Local impact on federal land?

[Yikes]

Here in So Cal we have a large National Wilderness and National Monument area in our mountains. About 5 miles hike into the middle of that area, there is a small plot of privately owned land, and as such is under county jurisdiction. The owner of that land has for many years been operating an extreme sports amusement park without a permit, and under tremendous political pressure has applied for a CUP with the county planning department. The are seeking a waiver for zero parking requirements.

But here’s what’s been happening in the last 20 years:
The clients of this operation are told to show up at the trailhead between 6-7am to hike in. The trailhead parking is limited, and it is on federal land. As a result, all parking spots are taken by 7am, and any other National Monument users, such as families wanting to day-hike, have to turn around and go home. The trailhead is about 45 minutes from other parking in the city.

The conundrum:
- If this were an amusement park on federal land, the business would have to apply to the Forest Service (federal AHJ) to be an approved/licensed vendor, and a NEPA study would be done to examine the impact of the business on other users of the Forest, and this would include parking impacts.
- If the trailhead parking was on private land, then the parking impact would be subject to CEQA review.
As it stands, the CUP documents do not indicate that any parking impact study has been done. It seems to be slipping through the cracks.
No alternatives have been seriously considered, such as the business providing a shuttle from the city (as many rafting companies do), or studying rideshare alternatives.

QUESTION:
But because the amusement parking is on private land under county jurisdiction and the nearest parking is on federal land under FS jurisdiction, it appears that there is nothing in CEQA or NEPA to compel the county to take into consideration the parking/traffic impacts on federal land?

 

[tmurray]

Why would it be up to the adjacent property owners to bring concerns over parking? If the operation is the one requesting the deviation from parking requirements, aren't they the ones that have to demonstrate that it does not negatively impact adjacent property owners?

 

[mtlogcabin]

But because the amusement parking is on private land

Do the owners of the private land have a legal vehicle access easement to the property where the parking can be provided?

If not then:
Ask the Forest Service as an adjoining property owner for their comment since it impacts their property.
Maybe suggesting to the FS to allow expansion of their existing parking area at the expense of the applicant of the CUP.
If the FS does not want to expand the parking area then you have a reason to grant the waiver and the FS will have to continue to ignore a parking problem they have had for the last 20 years.

Being the FS and all the hoops they may have to jump through to expand the existing parking lot it could take years to get the approval. Determine the cost estimate today, deposit the funds into an escrow account with a time frame for completion or the escrow returned to the land owner.