lower on weekdays. 

In Alternative 2, July is considered part of the “low season” for recreation use, with about an 

average of 9 people per day expected to use the trail. In Alternative 2a, the trail would be closed 

in July. 

Dogs would be leashed. The public would be notified that the trail passes through private land, 

and that cattle are near the trail in certain seasons. 

Sheep are grazed adjacent to proposed Warwick trailhead and adjacent to the right-of-way 

between Uecker Road and the Lyle-Centerville Highway (about six-tenths of a mile). As 

discussed above, at peak use during spring weekends, about 23 vehicles would enter and leave 

the trailhead. Activity would be lower at other seasons and on weekdays. The right-of-way is 

currently well fenced adjacent to the sheep pasture. The property owner uses dogs in his 

operation. Recreationists’ dogs would be leashed at the Warwick trailhead and along the trail 

Recreationists would be informed to “Stay on Trail” and respect adjacent private property. 

Table 18 below summarizes expected levels of recreation use by season for the four trail 

segments. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 80 

3.4 Effects on Nearby Residents and Landowners 

Table 18: Recreation Users Per Day by Segment 

Segment

High Season 

25 days 

Shoulder 

Season 

153 days 

Low Season 

120 days 

Average 

Daily Use 

over the 

Year 

Alternative 2 2a 3,3a 2 2a 3,3a 2 2a 3,3a 2 2a 3,3a

1 - Lyle to Fisher Hill 1 92 92 92 35 35 35 18 18 18 44 44 44 

2 - Fisher Hill to Pitt 104 104 127 31 31 37 9 9 12 42 42 52 

3 - Pitt to Klickitat 2 56 56 79 54 54 60 47 47 49 52 52 62 

3a and 4 - Klickitat to Warwick 99 63 n/a 29 22 n/a 9 9 n/a 40 27 n/a 

Notes: 1: Includes 10 Local Lyle residents per day 

 2: Includes 34 Local Klickitat residents per day, and 20 school children per day during the 

school year 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 81 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

3.5 SAFETY, EMERGENCY RESPONSE, FIRE MANAGEMENT, 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Existing Conditions 

Safety 

Numerous safety hazards have been identified. The trestles have broken ties, and lack safety 

railings. The trail crosses State Route 142 three times, and it borders the highway in places 

without guardrails or fences. The trail crosses four county roads. Rocks and debris slide or fall 

onto the trail. Rattlesnakes inhabit Swale Canyon. There are no designated parking areas. 

Parking in some user-defined parking areas (such as Fisher Hill) is creating safety hazards where 

cars partially park within the travel lanes. 

Vehicle Access for Emergency Response

While much of the rail bed is at least 10-12 feet wide and while this allows emergency response 

access, there are no existing turnouts (where emergency vehicles can meet and pass one another) 

and no existing areas where vehicles can turn around. Emergency responders have one way in 

(access) and one way out (egress). This translates to either a reluctance to commit critical 

resources in the amount required for aggressive initial attack or knowingly placing firefighters in 

harm’s way (if egress is blocked they would be trapped). Existing trestles along the railbed lack 

guardrails and decking, and some of the timbers show evidence of both external and internal rot. 

In their current condition the trestles would not support emergency response vehicles. 

Vehicle access is described for the trail segments. 

Segment 1: Lyle to Fisher Hill

The rail corridor is adjacent to SR142. 

Segment 2: Fisher Hill to Pitt

Along the west side of the lower Klickitat River, the only current vehicle access is the existing 

rail-bed. Rocky and wet surface conditions, washouts and slumps block vehicle access for about 

4 1⁄2 miles between trail miles 3 1⁄2 and 8. Past flooding has reduced some areas to less than 

vehicle width. 

Segment 3: Pitt to Wahkiacus

From Pitt to Suburbia, the rail corridor is adjacent to or quite close to SR142. 

From Suburbia to Wahkiacus, the corridor can only be reached from Wahkiacus, since the trestle 

has been removed at Suburbia. In this stretch, the condition of the railbed is too poor to allow 

vehicle access. 

Segment 4: Wahkiacus to Warwick

The existing railbed is the only access for much of Swale Canyon. A private road reaches the 

railbed about two miles up from Wahkiacus (about trail mile 18 1⁄2), and Harms Road crosses the 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 82 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

corridor at about trail mile 28.3. The railbed is drivable to up to about trail mile 21. While much 

of the railbed above mile 21 is drivable, access is blocked at the upper end near Harms Road by a 

damaged trestle. A side road leads into the canyon at about trail mile 27. 

Emergency Response Times

Emergency notification times within the proposed project area would vary based on type of 

emergency, time of day, and location of incident. Swale Canyon poses the greatest challenge 

with little cellular telephone and radio communications coverage. As a result, the recreating 

public would be required to hike, bike, or ride to the nearest telephone to report an emergency. 

This could take as long as two hours in some locations. 

 

Emergency Response times would vary with the season, time of day, location and type of 

incident. Local volunteer fire departments would be among the first to respond and would 

typically be the closest resources for emergency medical and fire incidents. Response times may 

be as short as 15 minutes near the communities of Lyle and Klickitat and may exceed 90 minutes 

in the heart of Swale Canyon. 

Patient transportation time would likewise vary with location. Estimated transport times to 

Skyline Hospital (White Salmon, Washington), Klickitat Valley (Goldendale, Washington), or 

Mid-Columbia Medical Center (The Dalles, Oregon) would range from 30-90 minutes once a 

patient has been stabilized. 

Elapsed time from the point of injury through notification, response, patient stabilization, and 

transportation would range between 1 and 5 hours. 

Communications

Neither the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area nor the local volunteer fire departments 

have a radio repeater that provides coverage for much of the lower Klickitat River or Swale 

Canyon. As a result, radio communications are spotty to nonexistent in large portions of those 

drainages. Cellular telephone coverage is likewise poor in both areas. 

The Forest Service is considering (as an action separate from this proposal) placing a shared 

radio repeater on the summit of the Columbia Hills north of Dallesport, Washington. 

Fire Condition

Both the Klickitat River and Swale Creek are in steep canyons (slope has the second greatest 

influence over a fire’s rate and direction of spread; absent wind, slope is the primary factor) with 

frequent basalt cliffs that support a variety of fuels ranging from Douglas-fir in the lower 

portions of the drainages to rolling grasslands on the Goldendale Plateau. By mid-June the 

primary fire carriers: cheatgrass and the majority of the native grasses have cured and are 

available to burn. Winds are the single largest factor dictating rate and direction of fire spread 

and both drainages are heavily influenced by Columbia Gorge winds. These winds are 

characterized by strong westerlies from May through September and east wind episodes, which 

begin in the fall and last throughout the winter. In short, the Affected Environment is extremely 

“fire friendly.” 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 83 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

Fire History

During the period analyzed (1982-1991) there were twenty-one recorded fires within the Railsto-Trails corridor all of which were human-caused Fire frequency in the wildland environment 

depends upon an area's vegetation, topography, climate, and the coincidence of ignitions with 

weather and fuel moisture conditions that allow a fire to burn. Historically, lightning has been a 

significant source of wildfire ignition in the area; yet the highest risk of, and most damaging, 

wildfires have been associated with human activity. None of these fires were attributed to the 

railroad. 

Responsible Agencies for Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Response

Fire suppression and emergency medical response in the Rails-to-Trails corridor is location -

specific and falls to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Forest 

Service at the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Lyle Volunteer Fire Department 

(VFD), High Prairie VFD, Klickitat VFD, and Centerville VFD. All of these departments 

would respond to wildfires as well as to Emergency Medical Service calls. In addition, the 

ambulances from White Salmon and Goldendale respond from the hospitals, and potentially The 

Dalles if there were multiple injuries. 

Law Enforcement

The Forest Service currently has no law enforcement jurisdiction on the right-of-way and 

provides no trail patrols. Law enforcement is under the jurisdiction of Washington State Parks, 

Washington State Patrol and Klickitat County. 

Search and Rescue and Technical Rescue 

Search and Rescue responsibilities within Klickitat County rest with the county sheriff’s 

department. The Klickitat County Sheriff’s Department maintains a search and rescue program 

that responds from Goldendale, Washington. Response times for search and rescue teams can be 

significantly longer than those listed above. 

Local volunteer fire departments are not trained in, and lack the equipment for, technical search 

and rescue missions. This includes high angle and water rescues. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

Safety 

No safety measures, such as bridge decking, safety rails or designated highway crossings would 

be implemented by the Forest Service in the “No Action” alternative. No trailheads would be 

developed, so trail users would continue to park in undesignated areas. 

Vehicle Access for Emergency Response

Emergency responders can reach the trail from SR142 in the sections between Lyle and Fisher 

Hill and between Pitt and Suburbia. No improvements would be made to the railbed or trestles. 

In their current condition the trestles would not support emergency response vehicles. The 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 84 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

railbed is not currently drivable for the whole length between Fisher Hill and Pitt, or the whole 

length of Swale Canyon. 

Fire Prevention and Suppression 

The trail is currently open to public use, but few fire prevention measures are in place. Recorded 

fires in this area (1982-1991) were demonstrated to be human caused. Therefore, with increased 

trail access to the canyon since removal of the railroad tracks, there is a potential for an increased 

number of fire starts. Washington State Parks closed Swale Canyon in July 2003 to reduce fire 

risk. 

The current state of the railbed prevents driving on it for about 4 1⁄2 miles between Fisher Hill 

and Pitt, and for about 7 miles between Wahkiacus and Harms Road. As a result, response times 

would be slower than in Alternatives 2 and 2a, and 3 and 3a, particularly in Swale Canyon, 

which would be improved to allow emergency access for its entire length. The combination of 

potential increased number of fire starts described above, and continued slow response time 

could translate to larger and more destructive fires than alternatives 2 and 2a, and 3 and 3a. 

In the short-term, no public evacuation plan would be developed. No helicopter-landing zones 

would be identified. 

Communications 

In the No-Action alternative, there is a much lower chance of a shared repeater being placed on 

the Columbia Hills than with Alternatives 2 and 2a, and 3 and 3a. As a result the initial attack 

fire and medical first responders would be placed at higher risk than with the Action alternatives. 

Law Enforcement

The current low level of use may correspond to a low number of law enforcement incidents. 

From some perspectives, however, a higher number of people on the trail could deter illegal 

activity. Law enforcement would occur only in response to incidents. No trail patrol would be 

provided to deter illegal activity in this alternative. 

Search and Rescue and Technical Rescue 

The current low level of use may correspond to a lower number of search and rescue incidents 

than the Action alternatives. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail, and Alternatives 3 and 3, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail – Direct, 

Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

Safety 

In all “Action” alternatives, safety would be enhanced by re-decking the entire width of the 

trestles and adding safety railings. 

Where the trail crosses or is adjacent to Highway 142, designated crossings and safety barriers 

would meet all applicable WSDOT safety standards. Access roads from SR 142 for the Lyle, 

Pitt and Klickitat trailheads would meet all applicable WSDOT safety standards. Similarly, 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 85 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

where the trail crosses county roads, designated crossings would meet all applicable Klickitat 

County safety standards. Access roads from county roads to the Klickitat, and to the Wahkiacus, 

Harms Road and Warwick trailheads (Alternatives 2 and 2a only) would meet all applicable 

Klickitat County safety standards. 

The trail could provide a safe place for community members, including school children walking 

to school. The trail would be safer for bicyclists than the narrow, winding SR142. Road bikes 

are more likely to use the trail in Alternatives 3 and 3a than in Alternatives 2 and 2a, due to the 

harder surface. Bicycles may use county roads connecting to the proposed trail as loop 

opportunities. Bicycle use may grow on these roads, increasing bicycle/vehicular conflicts. 

Alternatives 2and 2a only: Swale Canyon is rather remote and has hazards such as rattlesnakes. 

However, the trail itself can be used as an emergency vehicle access route in the canyon. 

Vehicle access makes this remote trail segment safer than for many National Forest trails. Trail 

users are generally aware that hiking in remote locations poses some risk, and many are prepared 

for the risk. 

Vehicle Access for Emergency Response

Emergency responders can reach the trail from SR142 in the sections between Lyle and Fisher 

Hill and between Pitt and Suburbia. 

Improvements between Fisher Hill and Pitt would make the railbed drivable for all but a 3 1⁄2 

mile stretch between approximately trail mile 4 1⁄2 and trail mile 8. In the current condition, the 

rail bed is not drivable for about 4 1⁄2 miles. Turnarounds would be located on either end of this 

constricted area. One-way traffic would not be possible in this section. Smaller vehicles such as 

ORVs may provide some limited vehicular response in this section. 

Bollards or gates rather than permanent barriers would prevent unauthorized vehicular access 

through the proposed trail corridor, while allowing access for cooperating fire and emergency 

medical responders. 

Alternatives 2and 2a only: The railbed would not be drivable between Suburbia to Wahkiacus. 

However, adding a trail bridge at Suburbia would speed access to this section of trail. In 

addition, smaller vehicles such as ORVs may provide some limited vehicular response in this 

section. 

Improvements in Swale Canyon would make the trestles and railbed drivable for the entire 

section between Warwick and Wahkiacus. The proposed 12-foot wide trail surface and 32-foot 

wide turnouts a minimum of every two miles would mitigate many of the access and egress 

concerns. The 12-foot width would allow a one-way traffic pattern to be established in the event 

of an emergency incident. One-way traffic patterns facilitate significant improvements in safety 

and increased efficiency. 

Fire Prevention and Suppression 

Both alternatives would generate an increased amount of public use and, over time, an increased 

chance of number of fire starts and emergency medical responses. However, many fire 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 86 

3.5 Safety, Emergency Response, Fire Management, Law Enforcement 

prevention measures would be implemented to reduce fire risk. Many safety improvements 

would be implemented to reduce risk to users. 

Improvement of the trestles and railbed would speed response considerably compared to the No 

Action alternative. The rail bed would be drivable for all but 3 1⁄2 miles between Fisher Hill and 

Pitt (compared to 4 1⁄2 miles in Alternative 1). 

Alternatives 2and 2a only: The railbed would be drivable for the entire length between 

Wahkiacus and Warwick. A public evacuation plan would be developed with the jurisdictional 

fire agencies in order to clear Swale Canyon in the event of a running wildfire. Two potential 

helicopter-landing zones for such emergency evacuation have been identified in Swale Canyon. 

In the event of a fire between Fisher Hill and Pitt, recreation users would have access to the 

Klickitat River. 

Alternative 2a only: The trail would be closed between July 15 and September 30 of each year. 

This time period corresponds to the season of highest fire risk. This alternative would have a 

lower fire risk than Alternative 2. 

Communications 

The Forest Service is considering (as an action separate from this proposal) placing a shared 

radio repeater on the summit of the Columbia Hills north of Dallesport, Washington. If the 

proposed repeater is put in place, it would provide full coverage for the proposed trail area. 

The USDA Forest Service requires that all field-going personnel be able to maintain radio 

contact with their home unit or a dispatch organization at all times while in the field. This applies 

to administrative personnel, fire crews, and trail crews. If the Forest Service begins trail 

management before the repeater is in place, a human repeater would be used in an emergency. 

A human repeater is a person placed on a high point so that a radio can hit an existing repeater 

and contact the folks on the ground via a line-of-site or direct radio frequency). 

Law Enforcement

Higher levels of public use could correspond to a higher number of law enforcement incidents. 

Because Alternatives 2 and 2a would generate more use than Alternatives 3 and 3a, they could 

have more impact on law enforcement agencies. From some perspectives, however, a higher 

number of people on the trail could deter illegal activity. Trail patrol would be provided to deter 

illegal activity in the Action alternatives. 

Search and Rescue and Technical Rescue 

Higher levels of public use could correspond to a higher number of search and rescue incidents. 

Because Alternatives 2 and 2a would generate more use than Alternatives 3 and 3a, they could 

have more impact on search and rescue agencies. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 87 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

3.6 CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL 

NATIVE AMERICAN USES

Introduction 

The sensitive nature of archaeological resources will limit the discussion of the specific sites and 

locations of such sites within the project area. A cultural resource inventory (“Rails to Trails - 

Klickitat River EA”) was conducted in 1995 by Michael Boynton. The report is on file at the 

National Scenic Area Office in Hood River, Oregon. Based on the results of Mr. Boynton’s 

inventory, a second inventory was initiated in 2003. The 2003 report, “A Cultural Resource 

Inventory of the Klickitat Railroad Trail” will disclose specific site descriptions, locations and 

potential effects. This document will be part of the Section 106 Process under the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

Additionally, a Programmatic Agreement was developed between the Advisory Council for 

Historic Preservation, USDA, Forest Service – Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Washington State Historic 

Preservation Officer. The agreement was signed in 1996 and addresses implementation of the 

Klickitat Rails-to-Trails Project. This agreement states that “upon adoption as a National 

Recreation Trail, the Forest Service will ensure that the following measures are carried out: 

...conduct an archaeological survey, ...evaluate properties, ...develop a Heritage Plan, and 

....submit an annual report.” 

Existing Condition

Two cultural resource types will be addressed within the context of this analysis, archaeological 

sites (historic and prehistoric sites) and traditional use areas of the Yakama Nation. 

Archaeological sites include a number of prehistoric and historic-era Indian encampment sites, a 

reported petroglyph and isolated finds. Historic-era archeological sites include the Klickitat 

Railroad and associated railroad sites, Pitt Mill, and various historic occupation sites. At least a 

dozen historic and prehistoric sites have been identified within the railroad right-of-way or 

adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Most of the sites have been impacted by historic uses going back over 100 years. Impacts have 

included events such as: railroad construction, road construction, road and railroad maintenance, 

road use, trampling from people and animals, mixing and compaction, erosion and deposition 

from flood events, and looting. 

Archaeological site 45KL218 has been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places in 1988. 

A Yakama Nation traditional fishing site is located at the area known as the hatchery at Fisher 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 88 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

Hill. The fishing site is outside the National Scenic Area boundary, but within the Klickitat Wild 

and Scenic River boundary. This has long been a traditional fishing site for members of the 

Yakama Nation. It is the site of the First Foods Ceremony in May. The people of the Yakama 

Nation place great importance on this area. There is also a modern Yakama cemetery outside, 

but near, the railroad corridor. 

It is likely that this fishing site will be determined to meet the criteria of eligibility as a 

Traditional Cultural Property. The National Register Bulletin “Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties” states:

“A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one that is eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or 

beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are 

important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Various kinds 

of traditional cultural properties will be discussed, illustrated, and related specifically to 

the National Register Criteria.” 

The traditional fishing site is well known in the surrounding communities. The Yakama Nation 

erects an Indian long house each year and invites visitors to the First Foods Feast. The First 

Foods ceremonies, however, are more private and the public is not invited. The fishing activities 

can be viewed from Highway 142, to the east. There is also an open public road within a few 

feet of the site of the ceremonies. Yakama people have experienced vandalism of their fishing 

equipment by unknown persons. There have been no reports of vandalism or intrusions into the 

fishing area or First Foods Ceremonies from individuals clearly associated with the railroad trail. 

The Yakama Indian people use the cemetery. Given the location and setting of the cemetery, it 

remains a private site with few intrusions. The cemetery is accessible from an open county road. 

When people are gathered in the cemetery, they may be visible from the road. The cemetery is 

approximately 100 feet from the edge of the railroad right-of-way. It is likely that few visitors 

have noticed its presence. There have been no reports of vandalism or public intrusions into the 

cemetery. 

The railroad right-of-way was railbanked by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC). In 1994, 

The RTC donated the corridor to Washington State Parks and Recreation (retaining a right of 

entry and recovery if State Parks opts out). While the trail is not being advertised or promoted by 

Washington State Parks, it is considered public land and is open public right-of-way. An 

unknown number of hikers and bicycle riders have used the trail since it has been “banked”. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines

A. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan 

Applies between the Lyle Urban Area Boundary and the National Scenic Area boundary 

(approximately the Fisher Hill trestle). The applicable standards are quoted below from Chapter 

2 - Cultural Resources. for the General Management Area. 

The GMA goals are two fold: 1. Protect and enhance cultural resource and 2. Ensure that 

proposed uses do not have an adverse effect on significant cultural resources. The following 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 89 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

National Scenic Area Guidelines apply to the first 1.6 miles of the railbed: 

GMA Guidelines: 

• Tribal Governments shall be notified that cultural resources exist in the project area and 

shall be granted time to comment. 

• Ethnographic research shall be required if requested in writing by interested persons. 

• Small-scale uses shall generally require a surface survey and subsurface testing if the 

surface survey reveals that cultural resources may be present. 

• Large-scale uses shall require a reconnaissance survey conducted by a qualified 

professional. 

• Survey reports shall be sent to SHPO and Indian tribal governments (30 day comment 

period). 

• Local government shall make a final decision on whether the proposed use would be 

consistent wit the cultural resource goals, policies, and guidelines. 

• The cultural resource protection process may conclude when one of the following 

conditions exists: 

- The proposed use does not require a reconnaissance or historic survey. 

- A survey demonstrates that cultural resources do not exist. 

- The use would avoid archaeological resources and traditional cultural properties in 

the project area. 

- A reasonable buffer zone must be established around the affected resources or 

properties and all ground-disturbing activities shall be prohibited within the buffer 

zone. 

- An evaluation of significance shall be conducted if the affected cultural resource is 

not avoided. 

B. The Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

Applies from the trail beginning in Lyle to river mile 11. 

There are four broad goals specific to the lower Klickitat River. Most applicable to the cultural 

resources is Goal 1 which states: “To protect and seek opportunities to enhance outstandingly 

remarkable resources in the river corridor: the river’s free-flowing character; resident and 

anadromous fish and their habitat; Native American dip-net fishing; and the geology of the lower 

gorge. (Appendix B-3). 

More specific goals were also presented and include: 

Goal 9: “...dip-net fishing as an outstandingly remarkable value. Any actions taken will help 

protect the physical and biological components of this use—the gorge, the fish, and the dip-net 

platforms”. The Goal also suggests that a more-detailed inventory is needed to identify and 

evaluate additional sites. Further, the Yakima Treaty of 1855 states: 

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering 

said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as 

also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the 

citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; together 

with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and 

cattle upon open and unclaimed land.” 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 90 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

Figure 4: Native American dipnet fishing 

on the Klickitat River 

Image ID: fish0763, Fisheries Collection 

Location: Columbia River, Washington 

Photo Date: 1968 October 

Photographer: Bob Williams 

Figure 5: Native American dipnet fishing on the 

Klickitat River 

Image ID: fish0764, Fisheries Collection 

Location: Columbia River, Washington 

Photo Date: 1968 October 

Photographer: Bob Williams 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 91 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

Under this alternative, the trail would not be adopted as a National Recreation Trail by the Forest 

Service. The Forest Service would not manage the railbed as a trail. Consequently it is not a 

federal undertaking and there would be no effect to cultural resources under the Section 106 

process. 

Sect. 800.1 Purposes. 

 (a) Purposes of the section 106 process. Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and afford the Council a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on such undertakings. The procedures in this part define how Federal agencies 

meet these statutory responsibilities. The section 106 process seeks to accommodate 

historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings through 

consultation among the agency officials and other parties with an interest in the effects of 

the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of project 

planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by 

the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any 

adverse effects on historic properties. 

Federal protections would continue within the National Scenic Area (2 miles), and within the 

Klickitat Wild and Scenic Corridor (10.5 miles). State of Washington cultural resource 

protections would apply to all 31 miles as long as the railbed is owned by Washington State 

Parks. Should the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy resume administration of the railbed or should 

the railbed revert to private ownership. Washington State Statute RCW 27.53 would apply. The 

statute reads: 

RCW 27.53.060 (1) "On the private and public lands of this state it shall be unlawful for 

any person, firm, corporation, or any agency or institution of the state or a political 

subdivision thereof to knowingly remove, alter, dig into, or excavate by use of any 

mechanical, hydraulic, or other means, or to damage, deface, or destroy any historic or 

prehistoric archeological resource or site, or remove any archeological object from such 

site, . . . without having obtained a written permit from the director for such activities." It 

is also a class C felony to violate this statute. 

This statute does not require the same inventory process required during Federal actions. 

The effects of this alternative are most easily compared to the other action alternatives. Federal 

regulations would only apply within the first 10.5 miles of the trail (under the NSA act and the 

WSR Act.) The No Action Alternative would have one of three possible outcomes: 1) WSP 

would continue ownership and management of the railbed as public property, 2) Rails-to-Trails 

Conservancy would resume ownership and manage the railbed as a trail directly or through a 

second not-for-profit party, or 3) the railbed would revert to private ownership. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 92 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

If Washington State Parks maintains ownership and management of the railbed, protections to 

cultural resource sites would likely continue at a high level of attention. Ground-disturbing 

actions would be reviewed for the potential to affect cultural resource sites. Monitoring and site 

protection would occur. Traditional Use areas would be protected by the WSP as part of its 

overall mission as well as having some protections through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

If Rails-to-Trails Conservancy manages the trail, directly or through a second party, less 

attention would likely be given to potential affects to cultural resource sites. Two of the 31 miles 

of trail would fall under Forest Service review that would offer some protection from adverse 

effects. Traditional Use areas would have some protections through the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, but would be more vulnerable to all types of effects. 

If the railbed becomes private land, only those actions requiring County planning approval would 

be reviewed. Only the first approximately 1.6 miles of the railbed, within the National Scenic 

Area, would require federal review and compliance. Traditional Use areas would have some 

protections through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, but would be more vulnerable to all types of 

effects. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

Under these alternative, the trail would a more primitive trail. It would be four feet wide for its 

entire length and there would be six trailheads constructed. The low speed of transport by 

increasing the level of difficulty would have the tendency to slow passage through the area, and 

increase the opportunity for people to take notice of off-trail features. Use level is anticipated to 

be moderate, however. Cultural resource sites occur with the railroad right-of-way as well as 

occur adjacent to it. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail- Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

Alternatives 3 and 3a would only develop the first 13-1⁄2 miles (Lyle to Klickitat) of the trail and 

there would be only three trailheads developed. Much of the trail would either be paved or 

would have a hardened surface suitable for wheelchairs, strollers, and street bikes. Visitor use 

would be moderate and the hard surface would tend to encourage higher speed pedestrian and 

bicycle use. Cultural resource sites occur within the railroad right-of-way as well as adjacent to 

it. With such use, there is much less likelihood of people wandering off the trail and stumbling 

upon cultural resources. 

The type of effects to individual cultural resource sites is the same under each alternative. 

Differences between the alternatives occur in the number of miles of trail exposed to the public 

and the amount of construction for trailheads. 

The following assessment of effects applies to Alternatives 2 and 2a, and 3 and 3a. 

Federal involvement in management of the railroad trail would require compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act. Any and all actions that could cause effects to cultural 

resource sites and Traditional Cultural Properties would be reviewed under the 106 Process. The 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 93 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

greatest attention to archaeological, historical and traditional resources would occur with Federal 

management of this railbed as a trail. Alternatives 2 and 2a, being longer, would encompass 

more sites than Alternatives 3 and 3a. Federal administration could offer more techniques to 

mitigate adverse effects. It is likely that more monitoring would occur of archaeological and 

historical sites under the Action alternatives by the presence of a “Trail Ranger”. 

Use of the railbed, with surfacing described in the alternatives, would have no direct effect to 

significant historical or archaeological sites. Of the 25 historic and archaeological sites found 

within the area of potential effect, two occur within the railbed. The railroad bed is an element 

of the historic railroad itself. The eligibility evaluation proposes that the railbed lacks physical 

integrity and use of the railbed as a trail would have no effect or no adverse effect on the site. 

There is also a small flake scatter within the railroad bed. This site is not considered eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

 

Construction of access points (trailheads and bridges) has the potential to directly affect 

historical and or archaeological sites. Impacts could include excavation, compaction, or 

displacement of artifacts or features. Alternatives 2 and 2a would have an adverse effect on one 

archaeological site. Mitigation: data recovery is proposed to collect data that would be lost with 

implementation of either of these two alternatives. The Forest Service would consult with 

interested Tribes and with the State Historic Preservation Officer, following the Section 106 

process, to mitigate any adverse effects to this archaeological site. Alternatives 3 and 3a would 

have no adverse effects to cultural resource sites. 

Use of the railbed would have some short-term effects to historical or archaeological sites. 

Phased construction of the trail and trailhead facilities would allow for use of the trail and 

parking at trailheads before construction is complete. It is possible that some trail users might 

recognize archaeological material that is on the surface. Vehicles would also be allowed to park 

at designated access points. There should be some additional trampling of the sites or 

compaction of the sediments from this use. These effects would be lessened when the trail 

surfacing is completed and the trail heads have been constructed. Most archaeological resources 

would become less noticeable with improved surfacing. 

The short-term effect on the Traditional use area at Fisher Hill would be the increase number of 

people passing by during fishing season and during ceremonies. 

Use of the railbed could have indirect effects to historical or archaeological sites that are adjacent 

to the trail. Trail users who wander off the trail could knowingly or unknowingly have an effect 

on the archaeological and historical sites through ground-disturbing activities, most likely 

digging. Day-use only restrictions would eliminate most reasons for trail users to use a shovel or 

to do any digging. 

The indirect effect on the Traditional use area at Fisher Hill would be the increased number of 

people who pass by during fishing season and during ceremonies who become aware of the 

Indian fishing area and of their ceremonies. Some fishermen could perceive people using the 

trail as gawking or harassing. The fishing area is not visible from the trail route, but is visible 

from SR 142. Passing through on the right-of-way does not constitute an infringement upon 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 94 

3.6 Cultural/Historical Resources and Traditional Native American Uses 

treaty uses of the site. Any trespass onto the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife land 

would have to be addressed by the Department. However, currently, the lands are not posted or 

under any type of administrative closure. 

Issues raised concerning trail use adjacent to the Traditional fishing area include: potential of 

vandalism of fishing equipment, intrusion on private ceremonies and harassment of the 

fishermen by the trail users who go off the trail. Several mitigation measures are possible and 

could be implemented at the request of the Tribal government: 

• Visibility of the fishing area could be screened by adding vegetation along the edges of 

the railbed. 

• Use of this segment during the annual First Foods Ceremony could be controlled by trail

closure by the Forest Service if it becomes a problem. The First Foods Feast is 

traditionally open to all comers as a celebration of the return of life, although this could 

change if the Native American community feels harassed. 

Use of the railbed by trail users could also have an indirect effect on the adjacent Indian 

cemetery. The cemetery is approximately 100 feet outside the railroad right-of-way. During 

winter leaf-off, the cemetery is partially visible from the railbed. An issue has been raised that 

trail users might interrupt non-public ceremonies. Should disruptions occur: 

• Vegetative screening could be used to block visibility of the cemetery from the trail. 

An issue was raised that a cultural resource inventory had not been completed for this project and 

that there were archaeological sites that have not been identified by the Forest Service, which 

therefore might be adversely affected by the implementation of this proposal. This issue applies 

equally to Alternative 2 and 2a, and 3 and 3a. 

• A more complete cultural resource inventory was implemented in 2003 when the 

environmental assessment process was reinitiated after a 5-year hiatus. 

• A professional archaeologist has conducted additional research in the areas identified as 

having undocumented cultural resource sites. 

The 106 Process, of the National Historic Preservation Act, will guide the process to record, 

evaluate and assess effects to significant cultural resource sites. 

Cumulative Effects

Impementation of either alternative 2 or 2a would result in the adverse effect to one 

archaeological site. Data recovery would be implemented to mitigate for the adverse effect, 

however, part of this archaeological site would be obliterated by either of these alternatives. 

Use of the railbed could have long-term and cumulative effects to historical or archaeological 

sites that are adjacent to the trail. Continued trail use and use of trailheads could create an 

impact zone outside of the initially created trail or trailhead. Likely long-term effects would 

include trampling and perhaps some mixing of sediments if muddy conditions are present. Foot 

traffic, wheeled vehicles or horses could cause such impacts. 

The long-term and cumulative effects on the Traditional use area at Fisher Hill would be the 

increase number of people who become aware of the Indian fishing area and of their ceremonies. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 95 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

3.7 NATURAL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Existing Conditions 

Klickitat River

Water and Soil Resources

The Klickitat River is the second longest free-flowing river in the State of Washington. The 

mainstem is nearly 96 miles long, from the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area to the Columbia River. 

The river has a drainage area of over 13,000 square miles. Most rivers of this size in the 

northwest have at least one dam along their course. The Klickitat's free-flowing character 

provides cultural, scientific, educational, recreational, and fish and wildlife benefits. Rivers 

whose flow is not impounded provide opportunities to observe the natural cycle of flood and 

scouring along with relatively unaltered streamside vegetation.

Approximately 90 percent of the lower Klickitat River yearly flows come from its upper 

watershed in western Yakima County, including the eastern slopes of Mount Adams, where 

annual precipitation exceeds 100 inches. The remaining 10 percent of the lower river flows 

come from the Little Klickitat and other smaller tributaries draining lower elevations in Klickitat 

County. The annual hydrograph of the Klickitat River is characterized by a steady increase in 

flows during the wet winter season, rising to maximum average monthly flows during spring 

snowmelt. However, rain-on-snow events during the winter months are the major cause of peak, 

instantaneous, flows. The most recent major floods occurred in December 1964, January 1974, 

and February 1996. 

A Log Pearson III analysis of 75 years of flow records (through water year 1999) indicates a 

100-yr event at the lower Klickitat River near Pitt gauge to be about 47,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) and a 50-yr event at 37,000 cfs. The February 8, 1996 peak was 51,000 cfs and equivalent 

to a 125-yr event. The January 15, 1974 peak was about seven tenths of a foot lower at the 

gauge site, having a discharge of 47,400 cfs. 

Mean annual flow, as measured near Pitt, is about 1,600 cfs. Summer flows normally exceed 

750 cfs, due largely from sustained input from melting snow and ice on the slopes of Mount 

Adams. Flows are extremely low in tributaries, including Swale Creek, due to a variety of 

factors, including water withdrawals, during the drier summer months. 

The lower Klickitat River, from the mouth upstream to the Little Klickitat, generally contains 

excellent water quality (Class A). Although not listed as a 303(d) water quality impaired 

segment, the State of Washington considers this rating to be threatened due to marginal 

temperature conditions and the quantity of suspended solids. Water temperatures during the 

summer months have been recorded as high as 65 degrees F. These temperatures are not warm 

enough to have detrimental effects on cold-water fisheries, but are high enough to warrant 

caution in planning any future developments that may affect river temperatures. The warm 

temperatures in the river are primarily due to low flows, warm air temperatures, and high solar 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 96 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

radiation during the summer. Streamside shading is not a major influence on water temperatures 

in the Klickitat River due to the large stream width. Turbidity in the Klickitat River is often 

high, particularly during periods of high runoff. The major sources of sediment appear to be 

natural glacial melt as well as discharge from upstream tributaries. 

The river gradient of the lower Klickitat River averages about 26 feet of drop per mile, flowing 

through a canyon incised into basalt flows that are 2,000 feet thick in areas. The lower Klickitat 

River gorge is only a mile long, but narrows to less than eight feet at one location. No other river 

in the region discharges such an amount of water through such a narrow gorge, making it a very 

unique resource. The lower Klickitat River gorge is easily viewed from many locations, 

including the railroad right-of-way, and has been utilized extensively as a native subsistence 

fishing site for many generations. 

The project area is dominated by steep canyons that have frequent vertical basalt cliffs, seeps and 

springs, and diverse soil/moisture conditions. These conditions lead to a great habitat diversity 

dispersed over the area. Soils in the lower Klickitat River corridor vary with local topography 

and characteristics of the substrate. The corridor is dominated by fluvial deposits adjacent to the 

river and steep bedrock and talus slopes leading up to the higher plateau areas. Most of the 

developed soils along the river and within the corridor are derived from deposits of mixed river 

sediments, ranging from silt to extremely cobbly sand, with soil typically 60 inches or more 

thick. 

Approximately 48% of the railbed is located within the 100-yr floodplain with potential for 

erosion and deposition as a result of flooding. Flood damage to the railroad corridor, State 

Highway 142, and numerous residences along the lower river has been severe in the recent past 

during the floods of 1964, 1974, and 1996. Damage was from direct floodwater run-off as well 

as damage due to "mass wasting" failures from saturated soils upslope and associated debris 

avalanches. Numerous sections of the railbed along the lower Klickitat River sustained severe 

flood damage during the flood of 1996. Concentrated damage occurred between Wahkiacus and 

the Town of Klickitat, with the approach to the rail bridge at Suburbia being washed out. A 

section of railbed just above Wheeler Canyon was completely eroded, and numerous washouts 

occurred below Pitt. The Swale Canyon section incurred some damage at most of the bridge 

crossings mainly associated with woody debris accumulation. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 97 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Figure 6: Erosion of the rail bed by the 1996 flood downstream of Pitt.

In addition to flood damage, the railbed and associated infrastructure has influenced natural 

channel processes in both the Klickitat River and Swale Creek. Constriction of the Klickitat 

River at Suburbia Bridge has caused upstream deposition of sediment and the formation of a 

mid-channel island. This situation has encouraged floodwaters to overtop State Highway 142 

and the bridge abutments due to creation of a large backwater area above the crossing 

(Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Report, 1996). The referenced report quotes an assessment of 

damage during the 1974 flood: “During the 1974 flood, the river rose to such a level against the 

trestle that a substantial diversion was created across the highway, and eight residences were 

surrounded. The resulting damage and property loss was substantial. Fortunately, there was no 

loss of life, although five people were trapped for some 40 hours.” 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 98 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Figure 7: Air photograph showing constriction of the Klickitat River at Suburbia Bridge. This 

constriction has slowed water velocity and caused an island to form upstream of the bridge site. 

The railroad bed has modified natural stream channel processes at the Logging Camp Creek 

alluvial fan, located approximately 1 mile downstream of Pitt. The rail bed cuts across the fan 

and is the site of a recent enhancement project to replace a railroad trestle that was causing 

channel aggradation and impeding migration of anadromous fish. The trestle was replaced in 

2002 with a bottomless concrete box culvert that has restored passage. As is the case with most 

alluvial fans, the channel is naturally prone to shifting locations due to frequent deposition of 

bedload material. 

Vegetation

The general vegetation in the Klickitat River Basin is a mixture of pine (Pinus ponderosa)/oak 

(Quercus garryana) woodlands and grasslands. Grasslands dominate drier slopes with scattered 

pines and/or oaks. Pine and oak density increases with increased moisture. Douglas firs become 

more common on cooler and wetter north facing slopes. Grasslands are primarily annual exotics, 

such as cheat grass, although some more inaccessible areas have good populations of native 

bunch grasses (bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and pine grass) and desert parselys (e.g., 

Lomatium grayii, L. columbianum, L. suksdorfii). The woodlands understory is largely poison 

oak, snowberry, ocean spray, Oregon grape, and a variety of herbaceous and grass species. 

Species such as big leaf maples, mock orange, rushes and sedges are found in small side draws, 

seeps, springs, and riverbanks. 

Channel 

Constriction

Mid-Channel

Island
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 99 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

The Klickitat River has carved a riparian area with diverse flora and fauna. The flora includes 

willows, black cottonwoods and alders immediately adjacent to the river's edge, intermingled 

with pines and oaks in slightly drier riparian areas. Larger areas of riparian vegetation have 

become established on islands and on gravel bars that occur in broad river bends. The river’s 

active floodplain is largely cobbles and sand with little vegetation except for some grasses and 

herbaceous species. During the floods of 1996, the flood plains were again denuded and will be 

re-colonized by opportunistic flora. 

Infestations of noxious weeds were observed along the trail. The more troublesome infestations 

included Dalmatian toadflax about 1 mile south of Wahkiacus, longspine sandbur grass about 5 

miles north of Fischer Hill bridge, and hounds tongue at the Northwest Natural gas line crossing. 

Numerous smaller and scattered infestations were noted elsewhere along the trail. 

Fish and Wildlife

Fish and wildlife species that are on state or federal TES (threatened, endangered or sensitive) 

lists documented within the project area include the bald eagle, Western gray squirrel, steelhead, 

and bull trout. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s priority habitat and species 

(PHS) list is a catalog of habitat and species considered to be priorities for conservation and 

management. The 2002 PHS database maps 6 zones adjacent to, or overlapping, the Klickitat 

River and Swale creek. These six areas are riparian zones, bald eagle, mule and blacktail deer, 

oak woodland, western gray squirrel, and wild turkey. TES species and potential occurrence in 

the project area are summarized in the Biological Evaluation, located in Appendix D. 

The 31-mile railbed closely follows the Klickitat River or Swale Creek for all of its length. The 

distance from trail to water’s edge varies from around 10 feet to over several hundred feet, but is 

generally in the riparian habitat ecotone. This zone is defined as the interface between aquatic 

(stream/river) and terrestrial (upland) environments. The riparian habitat in this watershed tends 

to be narrowly constrained along the margins of the river, with oak and pine creeping down quite 

low into the river valley. The existing habitat adjacent to the rail bed is roughly summarized in 

the table below. Information pertinent to Swale creek is marked in italics, while the Klickitat 

River is left in regular font. 

Table 19: Existing Habitat Adjacent to the Rail Bed 

Miles Approximate Location (trail mile) 

Upland Edge of Riparian

(Pine, Oak) 

10 6-6.5, 7.5-8, 8.5-9, 17.5-26 

Riparian (Maple, Alder, 

Willow, Pines, 

Cottonwoods) 

9 2-6, 6.5-7.5, 8-8.5, 9-10 (several homes interspersed), 14-

16.5 (Suburbia Bridge to near Wahkiacus) 

Upland Edge of Riparian

(grass/shrub steppe of Swale 

Canyon) 

5 26-31 

Residential/High Use

(adjacent to homes, 

highways/roaded, formal 

fishing site, towns) 

7 0-2 (community of Lyle to Fisher Hill bridge, trail 

alongside highway), 

10-14 (Communities Pitt to Klickitat, trail along highway), 

16.5-17.5 (Wahkiacus area) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 100 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Within the Pacific Northwest, the riparian area generally occupies only 0.5 to 2.0% of the 

landscape, but harbors substantially more plant and animal species and biomass than the 

surrounding uplands (Kauffman et. al., 2001). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

1997 riparian management plan reports that approximately 85% of the Washington’s terrestrial 

vertebrate species use riparian habitat for essential life activities (Knutson and Naef, 1997). The 

river’s riparian corridor serves as important foraging, nesting/breeding, cover, and migration 

route for wildlife species, as well as provides access to critical water resources within a lowrainfall watershed. The riparian area adjacent to the railbed currently provides low-elevation 

refuge for wildlife during moderate to severe winters due to the lack of roads, building 

developments, and other human disturbances. This habitat is limited within the Columbia Gorge 

and surrounding areas due to commercial and residential growth, as well as existing roads and 

highway infrastructure. During 7 field visits in February, May, June, and July of 2003 these 

species were noted from the trail: Northern river otter (scat and trails), osprey, bald eagle, Great 

blue heron, beaver (sign), blacktail deer, golden eagle, merlin, Vaux’ swift, California ground 

squirrel, Western rattlesnake, gopher snake, Pacific tree frog, alligator lizard, common 

merganser, spotted sandpiper, (cliff, violet-green, rough-winged) swallows, turkey vulture, 

kingfisher, mourning cloak caterpillars, velvet ant, several species of butterflies, Lewis’ and 

hairy woodpecker, and a western gray squirrel platform nest were noted. A listing of wildlife 

species that may be present in the project area within the lower 15 miles of the Klickitat river 

was also listed in Chapter 3 of the 1991 Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. 

Approximately 20 springs or stream crossings occur adjacent to or through the current railbed, 

with almost all having fairly low flows with the exception of Logging Camp creek. Out of the 

20, nine had amphibian tadpoles (Pacific tree frog), aquatic snails, or aquatic insect residents. 

Eleven were still perennial in June. No TES wildlife species were noted in these wet areas. 

Highway 142 travels adjacent to the Klickitat River for the lower 16.5 miles, crossing the river 

once at the community of Pitt. Within this project area, there are 10.5 miles of the lower 

Klickitat River where the railbed is on the opposite shore to this highway. 

Bald eagles are known to use the lower 42 miles (up to Klickitat fish hatchery) of the Klickitat 

River and (to a much lesser extent) at least the lower 4 miles of Swale Creek for wintering 

(personal communication with David Anderson of WDFW, July 2003). The existing eagle 

density and distribution is likely related to areas of least disturbance and highest forage biomass. 

Seven bald eagles were counted during a field review of the railbed in February of 2003. These 

raptors are also commonly seen at the mouth of the Klickitat (delta) throughout the year. No 

nests or roost sites are known to occur within a half mile of the railbed, nor are they visible from 

the railbed. Typical winter use is from October 31 to March 31, with a peak from midNovember to February. Bald eagles wintering in the Klickitat have been radio-tracked to many 

other river systems such as the Skagit, Nooksack, Chelan, Yakima, Sauk, and Columbia River 

over the winter months (Watson and Pierce, 1998). Eagles that winter in Washington state breed 

far northward into British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Yukon and Alaska. The Pacific Bald 

Eagle Recovery Plan documented that the Washington state midwinter counts of bald eagles 

from 1979 to 1984 varied from a low of 1126 eagles in1979 to a high of 1542 in 1984 (USFWS, 

1986). The W.A. State Status Report for Bald Eagle, written by WDFW in 2001, reported that 

annual midwinter counts in Washington rose fairly steadily from 1984 (1542 eagles) to 1989 

(2870 eagles), and was discontinued in 1989 when it “was apparent that the bald eagle was 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 101 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

recovering and that much of the year–to-year variation in the number of wintering eagles was at 

least in part produced by conditions outside of Washington, such as prey abundance in Britich 

Columbia” (Stinson, et. al, 2001). The mid-winter counts in the Klickitat River, as well as the 

other winter population in Washington, are graphed below. The Klickitat River wintering eagle 

subgroup is a relatively small percentage (0.25 to 0.84 %) as compared to the total numbers 

within Washington State. 

1377

7

1156

4

1542

13

1828

13

1388

11

1795

14

2373

6

2870

11

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Mid-Winter Counts of Wintering Bald Eagles 

Washington State

Klickitat River

Figure 8: Mid-Winter Counts of Wintering Bald Eagles 

Bald eagle numbers have been in a steady upward trend as reflected by the last 30 years of nest 

monitoring in Oregon and Washington (Stinson et. al, 2001, Issacs, 2002). This trend is reflected 

nationwide, as depicted by the graph below (courtesy of the USFWS website). This steady and 

increasing trend has prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to propose delisting 

the bald eagle from the Endangered Species list starting on July 6 of 1999. This delisting process 

has not been finalized. 

Figure 9: Bald Eagle Pairs 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 102 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Klickitat County is considered a pivotal Western gray squirrel core area for the state of 

Washington and nesting squirrels have been documented within the Klickitat River and Swale 

Creek canyons. Good potential nesting habitat for this squirrel is considered to be around onequarter (up to 1⁄2) mile from a water source in pine/oak or mixed conifer/hardwood habitats with 

a contiguous tree canopy. Western gray squirrels will avoid crossing open spaces of over 40 feet 

(USFWS, 2003). Mixed pine and oak woodland intersects around 10 out of the 31 miles of 

proposed trail. An additional 9 or so mile of trail borders a mixed forest of hardwoods (maple, 

alder, willow) and ponderosa pines. From the state PHS (Priority Habitats and Species)

database, there are almost 300 nests recorded within a few miles of the project area corridor in 

the last decade. Of those 300, four nests are within 150’ of the trail; two were in lower Swale 

Creek, with the other 2 on the Klickitat River. Hikes along the rail bed in February, May and 

July of 2003 noted 3-4 potential nests, but none were likely recent as they lacked new (green) 

material incorporated into the nest. These nests were near Logging Camp Creek and Klickitat 

Springs. Nests typically remain intact for 3-5 years. 

In addition to terrestrial wildlife species, the Klickitat River currently supports important 

anadromous fish resources and fisheries, including summer and winter steelhead, spring and fall 

Chinook, and coho (Klickitat Subbasin Summary, 2000). Fall Chinook and coho are not native 

to the basin, while the other three runs in the Klickitat drainage are native, but considered at 

depressed levels. Other species include resident rainbow trout, bull trout, brook trout, Pacific 

lamprey, as well as whitefish and cutthroat trout. Species that are known to spawn and rear in 

the lower 17 miles of the Klickitat River include steelhead, coho, chinook, rainbow trout, and 

dace. Other fish species may migrate through this section but further surveys need to be 

completed to document the extent of their use of this reach. The 2000 Klickitat Sub-basin 

Summary determined that the limiting factor to salmonids in the Klickitat river was largely from 

habitat degradation from a variety of factors including intensive forest harvest, poorly located 

and maintained roads and crossings (including railbed), conversion of wetland and meadow 

habitat, altered riparian habitat (less large wood to incite stream complexity, reduced stream 

shading), increased nutrient input from farming and sewage treatment outfall, and reduced base 

flows from irrigation withdrawals (especially in the lower tributaries such as the Little Klickitat, 

Swale, Wheeler and Dillacort Creeks). 

Bull trout are documented at the mouth of the Klickitat River, as well as above river mile 60 on 

the Klickitat. Due to warmer temperatures, of which bull trout are intolerant, it is unlikely that 

the lower and mid portions of the Klickitat river, nor Swale Creek would be used by bull trout 

for more than short periods of time for migration or foraging. The river and creek adjacent to the 

trail is highly unlikely to provide spawning or rearing habitat for bull trout. 

Habitats of Interest

The rail bed follows the river very closely, with approximately half of the right-of-way being 

within the river’s 100 year flood plain. At frequent intervals the railroad was cut into the basalt 

creating cliff habitats or intercepting seeps and springs to create small wetlands. Habitats of 

interest include basalt cliffs, seeps, springs, wetlands, and native bunch grass communities. 

Scattered populations of Heuchera grossularifolia var. tenuifolia (State sensitive species) and 

Lomatium suksdorfii (State threatened species) are documented along this segment of the rightof-way. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 103 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Swale Creek (lower 14 miles)

Water and Soil Resources

Swale Creek is a major tributary to the Klickitat River, flowing in just below Wahkiacus at river 

mile 17.2. The following discharges were calculated in the “Swale Creek Channel Assessment 

Project” report using the Region 6 State of Washington Regression Equations: 

Recurrence Interval 2-yr 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 

 954 cfs 2524 cfs 4582 cfs 5685 cfs 

Swale Creek flow is intermittent in nature. Around 3-4 discrete pools remain during the summer 

within the project area. This intermittent condition remains until the fall rains begin. 

In Swale Canyon, the railroad bed has modified natural stream channel processes mainly by 

channel constriction and subsequent maintenance activities. The railbed is either occupying 

floodplain areas adjacent to the creek or has severed the streams access to these floodplains. The 

photo below shows an area in upper Swale Creek that has been disassociated from the mainstem 

stream. 

Figure 10: Air photo showing the rail bed blocking access to a meander bend and straightening the 

stream channel in upper Swale Canyon just below Harms Road. 

Old Meander Bend 

Rail bed has blocked access to a 

meander bend in Swale Creek 

Swale Creek

Rail bed
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 104 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Confinement and maintenance excavation of the Swale Creek channel has led to channel 

degradation and loss of in-channel sediment deposits due to increased water velocities. This 

situation is well documented in the report “Swale Creek Channel Assessment Project” authored 

by Inter-Fluve, Inc. in June 2002. The report not only describes current channel conditions, it 

proposes a suite of enhancement opportunities with associated priority and cost. 

Swale Creek is listed as a 303(d) water quality impaired stream for both in-stream flow and 

elevated water temperatures near the mouth. Elevated water temperatures in Swale Creek are 

likely the result of a combination of factors including: 1) Riprap and other development along 

streambanks displacing normal riparian vegetation thus increasing solar radiation to the stream; 

2) Very low summer flows that warm up quickly. 

Vegetation

The creek’s lower portion runs in a west-east direction with a north facing slope on the south 

side. A fairly healthy stand of Douglas fir mixed with oak and pine is found on the north facing 

slope. Only a small portion of this important vegetation community lies within the right-of-way, 

but it is used by a diverse flora and fauna. In this lower section the riparian vegetation corridor is 

large and well forested with alders, cottonwoods and willows. Between 2 and 3 miles up from 

Wahkiacus, the canyon turns to the south and the general vegetation transitions into more xeric 

(dry) conditions with steep open grasslands mixed with oak and pine woodlands. The riparian 

strip narrows considerably to only a scattering of willows in some places. 

As Swale Creek climbs, the canyon slowly becomes less incised and transitions into the rolling 

hills of the Goldendale plateau. As this transition occurs, the tree cover diminishes until only 

willows, hawthorns and other shrubs are found along the stream and the landscape becomes a 

grassland steppe. As the creek loses its steep gradient, the wet riparian area enlarges with more 

diversity in rushes and sedges. 

Figure 11: The 

transition 

between 

grassland 

plateau in pper 

Swale and the 

mixed forest 

on north-facing 

slope in lower 

Swale Canon 

(top of photo) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 105 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Good populations of native bunch grasses and associated flora remain in upland areas throughout 

the lower and mid-sections of Swale canyon where access by cattle is limited due to the steep 

slopes. Impacts from grazing are clearly evident, especially within the riparian areas, in the more 

rolling topography of the upper reaches of the canyon. 

As the vegetation changes, so does the habitat for flora and fauna. A State of Washington 

threatened flora species, Ranunculus recoditus, normally found in higher elevations, was 

observed within the right-of-way in this upper segment. Several small populations of a State of 

Washington sensitive flora, Heuchera grossularifolia var. tenufolia, were also observed. . 

For most of its length, the right-of-way closely follows the creek. Although the right-of-way is 

usually not a wide area, it does transect the important corridor linking the uplands to the riparian 

area. Past activities have disturbed the riparian corridor, in some places quite extensively. The 

riparian vegetation appears to have been removed in some places, although this may be a result 

of the episodic floods since 1964. There appears to be a lack of larger pines throughout this 

Swale section and these may have been removed by the railroad over the years. Although weed 

infestations were not extensive, Knapweeds and other weedy species are evident in the more 

disturbed areas. 

Fish and Wildlife 

As the vegetation changes, so does the habitat for flora and fauna. Several species of birds, for 

example the magpie and horned lark, are only observed in the upper reaches of this right-of-way. 

Blacktail deer, western gray squirrel, Merriam’s turkey and wintering bald eagles are 

documented in this subwatershed. 

Swale Creek is intermittent in nature and dries up into discrete pools from early summer to fall 

within the proposed trail project area (Swale Creek Channel Assessment Project, 2002). Many 

juvenile steelhead/ rainbow trout likely move downstream into the Klickitat River to escape the 

Figure 12:

Swale Canyon, 

middle and 

upper sections, 

where habitat 

adjacent to 

railbed 

transitions to 

grassland steppe. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 106 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

dwindling flows. Yakama Nation biologists report steelhead spawning in small numbers in 

Swale creek in recent years, but rearing habitat is extremely precarious due to creek habitat 

dwindling creek into only 3-4 discrete perennial pools. The entrapment in these pools limits 

survival of juvenile and resident salmonids due to warm temperatures, and corresponding 

decrease in dissolved oxygen, during the summer and early fall months. The Yakama Nation 

biologists report that temperatures in these pools reach around 24○ Celcius. Normal behavior 

and growth of salmonids typical begin to be adversely affected at around 19○

 Celcius. Even with 

acclimation, upper lethal limits are generally reached for salmonids at around 24-29○ Celcius. In 

addition to physical and physiological impacts, entrapment in pools also increases susceptibility 

to predators (such as from herons, mink, osprey, otter), and removes flight up and downstream as 

survival options. 

In addition to steelhead juveniles (and thus its resident life form, rainbow trout), dace also reside 

year round in Swale Creek. No falls or other barriers preclude Chinook and coho from 

opportunistically using the lower few miles for spawning as well as early juvenile rearing. Since 

the late 1990’s the Yakama Nation have leveraged funds from the Bonneville Power 

Administration to rehabilitate Swale Creek, in addition to nearby lower Klickitat tributaries, due 

to “extensive livestock grazing, agricultural impacts, timber harvest, and channel constriction 

from railroad embankments”. Projects have included riparian fencing, sediment retention ponds, 

off-channel livestock watering systems, and riparian re-vegetation. Under state regulations, 

Swale Creek is currently open to angling for rainbow trout from June 1 to October 31, and the 

railbed provides easy access for this activity. Rainbow trout and juvenile steelhead are very 

difficult to differentiate, as they are the same species, thus accidental as well as deliberate take 

(poaching) of juvenile steelhead is likely occurring. There have been some planning efforts to 

close the creek to fishing due to these concerns. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines

A. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) Management Plan 

The CRGNSA Plan applies between the Lyle Urban Area Boundary and the National Scenic 

Area boundary (approximately the Fisher Hill trestle). The applicable standards are quoted 

below from Chapter 3, Natural Resources, for the General Management Area. 

• Wetlands: There are no wetlands along or adjacent to the trail within the NSA. 

• Rivers and streams: The trail is not within the buffer zone of any stream or river.

• Wildlife Habitat (pp. I-105) and Sensitive Plant sites: The following guideline applies: 

- “Except uses allowed outright, proposed uses may be allowed within 1,000 feet of a 

sensitive plant, subject to compliance with guidelines for the protection of scenic, 

natural, cultural, and recreation resources and ‘Approval Criteria for Review Uses 

Near Sensitive Wildlife Areas and Sites [and Flora]’ in this section”. 

- Subsequent guidelines refer to site plans: “Site Plan and Field Surveys...” (see pp. I106 and pp.113) and “Approval Criteria for Review Uses Near Sensitive Wildlife 

Areas and Sites” (pp.I-106 and pp. 113). 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 107 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

B. The Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

The "outstandingly remarkable" natural resource values are it's free-flowing nature, 

anadromous and resident fish; hydrology and geology. 

There are few specific guidelines related to these “outstandingly remarkable” resources that 

directly affect this project proposal. The County shoreline ordinance, water quality, and 

critical Area ordinances are the most important as related to protection of these resources. 

All of the ordinances shall be followed in implementing this project. These will be discussed 

in more detail below. 

C. Klickitat County Shorelines Plan 

Most of the lower Klickitat River and all of Swale Creek (from its confluence with the 

Klickitat River upstream to Warwick) shoreline falls into the Conservancy Environment 

zone, which is characterized by very low intensity land uses primarily related to natural 

resource use, minor capital investment, and relatively major biophysical limitations. The 

overall objective of the Conservancy Environment designation is to balance sustained yield 

natural resource utilization with low intensity recreational uses. 

The east bank of the lower 1/2 mile of the river, at the town of Lyle, and about a mile of the 

north bank through the town of Klickitat, are designated as a Community Environment. The 

Community Environment category is characterized by moderate to high intensity land use, 

including residential, commercial, and industrial development. Most land uses are allowed, 

with restrictions. 

In addition, a natural buffer zone is superimposed on all Shoreline Environments. It consists 

of a 50-foot strip (measured horizontally) from the ordinary high water mark of each 

riverbank. Its purpose is to preserve the structure, function, and aesthetic qualities of the 

natural riparian ecosystem. Most land uses are prohibited in this buffer zone. Non-intensive 

grazing, some signs, and recreational trails are allowed. The Lower Klickitat Wild and 

Scenic River Management Plan stated that a shoreline enhancement program should be 

implemented. This program may include planting appropriate riparian vegetation and 

identifying riprap that could be removed. 

D. Klickitat County Floodplain Ordinance 

The provision of importance is Section 5.3 (1) “Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new 

construction, substantial improvements, and other developments unless certification by a 

registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachment 

shall not result in an increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood 

discharge.” 

E. Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance

Performance Standards: 

• Wetlands: ‘If a wetland is found within the project area it shall not be disturbed....’ 

• Critical Fish/Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: ‘Proposed development and uses 

within 1000 ft of a critical wildlife habitat conservation area or within 200 ft of a critical 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 108 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

fish habitat conservation area shall be submitted for review by the WDFW. If the WDFW 

determines that a proposed use is likely to adversely affect a critical fish/wildlife habitat 

conservation area, then a wildlife management plan shall be required.’ 

• Geologically Hazardous Areas: ‘If the proposed site is in a geologically hazardous area, 

the applicant shall be responsible for securing the services of a professional 

engineer/geologist who shall provide information...’ 

• Frequently Flooded Areas: ‘If the proposed project is in a frequently flooded area, the 

applicant shall ..Identify the 100 year floodplain... conform with County provisions ..and 

maintain pre-development movement of surface waters...’ 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects

In the short-term, this alternative would maintain the current management conditions with the 

existing railbed. Current conditions include low recreational use of corridor, with minimal 

impact to soil and water resources except during major storm events. Natural revegetation of 

riparian shorelines and floodplain area would continue resulting in slow improvement to water 

quality through increases in streamside shading and stabilization of eroded streambanks over 

time. Natural erosion and deposition processes would dominate the entire west side of the lower 

Klickitat River and improve the free-flowing conditions. Lack of additional river channel 

intrusion and the occurrence of floodplain revegetation along the railroad bed, may slightly 

decrease flood damage to adjacent and downstream streamside property, from past levels. 

However, retaining the existing water crossings without maintenance of structures would 

increase erosion during storm events until natural drainage is re-established. 

Washington State Parks and the Klickitat Trail Conservancy currently co-manage this trail and 

have it open to recreationists in its 31-mile entirety, although seasonal summer closure of Swale 

Canyon has been enacted to reduce fire danger. As noted in the recreation analysis of this EA, 

trail use is expected to continue and is predicted to increase moderately, but it is currently 

restricted by the lack of developed parking facilities and the rough existing tread surface. At this 

time, fish and wildlife species receive relatively low disturbance within the existing unroaded 

(but trailed) riparian habitat (about 24 miles). This largely undisturbed habitat is from Fisher 

Hill to Pitt, Suburbia to Wahciacus and Swale Canyon (reference table in Natural Resources 

Existing Conditions section). The lack of constant human presence within the riparian habitat 

allows for unrestricted nesting, foraging, migration and wintering habitat for wildlife, as 

previously described in the existing condition subsection. Natural seeding and sprouting of 

Ponderosa pine within the rail bed would continue and eventually (50-80 years) would provide 

for increased cover components for both terrestrial and aquatic habitat. In all probabilities, this 

trail will remain in low to moderate use by recreationists with this alternative, even without 

immediate trail surface and facilities improvements. Some reasons for this hypothesis is: 

• the predominantly sunny weather of the Klickitat area (this will be a unique feature as 

compared to other Gorge area trails in winter), 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 109 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

• the beautiful views of the river and the surrounding hills, including good opportunities for 

wildlife viewing, 

• the easy access from major highways, 

• the availability of trail information as already posted on the Klickitat Trail Conservancy 

website. 

The anticipated increase in use over the 31-mile trail is expected to incur some impacts to fish 

and wildlife depending on the intensity of use and conservation measures incorporated. Some 

wildlife species will likely move away from, or avoid, the riparian area during periods of trail use 

(Joslin and Youmans, 1999). 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

Environmental Consequences of Trail Options

Water and Soil Resources

This alternative proposes to construct a 4 ft. wide trail utilizing compacted existing surface on 

the rail bed for 31 miles from Lyle to Warwick. Runoff volume from this surface is not expected 

to change noticeably from Alternative 1, as the current surface is already compacted from 

decades of use as both a rail bed and trail. Any runoff is expected to infiltrate through the 

existing ballast in areas of low compaction. Some short-term erosion may occur in areas where 

the rail bed needs to be disturbed to achieve a compacted surface or drainage structure cleaning, 

but erosion control measures such as operating in the dry period of the year and utilization of 

erosion barriers would minimize detrimental effects. A majority of this work is expected to 

occur between Fisher Hill Bridge and Wahkiacus. Some short-term erosion may also occur in 

two areas where about 700 ft of rail bed fill would be pulled back to stabilize it. These sites are 

located two and three miles downstream of Pitt and are expected to have minimal detrimental 

effects to the Klickitat River due to the employment of the measures described above. Longterm benefits in the form of reduced sediment introduction and development of riparian 

vegetation are expected in these areas. No additional filling and riprap within the Klickitat River 

channel area would occur along sections of trail with Alternative 2. Several thousand feet of 

existing rail bed fill between Pitt and Fisher Hill Bridge would be planted with native trees and 

shrubs to protect these features from additional erosion and loss of trail width. As a result of this 

planting and minimal trail surface development, the riparian area would recover more quickly 

than Alternative 1. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 110 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Figure 13: Actively eroding site about 3 miles downstream from Pitt. The upper 3 feet of existing 

railbed fill (as outlined in photo) would be laid back to a stable angle and revegetated to stabilize. 

The existing box culvert at Logging Camp Creek would be maintained and “porous” approaches 

would be constructed to allow wheel chair access across the site. These approaches would be 

designed to allow natural channel processes to occur along the alluvial fan. The approaches 

would only be long enough to meet a 10% grade, so the trail surface would cut across the outer 

edges of the fan. The trail would conform to existing topography through this feature and would 

not introduce additional fill, so existing bedload transport conditions would be maintained. This 

configuration would result in additional trail maintenance after high runoff events to clear 

bedload and other channel material from the trail surface adjacent to the elevated approaches. 

A six-foot wide trail bridge would be constructed at the Suburbia bridge site to allow access over 

the Klickitat River. The replacement bridge would be at a minimum, long enough to maintain 

the current flow configuration, but opportunities to lengthen the bridge and remove some of the 

approach fill on the Wahkiacus side should be examined. Fill removal would provide a more 

natural flow regime in the river and reduce formation of backwater conditions and flooding of 

the highway (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Report, 1996). If the decision is made to 

lengthen the bridge and remove some of the approach material, a detailed hydraulic study is 

recommended to ensure that resulting water levels wouldn’t detrimentally affect structures 

directly downstream of the site. An erosion control plan would be developed as part of the 

detailed design package to ensure that sedimentation resulting from any project activity including 

fill removal, would be minimized. 

Material to be removed 

to lay back fill slope. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 111 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

The trail section from Suburbia to Wahkiacus would be narrow (4 ft) and located on the current 

rail bed surface. No fill would be added to raise up the bed elevation, which would allow a more 

natural stream function in this area. Four trail reroutes were identified to move the trail onto a 

more stable bench away from the floodplain. Erosion control measures such as revegetation and 

mulching of exposed soil would be employed on the reroutes to minimize erosion and resulting 

sedimentation. 

Designated river access points are chosen to minimize erosion by focusing traffic on more 

resilient landscapes. Even so, these areas may still create bare soils along streambanks, 

increased nutrient and sediment loads, as well as minor decreases in stream shading. The extent 

of these impacts varies with the use levels of each alternative, but is expected to be minor. 

The trail tread would be located on the inside portion of the rail bed in the Swale Canyon section, 

to be more compatible with any channel enhancement projects that may occur in the future. This 

trail location would allow partial rail fill removal to enhance a more natural channel function, if 

other parties propose to pursue such restoration. 

Two springs that are currently ponding up on the rail bed, would be reconnected with Swale 

Creek by using french drains or other similar techniques. This would provide more cool water to 

the creek, which may help reduce water temperatures. 

This alternative would result in a slight enhancement of free-flowing conditions in the Wild and 

Scenic River portion of the Klickitat River and water quality as compared to Alternative 1. The 

enhancement of free-flowing conditions would result from the railbed fill removal along sections 

between Pitt and Fisher Hill and streambank revegetation. Water temperature and in-stream flow 

would be maintained in the 303(d) section of Swale Creek due to the following: 1) No riparian 

vegetation that is currently providing stream shading in Swale Creek would be removed; 2) None 

of the existing streamflow in Swale Creek would be diverted or removed. It is anticipated that a 

very small benefit to both summer stream temperature and in-stream flow would result from 

reconnection of two springs with the stream channel.

While there are many (~20) wet areas along the trail, there are no Category I or II wetlands and 

no wetlands meeting the size requirements (10,000 sq. ft) for category III and IV wetlands as 

defined in the Klickitat Critical Area Ordinance within the project areas. There are no wetlands 

on the proposed trail within the CRGNSA. Many of the smaller wet areas would be ditched to 

keep the water off the trail bed, while maintaining the functionality of the wet areas. Plants 

associated with wetland habitats would be carefully removed for replanting after the ditching 

work. Other larger wet areas would have boardwalks constructed for protection. 

Vegetation

Sensitive Plants 

Although several sensitive flora were found and noted within the trail right-of-way, no effects 

upon these plants are expected in any alternative. This is due to the location of these sensitive 

flora in relation to the trail and to topography. Most of the Heuchera grossularifolia var. 

tenuifolia populations are found on basalt rock cliffs where they are unlikely to be disturbed. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 112 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Along the Klickitat River, these populations are protected by steep inaccessible cliffs along the 

river or by other cliffs above the trail. A few populations in Swale Canyon are readily 

accessible, but these are several miles from any trailhead and unlikely to be disturbed. 

Populations of Ranunculus reconditus were located near the trail but over rough, rocky terrain 

where it was unlikely that people would venture. 

This no-effect determination is based on projected use figures as designed into these alternatives. 

If trailhead capacity, and therefore use, increases above the level planned, effects to plant 

resources would need to be re-evaluated. 

Noxious Weeds 

Trail use by recreationists is not anticipated to further aggravate the noxious weed situation with 

the exception of longspur sandbur and hound's tongue. Both weeds’ seeds readily attach to 

clothing and to domestic animals and can then be vectored to other locations. However, 

infestations of these weeds are at present rather small (estimated total acreage of weed 

infestations on the trail is 1-2 acres) and should be eradicated and/or controlled before the trail 

becomes heavily used. The presence of domestic animals, such as horses, on the trail would 

further necessitate the need for yearly monitoring to identify new infestations that may occur 

from contaminated feed and/or droppings. 

No significant adverse effects are expected on either water quality or the riparian vegetation as a 

result of the proposed noxious weed treatments in Chapter 2. 

Fish and Wildlife

Trail improvements, and subsequent use, have potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife 

species through short-term construction activites and long-term trail use. The trail was 

deliberately planned to minimize these impacts as much as possible, such as keeping the trail 

narrow through floodprone areas, pulling back fill material in some locations, adding no new fill 

material to the river’s floodplain, retaining all naturally recruiting tree species, reconnecting 

small springs/seeps to the main channel with french drains, placing board walk over all larger 

wet areas with wetland-associated vegetation that overtopped the trail surface, planting 

conifer/shrub species adjacent to the trailbed to stabilize the bank (which would improve riparian 

functions), elongating ramps to Logging Camp Creek crossing to allow water and fish passage 

across the wide alluvial fan, and moderating parking capacity. 

Federal and state protected species or priority habitat (WDFW Priority Habitat and Species) that 

have potential to be impacted by this project include the Northern bald eagle (federal Threatened, 

state Threatened), Western gray squirrel (state Threatened), Mid-Columbia steelhead (federal 

Threatened), Columbia River bull trout (federal threatened), wild turkey (state Priority Species), 

Mule and blacktail deer (state Priority Species), riparian zones (state Priority Habitat), and oak 

woodlands (state Priority Habitat). A summary table of conclusion of effects for these and 

botanic species is summarized at the end of this section. 

For a summary list of fish, wildlife and botanic evaluation of these and other TES species in or 

near the project area, refer to the Biological Evaluation report in Appendix D. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 113 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

TES Wildlife 

Bald Eagles 

Bald eagles are a federal and W.A. state listed threatened species. Within the Klickitat river 

corridor, eagles are known to winter in the lower 42 miles of this river. Ten and a half miles of 

this winter use area is located adjacent to the proposed trail. Another 3-4 miles of habitat is 

available within Swale Canyon. 

Figure 14: The photos above depict the typical layout of eagle wintering habitat in the 10 1⁄2 miles of 

railbed on the Klickitat River in relation to Highway 142, on it opposite bank. In the 4-5 miles of 

forested habitat in Swale Creek, there are few existing roads, and the eagles are relatively 

undisturbed overall. Most of the food resources (anadromous fish, road-kill carrion), though, are 

available within the Klickitat river corridor, rather than Swale Creek. 

No nests or roost trees are known to be within 1⁄2 mile of the trail and none are visible from the 

existing railbed. Many papers have been published that report effects of interactions between 

people and eagles, especially within nesting, roosting and winter habitat. A 2002 report by 

WDFW as well as the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan by the USFWS summarizes many of 

these reports and makes recommendations for management actions (Watson and Rodrick, 2002), 

(USFWS, 1986). Management guidelines from these 2 documents pertinent to this trail includes: 

• Maintain high tree density and moderate canopy closure to visually buffer bald eagle 

nests from human activities. (WDFW) 

• Leave 250 foot wide strips of perch trees and protective buffers along shorelines within 

eagle nesting territories and winter feeding areas. (WDFW) 

• In foraging areas with little or no screening, bald eagles that are feeding should be 

allowed at least 450 m (1500’) from human activity and permanent structures. (WDFW) 

• Perch trees and potential foraging perches >51 cm (20 in) dbh and <75 m (246 ft) from 

the top of a bank or shore should be protected. (WDFW) 

• Maintain and improve forested habitat in both the breeding and wintering range. 

(USFWS) 

• Restrict human disturbance at eagle use areas. (“Picnicking, camping, blasting, firearm 

use, timber harvest, and low level aircraft operations should not be allowed within 400 m 

(1312 ft) of nests and roosts during periods of eagle use. Key wintering areas need 

protection from disturbance from approximately 15 November to 15 March.”) (USFWS) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 114 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

• Provide seasonal surveillance at selected habitats where eagles are vulnerable to human 

disturbance or harassment. (USFWS) 

All recommendations but the third and sixth bullets were able to be followed outright. Since the 

railbed is already in place, it was not possible to move the trail from 200-400 m. from winter use 

areas (river bank) as suggested by several publications and recommendation #3. Restriction of 

human use at eagle use areas (Recommendation #6) was partially followed by limiting trail use 

to non-motorized users only (hiker, bike, horses). No overnight use is allowed, thus the period 

from near dusk to early morning would still be left relatively undisturbed. Complete avoidance 

of disturbance would not be possible, as hikers and other users would be visibly walking in and 

out of the vegetation along the river’s bank during the daytime. 

 

Research literature generally agree that increase in human recreational activity reduced bald 

eagles numbers in available habitat, but also note that eagle response to disturbance was very 

site-specific and vary greatly depending on other factors such as food availability, predictability, 

sight distance and vegetative screening, proximity, cumulative number of disturbances, type and 

duration of human activity, and habituation (conditioning) period (Hamann et al., 1999, 

Stalmaster and Kaiser, 1998; Spahr, 1990). Although not specific to the Klickitat River, reports 

also generally agree that wintering and foraging eagles are least tolerant of foot traffic (hikers, 

fishermen), and slightly more tolerant of bicyclists and vehicles, as they approached, and passed 

by quickly, at a constant speed. Seven bald eagles were noted when the entire 31 miles of trail 

was biked by a group of 12 bicyclists during February 13 and 14 of 2003. None of the bald 

eagles noted on those 2 days flushed (took wing) at the group’s approach and visually seemed 

undisturbed with the group’s appearance and disappearance from their portion of the river. Two 

of the eagles were actively squabbling over an unknown source and had locked talons while still 

flying over the bicyclists. It is estimated that the winter season would receive low to moderate 

daily use of the trail, varying widely as per weather conditions. From the recreation report 

projections, around 0.8 to 2.8 people per mile would be using the trail within the 14 miles of 

wintering eagle habitat on the Klickitat River and Swale Creek. This increase in use over 

existing conditions has potential to displace wintering bald eagles along approximately 14 of its 

proposed 31 miles of trail length, as there is currently low vegetation screening and users would 

be in very close proximity to the river where eagles are foraging. There is potential that eagles 

may incur added stress avoiding or flying away from recurrent groups of people, which may lead 

to susceptibility to disease and poor health during winter. Further winter energy reserves may be 

drawn down as feeding or gathering of food is disrupted, such as avoidance of dead and dying 

salmon, or other carrion, along the river’s edge. 

Although low and sporadic, trail use from November to March may displace individual eagles 

from 14 miles of currently used habitat. It is likely that temporarily disturbed eagles would 

disperse upstream or downstream to other existing winter habitat (the other 30 miles of existing 

habitat within the Klickitat river, including its mouth and the Columbia River). Recreationists 

may also displace eagles further back from the river and up the canyon walls, or into side 

tributaries such as Silvas creek. The duration of this displacement depends greatly on individual 

eagles temperament (level of habituation and tolerance), as well as other factors such as 

frequency and duration of encounters. Recreation use of the trail has potential to degrade winter 

foraging habitat, thus the trail use would likely adversely impact bald eagles. In the long term, it 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 115 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

is expected that trail use would have decreasing impacts to wintering bald eagles due in part to 

their habituation of the trail use, as well as existing conifer trees growing to a height where users 

would be screened from adjacent areas. Projecting tree height growth of 6-8 inches per year (as 

estimated from present leader growth), it would take around 4-7 years for the majority of the 

existing trees to reach 6-9 feet in height adjacent to the trail. Some eagles may return to again 

use this area once trees partially screen the trail users. Eagle reaction to users would be 

monitored for several winters once the trail is open, to see if they are habituating to the use, as 

well as noting flushing distance and total eagle numbers. This study would be actively 

coordinated with USFWS and WDFW biologists as well as other mid-winter bald eagle counts, 

such as the current one on the Cowlitz River. 

Construction activities would be limited from April 1 to October 30 and are not expected to 

adversely affect local bald eagles. No construction, involving heavy machinery, would occur 

outside of this work window unless the construction noise can be kept at or below ambient noise 

levels, such as may be the case within or adjacent to urban areas or residential sites. Other 

mitigation for eagle disturbance includes the following: 

• Retention of naturally recruiting pine (many hundreds are at the 1-6’ height size) and 

other potential perching and screening trees adjacent to, and on the outer edges, of the 

railbed. (see photos below - typical natural ponderosa pine recruitment within railbed) 

• Planting of at least 800’feet of bank area with pine and other tree species where natural 

recruitment has been slow, as well as thinning of a dense 400’ length stand of 1-3” dbh 

pines to accelerate remaining tree growth and cover /canopy closure. 

• Interpretive signs at all trailheads (except Warwick) that explain the sensitive nature of 

winter bald eagle use and encourage behavior to reduce eagle disturbance such as trail 

use to be delayed until late morning to allow for uninterrupted morning foraging, 

maintenance of low visibility to eagles, and complete avoidance of trail use during severe 

winters (which would likely be self-regulating), etc. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 116 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Figure 15: Photos depicting the natural Ponderosa Pine recruitment within the edges of 

the railbed that may help visually screen trail users from wintering eagles in the near 

future of 4-7 years. 

Western Gray Squirrel 

Klickitat County is considered a pivotal Western gray squirrel core area for the state of 

Washington. Trail users are not expected to disrupt squirrel nest activities, as the vast majority 

of the past documented nests are not adjacent to the trail. Construction activities occuring during 

summer (dry period) has potential to disrupt nesting activities. Areas of habitat (mixed pine/oak 

woodland outside of urban and residential areas) would be consulted with the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to identify if any active nests occur within 200’ of the 

trail. If active nests exist within this buffer, then appropriate conservation or mitigation 

measures would be planned before heavy machinery construction would take place. With this 

measure, it is expected that disturbance to the Western Gray Squirrel May Impact Individuals or 

Habitat, but would Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing (MIIH). In the 

long-term, the foraging and arboreal travel habits for this species may improve as pine trees are 

planted (as part of the railbed stabilization), as well as retained, within the riparian area on both 

sides of the trail. Cover components (i.e. trees and shrubs) would also be improved for this shy 

species. 

Mid-Columbia Steelhead 

Mid-Columbia steelhead are listed as a federal Threatened species and are an active fisheries 

managed by the WDFW and Yakama Nation. Within the Klickitat River Corridor, trail 

reconstruction, and later use, within the Klickitat River corridor is not expected to negatively 

impact steelhead. As compared to past and current conditions, the riparian area would be 

maintained in the short-term, and improved over the long term in that trees, and other vegetation 

would be allowed to grow in and overtop the railbed. Everywhere possible, the fill would be 

pulled back and/or the trail would be relocated away from the water edge and placed far as 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 117 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

possible against the toe of the hill slope. Fill would not be added to the any aquatic system or 

floodplain. Connections between springs and tributaries crossing though the railbed would be 

maintained or improved over the 31 miles, including 6 boardwalks (50-200’ long, each), 9 drain 

dips or french drains, and several culverts would be repositioned. In the very small areas that are 

not naturally revegetating back in pine and oak (and maple, willow, and cottonwood), the Forest 

Service would replant tree and shrub species to assist in bank stabilization (~800-2000’). 

Figure 16: Upper Reaches of Swale Creek 

Fishing is currently allowed seasonally in Klickitat and Swale creek and the railbed allows easy 

access for this activity. Yakama Nation biologists have brought up concerns with illegal fishing 

activities and its impacts on steelhead. Increased users may deter illegal fishing activities. On 

the other hand, illegal activities may also increase due to increased people and improved access. 

In this alternative, the trail is planned to be closed to off-trail traffic except at two creek access 

points. These access points would be located where it would not be near one of the isolated 

pools. Dogs are required to be leashed, which may reduce harassment to fish as well as other 

wildlife, dependent on the level of compliance. If users respect posted rules to remain on the 

trail, or do so due to visible enforcement patrols, then negative effects to fish and associated 

riparian vegetation are expected to be minor. In reality, warning signs urging users to stay on 

trails invariably experience some non-compliance. The extremely hot summer weather within 

Swale Canyon, as well as the long length of trail, would likely tempt at least some of the trail 

users to stop and soak or waterplay in the remaining warm perennial pools of Swale Creek. This 

is especially true where pools are near stream crossings or otherwise within easy sight of the 

trail. This would have high potential to increase harassment of juvenile steelhead and resident 

rainbow trout trapped and concentrated in these discrete pools. Repeated visits to these pools 

during the summer months would increase stress cumulatively to salmonids that are already 

stressed by the warm water and the entrapped situation. Indirect mortality may occur through 

cumulative stress leading to increased disease outbreaks or energy expenditures. This would 

result in an adverse impact to steelhead and other fish. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 118 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Planning for trail placement on the outer rim of the railbed, as far as possible from the creek 

edge, would allow for maximum flexibility if potential restoration activities are planned and 

implemented in the future. These restoration activities by other entities may include riparian 

planting, removal of portions of railbed prism to allow widening of the stream floodplain, or 

connection of creek meanders to the main channel. Trail reconstruction and use is not expected 

to preclude these restoration actions, although actual work would have to be coordinated with 

trail use. Any trail maintenance needs (such as to repair washouts and flood damage) would be 

considered an opportunity for restoration actions by not returning the railroad grade to previous 

conditions. Methods such as bridges or boardwalks can be used rather than replacing any 

railroad fill. Significant damage to the railbed from natural events would prompt serious 

considerations of trail closure rather than emergency repairs if fish species or natural resources 

may be impacted. Chapter 2 mitigation measures references this further under the water 

resources section. Putting the railroad grade back after natural damage would adversely impact 

steelhead populations in the creek and would be an indirect effect of retaining trail use. 

Bull Trout 

Bull trout are listed as a federal Threatened species. This project is not expected to degrade river 

habitat, and thus would not affect migration or foraging by bull trout in the Klickitat River. 

Riparian plantings and connection of springs to the main river/creek would slightly improve 

conditions for this species, as well as other riparian/stream dependent species, in the long term. 

Wild Turkey and Deer 

Wild turkey and deer are priority species for the state of Washington as game species. This 

alternative would clearly increase human traffic into their range and would likely cause these 

species to avoid the trail and adjacent riparian area during periods of use. It is expected that deer 

and turkey would move into upland areas during the mid-morning to late afternoon when trail 

users are present, and adjust their use of the lower Klickitat River and Swale Creek to early 

morning and evening. As this is their naturally most active periods, impacts to the species may 

be moderated. Critical winter periods would have much fewer human users, and this should 

allow for some use as winter refuge for these species. In severe winters, the Forest Service 

would cooperate with WDFW in closing critical low-elevation winter range from human 

disturbance to reduce winter big game mortality. The areas and seasons of closure would be 

planned as needed with WDFW. 

Oak Woodland and Riparian Zones

Oak woodland and riparian zones are priority habitats for the state of Washington. Oak 

woodland habitat would not be directly impacted by this alternative as no oak or pine would be 

removed with this alternative. Riparian zone habitat would not directly be impacted (from 

existing conditions) by this alternative as no functional vegetation nor trees would be removed as 

part of the project. Both habitats would improve in all alternatives, as the railbed is no longer 

maintained with a wide “brushing” limit, but alternatives 2-3 would actively plant trees and 

shrubs to reduce erosion, screen users, and increase vegetated habitat (where lacking). 

Trail use, and associated human disturbance, would reduce the refuge that the riparian area 

currently provides to many wildlife species. The diversity of species may be reduced with 

increases in use. Some species that feed and nest in the canopy (Lewis’ woodpecker, nuthatch, 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 119 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

creepers) or are tolerant of human presence (jays, swallows, ground squirrels) may be less 

affected by trail use. The value of riparian habitat is detailed in a 181 page report by WDFW 

called “Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian”, dated 

December of 1997. In this report, the recommendations for recreation management include: 

• Limit high impact recreation facilities in the riparian area. (Limit camp and picnic 

grounds, road access points, boat ramps/marinas, motorized vehicle trails, high densities 

of people) 

• Carefully site new facilities. (Sites with stable soils, currently degraded or developed 

sites, lands, which if not used for recreation, would be vulnerable to intensive 

development) 

• Retain riparian habitat features at recreation sites. (Retain native vegetation, down logs, 

snags, and other natural features) 

• Limit trails in riparian habitat. (Due to erosion potential and wildlife disturbance) 

• Public education. (Reduce unintentional and unknowing damage) 

With the exception of trail location (existing) in the riparian area, all the recommendations have 

been followed. Erodable areas on the edges of the railbed were avoided with trail plans, 

including re-routes in washed-out areas, and no new fill would be used. 

Although efforts would be made to increase cover and structure through plantings, retaining the 

railbed and allowing recreation use of it would not allow the riparian area to fully function at a 

level that is equivalent to an undisturbed watershed. The trail would act like a narrow but 

permanent access within the riparian corridor. Trail use, though, is one of the least intrusive 

human uses of the riparian area as compared to common practices in riparian areas, such as 

logging, residential development, road construction and maintenance, conversion to agriculture 

and damming. Nonetheless, it is recommended that restoration projects such as plantings and 

bird boxes be used to mitigate for loss of undisturbed habitat, and trail maintenance in the form 

of trail edge brushing be kept to a minimum. 

Alternative 2a – Direct, Indirect, Short Term and Long Term Effects 

In this alternative, the trail within Swale Canyon would be seasonally closed from June 15 to 

September 30. The closure would be fairly easy to impose as there would be very limited access 

to the trail other than from the planned trailheads. This alternative would have similar natural 

resource effects to alternative 2 except: 

• potential risk of effects to steelhead would decrease due to much less likelihood of user 

enticement into stream pools with entrapped fish. 

• potential risk of effects to the western gray squirrel would be reduced in likelihood as 

their nesting period would be largely be uninterrupted by trail users. 

• riparian dependent wildlife would not be displaced from the riparian corridor by trail 

users during this period. The tributary would act as a sort of summer “refuge” area that is 

relatively free of roads and other human disturbance. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 120 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Alternatives 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail- Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

Water and Soil Resources

This alternative proposes a “hardened” variable trail width, ranging from 12 ft near urban areas 

to 4 ft through sites that were damaged by the 1996 flood. In addition, this alternative only 

includes the section of trail from Lyle to Klickitat. A hard surface such as asphalt or bituminous 

aggregate surface would be used from Lyle to Klickitat in Alternative 3. In alternative 3a, a 

similar hard surface would be used from Lyle to Fisher Hill and Pitt to Klickitat, but soil 

hardeners or compacted aggregate would be substituted between Fisher Hill and Pitt. Since both 

treatments would create impervious surfaces, their effects are considered similar. Approximately 

550,000 ft2 of impervious surface would be spread out through the 13 1⁄2 -mile trail corridor. This 

impervious surface would increase runoff from the trail. Given the dry climate (mean annual 

precipitation of 20 to 22 inches) and the trail being outsloped, this extra runoff would be 

dispersed through the rail bed column and is not expected to change flow characteristics in the 

Klickitat River. Some water would be stored inside the column and any excess water would be 

metered out into the river over time. 

Effects pertaining to erosion and sedimentation are similar to those described in Alternative 2. 

The Logging Camp Creek crossing would differ slightly in this alternative. The existing box 

culvert at Logging Camp Creek would be maintained and “porous” approaches would be 

constructed to allow wheel chair access across the site. These approaches would be designed 

similar to Alternative 2, but would span the entire 300 ft active alluvial fan. This would allow 

natural channel processes and fish passage to occur along the alluvial fan while reducing the 

need for trail maintenance. 

This alternative would result in a slight enhancement of free-flowing conditions in the Wild and 

Scenic River portion of the Klickitat River and water quality as compared to Alternative 1. The 

enhancement of free-flowing conditions would result from the railbed fill removal along sections 

between Pitt and Fisher Hill and streambank revegetation. Since this alternative does not include 

the Swale Creek section of trail, effects to the 303(d) section of Swale Creek would be the same 

as Alternative 1.

Fish, Wildlife and Botany

The Forest Service would develop the trail from Lyle to Klickitat. With this alternative, species 

and riparian habitat from the community of Klickitat and upward through Swale Canyon 

(including the area from Suburbia to Wahkiacus) would remain as already described under 

existing conditions, as well as the related effects from Alternative 1. In this upper section, the 

Forest Service would not improve the trail surface, relocate it to toe slopes, correct any potential 

erosion problems, or construct the Harms Road and Warwick trailheads. The current parking 

area at Wahkiacus would not be enlarged or changed from existing conditions. The railbed 

would still exist and this section of trail will still be open for public recreation, but management 

would be from a non-federal nexus. 

Between Lyle to Klickitat, the trail width in Alternative 3 is slightly wider than proposed in 

Alternative 2. Other than the section between Fisher Hill and Pitt, this is of minor consequence 

to wildlife species due to the trail location already immediately adjacent to the highway, and/or 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 121 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

in residential area. Between Fisher Hill and Pitt, projected use numbers increase slightly 

(reference recreation report in this EA) in this segment. A slightly smaller width of railbed may 

be available for riparian planting and habitat overall in this alternative, as the hardened trail is 

proposed to be 2’ wider. There would be slightly less total vegetative recovery of the riparian 

area due to maintenance of this larger path width. The slightly wider trail width and increase in 

use may result in slightly less wildlife use in this alternative than with Alternative 2, in the 

section between Fisher Hill and Pitt. 

In this alternative, recreationists would negatively impact the bald eagle similarly as to what was 

described in Alternative 2. Under federal management, the area of impact is decreased from 14 

miles to 8 miles within the approximately 42 miles of total existing winter habitat within the 

Klickitat corridor. This translates to considerably less potential for impacts to the bald eagle 

from Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 under federal management. Overall though, the portion 

from Klickitat to Swale Canyon may still be managed by non-federal entities, thus the 

cumulative disturbance to wildlife is somewhat similar between Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Under Alternative 3, impacts to flora and noxious weeds will be similar to Alternative 2. 

Environmental Consequences of Trailheads

This section evaluates the effects of the proposed trailhead options. Trailhead options are 

evaluated for consistency with the Wild and Scenic River Plan, the County Shorelines Plan and 

the Floodplains Management Ordinance. The Floodplains Management Ordinance regulates 

new structures; and is relevant to proposed restrooms. The location of the trailheads adjacent to 

or in previously disturbed areas (houses, roads) precludes major effects to fish and wildlife 

species. No habitat would be removed by trailheads, including any wet areas or trees. 

Lyle Right-of-Way and Adjacent Private Parcel: This site is within the Lyle town limits and 

outside the floodplain, shorelines buffer area, and riparian area. This site would create 

approximately 36,000 ft2 of impervious surface and is located on a high basalt cliff above the 

river so it would be consistent with the purposes of the Community Shoreline Environment zone.

Right-of-Way at Pitt: This site would add 54,000 ft2

 of impervious surface and is located on an 

upper terrace within the 100-yr floodplain of the Klickitat River. The section of river from the 

Pitt Bridge to the Suburbia Bridge has been mapped in detail and 100-yr flood elevations have 

been identified in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) of 1981. A stormwater management 

plan would be developed for this site so runoff effects would be minimized. Involvement with 

the county health department would be needed before locating a toilet. 

Klickitat Parcel: Since the Klickitat Trailhead site is already paved, no additional impervious 

surface would be introduced. This site is in town, so additional effects from trailhead 

construction are expected to be minimal. 

Wahkiacus Trailhead Sites: These sites would add between 6,500 and 15,000 ft2

 of impervious 

surface and appear to be out of the 100-yr floodplain of either the Klickitat River or Swale Creek 

according to the 1981 FIRM maps. Areas of erosion from Swale Creek runoff were noted at the 

site resulting from the 1996 flood. A small wet area is located between the proposed trailhead 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 122 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

and Horseshoe Bend Road. A stormwater management plan would be developed for this site so 

runoff effects would be minimized. Involvement with the county health department would be 

needed before locating a toilet. 

Harms Road: This site would add approximately 2,000 ft2 of impervious surface. Harms Road 

trailhead is located outside of the 100-yr flood boundary for Swale Creek according to the 1981 

FIRM map. A stormwater management plan would be developed for this site so runoff effects 

would be minimized. 

Warwick: Swale Creek is in a conservancy environment at this location. This site would add 

approximately 23,700 ft2 of impervious surface. The Warwick trailhead is located outside of the 

100-yr flood boundary for Swale Creek according to the 1981 FIRM map. A stormwater 

management plan would be developed for this site so runoff effects would be minimized.

Stormwater Management Plans for Trailheads

Stormwater runoff is planned for detention at each of the proposed trailhead sites. In general, 

planned landscape areas, adjacent swale areas natural or constructed and the parking areas 

themselves would be utilized as particular site conditions allow. Stormwater outfalls would be 

designed to minimize impacts to downstream facilities. Prior to construction, a site-specific 

design would be completed and approved for each trailhead. 

In the absence of a particular standard from WSDOT or Klickitat County, the following overall 

standard is proposed for completing the drainage design at each trailhead: 

• The quantity of stormwater runoff designed for detention will be the difference 

between 10-year mean recurrence interval (MRI) pre-development natural conditions 

runoff and 100-year MRI developed site runoff. 

Compliance with Applicable Standards and Guidelines, Alternatives 2 and 2a, 3 and 3a 

A. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan: Lyle Urban Area 

Boundary to the National Scenic Area boundary (approximately the Fisher Hill trestle). 

Finding: The trail lies outside all buffer zones for wetlands, streams, and sensitive wildlife 

and plant sites within the NSA. The project area within the NSA has been surveyed for 

both sensitive flora and fauna. No sensitive flora or fauna sites were discovered. The site 

plans shall be reviewed by the appropriate agencies and all project developments would be 

completed in a manner as not to compromise the integrity of any sensitive wildlife site or 

within any sensitive plant buffer zone. 

B. The Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Lyle to approximately Pitt) 

Finding: Findings for the County shoreline ordinance, water quality, and critical Area 

ordinances are the most important as related to protection of these resources. All of the 

alternatives are consistent with this ordinance. These will be discussed in more detail below. 

C. Klickitat County Shorelines Plan 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 123 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Finding: All alternatives proposed in this document meet the intent of this ordinance. In 

many instances the existing trail does fall within the 50 ft zone of the Shoreline but, being a 

trail, it is an appropriate use. In addition, all wet areas shall be protected to ensure continued 

function and viability. Specific design guidelines in this document reflect this intent. 

D. Klickitat County Floodplain Ordinance 

Finding: There is only one location where fill is anticipated (trail head at Pitt) and 

appropriate compliance shall be met. 

E. Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance 

Finding: Critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in the Klickitat 

County Critical Ordinances (PHS data base managed by the Department of Fish and 

Wildlife) have been identified and these have met the performance standards included in the 

critical area ordinances. All sites have been discussed with the WDFW and it has been 

determined that the project would not compromise the integrity of the sites or priority habitat 

or occur during a time of year when the subject species are sensitive to disturbance. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1, No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, it is possible the railroad corridor could cease to be railbanked 

and could fall into private ownership without restrictions imposed by railbanking. With this 

scenario, it is possible that this right-of-way could be converted into an access road that would 

facilitate residential development along the entire west side of the Klickitat River within the 

Wild and Scenic River boundaries. Turning the rail bed into a road leaves the potential for 

significant impacts to natural resource values. 

Other possibilities under Alternative 1 include right-of-way management by Washington State, 

the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, or other trail proponents. Under these scenarios, the right-ofway could be developed into a trail without Forest Service involvement. 

Trail Development Alternatives 2 and 2a-3 and 3a 

Risk of cumulative effects from the actual trail construction would be low. Approximately 

622,740 ft2

 and 581,040 ft2 of additional impervious surface would be added to the Klickitat 

River basin by Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. This is equivalent to adding another 6- mile 

segment of paved road for Alternative 2 or an additional 5.5-mile segment for Alternative 3 in 

the 800,000 acre basin. Additionally, runoff from these surfaces would be mitigated through 

stormwater plans and the detention provided as the water flows through the railbed fill. 

Additional benefits would be realized by revegetation of existing railbed fill when compared to 

Alternative 1. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 124 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

Establishing a cooperative agreement with Klickitat County Weed Board to initiate a yearly 

monitoring and control program would mitigate impacts from weed infestations that may result 

from trail use. 

Using the railbed as a trail, rather than a road, is compatible with the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Plan, and helps mitigate cumulative effects to the riparian corridors of the Klickitat River and 

Swale Canyon. Cumulative effects could be mitigated by limiting development within the 

Klickitat and Swale canyons. 

Fish and Wildlife

Cumulative effects of this project is a collective loss of riparian area wildlife diversity and 

refugia within the Klickitat watershed as a result of increased human use. This trend is reflected 

throughout Washington, Oregon as well as the entire nation, due to people’s desires to recreate, 

and live, near rivers, lakes, and streams. WDFW’s riparian habitat management report from 

1997 summarized that “In the productive lowlands, about 70% of wetlands and riparian areas 

have been converted to other uses”. Along the Columbia River, 90% of the original riparian 

habitat has been lost to inundation by dams, conversion to agriculture or urbanization/residential 

conversion. The vast majority of federal, state, county and private parks, campgrounds, and 

recreation areas are near water and/or riparian areas. 

Along the lower 16.5 miles of the Klickitat River, this project would introduce human access to 

almost the entire river’s riparian corridor (rivermile 2-16.5), since Highway 142 is already on the 

other bank in it’s entirety. The lower 2 miles that would have little riparian trail access already 

has existing riparian or river access in terms of the county park on the eastern bank at rivermile 

1.1 and the Forest Service Lyle-Klickitat day Park on the west bank at its mouth. 

Restoration or preservation of functioning (native plants, reduction of non-native weeds) and 

intact (contiguous) riparian habitat, as included in this proposal, would forestall this net loss of 

habitat in the local area as well as nationwide. 

To mitigate for increased development in the area, per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Plan, the 

Forest Service can continue to identify and protect refugia and wildlife corridors (for example 

through land acquisition) to ensure the viability of the flora and fauna. Other entities have 

purchased land and should be encouraged to continue to do so.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 125 

3.7 Natural and Water Resources

TABLE 20: SUMMARY TABLE OF CONCLUSION OF EFFECTS 

for Federal and State Threatened, Sensitive and Priority Species 

Project Name: KLICKITAT RAILS-TO-TRAILS

 

SPECIES NAME Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3, 3a 

Columbia River Bull trout 

Salvelinus confluentus 

NE NE NE NE 

Lower Columbia River steelhead 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

NLAA LAA NLAA NLAA 

Western Gray Squirrel 

Sciurus griseus 

MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

LAA LAA LAA LAA 

Currant-leaf Alumroot 

Heuchera grossularifolia var. tenuifolia

NE NE NE NE 

The Dalles Mountain buttercup 

Ranunculus reconditus 

NE NE NE NE 

Mule/ blacktail deer 

(State Priority species) 

some 

displacement 

some 

displacement 

some 

displacement 

some 

displacement 

Wild turkey (State Priority Species) NE NE NE NE 

Oak woodlands (State Priority Habitat) NE NE NE NE 

Riparian zones (State Priority Habitat) 24 miles of 31 

mile corridor in 

low disturbance, but 

could move 

toward Alt 2 or 

2a in future 

through nonfederal actions 

2 miles of 

31 mile 

corridor in 

low 

disturbance

2 miles low 

(+ 15 miles 

low 

seasonal) 

disturbance 

16 miles of 31 

mile corridor 

in low disturbance, but 

could move 

toward Alt 2 

or 2a in future 

through nonfederal actions

NI/NE = No Impact/No Effect 

MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute toward Federal Listing or loss of viability to the 

population or species. 

WIFV = Will Impact individuals or habitat, with the consequence that the action may contribute to a trend toward Federal 

Listing or cause a loss of Viability to the population or species. 

BI = Beneficial Impact 

NLAA = May Affect, but Not Likely to adversely affect habitat or individuals. 

LAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 126 

3.8 Scenic Resources

Figure 17: Figure 18: 

Lyle-Fisher Trail Segment within CRGNSA and Wahkiacus-Warwick Trail Segment 

Wild and Scenic River Boundary From Trail 

 From Rowena Plateau 

(Trail is located between Highway 142 and Klickitat River)

 Klickitat River Hwy 142 

3.8 SCENIC RESOURCES

Existing Conditions 

Introduction 

The existing 31–mile rail banked trail system provides a relatively unique scenic experience for 

visitors to the Columbia River Gorge. The trail is located within the drier portion of the 

transition zone between westside and eastside ecosystems. This landscape of pine-oak 

woodlands and grasslands is viewed from steep canyons with basalt cliffs in the foreground (less 

than 1⁄4 mile away) and rolling upland grassy hills with pine-oak woodlands located in draws and 

on north slopes. The first 11⁄2 miles are within the CRGNSA and the first approximately 10.5 

trail miles are within the Klickitat National Wild and Scenic River corridor. 

The Trail Segments 

Segment 1: Lyle to Fisher Hill

Views: Beginning from the trail terminus in Lyle and continuing for 2 miles, the exceptionally 

scenic views are of the mouth of the Klickitat River as it flows into the Columbia, accented by 

the historic bridges at Lyle. These views are seen from the Columbia River, Interstate 84, the 

proposed trail, the Klickitat River, and Highway 142 in the foreground. These views can also be 

seen from Rowena Plateau and the Historic Columbia River Highway in the middle-ground (less 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 127 

3.8 Scenic Resources

than 3 miles away). Highway 142 and the community of Lyle are very visible from the trail for 

most of this segment. The experience of the trail is a mixture of rural sights and sounds and 

natural beauty. 

Scenic Quality Objective: “Visual Subordinance”, a visual quality objective that provides for 

management activities that may be evident but must remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape, as seen from the Columbia River, State Roads 142 and 14 (SR 142, SR 

14), Interstate 84 (I-84), Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH), and Rowena Plateau. 

Existing Trail Development: No developed access, trailheads, toilet facilities or signing 

currently exist. The existing trail surface is the existing rail-bed with the tracks removed. The 

trail is at an even grade and the surface varies from extremely rough to reasonably smooth. 

Rough surfaces currently preclude most road bike use. There are washed-out portions and areas 

of trail surface water in this segment. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Class: “Roaded Natural” with a “Rural” node for the 

first 1.6 miles near Lyle. 

Segment 2: Fisher Hill-Pitt

Views: The nine-mile segment from Fisher Hill to Pitt provides intimate views of the bedrock 

gorge of the deep lower canyon of the Klickitat River. Viewpoints from rock outcrops looking 

down into white water rapids and fishing access are available just off the trail. The Fisher Hill 

Trestle is an interesting historic structure providing views from above the Klickitat River.

Scenic Quality Objective: “Visual Subordinance”, a visual quality objective that provides for 

management activities that may be evident but must remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape, as seen from the Klickitat River, recreation sites within the Wild and 

Scenic River corridor, and Highways 14 and 142. 

Existing Trail Development: Fisher Hill Trestle and the rail-bed itself are the major existing trail 

developments. The trestle deck is currently dangerous for public use. No developed public 

access, trailheads, toilet facilities currently exist. The only signing tells the public that the trail is 

not ready for public use. There is currently a user-defined parking area under the Fisher Hill 

Trestle. A Native American fishery complex is adjacent to the trail near Fisher Hill. The 

existing trail surface is similar to the Lyle segment. A culvert at Logging Camp Creek raises the 

trail grade abruptly and is a dominant visual feature. There are washed-out portions and areas 

of trail surface water in this segment. 

ROS Class: “Roaded Natural” 

Segment 3: Pitt-Wahkiacus 

Views: Besides views into and from the river drainage, the landscape seen from the trail in this 

seven-mile segment is characterized by farming, housing development, and a small rural town. 

In many places the trail is adjacent to private residences, businesses and SR 142. The trail goes 

through the center of the town of Klickitat. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 128 

3.8 Scenic Resources

Scenic Quality Objective: “Visual Subordinance” as seen from the Klickitat River, the proposed 

trail and trailheads, and Highway 142. (This scenic quality objective is a project objective that 

applies only to state lands within the trail corridor. It is based on ROS objectives, providing a 

consistent scenic quality objective for the entire trail, being respectful of the adjacent 

landowners, and being responsive to the SEPA question of “how to control aesthetics”.) 

Existing Trail Development: No developed amenities directly associated with the trail currently 

exist. The public is able to access the river from an existing county park and there is restroom 

access in the community of Klickitat. This segment contains flood-damaged portions including a 

washed-out bridge over the Klickitat River at Suburbia. 

ROS Class: “Roaded Natural”, except “Rural” Pitt-Klickitat and “Urban” Klickitat-Suburbia. 

Segment 4: Wahkiacus-Warwick

Views: The majority of views in this segment are from within the canyon along this thirteen-mile 

segment. The landscape in Swale Canyon is the most natural appearing and remote of the four 

stretches. The trail enters a narrow steep canyon with a seasonal creek. There are few houses, 

adjacent roads or road crossings. 

Scenic Quality Objective: “Visual Subordinance”, as seen from the proposed trail and trailheads, 

and Lyle-Centerville Road. (This scenic quality objective is a project objective that applies only 

to state lands within the trail corridor. It is based on ROS objectives, providing a consistent 

scenic quality objective for the entire trail, being respectful of the adjacent landowners, and 

being responsive to the SEPA question of “how to control aesthetics”.) 

Figure 19: Remaining Structure from the Bridge over the 

 Klickitat River at Suburbia.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 129 

3.8 Scenic Resources

Existing Trail Development: There is no current development except for the existing rail-bed, 

which is very coarse in many places where talus has fallen on the trail. There are several trestles 

along the trail in this segment. Users now park at Wahkiacus, Harms Road or the LyleCenterville Highway. 

ROS Class: “Roaded Natural”. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines

A. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan 

Applies between the Lyle Urban Area Boundary and the National Scenic Area boundary 

(approximately the Fisher Hill trestle). The applicable standards are quoted below from Chapter 

2, Scenic Resources for the General Management Area: 

• In siting new buildings and roads, use of existing topography and vegetation to screen such 

development from key viewing areas shall be given priority over other means of achieving 

visual subordinance, such as planting new vegetation or using artificial berms to screen the 

development from key viewing areas. 

• New buildings or roads shall be sited on portions of the subject property that minimize 

visibility from key viewing areas, unless the siting would place such development in a buffer 

specified for protection of wetlands, riparian corridors, sensitive plants, or sensitive wildlife 

sites or would conflict with guidelines to protect cultural resources. In such situations, 

development shall comply with this guideline to the maximum extent practicable. 

• Size, height, shape, color, reflectivity, landscaping, siting or other aspects of proposed 

development shall be evaluated to ensure that such development is visually subordinate to its 

setting as seen from key viewing areas. 

• The exterior of buildings on lands seen from key viewing areas shall be composed of nonreflective materials or materials with low reflectivity, unless the structure would be fully 

screened from all key viewing areas by existing topographic features. 

 Figure 20: Typical Trestle in this Segment Figure 21: Trail Surface is Rough, Rockfall is 

Common 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 130 

3.8 Scenic Resources

• The exteriors of structures shall be dark and either natural or earth-tone colors. 

• New developments shall be compatible with their landscape setting and maintain the integrity 

of that setting. Expansion of existing developments shall be compatible with their landscape 

setting and maintain the integrity of that setting to the maximum extent practicable. 

• Patterns of plantings for screening vegetation shall be in character with the surroundings. 

Residences in grassy, open areas or savannahs shall be partly screened with trees in small 

groupings and openings between groupings. 

• Key Viewing Areas: The Columbia River, State Roads 142 and 14 (SR 142, SR 14), 

Interstate 84 (I-84), Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH), and Rowena Plateau 

B. The Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

Applies from the trail beginning in Lyle to river mile 11. The following management direction is 

applicable to Scenic Resources: 

• New development is visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

• Maintain the character of canyon hillsides. 

• Maintain the existing character of the Shorelines Management Area. 

• Visual Quality Objective is “Partial Retention” (Also called “visual subordinance”-A visual 

quality objective that provides for management activities that may be evident but must 

remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape...). 

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Class is “Roaded Natural” 

• Key viewpoints: Klickitat River, Recreation sites (including the proposed trail and trailheads) 

and Highways 14 and 142. 

• In order to meet scenic quality objectives within foregrounds of recreation developments, the 

Forest Service uses handbooks to facilitate meeting required standards. The applicable 

handbook for this discussion is The Built Environment Image Guide (FS-710, 2001). The 

following guidance is taken from this guide: 

Applicable Design Guidelines:

• Important influences are ranching and rugged natural environment 

• Locate structures at the edges of clearings 

• Use simple, compact forms 

• Repeat simple forms 

• Use large scale building materials 

• Avoid complex multiple roof forms 

• Expose structural elements 

• Use local and indigenous materials when available. Use stone, wood, heavy timbers and 

other natural materials (synthetics if they can achieve the appearance of natural 

materials). 

• Use color schemes that are inspired by rock outcrops, leaves, needles, tree trunks, bark or 

colors found on the ground. Accent colors from accents in the natural setting. 

• Minimize site disturbance and size of new roads and parking. 

• Restroom characteristics: Strong roof with protected entry, strong base. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 131 

3.8 Scenic Resources

Table 21: Applicable ROS Guidance: 

DEVELOPMENT ROS CLASS 

xxxxxxxx = compatible w/ROS Class ROADED 

NATURAL 

RURAL URBAN 

SITE SETTING 

Natural surroundings dominate xxxxxxxx 

Natural and built co-dominate xxxxxxxx 

Built environment dominates xxxxxxxx

Heavy site modifications for facilities xxxxxxxx

Moderate site modifications for facilities xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

NON-VEHICULAR BRIDGES 

Logs or Dimensional wood xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

Concrete, Steel or other synthetic xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 

INTERPRETIVE/SITE FACILITIES 

Simple signs of native or natural appearing 

materials 

xxxxxxxx 

Complex wayside exhibits xxxxxxxx 

Major interpretive sites xxxxxxxx

ROADS (INCLUDES PARKING) 

Passenger car (vs. high clearance) mostly 

double-laned with paved surface 

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

TRAIL SURFACING 

Native material or gravel xxxxxxxx 

Asphalt/Concrete xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

TOILETS 

SST Vault xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 

Precast Concrete SST xxxxxxxx 

Flush toilet any compatible design xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

BARRIERS/WALLS 

Logs, plants, or boulders xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 

Dry walls xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 

Mortared Rock walls or concrete walls xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 132 

3.8 Scenic Resources

Environmental Consequences 

Introduction

This section is broken into two categories: the environmental consequences of the conceptual 

trailhead options, and trail support facilities/resource mitigations/likely conflict resolution 

structures. 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

The Forest Service would not build trailheads, improve the surface of the rail-bed, or provide any 

support facilities such as toilets, drinking water. 

Direct, short term and indirect effects

In the short term, if the Forest Service decides not to manage the trail, development and 

management of the trail may be delayed. If so, continued use of the trail may cause unsightly 

resource damage, litter problems, fire risk to the landscape, and ad-hoc developments. However, 

this may not occur since future management and trail use is an unknown at this time. 

Long-Term and Cumulative Effects

The long-term scenic risk to the no-action alternative is not known. These effects would depend 

on whether the trail is unmanaged or managed by other entities to an unknown scenic standard. 

The biggest risks to scenery would be unmanaged use that created resource damage and 

unsightly ad-hoc development or managed use to a lesser scenic standard than that proposed by 

the Forest Service. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

The Forest Service proposes to include the following development with potential to impact 

scenic resources: 

• 6 Trailheads

 Trailhead parking lots (including grading and planting) 

 6 Trailhead toilets 

 Trailhead signing, pay phones, other amenities 

• Barriers 

The only development that would be visible from CRGNSA key viewing areas is the trailhead 

parking at Lyle. The scenic guidelines do not apply to the Lyle trailhead because it is located 

within the Urban Area. 

The Klickitat Wild and Scenic River guidelines apply from viewpoints along the trail itself, the 

Klickitat River, and Highways 14 and142 for the first approximately 10.5 trail miles. The 

trailheads for which these guidelines apply are at Lyle and Pitt. The rest of the trailheads are 

proposed to be designed according to the applicable guidelines from the Built Environment 

Image Guide, discussed above, and the project visual quality objective (a visual quality objective 

is a set of visual management goals established by the Forest Service to achieve a desired visual 

objective. Each objective describes a different degree of acceptable alteration of the natural 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 133 

3.8 Scenic Resources

landscape based on the importance of aesthetics. (National Forest Landscape Management 

Volume 2, USDA Handbook 462). 

Direct, short-term and indirect effects

Trailheads present the biggest risk to scenic resources because of their size and extent of hard 

surfaces. The Lyle, Pitt, and Wahkiacus Trailheads would meet visual subordinance from the 

Klickitat River because of vegetative screening. The Klickitat, Harms Road and Warwick 

trailheads would not be visible from the Klickitat River because of topographic screening and 

distance. The Lyle trailhead would be visible from both SR 14 and SR 142. All trailheads 

would be visible from the portions of the trail for which they provide access. 

All of the trailheads rely on vegetative screening and island planting to be visually subordinate 

from the trail and Highways 14 and 142. Also, the trail is routed around the trailheads with 

vegetative islands between the trail and the trailhead. Toilet buildings are located to minimize 

dominance at the site. To ensure that these facilities are in harmony with each other and the trail 

landscapes, the scenic resource design standards of Chapter 2 should be applied. 

Trail 

• Trail surfaces (compacted surface, boardwalks, trestles or bridges) 

• River access sites 

• 2 portable toilets 

• Natural resource mitigation structures and plantings 

• Barriers 

• Signs 

Most of this development would not be visible from CRGNSA key viewing areas due to location 

of the development outside of the CRGNSA boundary or to size of the development. The trail 

would be located on an existing rail-bed; its surfaces may be visible from Highway 142 at points 

along the trail. Signs may also be visible from the highway. 

The Klickitat Wild and Scenic River guidelines apply from viewpoints along the trail itself, the 

Klickitat River, and Highway 142 for the first approximately 10.5 trail miles. These trail 

improvements are required to be designed according to the applicable guidelines from the Built 

Environment Image Guide, discussed above. 

Direct, short-term and indirect effects

Assuming that these trail support facilities are built in accordance with requirements in the Built 

Environment Image Guide, most would not have any negative scenic impacts from key 

viewpoints. The greatest risks to scenic resources are the barriers, bridges, boardwalks, and 

portable toilets. To ensure that these facilities are in harmony with each other and the trail 

landscapes, the scenic resource design standards of Chapter 2 should be applied. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail- Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

The Forest Service proposes to include the following development with potential to impact 

scenic resources: 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 134 

3.8 Scenic Resources

3 Trailheads

• Trailhead parking lots (including grading and planting) 

• 3 Trailhead toilets 

• Trailhead signing, pay phones, other amenities 

Barriers 

The trailheads proposed for Alternative 3 would have the same effect as those for Alternative 2 

except that only 3 of them would be built in Alternative 3. The ones that are proposed to be built 

(Lyle, Pitt, and Klickitat) would require the same mitigations as in Alternative 2. 

Trail

• Trail surfaces (compacted surface, asphalt, boardwalks, trestles or bridges) 

• River access sites 

• 1 Portable toilet 

• Natural Resource mitigation structures and plantings 

• Barriers 

• Signs 

Most of this development would not be visible from CRGNSA key viewing areas due to location 

of the development outside of the CRGNSA boundary or size of the development. The trail 

would be located on an existing rail-bed; its surfaces may be visible from Highway 142 at points 

along the trail. Signs may also be visible from the highway. 

Direct, short-term and indirect effects

Assuming that these trail support facilities are built in accordance with requirements in the Built 

Environment Image Guide, most would not have any negative scenic impacts from key 

viewpoints. The greatest risk to scenic resources are the barriers, bridges, boardwalks, and porta-potties. To ensure that these facilities are in harmony with each other and the trail landscapes, 

the scenic resource design standards of Chapter 2 should be applied. 

Long-Term and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2 and 2a and Alternatives 3 and 3a

The risk to scenery of Alternative 2, the 31-mile alternative is that the building of 6 trailheads 

plus support facilities and the effects of building the Lyle-Klickitat Day Use Area may degrade 

the overall scenic experience of the river, the trail itself, or of Highway 142. Assuming each 

portion of development meets the requirement of visual subordinance through design and the 

direction given in the Built Environment Image Guide, the scenic resources should not be 

impacted beyond that expected by the various regulations. Therefore, it is important individually 

and cumulatively that the designs meet the required direction. Alternative 2 places a greater risk 

to scenic cumulative effects than Alternative 3 because it requires building 3 more trailheads. 

Trailheads are the biggest risk to scenic resources of the developments proposed due to size and 

extent of hard surfaces. Fencing is the second biggest risk to scenic resources of the 

developments proposed. Alternative 2 contains more miles of possible fencing than Alternative 

3. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 135 

3.9 Transportation

3.9 TRANSPORTATION

This assessment focuses on impacts to adjacent road systems for trailheads and trail/road 

crossings. 

Existing Conditions 

To assess the impacts of the trailheads upon the adjacent road systems, existing traffic data was 

compiled and then a growth projection was made to estimate the traffic data for the design year, 

assumed to be 20 years out. For this assessment it has been assumed that trailhead generated 

traffic is in addition to the traffic growth projections described below. 

 “Level of Service” (LOS), ranging from ‘A’-- free flowing traffic to ‘F’-- jam density, is 

estimated from the average daily traffic volume (ADT) for the design year and forms a basis for 

determining the consequences and effects of the trailheads. LOS ‘C’ is a volume/capacity ratio of 

approximately 50% and is generally defined as the point beyond which driver comfort and 

convenience decline and accident rates begin to increase. Design hour volume (DHV) on a twolane rural road is typically about 15 % of ADT and would be used where applicable to check the 

capacity of intersections. On very low volume local roads, defined as having an ADT of 400 or 

less, a risk assessment approach alone can be used comparing site-specific issues to accepted 

design guidelines for the given ADT, rather than calculating LOS or applying DHV. 

For further discussion and definition of these topics, refer to the Washington State Department of 

Transportation “Design Manual” (WSDOT-DM), The AASHTO “Guidelines for Geometric 

Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads, ADT < 400 (AASHTO Guidelines) and the Klickitat 

County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 

Table 22 below displays the 2002 ADT for roads affected by the proposed trail. It also provides 

estimates for 2022 ADT and for 2022 DHV where applicable, without any projected trail use. 

Table 22. ADT and DHV for the State and County Road System without Trailheads. 

Road No./Name Location Lanes Surface 2002 

ADT 

2022 

ADT 

2022 

DHV

SR-14 SR-142 junction 2 Asphalt 3,000 4,500 680 

SR-142 Lyle 2 Asphalt 860 1,200 180 

SR-142 MP 10, Klickitat R. Bridge 2 Asphalt 690 970 145 

SR-142 MP 13.26, Durkee Rd. 2 Asphalt 580 810 120 

Centerville Road Warwick 2 Asphalt 140 175 n/a 

Schilling Road Wahkiacus 1 Gravel 22 28 n/a 

Schilling Road Centerville Road 2 Asphalt 55 69 n/a 

Horseshoe Bend Rd. Wahkiacus 2 Asphalt 46 58 n/a 

Horseshoe Bend Rd.* Wahkiacus-End of Pavement 1 Gravel 7 9 n/a 

Horseshoe Bend Rd. Harms Road 2 Gravel 17 21 n/a 

Harms Road Centerville Road 2 Gravel 31 39 n/a 

* Estimated, no previous data from Klickitat County. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 136 

3.9 Transportation

For the State road system, existing (2002) ADT was obtained from the WSDOT ‘Trips System’. 

For the County road system, existing (2002) ADT was prorated from 1996 data obtained from 

Klickitat County. Design year (2022) ADT without trailhead development was estimated using 

growth data from the RTP applied as follows: 

• SR-14, traffic growth rate to the design year is approximately 50%. 

• SR-142, traffic growth rate to the design year is approximately 40%. 

• County roads, traffic growth rate to the design year is approximately 25%. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines

No Land Use Regulations set standards or guidelines for transportation. WSDOT and Klickitat 

County transportation standards are applied. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

In Alternative 1, no trailheads would be developed. People currently park at the SR14/SR142 

junction in Lyle, Fisher Hill, Pitt, Wahkiacus (off Schilling Road) and Harms Road to use the 

trail, but the volume of this use is unknown. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail, and Alternatives, 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail - 

Direct/Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

ADT for the trailhead road approaches is indicated in Table 23, including anticipated shuttle trips 

between trailheads. DHV as a percentage of ADT for the trailheads is quite high because ADT 

for peak weekends is about three times the average for the year. Assumptions used for analyses 

were as follows: 

• ADT and DHV for the newly constructed trailheads are the same in the design year and 

are controlled by the physical capacities of the trailhead parking areas. 

• Alternative 2 traffic volumes were used as ‘controlling’ or ‘worst case scenario’. 

• The design hour for the trailheads coincides with the design hour on the adjacent road. 

Table 23: ADT and DHV for the Trailheads by Alternative. 

Trailhead Alt. 1 

ADT 

Alt. 2

ADT 

Alt. 2a 

ADT 

Alt. 3 

ADT 

2022 

DHV** 

Lyle Unknown 20 20 20 10 

Pitt Unknown 15 15 15 8 

Klickitat Unknown 20 20 20 10 

Wahkiacus Unknown 10 8 n/a 5 

Harms Road Unknown 10 7 n/a n/a 

Warwick/Uecker Rd. Unknown 15 11 n/a n/a 

Total Unknown 90 81 55 33 

**Based upon Alternative 2 as ‘controlling’ or ‘worst case scenario’. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 137 

3.9 Transportation

State Roads Analysis

Utilizing WSDOT-DM, Figure 610-3, results of ADT and consequent LOS determinations for 

the state roads with and without trailhead development are contained in Table 24. Overall, LOS 

for the state roads in the design year with or without trailhead development shows no change. 

Table 24: LOS (Level of Service) for State Roads with and without Trailheads 

Road 

No. 

Location Terrain 2022 

ADT 

State 

Road 

2022 LOS 

Without 

Trailheads

2022 

ADT 

Trailhead

Tributary

2022 ADT 

With 

Trailheads 

Added 

2022 LOS 

With 

Trailheads

SR-14 SR-142 

junction Level 4,500 C 65 4,565 C 

SR-142 Lyle Rolling 1,200 B 65 1,265 B 

SR-142 

MP 10, 

Klickitat R. 

Bridge 

Rolling 970 B 45 1,015 B 

SR-142 MP 13.26, 

Durkee Rd. Rolling 810 B 30 840 B 

The intersections with SR-142 at the Lyle, Pitt and Klickitat Trailheads all have weekday ADT 

less than 100 qualifying them as Category I road approaches. The design template should be ‘D’ 

for the approaches at Lyle and Pitt because of horse trailer traffic, and it should be ‘C’ at 

Klickitat to accommodate busses and RV’s (WSDOT-DM, Chapter 920). Checking DHV for 

SR-142 and the trailhead approaches at the Lyle, Pitt and Klickitat Trailheads against WSDOTDM Figures 910-9a and 910-12, no left-turn storage lanes or separate right-turn lanes are 

warranted on SR-142 for these approaches. 

The intersection of SR-14 with SR-142 may warrant a left-turn storage lane and an added rightturn lane on SR-14 by the design year. Trailhead ADT represents a little over 1% of the total 

ADT using the intersection in the design year so it would have minimal impact. The complete 

study of the intersection is beyond the scope of this assessment. 

Using WSDOT-DM Chapter 650 (Suppl. October 9, 2002), Chapter 700 (Suppl. November 1, 

2002) and Chapter 920, CRGNSA personnel completed a risk assessment for trailhead road 

approaches and trail/road crossings and propose the measures listed in Table 25 below (also 

found in Chapter 2). With the safety measures proposed, the state road locations should meet 

WSDOT standards. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 138 

3.9 Transportation

Table 25: State Roads Risk Assessment for Trailhead Road Approaches and for Trail Crossings 

Location Speed 

Limit,

mph 

Intersection 

Sight Distance 

Available, feet 

Decision Sight 

Distance 

Available, 

feet 

Notes 

Lyle Trailhead 40 350-400 n/a 

No access from SR-14; intersection 

planned on SR-142 opposite Spokane 

Ave., approximately 420’ from SR-14. 

Trail Crossing 

MP 10.1 45 n/a 400 

Westbound: minor brushing on inside 

of curve. Eastbound: construct trail on 

low fill on inside of curve so 

approaching vehicle drivers can see 

trail users over bridge rail. 

Pitt Trailhead 45 450 westbound; 

650 eastbound. n/a Approximate 6% downgrade westbound on approach to trailhead access road. 

MP 12 and MP 

13.5 Vicinity 

Clear Zones 

45 

40 n/a n/a Locate trail beyond clear zone or mitigate with an approved barrier along SR-142. 

Trail Crossing 

MP 12.6 25 n/a 350 Painted crosswalk south side of 7th. Street. 

Klickitat 

Trailhead and 

Trail Crossing 

25 150 220 

Painted crosswalk to access shared 

restroom at ball fields north side of Ball 

Field Road. 

Trail Crossing 

MP 14 40 n/a 330 + Limb-up existing trees to increase sight distance on inside of curve. 

County Roads Analysis: Alternative 2 only

The 2022 ADT with and without trailheads is shown in Table 26 for the County roads affected 

by Alternative 2. For these roads, ‘with trailheads’ includes trailhead traffic directly tributary 

rounded upward to account for anticipated shuttle trips between trailheads. Where trailhead 

traffic is not directly tributary, ‘with trailheads’ is simply ‘without trailheads’ rounded upward to 

account for anticipated shuttle trips between trailheads. 

Table 26: ADT for County Roads with and without Trailheads

Road No./Name Location 2002 ADT 

2022 ADT 

Without 

Trailheads 

2022 ADT 

With 

Trailheads 

*** 

Centerville Road Warwick 140 175 195 

Schilling Road Wahkiacus 22 28 30 

Schilling Road Centerville Road 55 69 70 

Horseshoe Bend Rd. Wahkiacus 46 58 70 

Horseshoe Bend Rd.# Wahkiacus-End of Pavement 7 9 10 

Horseshoe Bend Rd. Harms Road 17 21 25 

Harms Road Centerville Road 31 39 50 

# Estimated, no previous data from Klickitat County. 

***Rounded upward to include anticipated shuttle trips between trailheads.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 139 

3.9 Transportation

For the county roads, a risk assessment was completed using AASHTO-Guidelines, WSDOTDM and input received on the ground in May 2003 from Klickitat County personnel. Klickitat 

County personnel indicated that crosswalks be painted at paved County road/trail crossings and 

that advance-warning signs be placed by the construction contractor for the project. With the 

mitigation measures proposed, the Klickitat County road locations should meet county standards. 

For the one lane sections of Horseshoe Bend and Schilling Roads, it is recommended to restrict 

recreation vehicles over 22 feet in length. It has yet to be determined how to implement this 

recommendation. Some combination of advance signing and appropriate notation on maps could 

be used. 

 

Table 27: County Roads Risk Assessment for Trailhead Road Approaches and for Trail 

Crossings 

Location Speed 

Limit,

mph 

Intersection

Sight 

Distance, 

Available, 

feet 

Decision 

Sight 

Distance 

Available,

feet 

Notes 

Klickitat

Trailhead and 

Trail Crossing 

(Durkee Road) 

25 > 150 > 150 Define intersection adjacent to fire station. Paint 

crosswalk for trail crossing at Durkee Road near 

(stop sign) intersection with SR-142. 

Wahkiacus 

Trailhead and 

Trail Crossing 

25 > 220 > 220 Sight distances are for traffic approaching 

northerly on Schilling Road after minor limb-up 

of trees on the inside of the curve. Sight 

distances for traffic approaching from the 

intersection with Horseshoe Bend Rd enhanced 

by minor brushing within the intersection radii. 

Provide advance warning signs for trail crossing. 

Horseshoe 

Bend Road at 

Schilling Road 

School 

Bus Stop 

25 n/a > 150 Advance warning signs in place on all 

approaches. Schedule is approximately 7:20 am 

and 3:05 pm school days. Bus stops just south of 

Schilling Rd. Stop lasts less than 5 minutes and 

would have minimal impact on nearby trailhead. 

The trailhead would have no impact on bus stop. 

Horseshoe 

Bend and 

Schilling 

Roads, One 

Lane Sections 

25^ n/a n/a ADT < 30 for design year ^^. Potential for 

agricultural related traffic but type/amount 

unknown. Road alignment, grades, lack of 

turnouts are potential hazards, especially for 

horse trailers and RV’s. Recommend 22’ 

maximum vehicle length for recreation traffic in 

these sections. 

Harms Road

Trailhead and 

Trail Crossing 

50^^^ > 350 > 350 Nearby one lane road bridge under load limits 

scheduled for replacement in 2007 (advance load 

limit and warning signs exist). Current load 

limits do not preclude horse trailers or RV’s. 

Provide advance warning signs for trail crossing. 

Warwick 

Trail Crossing 

50 n/a > 600 Meets County requirement for 7 seconds “clear 

time” to cross road. Paint crosswalk, provide 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 140 

3.9 Transportation

Centerville Rd. advance warning signs. 

Warwick/ 

Uecker Rd.

Trailhead 

50 > 380 n/a County requirements: one entrance only off of 

Uecker Road; permits required for Uecker Road 

approach and construction within Centerville 

Road right-of-way. Trailhead development 

within physically constrained site would require 

substitution of “stop” sign for existing “yield” 

sign on Uecker Road. 

^ 25 mph on north end of Horseshoe Bend Road prior to Schilling; not posted on south ends of 

either road (statutory 50 mph). 

^^Theoretical maximum ADT for one lane road is 100 (Forest Service “Preconstruction Handbook”). 

^^^Statutory limit (not posted); maximum safe operating speed estimated to be 35-40 mph. 

 

Cumulative Effects

State Roads

Overall, LOS for the state roads in the design year 2022 with or without trailhead development 

shows no change. Only minor reconstruction work would be required on SR-142 to 

accommodate the trail. The work involves widening the shoulder adjacent to the trail vicinity 

SR-142 mileposts 12 and 13.5 to place an approved barrier, such as weathering steel guardrail, 

for trail and road user protection through the road clear zones. Other mitigation measures 

proposed as a result of the risk assessment, such as minor brushing or limbing-up of trees, would 

be performed to meet WSDOT standards. 

County Roads

For county roads in the design year 2022 with trailhead development, the added traffic does not 

appear to require raising any current road standards. Road management would be needed, 

however, through the one lane sections of Horseshoe Bend and Schilling Roads to restrict 

recreational vehicles over 22 feet in length as these sections are unsafe for vehicles with trailers. 

The physical constraints of the trailhead site where Uecker Road intersects Centerville Road 

would necessitate substituting a “stop” sign for the existing “yield” sign on Uecker Road as 

stopping sight distance would be reduced by the development. Other mitigation measures 

proposed as a result of risk assessment, such as painted crosswalks, advance warning signs, and 

minor brushing or limbing-up of trees, would be performed to meet county standards. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 141 

3.10 Air Quality

3.10 AIR QUALITY

Existing Conditions 

Air is an integral part of the human and natural environment. Its character directly affects plant, 

animal and human habitat, and affects the many scenic and recreational opportunities available in 

the Columbia River Gorge area. 

The Columbia River Gorge is characterized by strong seasonal winds. In the summer, strong 

winds come predominantly from the west, bringing air from the Portland/ Vancouver 

metropolitan area, the Willamette Valley, and even the Puget Sound area through the Gorge 

toward the east. In the winter, strong winds come predominantly from the east, bringing 

Columbia Basin air through the Gorge toward the west. 

The types of sources on a regional basis that emit pollutants with the potential to impair visibility 

include: 

• sulfate – from combustion of fuels containing sulfur, such as coal-fired power plants, and 

any form of diesel fuel and oil-fired combustion. 

• nitrate – from any high temperature fuel combustion, mostly motor vehicles, also 

industrial boilers. 

• organic carbon – from wood burning, motor vehicles, industrial processes, restaurants, 

and natural sources. 

• elemental carbon – soot from wood burning and diesel engines. 

• soil – windblown dust, road dust, agricultural and construction activities. 

Major emission sources in the region include the Centralia power plant (SO2) to the west and the 

Boardman powerplant (So2 and Nox) to the east. In addition, the Portland/Vancouver 

metropolitan area with a population of about 1.8 million is located on the western end of the 

CRGNSA. Summer winds can carry air from the Willamette Valley, Longview, the Seattle 

metropolitan area, and possibly Vancouver, British Columbia to the Gorge. Winter winds can 

carry air from the Columbia Basin cities of the Tri-cities (Richland-Pasco-Kennewick), Yakima, 

and Spokane to the Gorge. 

Locally, the Columbia River Gorge is a major Northwest transportation route, with an interstate 

freeway, Washington state highways, two railroads and barge traffic. Emissions are also 

generated in the local small towns, such as Goldendale, The Dalles, Hood River, and White 

Salmon/Bingen. 

Scenic vistas in the Columbia Gorge area are limited both by weather and natural processes such 

as pollen, wildfire smoke, and normal light scattering, as well as by human-caused air pollution. 

Degraded visibility reduces the scenic beauty of the Gorge, and the recreational appeal on which 

much of the local tourism economy depends. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 142 

3.10 Air Quality

Very small sulfate particles, organic carbon and nitrates impair visibility in the Columbia River 

Gorge. Visibility is poorest on the west end in summer and early fall, and on the east end in late 

fall and winter. Visibility on average is worse on the west end than the east end. Sulfate 

particulates are more present on the west end, which impair visibility due to higher relative 

humidity found there. Visibility on average is better in the eastern Gorge largely because of 

lower relative humidity, and sulfate particulates are not as large a contributor to impairment on 

the east end. Poor winter visibility levels on the east end are due to a relative increase in 

nitrates. 

Air pollution may also detrimentally affect plants, including traditional American Indian plants 

and local agricultural commodities, and on cultural resources such as ancient Native American 

rock art. Ozone (smog) in the eastern portion of the CRGNSA has been measured at levels that 

are known to harm vegetation. Lichen species sensitive to sulfur pollution are largely absent in 

the CRGNSA while those that thrive in high nitrogen-polluted conditions are abundant. This is 

an indicator of unnatural environmental conditions. 

Applicable Standards and Guidelines:

The CRGNSA Management Plan, as amended in 2000, states that: 

"Air quality shall be protected and enhanced, consistent with the purposes of the Scenic 

Area Act. The States of Oregon and Washington and the U.S. Forest Service shall: (1) 

continue to monitor air pollution and visibility levels in the Gorge; (2) conduct an analysis 

of monitoring and emissions data to identify all sources, both inside and outside the Scenic 

Area, that significantly contribute to air pollution. Based on this analysis, the States shall 

develop and implement a regional air quality strategy to carry out the purposes of the 

Scenic Area Act, with the U.S. Forest Service, the Southwest Air Pollution Control 

Authority and in consultation with affected stakeholders. 

The States and the Forest Service shall together provide annual reports to the Commission 

on progress made regarding implementation of this policy. The first report shall include a 

workplan and timeline for gathering/analyzing data and developing and implementing the 

strategy. The workplan and strategy shall be submitted to the Commission for approval." 

The process envisioned in the CRGNSA Plan amendment is underway and will be continuing 

through the next several years. 

Sources for this discussion are Green, 2001, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

et al, 2001. 

Environmental Consequences 

Four activities related to this project could impact air quality in the project area and in the 

Columbia River Gorge. 

1) Construction activities may create dust. 

2) Asphalt paving would create fumes. 

3) Increased use of unpaved county roads by trail users could increase dust in dry periods. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 143 

3.10 Air Quality

4) Visitors would reach the trail by automobile and would therefore create automobile 

emissions. 

Alternative 1, No Action – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

In this alternative, the Forest Service would not undertake any construction activities, so no 

construction related dust or asphalt paving would take place. It is unknown if another entity 

would undertake these activities in the future. Low levels of use would likely continue, with 

concurrent automobile emissions from visitors. The number of vehicles and distance traveled are 

unknown in this alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 2a, 31 Mile Trail – Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

Short-Term and Direct Effects

Short-term construction dust would be generated for a 31-mile trail. A four-foot wide surface 

would be compacted, which amounts to about 15 acres of disturbance. The remainder of the 

railbed (up to an additional twelve feet or as much as 45 additional acres) would be cleared to 

allow emergency vehicles. The majority of the railbed surface has a very low percentage of fine 

materials. Therefore, disturbing the railbed surface during surface compaction would generate a 

low amount of dust emissions on the majority of the trail. In dusty conditions, water would be 

applied during construction. 

In the short-term, fumes from asphalt paving would occur at five trailheads (the proposed 

Klickitat trailhead is already paved), over a total surface area of about 130,700 sf (about 3 acres). 

These effects are of short duration and limited to the immediate work area. Therefore, no 

mitigation is proposed. 

Long-Term and Indirect Effects

In the long-term, trail use would not likely create a considerable amount of dust, since the 

surface would be compacted. In the long term, paved trailheads would eliminate dust at these 

sites. 

Over the long-term, additional road dust could be expected between the Lyle-Centerville 

Highway and the Harms Road trailhead, particularly during dry weather. Harms Road is 

unpaved for about one-half mile from the paved Lyle-Centerville Highway. Ten parking spaces 

would be provided at Harms Road, and use estimates assume 9 of these parking spaces would be 

used once a day, and the other one twice a day, for a maximum of 11 rounds trips into the Harms 

Road trailhead. 

In Alternative 2, July and August (the driest months when dust would be greatest), are predicted 

to be low use months for Swale Canyon, with about 2 round trips a day predicted to the Harms 

Road trailhead. Since only a few vehicles are expected to travel to this trailhead in the driest 

months, no mitigation is proposed. 

A very short distance of Schilling Road is unpaved before it reaches the proposed Wahkiacus 

trailhead. Very minor amounts of dust would be generated here. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 144 

3.10 Air Quality

Users may shuttle vehicles between the Wahkiacus and Harms Road or Warwick trailheads. The 

shortest distance is on two unpaved county roads, Harms/Horseshoe Bend Roads on the north 

side of Swale Canyon, and Schilling Road on the south side of Swale Canyon. More dust would 

be raised in drier summer months than in wetter and cooler months. The dry months of July and 

August are predicted to be low use months for Swale Canyon, and assume about 2 vehicles a day 

using each trailhead. Consequently, only a few vehicles would be shuttling on the unpaved roads 

in the driest months. Since only a few trail user vehicles are expected to travel these roads in the 

dry months, no mitigation is proposed. 

In Alternative 2a, Swale Canyon would be closed from June 15 to September 30, and therefore 

the trail would not generate dust on county roads in the driest time of year. 

About 12,710 annual vehicle round-trips are estimated for trail users. About 90% of this use is 

estimated to be from outside of the local region, in particular the Portland/Vancouver 

metropolitan area or beyond. About 10 % of the use would be from the Mid-Columbia Region. 

Therefore, some 11,440 trips of 150 miles or more, and some 1,300 trips of 20 to 50 miles, 

would be generated annually by this alternative. To compare these annual trip numbers with 

existing average daily traffic volumes on SR14 and I84 (the access routes of most visitors), a 

simple average was taken over 365 days and translates into an average of 35 round trips per day, 

with 31 trips coming from out of the region, and 4 trips coming from the Mid-Columbia. 

WSDOT reports SR142 average daily traffic volumes of 3,000 at the SR 142 junction (2002). 

ODOT reports an average daily traffic volume of 26,300 at Exit 64, the Hood River/White 

Salmon bridge (2001). Therefore, two of the major highways in the immediate region carry over 

29,000 vehicles a day. This project may generate another 35 round trips per day (on average 

throughout the year), or about an additional 0.24 % (70 one-way trips divided into 29,300 

vehicles per day). This represents a minimal increase over current use. 

Alternatives 3 and 3a, 13 1⁄2 Mile Trail- Direct, Indirect, Short and Long-Term Effects 

Short-Term and Direct Effects

Short-term construction dust would be generated for a 13-1⁄2 mile trail. As discussed below, 

about 15 acres would be affected. As discussed above for Alternative 2, the majority of the 

railbed surface has a very low percentage of fine materials, which would result in a low amount 

of dust emissions during construction. In dusty conditions, water would be applied during 

construction. 

The trail would be paved in this alternative, for a surface area of about 550,000 sf (about 12 1⁄2 

acres). In Alternative 3a, soil hardeners would be substituted for asphalt on nine miles of trail. 

In addition, two trailheads would be paved (the proposed Klickitat trailhead is already paved) for 

a surface area of about 90,000 sf (about 2 acres). Therefore, in the short-term, fumes from 

asphalt paving would occur over about 14 1⁄2 acres in Alternative 3. In Alternative 3a, soil 

hardeners would be substituted for asphalt on nine miles of trail. These effects are of short 

duration and limited to the immediate work area. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 145 

3.10 Air Quality

Long-Term and Indirect Effects

In the long-term, a hardened trail surface would minimize potential dust from trail use, and 

paved trailheads would eliminate dust at these sites. 

Access roads to all trailheads proposed in this alternative are currently paved. Vehicle shuttles 

would take place on paved roads. Therefore, no dust would be associated with vehicle travel in 

this alternative. 

Over the long-term, about 7,800 annual vehicle round-trips are estimated for trail users. About 

7,000 trips of 150 miles or more (about 90% of the use coming from outside of the local region), 

and some 800 trips of 20 to 50 miles (about 10 % of the use coming from the Mid-Columbia 

Region), would be generated annually by this alternative. The annual trip figures translate into 

an average of 21 round trips per day, with 19 trips coming from out of the region, and 2 trips 

coming from the Mid-Columbia. 

As discussed above for Alternative 2, two of the major highways in the immediate region carry 

over 29,000 vehicles a day. This project may generate another 21 round trips per day (on 

average throughout the year), or about an additional 0.14 % (42 one-way trips divided into 

29,300 vehicles per day). This represents a minimal increase over current use.

Cumulative Effects 

 

Cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 2a, Alternatives 3 and 3a to air quality would stem from 

increased vehicle use to reach this site, in combination with existing and future impacts from all 

vehicle emissions and other emissions affecting the Columbia River Gorge. The Klickitat Railsto-Trails project area is very near the proposed Lyle-Klickitat day use site. However, use at the 

proposed Lyle-Klickitat day use site was anticipated to attract more local use and existing SR14 

traffic, than to generate a great deal of new vehicle trips from outside the region. 

A process is currently underway to address cumulative impacts to air quality in the Columbia 

River Gorge National Scenic Area. A regional air quality strategy is being developed to protect 

and enhance air quality in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (see discussion in the 

Existing Conditions discussion of this section). The Forest Service will participate in 

development of this regional air quality strategy. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 146 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

3.11 CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS

The Klickitat Rails-to-Trails corridor is affected by a number of land use controls and 

regulations. This section discusses consistency with the Land Use Designation provisions of the 

CRGNSA Plan, and the Klickitat County Land Use Ordinances. Consistency with the resource 

protection guidelines of the CRGNSA Plan, Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Plan, 

Klickitat County Shorelines Master Plan, Floodplains Management Ordinance and Critical Areas 

Ordinance was incorporated into the relevant sections of Chapter 3. 

Washington State Parks environmental staff have agreed to review and can adopt this 

Environmental Assessment under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A SEPA checklist 

is attached as Appendix A. The checklist provides an analysis of consistency with SEPA. It is 

not an application for determination of significance under SEPA. 

If the Forest Service chooses to manage the Klickitat Rails-to-Trails, then applications would be 

made for necessary approvals and permits. 

Table 29, summarizing consistency with the following provisions, is at the end of this section. 

• Columbia River Gorge NSA Management Plan 

• Lower Klickitat River Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

• Klickitat County Shorelines Ordinance 

• Klickitat County Floodplains Ordinance 

• Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance 

• Klickitat County Land Use Ordinances 

• Washington State Environmental Policy Act 

Consistency with the Land Use Designation provisions of the CRGNSA Plan 

Applies from the Lyle Urban Area boundary to the CRGNSA boundary near the Fisher Hill 

trestle. 

The right-of-way passes through three General Management Area (GMA) Land Use 

Designations. The only proposed action within the GMA is trail management. No trailheads are 

proposed in the GMA. Trails are an allowed use in each Land Use Designation (LUD), per the 

following conditions: 

Residential LUD: Recreation development, subject to the guidelines established for recreation 

intensity classes (Part I, Chapter 4: Recreation Resources). 

Finding: Trails are an allowed use in all Recreation Intensity Classes described in Part I, 

Chapter 4: Recreation Resources. 

Open Space LUD: (Klickitat River Wildlife and Natural Area) Low-intensity recreation, subject 

to the guidelines for recreation intensity classes (Part I, Chapter 4: Recreation Resources), after 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 147 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

consultation with the Washington Natural Heritage Program and Washington Department of 

Wildlife (sic). Trails are allowed in every Recreation Intensity Class. 

Finding: Trails are an allowed use in all Recreation Intensity Classes described in Part I, 

Chapter 4: Recreation Resources. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has 

been consulted about this project, and raised no issues regarding the proposed trail in the 

GMA. 

Public Recreation LUD: Publicly-owned, resource-based recreation uses, consistent with 

recreation intensity class policies and guidelines (Part I, Chapter 4: Recreation Resources), and 

subject to compliance with... numbers 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 1G (where applicable) of the 

"Approval Criteria for Recreation Uses" contained in the recreation intensity class guidelines 

(Part I, Chapter 4: Recreation Resources): 

All recreation projects in the GMA are subject to the "Approval Criteria for Recreation Uses". 

Approval Criteria for Recreation Uses

For all proposed recreation projects... project applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the 

following criteria (if applicable) as a condition of project approval: 

A. Compliance with all applicable guidelines in this Management Plan for the protection of 

scenic, cultural, recreation, and natural resources. Cumulative effects of proposed 

recreation projects on landscape settings shall be based on the "Compatible Recreation 

Use Guideline" for the landscape setting in which the proposed project is located (see 

Part I, Chapter 1: Scenic Resources). 

Finding: The project is compatible with all applicable Management Plan 

guidelines for the protection of scenic, cultural, recreation, and natural resources. 

Detailed information may be found in the applicable analysis sections of this 

document. 

“Compatible Recreation Use Guideline for GMA Oak Woodlands Landscape Setting”: 

“Resource-based recreation uses of varying intensities may be compatible with this 

setting, although most are of a low-intensity nature (such as trails or small scenic 

outlooks). More intensive recreation uses may be compatible where allowed under the 

"Recreation Intensity Classes" in Part I, Chapter 4, although they are generally rare in this 

setting. As with Woodland settings, intensive recreation uses in Oak-Pine Woodlands 

may be compatible if widely scattered and not in large concentrations.” 

Finding: The proposed trail project is compatible with this guideline 

B. Not applicable. The project is not adjacent to GMA Forest or Agriculture lands. 

C. Not applicable. No facilities for outdoor fires for cooking or other purposes, or 

campgrounds are proposed. 

D. Applicable: For proposed trail or trailhead projects, compliance with applicable trails 

policies in the Management Plan. 

GMA Trails and Pathways Policies
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 148 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

1. Trail planning and management efforts shall include affected landowners, relevant 

agencies, Indian tribal governments, and trail organizations from the beginning of 

such efforts. 

Finding: Affected landowners, relevant agencies, Indian tribal governments, and 

trail organizations have been notified of the proposed trail, and provided 

opportunity to be involved since project inception. See Chapter 1 for a public 

involvement summary, and Chapter 4 consultation for more information. 

2. The Gorge Commission shall not acquire property or easements for trails without 

property owner consent. The Gorge Commission shall encourage other public bodies 

to acquire property or easements for trails through purchase or donation. Not 

Applicable. 

3. As an integral component of trail planning, development, and management efforts, 

strategies shall be developed to address trespass, noxious weeds, and public safety 

issues (such as fire hazard, emergency rescue, and classification systems for degree of 

trail difficulty). Such efforts shall include consultation with fire, law enforcement, 

and emergency service providers. 

Finding: Trespass, noxious weeds, and public safety issues (such as fire hazard, 

emergency rescue, and classification systems for degree of trail difficulty) are 

addressed. See Chapter 2 for a complete list of trail development and 

management measures addressing these topics. Fire and emergency services 

providers were consulted at a March 2003 interagency meeting. The Klickitat 

County Sheriff was consulted in July 2003. 

4. Temporary trail closures during critical fire hazard periods should be considered. 

Finding: Temporary trail closures during critical fire hazard periods are 

considered (see Chapter 2.) 

5. Shared use of trails by compatible multiple-user groups should be encouraged as 

much as possible where appropriate conditions exist, to maximize efficient use of 

trails and reduce needs for new trail construction. 

Finding: The trail proposes to accommodate hikers, bikers, horseback riders, 

wheelchairs and other non-motorized recreation users (see Chapter 2.) 

6. User conflicts on trails shall be minimized through proper siting, design, and 

maintenance and an aggressive user education program. Multiple-use trails shall be 

built to standards sufficient to accommodate such different groups. Standards shall 

address safety concerns and considerations such as signage, trail width, visibility, and 

percent grade. 

Finding: The trail width (up to 16 ft), flat grade, and good visibility 

accommodate multiple users at one time. Education and signing are critical 

components to reduce user conflicts. (see Chapter 2 for measures and Chapter 3, 

Section 3.1 for analysis of user conflicts.) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 149 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

7. Use of motorized vehicles on designated public use trails shall be prohibited, except 

for use by response agencies and their agents in an emergency. 

Finding: Motorized recreation vehicles would not be allowed, except motorized 

wheelchairs. Emergency and administrative vehicles would be allowed (see 

Chapter 2.) 

8. Priority shall be given to the completion and improvement of existing trails, 

incomplete trail loops, and trail segments, considering relationships with trails in 

Urban Areas, the SMA, and outside the Scenic Area. 

Finding: The railbed is in place, is railbanked, and is currently used as a trail, 

although use is not encouraged. The trail extends into the Lyle Urban Area. 

9. Use levels on existing trails and projected demand for different trail uses shall be 

considered when planning additional trails. 

Finding: There is a relative scarcity of trail for horses, bikers and wheelchairs in 

the CRGNSA. This trail would accommodate these users. 

10. Trail systems and new trails shall, where feasible, incorporate existing segments of 

older/historic trails and abandoned road and railroad rights-of-way. 

Finding: The trail is proposed on a railbanked railroad right-of-way. 

11. The use of utility corridor rights-of-way for trail use shall be explored where such use 

would not interfere with the corridors' primary functions. 

Finding: Not applicable. 

12. Barrier-free access shall be provided for new trails and improvements to existing 

trails to the maximum extent practicable. 

Finding: The proposed trail would meet accessibility standards for firmness, 

grade, cross slope and tread obstacles. 

13. Public needs for convenience, access, and security shall be considered when 

designing and siting trailheads. 

Finding: No trailheads are proposed in the GMA. 

14. Where appropriate and practicable, facilities shall be provided at trailheads to 

promote alternatives to the private automobile for accessing trail opportunities. 

Finding: No trailheads are proposed in the GMA. 

15. Potential funding sources shall be evaluated as an integral component of all trail 

planning efforts. Fiscal impacts to local public service providers shall be considered 

as part of this process, including adequacy of funding to provide for proper 

maintenance, emergency response, and law enforcement functions. 

Finding: Potential funding sources include federal funds appropriated to the U.S. 

Forest Service; grants from the Federal Highway Administration (TEA-21), other 

potential grants, and volunteers. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 150 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

16. Trails proposed along the Columbia River and its tributaries shall be designed in a 

manner that minimizes effects to the shoreline and associated habitat values. Seasonal 

closures during critical wildlife periods shall be considered, as well as other 

appropriate mitigative measures. 

Finding: In the GMA, the proposed trail is located out of the Klickitat River 100 

ft stream buffer. See Section 3.7 for more discussion on riparian habitats. 

E. Not Applicable. No boating or windsurfing access is proposed. 

F. Not Applicable. In the GMA, the project does not provide access to the Columbia River 

or its tributaries. 

G. Not Applicable. Interpretation of natural or cultural resources is not proposed in the 

GMA. 

H. Not Applicable. The project passes through a small area of RIC 4, but is not designed to 

RIC 4 capacity. 

Consistency with Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance

This section discusses consistency of the proposed project with Klickitat County Zoning 

Ordinance No. 62678, as amended through November 20, 2000. 

The proposed trail falls into several county land use zones. Allowed uses in each zone which 

could be relevant to the proposed trail are noted. In additional to the specific uses mentioned 

below, every Klickitat County zone listed below includes as a Conditional Use: 

“Any other uses judged by the Board of Adjustment to be consistent with the purposes 

and intent of this chapter and to be no more detrimental to the adjacent properties than, 

and of the same type and character as, the above listed uses.” 

Open Space (OS): Most of the proposed trail lies within the Open Space Zone. This zone 

applies from the northern end of Lyle to about a mile south of Pitt, along the right-of-way on the 

west end of Klickitat, and again from the Suburbia area to just west of Harms Road. 

• Recreation is a Principal Use Permitted Outright (Section 2.5:2(3)). The ordinance defines 

recreation as “parks, playgrounds, fishing lakes and fish rearing ponds, hunting preserves, 

golf courses, country clubs, riding academies and stables, camping clubs, recreation and 

conservation clubs, ski resorts and similar recreation uses permitted by the Board.” 

Extensive Agriculture (EA): This zone applies from just west of Harms Road to Uecker Road. 

• A park, playground, or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a 

non-profit is a Conditional Use (Section 2.6:3(4)). 

General Rural (GR): A small amount of GR-5 is designated just north of Lyle. “Buildings and 

uses of a public works, public service or public utility nature” is a Conditional Use (Section 

2.7:3(8)). 

• “Golf course and other open land recreational use but excluding intensive commercial 

amusement such as an amusement park or automobile race track” is a Conditional Use 

(Section 2.7:3(16)). 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 151 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

Rural Residential (RR): The Rural Residential RR-2 zone applies from about a mile south of Pitt 

to about 7th Street in Klickitat, and again from the north edge of town through Suburbia. 

• “Buildings and uses of a public works, public service or public utility nature” is a 

Conditional Use (Section 2.8:3(8)). 

• “Golf course and other open land recreational use but excluding intensive commercial 

amusement such as an amusement park or automobile race track” is a Conditional Use 

(Section 2.8:3(16)). 

Rural Center (RC): Most of Klickitat is designated a Rural Center. 

• “Buildings and uses of a public works, public service or public utility nature, but not 

including equipment storage or repair yards, warehouses or related activities” is a Principal 

Use Permitted Outright (Section 2.9:2(14)). 

• “Other public use or building” is a Principal Use Permitted Outright (Section 2.9:2(20)). 

Residential (R): The Residential zone applies in Lyle. 

 “Buildings and uses of a public works, public service or public utility nature, but not including 

equipment storage or repair yards, warehouses or related activities” is a Conditional Use (Section 

2.10:3(5)). 

General Industrial (GI): General Industrial applies in the former mill site in Klickitat. 

• Recreation uses such as parks and trails are not specifically mentioned as allowed uses in a 

general industrial zone. However, “any other use determined by the Planning Commission or 

Board of Adjustment” may be permitted as a Conditional Use (Section 2.14:3(23)). 

Gorge Urban Area (GUA): This designation applies to the Lyle Urban Area. It allows: 

• “Any use permitted outright by the underlying zoning district, provided the use is consistent 

with other applicable land use requirements” (Section 2.31:1 Principal Uses Permitted 

Outright). 

• “The uses allowed conditionally shall be per the uses listed in the underlying zone 

designation” (Section 2.31:3 Conditional Uses). 

Finding: In the Lyle Urban Area, the proposed trail lies within the Residential zone, 

where “Buildings and uses of a public works, public service or public utility nature” are 

Conditional Uses. 

• In addition to the review/approval criteria for each respective zone, approval of proposed 

conditional uses in the GUA shall be subject to affirmative findings for all of the following if 

the proposed use is primarily intended to protect/enhance scenic, cultural, recreational, and/or 

natural resources (Section 2.31:3 Conditional Uses). 

Finding: The proposed use is primarily intended to protect/enhance recreational 

resources. 

1. If the proposed location is a tract or combination of tracts of land larger than the 

minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district, the applicant must demonstrate that 

the proposed use cannot be located within the Special or General Management Areas 

within the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area boundary. Availability of a tract in the 

GUA or other economics shall not be considered as legitimate reasons for demonstrating 

inability to locate the proposed use outside the GUA. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 152 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

Finding: The minimum lot size in the underlying Residential zone is 6,000 sf. The 

trail is proposed on a State right-of way for which acreage within the Urban Area is 

not shown on the tax assessor database, but is over 6,000 sf in the Urban Area. A 

private parcel (T3N,R12E,Section 34/34, Taxlot 0001-00) is also under consideration 

for a trailhead. This parcel is 1.34 acres, over 6,000 sf. 

The trail is proposed for a railbanked right-of-way. It can only occur on this right-ofway, which is partially located in the Lyle Urban Area. 

A private parcel adjacent to the right-of way is under consideration for a trailhead. 

The closest location to Lyle within the National Scenic Area to locate the proposed 

trailhead would be west of the Klickitat River. The trailhead cannot occur in this 

location because trail users would have to cross a narrow walkway on the SR14 

bridge, and WSDOT opposes increased use of this substandard walkway. A new 

trail bridge cannot be built over the Klickitat Wild and Scenic River. 

2. The proposed use must be shown to be consistent with the Columbia Gorge National 

Scenic Area Management Plan, Klickitat County Comprehensive Plan, and all other 

applicable regulations. 

Finding: CRGNSA guidelines do not apply to the Urban Areas. There are no 

mapped Land Use Designations, Landscape Settings, or Recreation Intensity Classes 

to apply. There is no direction to apply scenic, cultural, recreational, and/or natural 

resources protection guidelines. 

The Klickitat County Comprehensive Plan (as amended 1988) Community Master 

Plan for Lyle designates the proposed trail area as “High Density Residential”. One 

of four objectives for the Residential Land Use element is: “Development of school, 

park and other necessary facilities well related to residential areas”. The proposed 

trail would serve local residents, and would be “well related” to residential areas. 

The Community Master Plan for Lyle states two objectives for Parks and Recreation: 

1. To coordinate and combine the development of parks and recreation with the 

other elements in the community to ensure their logical location. 

2. To encourage the development and use of mutually beneficial recreation 

facilities of the school-community park cooperative concept. 

The proposed trail is logically located on an existing railbanked right-of-way. The 

second objective is not applicable to the proposed trail. 

Other applicable regulations are analyzed as part of the relevant sections of Chapter 3. 

3. The proposed use must be shown to relate in a beneficial manner to the community of the 

respective GUA. 

Finding: The trail would provide a recreation amenity to local residents. There are 

few sidewalks in Lyle; the trail would provide a safer place for exercise than local 

streets, SR142 or SR14. The proposed trail and trailhead in Lyle would draw visitors 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 153 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

who would likely provide an economic boost to the community (see Section 3.3 

Effects to Local Communities). 

4. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed use is designed to primarily serve the 

residents in and surrounding the respective GUA in which it is proposed. 

Finding: The proposed trail would serve both residents and visitors. Alternative 3 

proposes a twelve-foot wide paved trail for the first 1.6 trail miles (Lyle to Fisher Hill 

trestle) specifically to accommodate local use. 

5. The proposed use must be shown to not be detrimental to the public interest e.g. the use 

will not require police protection, fire protection, water/sewer demand and demand for 

other public services in excess of the demand of other uses permitted outright or 

conditionally in the underlying zone description. 

Finding: This project proposes a trail and a trailhead with 326 spaces, and a two 

room flush restroom with drinking water. Uses allowed outright in this zone include 

single-family dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes, and mobile home parks. 

Conditional uses include a school, church, hospital, rest home/nursing home, country 

club and multi-family units among others. 

Many of the conditional uses allowed in this zone are more intensive than the 

proposed use; therefore, the demand for public services would not be in excess of 

other uses permitted in this zone. 

6. The proposed use must be shown to be no more detrimental, environmentally or 

otherwise, to adjacent properties than, and of the same type and character as uses 

permitted outright or conditionally in the underlying zone. 

Finding: A trail and a trailhead with 26 spaces, and a two room flush restroom are 

less intensive than a school, church, hospital, mobile home parks and other 

conditionally permitted uses. 

While this discussion in not intended to presume what the County Planning Director, Planning 

Commission or Board of Adjustment might approve, it does appear that the proposed Rails-toTrails project could be found to be a consistent use in all Klickitat County land use zones. 

Table 28: Applicable County Land Use Permits 

Klickitat County Zone Type of Use Permit 

Open Space (OS) Principal Use Permitted Outright 

Extensive Agriculture (EA) Conditional Use 

General Rural (GR) Conditional Use 

Rural Residential (RR) Conditional Use 

Rural Center (RC) Principal Use Permitted Outright 

Residential (R) Conditional Use 

General Industrial (GI) Conditional Use 

Gorge Urban Area (GUA) Conditional Use 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 154 

3.11 Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

Table 29: Consistency with Land Use Regulations 

Land Use Regulation Alternative 

1 

Alternatives 

 2 and 2a 

Alternatives 

 3 and 3a 

Columbia River Gorge NSA Plan n/a Consistent Consistent 

Lower Klickitat Wild and Scenic River Plan n/a Consistent Consistent 

Klickitat County Shorelines Ordinance n/a Requires 

Conditional Use 

Permit 

Requires 

Conditional Use 

Permit 

Klickitat County Floodplains Ordinance n/a Consistent Consistent 

Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance n/a Consistent Consistent 

Klickitat County Land Use Ordinances n/a 

Requires 

Conditional Use 

Permit 

Requires 

Conditional Use 

Permit 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act n/a 

Meets 

Determination 

for NonSignificance 

Meets 

Determination 

for NonSignificance 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 155 

3.12 Consistency with National Recreation Trail Criteria 

3.12 CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL 

CRITERIA 

A National Recreation Trail must meet four criteria, as outlined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

2353.33(b): 

5. Readiness. Designate a trail only if it is in place and available for public use. 

6. Use and Availability. The trail must provide a variety of trail-related recreation 

opportunities within approximately 2 hours of automobile travel time from the population 

centers of the Region under consideration. 

7. Length. The length of a proposed National Recreation Trail or Trail System may vary, 

depending upon its use and purpose, but it must be continuous. 

8. Location. The trail incorporates the significant natural and cultural features of the area 

through which it passes. The trail may utilize a variety of locations if the location is in 

accordance with planned trail use and reasonably provides for public safety. 

Criterion 1: Readiness. Designate a trail only if it is in place and available for public use. 

A unique circumstance related to “rails to trails" conversions, is that once the rails are removed, 

a ready-made trail remains. The trail is in place and ready to use. Washington State Parks 

considers the trail to be an open State Park facility. While flood-damaged in places, the trail is 

passable. A trestle over the Klickitat River was removed due to flood damage, but the right-ofway remains in place, and the bridge may be replaced. 

Criterion 2: Use and Availability. The trail must provide a variety of trail-related 

recreation opportunities within approximately 2 hours of automobile travel time from the 

population centers of the Region under consideration. 

The trail would be managed to provide a variety of recreation experiences, for many nonmotorized recreation uses. Walking, hiking, mountain biking, ten-speed biking, horse back 

riding, wheelchairs, in-line skating, skiing, wagon rides and leashed dogs would be generally 

allowed. 

The trail is located approximately 75 miles east of the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area, 

and can be reached within 1 to 1 1⁄2 hours on major highways from the urban area. The trail is 

readily accessible from the Mid-Columbia region and the communities of Stevenson, Carson, 

White Salmon, Bingen, Goldendale, Cascade Locks, Hood River, and The Dalles. The trail is 

about 90 miles (about 1 1⁄2 to 2 hours) southwest of the Yakima/Toppenish/Sunnyside area. The 

trail is about 130 miles (about 2 hours) west of the Tri-Cities of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco. 

Criterion 3: Length. The length of a proposed National Recreation Trail or trail system 

may vary depending upon its use and purpose, but it must be continuous. 

The length of the trail is up to 31 miles. These 31 miles are continuous right-of-way owned by 

Washington State Parks. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 156 

3.12 Consistency with National Recreation Trail Criteria 

Criterion 4: Location. The trail incorporates the significant natural and cultural features 

of the area through which it passes. The trail may utilize a variety of locations if the 

location is in accordance with planned trail use and reasonably provides for public safety. 

The trail incorporates the Klickitat Wild and Scenic River and Swale Canyon and the unique and 

significant natural and cultural features associated with these canyons as described in this report. 

The trail also passes through two towns, Lyle and Klickitat, providing a community recreation 

facility and an economic boost to these communities. The trail utilizes the railbanked right ofway, which creates a stable, safe, wide, flat travel way. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 157 

Other Disclosures 

3.13 Other Disclosures 

Wetlands and Flood Plains 

With implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the proposed action is not expected to 

impact floodplains or wetlands. 

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland 

The proposed action is in keeping with the intent of the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 

1827 for prime land. Adverse effects on prime farmland and rangeland are not expected from 

implementing the proposed action. The project area is not prime farmland, rangeland or 

forestland. Soils in most of the project area are not considered suitable for agriculture or timber 

production, but are considered suitable for woodland grazing- rangeland, open space and 

recreation. Soils in almost the entire project are classified as land capability class VII, which 

have severe limitations or hazards that make them generally unsuited to cultivation. Soils near 

Warwick are classified as land capability class III, suited to cultivation. (Klickitat County Master 

Plan, 1988) 

Adjacent cattle and sheep ranchers are concerned about potential trail impacts on livestock 

operations. However, with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, no significant 

adverse effects on prime farmland, rangeland or forestland would be expected from any 

alternative. 

Energy Requirements 

No unusual energy requirements would be associated with the implementation of the proposed 

action, regardless of which alternative is selected. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Irreversible commitment of resources refers to non-renewable resources, such as cultural 

resources, or to those factors which are renewable only over long time spans such as soil 

productivity. Irretrievable commitment applies to losses of production, harvest or use of 

renewable natural resources. No significant irreversible sor irretrievable commitment of 

resources have been identified with the implementation of any alternative proposed. 

Compliance with Executive Order 12898 Regarding Environmental Justice 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued the Executive Order on Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Executive 

Order 12898). In accordance with this Order, the proposed action has been reviewed to 

determine if it would result in ... disproportionately high and adverse human and environmental 

effects on minorities and low-income populations. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 158 

Other Disclosures 

The Klickitat Rails-to-Tails project takes place within the communities of Lyle and Klickitat, as 

well as less populated areas. Lyle has unemployment, per capital income and poverty levels 

consistent with Klickitat County as a whole. There are low-income people in this community. 

The Klickitat unemployment level is twice the county average and four times the state average. 

Klickitat has a higher percent of people with 1999 incomes below the poverty level than any 

other community in Klickitat County. Per capita income is 30% lower than the county average, 

and 50% lower than the state average. 

The majority of residents in both towns and in the project area as a whole are white. About 12% 

of the population is other races. Implementation of Alternatives 2, 2a, 3 or 3a indirectly creates 

job opportunities or money spent in these communities; Alternatives 2 and 2a do so to a greater 

degree than Alternatives 3 or 3a. Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative does not improve the 

local economies, nor does it adversly impact it. All alternatives fall within compliance with 

Executive Order 12989. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 4: Consultation and List of Preparers 159 

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND LIST OF 

PREPARERS 

4.1 Results of Consultation 

Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation has occurred at the project 

initiation stage. Site-specific consultation is occurring concurrently with the public review of the 

environmental analysis. Based on results of the inventory and shovel probe testing a 

determination of effect will be completed (per Section 800.5(b) of 36 CFR 800, as amended). 

The Scenic Area Manager will consider the responses from the SHPO as well as the Tribal 

governments prior to signing the final decision. 

Tribal Consultation

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs of Oregon, the Nez Perce Tribe and the Yakama Nation were consulted at the 

project initiation stage per 36CFR800 and National Scenic Area Management Plan requirements. 

All four tribes received all project mailings. 

Written comments were received from the Yakama Nation, Department of Natural Resources. 

Scenic Area staff met with Yakama Nation representatives from the Cultural Resources staff, and 

met on the ground with Yakama Indian representatives from the Fisheries staff. 

Scenic Area Manager Dan Harkenrider met with the Yakama Tribal Council on May 7, 2003. 

Site-specific consultation is occurring concurrently with the public review of the environmental 

analysis. Based on results of the inventory and shovel probe testing a determination of effect 

will be completed (per Section 800.5(b) of 36 CFR 800, as amended). The Scenic Area Manager 

will consider the responses from the SHPO as well as the Tribal governments prior to signing the 

final decision. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The Scenic Area’s Fish/Wildlife Biologist has made a finding of determination that alternatives 

2, 2a, 3 and 3a “May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The scenic area biologist also determined that alternative 2 “May 

Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect” Mid-Columbia steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

Per regulations on interagency cooperation (50 CFR 402), pursuant to Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) a Biological Assessments (BA) has been 

prepared and sent to the USFWS formal consultation. The informal consultation on this BA is 

currently on-going with both the USFWS and NMFS. For a summary of effects to all TE&S fish 

and wildlife species, please refer to Table 20, Section 3.7. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 4: Consultation and List of Preparers 160 

4.2 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted 

Adjacent Land Owners Federal Highways Administration 

Interested Parties National Marine Fisheries Service 

Yakama Indian Nation National Parks Service 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Nez Perce Tribe U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell 

Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Senator Patty Murray 

Klickitat County Commissioners U.S. Senator Ron Wyden 

Klickitat County Administrator U.S. Senator Gordon Smith 

Klickitat County Noxious Weed Control U.S. Congressman Doc Hastings 

Klickitat County Planning Department U.S. Congressman Brian Baird 

Klickitat County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office U.S.Congressman Greg Walden 

Klickitat County PUD District 1 U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer 

Klickitat County Road Department Governor Garry Locke’s Office 

Klickitat County Sheriff The Honorable Bruce Chandler 

Klickitat Rural Fire Department 7 The Honorable Jim Honeyford 

Washington State Dept of Community Development The Honorable Dan Newhouse 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources State Representative Marc Boldt 

Washington State Department of Transportation Klickitat Town Council 

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Lyle Community Action Council 

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission City of White Salmon 

Washington State Patrol City of Bingen 

Interagency Commission for Outdoor Recreation Soil Conservation Service 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Underwood Conservation District 

 

Association of NW Steelheaders National Parks Conservation Association 

Backcountry Horsemen, Mt. Adams NCAP 

Bicycle Transportation Alliance Northwestern Environmental Defense Center 

Burlington Northern Railroad NW Pipeline Corporation 

Columbia Gorge Audubon Society Portland United Mountain Pedalers 

Columbia Gorge Coalition Portland Wheelmen Touring Club 

Friends of Klickitat Watershed Rails to Trails Conservancy 

Friends of the White Salmon Skamania County Saddle Club 

Goldendale Chamber of Commerce Nature Conservancy 

Gorge Velo Mountain Bike Club Trails Club of Oregon 

Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association Trust for Public Lands 

Klickitat County Livestock Growers Washington Trails Association 

Klickitat Posse Club Wilderness Watch 

Lewis and Clark College Outdoor Program Willamette Canoe and Kayak Club 

Mazamas Yakima Valley Sunstriders Wolksmarch 

Mt. Adams Riders 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Chapter 4: Consultation and List of Preparers 161 

4.3 List of Preparers 

Klickitat Rails-to-Trails Interdisciplinary Team, U. S. Forest Service 

Kim Titus - Line Officer Representative 

Robin Dobson - Botany, Noxious Weeds, Wetlands 

Marge Dryden - Cultural Resources 

Mike Ferris - Public Affairs 

Chuti Fiedler - Fish and Wildlife Biology 

Dan Frissell - Range 

Steve Grichel - Public Involvement, Noise, Light, Utilities 

Stan Hinatsu - Recreation 

Virginia Kelly - Writer/Editor, Social, Economics, Land Use, Air Quality 

Darren Kennedy - Fire Prevention, Emergency Response 

Mark Kreiter - Hydrology, Shorelines 

Edan Lira - Trails 

Allen Morrissette - Engineering, Traffic Analysis, Costs Estimates 

Richard Phillips - Economic Coefficients 

Diana Ross - Scenic Resources, Facility Design 

4.4 Appendices 

There are four appendices included with this EA. Those appendices are: 

Appendix A SEPA Checklist 

Appendix B Assumptions for Use Figures and Assumptions for Economic Benefits

Appendix C Washington State Parks Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements for 

Uses of Washington State Parks Systems Rails-Trails 

Appendix D Biological Evaluation
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Sources 

Sources 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001, Guidelines 

for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400), Washington, DC 

 

Columbia River Gorge Commission and USDA Forest Service, National Scenic Area Office. 1992. 

Management Plan for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 

Green, Mark C. 2001. Columbia River Gorge Visibility and Air Quality Study. Working Draft: 

Existing Knowledge and Additional Recommended Scientific Assessment to Consider. Division of 

Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV 

Hamann, Betsy, Heather Johnston, Pat McClelland, Sara Johnson, Lynn Kelly, and John Gobielle. 

1999. Birds. Pages 3.1-3.34 in Joslin, Gayle and Heidi Youman, coordinators. Effects of 

Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Isaacs, Frank B. and Robert G. Anthony. 2002. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in 

Oregon and the Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 through 2002. 

Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 21 pp. 

Kauffman, J. Boone, Matthew Mahrt, Laura A. Mahrt, and W. Daniel Edge. 2001. Wildlife of 

Riparian Habitats. Pages 361-388 in D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil, managing directors. WildlifeHabitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Klickitat County. 2001. Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance

Klickitat County. 2000. Klickitat County, Washington Zoning Ordinance No. O32000. 

(Amendment to the Klickitat County, Washington Zoning Ordinance No. 62276) 

Klickitat County. 1998. 1996 Klickitat County Shorelines Master Plan Update

Klickitat County. 1988. Klickitat County Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 62981

Klickitat County. 1979 (as amended 2000). Klickitat County, Washington Zoning Ordinance No. 

62276, as amended.

Klickitat County. 1977 (as amended 1988). Klickitat County, Washington Comprehensive Plan. 

Klickitat Subbasin Summary. 2000. Northwest Power Planning Council. 82pp. 

Knutson, K. Lea, and Virginia L. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington’s 

Priority Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. 

The Kansas University Transportation Center Newsletter, 1990, Guidelines-Converting a Stop Sign 

to a Yield Sign, Lawrence, KS 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Sources 

Moore, Roger, L. 1994. Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of 

Practice. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. 

Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

Morse, Kathleen S. and Anderson, Randall S. 1988. Tourism in the Columbia River Gorge. A 

Profile of Visitors, Accommodations and Economic Impacts. A Washington Sea Grant. Marine 

Advisory Services Publication. 3716 Brooklyn Avenue NE, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 

98105 

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 1996, Railroad Bridge Reconnaissance Level Hydraulic 

Investigation, Seattle, WA 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Southwest Clean Air Agency, Washington 

Department of Ecology. 2001. Columbia River Gorge Air Quality Project Work Plan. Developing 

a Regional Air Quality Strategy for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

Oregon Department of Transportation. 2001 Transportation Volume Tables. 

http://www.odot.state.or.us/tdb/traffic_monitoring/tvtable.htm

Sargent Engineers, Inc., 1996, Klickitat Bridge Repair Options, Olympia, WA 

Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC), 2003, DRAFT Klickitat County

Regional Transportation Plan, Vancouver, WA 

Spahr, Robin. 1990. Factors affecting the Distribution of Bald Eagles and Effects of Human 

Activity on the Bald Eagles Wintering along the Boise River. Master’s Thesis, Boise State 

University, ID. 

Stalmaster, Mark V. and James L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of Recreational Activity on Wintering Bald 

Eagles. The Wildlife Society, Wildlife Monographs 137:1-46. 

Stinson, Derek W., James W. Watson, and Kelly R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State Status 

Report for the Bald Eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 92 pp. 

Swale Creek Channel Assessment Project. 2002. Report completed by Inter-Fluve for the Yakama 

Nation Fisheries Program. 37pp. 

U.S. Census 1990 and 2000 (http//:factfinder.census.gov). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Status Review and 12-month Finding for a Petition to List 

the Washington Population of the Western Gray Squirrel. Federal Register. Volume 68, number 

111. 12pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160pp. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Sources 

U. S. Forest Service. 2001. The Built Environment Image Guide for the National Forests and 

Grasslands. 

U. S. Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 1991. Lower Klickitat River 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Hood River, OR. 

72pp. 

U. S. Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, USDA Handbook 462).

Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis 

Branch. 2002. Klickitat County Profile, June 2002

Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis 

Branch. 1998. Klickitat County Profile, January 1998

Washington State Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch 

(http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/sprepts/laus) 

Washington State Department of Transportation, Current Edition, M22-01 Design Manual, 

Olympia, WA 

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2002 Annual Traffic Report.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/annualtrafficreport.htm 

Watson, James W. and D. John Pierce. 1998. Skagit River Bald Eagles: Movements, Origins, and 

Breeding Population Status. Progress Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA. 

Watson, James W., and Elizabeth A. Rodrick. 2002. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In

E.M. Larsen and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Prioirity 

Species, Volume IV: Birds. 18pp. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-1

APPENDIX A 

SEPA Checklist 

A SEPA Checklist is included to document how the analysis 

responds to the SEPA requirements for the convenience of readers 

who are accustomed to the SEPA checklist format. It is not a 

SEPA application. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-2

 

A. Background

1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 

Project: Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

2. Name of applicant:

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:

Name: 

Address: 

Phone: ( ) - FAX: ( ) - 

4. Date checklist prepared: 

5. Agency requesting checklist: 

6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 

7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or 

connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 

None Identified. 

8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related 

to this proposal: 

2003 NEPA Environmental Assessment by U.S. Forest Service. This document is extensively 

referenced in this checklist as “FS EA 2003”. 1997 NEPA Environmental Assessment superceded 

by 2003 NEPA Environmental Assessment. 

2003 NEPA 

9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other 

proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 

No. 

10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 

See Section 1.7 

11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size 

of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to 

describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this 

page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on 

project description.)

The Forest Service proposes to develop and manage all or part of the 31-mile rail corridor, from 

Lyle to Uecker Road, as a public use trail. Included in the proposal are up to six trailheads with 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-3

parking, restrooms, signing and landscaping, surfacing of the railbed, signing, trail bridge over the 

Klickitat River at Suburbia. 

12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise 

location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township 

and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or 

boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and 

topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by 

the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any 

permit applications related to this checklist.

The project area is the 31-mile Klickitat Rails-to-Trails right-of-way corridor, from Lyle to Uecker 

Road near Warwick, Washington. The right-of-way varies from 60 to 200 feet wide. Legal 

description: Washington State, Klickitat County, T3N, r12E, sections 24, 25, 26 and Sections 5, 

6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19; T4N, R13E, Sections 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32; T4N, R14E, Sections 19, 

20, 21, 28, 33; T3N, R14E, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 W.M. (see Figure 1). 

B. Environmental Elements 

1. Earth

a. General description of the site: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:

For more information, see Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. The railbed lies on relatively flat 

slopes adjacent to the Klickitat River and Swale Creek. These slopes increase very quickly 

moving away from the railbed. All trailheads are on flat slopes.

b. What is the steepest slope in the site (approximate percent slope)?

Some side slopes of 60 to 70% are located adjacent to the railbed. 

c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, 

muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any 

prime farm land.

Soils in the lower Klickitat River corridor vary with local topography and characteristics of the 

substrate. The corridor is dominated by fluvial deposits adjacent to the river and steep 

bedrock and talus slopes leading up to the higher plateau areas. Most of the developed soils 

along the river and within the corridor are derived from deposits of mixed river sediments, 

ranging from silt to extremely cobbly sand, with soil typically 60 inches, or more, thick. 

d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If 

so, describe.

Several small deposits of material derived from upslope failures are located on the railbed 

primarily between the Fisher Hill Bridge and Pitt. It is not anticipated that this project will 

increase the likelihood of slope failure. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-4

e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading 

proposed. Indicate source of fill.

Depending on alternative, grading will be required for the construction of up to six trailheads 

with parking areas and for completing construction of up to 31 miles of trail, including 

approximately one mile total of various trail re-routes away from severely flood damaged 

railbed. Grading for the trailheads will generally involve balancing cut and fill at each site, 

except for the trailhead at Pitt which will involve placing fill of approximately 1,500 cubic 

yards. 

Excavation under the alternatives proposed varies from less than 1,000 cubic yards to 

approximately 15,000 cubic yards. The fill at Pitt would come from this material, with borrow 

material from an off-site commercial source added in the case of the lesser excavation 

alternative. Excess material from excavation for the greater excavation alternative would be 

placed on-site for repair and filling of various flood damaged locations and re-contouring of 

some areas away from water, leaving a balance of approximately 12,000 cubic yards to be 

hauled off-site. 

Grading in addition to the above described work is possible for construction of the six-footwide trail bridge over the Klickitat River at Suburbia. For discussion of this work, see Section 

3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally 

describe.

Erosion could occur during construction of the trail and trailheads. Future maintenance of 

the trail could result in erosion, for example when cleaning culverts. Erosion control 

measures would be used to minimize erosion. 

g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project 

construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?

Approximately 680,000 Square Feet 

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:

Erosion control measures such as operating in the dry period of the year, utilization of 

erosion barriers, revegetation and mulching of exposed soil. 

2. Air

a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, 

automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project 

is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.

Short-term construction related dust, short term fumes from asphalt paving (alternative 3). 

Indirectly, dust on unpaved county roads from vehicles accessing trailheads. Indirectly, 

additional 7,800 to 12,700 (depending on alternative) vehicle round trips of 150 miles or 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-5

more per year from vehicles accessing trailheads. For more information, see Section 3.10 

of the “FS EA 2003”. 

b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If 

so, generally describe.

No. 

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emission or other impacts to air, if any:

In dry weather, add water to surfaces to during construction. 

3. Water

a. Surface 

1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site 

(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? 

If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river 

it flows into.

The project is adjacent to the Klickitat River and Swale Creek. The project crosses 

numerous small perennial and intermittent streams. There are a number of wet areas 

either adjacent to or on the railbed, but none are large enough to be classified as 

wetlands. 

2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the 

described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.

Yes. Compacting or surfacing the existing railbed (depending on alternative), adding 

signs, designating vehicle turn-around areas (very little ground disturbance), trail bridge 

over Klickitat River at Suburbia, trailheads with parking, restrooms, signing and 

landscaping. See maps in Chapter 2 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or 

removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that 

would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.

No fill or dredge material would be placed in or removed from surface water or 

wetlands. For more information, see Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general 

description, purpose and approximate quantities if know.

No. 

5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site 

plan.

Yes, as described in Chapter 3 of the EA, approximately 50% of the project is located 

within the 100-year floodplain. A map of the approximate location of the project in 

relationship to the 100-year floodplain will be on file in the FS National Scenic Area 

office in Hood River. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-6

6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? 

If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 

 No.

b. Ground 

1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? 

Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if know.

No. 

2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks 

or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage, industrial, containing 

the following chemicals . . .; agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the 

system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if 

applicable) or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to 

serve.

None. 

c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 

1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of 

collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water 

flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 

Stormwater runoff is planned for detention at each of the proposed trailhead sites. In 

general, planned landscape areas, adjacent swale areas natural or constricted and the 

parking areas themselves would be utilized as particular site conditions allow. 

Stormwater outfalls would be designed to minimize impacts to downstream facilities. 

Prior to construction, a site-specific design would be completed and approved for each 

trailhead. 

In the absence of a particular standard from WSDOT or Klickitat County, the following 

overall standard is proposed for completing the drainage design at each trailhead: “The 

quantity of stromwater runoff designated for detention will be the difference between 10-

year mean recurrence interval (MRI) pre-development natural conditions runoff and 

100-year MRI developed site runoff.” 

See Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003” for more information. 

2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.

No. 

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if 

any: 

Trailheads: Planned landscape areas, adjacent swale areas natural or constructed and the 

parking areas themselves. Operating in the dry period of the year, utilization of erosion 

barriers, revegetation and mulching of exposed soil on reroutes. See Section 3.7 of the “FS 

EA 2003” for more information. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-7

4. Plants

a. Check types of vegetation found on the site:

 deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other 

 evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 

 shrubs: 

 grass 

 pasture 

 crop or grain 

 wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other 

 water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 

 other types of vegetation 

b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?

Very little vegetation will be removed except in two locations where the trail will be directed off 

the existing rail bed to an adjacent location within the right-of-way. These sections are 

approximately 300 ft long. In many other locations, native plantings of shrubs, deciduous 

trees and pines will occur to help stabilize the rail bed. 

c. List threatened or endangered species know to be on or near the site.

For more information, see Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. Ranunculus reconditus (obscure 

buttercup) and Lomatium suksdorfii (Suksdorf’s desert parsley). 

d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to preserve or enhance 

vegetation on the site, if any:

Planting of native shrubs and trees will occur along the rail bed to protect its integrity and to 

enhance habitat along the Klickitat River and along Swale Creek. For more information, see 

Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

5. Animals

a. Check any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are 

known to be on or near the site: (For entire park property): 

BIRDS:

 songbirds 

 other raptors, corvids, kingfishers, and other water related birds. 

MAMMALS: 

 deer 

 bear 

 elk 

 beaver 

 other 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-8

FISH: 

 Bass 

 Salmon 

 Trout 

 Herring 

 Shellfish 

 other 

b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.

Northern bald eagle (federal Threatened, state Threatened), Western gray squirrel (state 

Threatened), Mid-Columbia steelhead (federal Threatened), Columbia River bull trout (federal 

Threatened), wild turkey (state Priority Species), Mule and blacktail deer (state Priority 

Species). For more information, see Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.

The Klickitat River and Swale Canyon function as migratory routes for deer and song birds. 

The project area is a wintering bald eagle area. Bull trout and steelhead migrate through this 

river system. For more information, see Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:

Parking would be limited to keep the numbers of visitors compatible with the wildlife needs. 

Some plantings to protect the trail would enhance wildlife and fish habitats. River access 

would be limited to specific sites to protect fish and wildlife habitats. For more information, 

see Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

6. Energy and Natural Resources

a. What kinds of energy (electric natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet 

the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, 

manufacturing, etc.

Electricity would be needed at the restrooms in Lyle and Klickitat for light and heat to keep 

pipes from freezing during the winter. 

b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If 

so, generally describe.

No. 

c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? 

List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any.

Very little energy would be required for this proposal, therefore no energy conservation 

features will be included. 

7. Environmental Health
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-9

a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, 

risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this 

proposal? If so, describe.

The proposed trail could increase the number of people visiting the area. This may increase 

the potential for fire as well as the amount of litter in the area. 

1) Describe special emergency service that might be required.

Emergency service that may be required along the trail would most likely be either fire or 

medical services. 

2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental hazards, if any:

Prohibit overnight use (camping), campfires, and fireworks. Prohibit smoking when 

Klickitat County enacts a ban on open fires. In extreme fire conditions, close portions of 

the trail as needed. Require trail maintenance vehicles and administrative vehicles to 

have spark arresters, fire extinguishers, etc. Develop fire prevention plans with State, 

County, adjacent land owners and USFS. For more information, see Chapter 2 and 

Section 305 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

b. Noise 

1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: 

traffic, equipment, operation, other)?

Existing traffic noise could have an affect on the proposed trail. 

2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project 

on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, cons operation, other)? 

Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.

During construction there will be the noise from the machinery. On a more permanent 

basis there will be noise from hikers talking while on the trail and possibly dogs barking 

on the trail or at people on the trail. Near trailheads there could be increased traffic and 

human noise. For more information, see Chapter 2 and Section 3.4 of the “FS EA 

2003”. 

3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:

Screening at trailheads, signing to ask trail users to respect resident privacy. For more 

information, see Chapter 2 and Section 3.4 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

8. Land and Shoreline Use

a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?

The State-owned right-of-way is used by recreationists for hiking biking and fishing access 

(although recreation use is not encouraged by the State, it is not officially closed to public 

use). Adjacent lands are used for grazing and a number are residential. The proposed trail 

passes through two towns, Lyle and Klickitat. Public land, especially Washington Department 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-10

of Fish and Wildlife, is used for public access. A Native American dip-net fishing site, and 

cemetery are located adjacent to the proposed trail. 

b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe:

Cattle graze over and on the right-of-way. 

c. Describe any structures on the site.

None. 

d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?

No. 

e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?

Numerous. See Section 3.11 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?

Open Space, Agriculture/Forest, High Density Residential (Lyle), and Rural Center, Industrial 

(Klickitat) 

g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?

Conservancy Environment, Community Environment. For more information, see Section 3.7 of 

the “FS EA 2003”. 

h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, 

specify.

Yes. See Section 3.7 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 

None would reside on the trail. Forest Service and Washington State Parks personnel, their 

contractors and volunteers would work on the trail at different times. 

j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?

None. 

k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:

N/A 

l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected 

land uses and plans, if any:

The proposed use could be found consistent with existing land use plans. For more 

information, see Section 3.11 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

9. Housing

a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, 

middle or low income housing.

No housing would be provided. 

b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, 

middle or low income housing.

No housing would be eliminated. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-11

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:

The proposed development would have no housing impacts. 

10. Aesthetics

a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is 

the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 

The majority of development proposed would occur at ground level on the top of the existing 

rail bed. The tallest proposed structure (Alternative 2 only) would be the bridge at Suburbia 

linking the trail where the previous bridge washed out. The next tallest proposed structures 

are one-story toilet buildings proposed at each trailhead and portable toilets located along the 

trail. The principal exterior building materials would be wood dimensional lumber, wood 

siding, asphalt (or soil cement depending on option chosen), exposed aggregate concrete, 

and metal railings. The portable toilets would be plastic with partial wooden screen 

enclosures. For more information, see Section 3.8 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

The only views that may be altered are from the Klickitat River, Highway 142, and the trail 

itself. Existing views from the proposed trailhead sites to the river may be somewhat 

obstructed when the parking lots are full. The proposed bridge over the Klickitat River at 

Suburbia may obstruct some views that were opened when the bridge washed out. For more 

information, see Section 3.8 or the “FS EA 2003”. 

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:

The Forest Service proposed to follow the Built Environment Image Guide and the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum handbooks prepared by the Forest Service to reduce and control 

aesthetic impacts and to provide an aesthetic environment compatible and consistent with the 

proposed recreation experience. For more information, see Section 3.8 of the “FS EA 2003”. 

11. Light and Glare

a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly 

occur?

The only lights that might be associated with the proposed development would be the lights 

installed on the Lyle and Klickitat restrooms. These lights would be visible at night. 

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with 

views? 

No. 

c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?

None. 

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:

None. 

12. Recreation
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-12

a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?

Segments 1 and 2: Lyle-Fisher Hill and Fisher Hill-Pitt: Little data exists on current recreation 

use, however use is low relative to other recreation areas in the Columbia River Gorge area. 

Recreation use is expected to increase, following trends on similar rivers in the region. 

Recreation currently consists mainly of bank fishing, drift boat fishing and sight seeing. 

Segment 3: Pitt-Wahkiacus: The landscape adjacent to this segment has been modified by 

past and current evidence of farming, housing development and a small rural town. In many 

places the trail is adjacent to private residences and businesses. Existing use in this area is 

high compared to other segments of the trail. This segment is already being used as a trail, 

particularly through the town of Klickitat. Use consists mostly of walking/hiking. Segment 4: 

Wahkiacus-Warwick: Wahkiacus-Warwick is the most primitive segment of the entire trail. 

Existing use is probably lowest in this section and consists of hiking and mountain biking. 

Other recreation opportunities in the immediate vicinity include two county parks with Klickitat 

River access at approximately SR142 Mile 1 and SR142 Mile 10, a small park with 

playground in the town of Klickitat, and a play ground in the town of Lyle. Forest Service land 

west of the mouth of the Klickitat River is proposed for a small day-use site. Washington 

Department Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provides and river access at approximately SR142 

Mile 3 and camping and river access at approximately SR142 Mile 16, WDFW land in the 

vicinity provides informal Klickitat River access. Other than the proposed trail, there are no 

public recreation opportunities in Swale Canyon. 

b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.

Existing uses would not be displaced. The project provides additional recreation 

opportunities. 

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation 

opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:

The project enhances trail opportunities in the area. The project would provide easy to 

moderate trail opportunities for wheelchair users, hikers, walkers, mountain bikers and horse 

back riders. 

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local 

preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.

Several archaeological sites exist within or adjacent to the railbed. Only one site has been 

evaluated against the criteria of eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places. It is likely that other sites will also be determined eligible. The railbed transects a 

potentially eligible Traditional Cultural Property. 

 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or 

cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-13

There are several prehistoric and historic-era American Indian encampment sites adjacent to 

the railroad bed. Complete disclosure of the sites will occur in the “Cultural Resource 

Inventory Report for the Klickitat Railroad Trail Project”. Any or all information in that 

document may be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. 

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:

All areas of potential impact, outside the actual railroad bed have been inventoried for the 

presence of cultural resources. Where cultural resources are located within the areas of 

ground disturbance, an assessment of effect will be conducted following the Section 106 

process. Depending on the selected alternative, up to one archaeological site may be 

adversely affected by the proposed action. Mitigation would entail data recovery from the 

affected site and would comply with the archaeological consultation process.

14. Transportation

a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to 

the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any:

SR 142 is the access road between Lyle and Wahkiacus. Durkee Road (county road) 

provides access to the Klickitat trailhead. Between Wahkiacus and Warwick, several county 

roads provide access, including Horeshoe Bend Road and Schilling Road (Wahkiacus), 

Harms Road, the Lyle-Centerville Highway, and Uecker Road. Short access roads from 

these roads would required from SR 142 for the Lyle, Pitt and Klickitat trailheads. A short 

access road would from Durkee Road (county road) to the Klickitat trailhead. (The Klickitat 

trailhead has two access points, one from SR 142, and the other from Durkee Road). Short 

access roads would required from Schilling Road at the Wahkiacus trailhead, Harms Road at 

the Harms Road trailhead, and Uecker Road at the Warwick trailhead. 

c. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to 

the nearest transit stop? 

The site is not currently served by public transit. For a discussion of public transportation 

available in Klickitat County, refer to Chapter 3, “DRAFT Klickitat County Regional 

Transportation Plan” (March, 2003). 

d. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the 

project eliminate? 

Trailhead would provide up to 117 parking places in six distinct locations (depending on 

alternative). No designated parking places would be eliminated. 

d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads 

or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public 

or private).

No new roads or streets would be needed. In addition to the short access roads described 

above in section 14(a), three pedestrian crossings would be added to SR 142, at Pitt, 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix A: SEPA Checklist A-14

Klickitat and Suburbia. Pedestrian crossings would be added to Schilling Road, Harms 

Road and the Lyle-Centerville Highway. Signing would be added to these roads near 

trailheads and pedestrian crossings. 

e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air 

transportation? If so, generally describe. 

The project is not in the immediate vicinity of water, rail or air transportation. For a discussion 

of the availability of these transportation modes in Klickitat County, refer to Chapter 3, 

“DRAFT Klickitat County Regional Transportation Plan” (March, 2003). 

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If 

known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.

See Section 3.9 of the “FS EA 2003” for a complete discussion by affected road. 

g. Proposed measure to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:

See Section 3.9 of the “FS EA 2003” for a complete discussion by affected road. 

15. Public Services

a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire 

protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe.

The proposed trail could result in an increased need for fire, police and medical services due 

to the increased number of people using the area. 

b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.

In an attempt to limit the need for additional fire service, campfires and fireworks would be 

banned along the trail. Smoking would be banned when Klickitat County institutes a burn 

ban. Trespassing would be prevented through the use of signs reminding trail uses to stay on 

the trail right of way. To lower the need for medical services the trail would be designed in a 

manner to allow for safe use by multiple types of users. In case there ever is an emergency, 

the most of the trail would be constructed to allow access by emergency vehicles. 

16. Utilities

a. Utilities currently available at the site: 

In the towns of Lyle and Klickitat, water, sewer and electricity are available. 

b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service 

and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which 

might be needed.

The restrooms at the Lyle and Klickitat trailheads would require water, sewer and electricity. 

The restroom at the Klickitat trailhead already exists, so no new construction activities will be 

required. The utilities already exist at the Lyle site, so they would simply need to be tied into 

when the restroom is constructed. Water, sewer and electricity to these sites will be supplied 

by the Klickitat County PUD. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix B: Assumptions for Recreation Use B-1

APPENDIX B 

Assumptions 

for 

Recreation Use 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix B: Assumptions for Recreation Use B-2

Use Figures Assumptions 

Assumptions:

• 2.6 people per vehicle based on the National Visitor Use Monitoring for the Columbia 

River Gorge National Scenic Area 2001. 

• Local Use: Lyle = 2% of population of 530 per day; Klickitat = 8% of population of 417 

per day (From 2002 Census). 

These assumptions are based on Washington State rates of participation in walking (56.62% of 

State population) in parks/trails (15% of walkers) and/or hiking (17.11% of State Population) on 

“urban” trails (14% of hikers) as described in Washington SCORP 2002. 

It is assumed the characteristics of the Lyle segment (first 2 miles) is similar to the urban 

trail used by hikers and the Klickitat segment is similar to the parks/trails used by 

walkers. (Lyle: 17.11% hikers x 14% urban trail hikers = 2%; Klickitat: 56.62% walking 

x 15% parks/trail walkers = 8%). 

• Nonlocal Use Trailhead Capacity by Season: 

SEGMENTS 1-3: 

High Use Season (June-August; 92 days): 

 Weekends = 90% capacity (25 days) 

 Weekdays = 50% capacity (67 days) 

Shoulder Use Season (March-May; September-October; 153 days): 

 Weekends = 50% capacity (44 days) 

 Weekdays = 5% capacity (109 days) 

Low Use Season (November-February; 120 days): 

 Weekends = 15% capacity (34 days) 

 Weekdays = 2% capacity (86 days) 

Segment 4: 

High Use Season (May-June; September; 91 days): 

 Weekends = 90% capacity (26 days) 

 Weekdays = 50% capacity (65 days) 

Shoulder Use Season (March-April; July-August; October; 154 days): 

 Weekends = 50% capacity (44 days) 

 Weekdays = 5% capacity (110 days) 

Low Use Season (November-February; 120 days): 

 Weekends = 15% capacity (34 days) 

 Weekdays = 2% capacity (86 days) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix B: Assumptions for Recreation Use B-3

2002 HCRH average daily traffic reflects a shoulder season that is 60% of high use 

season and low use season is 35% of high use season. Use is generally predicted to be 

similar overall to the HCRH for high use season where on average sites capacity reach 

near 100% on the weekends and 50% on the weekdays. Shoulder season and low season 

uses, however, were adjusted to account for the distance from Portland and experience 

with other facilities in the Gorge. It is expected that this trail will provide year round 

opportunities. 

• Trailheads 

Lyle: 26 spaces (20 cars + 6 pull through) 

Pitt: 21 spaces (15 cars + 6 pull through) 

Klickitat 67 spaces (50 cars + 17 pull through) ? 

Wahkiacus 13 spaces (10 cars + 3 back-up trailer) 

Harms Road 10 spaces (10 cars) 

Warwick 21 spaces (15 cars + 6 pull through) 

Klickitat Trailhead/Parking will be reduced by 50% to calculate use on the trail (20 cars 

and 6 pull through for a total of 26 spaces). It is assumed 50% will be used for other 

community purposes. 

For purpose of use projections total spaces @ 2.6 people per car will be used regardless of user 

types. 

• Length of Stay for the majority of nonlocal users is a full day. Nonlocal users from the 

Hood River, White Salmon/Bingen, The Dalles, Goldendale, Carson, Cascade Locks and 

Stevenson account for approximately 10% of the total National Forest visits in the 

Columbia Gorge (NVUM Study). Thus average turn over rate is 1 x 1.10 (10%) = 1.1. 

• 

Community percent of visitors

Hood River 4.3%

White Salmon 1.6%

Cascade Locks 1.2%

Goldendale 0.9%

Carson 0.8%

Stevenson 0.8%

Total 9.6%

• Total school enrollment at the Klickitat School is 169 students in school year 2002-03. It 

was assumed there are 176 school days. Local school officials believe approximately 20 

students use the trail to walk to school. 

• Use by Segment 

Segment 1 (Lyle to Fisher Hill)= Local Lyle Use, Lyle TH & Pitt TH, (2 miles) 

Segment 2 (Fisher Hill to Pitt) = Lyle TH, Pitt, & 1⁄2 Klickitat, (9 miles) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix B: Assumptions for Recreation Use B-4

Segment 3(Pitt to Klickitat) = 1⁄2 Klickitat, Local Klickitat Use, (7 miles) 

Segment 4 (Klickitat toWarwick) = 1⁄2 Klickitat, Wahkiakus, Harms, Warwick, (13 miles) 

Alternative 3 would reflect the loss of segment 4, but include all of the Klickitat spaces 

used for recreation. The sum of use by segment will exceed total use, because of 

overlapping use from trailheads. 

• Social encounters will be based on an average group size of 2.6 people per groups, 

groups will be evenly spaced and half are traveling in opposite direction. 

Excerpts from 

Washington State SCORP Report 

2002 

Walking is the single largest category by total participation. This may be due to its simplicity: 

walking requires little or no special equipment; there are suitable (if not always desirable) sites 

immediately available to homes and worksites; it has low physical impact and effort, and 

demands little more than a “natural” skill set. 

That walking does not necessarily require recreation-specific facilities is reflected in the fact that 

the public has adapted a variety of settings for walking, most notably the transportation system. 

This is not to imply that the public is satisfied with sidewalks, streets, and roads. IAC believes 

that more data is needed concerning preferred facilities and settings for all activities, including 

walking. 

Walking-Hiking as a Percent of Population

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Walking

Walking with a pet

Hiking

Climbing-Mountaineering
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix B: Assumptions for Recreation Use B-5

Hiking seems to be defined by participants by a combination of facility and setting. In other 

words, hiking appears to be a form of walking that takes place on native surfaces (soil, sand, 

rock) in settings out of the human-built environment. This assumption, if accurate, would 

explain why some survey participants report hiking on “urban trails.” 

Where People Report Walking

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Sidewalks

Roads and streets

In parks/trails

Indoor

Where People Report Hiking

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Urban trails

Mountain-forest trails
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

APPENDIX C 

Washington State Parks Policy 55-01-1 

Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements 

for 

Non-Recreational Uses of State Park Lands 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

55-01-1 POLICY GOVERNING LEASES, PERMITS AND EASEMENTS FOR 

NON-RECREATIONAL USES OF STATE PARK LANDS

I. The following General Policy Principles shall apply for all non-recreational uses of 

state park lands: 

A. As used in this policy, “non-traditional” park lands are any state park property that is: 

1) In whole or substantial part, a former railroad right of way corridor (commonly 

referred to as a rail-trail); or 

2) Shows evidence of previous or current industrial or commercial use AND has 

been designated as “non-traditional” park land by the Commission.. 

 

All other properties of the state park system are termed “traditional” park lands. 

B. As used in this policy, “surplus” park lands are those lands that the Commission 

has formally designated as lands under its control that cannot advantageously be 

used for park purposes. 

C. The Commission may, at its discretion, refuse to approve any proposed use 

solely on the basis that the facility detracts from the natural, cultural or 

recreational values of the park, or causes adverse impacts which cannot be 

sufficiently mitigated. 

D. The proponent shall be required to prove in advance to staff satisfaction that the 

proposed site within the park is both feasible and preferred to siting the facility on 

non-park managed lands. The proponent may be required to pay in advance the 

cost for staff to study and/or determine the feasibility, impacts and appropriate 

mitigation elements of the proposal, and/or the cost to contract for such work in 

accordance with the currently adopted fee schedule. 

Any review of proponents requested facility will follow the general review criteria 

as detailed1

: 

1. Impact - First to be considered is the impact of the request for the life of the 

agreement. Impacts include physical, economic and recreational impacts. 

Consideration of impacts will be consistent with agency statutes, Commission 

policy, strategic plan(s) and staff analysis of data from all available sources. 

2. Mitigation - Identified impacts will be reviewed in light of their need and ability 

to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Commission. Proposals with impacts 

that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level will be denied. 

Pursuant to March 19, 1999 Commission Agenda Item.

 

1

 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

3. Compensation - On properties for which all impacts can be shown to be 

mitigated to the Commission's satisfaction, staff will proceed with 

consideration and negotiation on compensation. 

E. The rights and terms granted for non-recreational uses of park lands should be 

the minimum necessary to accomplish the objectives of any particular use. 

F. Non-monetary compensation or benefits to the Commission, may be considered 

in lieu of use fees when such benefits can be specifically related to the needs 

and desires of the Commission and are not normally provided free to the 

Commission as a usual function of the facility, Provided; the action is consistent 

with Federal and State law. 

The following are not to be considered as benefits in lieu of use fees: 

 1. Costs of application and staff/professional review for the Commission, 

including but not limited to, all studies, surveys and environmental 

assessments. 

 2. All additional costs including planning, designing, environmental review, 

installation, construction, maintenance and operation required to protect 

Commission-owned structures, facilities or values impacted by the 

proponent’s activities. 

1. Removal of existing improvements and restoration of the remaining park 

facilities and landscapes to as good or better condition than prior to 

proponents work or as approved by State’s authorized representative. 

G. Commission approved agreements for non-recreational uses of park lands will 

include language and/or contract conditions as required for the protection of the 

park's natural, cultural, historic or recreational values including: 

1. All facilities permitted in traditional parks shall be designed, built and 

maintained with the least possible impact to or intrusion on park values. 

2. All utility lines, cables, pipelines and other appurtenances shall be placed 

underground except where it is economically unfeasible or physically 

impractical that they be below ground, or where it is in the Commission's 

interest to authorize overhead facilities. 

3. The control of park gates, roads and lands will be retained by the 

Commission. 

4. Any material change to an agreement will be executed through formal 

amendment and/or assignment. 

5. The proponent will be required to perform all environmental analyses and 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

obtain all necessary permits as required by law prior to construction. The 

Commission retains the right to review and condition any and all such 

documentation upon request. 

6. Proponents may be required to provide an archaeological survey of the 

project area to be conducted by a professional archaeologist as part of the 

application review materials. 

7. The proponent may be required to provide reports and record searches 

relating to threatened or endangered species (T&E) or other priority habitat 

considerations within the project area. Based on the findings of any reports, 

the proponent may be required to perform additional mitigation and/or may 

have their application denied due to adverse impacts which cannot be 

satisfactorily mitigated. The proponent will comply with all applicable laws 

relating to threatened or endangered species and priority habitats. 

8. The proponent may be required to provide professional wetland studies. 

Proponent’s activities shall cause no net loss of wetlands and shall comply 

with all applicable laws and regulations. 

9. Other regulations - The proponent will comply with all other applicable codes, 

laws and regulations as required by law. 

10. The proposed facility will be constructed and maintained at no cost to the 

Commission. Any damage caused to Commission property as a result of the 

proponent’s activities on the site, will be repaired to as good or better 

condition by the proponent at its sole expense. Any such damages not 

repaired within a reasonable time period following notice from Commission 

staff may be repaired by Commission staff and the actual cost to repair will be 

paid by the proponent. 

11. No trees are to be cut without prior written consent of the Director or 

designee. 

12. Any agreement authorizing the placement of facilities (lease, easement, etc.) 

with a term of ten (10) years or more may only be issued after the proponent 

supplies and 

a. records a legal survey of the use area, stamped by a licensed surveyor 

and approved by staff, unless the grant is for the primary benefit of the 

state, or the use request does not involve permanent improvements. 

H. Each application for use of park land for non-recreational uses will present 

different circumstances. Staff may request the Commission to waive specific 

requirements, require additional materials or to deviate from generally accepted 

criteria on a case by case basis. 

II. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is firmly opposed to the 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

placement on park lands of any facility, utility line, improvement or commercial 

facility that will have a significant adverse effect on public recreation or the natural 

environment. Protection of park values and the provision of public recreational 

needs are paramount to any other use. When major facilities are proposed, the 

following policy principles shall apply in addition to the General Policy Principles: 

A. As used in this policy major facilities are defined to include but are not limited to 

sewage treatment facilities, central plants, major structures, transmission lines, 

new transmission towers, commercial cables or conduits, commercial buildings 

and pipelines not used primarily for park purposes. 

B. Use of park land for major facilities shall be considered only under the following 

conditions: 

1. The proposed facility has little or no significant adverse effect upon public 

recreation, the natural environment, and/or cultural, historic resources of the 

park; and 

2. Significant benefits are provided to State Parks. 

C. The use of park land for the installation and maintenance of major facilities to 

serve non-park facilities outside the park boundaries shall be authorized by 

agreement only. Agreements shall be limited to the minimum term necessary to 

the proposed operation, allowing reasonable time for the proponent to amortize 

its investment provided use agreements terms do not exceed those required by 

law. 

III. For use requests involving “surplus” lands, the following principles are considered 

superior to those additional principles described in Sections I and II. 

A. Surplus Park Lands 

Whenever the Commission finds that any land under its control cannot 

advantageously be used for park purposes, it is authorized to dispose of such 

land by the methods provided for in RCW 79A.05.175. 

1. The Commission will continuously review state parks land assets and seek 

out opportunities for improving the parks system. 

2. The sale of park property will be initiated only after a complete staff review 

and appropriate process leading to staff recommendation and unanimous 

Commission declaration in open session of a regularly scheduled meeting 

that the property to be sold is surplus to the needs of the state park system. 

3. The Commission will seek to maximize the return to the state park system 

from the sale of any property declared surplus by the Commission. 

IV. For use requests involving lands managed as “non-traditional” lands or "Rail-
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

Trails", the following principles are considered superior to those additional principles 

described in Section I and II. 

Rail-trail properties, together with other non-traditional lands typically exhibit a higher 

degree of commercial activity and existing encumbrances due to their previous use 

as commercial lands. Therefore, it is the policy of the Commission to recognize the 

significantly different attributes and management conditions of rail-trails and other 

non-traditional lands, and to be more flexible in permitting non-parks uses. 

Specifically: 

1.The Commission recognizes that established crossings of former railroad 

rights-of-way exist on which many adjoining land owners depend for utility 

service and access to their lands. Existing or "grandfathered" crossings will 

continue to be recognized and not be revoked except by Commission action. 

Neither application fees nor use fees shall be assessed against holders or 

requestors of "grandfathered" permits. 

2. It is recognized that owners of adjacent lands may desire additional crossings 

of these rights-of-way corridors. Permits or easements for such additional 

utility uses or access crossings will be granted subject to the general 

conditions described in the LANDS Manual. 

3. The Commission recognizes and confirms the rights of adjoining landowners' 

pre-existing agricultural and forestry operations on lands adjacent to the railtrails. 

4. Access or other use parallel to, but not on, the recreation trail within the rightof-way corridor of a rail-trail may be permitted by the Director or designee for 

temporary agricultural, forest management or other uses under such terms 

and conditions as deemed necessary to protect the public interests 

5. Existing leases of rail-trail lands will be honored for the duration of their terms. 

Renewals or new leases will be considered as provided by RCW 79A.05.030. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

Exhibit B 

Delegation of Authority Relating to 

Non-Recreational Uses of State Park Lands 

Provided that all actions serve the public good by enhancing the State’s natural, cultural 

or recreational resources, the Commission grants a consolidated Authority that allows 

the Director or designee to: 

A. Grant leases, easements and permits for the installation, operation and maintenance 

of utilities, facilities, the use of park roads by second parties, and other uses of park 

lands and facilities, subject to the following conditions and limitations: 

1. That no permanent use is conveyed unless the conveyance is reciprocal or for 

the primary/sole benefit of the Commission. 

2. That permits will: 

a. Be granted for terms not to exceed five years or 60 total months. 

b. Meet the general criteria for a use permit as detailed in the LANDS manual. 

c. Only authorize improvements or facilities that are movable and temporary in 

nature. 

3. That leases for periods not to exceed ten (10) years will be granted only when at 

least two of the following conditions exist,2

 and the lessee’s permitted use will not 

adversely affect natural, cultural or historic park resources: 

a. Lessee's permitted use will provide for increased recreational opportunity or 

for improved habitat/natural conditions. 

b. Lessee's permitted use does not require new construction, is located on or 

adjoins existing facilities, and the lease area is less than one acre. 

c. Lessee is another government agency or sub-division thereof. 

d. Lessee’s permitted use is non-profit and not considered a commercial 

venture. 

Temporary impacts due to construction are acceptable if mitigated and if the 

property is returned to a condition as good or better than before the activity. 

4. That easements for periods not to exceed thirty (30) years will be granted only 

when at least two of the following conditions exist,3

 and the permitted use will not 

adversely affect natural, cultural or historic park resources: 

a. The easement is underground or provides access to a single family 

residential use. 

 

2

 Pursuant to those authorities granted in RCW 79A.05.030(5) & 79A.05.070(7) 3

 Pursuant to those authorities granted in RCW 79A.05.030(5) & 79A.05.070(7) 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

b. The easement area is less than 1,000 linear feet OR less than one acre in 

total area. 

c. Lessee is another government agency or sub-division thereof. 

Temporary impacts due to construction are acceptable if mitigated and if the 

property is returned to a condition as good or better than before the activity. 

5. That the applicable environmental declaration indicates that the action is minor 

and that the adverse effects are not significant, can be readily mitigated, or are 

categorically exempt from SEPA. 

6. That the lease, permit or easement is revocable for cause or breach. 

7. That the lease, permit or easement will automatically expire if not used for a 

period of two years. 

8. That they may be renewed only upon mutual written consent. 

9. That they comply with all applicable codes, laws and regulations. 

10. That they include appropriate indemnification clauses protecting the Commission 

and staff. 

11. That an appropriate consideration be paid to the state in cash or in the form of 

offsetting benefits/in-kind services to be determined by staff or independent 

appraisal as appropriate. 

12. That applicants shall be assessed an application and processing fees according 

to a Commission-approved fee schedule. 

13. That the Director or designee may also include any other terms and conditions in 

the use agreement deemed necessary for the protection of the park and park 

visitors. 

B. Accept leases, easements, permits and other non-fee simple agreements, 

permanent or temporary, necessary for the implementation of State Parks projects 

and programs approved by the Commission. 

C. Renew, replace, assign or amend existing lease or easement agreements with 

current State Parks documents provided: 

1. The new agreement is identical to or more restrictive than the previous 

agreement, for example, reduced lease term, additional language to protect 

Commission interests or higher levels of bonding and insurance; 

2. All costs associated with the renewal, replacement, assignment, or amendment 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

are borne by the proponent; 

 

3. The new agreement will not materially change the original permitted use; and 

4. The new agreement meets the general conditions described in Section A (3) and 

(4) of this delegation. 

D. Accept services in lieu of or in addition to cash or monetary considerations for grants 

involving leases, permits or easements provided: 

1. Total value is less than $20,000 annually (2001 dollars adjusted for inflation); and 

2. The in kind services are documented and accepted in writing as being of equal or 

higher value than the negotiated monetary value for the use. 

3. Acceptance is consistent with State law, specifically public works and prevailing 

wage statutes. 

E. Sign Restrictive Covenants and Declaration of Covenants on State Park property for 

the purpose of protecting or improving natural resources or public health, safety and 

welfare and consistent with health requirements of authorities with jurisdiction, 

subject to the following conditions and limitations:4

1) That the applicable environmental declaration indicate that the action is minor 

and that adverse effects are not significant or that the proposal is categorically 

exempt from SEPA. 

2) That no alteration occur to the park property, including the placement of facilities 

or the removal of park features or vegetation. 

3) That park operations are not adversely affected. 

4) That the value of park property subject to such a covenant be less than $25,000. 

5) That appropriate consideration be paid to the Commission in cash or in the form 

of in-kind benefits. 

F. Biennially provide the Commission a listing of leases, easements, permits and 

covenants granted and accepted under this authority. 

G. Accept donations of real property or partial interests in real property, Provided; the 

donation parcel is adjacent existing park property. Acceptance may only be 

completed after a formal acceptance letter is offered to the donor by the Director, 

that the lands or partial interest of the lands involved is beneficial to the State Park 

system. 

 

4

 Pursuant to Nov. 06, 1998 Commission Adopted Item 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

H. Act on any Commission decision relating to real property and adopted in open 

session, for a period of ten (10) years from the date of the adopted item in 

accordance with the action and in an effort to complete the property transaction 

provided, the action is essentially the same and materially consistent with the 

original Commission decision. For transactions completed beyond 24 months from 

the date of the original decision, staff will provide a written report to the Commission 

on the property transaction. 

Exhibit C 

Fee Schedule for Application, Processing and Use Fees for

Real Property Agreements 

RAIL-TRAIL EXCEPTIONS

RPA Category Application 

Fee1

Processing Fee Use Fee 

“Grandfathered” Crossing 

Permits 

None None None 

Conversion of 

“Grandfathered” Permit to 

Easement 

$25 $300 Only if and as needed to meet 

IAC requirements 

New Crossing or Utility 

Permits or Easements: 

Single Household, Family 

Farm, Non-Industrial 

Forests 

$25 Class 1: $50 

Class 2: $300 

Only if and as needed to meet 

IAC requirements 

All others $25 Per Class 1, 2, 3 

below 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS: 

RPA Category Application 

Fee1

Processing Fee Use Fee 

Lease, Permit or Easement $25 Class 1: $50 Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

Lease, Permit or Easement $25 Class 2: 

No Commission 

Action: $600 

Commission 

Action: $1,500 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

Lease, Permit or Easement $25 Class 3: 

No less than 

$2,000 but as 

negotiated to 

cover all staff 

costs 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

Research Permit $25 Per Class 1, 2, 

or 3 

None 

Document Assignment and 

Amendment 

None No less than 

$500 but as 

negotiated to 

cover all staff 

costs 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

Land Transfer and 

Exchange2

$100 No less than 

$500 but as 

negotiated to 

cover all staff 

costs 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

Direct Sale/Sale at Public 

Auction2

$100 No less than 

$500 but as 

negotiated to 

cover all staff 

costs 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

Document Renewal 

(RPAs) 

None Per Class 1, 2 or 

3 

Fair Market Value Just 

Compensation 

 

2

 Commission reserves right to waive Processing and Use charges when the property transfer is in the best interest of the 

Commission.
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

Appendix C: Washington State Parks Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements for 

Uses of Washington State Parks Systems Rails-Trails 

EXHIBIT D 

The following “real life” examples are offered to show how the delegations detailed in 

this agenda item (Exhibit B) will be implemented at the staff level. 

Leases

The Director will be authorized to grant leases for up to ten years for activities that 

typically add recreational value to the park and do not require new construction. 

Concession leases for boat rentals, guide services and food services are all good 

examples. Additionally, the Director will be authorized to grant leases that improve 

natural conditions such as grazing leases and community improvement projects 

(wetland improvements, trail maintenance groups, etc.). 

The Commission reserves the authority to grant leases for any use over ten years and 

to approve any lease that requires stand alone building construction and is for private 

profit. 

Easements 

This delegation allows the Director to grant easements (primarily road use and utilities), 

to single family residences and to authorize utility service over small park parcels. The 

delegation does not allow the Director to issue easements to commercial companies for 

large projects (fiber optics, etc.) requiring the use of large park parcels or trail corridors. 

Agreement Renewals, Amendments 

This delegation authorizes the Director or designee to renew existing agreements with 

State Park documents that are modern and generally more restrictive than the original 

grant. For example; we currently have dozens of agreements where State Parks is the 

successor in lessor interest to the railroad. Most of these agreements have permitted 

uses that are perpetual. The delegation will allow staff to negotiate new agreements 

that replace the old railroad lease or easement with a State document that provides a 

higher level of liability protection and places a term on the permitted use. 

Accepting Services In Lieu Of Cash 

Often, staff have the opportunity to provide direct benefits to the park involved in a 

private use request. Some of these applicants can provide materials or services at a 

much lower cost than what the park can purchase the service for in the open market. 

For example; we have a lessee on the Willapa Hills Trail that specializes in 

manufacturing road jersey barriers (ecology blocks). The lessee would like to provide 

50 ecology blocks to the State in lieu of half their annual rent of ($1,000). Value to the 

State is $750 in blocks vs. receiving $500 in additional rent. 

Donations 

Typically, this delegation will involve small parcels of land (less than 20 acres) provided 

the donation parcel is connected to or adjacent to an existing State Park. The 

Commission retains the authority to accept stand alone parcels into the park system. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

Appendix C: 55-01-1: Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements 

 for Non-Recreational Uses of State Park Lands 

APPENDIX D 

Biological 

Evaluation 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

Appendix C: Washington State Parks Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements for 

Uses of Washington State Parks Systems Rails-Trails 

 

Biological Evaluation of the Potential Impacts to the Flora and Fauna from the Klickitat 

Rails-to-Trails Project. 

U.S. Forest Service 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

Date: May 16, 2003 

Pre-field data: 

Previous surveys were examined to determine the presence of any listed species. The most 

recent survey was completed for the Wild and Scenic Designation process in 1989 by Land 

and Water Associates for the U.S. Forest Service. A previous study was completed by Bakke 

et al. in 1988. Both surveys identified five state listed flora within the Klickitat river 

Canyon: Astragalus hoodianus, Githopsis specularioides, Heuchera grossularifolia var. 

tenuifolia, Lomatium suksdorfii, and Meconella oregana. There are another 15 flora that are 

suspected to be located within this area. Fauna species noted included the bald eagle, 

western gray squirrel, steelhead, bull trout. The Washington State fauna data base, both site 

data and priority habitats, was referenced to note all known sites of sensitive fauna. 

Documented sites for bald eagle, peregrine, wetern gray squirrel were among the sites listed. 

Field Surveys: 

Several field surveys have occurred over the last ten years; more recently on February 13, 14, 

and May 8 of 2003. The only new sighting of a listed flora, Ranunculus recognitus, was in 

Swale Creek. This was first observed in 1995 and has been verified in 2003 by Barbara 

Robinson, a local botanist. Species documented in the project area include: bald eagle, wild 

(Merriam’s ) turkey (introduced), golden eagle, mountain quail, lesser steelhead, bull trout, 

coho (introduced), chinook, Pacific lamprey, rainbow trout, speckled dace, goldfish, ash 

throated flycatcher, Western gray squirrel, Southern alligator lizard, ringneck snake, sharptail 

snake, and California mountain king snake. 

Priority Habitat that are adjacent to, or overlay, the project area include: 

Bald Eagle, mule and blacktail deer (winter range), oak woodland, riaprian zones, Western 

gray Squirrel, wild turkey and cliff/bluff. 

Findings:

The rail bed itself, which would be the most impacted aspect of this project, was not suitable 

habitat for most sensitive species and no species of concern were observed. This was true for 

both flora and fauna. The most important habitats along the trail that would potentially be 

disturbed by the proposed action were the wet areas and seeps. Being potential habitat for 

sensitive flora and fauna, these would require specific protection measures, such as board 

walks, as are designed into the proposed actions in this document. Some wet areas would be 

impacted in the short term, but enhanced in the long term. 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

Appendix C: Washington State Parks Policy Governing Leases, Permits and Easements for 

Uses of Washington State Parks Systems Rails-Trails 

Other important habitats, such as basalt cliffs, dry talus slopes, large snags, and wet seeps, 

were observed adjacent to the trail and these are not to be disturbed, except in rare 

curcumstances. A few populations of listed flora and suitable habitats for fauna, such as the 

bald eagle and western gray squirrel occur close to the rail bed and protection measures are 

important to ensure that the impacts are not significant. There are two locations where the 

trail must be re-routed outside the existing rail bed and these re-routes have been examined . 

There were no note worthy concerns and no listed flora or significant habitats in these reroutes. 

Weeds were common along the trail and appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that 

these infestations do not become more damaging to native flora, including the listed species. 

Therefore, all soil disturbances should, at minimum, be planted with native grass species to 

reduce the risk of weed infestations. 

Specific design elements in the proposed project, such as board walks over wetlands, 

retaining old snags, encouraging new pines along the corridor, and limiting river access will 

all be important factors in making the determination of no significant impact. 

Prepared by:

Robin Dobson, Botanist/Ecologist, and Chuti Fiedler, Wildlife/Fisheries Biologist, CRGNSA 

 

/s/ Robin Dobson /s/ Chuti Fiedler

___________________ ______________________- 

Robin Dobson Chuti Fiedler 

Botanist/Ecologist Wildlife/Fisheries Biologist 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

Appendix D 

Biological Evaluation 

FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION – Summary Table Of Effects 

for 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate species found in WA 

as listed by the Federal Endangered Species Act, 

and 

U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list 

for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

and 

other “sensitive wildilfe areas and sites” as defined by the

1992 Management Plan for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

(including all non-marine Washington state Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and 

Candidate Species) 

Project Name: Klickitat Rail-to-Trails Project County/State: Klickitat, WA 

EFFECTS 

DETERMINATION

SPECIES 

(population segment) 

STATUS

* 

PREFIELD 

REVIEW 

Usual Habitat in OR/WA 

FIELD 

Habitat 

Present? 

 RECON. 

Species 

Present? Alt1 Alt2

2a 

Alt3 

3a 

Bull trout (Columbia R.) 

(Salvelinus confluentus) 

T Cold streams/lakes Yes Yes NE NE NE 

Steelhead trout (Snake R.) 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

T Streams/rivers no 

Steelhead trout (Mid-Col. R.) 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

T Col. streams/rivers 

(Mosier to Yakima) 

Yes Yes 

Steelhead trout (Lower Col.a R.) 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

T Col. streams/rivers 

(mouth east to Hood R.) 

no NLAA LAA

Alt 2 

NLAA

NLAA

Sockeye salmon (Snake R.) 

(Oncorhynchus nerka)

E Streams/rivers/lakes no 

Chinook salmon (Snake R. spring/ 

summer/fall runs) 

 (O. tshawytscha)

T Streams/rivers no 

Chinook salmon (Lower Col. R.) 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

T Col. streams/rivers 

(mouth east to Hood R.) 

no 

Chum salmon (Columbia R.) 

(Oncorhynchus keta)

T Col. R and lower tribs from 

mouth E. to Bonneville dam)

no 

Bald eagle 

(Haliatus leucocephalus)

T , 

WA-T 

Shoreline (generally within 1 

mile of large water bodies) 

with large trees and prey base 

of primarily fish, also 

waterfowl, turtles, carrion 

Yes 

PHS 

Yes, 

winter 

habitat 

LAA LAA LAA 

Northern spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis caurina)

T, 

WA-E 

Mature coniferous forest no 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-1

Biological Evaluation

Grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos) 

T, 

WA-E 

North Cascades Range no 

Woodland caribou 

(Rangifer tarandus) 

E, 

WA-E 

Boreal forests/foothills no 

Columbian white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) 

E, 

WA-E 

Coastal/foothills floodplains no 

Oregon silverspot butterfly 

(Speyeria zerene hippolyta) 

T, 

WA-E 

Coastal salt-spray meadows no 

Canada Lynx 

(Lynx canadensis) 

T, 

WA-T 

Subalpine/boreal forests no 

Marbled Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

T, 

WA-T 

Coastal mature forests no 

Gray wolf 

(Canis lupus) 

E, 

WA-E 

steppe, woodland, forest no 

Pygmy rabbit 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) 

PE, 

WA-E 

Dense stands of big sagebrush 

with loose soils for burrows 

no 

Coastal cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) 

P Col. river/tribs; mouth east to 

Klickitat R 

no 

Chinook (mid-Col. spring run) 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

FS Col. river/tribs 

(Mosier to Yakima) 

no 

Coho (lower Columbia R.) 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

C, FS Col. river/lower tribs 

(mouth east to Hood R.) 

no 

California Mtn king snake 

(Lampropeltis zonata) 

FS, 

WA-C 

Disjunct pop. in Col. R. Gorge 

(Klickitat, Skamania county 

area): oak/pine woodland, 

rocky riparian within 

logs/rocky cover 

Yes potential NI MIIH MIIH 

Cope’s giant salamander 

(Dicamptodon copei) 

FS W. WA, NW OR: Clear, cold 

mountain streams w/rocky 

substrate 

no 

Cascade torrent salmander 

(Rhyacotriton cascadae) 

FS, 

WA-C 

Cascade Mtns of southern WA 

and northern OR: in and 

adjacent to cold, fast, 

mountain streams w/rocky 

substrate 

no 

Townsend’s Big-Eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) 

FS, 

WA-C 

desert scrub/coniferous forests 

w/caves or mines 

no 

California Wolverine 

(Gulo gulo) 

FS, 

WA-C 

Forests/open plains no 

Oregon Spoted Frog 

(Rana pretiosa) 

C, FS, 

WA-E 

9 acre+ perennial 

lakes/marshes (Conboy) 

no 

Mardon skipper 

(Polites mardon) 

C, 

WA-E 

Puget sound and south 

Cascades of WA: Open fescue 

grasslands with nectar plant 

source 

marginal 

edge of 

range, few 

fescues 

potential NI NI/ 

longterm 

BE 

NI/ 

longterm BE
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-2

Biological Evaluation

Washington ground squirrel 

(Spermophilus washingtoni) 

C, 

WA-C 

East of Columbia River from 

center of WA state & 

southward:Sagebrush/ 

grassland w/ sandy soils, 

also Giliam, Morrow and 

Umatilla counties, OR 

no 

Streaked horned lark 

(Eremophila alpestris strigata)

C, 

WA-C 

W. WA/OR: native prairies 

/sparsely veg short grass areas. 

Ground nester. 

no 

Pacific Fisher 

(Martes pennanti) 

FS, 

WA-E 

 Optimum habitat is dense 

mature conifer forest 

no 

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) 

FS, 

WA-S 

cliff (nest) sites with sm. bird 

prey base 

yes Not seen NI NI NI 

Northwestern pond turtle 

(Clemmys marmorata) 

FS, 

WA-E 

streams, lg rivers, slow 

sloughs, and quiet waters 

no 

Western gray squirrel 

(Sciurus griseus) 

FS, 

WA-T 

Oak & mixed oak woodland, 

core range Klickitat county 

yes yes MIIH MIIH/

longterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 

Common loon 

(Gavia immer) 

FS, 

WA-S 

Undisturbed forest lakes no 

Sandhill crane 

(Grus canadensis) 

WA-E Riverine wetland, islolated 

mtn meadows/basins 

no 

Upland sandpiper 

(Bartramia longicauda) 

WA-E Grasslands/migratory no 

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

WA-E Marsh/ponds, presently in 

Grant county only 

no 

Aleutian Canada goose 

(Branta canadensis leucopareia) 

WA-T Migrate thru coastal areas no 

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis) 

WA-T open prairie/shrub steppe no 

Sage grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) 

WA-T Sagebrush grasslands no 

Sharp-tailed grouse 

(Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

WA-T Grasslands/sagebrush no 

Larch mountain salamander 

(Plethodon larselli) 

WA-S 

FS S&M

Cascades mountains of S. 

WA/N. OR: Largely in mosscovered shady Talus slopes, 

low-mid elev. 

yes no NI NI NI 

Olympic mudminnow 

(Novumbra hubbsi) 

WA-S Quiet waters/mud substrates 

Olympic penins 

no 

Margined Sculpin 

(Cottus marginatus) 

WA-S Blue Mountains of OR and 

WA. In WA only in stream 

pools of Tucannon, Walla 

Walla 

no 

Pygmy Whitefish 

(Prosopium coulteri) 

WA-S Cold lakes/streams, of 

Northern WA 

no 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-3

Biological Evaluation

Merriam’s shrew 

(Sorex merriami) 

WA-C East of Cascades: Sagebrush 

scrub, woodlands, grasslands

yes potential NI NI NI 

Keen’s myotis bat 

(Myotis keenii)

WA-C Olympic Peninsula: 

Densely forested areas 

no 

Brush prairie pocket gopher 

(Thomomys talpoides douglasi) 

WA-C Western WA Cascades open 

habitats 

no 

Mazama (western) pocket gopher 

(Thomomys mazama) 

WA-C West of Cascades OR/WA: 

prairies and meadows 

no 

Gray-tailed vole 

(Microtus canicaudus) 

WA-C Clark County, WA and OR 

Willamette Valley: Grassy and 

agricultural lands 

no 

Black-tailed jackrabbit 

(Lepus californicus) 

WA-C E OR, SE WA: Prairies, dense 

mixed sagebrush communities, 

cultivated fields 

no 

White-tailed jackrabbit 

(Lepus townsendii) 

WA-C East of Cascades: open areas 

with native grass, some 

sagebrush habitat 

no 

Western Grebe 

(Aechmophorus occidentalis) 

WA-C open lakes and marshes 

w/rushes and tules, winters in 

coastal esturaies/bays 

no 

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis) 

WA-C Mature forest with large nest 

trees 

yes no NI MIIH MIIH 

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) 

WA-C Various habitats, open 

country/forests, oftens nests on 

steep cliffs or large trees 

Yes yes NI MIIH MIIH 

Merlin 

(Falco columbarius)

WA-C Forests, grasslands, marshes. 

Nests in WA Cascades, NE 

WA. Winters in all NW U.S.

yes potential NI NI NI 

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus)

WA-C riparian forests, with 

cottonwood/thick willow; 

Neotropical migrant 

no 

Flammulated owl 

(Otus flammeolus)

WA-C E. Cascades: cavity nester in 

mature pine in mixed 

woodland 

Winters S. of US border 

yes potential NI NI NI 

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia)

WA-C E. WA/OR: Open sagebrush 

country/ some in grass fields; 

winters SW US 

no 

Vaux's swift 

(Chaetura vauxi)

WA-C Woodlands near water, nests in 

hollow trees or chimneys; 

neotropical migrant 

no 

Lewis' woodpecker 

(Melanerpes lewis)

WA-C open pine/oak woodland, 

conifer forests, and riparian 

woodland; neotropical 

migrant. 

yes Yes NI 

 

NI/ 

longterm 

BE 

NI/ 

longterm 

BE 

White-headed woodpecker 

(Picoides albolarvatus)

WA-C central/E. WA/OR: Mature 

coniferous forests, esp. 

ponderosa pines, cavity nester

yes, 

portions 

potential NI MIIH/l

ongterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-4

Biological Evaluation

Black-backed woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus)

WA-C Highly associated with postfire habitats in mature forests 

(stand-replacement fires with 

snags), dependent on insectridden trees 

yes, 

portions 

potential NI MIIH/

longterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 

Pilieated woodpecker 

(Dryocopus pileatus)

WA-C Mature conifer, mixed conifer 

forests. 

yes, 

portions 

potential NI MIIH MIIH 

Slender-billed white-breasted nuthatch 

(Sitta carolinensis aculeata)

WA-C West Cascades/Coast range 

lowlands: Highly associated 

with open, mature oak 

woodlands 

yes, 

edge of 

range 

potential NI MIIH/

longterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 

Sage thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus)

WA-C Eastern WA/OR semi-arid 

sagebrush plains and 

bottomlands 

no 

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus)

WA-C East of Cascades: dry 

grassland and sagebrush desert 

habitats, 

Neotropical migrant 

yes potential NI NI NI 

Oregon vesper sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus affinis)

WA-C relatively dry and sparsely 

vegetated areas with scattered 

tall structures used for song 

perches 

yes potential NI NI NI 

Sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli)

WA-C Flat terrain in sagebrush, 

chaparral, dry foothills 

no 

Sharptail Snake 

(Contia tenuis)

WA-C East slope of WA Cascades, 

Columbia R. Gorge, W OR: 

rocky slopes and open pine 

and oak woodland w/prey 

species of small slugs 

yes likely 

present 

NI MIIH/

longterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 

Striped whipsnake 

(Masticophis taeniatus

WA-C South/central WA, E. OR: dry 

rocky sites, oak woodland, 

pine forests 

yes likely 

present 

NI MIIH/

longterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 

Columbia torrent salamander 

(Rhyacotriton kezeri)

WA-C Coast Range of sWA, nOR: 

cold, fast, mountain streams 

w/rocky substrate 

no 

Dunn's salamander 

(Plethodon dunni)

WA-C W. WA/OR: moss-covered 

rock rubble, shady stream 

banks 

no 

Van dyke's salamander 

(Plethodon vandykei)

WA-C Olympic Mountains, Willapa 

Hills, and Cascade Mountains 

of southern Washington: need 

large logs in riparian areas 

no 

Columbia spotted frog 

(Rana luteiventris)

C, 

WA-C 

In or near permanent bodies of 

water, (lakes, ponds, slow 

streams, marshes) with thick 

sedges, rushes and grasses 

no 

Western Toad 

(Bufo boreas)

WA-C Most common near marshes 

and small lakes (breeding 

sites), can travel overland 

no 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-5

Biological Evaluation

River lamprey 

(Lampetra ayresi)

WA-C Anadromous, coastal rivers no 

Eulachon 

(Thaleichthys pacificus)

WA-C Marine, with spawning in 

lower reaches of rivers, often 

within tidal influence 

no 

Lake chub 

(Couesius plumbeus)

WA-C Upper Columbia R. drainage 

of WA: general water body 

no 

Leopard dace 

(Rhinichthys falcatus)

WA-C Columbia River drainages of 

both WA and OR: slow 

streams, rivers 

no 

Umatilla dace 

(Rhinichthys falcatus)

WA-C Columbia R. drainage both 

WA and OR: large rivers 

no 

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus platyrhynchus)

WA-C Columbia R. drainage both 

WA and OR: creeks, rivers 

no 

California floater mussel 

(Anodonta californiensis)

WA-C Shallow, low-elevation areas 

of clean lakes, ponds and large 

rivers with soft, silty substrate. 

Limited to a few sites in 

Curlew Lake (Ferry County) in 

WA. 

In OR, can still be found in 

lower Willamette and lower 

Columbia R. 

no 

Giant Columbia River limpet 

(Fisherola nuttalli)

WA-C Historically in almost the 

entire Columbia R. basin, now 

restricted to a few remaining 

sites. In WA, confirmed in 

Hanford Reach of the 

Columbia R., as well as the 

Okanogan, Wenatchee and 

Methow rivers. In OR, only 

found in the Deschutes R. 

no 

Great Columbia River spire snail 

(Fluminicola columbiana)

WA-C Historically, widespread 

throughout the Lower Snake 

and Columbia Rivers, and their 

larger tribs. Now limited to a 

few reaches of the Columbia 

R. system that remain freeflowing and colder. 

Confirmed in a few sites along 

the Columbia, Okanogan, 

Wenatchee and Methow 

Rivers in WA, and the 

Deschutes River in OR. 

no 

Beller's ground beetle 

(Agonum belleri)

WA-C Sphagnum bogs adjacent to 

lower elevation (below 

1000m) lakes. The only 

known population located at 

King's Lake Bog in King 

County WA. 

no 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-6

Biological Evaluation

Mann's Mollusk-eating Ground Beetle 

(Scaphinotus mannii)

WA-C Confined to riparian strips in 

canyons of 

lowland tribs of the Snake R.

no 

Long-horned leaf beetle 

(Donacia idola)

WA-C North Puget Sound no 

Columbia River tiger beetle 

(Cicindela columbica)

WA-C Restricted 

to sandbars and dunes in 

riparian zones of 

large lowland rivers. 

no 

Hatch's click beetle 

(Eanus hatchii)

WA-C North Puget Sound no 

Yuma skipper butterfly 

(Ochlodes yuma)

WA-C Northcentral WA, Sherman 

County OR: near freshwater 

marshes, streams, seeps 

no 

Shepard's parnassian butterfly 

(Parnassius clodius shepardi)

WA-C Eastern 1/3 of Washington 

state 

no 

Makah (Queen Charlotte) Copper 

butterfly 

(Lycaena mariposa charlottensis)

WA-C Coastal WA state no 

Chinquapin hairstreak butterfly 

(Habrodais grunus herri)

WA-C Oak woodland, canyons, 

mountain ridges of SW and 

central WA 

yes, 

on edge of 

known 

range 

possible NI MIIH/

longterm 

BE 

MIIH/ 

longterm 

BE 

Johnson's hairstreak butterfly 

(Callophry[Mitoura] johnsoni)

WA-C Western WA/OR: coniferous 

forests, esp. old-growth 

no 

Juniper hairstreak butterfly 

(Callophyr [Mitoura] grynea barryi)

WA-C Central and E. WA/OR: old 

fields, bluffs, juniper/ pinyonjuniper woodlands, and cedar 

breaks 

yes possible NI NI NI 

Puget blue butterfly 

(Plebejus icarioides blackmorei)

WA-C Puget Sound/Coastal WA no 

Valley silverspot buterfly 

(Speyeria zerene bremnerii)

WA-C West WA/OR: Conifer forests, 

sagebrush, coastal meadows 

and dunes 

no 

Silver-bordered fritillary butterfly 

(Boloria selene atrocostalis)

WA-C North central and Eastern WA no 

Taylor's (Whulge) checkerspot butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha taylori)

WA-C West WA/OR: diverse habitats 

inc. coastal chaparral, 

meadows, foothills, open 

woods 

no 

Great arctic butterfly 

(Oeneis nevadensis gigas)

WA-C North Puget Sound no 

Sensitive Flora 

Agroseris elata S Meadows, open woods lowmid elevations 

Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Astragalus hoodianus Endemic Dry, open grass or oak 

woodlands,E. Gorge 

Yes No NI MIIH MIIH 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-7

Biological Evaluation

Artemesia campestris spp 

borealis 

E Rocky, gravely areas along 

Col River 

No 

Bolandra oregana S Waterfalls and moist cliffs Yes No NI MIIH MIIH 

Botrichium spp. S Moist, wet areas in forest No 

 Calachortus longeberbe 

var. longeberbe 

Th Open or lightly wooded areas Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Carex interrupta S Rocky banks and beds of 

streams 

Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Carex macrochaeta S Moist open places near coast 

or along Col. River 

Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Chrysolepis chrysophylla S Open areas within forest No 

Cimicifuga elata Th Moist to dry wooded areas No 

Collinsia sparaiflora 

var. bruciae 

S Moist open slopes Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Corydalis aqua-gelidae Th In and besides small perennial 

streams in woods 

No 

Cryptantha rostellata Th Barren south facing slopes. E 

Gorge 

Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Cryptantha interupta S Open, dry slopes in E Gorge Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Cyperus rivularis S Wet places in lowlands Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Cypripedium fasiculatum Th Open conifer forest No 

Douglasia laevigata 

var. laevigata 

 Basalt cliffs and rock outcrops No 

Epipactis gigantea Low elevation stream banks or 

wet areas 

Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Erigeron howellii Th Rocky slopes No 

Erigeron oreganus Th Moist, overhanging basalt 

cliffs 

No 

Eryngium petiolatum Th Low ground, areas submerged 

in spring 

No 

Githopsis specularioides S Dry,open or lightly wooded 

slopes 

Yes No NI MIIH MIIH 

Hackelia diffusa 

var. diffusa 

Th Shaded cliffs and talus slopes No 

Heuchera grossularifolia 

var. tenuifolia 

S Shady cliffs and tallus slopes Yes Yes NI NI NI 

+Hieracium longiberbe Endemic Open meadows or rocky areas No 

Howellia aquatilis Th Pond and lakes No 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-8

Biological Evaluation

Linanthus bakeri S Barren, generally south facing 

slopes 

No 

Liparis loeselii E Springs and bogs Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Lomatium laevigatum Th Basalt cliffs and open rocky 

areas 

No 

+ Lomatium suksdorfii S Grass lands and open woods Yes No, 

adjacent 

to trail 

NI MIIH MIIH 

+ Lupinus latifolius var. 

thompsonianus 

Endemic Open or wooded area in E 

Gorge 

Yes 

Yes NI MIIH MIIH 

Lycopodiella inundata Wet places, esp. sphagnum 

bogs 

No 

Machaerocarpus californicus Vernal ponds near The Dalles No 

Meconella oregana Th Open or lightly wooded areas. Yes Yes, 

Adjacent 

to trail 

NI NI NI 

Montia diffusa Disturbed areas in Forest No 

Navaretia tagetina Th Open, rocky areas Yes No NI MIIH MIIH 

Ophioglossum pusillum Th Meadows and woods Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Orobanche pinorum Woods and brushy areas Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

Orthocarpus bracteosus E No 

Parnassia frimbriata 

var. hoodiana 

Th Bogs, streams, and wet 

meadows 

No 

Penstemon barrettiae Th Rocky cliffs, talus No 

Penstemon deustus var. 

variabilis 

Th Open rides of Columbia Hills No 

Plantanthera sparsiflora Th Wet to boggy areas No 

Pleurocospora frimbriolata Deep forest No 

+ Ranunculus reconditus E Open grasslands Yes Yes, 

adjacent 

to trail 

NI NI NI 

Rorippa columbiae E Muddy, cobble shores of the 

Col. River 

No 

Sisyrinchium sarmentosum Th Moist meadows No 

Spiranthes porrifolia Meadows, riverbanks of 

intermittent streams 

No 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-9

Biological Evaluation

Sullivantia oregana E Wet cliffs at low elevations No 

Synthyris stellata Forested areas and edges No 

Utricularia intermedia S Slow moving water Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH 

 

Sensitive Areas and Sites within Col. R. Gorge Nat. Scenic Area 

as mapped by Oregon and Washington Natural Heritage Program and 

OR/WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat Databases, updated 6/93

 

Bald Eagle Habitat 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

Habitat Mapped 

in Project area? 

 

Deer and Elk Winter Range 

(Odocoileus and Cervus sp.) Sensitive 

Areas 

No NI NI/ 

Some 

displac

ement

NI/ 

some 

displace

ment 

Elk Habitat 

(Cervus elaphus) Sensitive 

Areas 

Yes NI/ 

longterm 

BE 

Mountain Goat and Habitat 

(Oreamnos americanus) 

Sensitive 

Areas/ sites 

No 

Peregrine Falcon and Habitat 

(Falco peregrinus) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Pika Colony Area 

(Ochotona princeps) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Pileated Woodpecker Habitat 

(Dryocopus pileatus) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Pine Marten Habitat 

(Martes martes) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Shallow water fish habitat (Columbia 

River) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Special Streams Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Special Habitat Area Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Spotted Owl and Habitat 

(Strix occidentalis caurina)

Sensitive 

Areas/ sites

No 

Sturgeon Spawning Area 

(Acipenser transmontanus) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Tributary Fish Habitat Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Turkey Habitat 

(Meleagris gallopavo) 

Sensitive 

Areas 

No NI NI NI 

Waterfowl Area Sensitive 

Areas 

No 

Wetern Pond Turtle and Habitat 

(Clemmys marmorata)

Sensitive 

Areas 

No 
Klickitat Rails-to-Trails 

 

 Appendix D D-10

Biological Evaluation

golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) 

Sensitive 

sites/ special 

public 

interest 

No 

great blue heron 

(Ardea herodias) 

Sensitive 

sites/ special 

public 

interest 

No 

Larch mountain salamander 

(Plethodon larselli) 

Sensitive 

sites 

No NI NI 

osprey 

(Pandion haliaetus) 

Sensitive 

sites/ special 

public 

interest 

No, 

yes adjacent 

 NI 

purple martin 

(Progne subis) 

Sensitive 

Sites/ WA-C

No 

prairie falcon 

(Falco mexicanus) 

special 

public 

interest 

No 

*FS = Region 6 sensitive species, C, P = Candidate, Proposed for Federal listing, 

WA = Washington State listed species, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Sensitive 

BE = Beneficial Effects 

NE/NI = No Effect/ No Impact 

MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species 

NLAA = May Efffect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect