BURDOIN MTN, COYOTE WALL, CATHERINE CREEK AREA RECREATION PLAN

Environmental Assessment

and

Review for Consistency with the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan

Including an Update to the Burdoin Mtn, Catherine and Major Creeks Open Space Plan

June 2010

Responsible Agency: USDA, FOREST SERVICE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION Responsible Official: DANIEL T. HARKENRIDER, CRGNSA Area Manager

For Further Information: Lynn Oliver, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 902 Wasco Avenue, Hood River, Oregon 97031 [email protected] 541.308.1716

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 2

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 5 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 5

1.1 - PLANNING AREA LOCATION AND SETTING ...... 6 1.2 - PROJECT SCOPE ...... 7 1.3 – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE ...... 7

1.4 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 8 1.5 – PROPOSED ACTION ...... 9 1.6 – DECISION TO BE MADE ...... 9

1.7 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 10 1.8 – ISSUES ...... 11 1.9 – PROJECT RECORD ...... 13 CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES ...... 14 2.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 14 2.1 – EXISITING CONDITIONS ...... 14 2.2 - PROCESS USED TO FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES ...... 16

2.3 – DESIRED CONDITION DEVELOPMENT ...... 17 2.4 – ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY .. 22

2.5 - ALTERNATIVES ...... 23 2.6 - PRACTIABLE ALTERNATIVE TEST ...... 39 2.7 - MITIGATIONS ...... 41 2.8 - MONITORING AND EVALUATION NEEDS ...... 43

2.9 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 43 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 3

CHAPTER 3 –AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 46

3.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 46

3.1 - SCENIC RESOURCES ...... 49

3.2 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 59 3.3 – NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 69

3.3.1 - SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES ...... 69 3.3.2 - FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS ...... 96 3.4 - RECREATION, ACCESS, & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 121 3.5 - OTHER DISCLOSURES ...... 135

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND REFERENCES CITED ...... 136 4.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 136 4.1 - PERSONS, AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED136 4.2 - LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 140 4.3 - CONTRIBUTORS ...... 141 4.4 – REFERENCES RESEARCHED AND/OR CITED ...... 142

APPENDIX A - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ...... 157 APPENDIX B - SCOPING COMMENTS ...... 196

APPENDIX C – RECREATION USE ...... 223

APPENDIX D – DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 232

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 4 CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.0 – INTRODUCTION

The Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall and Catherine Creek areas are popular recreation areas in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA). The planning area for this project is approximately 6000 acres in size and located on a mix of Federal, State, and private lands. An Open Space Plan was completed in July 1995 for the Catherine/Major Creek area (east half of the current planning area) as required by the Scenic Area Act and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan (2004). The plan was developed by a Forest Service interdisciplinary team based on input collected through public meetings, written public comments, and Forest Service resource evaluations.

The Forest Service identified this area as a high priority for land acquisition because of the high natural resource values. Since 1995 land ownership has changed and additional land was transferred from private to federal ownership. The Forest Service acquired a number of pre-existing trails and new trails continue to proliferate though either inadvertent use patterns (walking around wet areas, obstructions, etc) or through unauthorized trail construction. The existing trail network is located on a mix of public and private lands and local landowners have raised questions about trespass from recreationists, and resource damage is occurring in some areas. No formal trailheads exist and recreationists park along roads. Recreation use in the area has slowly increased since the development of the Open Space Plan and parking areas are near capacity during the primary recreation periods.

The work associated with this document began in 2007 and is one of the largest single planning efforts completed by the Forest Service for recreation activities in the CRGNSA. Three public meetings were held between November 2007 through April 2008 and a working group was developed that helped developed the three alternatives. The public provided written comments during the scoping and comment periods and Forest Service staff members listened to many different citizens to identify their concerns or suggestions. The EA was completed in 2009 and a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact that selected a combination of Alternative 2 and 3 was issued on March 20, 2009.

The decision was appealed by five appellants. Three of the appeals related to horse use in the Catherine Creek planning area, one was related to dogs off leash and enforcement, and one was related to traffic and public safety issues along Courtney Road. The decision was withdrawn by the Area Manager on May 22, 2009 in order for the Forest Service planning team to address these and other issues.

Subsequent field trips, informal meetings, a public meeting, and written public input through scoping have been completed for the preparation of this EA. A Revised Alternative 2 has been prepared based on public input and analysis by the Forest Service planning team and is the Proposed Action. Our primary purpose is to address the current uses and authorize the establishment of a multi-use non-motorized trail system and associated support facilities compatible with environmental, tribal and private property concerns.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 5

1.1 - PLANNING AREA LOCATION AND SETTING

The planning area is the Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall and Catherine Creek area, from the National Forest lands near the SMA boundary east of Bingen, east to Major Creek, and from SR14 north to the extent of consolidated National Forest land (Figure 1). The legal description is: Washington State, Klickitat County, Township 3 North, Range 11 East, and Township 3 North, Range 12 East as shown on the vicinity map in Figure 1.

The 4,700 acre planning area is generally bounded on the south by SR-14, on the north by the boundary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (GRCNSA), on the east and west by National Forest System (NFS) land ownership within the Catherine-Major watersheds and Burdoin Mountain. The primary travel routes are SR-14, Old Highway 8, Courtney Road, Snowden Road, North and South Major Creek Road, Bates Road, and Acme Road.

Figure 1 – Location Map

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 6 1.2 - PROJECT SCOPE

This document will analyze the environmental effects of authorizing and establishing a multi-use non-motorized trail system and associated parking, kiosks, and other support facilities on approximately 4,700 acres of NFS lands within the Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall and Catherine Creek areas.

1.3 – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE

Two management plans provide direction for this undertaking:

• Gifford Pinchot Land and Resource Management Plan (GPNF Plan) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and • Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan (NSA Management Plan, 2004).

All applicable guidelines from each plan apply. The most protective guidelines apply in cases where guidelines conflict. Applicable key guidelines and applicable regulatory requirements such as the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are cited in this document in Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences for each resource. Biological Evaluations are located in Appendix A.

The planning area falls within the Open Space and Agriculture zones in the Special Management Area (SMA) of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Guidance is also contained in the Watershed Analysis of the Catherine-Major Creek Area (CRGNSA,1995; updated 2005).

GPNF Plan Goals The Forest-wide Management Direction applies to acquired lands in the CRGNSA. The following direction is applicable to the proposed action: • Recreation facilities, including buildings, campsites, roads, utility systems, and signing should be planned, developed, maintained, and operated for safe public use, to current standards, in a cost-effective manner. Construction or reconstruction of facilities will comply with the approved site development plan. • Facilities will be designed to accommodate the disabled wherever practicable (FP IV-48). • Manage Recreation Areas to Minimize Disturbance to Sensitive Species (NWFP 1994 ROD C-6 as modified by Survey and Manage ROD, July 2007). • Standards and guidelines prohibit programmed timber harvest, and require the management of roads, grazing, mining and recreation to achieve objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. • Trails should not be located within the riparian influence area (up to 300 feet) of lakes, ponds, marshes, wet meadows, moist meadows, wet shrubs lands, and forb lands.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 7

• Dispersed recreational activities which degrade the quality of riparian areas should be regulated or eliminated, e.g., the trampling of stream banks and lakeshores (ROD B-17) (FP IV-70). • Neither newly developed recreation sites nor expansions to existing sites will be located on the riparian influence area of Riparian Areas A, B, or C (100 feet, 25 feet and 100 feet respectively). Developed and dispersed recreation sites should be located at least 100 feet from the edges of lakes, streams, ponds, wet meadows, marshes, and springs.

NSA Management Plan Policies and Allowed Uses Forest/Agriculture SMA Guidelines, Review Uses: • Public recreation, commercial recreation, interpretive, and educational developments and uses, consistent with the guidelines in Part I, Chapter 4: Recreation Resources.

Open Space SMA Policy 1/SMA Guidelines, Review Uses: • Open Space shall be designated to provide special protection for sensitive scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural resources, and for sensitive and/or representative ecosystems. • An Open Space plan shall be completed by the primary managing agency or landowner prior to any new land uses or development, and shall be reviewed by the Forest Service. • Low-intensity recreation uses and developments, including educational and interpretive facilities, consistent with Part I, Chapter 4: Recreation Resources.

Catherine-Major Watershed Analysis and Open Space Plan Guidance • Direct recreation use in the Catherine Creek area to one "intensive" recreation node in a less sensitive area. • Manage and direct recreation use in highly popular and moderately-highly sensitive areas to meet expected demand while minimizing resource damage. Create semi- primitive to primitive unroaded, dispersed recreation experience in the Major Creek canyons.

1.4 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Recreation has grown and become an important activity in the planning area since the formation of the CRGNSA. With the exception of the Catherine Creek Universal Access Trail, no formal trail system or facilities has been developed. Recreation users have formed a well-developed network of hiking and mountain bike trails, which intertwine across private and NFS lands acquired after the National Scenic Area designation in 1986.

The Catherine Creek/Major Creek watersheds contain a large number of rare plants, unique occurrences of listed wildlife species, oak woodlands and shallow soil habitats. The area supports many rare or isolated populations of flora and fauna which require appropriate measures to protect their viability. Existing recreation uses are creating heavily worn trails;

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 8 trails through wet areas are becoming increasing larger; sensitive cliff edges were becoming void of vegetation; some wetland areas were becoming flattened by excessive use; and the numbers of trails are continuing to increase. These recreation uses are more likely to disturb and disrupt populations of sensitive populations of flora and fauna and their habitats.

Landowners in the area have raised concerns about trespass from recreationists. Resource damage (e.g. soil erosion) is occurring in some areas. No formal trailheads exist, with users parking in wide spots along roads. While the area would continue to meet recreation demand without a new recreation plan, the detrimental effects to resources and the proliferation of user made trails would continue to increase over time.

The Open Space Plan for the Catherine Creek/Major Creek area anticipated a use pattern with mostly dispersed recreation in the Open Space land use designation rather than a system of trails. The Open Space Plan suggested monitoring and analyzing the area for the effectiveness of the dispersed use concept with the idea that a fixed trail system may be more appropriate as use levels increase.

For these reasons, an approved, environmentally sustainable trail system that resolves associated issues and concerns needs to be identified and established.

1.5 – PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action, Revised Alternative 2, was developed through extensive public involvement. The proposed action will recognize and address the current uses and establish a multi-use non-motorized trail system that is compatible with the environment. In addition, the recreation plan would identify and authorize parking, kiosks, and other support facilities in the Burdoin Mountain, Coyote Wall and Catherine Creek area. The analysis includes the following:

• Trails to be recognized as NFS system trails, • Needed reconstruction to bring the selected system trails to Forest Service standards, • Appropriate trail uses, (e.g. hiking, bicycling, horses), • Associated support facilities, (e.g., parking areas, trailheads, gates, fences, and bridges) , • Management strategies, and • Needed resource protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement.

1.6 – DECISION TO BE MADE

The Area Manager for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is the responsible official. The responsible official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, modified in part within the scope of the analysis, or take no action at this time. The alternative selected by the Area Manager will 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 9

update the current Open Space Plan and represents the desired balance between protection of resources and recreation management of the entire area.

1.7 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Forest Service held 3 public meetings and 3 working group meetings in 2007 and 2008 in order to gather the information needed to design a proposed action for analysis. As part of this process, the working group created a map dividing the recreation area into three logical analysis areas and designed desired future conditions for each section. The working group continued in a collaborative manner to develop a set of desired conditions for each analysis area depicted on the map on the next page. These descriptions served as the basis for development of the original proposed action alternative in this document (Original Alternative 2). The exact configuration of the trail system presented in Original Alternative 2 resulted from the combination of the following:

• The issues and solutions from the 3 public meetings held by the Forest Service from November 14, 2007 through April 1, 2008. • The areas of consensus resulting from those meetings and from the efforts of the working group which was created during the second public meeting and which met from January 16 through February 27, 2008. • Public scoping comments during the formal 30-day NEPA scoping period started on April 22, 2008.

The EA was presented to the public for comment and a Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Consistency Determination was issued on March 20, 2009. The decision was a variation of Original Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. A total of five appeals were received concerning the decision, three were related to horse use in the Catherine Creek planning area, one was related to dogs off leash and enforcement, and one was related to traffic and public safety issues along Courtney Road. The decision was withdrawn on May 22, 2009 and the decision was made to restart the collaborative process.

A new Proposed Action (Revised Alternative 2) was developed with additional public involvement based on the following:

• Public comments during the formal 30-day NEPA comment period started on April 22, 2008. • Appeal meeting of November 5, 2009. • Appeal meeting of February 19, 2010 • Public meeting of March 2, 2010. • Public scoping comments during a 21day scoping period that started on March 2, 2010. • Tribal consultation in May 2010.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 10 1.8 – ISSUES

The Forest Service separated the issues into three groups: significant, other, and non- significant issues.

Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Significant issues are used to formulate and develop alternatives or prescript mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. They are also used to focus the environmental analysis on the main issues identified by the public.

Other issues, as used in this EA, are those that affect the design of the Proposed Action, prescribe project design criteria, and describe environmental effects. Other issues may be resolved through the application of Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices (BMP’s), or project design criteria.

Non significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Management Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1507 “identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”

Issues were raised at initial public meetings, within the collaborative process, or during scoping. These issues helped shape the proposed action and the development of alternatives to the proposed action.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1. Trail Density and Users All recreational users groups want access to the area as identified by the number of available trail miles for their particular user group. More trail miles equate to more loop and skill level opportunities. More trail miles also potentially creates more potential for adverse effects to sensitive resources.

2. Parking Areas There are no formal trailheads or parking areas in the planning area which causes congestion along Courtney Road and Old Highway 8 and impacts to adjacent and nearby private land owners.

3. Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Development of trails and recreation activities may create adverse effects to sensitive natural resources. This is an issue because the project area contains a large and diverse set of sensitive areas including riparian areas, springs, sensitive plant and wildlife sites, cultural

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 11

sites, and sensitive habitats including wildflower scab lands.

Issues identified during the previous appeal period included the following: • effects to wildlife from off-leash dog use; • effects to water, soil, and botanical resources from horse activities; • and effects to botanical resources from the construction of new trail routes in the area east of Catherine Creek.

4. Private Land Protection Private land owners in the planning area have identified trespass, effects to traffic on Courtney Road, and the effects on private property of having nearby public access as an issue. These issues were also restated by one of the appellants.

5. Conflict Resolution and Management Conflicts, or potential conflicts, between recreational user groups was identified as an issue. Examples include trail conflicts between mountain bikers and pedestrians; trail conflicts between the equestrian user group and all other user groups; and dog walkers and non-dog owners.

Issues identified during the previous appeal period included the following: • one group feels that some types of recreational uses are incompatible with others.

OTHER ISSUES 6. Scenic Resources Some of existing braided and eroded trails located in open meadows are currently visible from some Key Viewing Areas and impact scenic quality.

7. Soils Trail construction and use may increase erosion by intercepting surface water and routing it along the trail tread. In addition, soil may be displaced by some types of use, most notably spinning tires of mountain bikes and dislodging by horse hoofs or human travel. This displacement can result in trail incision that tends to channel runoff along the tread.

NON-SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1. Ability to implement recreation plan The public identified that the ability of the Forest Service to implement recreation plan decisions as an issue. While the Forest Service acknowledges this concern, this issue is outside the scope of the proposed action which is to authorize and establish a multi-use non- motorized trail system and associated parking, kiosks, and other support facilities.

2. Review of Implementation Plan Many members of the public have identified the need for a comprehensive implementation plan for public comment and review. The proposed action may be approved in total, or 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 12 modified in part within the scope of the analysis as described in the EA. An Implementation Plan can only occur after approving a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact is completed, hence, it is outside the scope of the analysis. The Forest Service acknowledges this concern and has included a framework for a draft implementation plan (Appendix D).

1.9 – PROJECT RECORD

This EA hereby incorporates by reference the Project Record. The Project Record contains specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. The Project Record is available for review at the CRGNSA at 902 Wasco Avenue in Hood River, Oregon. Portions of the project record such as the Environmental Analysis, Appendices, and notes and background information from the proceedings of the public meetings can be found on the CRGNSA website http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/forest/projects/.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 13

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

2.0 – INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains a description of the process used to formulate alternatives; a description of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study; a detailed description of the action alternatives and the implementation requirements designed into the alternatives. This chapter concludes with a listing of the monitoring and evaluation needs associated with the alternatives.

2.1 – EXISITING CONDITIONS

There are currently 40 miles of existing non-system trails in the planning area at a density of 4 miles per square mile. The area is currently designated with Open Space and Agricultural land uses. As summarized in Chapter 1 there are currently resource impacts from unmanaged recreation use to wildlife, botanical, soil resources. Figure 2 shows the location of the existing non-system trails as identified in 2007.

Figure 2 – Existing Non-System trails.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 14 Existing Conditions Analysis County Existing Total Density Use Allowed Use Restrictions Area Roads Non Miles Square Used as System Miles Trails (mi) Trails (mi) Dogs off leash No Restrictions

Pedestrian self- discovery allowed off All Areas 7.40 31.32 38.72 4.15 trail.

No restrictions on use of Atwood Road.

Self-discovery No Restrictions off trails allowed but not Catherine 4.28 14.96 19.24 3.64 encouraged in Open Space.

Self-discovery No Restrictions off trails allowed but not encouraged in Open Space. Coyote 2.44 12.10 14.54 6.38

All non- motorized uses outside of Open Space. All non- No Restrictions Burdoin 0.68 4.26 4.94 2.81 motorized uses.

Table 1 – Summary Existing Conditions

All land that is National Forest System (NFS) land in the Catherine Creek and Burdoin Mountain areas has been acquired from private landowners since the passage of the Scenic Area Act. The planning area is thus comprised of a mix of land ownerships and associated third party rights. There are significant areas of private land interspersed with NFS land, particularly in the Burdoin Mountain area. This mix of ownerships has lead to public confusion and the creation of trails that cross private land. Surveys have been completed by the Forest Service in the Catherine Creek and Burdoin Mountain areas within the last four years, and boundaries between private and NFS land have been posted, however this has not stopped use of established trails that cross private land.

Some titles to properties acquired by the Forest Service contain outstanding or third party rights. The extent to which any given right is held and can be exercised is typically specified in the authorizing document. Any management action proposed by the Forest Service on parcels containing third party rights should not have the effect of interfering with

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 15 the rights held by those parties. Conversely, the United States has the right, as the underlying landowner, to use these areas but only to the extent that the use does not interfere with the rights held by the third parties. Typical third party rights in these areas consist of utility easements and access rights-of-way.

The acquired status of the NFS lands makes road access a challenge. Most of the roads in the project area are private roads maintained by the landowners served by these roads. The Forest Service, by virtue of its land acquisition, has the right to use most of these private roads for access. Without road maintenance agreements and Forest Service financial contribution to road maintenance however, these private roads are managed for administrative access only, and are therefore not considered open for public use. This leaves the Klickitat County Road system as the dominant method for providing public access. Courtney Road, a major point of access, is maintained by the county. Atwood Road intersects Courtney Road and is maintained from the point of intersection with Courtney Road westerly only a very short distance, at which point the road is un-maintained and in poor shape. North Major Creek Road is a county road that is maintained for less than a mile from its intersection with Bates Road, at which point it is also un-maintained. Klickitat County retains jurisdiction over all County roads regardless of whether or not they are maintained.

Although the maps in this EA display a defined location for Atwood Road, the actual status and jurisdiction of the eastern portion of the road is indeterminate due to conflicting documents associated with road location. For the purposes of this decision, the road will be presumed to be under Klickitat County jurisdiction as shown on the associated EA maps.

2.2 - PROCESS USED TO FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Action (Revised Alternative 2) was developed with extensive public involvement.

The Forest Service held 3 public meetings and 3 working group meetings in 2007/2008. The working group developed desired conditions for three alternatives and identification of the trails selected for each of these alternatives.

In addition the Forest Service used ideas collected during the 30-day public comment period (April 22, 2008), subsequent Decision Notice (March 20, 2009) and input during appeal period (November 5, 2009), and a final public meeting with a 21 day scoping period (March 2, 2010). The exact configuration of the trail system presented in the Proposed Action resulted from the combination of the following:

• The issues and solutions from the 3 public meetings held by the Forest Service from November 14, 2007 through April 1, 2008. • Desired future conditions as developed from the 2007/2008 working group. • The areas of consensus resulting from those meetings and from the efforts of the working group which was created during the second public meeting and which met from January 16 through February 27, 2008.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 16 • Public comments during the formal 30-day NEPA comment period started on April 22, 2008. • Appeal meeting of November 5, 2009. • Public meeting of March 2, 2010. • Public scoping comments during the 21-day scoping period that started on March 2, 2010.

2.3 – DESIRED CONDITION DEVELOPMENT

Previous work completed in the project area includes the Catherine-Major Creek Open Space Plan (1995); Catherine Creek-Major Creek Watershed Analysis (1995, revised 2005); and the Burdoin I (2002), Burdoin II (2009), and Catherine Creek (2007) Forest Restoration EA’s. Forest Service resource staff used this past project experience to identify priority wildlife and botanical habitats for this analysis (discussed in detail in Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences). The location and nature of the priority habitats, and concerns for specific species, was presented in the public meetings and used by the working group for the formulation of the desired condition for each planning area. The map below displays the analysis areas used by the 2007/2008 working group and the desired level of public use developed by them. The desired levels of public use were not quantitative. They are relative densities comparing the planning areas to each other and to a qualitative sense of space. The working group developed the following Desired Condition descriptions using guidance from Forest Service resource staff on locations of sensitive habitat. The descriptions were used by the group to aid in the development of alternatives that would be reviewed by the Forest Service during the NEPA process.

FIGURE 3 – Desired Trail Densities

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 17

CATHERINE ANALYSIS AREA DESIRED CONDITION Trail Density and/or Users The Catherine analysis area would provide the lowest density of trails of the three areas (Figure 3). (Trail density is defined as miles of trail per square mile although these descriptions use the term in a comparative and qualitative manner). Trails in the area would be routed to respect open space values and minimize disturbance to sensitive areas. Some existing trails (including roads) would be incorporated into a trail system with a diverse semi-primitive experience including changes in difficulty, length, and access to points of interest.

• Very low density: Northern Catherine Sensitive Area • Low density: Tracy Hill East of Catherine Creek • Low to Moderate density: Rest of area near Pond Trail

Parking Areas Parking Areas are located outside of this area. Existing parking will continue to the extent it is supported by Klickitat County along Highway 8.

Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Riparian areas would be buffered; there would be a minimal but adequate number of water crossings; and they are designed to minimize impacts. Trails would be located to create as little ecological disturbance as possible. There would be educational/interpretative signs as needed to keep users informed. Trails would be located to avoid adverse impacts to cultural and other sensitive areas such as talus, cliff faces, and oak savannas and wildflower scab lands. The most sensitive area is the wildlife corridor north of Tracey Hill where there would be very low trail density. Trail is limited in order to maintain wildlife access to water, food, and nesting sources with minimal disturbance.

Private Land Protection No trails would lead to Tribal Trust land or other non-federal ownerships.

Conflict Resolution and Management Use is low density. If density causes conflicts with sensitive resources or between users, consider seasonal use restrictions. Trails would be clearly designated for specific uses allowed. Trail design minimizes blind corners. Dogs are on leash except where specifically permitted off leash. Hunting seasons and regulations are posted encouraging the use of blaze orange clothing for all users. Trails would be offered “up for adoption” through the cooperation of user groups to assist with operation and maintenance. Interpretative signing would be used to increase awareness of potential impacts and the need to stay on trails. The area would be monitored for weed introduction and steps taken to eradicate as needed.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 18 COYOTE ANALYSIS AREA DESIRED CONDITION Trail Density and/or Users The Coyote planning area would provide moderate to higher density of trails except in the northern portion where use would be discouraged due to private holdings. Trails in the area would be routed to respect open space values and minimize disturbance to sensitive areas. Some existing trails (including roads) would be included in a trail system in order to create a diverse semi-primitive experience. Trail design would include changes in difficulty, length, and access to points of interest.

• Use discouraged: North of Atwood road where private lands become more common. • Moderate density: From Open Space west to a north-south line through the Labyrinth. Trails would progressively increase in density from east to west. • Higher density: From the Labyrinth west, trails would be higher density with a variety of lengths, difficulty, etc. Most trails would be available for biking and hiking, with potential use on the road west of Labyrinth (Cooke Rd).

Parking Areas Parking areas are located outside of this area.

Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Riparian areas are buffered and there are a minimal number of water crossings designed to minimize impacts. Trails are located to create as little ecological disturbance as possible. There are educational/interpretative signs as needed to keep users informed. Locate trails to avoid adverse impacts to cultural and other sensitive areas such as talus, cliff faces, and oak savannas. The most sensitive area is Coyote Wall Open Space where there would be limited use in order to maintain wildlife access to water, food, and nesting sources with minimal disturbance.

Private Land Protection All use to the north of the Atwood road would be discouraged (and at very low density, if any at all), to respect all private lands. A few private in-holdings will likewise have no trail use unless the trail is important to the overall design and a legal easement is acquired.

Conflict Resolution and Management Use is moderate to high here so conflicts between users and sensitive resources may become problematic. In some cases seasonal management techniques such as seasonal closures or separation of trail users may be necessary. Trails are clearly designated for specific uses allowed. Dogs may be permitted to be off leash here. Hunting seasons and regulations are posted encouraging the use of blaze orange clothing for all users. Off-trail use in sensitive areas is prohibited and cooperatively enforced. Trails are offered “up for adoption” through the cooperation of user groups. Interpretative signing is used to increase awareness of potential impacts and need to stay on trails. The area is monitored for weed introduction and steps taken to eradicate as needed.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 19

BURDOIN ANALYSIS AREA DESIRED CONDITION Trail Density and/or Users The Burdoin planning area could provide for moderate trail density but is limited by land ownership. One main trail to the top of Courtney Road is preserved with links to a more dense network of trails above Coyote wall. Concentrate on short loops on public lands. The lowest density of trails would be associated with sensitive resources areas. Trails in this area would be routed to respect open space values and minimize disturbance to sensitive areas. Some existing trails (including roads) would be included to create a diverse semi- primitive experience with changes in difficulty, length, and access to points of interest.

• Low density: Coyote Wall, associated talus areas, including the steep areas at the northern portions of Burdoin area. Possible trial connections to the east would be considered.

Parking Areas All parking would be located on Forest Service lands at the bottom of Courtney Road and would avoid conflict with cultural resources in the general vicinity. Additional parking at the top of Courtney Road would be explored.

Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Riparian areas would be buffered. There would be a minimal but adequate number of water crossings designed to minimize riparian impacts. Trails would be located to create as little ecological disturbance as possible. There would be educational/interpretative signs as needed to keep users informed. Locate trails to avoid adverse impacts to cultural and other sensitive areas such as talus, cliff faces, and oak savannas. The most sensitive area is Coyote Wall Open Space where there would be limited use in order to maintain wildlife access to water, food, and nesting sources with minimal disturbance.

Private Land Protection No trail use or development would be allowed on private land unless the trail is important to the overall design and a legal easement is acquired.

Conflict Resolution and Management Trails would be clearly designated for specific uses allowed. Trail design minimizes blind corners. Dogs are on leash here. Hunting seasons and regulations would be posted encouraging the use of blaze orange clothing for all users. Off-trail use in sensitive areas would be cooperatively prohibited. Trails would be offered “up for adoption” through the cooperation of user groups. Interpretative signing would be used to increase awareness of potential impacts and the need to stay on trails. The area would be monitored for weed introduction and steps taken to eradicate as needed.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 20

Trail Maps from Collaborative Working Group on February 27, 2008 Sub-GROUP 1 ABOVE and Sub-GROUP 2 BELOW. These maps formed the basis for development of the Original Alternative 2 in the 2009 EA.

FIGURE 4 – 2008 Collaborative Working Group Maps

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 21

2.4 – ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

Authorize Existing Trail System This alternative would increase authorized trail density in the planning area due to increased recreation demand. The alternative was not further considered because recreation and resource specialists considered the existing trail densities too high because of the following:

• Adjacent private landowner complaints, • Resource impacts and conflicts related to existing trail densities are high, and • Large areas of the planning area are designated Open Space by the NSA Management Plan which limits trail development.

Mixed Use Trails without Seasonal Closure Mixed use trails are defined for the purposes of this document as trails allowing all non- motorized uses. This includes horse-back riding, mountain biking, hiking, climbing or others. There are two main reasons why mixed use without seasonal closure was eliminated from detailed study:

• There was a need to address the potential for user conflicts, and • There are natural resources in part of the Open Space land use designation that are especially sensitive from December until the end of June.

Maximum Separation of Uses This alternative limits horse users to county roads (Atwood and Major Creek), and limits bike use to west of Catherine Creek, and allows only hiker use east of Catherine Creek. This alternative was considered because of the needs listed above to address specific user conflicts and protect natural resources. It was eliminated from detailed study because the No Action alternative approximates this alternative for the Open Space land use designation and because the issues that would drive the inclusion of this alternative can be mitigated by the following:

• A requirement for non-pedestrian users to stay on trails in Alternatives 2 and 3. • In Revised Alternative 2, the restriction in the most sensitive part of the Open Space area to pedestrian use all year; dogs would be required to be under control at all times; dogs on leash from Dec 1-June 30 in the Open Space area; and one dedicated horse trail with horse use restricted throughout the remaining area. • In Alternative 3, a seasonal closure in the Open Space area to horse and bike use from December 1-June 30 including the requirement for dogs to be on leash during the closure.

Private Land Easements for the Trail System This alternative involves public acquisition of private easements or third party acquisition of trail easements in order to provide public access on existing private land trails. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 22 • A decision cannot be made to allow a trail system on private land where easements are not currently in place, • If a third party holds an easement, they have the ability to control use of the easement in a manner that may be inconsistent with the goals of the Scenic Area, and, • Conveyance of third party easements is also problematic in that the terms and conditions of the easement are often not entirely acceptable to the United States for the purpose of acquisition.

Original Alternative 2 - Proposed Action of April 22, 2009

The trail system proposed in this alternative was based on the work of the collaborative group (Figure 4), ideas collected during the 30-day scoping period of April 22, 2008. Public comment along with a detailed analysis by the Forest Service revealed the need for some changes and this alternative formed the basis of the Revised Alternative 2.

2.5 - ALTERNATIVES

ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES • The alternative selected by the Area Manager will update the current Open Space Plan. • Atwood Road is a County Road which the Forest Service has no jurisdiction or authority. All existing uses approved by Klickitat County will continue as before. • Atwood Road is included in each alternative description because it is a primary recreation route that provides access to existing and proposed Forest Service trails in each alternative. • No motorized use is allowed in the project area in any alternative. • Existing non-system trails identified in all alternatives and maps are based on the best available data from 2007 with a very limited amount of data correction. These routes serve as the proxy for existing conditions and the development and analysis of alternatives. The Forest Service acknowledges that some existing routes were not identified and that new routes have been created since starting the analysis in 2007. • Horse use also includes all other saddle or pack animals. • Bridges will be constructed across Catherine Creek.

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative – Open Space The no action under this alternative refers to no change in previously approved management direction for the area (Figure 5 and Table 2). No recreation planning is proposed for National Forest System land outside the Open Space land use designation in the Burdoin and Coyote planning areas. The existing non-system trails in this area would not be recognized as system trails and would not be sanctioned by the Forest Service. The lack of an authorized and designated trail system in the Burdoin and western Coyote planning areas would mean that unmanaged recreation uses would continue with the associated impacts to natural resources values and impacts to private landowners. Any future trail designations, 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 23

trail closures, or restoration efforts would require a new environmental analysis. Management direction for the remaining portion of the planning area would be provided by the existing Open Space Plan which covers the Open Space land use designation in the Catherine and eastern Coyote analysis areas.

The Open Space plan approved the development of two short hiking loops in the Catherine Creek area. Atwood Road is a county road within the Open Space land use designation, not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and there are no proposed changes to existing public uses. Existing non-system trails within the Open Space land use designation would be removed and restored to a natural condition. The entire Open Space land use area would still be open to self-discovery exploration outside of the two designated hiking loops. The Open Space plan prohibited horse and bike use throughout the planning area.

Trail Density and Users The total miles of existing non-system trail is about 23 miles which equates to 2.5 mile per square mile. These trails are for pedestrian use only. All other non-motorized use is located on Atwood Road. This alternative does not propose to authorize any other trails. Non- system trail use and resource damage would likely increase causing the need for restoration projects in the future.

• Catherine–About 3 miles of designated foot trail. A total of 12 miles of existing non-system trails in Open Space to be removed. • Coyote–No system trails are proposed. Non-system trails in Open Space to be removed. About 11 miles of existing non-system trail to remain in the planning area requiring a new environmental analysis for any future trail closures, or restoration efforts. • Burdoin–No system trails are proposed. About 5 miles of existing non-system trail to remain in the planning area requiring a new environmental analysis for any future trail closures, or restoration efforts.

Parking Areas No designated parking areas or restroom facilities are proposed.

Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Riparian areas would be buffered and there would be a minimal but adequate number of stream crossings for the trails in Open Space. The designated foot trails and trail crossings would be located and designed to minimize resource impacts in Open Space and avoid adverse impacts to cultural and other sensitive areas such as talus, cliff faces, and oak savannas. Kiosks at trailheads would be used to educate users regarding trail etiquette and sensitive resource needs in Open Space.

Private Land Protection • Catherine– All designated system trails will be located on public, non-tribal land.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 24 • Coyote- No system trails proposed. • Burdoin– No system trails proposed. Conflict Resolution and Management In Catherine Open Space, interpretative signing would be used to increase awareness of potential impacts, hunting season safety issues, and the need to stay on trails near the Arch. The area would be monitored for weed introduction and steps taken to eradicate as needed. Dogs are not required to be leashed.

FIGURE 5: Alternative 1 – No Action. No Forest Service system trails (shown in red) would be designated outside of the area covered by the Open Space Plan. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 25

Alternative 1 Analysis County Existing Proposed Total Density Use Allowed Use Restrictions Area Roads Trails New Miles Square Used as Retained Trail Miles Trails (mi) (mi) (mi)

Dogs off leash Non-motorized only. Pedestrian self- discovery allowed off All Areas 7.40 14.24 1.53 23.17 2.49 trail.

No restrictions on use of Atwood Road.

Self-discovery No horse or bike off trails use anywhere allowed but not except Atwood encouraged in Road in Open Open Space. Space.

Pedestrian use

on designated foot Catherine 4.28 1.37 1.53 7.18 1.36 trails.

Users encouraged to stay on trails near the Arch.

Self-discovery No horse or bike off trails use anywhere allowed but not except Atwood encouraged in Road in Open Open Space. Space. Coyote 2.44 8.61 0 11.05 4.85

All non- motorized uses outside of Open Space. All non- None proposed Burdoin 0.68 4.26 0 4.94 2.81 motorized uses.

Table 2 – Summary Alternative 1

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 26 Revised Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The trail system proposed in this alternative (Figure 6) is based on the original work of the collaborative group, ideas collected during the 30-day scoping period (April 22, 2008), subsequent Decision Notice (March 20, 2009), input during the appeal period (November 5, 2009), and comments collected during the final 30-day scoping period (March 2, 2010), and a final analysis by the Forest Service interdisciplinary team members during spring 2010. Public comment along with a detailed analysis by the Forest Service revealed the need for additional changes of the Original Alternative 2 (April 22, 2009) with selected modifications (March 20, 2009). The following changes were made:

• Public scoping comments from March 2, 2010 indicated that placement of a pedestrian trail near Minor Creek could create additional impacts to wildflower species within this drainage. The lower Catherine Creek loop trail Ca4 (Figure 10) was relocated out of the Minor Creek drainage and eliminated the need for a small trail connector to old Hwy 8. • Construction of a buck and pole-type fence exclosure (approximately 2-acres) to protect the Catherine Creek Arch natural feature and the adjacent talus slope. • Implementation of a closure order to prohibit entry within the fenced exclosure. • Trail Ca1 (Figure 10) is located adjacent to a peregrine falcon nest. A seasonal trail closure is in place from February 1 – July 15. The closure can be lifted if the completion of yearly USFWS peregrine falcon protocol surveys determine no occupancy for that year. • The trail alignment for Trail Ca2 (Figure 10) was identified and located on the ground using the input of members of the local mountain biking community and Forest Service resource specialists representing botany, wildlife, recreation, and landscape architecture. This trail alignment protects cliff habitat, a peregrine falcon nest, riparian areas, and plant species previously affected by the existing non-system trail. • Trail Co7 connects to Trail Ca1 using the upper route (Figure 10). The lower connection is not included in this alternative. • Trail Co8 was relocated to an existing non-system trail that is already in use (Figure 9). • The parking area proposed for the junction of Courtney and Atwood Road (Figure 8) was removed from this alternative because of input from the mountain biking community on the usefulness of the proposed parking area and other public input. • Monitor horse manure deposition in riparian buffer and shallow soil areas and the effects it may have on sensitive plants. Establish permanent survey and photo plots to monitor species composition change over time. • Limit horse use to a maximum of party size of 8 horses per visit, daily cap of 8 horses per day, and an annual cap of 115 horses per season from May through November. Horse users will be required to register in advance with the Forest Service and have the permit with them during their activities. Permits will be issued either through the National Recreation Reservation System (http://www.recreation.gov/). • The upper Catherine Creek loop trail Ca3 (Figure 10) was modified to accommodate

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 27

horse use and mitigate impacts to sensitive shallow soil habitat and vernal wetlands. • No off-trail horse use is authorized. • No horse use will be allowed on the lower Catherine Creek loop trail Ca4 (Figure 10). • Dogs will be under owner control when using Trail Co7 and Co8. West of Trail Co7 and Co8 dogs will be under owner control. East of trail Co7 and Co8 all dogs are required to be on leash (Figure 9 and 10).

Trail Density and Users This alternative designates trails in all three analysis areas. The total length of proposed trail is about 26 miles which equates to 3 miles per square mile of designated trails. Trails not designated for use would be decommissioned (i.e. blocked from use, stabilized, and allowed to naturally revegetate. In some areas, partial regrading and seeding with natives may be necessary).

Trail Ca3 in the Catherine analysis area is restricted to pedestrian and horse use and Trail Ca4 is restricted to pedestrian use in order to minimize issues of user conflicts and wildlife disturbance. All other trails allow all non-motorized uses as designated. Biking and stock use is required to stay on trails to prevent the redevelopment of non-system trails.

• Catherine -Very low density in northern section to moderate density near SR-14. • Coyote -Moderate to high density south of the areas of private land. • Burdoin–Moderate density limited by land ownership patterns.

Parking Areas The main parking area will be located on FS land at the bottom of Courtney Road (Figure 7). Parking will be sited to avoid conflict with cultural resources. The parking area originally proposed for the junction of Courtney and Atwood Road, is not included in this alternative. The need for additional parking within the Burdoin area, will be analyzed in a future environmental analysis when and if it needed. The Forest Service will continue to stress the importance of respecting private property and not blocking access to private property within the planning area especially in the vicinity of Courtney and Atwood Roads through signing and user education.

Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Riparian areas would be buffered and there would be a minimal but adequate number of stream crossings for the trails. Trails and trail crossings would be located and designed to minimize resource impacts. Kiosks at trailheads would be used to educate users regarding trail etiquette and sensitive resource needs. The trails would be located to avoid adverse impacts to cultural and other sensitive areas such as talus, cliff faces, and oak savannas. The most sensitive areas would contain very limited trails and use would be limited to hiking. Trail locations would be field verified.

The Forest Service has determined that existing horse use is concentrated in the Catherine

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 28 Creek planning area and that the existing horse use is not having any appreciable effect to water, soil, and botanical resources (described in Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences). The Forest Service worked with the local equestrian community to identify the current level of horse use in the area and identified a total of 115 users per year across the entire project area. This alternative will authorize trail Ca3 (Figure 10) for horse use and close the remaining planning area to their use. The rationale to concentrate horse use to this single trail is that this is where the horse community has a history of use; the Burdoin and Coyote Wall planning areas have no history of significant horse use; the proposed parking area for Courtney Road is not designed to accommodate horse trailers; and all the other trails in the three planning areas are designed for pedestrian and mountain bike users. Atwood Road is a county road and would still be available for horse use.

A mitigation plan and closure order will be implemented to protect sensitive natural resources along trail Ca3 Ca4. The area would be monitored for weed introduction and steps would be taken to eradicate invasive plants as needed. In the Catherine analysis area horse manure deposition will be monitored along trail Ca4 Ca3 as described in Appendix D.

Private Land Protection • Catherine–All trails will be located on public land. No trails will be located on or lead to private or Tribal land. • Coyote -No system trails would be allowed to the north of the Atwood Road in order to protect private lands. Klickitat County will be consulted in order to resolve any land ownership/use issues regarding the proposed trail on Atwood Road. • Burdoin–No trails will be located on or lead to private land. The new trail from Atwood Road to the lower parking lot will not be built until non-system trail decommissioning is complete.

Conflict Resolution and Management • Trail registration will be required of all recreation users and is located at the Courtney Road Trailhead and the Catherine Creek Trail heads. Prohibited uses in sensitive areas would be through on site signing and user education. Enforcement would occur through on-site visits by the Forest Service and through the efforts of partners and cooperators helping to educate visitors. Trails would be offered “up for adoption” to help with trail maintenance with the cooperation of user groups. Interpretative signing would be used to increase awareness of potential impacts, hunting season safety issues, and the need to stay on trails. As shown in Figure 9, dogs will be under owner control when using Trail Co7 and Co8. West of Trail Co7 and Co8 dogs will be under owner control. East of trail Co7 and Co8 all dogs are required to be on leash.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 29

Figure 6 - Revised Alternative 2

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 30

FIGURE 7: Conceptual design for Coyote Lower Parking Area.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 31

Figure 8: Burdoin Analysis Area Revised Alternative 2

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 32 Dogs on Leash

Dogs off Leash

FIGURE 9: Coyote Analysis Area Revised Alternative 2

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 33

Dogs on Leash

Dogs off Leash

FIGURE 10: Catherine Analysis Area Revised Alternative 2

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 34 Revised Alternative 2 Analysis County Existing Proposed Total Density Use Allowed Use Restrictions Area Roads Trails New Miles Square Used as Retained Trail Miles Trails (mi) (mi) (mi) Pedestrian self- Bikes and horse discovery users required to allowed off stay on designated trail. trails.

All Areas 7.40 10.97 8.74 27.11 2.91 No restrictions No bike and horse on use of use off-trail. Atwood Road.

Bikes are No horse or bike approved on all use anywhere east foot/bike trails of Atwood Road. west of Atwood Road. No horse use on upper loop (Ca3) Horse use is from December1 – allowed on April 30. upper loop (Ca3) from Limit horse use to May 1 – 8 horses per day November 30. with maximum party size of 8 Catherine 4.28 3.33 5.55 13.16 2.49 horses. Total of 115 horses per year.

Closure order in place for area near the Arch.

Dogs on leash from Jan 1-Dec 30.

Designated foot trail (Ca4) is for hikers only. . Coyote 2.44 7.40 1.34 11.23 4.93 Bike and No horse use in pedestrians on Coyote or Burdoin all designated areas except system trails. County Roads

Dogs under Burdoin 1.57 0.68 0.24 1.85 2.77 owner control all year. All non- motorized uses. None proposed

Table 3 – Summary Alternative 2

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 35

Alternative 3- Mixed Use Trails with Seasonal Closure (All non motorized uses allowed)

This alternative was developed to accommodate comments from user groups who preferred the idea of allowing all users on all of the trails while protecting the most sensitive areas of Catherine Open Space from adverse effects to wildlife (Figure 11 and Table 4). It is the same as Revised Alternative 2 except for the following: • All non-motorized use is allowed on all designated trails. • There is a seasonal closure for horse and bike use in the Catherine Open Space area from December 1-June 30. • Different trail alignments in the Catherine planning area.

Trail Density and Users The total length of proposed trail is about 26 miles which equates to 3 miles per square mile of designated trails. Trails not designated for use would be decommissioned (i.e. Blocked from use, stabilized, and allowed to naturally revegetate. In some areas, partial regrading and seeding with natives may be necessary).

Some trails in the Catherine analysis area are restricted to pedestrian use from December 1- June 30 in order to minimize issues of user conflicts and wildlife disturbance. All non- motorized uses are allowed the rest of the year. Non-pedestrian use will be required to stay on trails to prevent the redevelopment of non-system trails.

• Catherine -Very low density in northern section to moderate density near SR-14. • Coyote -Moderate to high density south of the areas of private land. • Burdoin - Moderate density limited by land ownership patterns.

Parking Areas The main parking area will be located on FS lands at the bottom of Courtney Road and avoid conflict with cultural resources in the general vicinity. Additional parking in the Burdoin area will be analyzed after non-system trail decommissioning is complete.

Sensitive Natural and Cultural Resources Riparian areas would be buffered and there would be a minimal but adequate number of stream crossings for the trails. Trails and trail crossings would be located and designed to minimize resource impacts. Kiosks at trailheads would be used to educate users regarding trail etiquette and sensitive resource needs. The trails would be located to avoid adverse impacts to cultural and other sensitive areas such as talus, cliff faces, and oak savannas. The most sensitive areas would contain very limited trails and use would be limited to hiking from December 1-June 30. Trail locations would be field verified.

Private Land Protection • Catherine–All trails will be located on public land. No trails will be located on or lead to private or Tribal land.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 36 • Coyote -No system trails would be allowed to the north of the Atwood Road in order to protect private lands. Klickitat County will be consulted in order to resolve any land ownership/use issues regarding the proposed trail on Atwood Road. • Burdoin–No trails will be located on or lead to private land. The new trail from Atwood Road to the lower parking lot will not be built until non-system trail decommissioning is complete.

Conflict Resolution and Management Prohibited uses in sensitive areas would be enforced through the cooperation of users and the Forest Service. Trails would be offered “up for adoption” to help with trail maintenance with the cooperation of user groups. Interpretative signing would be used to increase awareness of potential impacts, hunting season, and the need to stay on trails. The area would be monitored for weed introduction and steps taken to eradicate as needed. Dogs would be required to be under control at all times and will be required to be on lease in all areas from December 1 through June 30.

A seasonal trail closure is in place from February 1 – July 15 for portions of two trails located adjacent to a peregrine falcon nest in the Catherine analysis area. The closure can be lifted if the completion of yearly USFWS peregrine protocol surveys determine no occupancy for that year.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 37

FIGURE 11: Alternative 3

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 38

Alternative 3 Analysis County Existing Proposed Total Density Use Allowed Use Restrictions Area Roads Trails New Miles Square Used as Retained Trail Miles Trails (mi) (mi) (mi)

Dogs under Dogs on leash control from Dec 1-June July 1 – Nov 30. 30.

All Areas 7.40 12.98 6.20 26.58 2.85 Pedestrian self- Horse and bikes discovery required to stay on allowed off trails. trail.

July 1 – Nov Dec. 1-June 30 no 30 horse and horse or bike use bike uses except county allowed on all roads. trails. Users encouraged to stay on trails near the Arch. Catherine 4.28 5.72 2.60 12.60 2.39

All non- None proposed Coyote 2.44 7.02 1.75 11.21 4.92 motorized uses. All non- None proposed Burdoin 0.68 0.24 1.85 2.77 1.57 motorized uses.

Table 4 – Summary Alternative 3

2.6 - PRACTIABLE ALTERNATIVE TEST

NSA Management Plan Practicable Alternatives Test and Mitigation Plan

The CRGNSA Management Plan states that “A practicable alternative (for entering a water resources buffer) does not exist if a project applicant satisfactorily demonstrates all of the following: • The basic purpose of the use cannot be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the vicinity that would avoid or result in less adverse effects on wetlands.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 39

• The basic purpose of the use cannot be reasonably accomplished by reducing its proposed size, scope, configuration, or density, or by changing the design of the use in a way that would avoid or result in less adverse effects on wetlands. • Reasonable attempts were made to remove or accommodate constraints that caused a project applicant to reject alternatives to the proposed use. Such constraints include inadequate infrastructure, parcel size, and land use designations.”

Robin Dobson, CRGNSA botanist/ecologist developed the following Practicable Alternative Test and Mitigation Plan:

Practicable Alternatives Test Recreation trails by nature cross the landscape and in so doing, cross streams and other sensitive resources and their buffers. The trails would not be optimal for recreation if they were obliged to avoid all buffers. Impacts from avoiding buffers may be overshadowed by the larger impacts caused by lengthy trail construction and impacts to recreation. As a result, these trails, in general, have no practicable alternative but to enter and cross stream, wildlife and plant buffers.

However, intrusions into the buffer zones must be kept to a minimum and wherever possible the trail alignment and/or design must minimize impacts. If a practicable alternative is available, the buffer zones must be avoided. For example, in Alternative 3 the trail most easterly on the lower elevations of the Catherine Creek area is aligned to cross Minor Creek, its riparian buffer, and enter the priority oak woodland habitat. This would only be permitted if there is no practicable alternative. In contrast, in Alternative 2, trail Ca4 is shown as an alternative trail which avoids most of the above mentioned buffers and in so doing becomes a practicable alternative. As a result the trail in Alternative 3 does not meet the “No Practicable Alternative“ test and would be inconsistent with the NSA Management Plan. This same argument is true for Co7 in Alternative 2 and the lower trail crossing in Alternative 1 and 3 which would not meet the test.

The buffer zones for the various natural resources are summarized below: • Wetlands, ponds, springs, perennial streams: 200 horizontal feet. • Intermittent streams: 50 feet • All sensitive plants sites: 200 ft. • All sensitive wildlife: buffer is variable depending on the needs of the species as determined by the biologist.

Mitigation Plan. To mitigate impacts to the buffer zones a broad group of measures were examined: • The collaborative group divided the recreation area into sections with diminished trail intensities from west, less sensitive, to east, more sensitive. In so doing, this design helped reduce the number of potential intrusions in the more sensitive areas where buffers were more prevalent. This helped mitigate the impacts by reducing the number of intrusions. • For many buffers, all trails were designed to avoid the buffers completely and if avoidance was not possible, the most sensitive buffers were given priority for

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 40 avoidance while less sensitive buffers absorbed the impacts (this was true for wildlife and botanical buffers). • Where buffer impacts would occur, trail alignment was carefully considered to lessen the impacts to the most sensitive habitats within the buffered area; for example, if the wet areas were the sensitive plant habitat, then the trail was designed to avoid the wet areas by crossing drier areas or rocky areas. • To lessen impacts to general buffer areas, bike and horse use will be confined to designated trails where impacts can be readily observed and corrective actions can be initiated. • Trail crossing of streams were kept to a minimum in all action alternatives to reduce impacts to the riparian areas. This is true for both the number of crossings, the specific foot-print of each crossing, and the type of crossing proposed. In some cases, trail bridges may be required to lessen impacts. This is determined during specific trail design on a site by site basis. • Other mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 2, page II-15, including re- vegetation at the stream crossings after construction or in areas where soil disturbance occurs. The amount of re-vegetation required will depend on the impacts and appropriate native vegetation will be used in all locations. This re- vegetation takes into consideration the habitat enhancement potential for both the vegetation of the riparian area as well as the in-stream habitat. For example, placement of in-stream wood may be more important than re-vegetation. • Appropriate monitoring of trail use, tread width and weed infestations will be conducted and reported in the 5 year monitoring report so corrective actions can be taken if un-foreseen impacts are found to be occurring within buffer zones.

2.7 - MITIGATIONS

Natural Resources • Use erosion control measures such as waterbars, drain dips, turnpiking or trail rerouting to reduce or eliminate erosion. • Stream crossings will be designed to minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. Areas to consider in the design include the crossing as well as sections of trail that are ingress and egress to the crossing, as these areas also have the potential to increase sediment introduction. • Disturbed soil at stream crossings will be revegetated with plants native to the area after construction is completed. • No trail construction or decommissioning activities will occur during the spring nesting season or in late fall and winter to reduce impacts to wildlife, winter range and soils. • Parking areas should be designed to minimize runoff and the potential to introduce pollutants into adjacent surface water and groundwater.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 41

• Institute a Forest Supervisor’s closure order for approximately two acres and construct a buck and pole fence exclosure to encompass Catherine Creek Arch. • Effort will be made to discourage access to the two seasonal ponds that are located in Section 35. • Trail crossings of larger intermittent streams should use bridges while smaller intermittent and ephemeral streams should use crossing types that protect against erosion and sediment delivery to stream channels. Establish fords only in stream segments that would not cause sedimentation or stream bank erosion. These conditions are generally where the stream channel is comprised of bedrock, boulders or cobbles and the bank slopes are low, dry, and stable. It may be necessary to harden approaches to minimize sedimentation and erosion. Use of fords for equestrian stream crossings is discouraged. Bridges should be constructed out of non-treated wood material. • The parking area should be designed so it will not increase runoff or sediment delivery into offsite areas. The use of bioswales or other erosion and runoff control techniques is recommended.

Scenic Resources • The roof and siding materials used for the restroom facility shall be of a dark earth- tone color found at the site and made of non-reflective materials. • All structures, including signs, shall have a rustic appearance, use non-reflective materials, have low contrast with the surrounding landscape, and be of a Cascadian architectural style. • Interpretative and site management signs shall be designed to avoid contrasting with the surrounding landscape and sited to reduce visibility from beyond the trail or trailhead where they are located. • The lower parking lot shall be sited to maintain existing screening vegetation. • Plants native to the area shall be used for landscaping and/or restoration.

Cultural Resources • New trail construction and decommissioning of abandoned trails, will be restricted within the boundaries of significant and unevaluated heritage resource sites as specified. • Minimize ground disturbing methods of road and trail decommissioning wherever possible. • Institute a Forest Supervisor’s closure order for approximately two acres and construct a buck and pole fence exclosure to encompass Catherine Creek Arch. • Mitigation measures detailed above and outlined in (Dryden 2008 and Dryden 2010) will be followed. • If any additional cultural resources are discovered during the implementation of this project, the Forest Service shall immediately notify the State Historic Preservation Office and the appropriate tribal governments as per the implementation requirements previously mentioned.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 42

2.8 - MONITORING AND EVALUATION NEEDS

The following monitoring questions were developed using an adaptive management approach with regard to this project. This project will be monitored for implementation and effectiveness through the Forest Plan Monitoring process. The areas developed in the first years of implementation would be monitored and the information gained would be used in the next year’s implementation. It will afford information for better implementation as the project progresses over time. See Appendix D for additional information.

Implementation Monitoring Questions • Were trails decommissioned as per plan? • Were erosion problems fixed? • Were mitigation measures followed? • Were management actions taken as per plan?

Effectiveness Monitoring Questions • What is the most effective monitoring cycle? • Are miles per square mile of non-system trails increasing or decreasing over time? • Are user and/or private land conflicts increasing or decreasing over time? • Where is the location and what is the mileage of new user-created trails each monitoring cycle?

2.9 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section will compare the alternatives with respect to meeting the purpose of the proposed action with respect to effects on issues and resources (Table 5).

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES PURPOSE/ISSUE/CONCERN ALTERNATIVE 1 REVISED ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 3 MIXED USE PROPOSED ACTION Total Miles 23.17 27.11 26.58 Miles Per Sq. Mi. 2.49 2.91 2.85 Miles Designated System Trail 2.9 19.71 19.18 Yes, Only in Open Recognized USFS Trail System Yes Yes Space Open Space Plan covers only half of Management Strategies planning area. The Strategy for whole Strategy for whole area remainder of the area planning area will have no strategy. Support Development such as 1 Parking 2 Parking None restrooms and parking 1 Restroom 1 Restroom Appropriate Trail Uses No Yes Yes Motorized Use No motorized use. No motorized use. No motorized use. Pedestrian Only User Trails Pedestrian use on two Pedestrian use on one No restrictions in any

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 43

(2) designated trails. (1) designated trail. planning area.

Self discovery off trails Self discovery off trails allowed in open space. allowed in all areas.

No restrictions outside of open space. No dog restrictions. Catherine. Dogs on All Areas. Dogs on leash from Jan 1- Dec leash from Dec 1- 31 Dogs on leash Dec June 30 with dogs 1 – June 30, with dogs under owner control under owner control remaining period. Dogs remaining period.

Burdoin and Coyote. Dogs under owner control all year. No bike use anywhere Bikes required to stay Bikes required to stay except county roads in on designated trails in on designated trails. Open Space in the Catherine, Coyote and Catherine Planning Burdoin planning Dec. 1 – June 30 no area. areas. bike use in open Bicycle Use space area. No bike use east of Atwood Road in No timing No restrictions outside Catherine Planning restrictions outside of of open space. area. open space. No horse use anywhere Catherine planning No horse use except Atwood Road in area has no horse use anywhere except open space. from December1 – county roads in part April 31 March 31 on of Open Space in No restrictions outside designated upper loop. Catherine planning of open space in area from Dec. 1- Burdoin and Coyote Limit horse use to 8 June 30. planning areas. horses per day with maximum party size of No restrictions on use 8 horses. No horse use of Atwood Road in east of Catherine Creek Catherine and Coyote on lower loop trails. planning areas. Horse Use Total of 115 horse per year on designated No restrictions in trail. Coyote and Burdoin planning area. No other trails have been designated for horse use in the Coyote and Burdoin planning areas.

No restriction on county roads. Enforcement Challenge Low Medium High User Conflicts Increase Slight Decrease Slight Increase Protects private Protects private Private Land Protection Not protected (Higher risk to west) (Higher risk to west) Meets standards Meets standards Scenic Resources Meets standards w/mitigation w/mitigation Soils 37 mi. compacted 26 mi. compacted 26 mi. compacted Cultural 7 sites avoided 21 sites avoided 21 sites avoided 10 near trails 6 near trails 6 near trails 15 maintained 15 maintained 15 maintained Aquatic Health Indicators 1 degraded (sediment) 1 restored (sediment) 1 restored (sediment) 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 44 Miles per sq. mi. >3 mi/mi2 in Existing-9 4--Meets NSAMP 5-- Meets NSAMP Priority Habitat Alt 1 7 w/mitigation w/ mitigation Intensity of Wildlife Disturbance Existing- 145 92 92 Score Alt 1 98 Effects to wildlife from off-leash No benefits to any Best protection for Best protection for dog use wildlife habitat. All most highly rated deer in winter range existing effects will wildlife habitat in and breeding birds in continue. Catherine area. general. Most highly rated wildlife habitat in Catherine area still subject to disturbance during off-leash period. Effects to water, soil, and If existing horse use There are no Effects are similar to botanical resources from horse continues at current identifiable effects to Alternative 1. activities levels there are no water, soil, and identifiable effects to botanical resources water, soil, and when horse use is botanical resources. limited to trail Ca3 at There may be further existing use levels. benefits to these resources by limiting horse use to outside of Open Space. Effects to botanical resources This alternative has the Protects botanical The construction of from the construction of new trail least amount of new resources in Minor new trails will have routes in the Catherine Creek trail construction and Creek. The use of the greatest effects to analysis area. provides the best existing trails, instead botanical resources in protection to botanical of building new trails, Minor Creek resources. also decrease effects to drainage. botanical resources.

Table 5: Comparison of alternatives

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 45

CHAPTER 3 –AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

3.0 – INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the potential environmental impacts that could result with the implementation of each alternative. The map below depicts the location of most natural resources of concern (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Sensitive Resources

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects are described. Mitigation measures associated with each, or common to all alternatives, are also identified in this chapter if needed by resource area to be consistent with the Management Plan or other requirements. These mitigations were incorporated into the respective alternative and are part of the design of the alternative and listed as special implementation requirements in Chapter 2.

The study area for the cumulative effects analysis is located entirely within the CRGNSA and includes the project area and adjacent private, state, tribal, and federal lands as shown in Figure 15. The long-term time frame for the analysis is 10 years, the estimated length of time for surface disturbance resulting from present or reasonably foreseeable future actions to re-vegetate. This cumulative effects analysis includes an analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. In order to understand the contribution of past actions 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 46 to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 (summarized in the Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.4(f)) regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

The following table will be used for each resource to describe the cumulative effects of each alternative combined with the effects of previous projects and known actions within the Planning Area:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 47

PROJECT NAME/ ACTIONS LOCATION/DATE

TYPE Burdoin I Thinning, slash pile 2003 Burdoin Sub-area Small diameter Thin burning Complete Volunteer Fire Dept. Small amount of tree 2002 Burdoin Sub-area Firehouse removal, brushing, Complete installation of building and utilities. Courtney Road Tree removal and paving 2005 Burdoin Sub-area widening Complete Allen Property Small diameter thinning 2003-5 Catherine sub- thinning and and structure removal area structure removal On-going BPA road widening Road widening Just North County Rd. 1230-complete Invasive Plant Herbicide or Mechanical Hand pulling-Rd. 1230 treatments Treatment Herbicides-Just east of Coyote Wall. On-going Catherine Creek Paved accessible trail Adjacent but outside Trail planning area-complete Land acquisitions Purchase SMA lands After 1986-present Historic Forest Historic Harvests large Planning area/ Practices oak, pine, Douglas-fir circa 1860-1920 Burdoin II Thinning, slash pile 2007 Thin from Below burning, road Burdoin Sub-area maintenance, soil de- compaction Catherine Thinning Thinning to reduce 2007-2010 And Underburning Douglas-fir ingrowths in Pine-Oak Forests, Thinning for fuel reduction Invasive Plant Herbicide or Mechanical On-going treatments Treatment Major Creek Pit and Close and Rehab Borrow Major Creek Road near Spur Road Closure Pit. Gate Spur Road Old Hwy. 8 State/Private SMA Forest Practices Unknown forest practices consistent with NSA guidelines

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 48 3.1 - SCENIC RESOURCES

Introduction and Analysis Methods and Measurements This section evaluates the existing scenic condition, visibility, and effects of the alternatives on scenic resources. The analysis is based on the requirements of the Revised Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan (Management Plan) as adopted by the Gorge Commission, GIS data, digital photos, and several site visits during 2006 and early 2007.

The measurement for the effect to scenic resources is the degree to which the project activities are predicted to meet Management Plan scenic resource guidelines in the required timeframes from Key Viewing Areas. The project activities relevant to scenic resources analyzed for the proposed action are: road and trail decommissioning or obliteration, trail and trailhead construction, and other associated structures.

Land Use Designations and Landscape Settings The project is located on Burdoin Mtn. and on National Forest System lands just east of Burdoin Mtn. in the Catherine and Major Creek drainages. The most visible portions of the landscape facing KVAs are the grasslands proposed for some trails. The NSA land use designations are SMA Open Space for the Catherine and Major Creek areas and SMA Forest or Agriculture for the Burdoin Mtn. area. The landscape settings are Oak Woodlands on Burdoin Mtn. and Gorge Walls/Canyonlands/Wildlands for the rest of the planning area.

FIGURE 13 COYOTE WALL FROM THE HISTORIC COLUMBIA RIVER HIGHWAY AT MOSIER

Key Viewing Areas The portions of the site visible from Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were obtained from the KVA GIS layer developed by the Forest Service and Gorge Commission based on a 10- meter digital elevation model.

The factors that influence potential visual impact of a proposed development listed in the Management Plan are the following: • The amount of area of the building site exposed to Key Viewing Areas. • The degree of existing vegetation providing screening. • The distance of the building site to the key viewing areas from which it is visible. • The number of key viewing areas from which it is visible. • The linear distance along the key viewing areas from which the building site is visible.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 49

Visibility Analysis The planning area is topographically visible (considering landform only, not vegetative screening) from the viewpoints listed below.

• Foreground Distance Zone (0-1/2 mile): SR-14, County Rd. 1230 • Middleground Distance Zone (1/2-3 miles): I-84, Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH), Rowena Plateau, and the Columbia River. • Background Distance Zone (3 miles or more): I-84, Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH), Dog Mountain, Pacific Crest Trail, and the Columbia River.

Amount of Exposure to Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) and Existing Vegetative Screening The KVAs of most concern for this project are the middleground viewpoints and the foreground of SR-14 near the intersection with Courtney Road, and the foreground of Old Highway 8 (County Road 1230). The middleground viewpoints will provide a panorama of the project area while the view from the two roads mentioned will be affected by portions of the trail proposals. The other distance zones of these viewpoints and the remaining KVAs will be unaffected by the project activities.

Old Highway 8 Distance Zone: foreground ¼ mile or less and middle-ground 1 to 2 miles is superior to the viewer’s position. Grasslands within the project area meet the road. Access to the trails occurs from informal parking on Old Highway 8 near the Catherine Creek recreation site south of the road.

SR-14

Distance Zone: foreground ¼ mile or less and middle-ground 1 to 2 miles is superior to the viewer’s position. Duration of view: relatively short because Coyote Wall blocks views from westbound traffic until Locke Lake, and because the rock-cut landforms near the road block views.

I-84 and Columbia River Distance Zone: middleground from .7 to 2 miles. Duration of View: long open view going both westbound and eastbound.

Historic Columbia River Highway and Rowena Plateau Distance Zone: middle-ground from 1 to 3 miles. Duration of view: -short duration on the highway itself with only brief views. At overlooks and turnouts, the duration can be very long.

Existing Scenic Condition The Burdoin Mountain analysis area is located within the Oak Woodlands landscape setting described by the Columbia River Gorge NSA Management Plan below:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 50 Overview and Land Use This visually complex setting represents the climatic transition area between the lush forests of the western Gorge-and the semi-arid grasslands of the eastern Gorge. Dry oak-pine woods, savannah areas (predominantly grassy openings with scattered trees), and grassy prairies are interspersed with scattered rural development. Such development includes residences, roads, fences, etc. In some portions of this setting, orchards and cultivated areas lend a pastoral flavor to this generally natural-appearing landscape. Most parcels are over 20 acres in size, and are frequently between 40 and 160 acres.

Landform Most of this setting is found on gently rolling to hilly terrain. Pastures and small farm uses are interspersed in the gentler portions of this setting. Some very steep slopes and deeply incised side canyons are contained in the least developed portions of this setting.

Vegetation This setting contains perhaps the most varied vegetative communities in the Gorge, adding to its visual richness. Mixed stands of Oregon white oak and ponderosa pine typify this setting. In the western portions, highest elevations, and north slopes, this community transitions into woodland vegetation patterns, with increasing numbers of Douglas-fir occurring. Drier portions of this setting and areas with poor, thin soils are often treeless prairies. "Biscuit scablands," or patterned ground areas with little vegetation and hummocky rock outcrops, also occur. This special landscape, created by scouring of great floods, is also found in some portions of the Grassland setting.

The escarpment at Coyote Wall is an exceptional landscape feature and draws the eye from key viewing areas to the south and southwest.

The vegetation on Burdoin Mountain has undergone changes over the last 100 years that are not apparent to the casual visitor. Stands that were once open and park-like are now generally more densely stocked with small trees, and are in most cases less than one-half to one-third as many large trees in the over-story as in the past.

Some of the planning area is located within the Gorge Walls/Canyonlands/ landscape setting described by the Columbia River Gorge NSA Management Plan below:

Overview and Land Use The Gorge Walls/Canyonlands setting represents the bluffs, cliffs and steep slopes that form the walls of the Gorge and the deeply incised canyons of the Columbia River's major tributaries. Because of extreme steepness, and in some cases inaccessibility and instability, these areas are largely undeveloped…

The prevailing land use in the public portion of these lands is dispersed recreation, a relatively new use, since much of the land was previously in private ownership. There are some developed trails south of the planning area, but since the formation of the CRGNSA, dispersed recreation has grown and become an important activity in

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 51

the area. With an increase in mountain biking in the area, user-made trails are common in the Coyote wall area.

Landform The landform component of the Gorge Walls/Canyonlands setting is a much greater determinant of its character than is true for any other setting. Steep wooded slopes, canyon walls, and sheer rock faces characterize this setting. In the side canyons, small ribbons of riparian floodplain areas also occur. The Oak Woodlands setting contains the most gently sloping land in the planning area.

Vegetation The steepest portions of the area are rocky cliffs devoid of much vegetation or loose talus slopes with limited vegetation (although such slopes often include large, old fir, pine, and maple trees). Other portions of this setting include stands of large fir and pine trees.

Existing Scenic Quality Level Currently, the planning area appears highly scenic from the middleground and background views from key viewing areas. The planning area as a whole meets the Not Visually Evident visual quality level overall from all the previously mentioned key viewing areas because most private development is screened from view, not visible from KVAs, or is a naturalized landscape feature such as a pasture. However, the user-made trails are visible, especially on top of Coyote wall and in some meadows facing KVAs (Figure 14). The trails are visually subordinate to the larger landscape due to distance from KVAs, size and natural materials (i.e. native soil). Trails under tree canopies are not visible from KVAs.

The desired outcomes for the planning area are to meet scenic standards and protect the character of the landscape settings. This can be achieved by avoiding the placement of visible trails or other development in the highly visible meadows, screening recreation trailheads from KVAs, and increasing the average diameter of the existing forest trees, especially pine and oak.

Figure 14: East of Coyote Wall in Coyote planning area

from I-84—arrow points to visible user made trails

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 52 Regulatory Framework The Management Plan, Part I, Chapter 1, Scenic Resources, SMA guidelines, states:

• The required SMA scenic standards for all development and uses in the planning area are summarized in the following table:

REQUIRED SMA SCENIC STANDARDS

LANDSCAPE SETTING LAND USE DESIGNATION SCENIC STANDARD Gorge Walls, Canyonlands, Wildlands, Oak-Pine Forest (National Forest Lands), Open Space Not Visually Evident Woodland Oak-Pine Woodland Agriculture Visually Subordinate

Visually Subordinate from Key Viewing Areas are defined in the Management Plan as:

Visually subordinate: A description of the relative visibility of a structure or use where that structure or use does not noticeably contrast with the surrounding landscape, as viewed from a specified vantage point (generally a key viewing area, for the Management Plan). As opposed to structures that are fully screened, structures that are visually subordinate may be partially visible. They are not visually dominant in relation to their surroundings.

Not Visually Evident from Key Viewing Areas are defined in the Management Plan as:

Not visually evident (SMA): A visual quality standard that provides for development or uses that are not visually noticeable to the casual visitor. Developments or uses shall only repeat form, line, color, and texture that are frequently found in the natural landscape, while changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., shall not be noticeable.

• In all landscape settings, scenic standards shall be met by blending new development with the adjacent natural landscape elements rather than with existing development. • Proposed developments or land uses shall be sited to achieve the applicable scenic standard. • Proposed developments shall not protrude above the line of a bluff, cliff, or skyline as seen from key viewing areas. • Structure height shall remain below the average tree canopy height of the natural vegetation adjacent to the structure, except if it has been demonstrated that meeting this guideline is not feasible considering the function of the structure. • Unless expressly exempted by other provisions in this chapter, colors of structures on sites visible from key viewing areas shall be dark earth-tones found at the specific site or the surrounding landscape. • The exterior of structures on lands seen from key viewing areas shall be composed of non-reflective materials or materials with low reflectivity 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 53

SMA Scenic Landscape Setting Policy: The appearance and character of the Landscape Settings within the SMA shall be protected.

Oak Woodland landscape setting. • Use of plant species native to the landscape setting shall be encouraged. Where non- native plants are used, they shall have native-appearing characteristics. • Oak-Pine Woodland: Woodland areas shall retain the overall appearance of a woodland landscape. New developments and land uses shall retain the overall visual character of the natural appearance of the Coniferous Woodland and Oak-Pine Woodland landscape.

Gorge Walls, Canyonlands, and Wildlands landscape setting • New developments and land uses shall retain the overall visual character of the natural- appearing landscape. • New utilities shall be below ground surface, where feasible. • Structures, including signs, shall have a rustic appearance, use non-reflective materials, have low contrast with the surrounding landscape, and be of a Cascadian architectural style. • Use of plant species non-native to the Columbia River Gorge shall not be allowed.

Environmental Consequences

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1-NO ACTION

Visually Subordinate or Not Visually Evident from Key Viewing Areas -The No Action Alternative would meet the required scenic standards as discussed under Regulatory Framework above. The lack of a trail management plan for the Coyote wall area may increase the risk of unauthorized trails visible in the meadows. The implementation of the Open Space plan would decrease the risk to scenic resources in the Open Space land use designation when enforced. No trailheads will be built which will decrease the risk to scenic quality from development, although ad hoc parking at SR-14 and Courtney Road would likely continue. Other than the small trail loop in the Catherine area, there would be no authorized new development.

CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1-NO ACTION

The small trail loop in Catherine Open Space is the only authorized new development in this alternative. Thus, the potential for cumulative effects would be the smallest in this alternative. The foreseeable cumulative effects of Alternative 1 combined with past projects and foreseeable projects are described in the table below:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 54

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DETERMINATION No Action Alt Past, Current Potential OVERLAP Measurable? Extent or Foreseeable Effects IN TIME PROJECT or SPACE Burdoin I Foreground SR-14 No Yes No No effects of Burdoin I Stumps, slash are currently evident piles from KVAs, including SR-14. Firehouse Not visible KVAs No Yes No Not evident Courtney Rd. Not visible KVAs No Yes No Not evident widening Allen property Not visible KVAs No Yes No Not evident thinning and structure removal Invasive Plant Temporary Mayb Yes No None evident—small treatments past Dead Plants e input to cumulative Future-improve scenic effects. Short or future natives term. Paved accessible Trail visible, No Yes No Not very evident. Small trail at Catherine Not very evident input to cumulative scenic effects—parking Creek may increase here if no action is taken to provide parking on NFS lands. Burdoin II & Middleground Mayb Yes No Fewer numbers of trees Catherine Not evident e in viewsheds from Middleground distance Thin from below but small visual deviation from the natural patterns. Users will notice short term effects of the vegetation management from the trails. Past/Future Land Less Mayb Yes Yes Measurably less acquisitions development- e development in SMA positive purchased by FS. Reduces cumulative negative effects. Historic Tree Removed Large No Yes Yes Fewer large trees (due to Harvest Trees past harvests) in viewsheds from Middleground distance but small visual deviation from the natural patterns. Major Creek Pit Close and rehab Yes No No Not Evident. and Spur Rd. borrow pit. Gate spur road. Closure Future Must meet Mayb Yes Yes Fewer numbers of trees State/Private SMA guidelines e in viewsheds from Middleground distance Forest Practices but small visual deviations from natural patterns.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 55

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES 2 and 3 Visually Subordinate or Not Visually Evident from Key Viewing Areas - Alternative 3 has a slightly different trail configuration than in Alternative 2 for the Catherine planning area except for the types of users allowed on the trail systems. The trailheads are the same in both alternatives.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet the required scenic standards as discussed under the Regulatory Framework above. A trail management plan for the Coyote wall area will decrease the risk of more visible trails in the meadows. The implementation of the revised Open Space plan would decrease the risk to scenic resources in the Open Space land use designation when enforced. The lower trailhead parking at Courtney Road will require some screening to meet the required standard of Visually Subordinate from SR-14, I-84, and the Columbia River. There are no effects to visual resources from the construction of the buck and pole fence enclosure at the Catherine Creek Arch.

Landscape Settings Native Plants The scenic implementation requirements in Chapter 2 require the use of plant species native to the specific area be used for landscaping and/or restoration.

Protection of setting character The Management plan requires that the new developments or uses retain the overall visual character of the natural landscape. The action alternatives locate trails to avoid the most sensitive landscape features. The proposed trail heads are located in previously disturbed areas that will not detract from the overall visual character provided that the scenic implementation requirements listed in Chapter 2 are met regarding color, reflectivity, retention of screening vegetation, and rustic appearance of structures.

Color, Reflectivity, Structure Height, and Breaking the Skyline There are no actions planned for which these guidelines apply except the restroom at the lower parking lot and the placement of interpretative and site management signage. The restroom will be located at the lower parking area which is well below the skyline for all affected Key Viewing Areas. In addition, the restroom facilities will be well below the canopy height for Oregon white oak or ponderosa pine. The following mitigations are required in order to meet the color and reflectivity guidelines:

• The roof and siding materials used for the restroom facility shall be of a dark earth- tone color found at the site and made of non-reflective materials. • Interpretative and site management signs shall be designed to avoid contrasting with the surrounding landscape and sited to reduce visibility from beyond the trail or trailhead where they are located.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 56 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 and 3 Alternative 2 or 3 will have a small cumulative effect on KVA viewsheds because most of the effects are seen from a distance from KVAs. Almost all of the project area is in the middle-ground or background distance zone from KVAs with short glimpses from SR-14 and CR 1230. The cumulative effect to Scenic Resources of trail systems across the Scenic Area is very small due to screening by vegetation. Trails in meadow areas are at the most risk for reducing scenic quality. Trailheads and parking areas will have negative cumulative effects only if they do not meet the required scenic standards for siting and screening by topography and vegetation. The table below describes cumulative effects in the planning area of past and future actions combined with alternatives 2 and 3.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 57

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DETERMINATION ALTS 2 AND 3 Past, Current Potential OVERLAP Measurable Extent or Foreseeable Effects IN TIME or ? PROJECT SPACE Burdoin I Foreground SR-14 No Yes No No effects of Burdoin I Stumps, slash piles are currently evident from KVAs, including SR-14. Firehouse Not visible KVAs No Yes No Not evident Courtney Rd. Not visible KVAs No Yes No Not evident widening Allen property Not visible KVAs No Yes No Not evident thinning and structure removal Invasive Plant Temporary No Yes No None evident—small treatments past Dead Plants input to cumulative scenic Future-improve effects. Short term. or future natives Paved accessible Trail visible, No Yes No Not very evident. Small trail at Catherine Not very evident input to cumulative scenic effects—parking may Creek increase here if no action is taken to provide parking on NFS lands. Burdoin II Middleground Maybe Yes No Fewer numbers of trees in Thin from below Not evident viewsheds from Middleground distance but small visual deviation from the natural patterns. Users will notice short term effects of the vegetation management from the trails. Coyote wall FS Not Evident Maybe Yes No Measurably less trails development in SMA purchased by FS. Reduces cumulative negative effects. Past /Future Less development- Maybe Yes Yes Fewer large trees (due to Land positive past harvests) in viewsheds from acquisitions Middleground distance but small visual deviation from the natural patterns. Historic Tree Removed Large No Yes No Fewer numbers of trees in Harvest Trees viewsheds from Middleground distance but small visual deviations from natural patterns. Major Creek Pit Close and rehab Yes No No Not Evident. and Spur Rd. borrow pit. Gate spur road. Closure Future Must meet Maybe Yes No No effects of Burdoin I State/Private SMA guidelines are currently evident from KVAs, including SR-14. Forest Practices

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 58 3.2 - CULTURAL RESOURCES

A comprehensive review of the history and prehistory of the project area was presented by Hess and Stump (1995) and will not be repeated here. McDaniel (2002) compiled the background research for the Burdoin Mountain portion of the project area. In summary, the Burdoin Mountain, Major Creek and Catherine Creek drainages show a long history of human occupation. While no documented Indian villages have been found within the project area there is evidence of extensive Indian use of the White Salmon River and Klickitat River drainages. Catherine and Major Creeks occur west of the Klickitat River and east of the White Salmon River. Talus rock feature site, 45KL327, is a complex rock feature site and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, lithic debris, rock features and pictographs have also been recorded in previous surveys.

European-American settlement began in the nineteenth century. General Land Office (GLO) maps from the 1860-1870s show few structures, fields or roads within the project area. By the early twentieth century (1913) a significant number of land patents covered the project area. A review of the land patent records on the BLM website showed 31 different landowners had filed patents within the project area between 1883 and 1918. Seventy-six percent of the patents were filed in the nine years between 1904 and 1912. The earliest patents were filed in the southwest corner of the project area. The later patents occurred near the confluence of Major Creek and the Columbia River. Logging of the Catherine Creek and Major Creek drainages occurred throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Analysis Methods and Measurements The entire area of potential effect (APE) includes 4,750-acres of which 750 are either private or Washington State lands. With the exception of trails co-located on county roads, all of the proposed trail locations fall within the 4,000-acres of national forest lands in the project area and are located in Klickitat County.

Over the past 15-years several cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the area of potential effect for this project. In the mid-1990s a large cultural resource survey was conducted under contract by Hess and Stump (1995). They surveyed approximately 2700- acres of lands north of Rowland Lake. Two-thousand three hundred and forty- acres of those areas occur within the current APE. Also in 1994, 19-acres of the Bonneville Power Administration transmission line were surveyed through the current project area (Luttrell 1994). Four more surveys were conducted in the Burdoin Mountain and Catherine Creek areas in the past seven years (McDaniel 2002, Dryden 2004 and Dryden 2005, Dryden 2006). The McDaniel survey covered 415-acres, Dryden (2004) covered 125-acres, Dryden (2005) covered 75-acres and Dryden (2006), surveyed 33-acres within the current APE.

1994 Charles Luttrell, archaeologist for Archaeological and Historical Services Eastern Washington University surveyed along the Ross-Franklin power transmission line in the southern portion of the project area (Luttrell 1994). The survey project was confined to 125- foot-400-foot corridor following the transmission rights-of-way. Transects were 30-meters apart. Area specific topographic maps of the survey area were not included in the final

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 59 report so I was not able to determine the exact width of the area surveyed. The conservative corridor width of 125-feet (38-meters) has been arbitrarily attributed to this section of the 29-mile long survey that was conducted. No less than 19-acres were surveyed within the current project area. One historic habitation site was recorded along this section of the power transmission line.

1995 Sean Hess and Sheila Stump, archaeologists for Boas, Inc., surveyed 2653-acres for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and recorded 35 sites (Hess and Stump 1995) during the spring of 1994. Most of that survey (2,032-acres) falls within the Coyote Wall, Burdoin, and Catherine Creek Trail Project area. While the inventory report and site forms were sent to the State Historic Preservation Office, the area surveyed map was not submitted using 7.5-min. topographic maps and the surveyed areas do not appear on the electronic Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) GIS survey database.

Many of the sites recorded by Hess and Stump were assigned Smithsonian Trinomial numbers in 1997. Later, in 2002, there was a mix-up and two of the sites were given additional trinomial numbers. Site 45KL648 was also assigned 45KL882 and 45KL649 was also assigned 45KL887. Subsequent to the Hess and Stump survey, two additional pictograph sites were discovered by Michael Boynton and by Rich Davis (ranger at Horse thief Lake State Park) in 1996 (45KL658 and 45KL657).

2002 Sarah McDaniel, archaeologist for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, conducted a cultural resource survey of 386-acres for the Burdoin Mountain Fuel Treatment Project (McDaniel 2002). Five cultural resources sites were observed. The areas surveyed by McDaniel appear on the GIS survey database.

2004 Charlene Schmidt, archaeological technician for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, conducted a cultural resource survey of 75-acres for the Catherine Creek – Allen Tract Small Fir Removal and Prescribed Burn Project (Dryden 2004). One new cultural resource site and one isolated find were observed. The areas surveyed for this project appear on the DAHP GIS survey database.

2005 Eric Gleason and Jacqueline Cheung, consulting archaeologists, conducted a cultural resource survey of 100-acres for the Burdoin II Vegetation Management Project (Dryden 2005). No new cultural resource sites were observed. The areas surveyed for this project appear on the DAHP GIS survey database.

2006 Michael Dryden, archaeologist for the Mt. Hood National Forest, conducted a cultural resource survey of 33-acres for the Catherine Forest Restoration Project (Dryden 2006). Two new cultural resource sites were observed within this current project area. The areas surveyed for this project have not yet been posted on the DAHP GIS survey database.

All six surveys were composed of linear transects averaging 30-meters or less in width and followed acceptable survey standards. The areas surveyed within this proposed project area were examined for evidence of surface and subsurface cultural artifacts. Visibility was variable, but generally poor and hampered by poison oak and vegetation thickets. Lineal 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 60 transects were augmented by examination of areas of exposed mineral soil. Exposures were found where there was thin vegetation, native surface road beds, cut banks and rodent burrows.

In assessing the needs of the Coyote Wall, Burdoin, Catherine Creek Trail Project, the probability map (Boynton 2002) was consulted. The project area encompasses 4,750-acres. Of that 1380-acres (28%) are high probability and 3,368-acres (72%) are low probability. The areas that had been previously surveyed were compared to the probability map to assess the distribution of the areas that had been covered.

One-hundred-seventy-four (174) acres (2.4% of the surveyed areas) were surveyed on more than one occasion between 1994 and 2006.

Four of Boynton’s high probability zones are present within the project area. “Surface sites within the H1 classification east of Hood River are normally defined by the presence of structural features, including but not limited to dwelling remains, occupational deposit (midden), ground and flaked stone tools, fire-cracked rock, bone and shell, burials, cairns, and petroglyphs/pictographs.

“Sites within the H2 classification, which are anticipated on benches on slopes in excess of 30 percent, tend to include secondary residential, primary seasonal, specific-task, burial and cairn sites. The presence of a nearby stream or spring will tend to weight the use of the area towards complexity.

“H4 classifications include the distinctive physiographic features of ridge crests, intersects, and saddles. Interestingly, prehistoric and historic activities within the H4 designation tend to be similar. They are associated with transportation (trails, roads), temporary occupation sites, and resource procurement and processing.

“H7 areas consist of talus slopes, cobble and boulder fields, and the margins of these areas. …Prehistoric sites that will be encountered within talus slopes will consist of spirit quest features (cairns, pits, walls, sinuous features, single rock stacks) within the slopes. (Boynton 2002:64-67).”

Existing trails that occur within previously unsurveyed high probability areas were surveyed in 2008. Just over 10.5km of existing trails were surveyed for cultural resources. Fifty-two acres were covered. All new trail construction is planned to occur within either previously surveyed areas or within low probability areas. Additionally, some new trails will be placed on existing county roads. These trail locations were not surveyed either.

Margaret Dryden, Heritage Program Manager for the National Scenic Area, conducted the cultural resource survey of 52-acres for the Coyote Wall, Burdoin and Catherine Creek Trail Project. One new prehistoric lithic isolated find was documented (Dryden 2008).

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 61

Existing Conditions The project area has a large number of archaeological resources. Reconnaissance surveys conducted from 1994-present have located 37 historic properties within the area of potential effect. Twenty-three of the sites have been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One prehistoric site is listed on the NRHP; 11 sites have been found “eligible” to the NRHP, but are not listed; and 11 sites have been evaluated as “not eligible” to the NRHP. The remaining 14 sites remain unevaluated.

The 26 sites that are listed, eligible or unevaluated must be protected from the adverse effects of the project proposal.

Regulatory Framework Gifford Pinchot National Forest LRMP Forest-wide standards and guidelines and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan

NSA policy for cultural resources in the special management area (SMA) is:

• New developments or land uses shall not adversely affect significant cultural resources; • NSA guidelines for cultural resources in the special management area (SMA) are: • Professional expertise is required to conduct cultural resources surveys, evaluations, assessments and mitigation plans • Federal undertaking shall complete consultation responsibilities under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. • A “new discovery” shall require immediate notification of the Forest service if cultural resources are discovered during construction. Specific notification requirements are triggered if human bone or burials are discovered. • The following steps must be followed in assessing potential effects to cultural resources: o Literature Review and Consultation o Field Inventory o Evaluation of Significance o Assessment of Effect o Mitigation

Environmental Consequences

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ALTERNATIVE 1-NO ACTION

Under the no action alternative, no new Recreation Management Plan is proposed.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS REVISED ALTERNATIVE 2-PROPOSED ACTION

There are about 37 miles of existing trails and the proposed network in the proposed action reduces this to approximately 26.5 miles. Some trail segments will be rerouted, so there will be some new construction. The main parking area will be located on FS lands at the bottom

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 62 of Courtney Road and avoid conflict with cultural resources in the general vicinity. Additional parking in the Burdoin area will be analyzed in the future

In alternative 2, 16 of the listed, evaluated, and unevaluated sites will be avoided by the recreation trails. Eight sites will either be bordered by or bisected by existing trails. In no case, will new trails be constructed through significant or potentially significant archaeological sites. Sites that are adjacent to or bisected by trails will be routinely monitored for signs of further encroachment. One site has already been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. An existing trail bisects this site. While we don’t know how long the trail has been in place, it was present in 1994 when the site was recorded and in 1996 when the site was evaluated, nominated and listed on the National Register. In 2008, a cultural specialist an archaeologist from the Yakama Cultural Resources Department visited the site and suggested that monitoring and careful maintenance techniques on this trail would prevent any adverse effects to the site. Those recommendations will be incorporated into the trail maintenance plan for this section of trail (Dryden 2008).

The actions proposed in Alternative 2 may occur if they do not adversely affect significant cultural resources. There are 37 sites within the planning area. Of those sites, 11 have been evaluated as “not significant” and require no mitigation measures. The preceding table shows the 26 remaining sites and the potential effects from the project alternatives.

Twelve sites have been evaluated as significant and one of those has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Sixteen sites have not yet been evaluated but are being treated as if they are eligible to the NRHP.

Adverse effects could be caused by the following proposed actions:

New Trail Construction: (digging and scraping). Archaeological sites can be damaged by ground disturbance. Features and structures can be damaged by being knocked down.

Closing or Decommissioning Existing Trails: (digging and scraping) Archaeological sites can be damaged by ground disturbance. Features and structures can be damaged by being knocked down.

Recreational Use of Trails: Use of trails that go through archaeological sites and talus slopes may displace artifacts and features. Use of trails that go under and on top of significant geologic features may affect the natural context, natural vegetation and structural integrity. Recreational use can increase the risk that archaeological sites and geologic features will be damaged. However, the presence of recreational users may also hinder intentional looting of sites.

Mitigation Measures Specific to Revised Alternative 2: Of the 37 sites to be protected, no mitigation measures are necessary for the 11 sites that are not significant and have been found to be “not eligible” to the NRHP. Twenty-six sites have either been found significant or are unevaluated and will be protected from ground disturbing actions through project design, primarily avoidance. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 63

Monitoring sites that are impinged by recreation trails.

Maintenance plan for section of trail that bisects site 45KL327 as described in Dryden (2008).

To ensure that no historic properties are affected by the undertaking (36 CFR 800.4 (d)(1)), the following mitigation measures are required:

• New trail construction and decommissioning of abandoned trails, will be restricted when they occur within the boundaries of eligible or unevaluated heritage resource sites as per the implementation requirements specified for cultural resources specified in Chapter 2. • Construction of a buck and pole-type fence exclosure (approximately 2-acres) to protect the Catherine Creek Arch geologic feature and the adjacent talus slope. • Implementation of a Forest Supervisor’s closure order to prohibit entry within the fenced exclosure. • Mitigation measures detailed above and outlined in (Dryden 2008) will be followed. • If any additional cultural resources are discovered during the implementation of this project, the Forest Service shall immediately notify the State Historic Preservation Office and the appropriate tribal governments as per the implementation requirements previously mentioned.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS - ALTERNATIVE 3 MIXED USE TRAILS WITH SEASONAL CLOSURES

There are about 37 miles of existing trails and the proposed network in alternative 3 reduces this to 26 miles. Some trail segments will be rerouted, so there will be some new construction. The main parking area will be located on FS lands at the bottom of Courtney Road and avoid conflict with cultural resources in the general vicinity. Additional parking in the Burdoin area will be analyzed in the future

In alternative 3, 14 sites will be avoided by the recreation trails. Ten sites will either be bordered by or bisected by existing trails. In no cases, will new trails be constructed through significant or potentially significant archaeological sites. Sites that are adjacent to or bisected by trails will be routinely monitored for signs of further encroachment. One site has already been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. An existing trail bisects this site. While we don’t know how long the trail has been in place, it was present in 1994 when the site was recorded and in 1996 when the site was evaluated, nominated and listed on the National Register. In 2008, a cultural specialist an archaeologist from the Yakama Cultural Resources Department visited the site and suggested that monitoring and careful maintenance techniques on this trail would prevent any adverse effects to the site. Those recommendations will be incorporated into the trail maintenance plan for this section of trail (Dryden 2008).

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 64

Individual Effects of the Actions Effects of the Actions Effects of the Actions Indicator Alternative 1-No Action Alternatives 3 Alternatives 2 Table Implement Open Space Reduce trail length to 26- Reduce trail length to Plan and Keep some miles and relocate some 26.5-miles and relocate existing trails open. trails. some trails. Appx. 23-miles of trail would be provided.

INDICATORS Avoid Potential Effect Avoid Potential Effect Avoid Potential Effect Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Adverse but Not Effect Adverse Effect Adverse Effect Adverse

Sites Listed on National Register of 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Historic Places

Sites Eligible to the National 6 0 5 8 0 5 5 0 6 Register of Historic Places

Sites that may be found

Eligible to the 11 0 3 6 0 6 9 0 7 National Register of Historic Places

Sites that are not eligible to the National n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Register of Historic Places (11 cultural resources)

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 65

The actions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 may occur if they do not adversely affect significant cultural resources. There are 37 sites within the planning area. Of those sites, 11 have been evaluated as “not significant” and require no mitigation measures. The preceding table shows the 26 remaining sites and the potential effects from the project alternatives.

Twelve sites have been evaluated as significant and one of those has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Sixteen sites have not yet been evaluated but are being treated as if they are eligible to the NRHP.

Adverse effects could be caused by the following proposed actions:

New Trail Construction: (digging and scraping). Archaeological sites can be damaged by ground disturbance. Features and structures can be damaged by being knocked down.

Closing or Decommissioning Existing Trails: (digging and scraping) Archaeological sites can be damaged by ground disturbance. Features and structures can be damaged by being knocked down.

Recreational Use of Trails: Use of trails that go through archaeological sites and talus slopes may displace artifacts and features. Use of trails that go under and on top of significant geologic features may affect the natural context, natural vegetation and structural integrity. Recreational use can increase the risk that archaeological sites and geologic features will be damaged. However, the presence of recreational users may also hinder intentional looting of sites.

Mitigation Measures Specific to Alternative 3: Of the 37 sites, no mitigation measures are necessary for the 11 sites that are not significant and have been found to be “not eligible” to the NRHP. Twenty-six sites have either been found significant or are unevaluated and will be protected from ground disturbing actions through project design, primarily avoidance. Monitoring sites that are impinged by recreation trails. Maintenance plan for section of trail that bisects site 45KL327 ( Dryden, 2008).

To ensure that no historic properties are affected by the undertaking (36 CFR 800.4 (d)(1)), the following mitigation measures are required: • New trail construction and decommissioning of abandoned trails, will be restricted when they occur within the boundaries of eligible or unevaluated heritage resource sites as per the implementation requirements specified for cultural resources specified in Chapter 2. • Mitigation measures detailed above and outlined in (Dryden 2008) will be followed. • If any additional cultural resources are discovered during the implementation of this project, the Forest Service shall immediately notify the State Historic Preservation Office and the appropriate tribal governments as per the implementation requirements previously mentioned.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 66 Indirect, Long-Term and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1-No Action The indirect, long-term and cumulative effects of Alternative 1 are the same as the direct and indirect effects.

Indirect, Long-Term and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 Since there would be no effects to cultural resources under Alternative 2 or 3 and for other projects under the regulations in the Management Plan, there would be no cumulative effects as summarized below:

Overlap in Measurable Potential Extent, Project Cumulative Effects Time Space Detectable? Effect? Ground Project is completed. disturbance of Burdoin 1 No damage to buried archeological sites Allen archaeological sites or and property thin No Yes No combustible artifacts and or Burning of features occurred because of combustible implemented mitigation artifacts and or measures. features Ground disturbance of There may be an overlap in archeological sites timing of this project with Burdoin 2 Burning of Yes Yes Yes the Trail Project. Mitigation Thin combustible measures will protect sites artifacts and or from adverse effects. features Ground disturbance of There may be an overlap in Catherine archeological sites timing of this project with Forest Burning of Yes Yes Yes the Trail Project. Mitigation Restoration combustible measures will protect sites project artifacts and or from adverse effects. features Other projects on non-forest service lands may occur at the same time as the Trail Other Project; however, Gorge Developments Ground Commission review and on Private disturbance of conditions will prevent Yes No Yes and non- archeological sites adverse effects to significant Forest Service archaeological sites. There public lands is no indication that any known sites in the Trail Project area extend onto non-forest service lands. Major Creek Close and rehab Pit and Spur borrow pit. Gate Yes No No Not Evident. Rd Closure spur road

Finding of Effect

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 67

Application of criteria of effects [36 CFR 800.5 (A)(1)] suggest that the proposed undertaking would result in a finding of “No adverse effect” per 36 CFR 800.5(b). The undertakings effects do not meet the criteria of adverse effect (36CFR800-5(a)(1). The State Historic Preservation Officer and consulting Tribes have 30-days to review the findings.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 68 3.3 – NATURAL RESOURCES

3.3.1 - SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

The following analysis will describe existing conditions related to the soil and water resources in the Recreation Plan area. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects will be displayed for soil and water resources, for the no action and action alternatives.

ANALYSIS METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS The amount of soil disturbance from the project as well as the amount of disturbance in the general area of surface water will be used as measurements for potential erosion and sedimentation. This will be analyzed in the context of proposed mitigation measures to determine the overall potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects from this project.

EXISTING CONDITIONS The Recreation Plan area is located within portions of one two 6th field sub-watersheds; Major Creek (31.4 square miles in area) and Rowena Creek (50.5 square miles in area). The planning area is in a portion of the Middle Columbia/Grays Creek 5th field watershed.

There are many streams, some springs and wetlands located within these sub-watersheds. The primary streams in the planning area are Catherine Creek and Major Creek. Both are perennial fish-bearing streams that change to intermittent in the northern portion of the planning area.

Several other smaller unnamed perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams lie within the planning area. Ephemeral streams only run water for short periods of time after a storm or during high snowmelt conditions while perennial streams flow all year.

Water Quality Stream Temperature – Major Creek is the only stream in the planning area where water temperature data has been collected by the Forest Service. Data has been collected on continuous temperature recording data loggers in three locations on Major Creek (see figure below).

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 69

MA 350 N

MAJOR CREEK

MA 150

MA 120 Old Highway 8

Figure 15: Water temperature monitoring sites on Major Creek. The three sites are labeled MA 120, MA 150 and MA 350.

The highest 7-day average maximum stream temperatures for the years deployed ranged as follows:

Stream 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Major Creek Site 120 25.5°C 24.6 ND 23.5 24.2 22.7 23.8 Major Creek Site 150 ND ND 24.5 ND ND ND ND Major Creek Site 350 ND ND ND 22.4 22.8 21.7 ND ND = Not Deployed for that Year

Major Creek is listed on the 2004 State of Washington 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. New State Water Quality Standards were adopted on December 21, 2006 which includes new water temperature standards. The new standards identified for Catherine Creek, Major Creek and all of their tributaries are for core summer salmonid habitat temperatures that are not to exceed a 7-day average maximum of 16° C. The table below shows the number of days the 7-day average maximum temperature standard was exceeded for each year that the data loggers were deployed. The equipment is usually deployed between 120 and 140 days each year.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 70 Stream 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Major Creek Site 120 92 days 49 ND 104 98 95 80 Major Creek Site 150 ND ND 108 ND ND ND ND Major Creek Site 350 ND ND ND 68 99 76 ND ND = Not Deployed for that Year

The graph below shows the 7-day average maximum stream temperature for all of the years of deployment at site MA120. The y-axis is the temperature and the x-axis is the date. The main finding is that this station consistently exceeds the new temperature standard of 16° C.

7 Day Avg. Maximum Temperature- MA120

30

25 16° C State S dd 20 2000 2001 2003 2003 15 2004 2004 2005 10 2006 WATER TEMPERATURE C

5

0 1-Jan 20-Feb 11-Apr 31-May 20-Jul 8-Sep 28-Oct 17-Dec WEEK

Figure 16:Graph of 7-day average maximum stream temperatures for monitoring site MA120. Each line represents a separate deployment year. The 16° C standard is routinely exceeded as shown by the amount of time that the lines are above the red line that represents the standard. High stream temperatures are due primarily to low summer flow conditions and high air temperatures, but stream shading is also a concern in some areas.

Sediment –The main stem and East and West forks of Major Creek were surveyed in 1994 and 2001. The surveys include information on riparian area, stream channel and fish habitat conditions. According to the stream surveys, Major Creek lacks gravel and smaller sediment sized material in the channel. It also lacks large woody material in channel. This is due to the geomorphology of the basin; specifically most of the stream is a confined bedrock channel that traditionally has flashy flows that tend to move smaller substrate out very quickly. This problem is compounded by the lack of channel complexity (LWD) that would provide velocity breaks to retain this smaller substrate component. The only source of finer substrate material identified in stream surveys is the upper reaches of E. Fork. Major

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 71

Creek. This area has unstable stream banks that are providing finer substrate and wood to the Major Creek system.

Road density (miles of road per square mile of basin) can be used as a general indicator of potential problems associated with roads. One of those problems is introduction of coarse and fine sediment into area surface water. Road densities within a sub-watershed that exceed 3.0 miles per square mile indicate areas that should be examined more closely for specific sediment related problems, although it is possible to have isolated areas of road instability even in areas of low road density. This value is based on several years of observations by local Forest Service hydrologists, fish biologists, and earth scientists. Road density for Major Creek 6th field sub-watershed is 1.6 mi/mi2 and Rowena Creek 6th field sub-watershed is 4.6 mi/mi2. These figures represent a number of different road types and surfaces that range from State Highway 14 to native surfaced 4- wheel drive roads. Some erosion was noted during field visits, along native surface roads on non-National Forest land and in ditch-lines along some of the major roads. This erosion appeared to be isolated in ditch lines predominately related to a lack of relief culverts.

The new State of Washington turbidity standards for core summer salmonid habitat state that turbidity shall not exceed 5 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU) over background when background is 50 NTU or less. This applies to Catherine Creek, Major Creek and all of their tributaries. We currently don’t have any turbidity measurements for streams in this area.

Riparian Areas - Native riparian vegetation plays a key role in forming aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic species. Roots help stabilize stream banks, preventing accelerated bank erosion and providing for the formation of undercut banks, important cover for juvenile and adult fish. Riparian areas with native vegetation could supply downed trees (large wood) to streams. In turn, downed trees in streams influence channel morphology characteristics such as longitudinal profile; pool size, depth, and frequency; channel pattern; and channel geometry. Turbulence created by large wood increases dissolved oxygen in the water needed by fish, invertebrates and other biota. The extent of the hyporheic zone adjacent to and under the stream surface is increased by large wood in streams.

Riparian forest canopy protects streams from solar radiation in summer, and could moderate minimum winter nighttime temperature, preventing the incidence of anchor ice or freeze-up in streams (Beschta, et al., 1987). Changes in water temperature regime could affect the survival and vigor of fish, and affect interspecies interactions (FEMAT, 1993).

Riparian areas are dynamic. Disturbances characteristic of uplands such as fire and windthrow, as well as disturbances associated with streams, such as channel migration, floods, sediment deposition by floods and debris flows, shape riparian areas (FEMAT, 1993).

As part of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) in The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), Riparian Reserves were established “along streams and unstable and potentially unstable areas where special standards and guidelines direct land use” (NWFP ROD, B-12). Riparian Reserves are “portions of watershed where riparian-dependent resources receive primary

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 72 emphasis” and standards and guidelines “prohibit and regulate activities…that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (NWFP ROD, B-12). Riparian Reserve widths vary depending on the type of stream, wetland or unstable area.

In addition to Riparian Reserves, the Scenic Area Management Plan identifies buffers around aquatic features the provide protection to aquatic and riparian dependant organisms. Disturbing activities should be located outside these buffers unless there is no other “practicable alternative.” The CRGNSA Management Plan states that “A practicable alternative (for entering a water resources buffer) does not exist if a project applicant satisfactorily demonstrates all of the following:

• The basic purpose of the use cannot be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the vicinity that would avoid or result in less adverse effects on wetlands. • The basic purpose of the use cannot be reasonably accomplished by reducing its proposed size, scope, configuration, or density, or by changing the design of the use in a way that would avoid or result in less adverse effects on wetlands. • Reasonable attempts were made to remove or accommodate constraints that caused a project applicant to reject alternatives to the proposed use. Such constraints include inadequate infrastructure, parcel size, and land use designations.”

The table below displays the different buffer widths for the plans discussed above and the figure shows the location of riparian reserves.

Northwest Forest NSA Management Required buffer as mapped* Plan Plan Perennial non-fish bearing streams/springs 150 200 Fish bearing streams 300 200 Intermittent streams 100 50 Wetlands less than 1 acre, vernal pools 100 200 Wetland greater than 1 acre 150 200 Ponds 300 200 *Largest buffer required mapped (All units in feet)

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 73

Figure 17

Horse Use and Water Quality – There is a limited amount of literature available documenting the effects of recreational horse use to water quality. Recreation horse use on trails may constitute a potential non-point source of water quality impairment. The primary pollution that may result from horse use is sediment, pathogens, nutrients and total organic carbons. The following table outlines the contaminants, the specific pollutant and the basis for concern for this pollutant.

Contaminant Group Pollutant Measure Basis for Concern Turbidity Soil erosion from animal activity can introduce fine sediment which may Sediment degrade aquatic organism habitat by filling in gravels and pools in adjacent streams. Nitrates and Phosphates These originate from animal excrement. They Nutrients promote algal growth and (Organics) eutrophication. Total Organic Carbon These originate from (TOC) constituents of decomposed, eroded plant and animal waste.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 74 Bacteria These usually take the form of fecal streptococci (FS) which suggests possible pollution by animals especially when related to fecal coliform Pathogens (FC) and can be a health (Micro-organisms) hazard to humans. Protozoa Giardia and Cryptosporidium originate from animal excrement. These protozoa can be a health hazard to humans.

The major way contaminates listed in the table above enter water bodies is primarily through the following mechanisms: 1) direct and indirect soil detachment; 2) erosion and transport by runoff and 3) animal defecation and urination directly into open water. The potential level of pollution can be summarized as a function of: 1) domestic and wild animal population density; 2) coincidence of animal presence relative to the season, intensity and amount of precipitation; and 3) proximity and access of animals to, and the time spent within, water bodies and riparian zones. In addition, cumulative effects may result from the existence of other ground disturbing activities such as roads which may add additional sediment into area streams.

Horse use is currently confined, for the most part, to the Catherine Creek portion of the planning area. This is due to the lack of parking facilities that can accommodate horse trailers, the steep terrain in the western portion and proximity to private land. Personal observations and anecdotal information indicate a low level of horse use limited for the most part to the northern portion of the Catherine Creek area (Allen Oaks) and just north of Old Highway 8. Very little horse excrement has been noted in numerous field visits, but hoof prints have been observed when existing trails and roadbeds are muddy.

Soils and Geology The planning area lies on the south dipping limb of a large syncline that has formed in Columbia River basalt flows. The axis of the syncline trends east west with the Columbia River flowing west along this axis. These basalt flows tend to be fairly competent and no areas of mass wasting were noted within the planning area. Considerable rock-fall occurs along the Major Creek canyon and Coyote Wall and a large “apron” of talus can be found along the length of the both canyon walls. The Catherine Creek Arch is a natural basalt arch within a canyon wall and is a well known geologic feature identified in numerous books, trail guides, and web pages. The site is so well known that it is likely the most visited canyon wall site in the planning area. The typical public activity is to climb either up and down through the arch. This concentrated recreation activity in one small location may have some effects to the talus and cliff habitat that is dependent on this natural resource.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 75

The productivity and health of entire plant communities depend on the maintenance of healthy soils. Regional soil productivity protection standards were originally implemented in 1976, and have been revised several times since then (Pacific Northwest Region Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2001). Soils in the planning area are generally thin, ranging from 0” to 60” in depth. They range from silty clay loams on the flat grass covered benches to loams to gravelly loams on the steeper, tree covered areas (greater than 3% slope). Numerous areas of basalt outcrop are found throughout the Recreation Planning area mostly associated with canyon areas. Clasts within the soil range from a few inches in size to approximately 2 feet and are unsorted. Some localized thin clay layers were noted during field reconnaissance in this area.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Numerous existing plans provide guidance for projects in the form of Standards and Guidelines (S & G) and recommended Best Management Practices (BMP). These documents include the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan (LRMP), the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and associated supporting documents. A summary of applicable water quality S&G’s and BMP’s from these documents are displayed below.

Gifford Pinchot NF Forest Plan/Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Standards and Guidelines: • Standards and Guidelines dealing with Recreation Management – RM-1, 2. New or existing recreational facilities should not prevent meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. • Standards and Guidelines dealing with Riparian Reserves (NWFP ROD pg. C-31 through C-38). The primary S&G’s that pertain to this project are Recreation Management – RM-1, 2. • The Gifford Pinchot Land and Resource Management Plan states that “Trails should be located away from Riparian Areas D and E” which are lakes, ponds and wetlands and an influence zone that is typically 300 feet (GPNF Plan page IV-70).

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan (LRMP) SMA Guidelines: • Water Resources A1,2,6 • Soil Productivity A1,2,3,4 • Practicable Alternatives Test • Mitigation Plan

Other Pertinent Guidance: In addition to the plans discussed above other documents such as USFS “General Water Quality Best Management Practices” provide guidance about potential BMP’s for this project. Those BMP’s will be incorporated where appropriate.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 76 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ALTERNATIVE 1-NO ACTION

This alternative proposes to allow the continued use of the area outside the open space by recreationists as in the past. The Open Space plan will be implemented as described in the July 1995 Catherine Creek/Major Creek Open Space Plan newsletter. Effects related to water quality are described below.

Water Quality Stream Temperature – Approximately 5 miles of non-system trail is located in the Riparian Reserves. Stream temperatures would remain at current levels in the watershed due to no reduction in streamside shading along perennial streams. Primary shade zones (areas of riparian vegetation directly adjacent to streams) along perennial streams (Major Creek) would continue to fill in with understory vegetation. Since these areas are already densely vegetated, it is not anticipated that this component will reduce stream temperatures any great degree within the project area.

Erosion and Sediment – Erosion and sediment delivery to streams in the project area are expected to remain at current levels. Field surveys conducted during the spring and summer of 2008 indicate a number of non-system trail segments are actively eroding due to the lack of maintenance. Some of these segments are currently delivering eroded material to area streams. The map below shows some of the areas of erosion and areas of sediment delivery to streams.

Sediment Delivery

N

Sediment Delivery

Figure 18 – Trail segments shown in red are actively eroding. Segments shown with a thick red line are areas of greatest erosion. Segments shown in black are currently not actively eroding.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 77

Most of the erosion noted is due either to poor trail maintenance or poor trail location. Some segments of trail travel directly down the “fall line” of the slope so surface runoff stays in the trail tread. This runoff causes erosion of the tread up to 2 feet in depth. In other cases, surface runoff is flowing down existing tread due to lack of water bars, drain dips or other erosion control measures that move water off of the trail surface. Some of these segments are currently delivering eroded material to area streams. These trails appear to be used by bike and foot traffic and not horses. No major erosion or sedimentation was noted caused solely by horse use, due to the low use rate and the majority of use being on old roadbeds.

Erosion and sediment delivery to streams in the project area are expected to remain at current levels in areas outside of the Open Space designation. Current trails that aren’t in locations identified in the 1995 Catherine Creek/Major Creek Open Space Plan (most of the existing trails) will be decommissioned. This will result in an overall decrease in trail erosion and sediment delivery to Catherine Creek and Miners Creek just east of Catherine Creek.

Horse Use and Water Quality – As mentioned in the Existing Conditions section, the primary water pollution that may result from horse use is sediment, pathogens, nutrients and total organic carbons. Some studies have documented water pollution potential for recreational horse use, but more information is available about pollution potential from livestock. The major potential for water pollution is excrement deposited directly adjacent to surface water. Levels of fecal coliform in streams tend to be more closely related to livestock use in or adjacent to surface water. Swanson (1994) found that bacterial loads are reduced 95% only 7 feet from a feces deposit. In soil, fecal coliform (FC) and fecal streptococci (FS) survival varies with environmental conditions from 2 or 3 days in the summer to more than 20 days in the winter. Doyle, et al (1975) found no significant movement of FC and FS or nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P) further than 12.3 feet from source manure. Buckhouse and Gifford (1976) found that only the fecal patch and surrounding 1 meter radius were subject to bacterial pollution and suggested that “unless feces are deposited in or adjacent to a streambed, there is little danger of significant bacterial contamination.”

Additionally, some studies suggest that Giardia spp. and Cryptosporidium spp., are rare in horse manure and fecal Escherichia coli occurs in densities far lower than those found naturally in many wild mammal species. Johnson and others (1997) collected fecal samples from 91 different horses that were ridden in the California backcountry and analyzed the samples for Cryptosporidium oocysts or Giardia cysts. Horses ranged from 4 to 24 years of age. Because none of the 91 samples, collected 1 time from each horse, were positive and assuming that the sensitivity and specificity of the test methods employed were 100%, the “highest probable prevalence of shedding for either protozoal pathogen was < 3.2% for the cohort of horses studied”. Forde and others (1998) collected and analyzed fecal samples from 300 adult trail horses at various trailheads near large watersheds in Colorado between July and November, 1996. One horse (0.33%) was detected positive for Cryptosporidium and 2 horses (0.66%) were positive for Giardia. The study concluded that “the adult

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 78 recreational trail horse population is not likely to be a significant source of Cryptosporidium and Giardia environmental contamination in watershed areas”.

Horse use in Alternative 1 would be confined, for the most part, to areas outside the Open Space allocation. The exception would be the Atwood and Major Creek county roads. Lack of parking facilities that can accommodate horse trailers, the steep terrain in the western portion and proximity to private land would limit overall horse use in this alternative.

Given that studies indicate horses are not a significant source of pathogens and nutrients, the lack of mobility of most of the pollutants and low use levels, it is unlikely that horse use is currently or will be a major source of pollution in this area. A total of 37 stream crossings are available for horse use in this alternative. This is the highest number of crossings for all the alternatives, so this provides the highest relative risk to water quality from horse use.

Soil Productivity Soil productivity is expected to continue to change at current rates under this alternative. Similar to erosion risk described above, the expected effect is that the soils at landscape and site scales will respond and change proportionate to the severity of natural events such as storms or wildfire and the amount of recreation use. Existing trail use is causing some erosion, sedimentation and loss of soil productivity due to poor trail location and lack of maintenance. If trail use increases through time, it will have an increased detrimental effect on these conditions.

In summary, stream temperature isn’t expected to appreciably change in the project area. Existing trail use is causing some erosion, sedimentation and loss of soil productivity due to poor trail location and lack of maintenance. If trail use increases through time, it will have an increased detrimental effect on these conditions.

CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS

Water Quality Stream Temperature – No detrimental cumulative effects are expected as a result of increased water temperature due to maintaining existing vegetation adjacent to perennial streams. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, this project will maintain existing water temperatures.

Erosion and Sediment – There is a potential for cumulative effects related to erosion and sediment introduction in the area between Coyote Wall and Catherine Creek. As described in the direct and indirect effects section above, current trail systems are eroding and introducing sediment into some streams due to poor trail location and lack of maintenance. This sediment has the potential to mix with sediment generated from adjacent projects including Burdoin II and timber harvest activities on private land. This effect may be measurable at the 7th field watershed scale but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 79

Soil Productivity No measurable detrimental cumulative effects are expected to soil productivity. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, a localized reduction in soil productivity may occur due to existing erosion problems on the trails. This has the potential to mix with a reduction of soil productivity related to soil disturbance from Burdoin II and timber harvest activities on private land. In the Open Space area, overall soil productivity should increase due to a reduction of overall trail miles. It is expected that these abandoned segments will recover through time and productivity should increase.

Consistency with Direction (GPNF Plan and NSA Management Plan) As outlined in the effects section this project is consistent with some but not all of the applicable direction. Major highlights include:

• Current trail use in riparian areas does not have a Practicable Alternatives Test and Mitigation Plan. • Current use in some areas does not contribute to the attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (see analysis below).

Summary Cumulative Watershed Effects The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative watershed effects. It shows existing and potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with Alternative 1 of the Recreation Plan, whether these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is expected. Findings of this summary are supported by the analysis above which utilizes standards and guidelines:

Overlap in Measurable Potential Extent, Project Cumulative Effects Time Space Detectable? Effect? Suspended Project is completed. No Yes No Sediment No remaining sediment, Burdoin Stream stream temperature and No Yes No 1 Temperature water quantity effects due to mitigation Soil Productivity No Yes No implementation and natural recovery.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 80 There will be an overlap in timing of this project with effects from Alternative 1; implementation of Alternative 1 will result in continued erosion and sedimentation that has the Suspended potential to mix with Yes Yes Yes Sediment sediment generated from the Burdoin II project. This effect may be measurable at the 7th field watershed scale but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. Burdoin Alternative 1 will maintain II the primary shade zone Stream adjacent to perennial Yes Yes No Temperature streams so there should be no increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with Alternative 1; there will likely be an overall net decrease in soil Soil Productivity Yes Yes No productivity due to continued erosion from non-system trails, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with effects of Alternative 1; implementation of Alternative 1 will result in continued erosion and sedimentation that has the Suspended potential to mix with Yes Yes Yes Sediment sediment generated from Other harvest activities on private Private land. This effect may be Tree measurable at the 7th field Removal watershed scale but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. Alternative 1 will maintain the primary shade zone Stream adjacent to perennial Yes Yes No Temperature streams so there should be no increase in stream temperature. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 81

There may be an overlap in timing of this project with Alternative 1; there will likely be an overall net decrease in soil Soil Productivity Yes Yes No productivity due to continued erosion from non-system trails, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Alternative 1; implementation of Alternative 1 will result in Suspended continued erosion and Yes Yes No Sediment sedimentation, but mitigation associated with Invasive Plant Treatments is expected to minimize potential sediment from the activity. Alternative 1 will maintain the primary shade zone Stream adjacent to perennial Yes Yes No Temperature streams so there should be Invasive Plant Treatments no increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with Alternative 1; implementation of Alternative 1 will result in continued erosion and sedimentation, but Soil Yes Yes No mitigation associated with Productivity Invasive Plant Treatments are expected to minimize potential short term decreases in soil productivity and an overall long-term increase in productivity.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 82 There may be an overlap in timing of this project with Alternative 1; implementation of Alternative 1 will result in an overall reduction in Suspended erosion and sediment in the Yes Yes No Sediment Open Space area where most of the Catherine Forest Restoration Project is located in or adjacent to, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. Alternative 1 will maintain the primary shade zone Catherine Forest Restoration Stream adjacent to perennial Yes Yes No Project Temperature streams so there should be no increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with Alternative 1; implementation of Alternative 1 will result in an overall increase in soil Soil productivity in the Open Yes Yes No Productivity Space area where most of the Catherine Forest Restoration Project is located in or adjacent to, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ALTERNATIVE 2

This alternative proposes to designate a system of trails throughout the Catherine and Major Creek areas that would be open for use by non-motorized recreationists. Most of the trail system would utilize the existing non-system trails, but would also include some new trail construction. A detailed description of the location and type of treatments can be found in Chapter 2 of this document.

Water Quality Stream Temperature – Approximately 4.5 miles of system trail is proposed in the Riparian Reserves. Only 4700 feet of the trail system in Riparian Reserve is new construction, the rest is on the existing non-system trail alignment. The 4700 feet of new construction in Riparian Reserves is on an intermittent and ephemeral stream so no new construction will occur adjacent to perennial streams. Since stream side shading adjacent to perennial streams will not change from current levels, no change in stream temperature is expected from implementation of this alternative.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 83

Erosion and Sediment – Trail use has the potential to increase erosion and sedimentation. Trail deterioration in the form of erosion and vegetation trampling can be caused both by gradual or cataclysmic natural processes and by use from recreational traffic (Summer 1986; Tinsley and Fish 1985). Studies by Bayfield (1985, 1986) and by Lance and others (1989) have been conducted for periods up to 12 years in Scotland. These studies found that many trails increased in width, but some trails were relatively stable. Generally, newly developed trails and those experiencing increased use were most subject to change. Dale and Weaver (1974) found that trail widths increased linearly with the log of user numbers on trails in the North Rocky Mountain Forests. Whittaker (1978) compared surface impacts of hikers and horses in Great Smoky Mountain National Park and found that walking and riding both flattened vegetation significantly. Hikers reduced vegetation height by 85 percent and horses reduced vegetation height by 96 percent.

These and other studies indicate a general trend in the kinds of changes that may result from recreation use on trails, but suggest that other factors such as the natural geomorphology and amount of trail maintenance also may play a role. In Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, Summer (1980, 1986) found considerable variation in response between trails. Over 7 years, four of nine trail segments widened substantially, while the others were generally stable. Two of five segments deepened substantially. Summer (1980) found that new trails were particularly prone to degradation and that extent of degradation was often related to terrain characteristics. Fish and others (1981) and Tinsley and Fish (1985) studied trail erosion in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, TX. Over a 3.5-year period, little net erosion occurred as some trail segments experienced erosion, while others experienced deposition. The net effect was not significantly different from what was occurring off-trail. Similar results were reported by Cole (1983, 1991) in a study of change on trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, MT. Cole suggests that the trail system as a whole was generally stable but many trail segments changed markedly during his 11 year study period. Cole further suggests that the focus of trail management should be on specific problem segments, rather than on trails or trail systems. He summarized his findings and stated that “Most problems on the Selway-Bitterroot trails are (1) muddy conditions where the trail traverses soils that are frequently water saturated and (2) trail incision where the trail climbs steep slopes.” His recommendations include rerouting certain problem segments or mitigating sections using erosion control measures such as waterbars, drain dips or turnpiking.

As described in the No Action Alternative section, the current non-system trails contain a number of “problem” areas due to poor trail maintenance or poor trail location. A field survey was conducted on the current trail alignment during the spring and summer of 2008 and a number of areas that posed concerns due to erosion and sedimentation were identified and potential remedies were prescribed. These problem areas will be dealt with by trail rerouting or erosion control measures that will be implemented with Alternative 2.

Horse Use and Water Quality – As described in Alternative 1, recreational horse use has the potential to introduce pollutants into surface water. Alternative 2 proposes to maintain horse use at its current level while limiting the use to the dry time of the year (May 1 through November 30). A total of 14 stream crossings are available for horse use in this alternative. This is the lowest number of crossings for all the alternatives, so given the number of

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 84 crossings, maintaining current use levels and mitigation including limiting use to the dry time of the year provides the lowest relative risk to water quality from horse use.

Soil Productivity Detrimental soil conditions such as compaction and displacement have the potential to alter water movement through the soil and reduce site productivity. In addition, soil biology may be altered because of this change in soil structure. Poor soil biological systems may lead to difficulties in revegetation or decline in existing desirable vegetation. Soil biology is extremely difficult to evaluate because of the complex interactions between organisms and the soil habitats. It is assumed that soil biological systems will properly function given certain habitat components are present, such as non-compacted soils, appropriate levels of organic matter, and types of native vegetation under which the soil developed.

Management actions that change soil structure by displacement or compaction or that removes ground cover are considered to result in a greater risk to soil productivity. The primary actions for this project would be trail construction and use. Other aspects of the proposed action would not have a measurable effect on soil productivity and will therefore not be analyzed.

Soils underlying the primary trail tread are most likely to incur detrimental damage because they receive the most trips. Further away from the primary trail tread, soils are impacted less and less as fewer trips occur over them. Research described in the preceding section suggests that some segments of trail may increase in width as the amount of use increases. This will result in larger areas of decreased soil productivity due to additional compaction and displacement.

The placement of the 2.0 acre exclosure at the Catherine Creek Arch will ensure that this feature is protected and that the area continues to function as priority habitat for the talus and cliff, flora and fauna habitat. The exclosure will have no appreciable effect on the public’s ability to access and explore the canyon walls in the planning area.

Cumulative Effects

Water Quality

Stream Temperature – No detrimental cumulative effects are expected as a result of increased water temperature due to maintain existing vegetation adjacent to perennial streams. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, this project will maintain existing water temperatures.

Erosion and Sediment - No detrimental cumulative effects are expected as a result of erosion and sediment introduction because this alternative will correct a number of problem areas that exist now. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, there currently are a number of erosion and sediment delivery areas that will be fixed through trail relocation and maintenance which will reduce the potential of erosion and delivery of the material to adjacent surface water. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 85

Horse Use and Water Quality – Other potential sources of nutrients or pathogens in the area are other mammals and any fertilization that might be occurring on cropland well outside of the project area. The nearest agricultural land is several mile above the project boundary and not hydrologically connected to any of the surface water systems that have proposed horse use. In addition, no sections of any of the streams that exit the planning area are listed on the State of Washington 303 (d) list for any nutrients or pathogens, indicating a potential lack of concern associated with the parameters

Soil Productivity No detrimental cumulative effects are expected to soil productivity. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, some localized decrease in soil productivity may occur if use levels increase. Overall soil productivity should increase in the project area due to a reduction of overall trail miles. It is expected that these abandoned segments will recover through time and productivity should increase.

Consistency with Direction (GPNF Plan and CRGNSA Management Plan) As outlined in the effects section this project is consistent with applicable direction. Major highlights include:

• The inclusion of a Practicable Alternatives Test and Mitigation Plan. • Establishment of buffers and Riparian Reserves. • Designing prescriptions within Riparian Reserves to contribute to attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

Summary Cumulative Watershed Effects The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative watershed effects. It shows existing and potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with Recreation Plan, whether these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is expected. Findings of this summary are supported by the analysis above which utilizes pertinent research, mitigation measures and design features and applicable management standards and guidelines:

Overlap in Measurable Potential Extent, Project Cumulative Effects Time Space Detectable? Effect? Suspended No Yes No Sediment Project is completed. Burdoin 1 Stream No remaining sediment, stream temperature No Yes No Temperature and water quantity effects due to mitigation Soil implementation and natural recovery. No Yes No Productivity There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan will Suspended Burdoin II Yes Yes No result in an overall reduction in erosion and Sediment sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 86 The Recreation Plan will maintain the primary Stream shade zone adjacent to perennial streams so Yes Yes No Temperature there should be no increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net increase in soil Soil Yes Yes No productivity due to the reduction of total trail Productivity miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan will Suspended Yes Yes No result in an overall reduction in erosion and Sediment sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. . Other The Recreation Plan will maintain the primary Private Stream shade zone adjacent to perennial streams so Yes Yes No Tree Temperature there should be no increase in stream Removal temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net increase in soil Soil Yes Yes No productivity due to the reduction of total trail Productivity miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan will Suspended Yes Yes No result in an overall reduction in erosion and Sediment sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. . The Recreation Plan will maintain the primary Invasive Stream shade zone adjacent to perennial streams so Plant Yes Yes No Temperature there should be no increase in stream Treatments temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net increase in soil Soil Yes Yes No productivity due to the reduction of total trail Productivity miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan will Suspended Yes Yes No result in an overall reduction in erosion and Catherine Sediment sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be Forest measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed Restoration scale. Project The Recreation Plan will maintain the primary Stream shade zone adjacent to perennial streams so Yes Yes No Temperature there should be no increase in stream temperature.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 87

There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net increase in soil Soil Yes Yes No productivity due to the reduction of total trail Productivity miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 in that it proposes to designate a system of trails throughout the Catherine and Major Creek areas but would open up all trails to use by non- motorized recreationists during certain times of the year. Most of the trail system would utilize the existing non-system trails, but would also include some new trail construction. A detailed description of the location and type of treatments can be found in Chapter 2 of this document.

Water Quality Stream Temperature – Approximately 4.7 miles of system trail is proposed in the Riparian Reserves. Only 2600 feet of the trail system in Riparian Reserve is new construction, the rest is on the existing non-system trail alignment. The 2600 feet of new construction in Riparian Reserves is on an intermittent and ephemeral stream so no new construction will occur adjacent to perennial streams. Since stream side shading adjacent to perennial streams will not change from current levels, no change in stream temperature is expected from implementation of this alternative.

Erosion and Sediment – Effects for Alternative 3 should be similar to those described in Alternative 2, but there may be additional trail widening and incision in some areas on the east end due to increased use. Alternative 3 opens up trails on the east side to all non- motorized use during certain parts of the year. In addition, there is a higher risk of additional unsanctioned trail construction as use of this eastern area increases. A high potential for unsanctioned trail construction is in the Tracy Hill area which has no proposed trail routes. The overall extent of new erosion and sedimentation will be limited due to trail maintenance and location that should correct any damage that may result on the proposed trail system. Any unsanctioned trails would have higher erosion and sedimentation potential due to the lack of maintenance and the potential for improper trail location.

Horse Use and Water Quality – As described in Alternative 1, recreational horse use has the potential to introduce pollutants into surface water. Alternative 3 proposes to maintain horse use at its current level while limiting the use to the dry time of the year (July 1 through November 30). A total of 42 stream crossings are available for horse use in this alternative which is the highest number of crossings for all the alternatives. This is the almost the same number of crossings as Alternative 1, so given the number of crossings, maintaining current use levels and mitigation including limiting use to the dry time of the year provides a lower relative risk than Alternative 1 to water quality but a higher risk than Alternative 2.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 88 Soil Productivity Effects for Alternative 3 should be similar to those described in Alternative 2, but there may be additional loss of soil productivity in some areas on the east end due to increased use. Soils underlying the primary trail tread are most likely to incur detrimental damage because they receive the most trips. Further away from the primary trail tread, soils are impacted less and less as fewer trips occur over them. Research described in the proceeding section suggests that some segments of trail may increase in width as the amount of use increases. This will result in larger areas of decreased soil productivity due to additional compaction and displacement.

In addition, there is a higher risk of additional unsanctioned trail construction as use of this eastern area increases which will result in additional loss of soil productivity. As described above, a high potential for unsanctioned trail construction is in the Tracy Hill area which has no proposed trails.

Cumulative Effects

Water Quality Stream Temperature – No detrimental cumulative effects are expected as a result of increased water temperature due to maintain existing vegetation adjacent to perennial streams. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, this project will maintain existing water temperatures.

Erosion and Sediment - No detrimental cumulative effects are expected as a result of erosion and sediment introduction because this alternative will correct a number of problem areas that exist now. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, there currently are a number of erosion and sediment delivery areas that will be fixed through trail relocation and maintenance which will reduce the potential of erosion and delivery of the material to adjacent surface water. It is anticipated that trail widening and incision will increase as use increases in the eastern portion of the plan area. This will likely result in additional erosion but this will likely not be measurable at the 5th and 6th field level.

Horse Use and Water Quality – Other potential sources of nutrients or pathogens in the area are other mammals and any fertilization that might be occurring on cropland well outside of the project area. The nearest agricultural land is several mile above the project boundary and not hydrologically connected to any of the surface water systems that have proposed horse use. In addition, no sections of any of the streams that exit the planning area are listed on the State of Washington 303 (d) list for any nutrients or pathogens, indicating a potential lack of concern associated with the parameters.

Soil Productivity No detrimental cumulative effects are expected to soil productivity. As described in the direct and indirect effects section, some localized decrease in soil productivity may occur if use levels increase. It is anticipated that trail widening, incision and loss of soil productivity will increase as use increases in the eastern portion of the plan area. This will likely result in additional loss of soil productivity but this will likely not be measurable at the 5th and 6th 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 89 field level. Overall soil productivity should increase in the project area due to a reduction of overall trail miles.

Consistency with Direction (GPNF Plan and CRGNSA Management Plan) As outlined in the effects section this project is consistent with applicable direction. Major highlights include:

• The inclusion of a Practicable Alternatives Test and Mitigation Plan. • Establishment of buffers and Riparian Reserves. • Designing prescriptions within Riparian Reserves to contribute to attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

Summary Cumulative Watershed Effects The table below provides a qualitative summary of potential cumulative watershed effects. It shows existing and potential projects, effects from those projects that may result in cumulative effects with Recreation Plan, whether these projects overlap in time and space and an assessment if a measurable cumulative effect is expected. Findings of this summary are supported by the analysis above which utilizes pertinent research, mitigation measures and design features and applicable management standards and guidelines:

Overlap in Measurable Potential Extent, Project Cumulative Effects Time Space Detectable? Effect? Suspended Project is completed. No Yes No Burdoin Sediment No remaining sediment, stream 1 Stream temperature and water quantity effects No Yes No Temperature due to mitigation implementation and Soil Productivity No Yes No natural recovery. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan Suspended Yes Yes No will result in an overall reduction in Sediment erosion and sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. The Recreation Plan will maintain the Burdoin Stream primary shade zone adjacent to Yes Yes No II Temperature perennial streams so there should be no increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net Soil Productivity Yes Yes No increase in soil productivity due to the reduction of total trail miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of Other this project with the Recreation Plan; Private Suspended implementation of the Recreation Plan Yes Yes No Tree Sediment will result in an overall reduction in Removal erosion and sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 90 field watershed scale. The Recreation Plan will maintain the Stream primary shade zone adjacent to Yes Yes No Temperature perennial streams so there should be no increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net Soil Productivity Yes Yes No increase in soil productivity due to the reduction of total trail miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan Suspended Yes Yes Yes will result in an overall reduction in Sediment erosion and sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. The Recreation Plan will maintain the Invasive Stream primary shade zone adjacent to Plant Yes Yes Yes Temperature perennial streams so there should be no Treatments increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net Soil Yes Yes Yes increase in soil productivity due to the Productivity reduction of total trail miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; implementation of the Recreation Plan Suspended Yes Yes No will result in an overall reduction in Sediment erosion and sediment, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale. Catherine The Recreation Plan will maintain the Forest Stream primary shade zone adjacent to Yes Yes No Restoration Temperature perennial streams so there should be no Project increase in stream temperature. There may be an overlap in timing of this project with the Recreation Plan; there will likely be an overall net Soil Yes Yes No increase in soil productivity due to the Productivity reduction of total trail miles, but it is unlikely that it will be measurable at the 5th or 6th field watershed scale.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 91

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

In order for a project to proceed, “a decision maker must find that the proposed management activity is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives” (ROD B-10). The nine objectives are listed on page B-11 of the ROD. Portions of the effects analysis in this document have focused on key parameters or indicators that make up elements of the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, to determine if the project would restore, maintain, or degrade these indicators. Once this determination is made, the indicators are examined together to ascertain whether the project is consistent with the objectives. The following table displays the individual indicators and the effect the action alternatives have on those indicators at the 5th, 6th and 7th field watershed scale. Fifth field watersheds are generally large in size (40,000 acres to 250,000 acres), while 6th and 7th field watersheds are smaller (5,000 acres to 40,000 acres and 2,000 acres to 5,000 acres respectively).

Indicators Effects of the Actions Alternative 1-No Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Action Restore Restore Restore Maintain Degrade Degrade Degrade Maintain Maintain 1

1 1

3 3

2 2 2 3

Water Quality: Temperature X X X Sediment X4 X X Chemical Contamination X X Habitat Access: Physical Barriers X X X Habitat Elements: X X X Substrate Large Woody Debris X X X Pool Frequency X X X Pool Quality X X X Off-channel Habitat X X X Refugia X X X Channel Conditions and X X X Dynamics: Width/Depth Ratio Streambank Condition X X X Floodplain Connectivity X X X Flow/Hydrology: Peak/Base Flows X X X Drainage Network Increase X X X Watershed Conditions: X X X Riparian Reserves 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 92

1“Restore” means the action(s) would result in acceleration of the recovery rate of that indicator.

2“Maintain” means that the function of an indicator does not change by implementing the action(s) or recovery would continue at its current rate.

3“Degrade” means changing the function of an indicator for the worse. 4 Degrade or restore at 7th field sub watershed scale only.

The following summarizes the Individual Indicator Table:

• The proposed project would construct a trail system utilized by non-motorized recreationists. This would correct a number of erosion and sedimentation problem areas that exist now in a series of non-system trails. Benefits from implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would be seen at the 7th field sub-watershed scale. • Indicators other than those described in the bullet above would be maintained as outlined in the effects analysis above.

The following table displays specific Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and the indicators from the previous table that comprise each objective. All of the indicators that are checked for a particular objective should be evaluated together to determine whether the action maintains or enhances the specific Aquatic Conservation Strategy objective.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 93

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Indicators #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

Temperature X X X X

Sediment X X X X X

Chem. Contam. X X X

Physical Barriers X X X X

Substrate X X X X

Large Woody Debris X X X

Pool Frequency X X

Pool Quality X X

Off-Channel Habitat X X X X

Refugia X X X X

Width/Depth Ratio X X X

Streambank X X X X Condition

Floodplain X X X X X X Connectivity

Peak/base Flows X X X

Drainage Network X X X Increase

Riparian Reserves X X X X X X X X

The following is a summary the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (ROD B-10) and how the action alternatives would influence them:

1. Maintain The Distribution, Diversity And Complexity Of Watershed And Landscape-Scale Features: This project would not reduce the distribution, diversity and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features. New trail crossings are proposed but the crossings will be constructed to minimize aquatic habitat fragmentation by utilizing 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 94 bridges and properly sized culverts where appropriate. These crossings would not result in any long-term aquatic habitat fragmentation. 2. Maintain Spatial And Temporal Connectivity Within And Between Watersheds: The project would maintain the spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. New stream crossings associated with the trail construction would be bridges which would maintain spatial and temporal connectivity. 3. Maintain The Physical Integrity Of The Aquatic System, Including Streambanks, Side channels (Refugia), And Channel Bottom Configurations: This project would meet this objective through mitigation measures, design criteria and the protection provided by Riparian Reserves. The proposed action alternatives would fix erosion and sediment problems that currently exist on the non-system trails. 4. Maintain Water Quality Necessary To Support Healthy Ecosystems: This project would meet this objective through mitigation measures, design criteria and protection provided by Riparian Reserves which would maintain stream temperature. Mitigation measures and design criteria aimed at reducing erosion would maintain the reduce sediment levels in the long-term. These measures are discussed in detail in the Soil Productivity and Water Quality section. 5. Maintain Sediment Regimes: This project would enhance this objective in the long run by fixing erosion and sediment problems that currently exist on the non-system trails. 6. Maintain In-Stream Flows That Are Closer To Natural Regimes: This project would meet this objective through mitigation measures, design criteria aimed at regulating runoff from the parking area and protection provided by Riparian Reserves. 7. Maintain The Timing, Variability, And Duration Of Floodplain Inundation: This project would meet this objective through mitigation measures, design criteria aimed at regulating runoff from the parking area and protection provided by Riparian Reserves 8. Maintain The Species Composition And Structural Diversity Of Plant Communities In Riparian Areas And Wetlands: This project would meet this objective through protection provided by Riparian Reserves. 9. Maintain And Restore Habitat To Support Well-Distributed Populations Of Native Plant And Riparian Dependent Species: The project would meet this objective with mitigation measures and protection provided by Riparian Reserves.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 95

3.3.2 - FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS

This section will describe the existing condition and examine the effects of the alternatives on fish, wildlife and plants. Emphasis will be placed on habitat types and guilds of species using each habitat type. Thus, these species become proxies for a larger group of species that may use that habitat. As required by the Endangered Species Act, all federal and state threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will still be described individually (please see Appendix A – Biological Evaluation), as well as placed within a habitat related grouping to better describe potential effects of each alternative.

Catherine Creek area was identified as a Natural Area and designated as Open Space to protect these values. The natural resource values include the large number of rare plants, the unique occurrences of listed wildlife species, and the good condition of the oak woodlands and shallow soil habitats. Of particular interest is the rare habitat formed as a result of the Missoula floods which removed all but a shallow remnant of the top soil at the lower elevations. The combination of these drought prone areas, oak habitats, and the warm southern exposure, the area supports many rare, or disjunct populations of both flora and fauna which require appropriate measures to protect their viability. Because of the delicate nature of the soils and the open landscape, recreation use and other developments are more likely to disturb populations of sensitive species and their habitats.

ANALYSIS METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS Local plant and animal species have had thousands of years to adapt, and thrive, in specific habitat conditions within the Gorge. Assuming that healthy habitats will provide for healthy populations and species diversity, our approach was to evaluate and measure the health and function of the habitats. For example, a diversity of native plants will support a diversity of invertebrates which in turn will support diversity in insectivorous birds, which in turn supports a diverse predatory guild, etc. As explained above, because the proposal relates to trails and recreation use, the habitat is only being changed by the degree of human presence and the cumulative foot-print of a trail system. Human recreation is dispersed over a large area and is well documented to cause unintended impacts to local wildlife. Evaluation of recreation trail use and its potential impact to local wildlife and plant communities will be described based on relevant scientific literature and local area expertise.

This analysis also includes the review of all known and new sites of sensitive species (federal and state-listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, and state concern species). Field surveys were undertaken, as per appropriate protocols, and all findings documented for both flora and fauna. Appropriate protection measures as outlined in this document in Chapter 2 will be implemented to ensure protection of the species and their habitats. The continued health of these species and their habitat will be measured through monitoring of pre and post project implementation also described in Chapter 2.

Prior to this Burdoin Mountain/Coyote Wall/Catherine Creek Recreation Environmental Assessment (EA), there was completed a 2009 Burdoin II Thin EA, a 2007 Catherine Forest Restoration EA, and a 2002 Burdoin EA, all with accompanying Biological Evaluations.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 96

The potential impact of recreation use was measured by calculating the miles of trail located in each square mile of priority wildlife habitat. More weight was given to habitat areas that are currently in the best functioning condition.

The wildlife values (more so for fauna than flora) within the project area decreases as one travels westward due to the proximity to roads, homes and other development that fragments the natural habitat. For this reason, we gave a value of 1 to areas west of Coyote Wall (Burdoin), 2 to the area from Coyote wall to Catherine (Coyote), and 3 to the Catherine analysis area (Refer to Data Table 4 on page III-57 to see how these values were used in the analysis).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The following applicable standards and guidelines were used to form the criteria for this effects analysis:

Northwest Forest Plan Amendment to Standards and Guidelines • Pre-disturbance surveys will be conducted for Survey and Manage species.

Gifford Pinchot National Forest LRMP Forest-wide standards and guidelines.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species • All project areas affected by Management activities will be reviewed for Sensitive, Threatened, or Endangered plant and animal species. • A biological evaluation will be conducted before any ground disturbing activities occur which may adversely affect sensitive species. • Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required for each program activity or project that the Fish and Wildlife Service determines may affect threatened or endangered species and will be completed before any decision is made on the proposed project. Management activities must be conducted in such a manner that they will not impair recovery of any threatened or endangered species.

Cooperation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife • Projects, programs, policies, and other activities affecting fish and wildlife should receive advice and review of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Special Habitat Management Objectives • Special habitats, such as caves, cliffs, mineral licks, and talus slopes will be evaluated during project planning to determine biological significance, habitat value, and any necessary protection measures. • Road, trail, and area closures may be employed to reduce wildlife harassment and disturbance to sensitive plants and fungi populations.

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Management Plan

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 97

• All water resources shall, in part, be protected by establishing undisturbed buffer zones as specified in …. (NSA Management Plan, p. I-3-33). • The local…. shall use the following criteria in reviewing and evaluating the site plan to ensure that the proposed development or uses do not compromise the integrity and function or result in adverse affects to the wildlife or plant area or site (NSA Management Plan, p. I-3-35 through p.I-3-36). • Maintain, protect, and enhance the integrity and function of priority habitats (including oak woodlands, old-growth forests, talus, and others).

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Background The Catherine/Major Creek watersheds contain a high diversity of plants and animals – a reflection of the unique combination of habitats juxtaposed in the relatively small watersheds. Presently there is suitable habitat for 23 terrestrial sensitive wildlife species, with 17 terrestrial sensitive wildlife species known to exist within the planning area (see Biological Evaluation in Appendix A, page 1). Considering that the study area is less than 9.5 square miles, the percentage of sensitive species that occurs in this limited area is large relative to other locations within the Columbia River Gorge. Within this area are 7.3 square miles (4700 acres) that are managed by the Forest Service. One species found in this area is known to only occur here in Washington State (California Mountain Kingsnake), while other species are at the very northernmost edge of their range in this area (lesser goldfinch, ash-throated flycatcher), while others are primarily found only within the Columbia River Gorge (Larch Mountain salamander). This is particularly true for plants as well, especially at the low elevations where thin soils create unique habitats. Some examples of rare flora found within this area include Marigold Navarretia, Western Ladies-Tresses, and Blue Cup and Barrett’s Penstemon, Thompson’s Lupine, and Columbia Desert Parsley which are local endemics.

In 1988, the Washington State Heritage Program identified this unique natural resource and strongly recommended that the Catherine Creek area be designated as a Natural Area. To implement this, the area was designated as Open Space in the NSA Management Plan, specifically to protect the high biodiversity and unique habitats. An Open Space Plan was developed with recommendations to restrict use of the Open Space areas in order to protect the uniqueness of its natural resources. This protection becomes more important as adjacent human populations and related recreation development continue to grow.

Priority habitat is defined as, “a habitat type with unique or significant value to many species”. Priority habitats in the planning area are shown on the map in the Introduction section of Chapter 3 on page III-1. The key habitats (listed as a priority habitats by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife) found within this project area are the oak-pine forest, riparian, cliffs, and talus. The oak-pine forest is close to its northern limits, and has many unique species associated with it, such as the disjunct population of California Mountain kingsnake and western gray squirrel. Intact low-elevation talus is a rare habitat

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 98 feature in the Pacific Northwest region, with an unusually large concentration in the Columbia River Gorge. More information on wildlife habitat and conservation recommendations can be found on the Washington and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife websites at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsgpage.htm, and http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/index.asp.

Within the grassland priority habitat is a unique habitat called scab lands which are shallow soils resulting from the Missoula Floods about 10,000 years ago. The floods swept away all but a remnant of the top soil leaving behind a unique habitat which supports many rare plants. This habitat is limited to the area below about 800 ft elevation throughout the Columbia Gorge and is of particular interest at Catherine Creek because of the rainfall it receives (about 20 inches/yr.) and the southern exposure of the area creating the outstanding floral displays early in the spring. The same ensemble of conditions occurs at the Rowena Plateau on the Oregon side of the Gorge with similar floral displays and a similar group of rare flora. For a more comprehensive list, see the Biological Evaluation within this document or the table below.

Habitat and associated species known to occur within the planning area There are generally 6 different habitat types within the study area, which are displayed in the table below. Most (except grasslands) are also priority habitats. In the right hand column are the groups of species associated with each habitat type, as well as all known TES species.

Fish, wildlife and plants associated with study area habita. (All habitats are priority habitat with the exception of grasslands) Species or groups that are Specific TES species associated associated with this habitat with this habitat type type Oregon white Neo-tropical migrant birds, Western gray squirrel, C.A. oak woodpeckers, Western gray Mountain king snake, sharptail woodlands or squirrel, lizards, snakes, snake, nightsnake, flammulated oak savanna invertebrates, 2 listed plant owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, acorn spp., woodpecker, lesser goldfinch, ash-throated flycatcher, Pacific pallid bat, Suksdorf’s lomatium, Meconella oregana, Talus Pika, bushy-tailed woodrat, Larch Mountain salamander, lizards, snakes, salamanders, 1 Dalles sideband snail, Columbia listed endemic plant spp. Oregonian, Southern alligator lizard, Barrett’s penstemon (endemic) Cliff Raptors, raven, crow, bats, 1 Peregrine falcon, golden eagle, listed plant spp. pacific pallid bat, Barrett’s penstemon Grassland Meadowlark, 5 listed plant Merlin (post breeder), Pacific

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 99

(Including spp., 1 endemic plant pallid bat, Hood River milk vetch, scab lands) marigold navarretia, western ladies-tresses, blue-cup, false- pimpernel, broad- leaf lupine (endemic), Tillaea aquatica Riparian area Virtually all wildlife species Western Toad, sharptail snake, use riparian corridors as CA. mountain kingsnake, foraging areas, nesting, or Western gray squirrel, Dalles travel corridors during some sideband, Columbia Oregonian portion of their life history. Streams, Fairy shrimp, invertebrates, Mid-Columbia River Steelhead, springs, and amphibians, 1 listed plant Western Toad, Bald Eagle vernal pools (foraging), Pristine springsnail, Columbia duskysnail, Dalles sideband snail, Columbia Oregonian snail, Scribnaria bolanderi

The overall existing vegetation types within the project area can be referenced via a map in the Forest Ecosystem Components section in Chapter 3, page III-42.

Human activities and their associated impacts have changed over time. A brief history is described here to provide context for how past and present human activities impact the area’s habitats. Prior to the influx of European migrants, the diversity and structure of the habitats had developed over thousands of years with frequent, low intensity fires. The once diverse ground cover of native bunch grasses and herbaceous flora, including balsam root, lupines, and frasera, supported an equally diverse invertebrate population. This diversity was the key to supporting not only the food base for diverse avian populations but a diverse vegetation structure for their habitat needs (nesting and cover). This under-story flora not only occurred in the open grass lands, but was equally important in the under-story of the oak and pine woodlands. Remnants of this rich under-story can be found in the region, but is relatively rare within the Gorge. Today, it is this diversity which draws so many people to Oregon’s Rowena Plateau, one of the few places where it can be experienced.

During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, this under-story diversity collapsed under the pressure of fire exclusion and overgrazing. The native bunch grasses and herbaceous plants were not adapted to the high density of sheep and cattle and soon disappeared--to be replaced by the annual grasses from Europe brought in by settlers and their livestock. As the diversity of native flora collapsed, the diversity of all those native populations dependent on them for food and/or habitat likewise decreased.

During this same time period, the structure of the oak-pine woodland also underwent major change due to the logging of the largest pines and oaks and fire exclusion, beginning in the early 1900’s (Johnson and O’Neil, 2001, Agee, 1993). As new seedlings germinated, fire no longer thinned them out regularly, and dense stands began to develop under the larger trees, competing for scarce water. Larger trees not yet logged consequently began to succumb to drought stress and subsequent beetle attacks. With the loss of large dominant over-story 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 100 trees, mast production (acorn and pine nuts) declined, and the upper canopy habitat structure of the oak woodlands virtually vanished. Across its range, the oak-pine woodland habitat, and the ecosystem it supported, was significantly disrupted by this structural change.

Fire exclusion not only affected the survival of large trees but has allowed young Douglas- fir trees (that previously had not been able to grow with a frequent fire regime) to invade the oak-pine woodlands. This slow, but steady, encroachment has caused thousands of oak-pine habitat acres to be converted to Douglas fir stands. This can easily be witnessed by closely examining young Douglas-fir stands within the project area and noting large, once-open- grown oaks dead or succumbing to over-shading by the faster-growing fir trees.

These changes have affected the habitats that once existed throughout the project area. The food sources have changed as mast production has dwindled and diversity of species has dropped. Structural components have likewise changed from more open oak-pine to more thickly shaded Douglas-fir. Shrubs, once common, are now becoming scarce due to the shaded conditions from the encroaching firs. Tree ages have changed dramatically. Large and old pines are virtually gone. Old oaks, with all their cavities, are rapidly disappearing. While species dependent on fir communities have taken advantage of this change, those species that were once dependent on the habitats of pre-European times, have either adapted or their populations have decreased. This is likely the case with such species as the western gray squirrel, the Lewis’ woodpecker, bats, and a host of invertebrates and pollinators, not to mention those species that are specifically associated with these oak-pine habitats like the California mountain kingsnake and southern alligator lizard.

While many of the floral species are not listed or noted by most observers, their populations have also dwindled as a result of the human-caused changes. The balsam root and locally endemic lupine, which once abundantly covered large areas of open grasslands and open woodlands, has now become restricted to small areas where, for one reason or another, grazing has not eliminated it. Other less common species, such as the mountain lady slipper, have likewise decreased in numbers.

Existing Condition: Terrestrial species and habitat The Forest Service is presently working to restore oak/pine habitats to better reflect their historic functions (e.g. see Catherine Forest Restoration EA, and Burdoin and Burdoin II EAs). The function of this habitat can only be complete if the human interaction is maintained at an acceptable level which does not in itself further degrade the habitat function by creating disturbance impacts deleterious to wildlife and flora. The current increasing recreation trend on public lands is directly influenced by a combination of increases in population, economic prosperity and technological advances in recreational equipment (Youmans, 1999). The graphs below display how the human population and density of Oregon and Washington states has grown steadily in the last 50 years.

This continuous growth trend subjects fauna and flora to a chronic decrease in habitat through conversion of their habitat to housing tracts and related road networks. The interrelated impact of recreation on the remaining wildlife habitat on public lands thus 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 101 becomes a more crucial issue when coupled with the steady loss and fragmentation of habitat on surrounding private and commercial forest lands. The surrounding landscape outside of Forest Service National Scenic Area lands is fragmented through conversion to agricultural land, housing or utility corridors. The Columbia River itself has been changed from a cold free-flowing river to a warmer slow-moving reservoir, as controlled by Bonneville Dam.

Increasing human population and density trend for the Pacific Northwest

Within the Columbia River Gorge, established recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, horse-back riding, wind surfing and hiking, has been augmented by increasing new recreation trends, such as mountain biking, off-trail downhill biking, climbers, kite- boarding, ORV use, and orienteering/geo-caching. Each new form of recreation enlarges the footprint of human activity into previously undisturbed wildlife habitat or into new seasons of use. This upward trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future and will directly impact conservation of wildlife through loss of habitat or degradation of habitat from overuse, if careful planning or limits on use is not implemented (Mills, 2007).

The increase in recreation use of the Coyote Wall to Catherine Creek area has been most dramatic over the last 10 years. The number of trails has increased to the current condition of over 37 miles; with almost all trails created by recreation user groups. A decade ago, the area was used mostly for hiking (and occasional dog walking) during spring and early summer, with hunting occurring during the spring (turkey) and fall (September archery and November rifle for deer) seasons. Horse-back riding use also occurred at a low rate, mostly in the Catherine Creek area, on the Atwood and Major Creek Roads where equestrians tend to stay on established routes and road beds. Since that time, these uses have increased, and have been expanded by mountain biking that occurs almost year-round from Coyote Wall and areas to the west of Catherine Creek. Mountain biking has overtaken hiking as the predominant recreation use in the area. Rock climbing also is starting to get more interest in a few locations in the project area. Existing recreation use has been captured in more detail in the recreation chapter section 3.6.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 102 The overall increase, in numbers of recreationists, miles of trails, and season of use, has a steady, incremental impact on the functional aspects of the habitat from disturbance and fragmentation of the habitat. The table below displays the existing trail miles for each of the alternatives being considered in this document.

Table of miles of trail by sub-area, and alternatives1. Revised Alt. 3 Existing Trails Alt 1 Alt 2 Miles trail Miles Sq. Mi. of Areas trail Miles Sq. Mi. of Areas trail Miles Sq. Mi. of Areas trail Miles Sq. Mi. of Areas Sq . Mi .

of

Areas

Areas Burdoin (West) 1.8 4.9 2.8 4.9 2.8 2.8 1.6 2.8 1.6 Coyote (Middle) 2.3 12.8 5.6 11.2 4.9 11.2 4.9 11.2 4.9 Catherine(East) 5.3 19.2 3.6 7.2 1.4 13.2 2.5 12.5 2.4 Totals: 9.3 37.0 4.0 23.3 2.5 27.2 2.9 26.4 2.8 1 Total miles per alternative is based on the April 2010 GIS model run completed for the priority habitat analysis. The alternative with the least miles of trail per square mile of priority habitats (cliff, talus, pine-oak, stream/springs and riparian) will generally have the least disturbance effects to local wildlife species. The project area is divided into sub-areas (Burdoin, Coyote, Catherine) to recognize that the quality of habitat improves for wildlife from west to east; with the best habitat considered to be in the Catherine sub-area. Habitats specifically affected by current recreation use include oak woodlands, cliff and riparian areas.

Flora – Existing Condition In 1997 when the Open Space Plan for Catherine Creek was completed, there were no trails established in the Coyote Area. Hikers used the road going towards the arch and up to the hillsides to the north; some use was occurring along the Atwood road and a small amount of recreation use was occurring on the private lands above Coyote Wall. Mountain bike use was essentially non-existent. The user trails caused by hiking were un-discernable from game or cattle trails. There were very little impacts to the flora resulting from recreation use. On private lands (later acquired by the Forest Service) the impacts to flora were largely from cattle grazing. Since that time, the number of recreation trails has dramatically increased to the densities summarized in the above tables. The impacts from these uses was not at first noted; but over time the increase in the number of trails and the expanding human and animals (horse) use began to show significant impacts. The majority of these impacts are caused by hiker and bike user groups due to their high number of users. Trails were heavily worn into the sensitive landscape; trails through wet areas were becoming larger and larger; impacts to sensitive cliff edges were becoming void of vegetation; some wetland areas were becoming flattened by excessive use; and the numbers of trails was continuing to increase. These

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 103

changes cumulatively were resulting in significant impacts and more concerns were being expressed by biologists, botanists, and other concerned publics.

Existing condition: Aquatic species and habitat Major Creek has been stream surveyed in 1994 and 2001. The stream ranges in gradient from 7 to 8%, and contains a ratio of 1 pool to 1 riffle habitat. Surveys found rainbow trout throughout the system; up to river mile 1.4 in the west fork of Major Creek, and to river mile 1.2 in the east fork of Major Creek. Sculpin were also found throughout the main stem of Major Creek.

Anadromous fish use (coho and steelhead) goes from the mouth and continues upstream to a natural fish barrier, consisting of a series of 3 waterfalls at river mile 0.3. Steelhead has been confirmed past this set of waterfall in the spring of 2006. It is likely that steelhead spawn in the upper watershed whenever there is sufficient flow during their late winter/early spring upstream spawning run. Upper extent of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat is not known. During summer, Major Creek has some surface water only upstream from approximately river mile 0.5, while all other channels, including Catherine Creek and the mouth of Major Creek, becomes dry. There is no fish presence in Catherine Creek, as the mouth of the stream has a natural waterfall, as well as a man- made fish barrier in the form of a perched culvert over the Columbia River. Some springs exist along Catherine Creek, which maintain small discrete pools within the stream channel. These pools are confirmed to be used by one-band Juga snails, western toads and tree frogs. The 1994 survey of Major Creek noted the substrate to be largely composed of cobbles and large substrate, with few in-stream large wood pieces. Protocol Surveys conducted over 2006 – 2008 identified Survey and Manage mollusk species Pristine Springsnail (Pristinicola hemphilli) and One-band Juga (Juga oreobasis sp.2).

There is currently a deficit of large trees in the riparian area of Major Creek—likely due to historic harvests. This lack of large wood contributes to an increase in substrate particle size and thus a propensity for the stream to flow subsurface due to lack of smaller size substrates that “seal” the stream bed. Gravel-sized particles cannot be retained in the system without these natural hydraulic control structures. This gravel loss directly decreases available spawning habitat for fish. Lack of large wood also reduces cover and forage components for fish and other aquatic wildlife, such as amphibians and macro-invertebrates.

General affects of all alternatives: The continued increase in dispersed human use is common to all alternatives. The impacts, both in sheer numbers and expanded seasons of use, will lead to an increase in disturbance zones through priority habitats. This will have negative impacts to wildlife and floral species that include many listed and sensitive species known to use this area. This trend over time is likely to not meet requirements to protect these species, their priority habitats, nor help these species regain de-listed status. To meet the protection requirements, a limit on the numbers of human-interactions (numbers of recreationists at-one-time) or a restriction to specific areas, such as requiring all users to be on trails only, may be required as use increases. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 104

Known sites of sensitive plants and wildlife, of which there are many within the project area, will be protected from unnecessary impacts that would put them at risk, as detailed in the Biological Evaluation (BE) in Appendix A. For specific information related to each species as they relate to this project, see Appendix A. Appropriate buffers and timing restrictions are included in the design of the project to ensure that all sensitive species are adequately protected. If work has to be conducted within the buffer zones, a mitigation plan has been completed to show that the site is not compromised and appropriate enhancement will occur to offset any impacts.

Fauna: The behavior of wild animals is altered by the presence of people. The level of response to each human interaction varies greatly. Variables include the species type, age, prior experience, reproductive cycle, feeding/watering needs, terrain, and proximity to cover. Trails displace wildlife from their habitat by eliciting behavioral responses (cessation of feeding, flushing from hiding cover, and avoidance of the disturbance zone), as well as physiological responses (elevated heart rate, breathing, and energy expenditure). Over time, the total energetic losses from flight, decreased foraging time, and increased levels of stress come at a cost to growth, survival and reproduction. Avoidance of disturbance zones along trails equates to a loss of suitable habitat and will reduce the carrying capacity of public lands to support wildlife.

Wildlife responses to recreation activities have been well summarized in recent literature reviews of available scientific literature (Gaines et al, 2003, Joslin and Youmans, 1999, Knight and Cole, 1995 and Boyle and Samson, 1985). Since humans are usually perceived as threatening predators, typical individual wildlife response from recreationists is to move away from the encounter areas. This is familiar to most recreationists when animals are observed actively moving away (fleeing) from hikers or bikers traveling down the trail. For some species the recreation activity is tolerated at a certain distance, such as when recreationists stay predictably on the trail (Mainini 1983, Taylor and Knight 2003), other species shift to using the area only when recreation activity ceases (Wisdom, 2004), while still others decrease use or abandon the habitat altogether (Miller 1998, Fletcher 1999).

A growing number of research studies are being completed to study the interaction of wildlife to recreationists. However, a significant gap remains in scientific knowledge. Many of the wildlife species typically chosen to be studied are large or charismatic species, such as birds, big game ungulates, or carnivores, which makes it difficult to apply data to the more difficult to study species, such as snakes, mollusks, and amphibians. The current available scientific literature points to the complexity of reactions from different species and populations to different recreation user groups. Gathering reliable knowledge is complicated and time-consuming because of the difficulties in controlling an array of variables that influence how wildlife reacts to human activities (Gaines, 2003). Newer studies that use GPS/radio-tracking collars instead of visual observations note that observations alone would have underestimated the effects of recreational disturbance on behavior patterns (Naylor, 2006). 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 105

More secretive species, such as elk, are more disturbed by human presence than other more generalist species, such as deer. The more secretive species will rarely be observed by recreationists, as compared to bolder species, and are most at-risk of permanent displacement from suitable habitat from human over-use of priority habitats.

Disturbances have the most impacts to wildlife individuals and populations during key times of the year, such as at nesting/young rearing periods and during winter, when the energetics of movement is high (Little, 1997). At these periods, direct mortality can result from nest/young abandonment, young mortality from increased predator opportunity, egg breakage from flushing parents, or overuse of winter energy reserves. Time spent moving away from humans and /or dogs also have been documented to reduce foraging time (Thomas 2003). Animals displaced to poorer or lesser quality habitat are more likely to suffer reduced reproductive rates, lower fat deposition and reduced growth.

On the other end of the scale are opportunistic and highly adaptable species that are adapted to, or even attracted to, recreation areas due to increased food opportunities, such as the familiar jays, chipmunks, raccoons, coyotes, and bears. Certain habitat generalist species increase near human habitation and presence, such as English sparrows, robins, skunks, deer mice, and brown-headed cowbirds (Ditchkoff et al 2006, Joslin and Youmans 1999, Hammitt and Cole 1998).

Most species on the federal or state Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) species lists are neither habitat generalist nor opportunistic species that are attracted to human activity or habitation. The typical response expected from these species is to move away from human recreation routes and areas. What has been difficult to scientifically quantify is the effect to these populations from repeated individual daily disturbances that may occur nearly year-round. The duration of the avoidance behavior, and thus the severity of the harassment, or mortality at the population level, depends on the level of stress the animal is already enduring from severe weather, malnutrition, parasite load, birthing/young rearing, or inadequate security (refuge) area.

Compared to hikers alone, hikers accompanied by dogs resulted in a significantly larger and longer lasting disturbance zone than hikers without dogs (MacArthur et al 1982, Mainini 1983, Miller 1998, Thomas 2003, Lenth et al 2008). Dogs, depending on the breed and up- bringing, can have very high impacts to wildlife. Prey species activity, such as small mammals and deer, statistically decreased in areas adjacent to trails, with a larger disturbance zone width on trails that allowed dogs (Lenth et. al., 2008).

At some level, domestic dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and/or chase. Given the appropriate stimulus, those instincts can be triggered in many different settings (Sime 1999). The spatial behavior of dogs off-leash is unpredictable; and when dogs wander off-trail, they are more likely to elicit flushing responses from deer, even if the dogs do not give chase (Miller et al 2001). The enforced use of leashes could restrict dog activity to a narrower trail corridor and minimize dogs’ influence on wildlife (Lenth et al 2008); however, leash rules were found in certain urban parks to have no effect in protecting local biodiversity (Forrest 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 106 et al 2006). Alternative 1 does not have a leash requirement, and revised Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 approach dogs off-leash differently. Revised Alternative 2 requires dogs on- leash in the Catherine sub-area year-round (the area rated highest in wildlife values), but allows dogs and their owners to recreate in a more relaxed environment in Burdoin and Coyote sub-areas. Alternative 3 requires dogs on-leash project-wide during most of the winter range season for deer and a good part of the bird breeding season (December 1 – June 30), but allows dogs be under voice command project-wide outside those months.

While Alternative 3 protects winter range for deer and nesting habitat for most birds, it does not adequately address ground-nesting nighthawks or breeding western gray squirrels which would require an extended on-leash season through July. Revised Alternative 2 does not protect wildlife from off-leash dogs in the Burdoin Mountain or Coyote Wall sub-areas (allowing dogs and their owners to recreate in a more relaxed environment), but it does protect wildlife (and rare plants) year-round in the Catherine Creek sub-area (the highest rated sub-area for wildlife and rare plants).

The increasing presence of fast-moving mountain bikes presents a new element which may cause more disturbance impacts from the fast and sudden presence of the human interaction. Based on our current understanding, the speed of the appearance and disappearance of biking recreationists diminishes the evasion time for wildlife that may be more stressful to some wildlife than would be caused a by a slower moving hiker or horse-back rider (Wisdom, 2004). Bicyclists caused a much higher zone of disturbance (flight response) than hikers or horseback riders to elk, but not to deer, in a recent intensive study at Starkey Experimental Forest (Wisdom et al 2004, Naylor, 2006). One study has shown that bikers and hikers had similar disturbance distance to deer in an un-hunted population (Taylor and Knight 2003). Conversely, in another study, hikers that often stopped to bird watch disturbed bald eagles more than bicyclists that maintained a constant speed on the same trail (Spahr 1990). Horse-back riders generally caused the same, or lesser, flight of wildlife than hikers alone. In general, an average bicyclist can, and will, travel much farther distances than an average hiker per trip, thus can potentially have more impact through longer distance covered through a limited area of wildlife habitat.

There are nesting peregrine falcons in the planning area. For more detailed information on peregrine falcons and other sensitive species, please see the Biological Evaluation in Appendix A. Nesting success will depend on the duration, distance, and timing of the distance to nest. Whether present rock climbing locations are impacting peregrine falcons is unknown, but a possible concern. One paper found that either rock climbing or nesting ravens negatively impacted peregrine fledgling success, and the combination of both lowered fledgling success even more (Brambilla et al, 2004) Monitoring must be done in the future to address the rock climbing issue and its impacts on flora and fauna in this planning area as well as the entire Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

One new site with two known peregrine nest spots in this planning area are on the south and north side of Highway 8. While the location to the south of Highway 8 is not impacted by recreation at present, the nest site to the north of Highway 8 is located near trail CA1. Like the bald eagle, peregrine falcons choose eyrie locations away from human activity, 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 107 especially when activities are located above the cliff habitat of the eyrie. All alternatives reduce the suitability of the present cliff habitat to support peregrine eyries due to the high density of trails adjacent to available cliffs; however, the proposed alternative offers a seasonal closure of a sensitive area (see Revised Alternative 2).

Unrestricted recreation use also creates other problems in sensitive areas. Operating periods have been developed to protect sensitive species from project related disturbance. Recreation disturbance in areas such as this can be equal to and, in many cases, cause greater disturbance than machinery or construction activities for which these operating periods were designed, due to their dispersed and chronic nature. Thus, alternatives with unrestricted recreation use would, using the same logic, result in unacceptable disturbance to sensitive wildlife. Seasonal closures (as designed for Alternative 3) and locational closures (as designed in Revised Alternative 2) can mitigate for this impact.

Flora: While in general terms the arguments given above for fauna can similarly be applied to habitats of plants, the rationale for disturbance is quite different. The disturbance lies more in direct impacts from trampling (from horses, bikes, and hikers) and trail construction as well as habitat degradation as a result of indirect impacts from soil quality changes (changes resulting from increased soil fertility as a result of manure, or soil compaction) and increased risk from invasive species. The measure of trail density in priority habitats is likewise a valid measure of potential impacts; however, the disturbance to flora resulting from this trail density does not follow the data presented in Tables 1-4 for fauna.

While the direct loss of habitat due to a trail (1 foot wide) is not great, as the number of trails increase (often established with no regards to sensitive plant populations) and as the number of people, dogs, and horses increase, the direct and indirect impacts to the habitats increase. The magnitude of the direct impacts changes with the user type; horses and bikes tend to have more direct impacts than do hiker’s foot prints. The magnitude of the impact also depends on the soil types, soil thickness, slope, and other related parameters. In the scab grasslands these impacts will become evident very quickly depending on the user and use levels, whereas in the thicker soils of the higher elevations the same users and use levels may take a long time to become evident. The direct impacts occur as the cumulative foot-print of the users and/or trails increases and with increasing trail use come associated impacts due to immediate off-trail use (picnicking, users passing each other, stopping at view points, horse grazing, etc). Furthermore, hikers are permitted to enjoy dispersed use and their off-trail impacts increase with increasing use. These cumulative impacts are adequately captured in the above table showing trail densities in each analysis area.

For plants, there are no published data demonstrating trigger points for the impacts from trail densities and it is, therefore, critical to err on the conservative side to ensure adequate protection of the flora. The determination of acceptable impacts comes through the professional judgment and from input and observations from the public. Further impacts are disclosed in other sections of this document, such as the Water Quality section (specifically discussion of impacts from horse manure). The Forest Service is 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 108 obliged to protect and prevent flora from becoming listed on Federal Lands through the National Forest Policies and through the NSA Management Plan Guidelines. The guidelines protect sensitive flora through implementing 200 ft-no entry buffers around each sensitive floral site. If any of these buffered sites require trail entry, then appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed to offset any impacts.

The number of incursions within these buffers does change with Alternative. The number of sensitive flora found in Burdoin and Coyote are significantly lower than in Catherine Creek. There are so many sensitive plants sites in the low elevations at Catherine Creek area that the area is essentially all within a buffer zone. As a result, the trail itself may not be the determining factor, but its location becomes critical as to how well it complements with the locations of sensitive flora. This will be mentioned in the analysis for each alternative.

The dog issue will have very little impacts on the plants and is not considered in this analysis as it relates to plants.

The use of horses within the planning area has been identified as an issue by some members of the public. The effects of manure on water quality have been addressed in Section 3.3.1. The effects of manure on soil chemistry, nutrient levels and other soil properties are not well documented and while typically not a potential problem on most soils, is of concern on the scab soils of lower Catherine Creek area. Here, a small increase of manure (soil nutrients) could radically change the floral composition causing serious competition (and potential elimination) of the adapted native flora which has evolved with and adapted to low nutrient soil conditions. The introduction of invasive plants is typically increased by increasing soil fertility and this has not been carefully studied in these thin soils. The potential impacts are little known and caution is required to protect the native sensitive flora. Furthermore, the spread of invasive plants has been linked to horses and their feed (Quinn, L, et al. 2008). The current level of horse use within the planning area (and discussed further in Section 3.4) appears to have acceptable levels of impacts to natural resources and serves as the baseline for comparison of horse use between the three alternatives.

The indirect impacts occur as a result of increased risks due to invasive plant infestations, soil changes due to manure nutrient changes (especially in the shallow scab soils, see Section 3.3.1), and off-trail use. Presently recreation use is dispersed (off-trail is permitted) and, while the present use levels may be within acceptable impact levels, as the use trend continues to increase, the impacts will likely lead towards further listing of plant species. In the past several years, the trail foot-print and off-trail use has escalated to levels creating adverse impacts in the more sensitive areas (such as cliff edges, riparian areas, and scab grassland areas) and occasional large group horse off-trail use has caused severe impacts to the more sensitive soil and plant habitats associated with the lower elevations of Catherine Creek area. Establishing a trail system with user limitations is anticipated to reduce these impacts to an acceptable level which will be evaluated in each alternative. Monitoring will be important to ensure these measures are adequate in preventing adverse impacts and further listing of flora and fauna.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 109

Critical to the analysis is the premise that was arrived at by consensus with various publics. As discuss previously, the Coyote Project area was examined in its entirety and the area which had already been more severely impacted, namely the western portion, was determined to be a more suitable area for a more dense trail system. As one moves east towards the more pristine habitats of Catherine Creek, the botanical concerns increase and it was determined that trail densities should decrease to prevent adverse impacts. The degree of implementation of this concept in the alternatives influences the impacts to the flora.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The potential impact of recreation use was measured by calculating the miles of trail located in each square mile of priority wildlife habitat. More weight was given to habitat areas that are currently in the best functioning condition. The wildlife, and to some extent the floral, values within the project area decreases as one travels westward due to proximity to roads, homes and other development that fragments the natural habitat. For this reason, we gave a value of 1 to areas west of Coyote Wall (Burdoin), a value of 2 to the area from Coyote Wall to Catherine (Coyote), and a value of 3 to the Catherine analysis area. The effects analysis for fauna is based upon the finding that trail densities above 3 miles of trail per sq. mile of habitat will have adverse impacts on the species that depend on these habitats. This trigger point of 3 is pivotal to understanding the effects analysis displayed on the next page in Tables1, 2, 3, and 4. The trigger point was based on best professional opinion, consultation with other biologists, and past project experience. Trail densities of 3-5 are highlighted in yellow, densities 5-10 in orange, and >10 in red as explained in Table 2. Table 4 culminates the analysis showing a measure of impacts weighted by the quality of habitat within each sub-area. For example, the best quality habitats are typically found in the Catherine Creek sub-area where the impacts of the density of trails will be rated three times higher than in the Burdoin sub-area. For flora, there is no trigger point but the general concept that more trails, more use, and more users will cumulatively have more impacts is still valid. Although 3 miles of trail per sq. mile of habitat is arbitrary, it does offer a starting point to which impacts can be comparatively measured. The chart does illustrate that the numbers do reflect increasing impact levels and at some point the impacts become too great to meet the obligations to protect native flora.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 110 Data Table 1. Trail miles per square mile of priority habitat, by alternative Within 200’ of Springs Grasslands Within 30’ Within 30’ of In Pine Within 150’ and Vernal Scab – thin of Talus Cliffs Oak of Streams Pools soils Square miles of Habitat: Burdoin (West) 0.04 0.10 0.71 0.20 0.01 Coyote (Middle) 0.33 0.23 0.66 0.54 0.01 Catherine (East) 0.08 0.35 2.17 1.13 0.03 Total 0.45 0.68 3.54 1.87 0.05 Miles of Trail within Square Miles of Habitat: miles miles miles miles of miles miles miles/ of miles of miles of miles miles of miles trail /mi2 of trail mi2 trail /mi2 trail /mi2 trail /mi2 trail /mi2 Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.8 2.3 3.3 1.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 Coyote (Middle) 0.9 2.8 2.4 10.6 2.2 3.3 2.6 4.8 0.0 0.6 8.9 9.9 Catherine (East) 0.4 4.9 2.8 8.1 7.2 3.3 3.2 2.8 0.3 10.7 10.5 6.3 Overall Planning Area 1.3 3.0 5.4 7.9 11.7 3.3 7.1 3.8 0.3 6.6 19.3 6.2 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.8 2.3 3.3 1.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 Coyote (Middle) 0.9 2.8 2.4 10.6 2.3 3.4 2.5 4.6 0.0 0.6 6.6 7.3 Catherine (East) 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.8 3.0 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.2 8.0 3.3 2 Overall Plan Area Alt 1 0.9 2.1 3.9 5.7 7.5 2.1 5.1 2.7 0.2 5.0 9.9 3.2 Revised Alternative 2 Trail Systems Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 Coyote (Middle) 0.61 1.9 1.0 4.5 1.4 2.1 2.9 5.3 0.0 0.5 8.1 9.0 Catherine (East) 0.22 2.8 2.3 6.6 3.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 0.3 8.3 8.2 5.0 Overall Plan Area Alt 2/3 0.83 1.8 3.4 4.9 5.5 1.6 5.1 2.7 0.3 5.2 17.3 5.5 Alternative 3 Trail Systems Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 Coyote (Middle) 0.6 1.8 1.0 4.4 1.3 2.0 2.9 5.3 0.0 0.6 8.2 9.1 Catherine (East) 0.3 3.3 1.9 5.4 4.2 1.9 2.1 1.9 0.3 8.3 7.2 4.3 Overall Plan Area Alt 2/3 0.9 1.9 2.9 4.3 5.8 1.6 5.2 2.8 0.3 5.2 16.22 5.2 Notes: 1) Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures; 2) Highlighted Trail Densities: 3.0-5.0 mi/mi² in yellow; 5.1-10.0 mi/mi² in orange; 10.1+ mi/mi² in red; 3) mi/mi² was derived by dividing miles of trail by square miles of habitat (found in the very top table)

Data Table 2. A summary of the number of priority habitats with trail density over 3 miles per square mile of available habitat within Burdoin/Coyote/Catherine area 3 - 5 mi/mi2 >5 - 10 >10 mi/mi2 Total w/ > 3 mi/mi2 mi/mi2 Existing 5 2 2 9 Alt 1 4 2 1 7 Alt 2 1 3 0 4 Alt 3 2 3 0 5

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 111

Data Table 3. A comparison of alternatives, displaying use types and restrictions Accompanying dogs Burdoin Coyote Catherine # of priority restriction habitat with >3 mi/mi2 Existing None Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted 9 Bike/Horse/ Bike/Horse/Hike Bike/Horse/Hike Hike Alt 1 None Unrestricted Unrestricted Hike 7 Bike/Horse/ Bike/Horse/Hike Hike Except in Open Space with no use. Alt 2 Owner Control Bike/Hike Bike/Hike Hike Burdoin/west half 4

Coyote. Horse, only On-leash year Upper Loop, round east half only May 1- Coyote and in November 30 Catherine Alt 3 Dogs on leash Bike/Horse/ Bike/Horse/Hike Hike/Bike/Horse Dec 1 - June 30 Hike July 1-Nov 30 5 Data Table 4. Analysis of disturbance score compiled by aggregating miles of trail located in priority habitat, weighted by sub-area habitat quality.

Total miles / square Weight mile in priority habitat Weighted score * Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 1 11 11 Coyote (Middle) 2 22 44 Catherine (East) 3 30 89 total 145 Alternative 1 Trail Burdoin (West) 1 11 11 Coyote (Middle) 2 22 44 Catherine (East) 3 14 43 total 98 Revised Alternative 2 Trail Burdoin (West) 1 1 1 Coyote (Middle) 2 14 28 Catherine (East) 3 21 62 total 92 Alternative 3 Trail Burdoin (West) 1 1 1 Coyote (Middle) 2 14 28 Catherine (East) 3 21 62 total 92 * The higher the number, the greater the significance of the disturbance. Weighted score refers to the magnitude of disturbance from trail systems in priority habitats. Note: Total miles / square mile in priority habitat was derived by summing priority habitat densities in a particular row in Table 1.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 112 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1

As described in Chapter 2, this alternative restricts designated trails to the low elevations area in the Catherine analysis area. The total miles of proposed trail in that sub-area is about 7 miles, and the miles per square mile of designated trails are about 1.4. These trails are proposed for pedestrian use only. All other non-motorized use is located on Atwood Road. Resource damage caused by non-system trail use would likely increase--causing the need for restoration projects in the future. Continuation of the existing condition for the Burdoin and Coyote analysis areas, including the continuation of an unregulated increasing trend in recreational use, and trails in areas of sensitive priority habitat would not meet current natural resource guidelines. Alternative 1 allows dispersed use within the Open Space area. Dogs are not required to be leashed in this alternative. The tables above attempt to summarize and compare the various alternatives as they relate to potential impacts to local wildlife.

Data Table 1 illustrates where, in each Alternative, the trigger points of 3 miles/sq. mile of habitat is exceeded and by how much as defined in Table 2. The Alternative with the least number of impacts exceeding 3 miles/sq. mile will have the least adverse effects (i.e. Revised Alternative 2 in Table 2). Table 3 shows more detailed restrictions (dog leashing restrictions and seasonal/locational closures) associated with Revised Alternative 2 and 3, thus making it possible to show qualitatively the difference impacts between them.

The weighted score for Alternative 1 (Data Table 4) is much lower than the existing condition but slightly higher than Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the higher trail density outside of Catherine Open Space area. It is anticipated that off-trail recreation, coupled with un- leashed dogs, as allowed in this alternative, will have greater impacts to wildlife than Revised Alternative 2 and 3.

Impacts to flora are least in this alternative. Although the number of trails does not change compared to existing conditions (Data Table 1), the users are limited to hikers only within the Open Space areas (except for Atwood Road). This user restriction would greatly reduce the potential impacts to the more sensitive floral areas which are found within the Open Space Area. The only designated trails in the Open Space would be the two in Catherine Creek. This Alternative will meet the distribution of designated trails as per the consensus with the interest groups. There will only be two designated trails in Catherine Creek sub-area (where most sensitive flora sites are located) and more in Coyote and Burdoin sub-areas (where fewer sites are located). Furthermore, the density of trails in Coyote are located in the western half of that area where there are the fewest number of sensitive flora sites. In addition, the locations of the trails in Catherine Creek area are located in the least sensitive area, keeping such areas as Minor Creek free of trails.

Habitat fragmentation through increased disturbance is likely to negatively impact both floral and faunal species. Alternative1 will continue to provide for habitat in the short-term, but increased disturbance from off-trail use may continue and rise over time resulting in incremental loss of to the suitability of this habitat for sensitive species. While the direct effects to plants can be largely mitigated by careful trail placement in the Western portion, 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 113 impacts to wildlife are often more difficult to mitigate without somehow restricting the level of recreation use in priority habitats.

For both flora and fauna, it is foreseeable that recreation pressure will correspondingly increase in this area as the human population and density increases in the Gorge and adjacent areas. The indirect effects of Alternative 1 are more likely to result in population decreases for several sensitive species compared to Revised Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. The most significant impacts from horse use would be the increased risk of weed infestations and habitat degradation as a result of infestation; however, of all the alternatives, Alternative 1 would have the least impact from horse use in the Catherine sub-area, because it is not allowed.

Road, trail, and area closures. In Alternative 1, all non-system trails within the existing Open Space (OS) would be closed and eliminated.

Appropriate buffers sensitive wildlife and plant site. The NSA Management Plan requires buffer zones around certain sensitive wildlife and plant sites. The Natural Resource Mitigation Plan on page III-25 lists the required buffers and mitigations. Priority habitats are likewise protected from adverse impacts. All priority habitats require protection unless indicated in the mitigation Plan.

New developments and uses shall not interfere with fish passage. There were no new crossings or developments to interfere with fish bearing streams proposed.

New developments and uses shall occur during periods when fish and wildlife are least sensitive to activities. All activities (trail construction) would be timed to occur when the impacts would be least for both wildlife and plant species. Unregulated dogs-off-leash project wide would have the potential to impact sensitive species in this alternative more than in Revised Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Hiking use, at present levels, also was determined to meet this condition; however, additional restrictions would be required in the future, if use levels continue to increase. Unregulated bike and horse use in Burdoin and Coyote sub-areas would make it difficult to meet this condition.

Big game winter range, forage and thermal cover All of the project area is within identified winter range. Deer winter range may be compromised in Alternative 1, more than the other two alternatives, because dogs are allowed to go un-leashed throughout the planning area. This may displace or disturb ranging/foraging deer. Additionally, bikes and horses are allowed in the Burdoin and Coyote sub-areas with the possibility of a similar result.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 114 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF REVISED ALTERNATIVE 2 - PROPOSED ACTION

Revised Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 have a similar lower density of trails in priority habitat. Revised Alternative 2 also combines other wildlife-friendly restrictions (year-round dogs on-leash) in the area most highly rated for wildlife (Catherine). Data tables 3 and 4 summarize this information. In the Catherine sub-area, there is the additional restriction of only allowing hikers (sub-area-wide) and horses (upper loop only). This will reduce the use in areas further from the trailhead (higher elevations to the north) as hikers or horses travel slower than bikes. Hikers especially typically do not go the distances that bikes are capable of traveling in one day. This supports the refugia concept for native and endemic that was envisioned for Catherine Open Space. More trails are concentrated in the east end of the planning area than in Alternative 1. However, the use is more regulated by requiring users to stay on most of the trail systems. Of all the alternatives, the trigger point of 3 miles/square mile is exceeded the least in Revised Alternative 2 (see Table 2). Additionally, the reduction of impacts associated with the above mentioned wildlife-friendly restrictions has the equivalent effect of reducing the impacts from disturbance levels on wildlife While there was no way to determine these numerically, it was determined that this reduction would be equivalent to dropping the trigger point to below adverse effects.

The combination of reduced trail density within large portions of priority habitats, and user regulation, affords adequate protection to areas of priority habitat, especially in the area rated highest in wildlife and rare plant values –Catherine Creek sub-area. This is detailed in Data Table 1 and 2. This alternative would be more difficult to enforce than Alternative 1 (but probably less difficult than Alternative 3 due to seasonal restrictions for on-leash dogs in Alternative 3). Adequate signage will be placed to clearly designate the Coyote Wall sub- area from the Catherine Creek sub-area. That way, the public will know when they have entered into Catherine Creek – a dogs on-leash year-round area. Unregulated (dispersed) hiking use in the lower elevations, while acceptable at current levels of use, may require additional restrictions in the future should recreation use continue to increase.

Specific areas that require mitigation include the cliff areas in all of the sub-areas. Coyote wall was afforded the least protection with the understanding that the other cliff areas would be given the most protection for both flora and fauna, including that portion along trail Ca4 and Ca2.

The direct impacts to flora is greater in this alternative than in Alternative 1 but less than in the existing condition with unregulated trail construction and use. The increase in trail miles, most of which will occur in the Catherine Creek analysis area, will result in more trail tread impacts which as described earlier would not be considered significant. The key factor is that the bicycle and horse users are being required to stay on trails limiting the impacts to the trail tread and reducing off-trail impacts. The area will continue to be open for pedestrian self-discovery which continues to be problematic for the long term, but at present level of use the impacts have been determined to be acceptable. Monitoring will be important to identify when use increase to unsustainable levels and unacceptable impacts (likely trigger point will be areas worn down to bare soil). Additional restrictions may be 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 115 required at that time. Most of the impacts from increased trails will be to the sensitive floral buffer areas. However, the design of the trail will mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level with no additional impacts to floral viability. Trail Ca4 was specifically designed to complement sensitive floral sites, avoid Minor Creek and the oak woodlands within this drainage. Ca3 was designed for horse use avoiding the sensitive scab grasslands and following an old road bed as much as possible avoiding most of the plant sites.

The indirect effects would translate into more stable wildlife and plant populations by reducing or permitting expected human disturbance (the number of trails, the number of user groups, and the vehicles) in specified, but limited, areas as designated in Revised Alternative 2. In conjunction with the restoration efforts in this area, the habitat functions would stabilize.

Dogs have more opportunity to explore while running free if off-leash in an area like the Catherine sub-area, because its topography is more open. Compared to the Catherine sub- area, the Burdoin and Coyote sub-areas have a more constricted topography with more talus slopes and more abrupt terrain, which may limit a potential off-leash dog to explore. This is another reason Revised Alternative 2, with dogs-on-leash in the Catherine area year-round may be more beneficial to wildlife than the seasonal closure suggested by Alternative 3.

Manure could be a problem, and its amounts and effects to aquatic organisms (like the western toad) and plants should be monitored. In Revised Alternative 2, horse use would be limited to the Atwood Rd. and the main trail going up to the upper loop in the Catherin sub- area (trail CA-3). Use is presently low to moderate in the project area, and will remain so, with horse use fixed at 115 horses per year and a party size of 8 horses per day.

The fence exclosure around the Catherine Creek Arch will have a positive direct effect by protecting sensitive botanical resources in the cliff and talus habit. It was determined to have no impacts on flora or fauna given the design mentioned in this document.

Road, trail, and area closures. All temporary or existing unneeded roads, skid trails, landings, etc are proposed to be re- contoured and re-vegetated with native species.

Appropriate buffers sensitive wildlife and plant site. The NSA Management Plan requires buffer zones around certain sensitive wildlife and plant sites the Natural Resource Mitigation on page III-25 for a list of the required buffers and mitigations.

New developments and uses shall not interfere with fish passage. There are no new crossings or developments to interfere with fish bearing streams proposed.

New developments and uses shall occur during periods when fish and wildlife are least sensitive to activities. Trail construction activities are timed to occur when the impacts would be least for both most wildlife and plant species. Birds like relatively-late-in-the-season ground nesting nighthawks, and western gray squirrels are still at the end of their breeding/nesting season 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 116 when trail work might occur in July. Care would be taken to minimize disturbance. In the Catherine Creek sub-area, dog use would be restricted to on-leash year-round to ensure less disturbance in this highest rated area for wildlife. In this sensitive Catherine Creek sub-area, no bikes would be allowed east of Atwood Road, and horses would be restricted to trail-only use on the Upper Loop. These restrictions permit this alternative to meet this condition of the Management Plan. Unregulated hiker use may still pose a problem in the future should it continue to increase.

Big game winter range, forage and thermal cover The project is within winter range, and Revised Alternative 2 decreases disturbance in the highest rated sub-area (Catherine Creek). In the Burdoin Mountain and Coyote Wall sub- areas, dogs must be under voice control, although this may not deter possible disturbance as much as dogs on-leash. The Catherine Creek sub-area requires dogs on-leash, and project- wide restrictions requiring horses and bikes on trails reduces impacts on winter range to acceptable levels. Horse use is limited to Atwood Road in the Burdoin and Coyote area, and the upper loop of Catherine with seasonal use outside the winter range period for big game. Bikes would be prohibited east of Atwood Rd which would allow the winter range to be least disturbed in the Catherine sub-area.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ALTERNATIVE 3.

Alternative 3 diminishes the integrity of the refugia concept in the Catherine sub-area as developed in Revised Alternative 2. Trails are slightly different in Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. The addition of biking use within the Catherine sub-area refugia (from July 1 to Nov 30 only) will increase trail use intensity due to the ability of bikes to travel much further distances than a typical hiker in a given day. This ability to go faster and further is highly likely to increase interactions with wildlife in the area, thus increasing disturbance periods. Some direct mortality will occur from interactions with fast-moving mountain bikes and slow-moving sensitive species, such as the Western toad or CA Mountain king snake. While Catherine sub-area is the highest rated wildlife area, Alternative 3 has the best project-wide protection of wildlife for deer in winter range and for breeding birds in general. However, Alternative 3 allows horse use in the entire Catherine sub-area from July 1 – November 30, while Revised Alternative 2 allows horse use only in the Upper Loop (trail CA3) of Catherine from May 1 – November 30 (an area that has less rare plants than the lower areas).

This alternative has slightly different wildlife-friendly restrictions compared to Revised Alternative 2, but allows for more dog-walking and bike riding recreation in the more sensitive Catherine sub-area. And it exceeds the trigger point of 3 miles of trail per square mile of priority habitat more times than in Alternative 2, although less than Alternative 1 (see Table 2).

Furthermore, the trail alignment of Ca2 joining Co7 is different than in Alternative 2 and a seasonal closure will be required to protect the peregrine falcon nest in years when it is active. This alignment also poses impacts to two sensitive floral sites which are found directly on the trail tread. Mitigation to avoid impacts would be nearly impossible and 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 117

given that the upper trail is an alternative trail location, the trail location in this Alternative does not meet the protection guidelines.

Direct impacts to flora on the most eastern trail near Minor Creek (east of Minor Creek) has been criticized by the public due to the additional impacts to the riparian areas, oak woodlands, and due to the increased use within Minor Creek drainage where there is a particularly dense number of sensitive floral sites. These impacts would be significantly higher than those of Alternative 2 in which the trail was aligned to the west of Minor Creek avoiding the riparian crossings, oak woodlands, and does not encourage use within Minor Creek drainage. Given that the trail proposal in Alternative 2 has less impacts, it would be impossible for the trails proposed in this Alternative 3 to be found consistent with the No- Practicable Alternative test in the NSA Management Plan.

The upper and lower trail in Catherine Creek analysis area in this alternative is open to all users with a seasonal closure. While this closure helps protect the flora and fauna, the trail alignment, going through more sensitive oak woodlands and a spring, is not designed to avoid the more sensitive areas as the trails in Alternative 2. The higher use levels will further increase the likelihood of off-trail impacts. Furthermore, the higher number of trails in the scab grasslands will encourage more use in these particularly sensitive areas leading to higher impacts. The summary of these points indicates that the impacts from this alternative would be significantly more negative than Alternative 2.

This alternative would be the most difficult alternative to enforce due to the seasonality of restrictions based on various areas, user type, and dog restrictions.

The indirect effects of this alternative is somewhat similar to Revised Alternative 2, but with a higher risk of population decrease for species sensitive to disturbance due to the higher intensity of use (including project-wide use by bikes and horses). The most significant impacts from project-wide horse use would be the increased risk of weed infestations and habitat degradation as a result of infestation. Manure could also be a problem, and amounts and effects to aquatic organisms (like the western toad) and plants should be monitored. Use is presently low to moderate in this area, and will remain so, with horse use fixed at 115 horses per year and a party size of 8 horses per day.

Road, trail, and area closures. All temporary or existing unneeded roads, skid trails, landings, etc are proposed to be re- contoured and re-vegetated with native species.

Appropriate buffers sensitive wildlife and plant site. The NSA Management Plan requires buffer zones around certain sensitive wildlife and plant sites the Natural Resource Mitigation on page III-25 for a list of the required buffers and mitigations.

New developments and uses shall not interfere with fish passage. There are no new crossings or developments to interfere with fish bearing streams proposed.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 118 New developments and uses shall occur during periods when fish and wildlife are least sensitive to activities. Trail construction activities are timed to occur when the impacts would be least for most wildlife and plant species. Ground nesting nighthawks and western gray squirrels are still at the end of their breeding/nesting season when trail work might occur in July. Care would be taken to minimize disturbance. Most breeding bird species would be protected by the December 1 – June 30 dogs on-leash regulation that would be in place project area wide. Horses would be able to use the sensitive Catherine sub-area from July 1- November 30 and bikers would also be able to use that area during that time (unlike Alternative 1). Bike use in the entire Catherine sub-area, and horse use throughout the lower area of Catherine (as opposed to Revised Alternative 2’s no bikes and horse concentration in the upper loop) would more likely create impacts from visual, noise, and ground disturbance than Revised Alternative 2.

Big game winter range, forage and thermal cover Alternative 3 provides the best protection for winter range deer from un-leashed dogs project area-wide of the three Alternatives (whereas Revised Alternative 2 provides protection most in the Catherine sub-area). However, Alternative 3 allows mountain bikes in the Catherine sub-area July 1 – November 30, whereas Alternative 1 and Revised Alternative 2 do not.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF ALL ALTERNATIVES

While there are differences in the direct and indirect effects between the alternatives, adding any of those effects to other cumulative effects from projects occurring in or nearby this project area in the past, present or foreseeable future would not alter the overall cumulative effects significantly. That is because all the alternatives would be an improvement over what the cumulative effects would be if the existing condition persisted. The table below summarizes the cumulative effects of all Alternatives.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 119

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DETERMINATION Past, Current or Potential Effects OVERLAP IN Effects? Cumulative Measurable Detectable? Extent Reasonably

Foreseeable ACTIVITY or

PROJECT TIME SPACE

Burdoin I Short term disturbance and Yes Yes Yes Beneficial by enhancing the possible loss to individuals. ecological integrity. Long term beneficial effects on habitats.

Road work on BPA Effects on riparian habitats. No Yes No Minor easement Road was built within riparian area Firehouse Loss of habitat – increase No Yes Yes Loss of forest to permanent disturbance development is cumulatively detrimental. Courtney Rd Temporary disturbance. Long No No No Minor –Removes some widening term - increase numbers of habitat but encouragse recreationists recreation in the western portion. Allen Property Short term disturbance and No Yes Yes Beneficial by enhancing the thinning and structure possible loss to individuals. ecological integrity. removal Long term beneficial effects on habitats. Weed treatments Short term disturbance. Maybe Yes No Minor Paved accessible trail Short term disturbance. Long No No No Minor. This was intended to at Catherine Creek term attraction for more take pressure off of the area people , more disturbance. north of old Hwy 8. Burdoin II & Short term disturbance and Yes Yes Yes Will benefit by enhancing Catherine Thin from possible loss to individuals. the ecological integrity. Below Long term beneficial effects on habitats Land acquisitions Reduces chronic disturbance. Maybe Yes Yes Increasing land base Encourages recreation, enhances the ecosystem protects more habitat. components in that more land becomes part of the ecosystem. Historic Tree Harvest Removed Large Trees No Yes Yes Fewer large trees Now more valuable to save. Major Creek Pit Close and rehab borrow pit. Yes No No Not Evident. and Spur Rd. Gate spur road. Closure Future State/Private Thinnings for ecosystem Maybe Yes Not now Must meet SMA guidelines. Forest Practices purposes Minor In Open Space, to SMA guidelines in Forest/Agriculture

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 120 3.4 - RECREATION, ACCESS, & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The study area provides a unique natural setting for hiking, mountain biking and horse use during the winter and spring months close to the Portland/Vancouver Metro area and local Gorge communities (within an 1 hours drive). Recreation in the study area is a relatively new use, since much of the land was previously in private ownership. Since the formation of the CRGNSA, dispersed recreation has grown and become an important activity in the area. With the exception of the Catherine Creek Universal Access Trail, no formal trail system or facilities have been developed by the CRGNSA. Users, however, formed a well- developed network of hiking and mountain bike trails, which cross private and National Forest System lands (attained after NSA designation).

Mountain bike riding and hiking are the predominant form of recreation in the study area. Generally hiking and mountain biking use has naturally segregated itself with the majority of bike use occurring on the open slopes around “Coyote Wall” and hiking and orienteering are popular in the open lands just east and west of Catherine Creek. The user developed mountain bike routes on National Forest are part of a larger network of trails, largely on private land, to the west of Courtney Road. Both hiking and mountain biking have been highlighted in several guide books covering the Gorge area and newspaper articles. Both uses tend to be seasonal in nature, but for entirely different reasons.

Hikers tend to use the area during the early spring through May, to view the spectacular early spring wildflowers displays, escape the usually wetter west side, and enjoy the open vistas of the Gorge and its unique geologic features. Hiking during the summer months is relatively low and will not likely experience growth, because of the area’s high temperature and lack of water. Fall orienteering is growing in popularity, aided by a Portland orienteering club, and outings by the Lewis and Clark outdoor program. The majority of these users are from the Portland/ Vancouver Metro Area.

Mountain bike use is concentrated essentially during the winter and spring months. They are also attracted by the spring wildflower displays and open vistas, but also this seasonal use results from lack of accessibility to other trails which tend to be snow bound, or too muddy to ride until early summer. The terrain and informal trail network that has been developed in the study area is unique, because it provides opportunities for riders of all levels of expertise and provides good site distance along the trail. Many of the mountain bikers are from the local area (Hood River and White Salmon/Bingen), although these trials are becoming well known by users from the outside the local area through bike users networks and publications.

Observed use by a local Mountain Bike club includes as many as 60-70 riders on weekends and 5-10 riders on weekday during March and April. Participation in hiking appears to be similar with up to 30-40 cars observed by Forest Service staff on a sunny spring weekend. Hikers tend to use established routes with some participating in exploring off trail. Most mountain bikers use the system of trails that they developed but a small number engages in

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 121

“freeriding”. Freeriding is generally off trail and the term is claimed by two kinds of users: 1) those who have heavy bikes with extra shocks and wear body armor, ride straight down the fall line, “hucking” (jumping) off of rocks, landing and continue to ride down. 2) Those users who are more interested in agility, and like to ride up and along rocks and logs, and along narrow, above ground, constructed “bikeways”.

Horse use appears to be very low with respect to hiking and mountain biking. Use tends to occur mostly in the Catherine Creek area, on the Atwood and Major Cr. Roads where equestrians tend to stay on established routes and road beds. Lack of adequate parking facilities limits use in the area.

Off highway vehicle (OHV) use and deer and turkey hunting are other uses that have been observed. Hunting for deer occurs over most of the area during the months of September through November. Turkey hunting takes place in the spring. OHV use tends to be confined to existing roads and trails and most likely occurs during the spring and fall when temperatures moderate. Use appears to be fairly low as compared to hiking and mountain bike use.

Rock climbing is relatively new to the Study area and has recently grown in popularity. It is isolated to cliff faces above Locke Lake, “Hidden Canyon” (Labyrinth) and along County Road 8 above Rowland Lake. Use appears to be low relative to other uses. Climbing will likely continue to grow as more climbers discover these areas. Growth however is not expected to be significant. Rock climbing is highly specialized and challenging form of recreation as a result participation rates in Washington for rock climbing are low at approximately 1.4% (Washington 2006 Outdoor Recreation Survey). Recreation studies suggest that rock climbing will not grow, but remain stable (T. Hall, H. Heaton, L. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation). This section will not include analysis of this use but rock climbing will continue to be monitored.

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. Opportunities are limited in the Gorge area for mountain biking and equestrians. The Forest Service currently manages 180 miles of trail (excluding the Klickitat Rails to Trail) in the Gorge. Fifteen per cent are open to mountain bikes and 16% provide horse opportunities. Other agencies offer limited horse and mountain bike opportunities, most notably Oregon State Parks (Deschutes River Trail), Washington State Parks (Beacon Rock State Park) and Washington Department of Natural Resources (Buck Creek Trail System). Mountian bike opportunities have increased in the area; most noteworthy is Post Canyon near Hood River, Oregon.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

NSA Management Plan Most of the planning area is in SMA Agriculture or Open Space. The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area uses a modified version of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) called Recreation Intensity Class (RIC). The majority of the Project area is within

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 122 RIC 1, with portions west of Coyote Wall and the lower area along Catherine Creek and the Arch within RIC 2.

Open Space Plan Required The Catherine and Major Creeks Open Space Plan and Watershed Analysis was written in 1995 and updated in 2005. The Open Space Plan required monitoring of the existing use in the areas designated Open Space in order to analyze the need for designated trails rather than dispersed use. This document serves as that analysis.

NSA Management Plan SMA Recreation Guidelines:

• Recreation Intensity Class 1

Recreation Intensity Class 1 emphasizes providing semi-primitive recreation opportunities in which people can realize experiences such as solitude, tension reduction and nature appreciation.

Maximum design capacity should not exceed 35 people at one time (PAOT) and 10 vehicles for this class

Recreation Intensity Class 1 (Allowable Uses): Trails and trailheads Parking Areas Dispersed campsites accessible only by trail Viewpoints and overlooks Picnic areas. Signs Interpretive exhibits and displays. Restrooms

• Recreation Intensity Class 2

Recreation Intensity Class 2 provides settings where people can participate in activities such as physical fitness, outdoor learning, relaxation and escape from noise and crowds. Maximum design capacity should not exceed 70 PAOTs and 25 vehicles.

Recreation Intensity Class 2: All use permitted in RIC 1 are permitted in RIC 2. The following may also be permitted Campgrounds with vehicle access. Boat anchorages designed for no more than 10 boats at one time. Swimming areas.

• Recreation Intensity Class 3 (There is RIC 3 in the Planning Area south of Old Highway 8 bound by Catherine Cr, Major Cr and SR-14) 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 123

Recreation Intensity Class 3 emphases are on facilities that are complementary to the natural landscape, yet accommodate a moderate number of people. People are able to realize experiences such as group socialization, nature appreciation, relaxation, cultural learning and physical activities.

Maximum design capacity is 250 PAOTs and 50 vehicles

Recreation Intensity Class 3: All use permitted in RIC 1 and 2are permitted in RIC 3. The following may also be permitted Campgrounds with improvements that may include water, power, sewer and sewage dump stations. Boat anchorages designed for not more than 15 boats at one time. Public visitor, interpretive, historic and environmental education facilities Full-service restrooms that may include showers. Boat ramps. Riding stables.

ANALYSIS METHODS

The alternatives are evaluated in terms of impacts to trail density/type of use, user conflicts, and parking. Impacts to sensitive natural and cultural resources are addressed elsewhere in the document.

Trail Density/Type of Use: Trail density/type of use is discussed as a number of miles of trail and opportunities provided by the trail system.

Both Oregon and Washington SCORPs conclude there is a relatively large inventory of recreational trails. However, the Washington SCORP (October 2002) 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 in the Columbia Gorge and specifically in the study area is so high (low elevation and proximity to the Portland/Vancouver Metro area and local communities in the Gorge). Recent studies also support this assertion in that time and distance are now the main barriers to participating in outdoor recreation activities.

Parking: Parking is discussed in terms of potential illegal and unwanted parking.

User Conflicts: For the purpose of this analysis the degree of potential conflict is relative to each alternative.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 124 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:

• Degrees of Specialization – User groups tend to attach personal meaning to their activity. For example experts and novices may not mix well. • Place Attachment – Some groups or individuals tend to attach special meaning to the setting. • Expectations or Focus of Trip – To what extent does the experience require an individual to focus on certain attributes of the setting rather than 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. • 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.

Conflict is expected to occur on the proposed multiple use trails. Each contact has the potential to result in conflict, however conflicts do not necessarily mean recreation uses are incompatible In general trail users enjoy meeting their own kind, but dislike uses that are faster and more mechanized then their own (Moore, 1994, Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trail). Moore however, concludes that “Past research has consistently found that recreationists 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). In general recreation uses become incompatible due to physical constraints of a trail rather than conflicts. For example primitive hiker trail (12 inch tread width) on very steep side slopes is not designed to safely accommodate horse use.

Mitigation measures can 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.

DIRECT & INDIRECT, SHORT & LONG TERM EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1

Trail Density/Type of Use: Trail density would be dramatically reduced through the loss of trails within the Open Space. Theoretically this would reduce the opportunities available to the hikers in these areas, however off trail self exploration by hikers could still be realized. While many of the existing user made trails in these areas will be removed, it may be difficult to control the existing established patterns of use. In the long-term, user trails may reappear as hikers will tend to follow the same routes they use now.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 125

Likewise, mountain bike trail opportunities will be greatly reduced. Desired medium to long trail loop opportunities would be diminished with the elimination of mountain bike trails in the Open Space. The existing user made trail system west of the Open Space would not be managed. Proliferation of user made trails could continue to occur. Resource damage from poorly located and designed trails would continue as well as trespass onto private lands in both the short and long term. A mix of intermediate to expert terrain would still be maintained in this area. High quality recreation experience in this area may wane as a result.

Horse trails opportunities will also be eliminated with the exception of the Atwood Road. Horse use would be greatly reduced and may be not occur at all with the very limited trail opportunities.

Overall, recreation in general is expected grow in the study area with the current and expected population growth in the market zone. Specifically, NVUM and WA SCORP (2008) also show an increase in participation rates in activities that occur in the study area. Other factors such as the proximity of Portland/Vancouver Metro area and the cost of gasoline will contribute to the increasing demand for recreation opportunities in the Columbia River Gorge and study area. As reported in the 2003 Oregon SCORP, “...according to the Travel Industry Association of America, in the U.S. 40% of weekend travelers report they are taking more day trips and/or weekend trips today than 5 years ago. Meeting this demand will be especially challenging for federal agencies with land management responsibilities near urban areas.”

Use would likely remain seasonal in nature. Use during the summer months will remain relatively low and will not likely experience growth, because of the area’s high temperature, lack of water and opportunities in higher elevations on nearby Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests.

Parking: In both the short and long term, this alternative would have the greatest potential for an increase in congestion. Congestion related to parking will continue to grow at the intersection of Courtney Road and SR-14 and may become a significant safety issue. Parking along the shoulder and wide spots on Courtney Road near the intersection with the Atwood would continue. Conflicts in the form of encroachment and congestion with nearby and adjacent private property owners would occur and increase overtime.

User Conflicts: Generally, there appears to be a natural segregation between mountain bikers and hikers. The majority of hikers tend to use the Catherine Creek area while mountain bikers tend to concentrate in the Coyote Wall area. This alternative lends itself to strengthening this natural segregation by eliminating user made trails in the Open Space that provide connectivity between the Coyote Wall and Catherine Creek areas. Additionally Alternative 1 allows hiker, mountain bike, and horse use on the Atwood Road. Conflicts with horse and other uses will be relatively low with use confined to the Atwood road. Conflicts between trail users and hunters will be reduced in the Open Space west of Catherine Creek with the elimination of existing user made trails which bisect the area.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 126 The potential for conflict between all users will increase outside of the Open Space. Due to the lack of mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for conflict such as trail design, signing and trails patrols.

Leashes will not be required in the planning area. Conflicts with dogs will likely increase with increase in use.

Existing trespass on private land would not be resolved. The potential for additional trespass on private land would increase with more user made trails being developed.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

Recreation use of the area will grow and continue in an unmanaged situation. The table below summarizes the interaction of cumulative effects within the planning area:

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DETERMINATION Past, Current Potential Effects OVERLAP IN Effects Cumulative Measurable Detectable? Extent or

Reasonably ? Foreseeable

ACTIVITY TIME SPACE or PROJECT Burdoin I Impacts to recreation experience Yes Yes Yes Minor – short term visual and damage to trails. impact or temporary loss of trail use may degrade recreation experience. Road work on Impacts to recreation experience No Yes No Moderate - short term visual BPA easement and damage to trails. impact may degrade recreation experience. Improvement to road will provide additional access and degrade the more primitive experience recreationist are seeking. Firehouse Impacts to recreation experience No Yes No Minor – existing trail system is close by, however it is not visible. Courtney Rd Impacts to recreation experience Mayb No No Minor – may cause some widening e delays to access upper trails. Allen Property Impacts to recreation experience Yes Yes No Minor – Short term visual thinning and impact and thinning structure operations may degrade removal recreation experience. Weed treatments Impacts to recreation experience Mayb Yes No Minor e Paved accessible Impacts to recreation experience No Yes Yes Minor – adds to congestion trail at Catherine along County Road 8 and the Creek Catherine Creek Parking area. Burdoin II & Impacts to recreation experience Yes Yes No Minor – short term visual Catherine Thin and damage to trails. impact, temporary loss of from Below trail use may and thinning operations degrade recreation experience. Land Impacts to recreation experience. Mayb Yes Yes Increasing land base 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 127 acquisitions e enhances experience by reducing the potential for developments adjacent to the trail system and reduces potential encroachment on to private lands. However it may provide opportunities for more user made trails. Historic Tree Impacts to recreation experience. No Yes Yes None Harvest Future Impacts to recreation experience. Mayb Yes Not now Minor - short term visual State/Private e impact may degrade Forest Practices recreation experience.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT, SHORT & LONG TERM EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

Trail Density/Type of Use: Existing user made trail mileage would effectively be reduced by approximately 10 miles (37 miles to 27 miles). Over all, this alternative essentially maintains many of the existing user made routes. Some trail reroutes, reconstruction and elimination are proposed to reduce impacts to the natural resources while providing for a variety of trail opportunities.

Some longer hiking routes and loops in the Catherine Creek area would be lost in the Tracy Hill area. Hiking routes east of “Minor Creek” would also be lost, however it will be replaced by trial Ca4 which was located to incorporate unique wildflower viewing opportunities and geologic features in the area while avoiding the sensitive “Minor Creek” drainage. Recreation experience will be enhanced along this trail since it avoids using the Tribal Land/BPA access road and trail along the fence line.

The loss of the “Shoestring and Coyote Wall” trails will also reduce some medium to long loop opportunities for mountain bikers as compared to the existing condition. The elimination of these trails, however does resolve private property trespass issues associated with the “Coyote Wall” trail and resources issues with the “Shoestring” trail. A new proposed trail in the Burdoin area will replace the Coyote Wall trail with loop opportunities. During heavy snow years access along the Atwood Road may be effectively blocked in the deep canyon above the “Shoestring” trail additionally reducing loop opportunities. Recent emerging mountain bike use in the Catherine Creek area will also be lost with the designation of hiker only in this area. Trail Ca1 will be closed seasonally and the existing lower connecting trail between Ca1 and Ca2 will be permanently closed to protect a peregrine falcon nest in the area. The existing upper connector Co7 will be maintained to continue to provide loop opportunities. A mix of technical skill should be maintained under this alternative, although there will be a loss of some of the highly desirable “cliff” routes.

Horse use will be limited to trail Ca3 and the Atwood Road. Use on other trails will not be allowed since they will not be designed to accommodate horse use. Additionally, there is not enough space to provide horse trailer parking while providing adequate space for mountain bikers and hikers (which is the predominate use in this area) at the proposed Courtney Road Trailhead. This will effectively eliminate horse access to the Coyote/Burdoin planning area. Long loop opportunities into the Coyote Planning area will 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 128 also be lost resulting in a negative impact on the recreation experience for equestrians. Riders using the Atwood Road will be forced to “go out and back” on the same trail.

Given the projected general population growth in the market area and recreation trends in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area it is reasonable to expect that within the next 5-10 years recreation use will reach capacity at designated trailheads on the majority of sunny weekends during the high use period. Use on some weekends may exceed capacity and parking could occur in overflow areas along the shoulder of Courtney Road, SR-14 and County Road 8. Weekday growth should not be as dramatic. Use would not be expected to increase significantly over the existing 35% of capacity, since the majority of recreationist work during the weekdays. Weekend shoulder season could grow, but will be highly influenced by weather and how early higher elevation trails open. Use is not expected to grow during the low use season, since the limiting factor is the weather (rain & snow in the winter months and high temperatures in the summer months). Recreation Use Projections (1-5 years) are displayed below: High Use Season (February-May; 120 days) WD Capacity Avg Theoretical WE Capacity 30%x84 People/ Trailheads Capacity/Day 80%x36 days days Total Day Lower Courtney 125 3600 3150 6750 56.25 (25 car parking) Catherine Creek 125 3600 3150 6750 56.25 (25 car parking) Total 250 7200 6300 13500 112.5

Shoulder Use Season (June & September-October; 91 days)

WD Avg Theoretical WE Capacity Capacity People/ Trailheads Capacity/Day 50%x24 days 5%x66 days Total Day Lower Courtney 125 1500 3150 4650 38.75 (25 car parking) Catherine Creek 125 1500 3150 4650 38.75 (25 car parking) Total 250 3000 6300 9300 77.5

Low Use Season (November-January; 154 days) WD Capacity Avg Theoretical WE Capacity 2%x110 People/ Trailheads Capacity/Day 15%x44 days days Total Day Lower Courtney 125 825 275 1100 9.166667 (25 car parking) Catherine Creek 125 825 275 1100 9.166667 (25 car parking) Total 250 1650 550 2200 18.33333

Estimated Total Annual Use 25000 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 129

Mountain biking is poised for continued growth in the planning area. While recent recreation use studies indicate mountain biking use will remain stable in the Pacific Northwest, the unique riding opportunities the area provides will encourage this use to grow. Additionally, the area is becoming known as a destination biking area and the trend will likely continue as guide books and maps can now be published with an official trail system.

Day hiking will also continue to grow. In both Oregon and Washington hiking/walking continue to be among the most popular activities as evidenced by the 2006 NVUM study which indicated nearly 70% of all National Forest visitors in the Columbia Gorge participate in hiking. Studies also forecast hiking to grow in the Northwest. For example hiking is expected to grow at a rate of more than 20% through 2022 in Washington (WA SCORP. 2002). The proximity of this area to the Portland/Vancouver Metro Area and local communities also support this assertion. Studies also conclude hiking closer to home in a natural setting is preferred by busy recreationist of today. Both the Oregon and Washington SCORP report recreationist who participate in trail activities preferred a more natural setting and active management of a formal system should ensure high quality recreation opportunities and experiences overtime.

There is no reason to expect hunting to increase significantly and may actually decline over time. Washington SCORP suggests hunting will decline as much as 20% over the course of 20 years. It is assumed many of the areas now in public ownership were probably hunted prior to acquisition.

Horse use may increase somewhat with the designation of an horse trail system, albeit limited in nature. Growth, however should not be significant and may not reach the annual limit of 115 horses per year in the foreseeable future. Hall, Heaton & Kruger suggest that horseback riding will decline in the Pacific Northwest (T. Hall, H. Heaton, L. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation). The combination of trend data, limited parking and trail opportunities, and the seasonal nature of this use will contribute to very slow growth. The majority of horse use is anticipated to be limited to a small window of time between May-June and mid September – October when temperatures moderate.

Changing existing established use patterns may be difficult when existing user made trails are rerouted or eliminated. In the long term, there is the potential for these routes to be reestablished without the cooperation of trail users, and aggressive education and enforcement.

Parking:

In the short term, this alternative would help resolve the congestion related to parking at the intersection of Courtney Road and SR-14 with the establishment of a formal trailhead. Parking, however, would be limited to 25 vehicles based on the current Recreation Intensity Class. Recent field observations indicate that during some busy weekends the current informal parking area has accommodated as many as 20-25 cars. As this area continues to

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 130 grow in popularity there is the potential for overflow parking when capacity is reached. Parking along the shoulder and wide spots on Courtney Road could occur and become an issue in the long run.

Parking along the shoulder and wide spots on Courtney Road and the Atwood road at the intersection with the Atwood would continue. Conflicts in the form of encroachment and congestion with nearby and adjacent private property owners would occur and increase overtime. The Forest Service will work with Klickitat County to designate parking within the right of way and post signs and barriers to prevent unwanted parking. These actions may reduce conflicts with adjacent land owner. Parking in the Catherine Creek area will continue to be informal along County Road 8 in its existing location. During busy days the unwanted parking in wide spots near this location will continue. Expansion of the existing parking area is not likely to occur given the physical constraints (topography) of the area. The Forest Service will work the Klickitat County to formalize parking in this area.

User Conflicts:

Overall user conflict should be lowest of all the alternatives analyzed. While conflicts are bound to occur, studies suggest that most recreationists will have a satisfying experience. Reducing conflicts will increase visitor satisfaction and experience.

Over the last 20 years the Catherine Creek area has been predominately used by hikers, enjoying the spring wildflower displays and the spectacular views of the Columbia River and Mt. Hood. Designation of a hiker only area in most the Catherine Creek area will contribute significantly to reducing conflicts in the study area. Trail Co7 may also reduce conflict by directing bike traffic on Ca2 away from the lower Catherine area as mountain bikers are likely to use Co7 as a loop opportunity. Past studies have indicated that most users dislike uses that are faster and more mechanized then their own, such as hikers and mountain bikers. Additionally, other studies have consistently found that conflicts are asymmetrical or one-way where one user groups resents the other, but the reverse is not true. “Qualitative comments made about bikes indicate that for many walkers, bikes are conceptually indistinct from motorized off-road vehicles. The characteristic conflict perception asymmetry, where walkers perceived bikers more negatively than vice versa...” (Arnberger, 2002, Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas).

While horse and hikers will share trail Ca3 in the Catherine Creek area conflicts should be minimized by the seasonal closure when the flowering season and hiking season are at its peak. Limits on the number of horses using the trail will further minimize conflicts between equestrians and hikers. Conflicts between horse and mountain bikers will be limited to the Atwood Road. Good sight distances on most of the road should help reduce conflicts.

Implementation of measures such as promoting proper trail etiquette, trails designed to reduce speed of mountain bikes and increase site distances, informing trails user of what to expect, signing etc. will also reduce conflict on multiple use trails in the Coyote and Burdoin Planning area. Most recreationists have expectations about the kinds of experiences they 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 131 desire. By informing recreationists before hand, they would be able to employ a variety of coping mechanisms to reduce their sense of conflict and change their expectations. Studies suggest that users can adapt and accept the situation, change their behavior by visiting at off peak time or visit less frequently or simply stop visiting the area.

Both Oregon and Washington SCORP indicate dog walking as a significant activity. In Oregon 35% participating in hiking, 41 % horseback riding and 20% bicycling had a dog along (OR SCORP, 2003). In Washington 36.4 % hiked or walked with a pet (Washington 2006 Outdoor Recreation Survey). While there have not been many studies done on dog to dog and human to dog interactions, one study indicates that “the incident of dog aggression in parks and other open spaces is low because these areas are neutral territory or places of play for dogs” (R.Miller, G. Howell. 2008). Furthermore, unwanted interactions with dogs, people and horses in the Catherine planning area should be minimized with leash requirements. A study in Great Britain suggests that the number of interactions with other dogs and people are reduced when dogs are on leash (C. Westgarth, R. Christley, G. Pinchbeck, R. Gaskell, S. Dawson, J. Bradshaw, 2010.). The leash requirement, however will essentially eliminate equestrians from taking their dogs on the trail. Although dogs will be required to be under voice control in the Burdoin and Coyote areas, conflicts are expected to rise. While many dog owners believe they can control their dogs, some dog to dog interactions can quickly become out of control without physical restraints. People and dog contacts will also increase with no leash requirements.

Conflicts between trail users and hunters will likely remain at current levels since trails bisecting the area for the most part will remain intact.

An officially designated trail system would mitigate most conflicts with adjacent landowners, however there still is the potential for unwanted trails to develop and encroach on adjacent lands. With increasing use, the potential for conflicts between Mt. Bikes, horseback riding, hiking and hunting could increase even with a designated and well signed trail system. As stated earlier, however, conflicts may not be a serious threat to over all recreation satisfaction.

All trail systems avoid private land, but the proposed trail system furthest to the west contains a high incidence of private land interface with NFS land. The trail as proposed will come very close to many private parcel boundaries, and may also intersect existing unauthorized trails that currently encroach on private land. There is some risk that this system may result in future encroachments on private land either through new user created trails or by continued use of unauthorized trails that may link to the proposed trail.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT, SHORT & LONG TERM EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3

Effects of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2 with the following exceptions described below.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 132 Trail Density/Type of Use:

Opportunities for mountain bike and horse would increase with the addition of the Catherine Creek area. Longer loops for mountain bikes would be available in addition the Catherine Creek area would provide more beginning to intermediate terrain the other areas do not provide. Recreation use in this area would increase somewhat with the addition of mountain bike and horse use, however it would be concentrated mostly during September through October. Summer use is expected to remain relatively low given the areas high temperature, lack of water and opportunities at higher elevations.

User Conflicts:

The potential for conflict would increase in the Catherine Creek area, however it should not be significant. By May 30th the spring wildflower display is typically finished as the area begins to dry out and grasses cure. As a result hiking use also dramatically declines. As other trail uses (mountain biking and equestrian) increase hiking should be on the decline. Consequently the potential for conflict at least between hikers and other users should be relatively low. Conflict between horse and mountain bikes should increase somewhat, but would be relatively low with mitigation measures designed to reduce conflict and lower use levels.

Under this alternative conflicts with dogs will be the lowest. Interaction with dogs, and people will be minimized with the leash requirement during the high use season. While no leash will be required the remainder of the year, conflicts should be relatively low corresponding the low recreation use.

The proposed trailhead near the intersection with the Atwood Road may help reduce conflicts with nearby and adjacent private property owners. Although it is unlikely the majority of uses will use this parking to access the Atwood Road, since it is located approximately a ¼ mile below the intersection. It may also provide another option for trail users when the lower trailhead reaches capacity.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 and 3

Designation and active management of a formal system should ensure high quality recreation opportunities and experiences overtime. The table below summarizes the interaction of cumulative effects within the planning area:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 133

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DETERMINATION Past, Current or Potential Effects OVERLAP IN Effects Cumulative Measurable Detectable? Extent Reasonably

Foreseeable ? ACTIVITY or

PROJECT TIME SPACE

Burdoin I Impacts to recreation Yes Yes Yes Minor – short term visual experience and damage to impact or temporary loss of trails. trail use may degrade recreation experience. Road work on BPA Impacts to recreation No Yes No Moderate - short term visual easement experience and damage to impact may degrade trails. recreation experience. Improvement to road will provide additional access and degrade the more primitive experience recreationist are seeking. Firehouse Impacts to recreation No Yes No None – propose trail system experience is not near the facility Courtney Rd Impacts to recreation Maybe No No Minor – may cause some widening experience delays to access upper trail heads. Allen Property Impacts to recreation Yes Yes No Minor – may only affect thinning and experience Major Cr. Road Trail. Short structure removal term visual impact and thinning operations may degrade recreation experience. Weed treatments Impacts to recreation Maybe Yes No Minor experience Paved accessible Impacts to recreation No Yes Yes Minor – adds to congestion trail at Catherine experience along County Road 8 and the Creek Catherine Creek Parking area. Burdoin II & Impacts to recreation Yes Yes No Minor – short term visual Catherine Thin experience and damage to impact, temporary loss of from Below trails. trail use may and thinning operations degrade recreation experience Land acquisitions Impacts to recreation Maybe Yes Yes Increasing land base experience. enhances experience by reducing the potential for developments adjacent to the trail system and reduces potential encroachment on to private lands. Could provide opportunities for more use made trails. Historic Tree Impacts to recreation No Yes Yes None Harvest experience. Future State/Private Impacts to recreation Maybe Yes Not now Minor - short term visual Forest Practices experience. impact may degrade recreation experience.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 134 3.5 - OTHER DISCLOSURES

Effects to Wetlands and Flood Plains The proposed activity does not occur within any floodplains or wetlands. Some vegetative treatments occur within the Riparian Reserves associated with streams. A practical alternative test to consider other options, which eliminate the need to enter these Riparian Reserves, was prepared.

Effects on Prime Farm, Range, and Forest Lands The proposed action is in keeping with the intent of Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime lands. The analysis area does not contain any prime farm nor rangeland. Prime forestland does not apply to lands within the National Forest system. In the proposed action, Forest Service land would be managed with sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.

Environmental Justice The Proposed Action would not have adverse effects on Native Americans, women, or any minority group, and the civil rights of any Untied States citizen would also not be affected. No impacts on American Indian social, economic, or subsistence rights are anticipated. There would be no impacts on the American Indian Religious Freedom Act or on American Indian Treaty Rights. All contracts offered by the Forest Service contain Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.

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 nor irretrievable commitment of resources has been identified with the implementation of any alternative proposed.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 135

CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND REFERENCES CITED

4.0 – INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the results of consultation with other agencies. It also identifies the agencies, organizations, and interested publics contacted as part of the notification and scoping effort associated with this planning effort.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Review All known sites of listed species were compiled and surveys for these species and their suitable habitats were completed as per appropriate protocols. All sightings are summarized in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix A).

4.1 - PERSONS, AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED

Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service is required before a project may proceed if there is likelihood for adverse effect to species listed under authority of the Endangered Species Act as Threatened or Endangered. There are no Threatened and Endangered species or habitat likely to be adversely affected within the planning area --therefore formal consultation will not be required for this recreation management plan. See the Biological Evaluation in Appendix A for further details.

An evaluation of the original Recreation Plan Alternatives with recommended mitigations was submitted by CRGNSA archeologist, Marge Dryden, to the Washington State Historic Preservation Office and concurrence was received on September 9, 2008. The “Supplemental Letter Report for the Coyote Wall, Burdoin and Catherine Creek Trails Project, 2010 Revision” was submitted the consulting Tribes and the SHPO in June 2010.

Following is a partial list known interested parties that have been contacted concerning the proposed action discussed in this Environmental Assessment:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 136

CRGNSA Tribes Columbia River Gorge Commission Adjacent Land Owners Within 200 feet of Planning Area Boundary Carol Adams Mtn. Biking Barbara Adams Horses, Hiker Eric Aldinger Mtn Biking Amy Anbeit Mtn. Biking Ted Anderson Hiking Cindy Anderson CAMBA/Hiker Lyle Anderson Flora & Fauna Arthur Babitz Mtn. Biking, Environmental Frank Backus SDS Sara Badiali Flora & Fauna Connie Baugher MT. Adams Chapter BCH David Berger Flora & Fauna Chris Bernhardt Mtn. Biking Jerry Binkly Property owner Dave Bisset Mtn. Biking Jennifer Bisset Hiker,Mtn. Biking /HRC Forest Rec. Trail Committee Sharlane Blaise Flora & Fauna Julie Blenn Hiker, Mtn Biker Jim Blilie Hiker, biker Will Bloch Flora & Fauna, Hiking Susan Bodin Wildflowers Stefanie Boen Horse Denise D Bokum BCHW Barbara Bond Hiking Nate Boris Biker/ Hiking Kristy Boscheinen Appeal Rev Team Coord-Forest Service Roger Brewer Flora & Fauna Ken Burgstahler WSDOT Tom Butler Property Owner Pam Campbell FS Julia Campbell Flora & Fauna Patrick Carey Hunter/Property Owner Dan Carey Property Owner Jay Carroll Mt. Bikes Stacey Castleberry Hiking, Biker Ruth Chausse Hiking, Horse, Back Country Horsement of WA & OR L Caitlin Coberly Horse riding, Native Plant Society of OR Patrick & Elizabeth Conway Flora & Fauna, Hiking Abigail Corson Homeowner Peter Corudison Friends Of The Columbia Gorge Paul Cousar Back Country Horsemen of WA Greg Cox Rover/Forest Service Pam Davis Road useage Dave Dee Mtn. Biking Andrew Deenik Mtn. Biking Brian Dennis Mtn. Biking Jim Denton Flora & Fauna Carolyn Devine Flora & Fauna, Hiking

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 137

Robin Dobson Forest Service Ted Dodd Biker Marge Dryden Forest Service Ralph & Shelley Edlin Mtn. Biking /Property Owner Bill Ernst Biker/Hiking John Eskridge Flora & Fauna Virginia Fleury Mtn. Biking/Property Owner Eileen Fordonski Owner, Hiking, Biker, CAMBA Betsy Frazier Mtn. Biking /Hiking Scott Frey Mtn. Biking John Gamon Flora & Fauna Stu Garrett Flora & Fauna Hilary Garrett Hiking, Biker, Flora & Fauna David Gee Mtn. Biking Steve George PUMP Julie Gibson Horse Sarah Gibson Horse Scott Goodnight Flora & Fauna Cecelia Goodnight Flora & Fauna Ryan Goodwin Mtn. Biking, Property Owner Becky Green Horse Matt Gustafsen Mtn. Biking Robin Hale Curious Bob Hansen Flora & Fauna Chris Hansen Hiking/Biker Susie Harris Biker, CAMBA Fred Henry Mtn. Biking Stan Hinatsu Forest Service Melissa Hobaugh Biker, CAMBA Rebecca Hoffman Flora & Fauna, Hiking Dee Holzman CAMBA / Biker/ Hiking Marita Ingalsbe Hiking Don Jacobson Flora & Fauna Douglas Johnson Biker Alice Johnson Biker Gardner Johnston CAMBA, Mtn. Biking Phil Jones Catherine Creek Dave Kelm Bike, Horse ride, hike Jon Kelm Mtn. Biking Lindsey Koepke Flora & Fauna Mark Kreiter Forest Service Kay Kucera CAMBA / Its My Back-Yard! Julie Larson Flora & Fauna Theresa Laskiewicz Flora & Fauna Carmen Leibbrandt Horse Greg Lief Flora & Fauna, Hiking Eliza Lindsay Flora & Fauna Darryl Lloyd Hiking Darvel Lloyd Flora & Fauna Roger Loughton Mtn Biking CAMBA Pierce Louis Mt.Biker Jay Lunn Flora & Fauna

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 138

Erin Madden Hiking, Wildflowers Ginny Maffitt Flora & Fauna Richard Marantz Flora & Fauna, Hiking Elizabeth Marantz Flora & Fauna Ann McDonald Mtn. Biking, CAMBA Scott McKenzie CAMBA Mead Flora & Fauna Jacqueline Moreau Property owner, horse Angie Mosie Hiking / Wildflowers Paul Moyer Flora & Fauna Heidi Mudry Mtn. Biking Barbara Murphy Mtn. Biking Catherine Mushel Horse, Biking Dean Myerson Mtn. Biking & Property Owner Aaron Naehtras Mt. Biking Nancy Napp Flora & Fauna Dan Naughton CAMBA Jordan Norris Biking Rita Nycern CAMBA/Mtn. Biking/Hiking Greg & Pia Oravetz Biking Sid Perkins Mtn. Biking / CAMBA Fran Peterson Rover/Facilitator/Forest Service Jon & Lynn Putnam Flora & Fauna, Hiking Nate & Leslie Reagan Mtn. Biking Larry Read Hiking Ty Reed Mtn. Biking Elena Respect Flora & Fauna Heidi Ribkoff Mtn. Biking Jeff Roberts Biking Barbara Robinson Mtn. Biking Amy Rohan Horse, Biking Roland Rose Forest Service Diana Ross Rover/Forest Service Dave Russell CAMBA Eric Sanford Biker Susan Saul Washington Trails Association Criag Sawyer Mtn. Biking Patricia Schmuck Flora & Fauna Tamara Shannon Mt.Biker Susan Sherman Biking Wayne Silver Mtn. Biking Todd Simmler CAMBA/IMBA Laurie Skinner Horse, Biker Michael Slater Mtn Biking CAMBA Heather Slivck CAMBA Bob Smith Hiking Tom Solvak AMBA Vera Sonneck Nez Perce Tribe, cultural Craig Spaeth CAMBA / Mtn. Biking Sherri Starkin Flora & Fauna Jim Stavish Biking

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 139

Frances Stilwell Flora & Fauna, Hiking Shawn Stratton Biking Karen Sturgeon Flora & Fauna, Hiking Jill Suess Horse/Hiking Pauline Sullivan Flora & Fauna Rick Till Mtn. Biking Allen Tooke Flora & Fauna, Hiking Linda Turner FS Douglas Van Zandt Mtn. Biking / Hiking Craig Vance Horse Val Vanderpool Biking

Loren VanWagner Mtn. Biking Bernard Versari Property owner Dave Waag Biking David Wagner Flora & Fauna Carl Warren Mtn. Biking / Volunteer Dave Welch Mtn. Biking / CAMBA/BCHWS Rich Whitekettle Mtn. Biking / CAMBA Brad Whiting Mtn. Biking Tim Wilder Mtn. Biking Jordan Wilkinson Biking Shane Wilson Biking Pat Wyers-Kreps Property Owner Stephanie Yas Westside Hill Federation Jon Ziring Mtn. Biking

4.2 - LIST OF PREPARERS

The following interdisciplinary team members participated in the preparation of this document:

Interdisciplinary Team Title Lynn Oliver/Diana Ross Team Leader/Landscape Architect Christine Plourde Landscape Architect Trainee Robin Dobson Botanist/Ecologist Mark Kreiter Hydrologist/Soils Chuti Fiedler Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist Stan Hinatsu Recreational Planner Marge Dryden Archeologist Pam Campbell Lands Staff Officer Michele Dailey Spatial Analyst

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 140

4.3 - CONTRIBUTORS

The following is a partial list of individuals, organizations, and agencies directly contributed to the project description or collection of data used during project development:

Collaboration Group Representation Team

Marge Dryden CRGNSA-Archeology Robin Dobson CRGNSA-Ecology Mark Kreiter CRGNSA-Water and Soils Pam Campbell CRGNSA-Lands Diana Ross CRGNSA-Planning and Scenic Edan Lira CRGNSA-Recreation Stan Hinatsu CRGNSA-Recreation Greg Cox CRGNSA-Staff Officer Fran Petersen Independent Facilitator Ann McDonald CAMBA –Mtn. Biking Dave Welch Equestrians Eileen Fordonski Equestrians Darryl Lloyd Hiking Steve Watrous Hunting Arthur Babitz Mtn. Bikings Dave Waag Mtn. Bikings Rick Till Natural Resources-FOCG Dan Carey Property Owners Pat Kreps Wyers Property Owners Tom Butler Property Owners Kay Kucera Rock Climbers Bill Weiler WA Fish and Wildlife

Others Ruth Chausse Barbara Robinson Dell Rhodes Will Bloch Arthur Babite Kevin Gorman Dave Welch Paul Slichlr Donna Enz Steve Wation Roger Graffiths David Anderson WA Fish and Wildlife

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 141

4.4 – REFERENCES RESEARCHED AND/OR CITED

Scenic Resources

USDA, Forest Service, 2004. Management Plan for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

USDA, Forest Service, 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Vol. 2 Chapter 1: The Visual Management System. Washington, DC.

USDA, Forest Service Handbook No. 559. National Forest Landscape Management Vol 2, Chapter 5. Washington, DC.

Cultural Resources

Boynton, Michael J. 2002 Cultural Resource Probability Assessment and Inventory Strategy for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area” USDA Forest Service. Manuscript on File with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

Dryden, Margaret 2004 Heritage Resource Inventory Report, Burdoin II Vegetation Management Project. Manuscript on file with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

2005 Heritage Resource Inventory Report, Catherine Creek – Allen Tract Small Fir Removal and Prescribed Burn Project. Manuscript on file with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

2007 Heritage Resource Inventory Report for Catherine Forest Restoration Project. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. USDA Forest Service report number: R2006-06-22-0030. Manuscript on File with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

2008 Heritage Resource Inventory Report for Coyote Wall, Burdoin, and Catherine Creek Trails Project. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. USDA Forest Service report number: R2008- 06-22-0024. Manuscript on File with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

2010 Supplemental Letter Report for the Coyote Wall, Burdoin and Catherine Creek Trails Project, 2010 Revision. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. USDA Forest Service report number: R2010-06-22-0017. Manuscript on File with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

Hess, Sean and Sheila Stump 1995 “An Inventory and Evaluation of Cultural Resources in the Catherine Creek and Major Creek Drainages, Southwestern Klickitat County, Washington”. BOAS Research Report No. 9306 for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area under Contract No. R6-93- 613.

Luttrell, Charles T. 1994 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Bonneville Power Administration’s Ross-Franklin Fiber Optics Project, Benton, Franklin, and Klickitat Counties, Washington and Wasco County, Oregon. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University. Short Report 423. Submitted

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 142

to the Bonneville Power Administration for Job No. 94-4. Manuscript on file with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

McDaniel, Sarah Heritage Resource Inventory Report for the Burdoin Mountain Fuels Treatment Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Manuscript on file with the US Forest Service in Hood River, Oregon.

Turck, Thomas “National Register of Historic Places Nomination form for the Rowland Basin Site (45kl327)”. Manuscript on file at the USDA Forest Service office in Hood River, Oregon.

Natural Resources

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC.: Island Press. 493 p

Abele, Stephen C., Victoria A. Saab, and Edward O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. June 29, 2004.

Altman, Bob. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight. June 2000.

Anderson, David. 2010. Based on more recent peregrine falcon surveys data, the recommended closed area time period near eyries for breeding peregrine falcons is February 1 – July 15 unless surveys to USFWS protocol release that time period for that eyrie. Personal communication from WDFW Biologist Anderson to CRGNSA Biologist Brett Carré on April 7, 2010.

Anderson, H.W. 1976. Fire effects on water supply, floods, and sedimentation. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. Proc. 15:249-260.

Anthony, R.G.; Steidl, R.J.; McGarigal, K. 1995. Recreation and bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. In: Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press: 223–241.

Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Franklin, A.B., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P.; White, G.C., Schwarz, C.J., Nichols, J., Hines, J., Olson, G.S., Ackers, S.H., Andrews, S., Biswell, B.L., Carlson, P.C., Diller, L.V., Dugger, K.M., Fehring, K.E., Fleming, T.L., Gerhardt, R.P., Gremel, S.A., Gutierrez, R.J., Happe, P.J., Herter, D.R., Higley, J.M., Horn, R.B., Irwin, L.L., Loschl, P.J., Reid, J.A., and Sovern, S.G. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Final report to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

Atwill, E., K. Tate, M. das Gracas Cabral Pereira, J. Bartolome, and G. Nader. 2006. Efficacy of natural grassland buffers for removal of Cryptosporidium parvum in rangeland runoff. J. Food Prot. 69:177–184.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 143

Bayfield, N. G. 1985. The effects of extended use on mountain footpaths in Britain. In: The ecological impacts of outdoor recreation on mountain areas in Europe and North America. Recreat. Ecol. Res. Group Rep. No. 9. Wye, UK: Wye College, Department of Horticulture, Recreation Ecology Research Group: 100-111.

Bayfield, N. G. 1986. Penetration of the Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland, by vehicle tracks and footpaths: impacts and recovery. In: Lucas, Robert C., camp. Proceedings-national wilderness research conference: current research; 1985 July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 121-128

Blumstein, D.T.; E. Fernandez-Juricic; P.A. Zollner and S.C. Garity. 2005. Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 943–953.

Brambilla, Mattia, Diego Rubolini and Franca Guidali. 2004. Rock climbing and raven Corvus corax occurrence depress breeding success of cliff-nesting peregrines Falco peregrines Ardeola 51(2), 2004, 425-430

Brown, G.W. 1972. The Alsea Watershed Study. Pac. Logging Cong. Loggers Hbk. Vol. 32. 6 p.

Boyle, S.A.; Samson, F.B. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13: 110–116.

Buckhouse, J. and G. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle grazing on a semiarid watershed in Southeastern Utah. J. Range Manage. 29(1).

Bull, E.L. 2006. Sexual Differences in the ecology and habitat selection of Western Toads (Bufo boreas) in Northeastern Oregon. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 1(1):27-38.

Bull, E. L., and J. E. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 148 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Bull, E. L. and C.T. Collins. 2007. Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi). In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North America Online database: ttp://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Vauxs_Swift/ .

Burroughs, E.R., Jr., John G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 21pp.

Burton, Timothy A. 2005. Fish and stream habitat risks from uncharacteristic wildfire: observations from 17 years of fire-related disturbances on the Boise National Forest, Idaho. Forest and Ecology management 211: 140-149.

Campbell, J.E. and D.J. Gibson. 2001. The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse dung on vegetation along trail corridors. Plant Ecology 157: 23–35.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 144

Cardiff, S. W., and D. L. Dittmann. 2002. Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens). In The Birds of North America, No. 664 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Cassier, E.F.; Freddy, D.J.; Ables, E.D. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross country skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20(4): 375–381. Claar, J.J.; Anderson, N.; Boyd, D. [et al.]. 1999. Carnivores. In: Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coords. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society: 7.1–7.63.

Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. In Manfredo, M., Vaske, J., Field, D., Brown, P., Bruyere, B., eds. Society and resource management: a summary of knowledge. Jefferson city, MO: Modern Litho: 107-116.

Cole, D.N.; Landres, P.B. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. In: Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J., eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press: 183–202.

Cole, D. N. 1983. Assessing and monitoring backcountry trail conditions. Res. Pap. INT-303. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.

Cole, D. N. 1991. Changes on Trails in the Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness, Montana, 1978-89. Res. Pap. INT-450. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 7 p.

Cooke, A.S. 1980. Observations on how close certain passerine species will tolerate an approaching human in rural and suburban areas. Biological Conservation. 18: 85-88.

Cole, D. N. 1983. Assessing and monitoring backcountry trail conditions. Res. Pap. INT-303. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.

Cole, D. N. 1991. Changes on Trails in the Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness, Montana, 1978-89. Res. Pap. INT-450. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 7 p.

Corkran, Charlotte and Chris Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia: A field identification guide – 2nd edition. Lone Pine Publishing. Auburn, WA.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.

Crisafulli, Charles M. 1999. Survey Protocol for Larch Mountain Salamander – Version 3.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. (Chap VII within the Survey protocols for amphibians under the Survey and Manage provision of the Northwest Forest Plan.)

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 145

Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling Effects on Vegetation of the Trail Corridors of North Rocky Mountain Forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 11:767-772.

Desimone, Steven M. and David W. Hays. 2004. Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles. In Management recommendations for Washington’s priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Ditchkoff, S.S., S.T. Saalfeld, and C.J. Gibson. 2006. Animal behavior in urban ecosystems: Modifications due to human-induced stress. Urban Ecosyst 9: 5–12. Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

Doyle, R., D. Wolf and D. Bezdicek. 1975. Effectiveness of forest buffer strips in improving the water quality of manure polluted runoff. In: Managing livestock wastes. American Society for Agricultural Engineers Publ. Proc-275.

Fernandez-Juricic, E.; R. Vaca and N. Schroeder. 2004. Spatial and temporal responses of forest birds to human approaches in a protected area and implications for two management strategies. Biological Conservation 117: 407–416.

Fimbel, Cheryl. 2004. Strategies for enhancing Western gray squirrels on Fort Lewis. The Nature Conservancy. Olympia, Washington. March, 2004.

Fish, E. B.; Brothers, G., Lewis, R.. 1981. Erosional impacts of trails in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Landscape Planning. 8: 387-398.

Fletcher, R.J.; McKinney, S.T.; Bock, C.E. 1999. Effects of recreational trails on wintering diurnal raptors along riparian corridors in a Colorado grassland. Journal of Raptor Research. 33(3): 233–239.

Forde KN, A. Swinker, J. Traub-Dargatz and J. Cheney. 1998. The prevalence of Cryptosporidium/Giardia in trail horse population utilizing public lands in Colorado. J Equine Vet Sci 8:38–40.

Forrest, Andrew and Colleen Cassady St. Clair 2006. Effects of dog leash laws and habitat type on avian and small mammal communities in urban parks. Urban Ecosystem (2006) 9:51-66

Franklin, J, and Dryrness, C.T.. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

Froehlich, H.A., D.E. Aulerich, and R.Curtis. 1981. Designing skid trail systems to reduce soil impacts from tractive logging machines. Research Paper 44. Forest Research Lab, School of Forestry, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. l5pp.

Gaines, W.L.; P.H. Singleton; and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79 p.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 146

George, S.L. and K.R. Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133: 107 –117.

Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97 (2001) 265-268

Gower, S.T. 2008. Are horses responsible for introducing non-native plants along forest trails in the eastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 256: 997–1003.

Griffin, S.C.; T. Valois; M.L. Taper;and L.S. Mills. 2006. Effects of Tourists on Behavior and Demography of Olympic Marmots. Conservation Biology. 21(4): 1070–1081.

Griffith, Randy S. 1993. Accipiter gentilis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Gutiérrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. Lahaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). In The Birds of North America, No. 179 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Hallock, L.A. and K.R. McAllister. 2005. Western Toad. Washington Herp Atlas. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/

Hays, David W. and Elizabeth A. Rodrick. 2004. Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus. Pages 24-1 – 24-5 in E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Hays, David W. and Ruth L. Milner. 1999. Peregrine falcon. Pages 11-1 – 11-4 in E.

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management – 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 361 p.

Herrington, R.E. and J.H. Larsen Jr. 1985. Current status, habitat requirements and management of the Larch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli Burns. Biological Conservation 34: 169-179.

Hevland, Sgt. Mark Hevland, Beaverton Police Department, K-9 handler/trainer, member of the Oregon Police Canine Association, personal communication with Brett Carré on 4/21/2010

Hitchcock and Cronquist.1991, Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washgington Press, Seattle, WA.

Huff, Mark H.; Seavy, Nathaniel E.; Alexander, John D.; Ralph, C. John. 2005. Fire and birds in maritime Pacific Northwest. Fire and avian ecology in North America. Camarillo, CA : Cooper Ornithological Society. (Studies in avian biology; no. 30 p. 46-62.)

Isaacs, F.B. 2007. Results of peregrine falcon breeding area monitored in Oregon, 2003-2006; Final report. 5 Feb 2007. Oregon Cooperative Fish and wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 147

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 2007. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon and Washington portion of the Columbia River recovery Zone, 1971 through 2006. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Jolley, Russ 1988. Wildflowers of the Columbia River Gorge. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland, OR

Joslin, G.; Youmans, H., coords. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Helena, MT: Committee on effects of recreation on wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307 p.

Johnson, E., E.R. Atwill, M.E. Filkins, and J. Kalush. 1997. The prevalence of shedding of Cryptosporidium and Giardia sp. based on a single fecal sample collection from each of 91 horses used for backcountry recreation. J. Vet. Diagnostic Investigation 9:56-60.

Keinath, Doug and Jason Bennett. 2000. Status and distribution of the Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) in Wyoming. U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Keller, V.E. 1991. Effects of Human Disturbance on Eider Ducklings Somateria mollissima in an Estuarine Habitat In Scotland. Biological Conservation 58: 213-228.

Kitchen, A.M., E.M. Gese, and E.R. Schauster. 2000. Changes in coyote activity patterns due to reduced exposure to human persecution. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 853–857.

Klein, M.L.; S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of Ecotourism on Distribution of Waterbirds in a Wildlife Refuge. Conservation Biology, Vol 9(6): 1454-1465.

Knight, R.L.; Cole, D.N. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56: 239–247.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, DC: Island Press. 372 p.

Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Lance, A. N.; Baugh, I. .; Love, J. 1989. Continued footpath widening in the Caimgorm Mountains, Scotland. Biological Conservation. 49: 201-214.

Landsberg J.; B. Logan and D. Shorthouse. 2001. Horse riding in urban conservation areas: Reviewing scientific evidence to guide management. Ecological Management and Restoration 2(1): 36-46.

Lanham, J. Drew, Patrick H. Brose and Patrick D. Keyser. 2005. Conservation implications for neotropical migratory and game birds in oak-hardwood stands managed with shelterwood harvests and

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 148

prescribed fire. In Fire in Eastern oak forests: Delivering science to land managers. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-P-1.

Larsen, E.M., E. Rodrick, and R. Milner, eds. 1995. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority Species, Volume I: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 82 pp.

Larsen, E.M., editor. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume III: Amphibians and Reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 122 pp.

Larsen, E.M., and J. T. Morgan. 1998. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitat: Oregon white oak woodlands. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 37 pp.

Lenth, B.; M. Brennan; and R.L. Knight. 2008. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities: Report submitted to Boulder County Open Space and Mountain Parks in February 2006. Natural Areas Journal, Volume 28(3)

Lenth, B.; M. Brennan; and R.L. Knight. 2006. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities: Final research report submitted to Boulder County Open Space and Mountain Parks in February 2006.

Lewis, Jeffrey C., and Jeffrey M. Azerrad. 2003. Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus. In Management recommendations for Washington’s priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Lewis, Jeffrey C. and Elizabeth A. Rodrick. 2002. White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus. Pages 28-1 – 28-4 in E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Lewis, Jeffrey C., Morie Whalen, and Elizabeth Rodrick. 2002. Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis. Pages 26-1 – 26-5 in E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Lewis, Jeffrey C., Morie Whalen, and Ruth Milner. 2002. Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi. Pages 25-1 – 25-5 in E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. New York: Chapman and Hall. 639 p.

Linders, M.J.; G.F. Wilhere; and B.L. Cosentino. 2003. Evaluating the Effects of Human Development Patterns on Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Function. Proceedings from the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference: 1-23.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 149

Linders, M. J., and D. W. Stinson. 2006. Draft Washing ton State recovery plan for the Western gray squirrel. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 91 pp.

Lyon, J.L. 1983. Road Density Models Describing Habitat Effectiveness for Elk Journal of Forestry. Sept 1983: 592-613. Mainini, B., Neuhaus, P., and Ingold, P. 1993. Behavior of Marmots, Marmota marmota under the influence of different hiking activities. Biological Conservation. 64: 161-164.

MacArthur, R.A.; V. Geist and and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(2): 351–358.

Marshall, D.B., M.W.Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1996. Species at risk: sensitive, threatened, and endangered vertebrates of Oregon. 2nd edition. Oregon department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Marshall, David B. 1997. Status of the white-headed woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society of Portland. Portland, OR.

McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). In The Birds of North America, No. 93 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

McCune, Bruce, and Geiser, Linda. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland riparian areas Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 227-236.

Miller, S.G.; R.L. Knight and K.C. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):124-132.

Miller, S.G.; Knight, R.L.; Miller, K.C. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications. 8: 162–169.

Mills, S.L. 2007. Conservation of Wildlife Populations: Demography, genetics, and management. Blackwell publishing. 497 p.

Naylor, L.M. 2006. Behavioral responses of Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) to recreational disturbance. A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Presented January 25 2006.

Nedeau, Ethan, Allan k. Smith, and Jen Stone. Freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington. 43 pp.

Northwest National Fire Plan Project Design and Consultation Process, Version 2.0. November 20, 2003 (salmonids updated January 2005). USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. http://www.blm.gov/or/fcp/FCP-Home.htm

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 150

Newsome D.; A. Milewski; N. Phillips and R. Annear. 2002. Effects of Horse Riding on National Parks and Other Natural Ecosystems in Australia: Implications for Management. Journal of Ecotourism 1(1): 52-74.

Nussbaum, Ronald A., Edmund D. Brodie, Jr., and Robert M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho press. Moscow, Idaho.

ODFW. 2006. The Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, editors. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Area: a literature review and assessment. Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 315 pages.

O'Neil, Thomas A., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly A. Bettinger, Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G. Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H.

Pagel, J.E. and W.M. Jarman. 1991. Peregrine falcons, pesticides, and contaminants in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of pesticide reform, winter 1991, volume 11(4).

Palmer, Ralph S. (ed). 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Yale University Press. Binghamton, New York.

Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(2): 521–530.

Pyle, R.M. 2002. Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society.

Randler C. 2006. Disturbances by dog barking increase vigilance in coots Fulica atra. European Jornal of Wildlife Res 52: 265–270.

Renken, Rochelle B. 2005. Does fire affect amphibians and reptiles in Eastern U.S. oak forests? In Fire in Eastern oak forests: Delivering science to land managers. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-P-1.

Rieske-Kinney, Lynne. 2005. Do fire and insects interact in Eastern forests?. In Fire in Eastern oak forests: Delivering science to land managers. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-P-1.

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2007, March 23].

Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia Washington.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 151

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO: 343 pp.

Ryan, L.A. and A.B. Carey. 1995. Biology and management of the western gray squirrel and Oregon white oak woodlands: with emphasis on the Puget Trough Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-348. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 pp.

Schumacher, J.V.; R.L. Redmond; M.M. Hart and M.E. Jensen. 2000. Mapping patterns of human use and potential resource conflict on public lands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64: 127– 137.

Sime Carolyn A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats – effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife. Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society

Spies, Thomas A., Miles A. Hemstrom, Andrew Youngblood, and Susan Hummel. 2005 Conserving old-growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 2, 351-362.

Spahr, R. 1990. Factors Affecting The Distribution Of Bald Eagles And Effects Of Human Activity On Bald Eagles Wintering Along The Boise River. A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science of Raptor Biology. Boise State University. March, 1990. St. John, A.D. 2002. Reptiles of the Northwest. Lone Pine Publishing.

Stalmaster, M.V.; and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(2): 506–513.

Steidl, R.J., and R.G. Anthony. 1996. Responses of bald eagles to human activity during the summer in interior Alaska. Ecological Applications. 6: 482-491.

Stuart, S.; J.S. Chanson; N.A. Cox; B.E. Young; A.S. Rodrigues; D.L. Fishman; and R.W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. - Science 306: 1783-1786.

Sterling, J. C. 1999. Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii). In The Birds of North America, No. 458 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

St. John, Alan. 2002. Reptiles of the Northwest. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, Washington.

Stinson, D. W., J. W. Watson, and K. R. McAllister. 2001. Washington state status report for the bald eagle. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 92 pp.

Sullivan, Janet. 1994. Bufo boreas. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [accessed March 22, 2007].

Summer, R.M. 1980. Impact of Horse Traffic in Rocky Mountain National Park. J. Soil Water Conserv. 35: 85-87.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 152

Summer, R. M. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 41: 126-128.

Swanson, S., M. George, J. Buckhouse and R. Larsen. 1994. Draft report - Evaluation of the effectiveness of livestock and range management practices in grazed watersheds. USEPA unpubl. rpt. Univ. Nevada, Reno and Univ. California, Davis.

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications. 13: 951-963.

The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

Thomas, K.; R.G. Kvitek; and C. Bretz. 2003. Effects of human activity on the foraging behavior of sanderlings Calidris alba. Biological Conservation 109: 67–71.

Tigas, L.A., D.H. Van Vuren, and R.M. Sauvajot. 2002. Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation 108: 299– 306

Tinsley, B. E. and Fish, E.. 1985. Evaluation of trail erosion in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Landscape Planning. 12: 29-47.

Tobalske, B. W. 1997. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In The Birds of North America, No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. Revised December 1990 (1965). Sivics of North America. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Washington, D.C. vol.2, 877 p. USDA Forest Service. 1994-2001. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Stream Surveys. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Hood River, OR.

USDA Forest Service, et al. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service andUSDI Bureau of Land Management. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR, January 2001

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program species information: Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/

USFWS, 1982. The Pacific Coast American peregrine falcon recovery plan. October 12, 1982. Denver, Colorado. 87 pp.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 153

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp.

Vander Haegen, W. M., G. R. Orth and L.M. Aker. 2005. Ecology of the western gray squirrel in south-central Washington. Progress report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 41 pp.

Vertebrate Distribution Models. The Washington Gap Analysis GIS range maps (accessed 3/20/2007) http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/gap/dataprod.htm

Wahl, Terence R., Bill Tweit, and Ateven G. Mlodinow (eds). 2005. Birds of Washington: Status and distribution. Oregon State University press. Corvallis, OR.

Western Bat Working Group. 2010 Bat species information. http://www.wbwg.org/index.html

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager; H.K. Preisler; N.J. Cimon and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 69: 67-80.

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparisons of Surface Impact by Hiking and Horseback Riding in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Dept. Interior, Nat. Park Serv., NPS-SER Res./Res. Man. Rept. No. 24.

Yalden P.E. and D. W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational Disturbance of Breeding Golden Plovers Pluvialis apricarius. Biological Conservation 51: 243-262.

Vander Haegen, W. M., G. R. Orth and L.M. Aker. 2005. Ecology of the western gray squirrel in south-central Washington: Progress report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 41 pp.

Yasué, M. 2005. The effects of human presence, flock size and prey density on shorebird foraging rates. J Ethology 23:199–204.

Warkentin, I. G., N. S. Sodhi, R. H. M. Espie, A. F. Poole, L.W. Oliphant, P.C. James, and I.G. Warkentin (2005). Merlin (Falco columbarius). The Birds of North America Online. (A. Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Merlin/.

WDFW, Washington Herp Atlas, 2005. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/

Whittaker, P.L. 1978. Comparisons of Surface Impact by Hiking and Horseback Riding in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Dept. Interior, Nat. Park Serv., NPS-SER Res./Res. Man. Rept. No. 24.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 154

Recreation Resources

BikeRag.Com LLC: 2/2007 entries: GI Going OFF@ Westwoods and Ginger Going OFF at Westwoods!! CT postings and photos of freeriding trips.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2003. Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003-2007.

State of Washington, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Salmon Recovery Board. 2003. Estimates of Future Participation in Outdoor Recreation in Washington State.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDAFS) 2004. Management Plan for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2003. 2003-2007 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Plan.

Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. 2007. 2006 Outdoor Recreation Survey.

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 2002. An Assessment of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State, A State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning (SCORP) Document 2002- 2007.

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 2001. Hawaii Trail Analysis: Survey and Risk Management Data Profile.

S. Feeney, Schenectady County Department of Planning. 1997. The Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail & its Impact on Adjoining Residential Properties.

R. Moore, A Graefe, R. Gitelson, E. Porter, Conducted by the National Park Service in Cooperation with Pennsylvania State University. 1992. The Impacts of Rail-Trails, A Study of Users and Nearby Property Owners from Three Trails.

D. Greer, University of Nebraska at Omaha. 2001. Nebraska Rural Trails: Three Studies of Trail Impact.

S. Webel, Boulder Area Trail Coalition. 2000. Trail Effects of Neighborhoods: Home Value, Safety, Quality of Life.

USDA Forest Service, Region 6. 2009. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results March 2009, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

A. Graefe, R. Burns, K. Robinson, Pennsylvania State University, & University of Florida. 2001. Recreationist in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area: A Survey of User Characteristics, Behaviors and Attitudes.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 155

T. Hall, H. Heaton, L. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation.

R.Miller, G. Howell. 2008. Regulating Consumption with Bite: Building a Contemporary Framework for Urban Dog Management. Journal of Business Research Volume 61, Issue 5, 2008.

C. Westgarth, R. Christley, G. Pinchbeck, R. Gaskell, S. Dawson, J. Bradshaw, 2010. Dog Behavior on Walks and the Effects of Use of the leash. Applied Animal Behavior Science.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 156

APPENDIX A - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS

Biological Evaluation Of the Potential Impacts to Sensitive Flora and Fauna

U.S. Forest Service Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area

Date: Last Update June 10, 2010

Project: Burdoin Mountain/Coyote Wall/Catherine Creek Recreation Plan

Pre-field Review: Databases from Natural Heritage, USFS and WDFW were reviewed and TES species locations, as well as priority habitat polygons, were compiled in 2007. Survey data from the 2006 and 2007 Burdoin and Catherine Creek Vegetation EA was reviewed, as it encompasses the Coyote Wall Recreation Plan project area.

Field Review: Flora: Field surveys have been completed formally and informally for many years by local botanists. No formal survey of the total project area was completed; all existing trail routes were surveyed for sensitive flora in 2008 season. In 2010 Krista Thie was contracted to complete floral surveys for all proposed trail alignments. The trail alignments were based on GPS trail locations including a 50-100 ft swath on either side to accommodate potential minor trail changes. Floral surveys were conducted between April 2010 and June 2010 to permit clear identification of different sensitive flora given their various blooming seasons. All sensitive flora were recorded. In addition, other botanists were collecting data as well and, as permitted, this data will likewise be compiled with the survey data.

Fauna: Field surveys for TES species have been on-going in this area for several years. In 2008, surveys were completed for Western gray squirrel nest locations, as well as aquatic mollusks. All TES species that had questionable known presence within the project area was surveyed by the FS. New locations for mollusks and western gray squirrel nests were found with surveys from 2006 - 2008. Multi-year surveys for spotted owl and Northern goshawk were unsuccessful in finding these species in suitable habitat in the northern portions of the planning area.

Findings: Flora: Previous knowledge of the sensitive flora in the project area was fairly well documented by past surveys and incidental sightings. The Catherine Creek Area was known to have a large number of sensitive plants and that some of these were scattered throughout the area. This was confirmed by the 2010 survey. New floral locations were identified. Given our best information, the trail locations were generally found to avoid most sensitive flora. However, the trails were not able to avoid all the buffer zones associated with these flora. Given the scattered numbers of some of these flora, such as the Collinsia parviflora, it was impossible to relocate the trail to avoid all the buffer locations. The No-Practicable Alternative test was completed to permit the trail to enter sensitive plant buffer zones.

More sensitive plants with limited distribution, such as Spiranthes porrifolia, were given higher priority and these populations were avoided. Other species, such as Navarretia tagetina, were found to be doing best in areas with heavy recreation use.

The existing trails that have been developed by recreation users during the past five to ten years have fortunately missed all known sensitive floral sites except a few. Some sensitive floral sites may have been lost from these activities without our knowledge. The fact that these trails were created with no regards to sensitive flora was one of the reasons and needs for this analysis. The continued development of trails would have eventually resulted in serious impacts to sensitive flora and would have resulted in more restrictive limitations.

Because the designated trails in Alternative 2 and 3 avoided all of the most sensitive flora with limited distribution, the determination of effects, as shown below in this BE, was MIIH (May impact Individuals Or Habitat, but will not likely contribute towards Federal Listing or loss of viability to the population or species).

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 157

However, there is concern that as use increases impacts will increase and eventually self-discovery for hikers may have to be limited to avoid a trend towards loss of viability. Similarly, new uses, such as rock climbing, need to be addressed as soon as they are noted so as to avoid un-necessary impacts which cumulatively may result in loss of viability.

Equestrian use in the more sensitive areas, specifically those areas with shallow soils, was of particular concern. These shallow soils could be changed by relatively low amounts of horse manure and this increase in fertility could result in greater infestations of weeds and changes in floral communities. The result could be the loss of native, sensitive flora dependent on these shallow scab soils. As a result, equestrian use was eliminated from the most sensitive areas and was limited to one trail in the Catherine Creek unit (other than the Atwood Road). Careful monitoring of the horse manure will provide information as to what extent this might have on these sensitive flora. If any adverse impacts are determined to occur, appropriate actions will be examined.

Fauna: Effects to CRGNSA sensitive species from the proposed project are displayed in the summary table of effects, displayed below. Further analysis narrative follows for each species or habitat that may be present in the planning area.

Presently, there is suitable habitat for 23 terrestrial sensitive wildlife species, with 17 terrestrial sensitive wildlife species known to exist within the planning area. Some species have been extirpated from the Scenic Area due to habitat loss or conversion (e.g. leopard frog, yellow-billed cuckoo, wolf, fisher, wolverine, white tailed deer, sharp-tailed grouse). The planning area has a high density of sensitive species for such a small area, of approximately 9 square miles, as compared to other areas within the Scenic Area.

The existing trail system occurs in high density (>3 trail miles per square mile of available habitat) through 5 priority habitats; talus, cliffs, pine/oak, streams, and spring/vernal pools. Data Table 1 displays this density in the next section of this report. The trail density, in of itself, is of small concern as the narrow trail tread removes a small amount of habitat as compared to the remaining undisturbed habitat area. The main concern with the trail density is the intensity of human presence that can move far into the planning area. Unleashed accompanying dogs increases the width of this disturbance zone even larger on either side of the trail. As the area becomes increasingly more popular, the displacement of wildlife due to disturbance increase, such as to the western gray squirrel, lesser goldfinch, and CA. Mountain kingsnake. It is likely that suitable cliff habitat in the planning area is not being used by raptors, such as peregrine falcon and golden eagle, due to the high amount of recreation use adjacent to these cliff habitats. Raptors are very intolerant of disturbance near their nest sites. It is by no accident that the current bald eagle nest is located in a section of the planning area that is furthest away from existing trails. As trail traffic increases, the risk of small and cryptic species, such as the Western toad and Larch Mountain salamander, increases for mortality or injury from getting trampled in the trail as they try to cross to get to adjacent habitat. This concern is elevated when off-trail riders go over, and displace, logs and rocks that shelter these, and other, species.

As far as can be derived from the limited existing scientific literature, current trailed recreation in the planning area is not removing large amounts of key habitat nor causing high levels of direct mortality, but does likely cause chronic disturbance to nesting, migrating, and foraging individuals. This cumulative impact is the main concern for the populations in the planning area since it is highly uncertain as to what the trigger point may be that causes the local population to slide from sensitive to extirpated status. Sensitive species are placed on the list due to their declining populations in their range that are often caused by multiple combinations of habitat loss, disease, introduced competition, and other factors. Of primary concern is that the additional disturbance from trails may further stress an already declining population.

Written By: Robin Dobson and Chuti Fiedler Botanist/Ecologist Previous Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Forest Service, CRGNSA US Forest Service, CRGNSA

and Brett Carré Current Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Forest Service, CRGNSA

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 158

Project area of analysis: Burdoin, Coyote, and Catherine County/State: Klickitat county, WA

SPECIES STATUS* PREFIELD FIELD EFFECT DETERMINATION (population segment) REVIEW REVIEW Usual Habitat in OR/WA

Habitat Species Alt 1 Rev.Alt Alt 3 Present? Present ? 2 Bull trout (Columbia R.) T, Spawns and rears in cold streams/lakes. Adults will No No (Salvelinus confluentus) OR-SC, disperse and/or migrate in warmer systems such as WA-C the Columbia River mainstem. Presently also documented in Hood R., Drano Lake, and may also use use the Klickitat R and Sandy R for migration within the NSA. Bull trout (Columbia River) Within the NSA: Designated Critical Habitat includes No No Critical Habitat all of the White Salmon and Klickitat River, within the NSA. Steelhead (Snake R.) T, Anadromous: Habitat and presence within the NSA No No and Critical Habitat WA-C limited to migration corridor of the Columbia River. (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Critical Habitat designation limited to Columbia River corridor within the NSA. Steelhead (Mid-Col. R.) T, Anadromous: Spawns and rears within Columbia Yes, Yes, NE NE NE (Oncorhynchus mykiss) WA-C River tributaries between Mosier and Yakima, in both Major upper OR and WA. Creek distri- bution unknown Steelhead (Mid-Col. R.) Within the NSA: Designated Critical Habitat includes No No Critical Habitat the Columbia River corridor, as well as White Salmon R (to NW lake) and Klickitat River in WA, with Rock, Mosier, Chenowith, Mill, 3-mile, 5-mile creeks in Oregon. Steelhead trout (Upper Col. R.) E, Anadromous. Habitat and presence within the NSA No No and Critical Habitat WA-C limited to migration corridor of the Columbia River. (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Critical Habitat designation limited to Columbia River corridor within the NSA. Steelhead (Lower Col. R.) T, Anadromous: Spawns and rears within Columbia No No (Oncorhynchus mykiss) OR-SC, River tributaries between the mouth of the Columbia WA-C R east to Hood River, in both OR and WA. Steelhead (Lower Col. R.) Within the NSA: Designated Critical Habitat includes No No Critical Habitat the Columbia River corridor, Sandy, Wind, and the Hood River systems, as well as short lower reaches of Gorge tributaries, located downstream of the Hood River. Chinook (mid-Col. spring run) FS Anadromous: Spawns (late summer/fall) and rears No No (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) within Columbia River tributaries from the Klickitat River upstream to include the Yakima River (excluding the Snake River Basin), in both OR and WA. Chinook salmon (Snake R. T, Anadromous. Presence within the NSA limited to No No spring/ summer/fall runs) and OR-T, migration corridor of the Columbia River. Critical Habitat WA-C Critical Habitat designation limited to Columbia (O. tshawytscha) River corridor within the NSA.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 159

Chinook salmon (Lower Col. T, Anadromous: Spawns and rears within Columbia No No R.) OR-SC (fall River tributaries between the mouth of the Columbia (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) run), R east to Hood River, in both OR and WA. WA-C Chinook salmon (Lower Col. Within the NSA: Designated Critical Habitat includes No No R.) the Columbia River corridor, Sandy, Wind, White Critical Habitat Salmon (to NW lake) and the Hood River systems, as well as very short lower reaches of Gorge tributaries, located downstream of the Hood River. Chinook salmon (Upper. Col. E, Anadromous: Presence within the NSA limited to No No R) and Critical Habitat WA-C migration corridor of the Columbia River. (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Critical Habitat designation limited to Columbia River corridor within the NSA. Sockeye salmon (Snake R.) E, Anadromous. Presence within NSA limited to No No and Critical Habitat WA-C migration corridor of the Columbia River. Spawning (Oncorhynchus nerka) area typically adjacent to or within lakes, where young rear. Critical Habitat designation limited to Columbia River corridor within the NSA. Chum salmon (Columbia R.) T, Anadromous: Spawns and rears in several locations No No (Oncorhynchus keta) OR-SC, on the Columbia River shoreline as well as within WA-C low gradient Columbia R tributaries, in both OR and WA. Historically documented spawning run as far east as the Umatilla/Walla Walla systems, but present pop. largely below Bonneville dam. Some incidental spawning known to occur near the mouths of White Salmon R (WA) and Eagle Creek (OR). Chum salmon (Columbia R.) Within the NSA: Designated Critical Habitat includes No No Critical Habitat the Columbia River corridor, Gibbins, Lawton, Indian mary, Duncan, Hardy, Hamilton, Cedar. Greenleaf, and White Salmon (to NW lake). Coho (lower Columbia R.) T, Anadromous: Spawns and rears within Columbia No No (Oncorhynchus kisutch) OR-E River tributaries between the mouth of the Columbia R east to Hood River, in both OR and WA. River lamprey WA-C Anadromous: Historically thought to occur No No (Lampetra ayresi) throughout the Columbia River system, but little information on current distribution or abundance. Difficult to ID as ammocoetes. One adult documented in Columbia River system of OR/WA since 1980. Eulachon T Anadromous, with spawning in mainstem Col R & No No (Thaleichthys pacificus) WA-C lower reaches of rivers, often within tidal influence. (Sandy R in NSA). Historically migrated as far east as Hood R prior to Bonneville Dam Leopard dace WA-C Disjunct pops in Columbia R. mainstem Yakima, No No (Rhinichthys falcatus) Snake, Similkameen rivers. Habitat in large, slower flowing rivers/lakes. Lay adhesive eggs in riffles, late spring. Mountain sucker WA-C Historic range in Columbia River system, largely east No No (Catostomus platyrhynchus) of Cascades, including the Col R mainstem & lower Klickitat R within the NSA. June/July spawner in riffles. Cope’s giant salamander FS, W. WA, NW OR: Clear, cold mountain streams No No (Dicamptodon copei) OR-SU w/rocky substrate Cascade torrent salamander FS, Cascade Mtns of southern WA and northern OR: in No No (Rhyacotriton cascadae) WA-C, and adjacent to cold, fast, mountain streams or seeps OR-SV w/rocky substrate Dunn's salamander WA-C Coast range only WA and Western OR: moss- No No (Plethodon dunni) covered rock rubble, shady stream banks.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 160

Oregon slender salamander FS, N and Central OR Cascades: Forests with large down No No (Batrachoseps wrightorum) OR-SU logs and moist talus with abundant wood debris Larch mountain salamander FS, Cascades mountains of S. WA/N. OR: Largely in Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH (Plethodon larselli) WA-S, moss-covered talus slopes, or other rocky substrate, at OR-SV low-mid elev. Columbia spotted frog FS, Columbia basin (east of Cascades Range): In or near Yes No (Rana luteiventris) WA-C, permanent slow ponds, streams, marshes with OR-SU abundant veg. (one known site at Conboy). No currents sites in NSA. Oregon spotted frog C, FS, The Oregon spotted frog was historically found in the No No (Rana pretiosa) WA-E, Puget Trough from the Canadian border to the OR-SC Columbia River and east into the southern Washington Cascades. In or near large perennial lakes/marshes. Closest extant population at Crane prairie reservoir in Deschutes county. Northern leopard FS Lowland marsh/ponds with dense vegetation; No frog WA-E, OR-SC presently found in Grant county only. Likely (Rana pipiens) extirpated in Gorge. Western toad WA-C, Widespread distribution in WA and OR: Most Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH (Bufo boreas) OR-SV common near marshes and small lakes (breeding sites in midspring); can travel readily overland and be found along streams/seeps. Known within the Scenic Area near White Salmon, Major and Catherine creeks. There are presently no known sites within the Oregon portion of the Scenic Area. Northwestern pond turtle FS, Streams, lg rivers, slow sloughs, and quiet waters No (Clemmys marmorata) WA-E, with nesting habitat (open meadow) within ½ mile. OR-SC Occurs <3000’ Painted Turtle FS(OR), Slow water ponds, marshes, rivers below 3000’. No (Chrysemys picta) OR-SC Widely introduced outside CRG and CR basin. Sagebrush Lizard FS-WA Found in sagebrush habitats, possibly on the extreme No (Sceloporus graciosus) edge of CRGNSA. California Mtn king snake FS(WA), Main population in CA and Klamath mtns, with Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH (Lampropeltis zonata) WA-C, disjunct pop. in Col. R. Gorge (Klickitat, Skamania OR-SV county area): oak/pine woodland, rocky riparian within logs/rocky cover. No confirmed specimens on OR side of NSA, although unconfirmed sightings have been reported at The Dalles and Maupin areas. Sharptail snake FS (WA) East slope of WA Cascades, Columbia R. Gorge, W Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH (Contia tenuis) WA-C, OR: rocky slopes often in open pine/oak woodland OR-SV w/prey species of small slugs. Often in moist riparian east of Cascades. Extremely secretive and subterranean habits. Night snake FS(WA) C. and E. Oregon. C. Washington. Found in semi Yes Yes NE NE NE (Hypsiglena torquata) arid areas of oak and talus. Rarely encountered due to entirely nocturnal habits. Striped whipsnake FS(WA), South/central WA, E. OR: dry rocky sites, oak Periphe No (Masticophis taeniatus WA-C woodland, pine forests. Washington is its ral northernmost extent of its range. Bald eagle FS Shoreline (generally within 1 mile of large water Yes Yes NE NE NE (Haliatus leucocephalus) WA-S, bodies) with large trees and prey base of primarily OR-T fish. Diet also includes some waterfowl, turtles, and carrion Northern spotted owl T, Mature coniferous forest generally used for nesting, No (Strix occidentalis caurina) WA-E, roosting, and foraging. Will disperse in early or OR-T mid-seral forests.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 161

Northern spotted owl Critical Within the NSA: Designated Critical Habitat includes No Habitat most Oregon FS land between Wahkeena Creek and Hood River, as well as headwater areas of the little Wind River and Brush Creek watershed in WA. Ferruginous hawk FS(WA), Open prairie and shrub steppe in eastern WA and OR. No (Buteo regalis) WA-T, OR-SC Peregrine falcon FS, Tall cliff (nest) sites within 1 mile of water with sm. Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH M (Falco peregrinus) OR-E, bird prey base. I WA-S I H Northern goshawk WA-C, Typically more common east of Cascades in a wide Yes, in Possible, NE NE NE (Accipiter gentilis) OR-SC variety of forest ages, structural conditions, and higher at NE successional stages. Uses stands of mature forest as elev. corner nesting sites. Typically found between 1900 and conifer 6100 feet in Oregon. forest areas Golden eagle WA-C Various habitats in open country/forests, often nests Yes Marginal MIIH MIIH MIIH (Aquila chrysaetos) on steep cliffs or large trees Merlin WA-C Open forests, grasslands, marshes. Nests in N. WA Yes Yes, post- NE NE NE (Falco columbarius) Cascades, NE WA. Winters in all NW U.S. Post breeders breeders (winter) commonly seen in NSA at low elevations. Flammulated owl WA-C, E. Cascades: cavity nester in mature ponderosa pine No (Otus flammeolus) OR-SC and mixed conifer forests with open understory at mid-elevations. Insectivore. Winters S. of US border Common loon FS(WA), Undisturbed lakes and ponds with fish/invert prey No (Gavia immer) WA-S base. Spring/fall migrant and winters in NSA. Western Grebe WA-C open lakes and marshes w/rushes and tules, winters in No (Aechmophorus occidentalis) coastal esturaies/bays Clark’s grebe FS(WA) Winters in NSA on large rivers. Breeds in large lakes No (Aechmophorus clarkii) with tule or rushes. Horned grebe (OR only) FS (OR), Common winter resident on Columbia River within No (Podiceps auritus) OR-SP NSA. Breeds in E OR/WA lakes/reservoirs with rushes/cattails Red-necked grebe FS(OR), Rare winter migrant on Columbia River. Uncommon No (Podiceps grisegena) OR-SC breeder in E WA/OR. Eared grebe FS(WA), Documented but uncommon winter resident of NSA. No (Podiceps nigricollis) Breeds in E OR/WA lakes/reservoirs with rushes/cattails American white pelican WA-E, Gregarious birds that nest in large colonies on islands No (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) OR-SV within shallow water and marshes free of human disturbance and mammalian predators. Post breeders sometimes seen in Col R. (such as Klickitat Delta). Winters in S US through Mexico. Sandhill crane FS(WA), Riverine wetland, islolated mtn meadows/basins. No No (Grus canadensis) WA-E, current breeding pops in the NSA, some migration. OR-SV (tabida ssp.) Yellow-billed cuckoo C, Historic range in WA and OR. No reported breeding No (Coccyzus americanus) WA-C, occurrences since the 1950’s, although individuals OR-SC have been sighted east of Cascades sporadically. Riparian forests, with cottonwood/thick willow; Neotropical migrant. Considered extirpated from WA and OR.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 162

Lewis' woodpecker FS(OR), Open pine/oak woodland, conifer forests, and riparian Yes Yes NE NE NE (Melanerpes lewis) WA-C, woodland. Regionally displays seasonal migration to OR-SC lower elevations during non-breeding season, although in NSA, it is often reident year-round in same location. In NSA, the species found in eastern portions in dry forest types of oak and pine. Cavity nester. White-headed woodpecker FS, Central/E. WA/OR closely associated with mature Yes No (Picoides albolarvatus) WA-C, and open ponderosa pine forests. Cavity nester. Not OR-SC currently documented in NSA. Black-backed woodpecker WA-C, Uncommon Cascades resident usu. at mid to higgh No (Picoides arcticus) OR-SC elvations; bulk of range in Canada. Scattered and variable distribution as populations are highly associated with post-fire, insect-infested, habitats in mature forests. Dependent on high density of dead and insect-ridden trees. Acorn woodpecker FS(WA) Highly associated resident of oaks and pine/oak Yes No (Melanerpes formicivorus) woodlands. Klickitat County (near Lyle) is the only known location for WA state; presently it’s northernmost pop. within its range. Primary cavity nester. Pilieated woodpecker WA-C Conifer/mixed conifer forests, as well as decidous Yes Yes NE NE NE (Dryocopus pileatus) OR-SV stands in valley bottoms with large dead or live trees (or remnants) for foraging and nesting. Primary cavity nester. Green-tailed towhee FS(WA) At moderate to higher elevations, nesting in shrubby No (Pipilo chlorurus) areas intermixed with small trees, often in areas maintained by fires or other disturbance. WA state is on its most Northwesterly range peripherally, with most recorded in the Blu Mtns. of SE WA. Known occurrences in east Hood River County, OR. Sharp-tailed FS(WA) Grasslands/sagebrush. Historically found east of the No grouse WA-T Cascades, including much of Klickitat county, but (Tympanuchus phasianellus) extirpated in 1950’s from most of range in WA and OR. Remnant pop. in NE WA. Lesser goldfinch FS(WA) Open steppes and oak woodlands. A permanent Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH (Carduelis psaltria) resident in south-central WA. Klickitat County is its northernmost population across its range in western and SW US/Mexico. Sage sparrow WA-C Eastern WA/OR; flat terrain highly associated with No (Amphispiza belli) big sagebrush, may also use chaparral, and dry foothills. On periphery of habitat in NSA; in the extreme eastern end. No known current pops.,although migrants may pass through the NSA. Winters in S OR, and SW US states. Sage Thrasher WA-C Eastern WA/OR semi-arid sagebrush plains and No (Oreoscoptes montanus) bottomlands. May have historically been in outlying east portion of NSA, but no current populations. Loggerhead shrike WA-C East of Cascades: dry grassland and sagebrush desert No (Lanius ludovicianus) habitats. On periphery of habitat in NSA with sightings in east Klickitat county. Neotropical migrant. Oregon vesper sparrow WA-C This subspecies found in the lowland valleys of W No (Pooecetes gramineus affinis) WA and OR (Willamette, Klamath, Puget sound) in sparsely vegetated grasslands with scattered tall structures used for song perches, including ag. lands. On periphery of habitat in NSA. Ground nester.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 163

Slender-billed white-breasted FS(WA) A west-side subspecies of the white-breasted No nuthatch nuthatch. Found in open oak and oak/Douglas-fir (Sitta carolinensis aculeata) forests in western Washington (Skamania, Clark and Cowlitz Counties). Decline directly related to loss of this habitat. Gray flycatcher FS(WA) SE WA and E OR: Sagebrush and pinyon juniper No (Empidonax wrightii) woodlands. On periphery of habitat in NSA. Winters in SW US and southward. Ash-throated flycatcher FS(WA) Oak and juniper woodlands. WA is its northermost Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH (Myiarchus cinerascens) limit. Nests in natural or artificial cavities. Neo- tropical migrant; winters in SW US, and southward. Black swift FS(OR), Nests in waterfalls, steep cliffs, and damp caves out No (Cypseloides niger) OR-SP of direct sunlight. Highly suspected to be in NSA. Neotropical migrant. Vaux's swift WA-C Found in forests and urban areas where their need for Yes Yes NE NE NE (Chaetura vauxi) hollow trees/bark or chimneys for nesting sites are met; neotropical migrant Purple martin FS(OR), W WA/OR up through Gorge to W Wasco County in No (Progne subis) OR-SC, OR and Bingen in WA: cavity/crevice nester, often WA-C near water. Forages over open water/fields/ forest canopy. Winters in S. America. Grizzly bear T, Historically in lower 48 states, presently restricted to No (Ursus arctos) WA-E areas with low human populations, such as North Cascades Range. Gray wolf E, Historically found in almost all habitats in lower 48 No (Canis lupus) WA-E states; presently in steppe, woodland, and forest where reintroduced. California wolverine FS, Conifer Forests. Intolerant of human No (Gulo gulo) WA-C, encounters/disturbance and requires very large home OR-T ranges. Locally there has been one confirmed sighting in last several decades from a road-killed juv male on I-84, near Starvation Creek, Jan 1990. Pacific fisher C, FS, Found in low and mid-elevation late successional No (Martes pennanti) WA-E, conifer forest, with high canopy cover and large OR-SC down logs for nesting. Requires large home ranges. Likely extirpated in NSA and adjacent forests; undetected in multi-year surveys. Columbian white- E, Historic distribution in floodplains and bottomland No tailed deer (Lower WA-E, OR-SV riparian of Willamette and Lower Col. R. east to the Col. R pop only) (OR = coast Klickitat River. Severe riparian habitat loss presently (Odocoileus virginianus pop only) limits this sub-population to a small area between leucurus) Skamokawa, W.A. and Clatskanie, Oregon. White-tailed jackrabbit WA-C, OR-SU East of Cascades: open areas with native bunchgrass, No (Lepus townsendii) sagebrush plains, can also be found in coniferous forests and subalpine meadows. On periphery of habitat in NSA at the Dalles/Dallesport. Washington ground squirrel C, Presently found in Columbia basin of WA state in No (Spermophilus washingtoni) WA-C, sagebrush/grassland w/ sandy soils; also Giliam, OR-E Morrow and Umatilla counties, OR. May have historically been within the eastern edge of NSA. Western gray FS(WA), Associated with open mixed oak/conifer woodland, Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH squirrel OR-SU typically within ½ mile of water source. WA is its (Sciurus griseus) WA-T northernmost range, with core habitat in Klickitat county. Known to occur in Hood River and nearby areas east, within OR. Easily confused with non- native/ invasive Eastern gray squirrels and fox squirrels. Gray-tailed vole WA-C Endemic to Clark County, WA and OR Willamette No (Microtus canicaudus) Valley: Grassy and agricultural lands, meadows. On periphery of habitat in NSA. Common in OR.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 164

Townsend’s big-eared bat FS, Throughout Western US. Roost and hibernaculum Yes Likely, NE NE NE (Corynorhinus townsendii) WA-C, sites within caves, buildings, mines and bridge foraging OR-SC undersides, with exacting temp, humidity, and physical requirements. Very intolerant of human disturbance which results in loss of critical fat reserves during torpid period. Pacific Fringe-tailed bat FS(OR), Nursery colonies and roosts in mines, caves, oak No (Myotis thysanodes OR-SC trees, buildings and similar. Intolerant of human vespertinus) disturbance. Sub-species suggested to occur west of the Cascades in southern WA, Oregon, and northern CA. Documented in Little W.Salmon subbasin in 1996. Pacific Pallid bat FS, Arid area specialist east of Cascades. Roosts in rock No (Antrozous pallidus) OR-SV crevices, caves (buildings), and sometimes large trees, especially when near open and dry areas. Feeds primarily on the ground on large insects, scorpions, lizards, and other small prey. California floater mussel WA-C Shallow areas of lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and large No (Anodonta californiensis) rivers with muddy or sandy substrate. Historically found throughout the western US, but presently known to occur as remnant populations in Columbia, Okanogan, and lower Willamette river systems. Intolerant of quickly fluctuating water levels that can decimate local populations. Known population in the Sandy River Delta. Western Ridged Mussel FS Low to mid-elevation cold clean streams and rivers of No (Gonidea angulata) the Western US. Mainly east of the Cascades locally. Known stronghold in the larger rivers of the Snake and Columbia River systems. Giant Columbia River limpet FS, Historically in almost the entire Columbia R. basin, No (Fisherola nuttalli) WA-C now restricted to a few remant sites. In WA, confirmed in Hanford Reach of the Columbia R., as well as the Okanogan, Wenatchee and Methow rivers. In OR, only documented in Deschutes R. Great Columbia River spire WA-C Historically, widespread throughout the Lower Snake No snail and Columbia Rivers, and their larger tribs. Now (Fluminicola columbiana) limited to a few reaches of the Columbia R. system that remain free-flowing and colder. Confirmed in a few sites along the Columbia, Okanogan, Wenatchee and Methow Rivers in WA, and the Deschutes River in OR. Puget Oregonian FS Western Cascade Range in Low/Mid elevations No (Cryptomastix devia) (CRGNSA, GPNF, Clackmas RD. HR RD, ZZ RD, OlympicNF, Salem BLM, Hebo RD, Wenatchee NF, MBSNF): Moist conifer forests, associated with bigleaf maple. Often found on or under hardwood logs, leaf litter, or under sword fern, moist rocks/talus. Yound devia may be under mosses on trunk of big-leaf maple. Columbia Oregonian FS, 2 known locations only: The CRG, in scattered No (Cryptomastix hendersoni) WA-C locations near seeps and streams along both sides of the Columbia River, from near The Dalles to near Rufus, OR; and from upland locations in the Mount Hood National Forest. Within 100 m. of streams, seeps, & springs (low elev) in steppe communities. May also be in mid elev. mature closed canopy forests among moist talus, leaf litter, or shrubs, or under logs or other debris.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 165

Evening Fieldslug FS Low to mid-elevation from the Cascade range to the No (Deroceras hesperium) Pacific Ocean, with majority of the currently documented sites east of the Cascade crest. The Evening Fieldslug is associated with perennially wet meadows in forested habitat, microsites include a variety of low vegetation, litter and debris and rocks/talus. Malone’s jumping slug FS(WA) Benton Cnth northward into W OR Cascades and into No (Hemphilia malonei) SW Cascades of WA.: wet/moist conifereous forest stands, esp. where there is abundant large down wood exist. Understory typically veg species of cool shady forest, such as sword fern. Barren Juga FS Limited distribution in Columbia River Gorge (Clark Yes No NE NE NE (Juga hemphilli hemphilli) and Skamania Co, WA.), Johnson Creek, and Mt. Hood NF. Also suspected to occur in Gifford- Pinchot NF. Found in smaller low elevation streams, with low gradient, stable gravel substrate, moderate velocity, and highly-oxygenated, cold water. Columbia Duskysnail FS CRGNSA, GPNF, MHNF. Counties include Yes Yes NE NE NE (Lyogyrus n. sp. 1) Klickitat, Skamania, Cowlitz, Clark, Wash, Mult, Clack, Hood R): Spring and Spring outflows in cold, clear, and well-oxygenated water. Usu. slow flow with some moss substrate. Oregon megomphix FS(WA) Puget Sound and Coast range to west foothills of No (Megomphix hemphilli) Cascade range in moist coniferous forests. Often in assoc with big-leaf maple and sword fern. Photo- phobic; seldom found on surface. Dalles sideband FS, Known from watersheds tributary to the Columbia Yes No NE NE NE (Monadenia fidelis minor) WA-C Gorge from Hood River east to the vicinity of The Dalles (on both sides of the Columbia River) and in upland sites in watersheds tributary to the lower Deschutes River in Wasco County. Within 200 m. of streams, seeps, or springs, in steppe or dry forest plant communities (within talus and moist rocky areas). May be found among rocks, shrubs/veg. and down wood. Crowned tightcoil FS Historic range probably from southern Alaska to No (Pristiloma pilsbryi) southern Oregon. Currently known from Clallam and Pacific Co, WA, suspected in Grays Harbor, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz and Clark Co, WA and Multnomah, Clatsop and Columbia Co., OR. Found in very moist forests, including floodplains, in decaying leaf litter, commonly under dense salal, vine maple, waterleaf or other deciduous vegetation. Shiny Tightcoil FS(WA) Reported from many widely separate (but imprecise) No (Pristiloma wascoense) historic locations; in Wasco County, Marion Co. and Wallowa County in Oregon; also reported from several counties in Idaho. The species seems to occur rarely in Oregon; surveys in recent years in these areas have failed to relocate it. It is possible that P. wascoense is a small form or P. cherisnella, or represent a species complex in the northern portion of OR Cascades. Thought to generally occur in Ponderosa Pine/Douglas fir plant associations at moderate-high elevations with likely preference for moist microsites such as basalt talus accumulations, usually with riparian influence.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 166

Pristine springsnail FS(WA) Scattered colonies in Columbia, Snake, and Yes Yes NE NE NE (Pristinicola hemphilli) Willamette River watersheds, as well as SW OR. Majority of sites are very small, undisturbed cold springs or seeps with slow to moderate flow; sometimes in larger springs and spring runs or spring- influenced portions of small streams. Blue-gray taildropper FS(WA), Western Cascades and puget trough, south to N. CA. No (Prophysaon coeruleum) WA-C Occurs on both sides S. OR Cascades. Suspected on E slopes of Cascades in WA: Moist conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forest, where litter is moist and shaded. Associated with decayed logs, leaf litter, mosses and bigleaf maple/sword fern. Rare in WA, common in OR. Columbia River tiger beetle WA-C Known to occur only in sandbars of Snake and No (Cicindela columbica) Columbia river riparian area, east of Cascades. Yuma skipper butterfly WA-C Main pop. in Great Basin area w/outliers in central No (Ochlodes yuma) and eastern OR/WA: near freshwater marshes, streams, ponds, linked with Phragmites reeds. The only record within CRGNSA, in 1999, found at Maryhill on ornamental Miscanthus). Chinquapin hairstreak butterfly WA-C North-central OR, Skamania County, WA: Obligate No (Habrodais grunus herri) with Chrysolepis chrysophylla. One known location near Stevenson, WA. Johnson's hairstreak butterfly FS, Cascades, Coast, Siskiyou, Blue, Wallowas mtns: No (Callophry[Mitoura] johnsoni) WA-C coniferous forest old-growth obligate. Mardon skipper C, FS, Historic distribution unknown. Present known Yes No NE NE NE (Polites mardon) WA-E distribution is disjunct: N CA, Puget sound and south Cascades of WA. Habitat of open fescue grasslands, riparian, or meadows with nectar plant source. No known populations in the NSA but surveys by NSA office continues. Species decline likely due to loss of native grass meadows and prairie habitat throughout NW.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 167

TES Plants Agoseris elata OR-1 Meadows and open woods to mid-elevations. No No WA-3 FS(OR)-S Agrostis howellii OR-2 Moist rocks on south side of Gorge (Multnomah and No No FS(OR)-S Hood River counties). Endemic Ammannia robusta WA-1 No No OR-SNR FS(WA)-S Arabis sparsiflora var. OR-2 Eastside, low elevation . Open areas. Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH atrorubens FS(OR)-S Artemesia campestris spp OR-SX Gravely beach areas of Columbia. Miller Island in No No Borealis (Artemesia borealis) WA-1 Gorge FS-S US-C Astragalus hoodianus OR-3 Dry open areas of east Gorge Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH Endemic Bolandra oregana WA-2 Wet basalt cliffs No No OR-3 FS(WA)-S Botrychium lanceolatum OR-3 Moist, wet areas in mountains. No No FS(OR)-S Botrychium lunaria OR-2 Moist wet areas but rarely in meadows. No No FS(OR)-S Botrychium montanum OR-2 Forested/open areas in conifer forest zones No No FS(OR)-S Calamagrostis breweri OR-2 Stream banks, lake margins, sub-alpine to alpine No No FS(OR)-S meadows. Calamagrostis howellii FS(OR)-S Rocky banks and crevices of cliffs within the Gorge. No No Endemic Calochortus longebarbaus OR-3 East slope of Cascades. Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH var. longebarbatus WA-2,3 FS(WA)-S Carex densa WA-1 Wet areas on both sides of Cascades. Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH Carex diandra OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Carex heteroneura (carex Montaine No No atrata var. erecta) Carex livida OR-2 Willamette Valley. No No FS(OR)-S Carex macrochaeta OR-2 Moist open places, coastal but suspected in CRG No No WA-1 FS-S Carex retrorsa OR-1 No No WA-1 FS(OR)-S Carex vernacula OR-2 Alpine to sub-alpine. Dwarf size. No No FS(OR)-S Castilleja levisecta OR-H Open fields west side of Cascades. No No WA-1 Castilleja rupicola OR-3 Rocky cliffs at low to moderate elevations. Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 168

Chrysolepis chrysophylla WA-2 Open to closed forest openings Low to mid No No FS(WA)-S elevations. Cicuta bulbifera OR-H Wet places to standing water. Low elevations Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-2 FS(WA)-S Cimicifuga elata var. elata OR-3 Hardwood and mixed forest on west side No No WA-3 FS-S Collinsia sparaiflora WA-1,2 Dry slopes with sparse vegetation on east side of Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH var. bruceae FS(WA)-S Cascades. Low elevations. Coptis trifolia OR-1 WASCO No No WA-1 FS-S Corydalis aqua-gelidae OR-3 Along cold streams on west side of Cascades. No No WA-2,3 FS-S Cryptantha rostellata WA-2 Dry open areas, east side Cascades. Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Cusickiella douglasii WA-4,5 No No FS(WA)-S Cyperus bipartitus OR-SNR Wet places. Low elevation Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH Cypripedium fasiculatum OR-3 Open to closed forested woodlands/forest. East side Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-3 of Cascades. FS-S Damasonium californicum WA-1 Sloughs, marshes and other standing waters. No No FS(WA)-S Delphinium leucophaeum OR-2 West side (Mult.) No No WA-1 Delphinium nuttallii OR-1 Westside No No FS(OR)-S Douglasia laevigata OR-SNR Basalt cliffs and rocky out-crops, low elevation Yes No Endemic through the Gorge Elatine brachysperma OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Erigeron howellii OR-2 Open areas on ridges and rocky areas. No No WA-2 FS-S Endemic Erigeron oreganus OR-3 Over hanging basalt cliffs No No WA-2 FS-S Endemic Eryngium petiolatum WA-1 Dry ephemeral wetlands in east Gorge Yes No FS(WA)-S Euonymus occidentalis OR-3 In woods in west Cascades No No WA-1 FS(WA)-S Fritillaria camschatcensis OR-1 Moist areas west Cascades from coast to mountains. No No WA-2 FS-S Githopsis speculariodes WA -3 Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 169

Hackelia diffusa var. diffusa OR-3 No No WA-2 FS(WA)-S Hedysarum occidentale WA-1 No No FS(WA)-S Heuchera grossularifolia OR-3 Cliffs, often shaded, along streams or rivers in East Yes No var. tenuifolia WA-3 Gorge FS(WA)-S Hieracium longiberbe OR-3 Open areas throughout Gorge. No No Endemic Howellia aquatilis OR-1 Westside No No WA-2,3 Isoestes nuttallii WA-1 No No FS(WA)-S Juncus howellii WA-1 No No FS(WA)-S Juncus kelloggii OR-SNR No No WA-1 FS(WA)-S Lasthenia glaberrima WA-1 No No FS(WA)-S Lewisia columbiana var. OR-2 No No columbiana FS(OR)-S Linanthus bolanderi WA-2 Dry open areas in East Gorge Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Liparis loeselii WA-1 Wet or damp areas within forest No No Lipocarpha aristulata OR-1 No No WA-1 FS-S Lomatium laevigatum OR-3 Basalt cliffs in east Gorge Yes No WA-2 FS(WA)-S Endemic Lomatium salmoniflorum Wasco No No Lomatium suksdorfii OR-2 Open wooded or open areas in east Gorge Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-3 FS-S Endemic Lomatium watsonii OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Lupinus latifoius var Endemic Open areas in pine/oak woodlands. Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH thompsonianus Luzula arcuata OR-1 Hood No No WA-1 FS(WA)-S Lycopodiella inundata OR-2 Westside No No (Northeren bog clubmoss) WA-2 FS-S Lycopodium complanatum OR-2 Westside No No FS(OR)-S Meconella oregana OR-1 Oak woodlands in east Gorge Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-1 FS-S

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 170

Microseris borealis WA-2 No No FS(WA)-S Mimulus cusickii WA-1 No No FS(WA)-S Mimulus jungermannioides OR-3 Wet areas in east Cascades. Yes No WA-H Montia diffusa WA-2,3 Up-turned root disturbances within the forest of No No FS(WA)-S Cascades. Montia howellii OR-3,4 West side No No Navarretia tagetina WA-1 Dry, open areas in east Gorge Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Oenothera caespitosa ssp. WA-1 East, low elevation., dry woodland, open Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH Marginata FS(WA)-S Ophioglossum pusillum OR-1 Meadows and woods. Scattered populations Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-1,2 FS-S Orthocarpus bracteosus WA-1 Meadows, low elevation, E.Cascades to west Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Parnassia frimbriata WA-1 Bogs, stream banks, wet areas (Mult., Hood, and No No var. hoodiana Washington Counties, Oregon)

Penstemon barrettiae OR-2 Rocky cliffs, talus slopes in east Gorge Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-2 FS-S Endemic Penstemon deustus var. OR-SNR No No variabilis WA-1,2 FS(WA)-S Phlox hendersonii OR-1 Hood No No FS(OR)-S Pityopus californica WA-1 No No Plagiobothrys figuratus ssp. OR-1 Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH corallicarpus FS(OR)-S Platanthera sparsiflora WA-1 Wet, boggy areas No No FS(WA)-S Poa gracillima var. multnomae Endemic Mostly on s. side of Columbia Gorge in rocky, No No shaded cliff near water falls Poa laxiflora OR-3 Moist woods to open rocky slopes up to mid- No No WA-2,3 elevations FS(WA)-S Poa nervosa var. nervosa WA-2 Limited to lower Col. River and adj. tribs. No No Open slopes, ridges and talus slopes. Polemonium carneum WA-1,2 No No FS(WA)-S Potentilla breweri No No Potentilla diversifolia var. WA-1 No No perdissecta Potentilla villosa var. OR-1 Hood No No parviflora FS(OR)-S Ranunculus populago WA-2 No No FS(WA)-S

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 171

Ranunculus reconditus WA-1 Open grasslands or open areas in pine/oak No No Endemic woodlands. East Gorge. Ranunculus triternatus OR-1 No No FS-S Romanzoffia thompsonii OR-3 FS(OR)-S Rorippa columbiae OR-3 Mud flats along Columbia River No No WA-1,2 FS-S Rotala ramosior OR-2 No No WA-1 FS-S Salix sessilifolia WA-2 No No FS(WA)-S Scheuchzeria palustris var. OR-2 No No americana FS(OR)-S Scirpus subterminalis OR-2 Wasco No No (Schoenoplectus subterminalis) FS(OR)-S Scribneria bolanderi WA-1 YES YES MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Sericocarpus rigidus OR-2 No No WA-3 FS-S Sidalcea hirtipes OR-2 No No WA-1 FS-S Sisyrinchium sarmentosum OR-1 Wet/dry meadows at mid to high elevations No No WA-1,2 FS-S Spiranthes porrifolia WA-2 Open moist meadows. Yes Yes MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Streptopus streptopoides OR-2 No No FS(OR)-S Suksdorfia violacea OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Sullivantia oregana OR-2 Wet basalt cliffs No No WA-1 FS-S Endemic Synthyris stellata OR-4 No No Endemic Tauschia stricklandii OR-1 Mult. No No FS(OR)-S Trillium parviflorum WA-2,3 No No FS(WA)-S Utricularia intermedia WA-2 Slow moving water or streams Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH FS(WA)-S Utricularia minor OR-2 Yes No MIIH MIIH MIIH WA-2 FS(OR)-S Veratrum insolitum WA-1 No No Wolffia borealis OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 172

Wolffia columbiana OR-1 No No WA-SNR FS(OR)-S

FUNGI Albatrellus ellisii (WA only) OR-2,3 No No FS(WA)-S Bridgeoporus nobilissimus WA-1 On boles of noble firs No No OR-2,3 FS-S Cordyceps capitata (Former S&M OR/WA No No S&M) Cortinarius barlowensis (OR OR-2 No No only) FS(OR)-S Cudonia monticola OR-2,3 OR? No No FS-S Gomphus kauffmanii OR-3 OR/WA No No FS-S Gyromitra californica S&M OR/WA No No Helvella crassitunicata OR-2 Hood No No FS(OR)-S Hygrophorus caeruleus OR-2 Hood No No FS(OR)-S Leucogaster citrinus OR-3,4 No No FS-S Macowanites mollis OR-1 Mult. co No No FS(OR)-S Mycena monticola (Former S&M OR/WA No No S&M) Mythicomyces corneipes OR-2 No No FS(OR)-S Octaviania macrospora OR-H No No FS(OR)-S Otidea smithii OR-2 OR/WA No No FS-S Forests with conifers Phaeocollybia attenuata OR-3 OR No No FS-S Phaeocollybia californica (OR OR-2 No No only) FS(OR)-S Phaeocollybia olivacea (OR FS(OR)-S OR No No only) Phaeocollybia oregonensis OR-2 OR No No FS-S Phaeocollybia piceae OR-3 OR? No No FS-S Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva OR-3 OR No No FS-S Phaeocollybia scatesiae OR-3 OR No No FS-S Ramaria amyloidea OR-2 OR No No FS-S

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 173

Ramaria cyaneigranosa (WA FS(WA)-S WA No No only) Ramaria gelatiniaurantia OR-2 OR/WA No No FS-S Ramaria rubrievanescens (WA OR-2 WA No No only) FS(WA)-S Ramaria spinulosa var. OR-1 No No diminutiva FS(OR)-S Rhizopogon exiguus OR-1,2 No No FS(OR)-S Sarcodon fuscoindicus (WA OR-2,3 WA No No only) FS(WA)-S Sowerbyella rhenana OR-3 OR/WA No No FS-S Conifer forests Spathularia flavida (WA only) FS(WA)-S WA No No

LICHENS Cetrelia cetrarioides (WA only) FS(WA)-S WA No No Chaenotheca subroscida OR-2 WA, OR? No No FS-S Collema nigrescens (WA only) FS(WA)-S WA No No Dendriscocaulon intricatulum FS(WA)-S WA No No (WA only) Both in old-growth western forests and in open oak balds Dermatocarpon luridum S&M WA, OR? No No Aquatic on submerged or seasonally emergent rocks Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum OR-1,2 No No FS-S Hypogymnia duplicata (OR OR-2 OR No No only) FS(OR)-S Western Cascade forests at mid-elevations !000- 5500’ Leptogium burnetiae var. FS-S OR?/WA? No No hirsutum Epiphytic on trees, logs, rocks, mosses Leptogium cyanescens OR-1 OR?/WA? No No FS-S Tree bark both conifers and hardwoods, logs, rocks in cool, moist sites Lobaria linita (OR only) OR-1 OR No No FS(OR)-S Cool, humid old-growth forest on boles of silver firs and boulders Nephroma bellum (WA only) FS(WA)-S WA No No w. Cascades, mostly on conifer branches Nephroma occultum OR-3 OR/WA No No FS-S Pannaria rubiginosa OR-2 OR/WA? No No FS-S Epiphyte on Hooker’s willow at low elev. In old- growth western forests Peltigera neckeri (Former S&M OR?/WA? No No S&M) Mossy logs, soil and tree bases in moist forests Peltigera pacifica FS-S OR/WA No No Same as P. neckeri Pilophorus nigricaulis (Former OR-2 WA/OR? No No S&M) FS(OR)-S On rocks in talus slopes, cliffs within old-growth forests

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 174

Platismatia lacunosa (WA only) OR-3 WA No No FS(WA)-S Western conifer forest Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis OR-3 OR/WA No No FS-S On conifers in cool, humid, old-growth western forests Ramalina pollinaria (Former OR-1,2 1) OR? No No S&M) FS(OR)-S 2) CA only Tholurna dissimilis OR-2 OR/WA No No FS-S High elev. Wind swept trees Usnea longissima OR-4 OR/WA No No FS-S Wet moist forest

BRYOPHYTES Barbilophozia lycopodioides OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Chiloscyphus gemmiparus OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Conostomum tetragonum OR-1 Moss, Hood No No FS(OR)-S Encalypta brevicolia var. OR-1 WA? No No crumiana (Former S&M) WA-1 FS-S Encalypta brevipes OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Gymnomitrion concinnatum OR-1 LIVERWORT No No FS(OR)-S Herbertus aduncus OR-1 No No FS(OR)-S Lophozia laxa FS(OR)-S No No Polytichium sphaerothecium OR-1 Moss, hood No No FS(OR)-S Rhizomnium nudum (OR only) FS(OR)-S OR No No Very moist humus or soil, typically near seepage in conifer forest Schistostega pennata OR-2 OR/WA No No FS-S Mineral soil in shaded pockets of overturned tree roots, or at entrances to caves, or animal burrows Scouleria marginata (Former OR-2 OR?/WA? No No S&M) FS(WA)-S Semi-aquatic on rocks along edges of streams

Tetraphis geniculata OR-1 OR/WA No No FS-S Moist forests with large down logs

NOTE: RATIONALE FOR CONCLUSION OF EFFECTS IS CONTAINED IN THE NEPA DOCUMENT. NOTE: Cumulative effects are discussed in Chapter III of the environmental assessment.

*Key to table abbreviations FS = Forest Service Region 6 (OR/WA) sensitive species, Endangered Species Act (federal) listed species: E = Endangered Th = Threatened S = Sensitive 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 175

C = Candidate P = Proposed WA = Washington State listed species, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, S = Sensitive, C = Candidate OR = Oregon state listed (E, T, or S_, see below) SC = Sensitive Critical SV = Sensitive Vulnerable SP = Sensitive Peripheral or naturally rare SU = Sensitive Undetermined status

NI/NE = No Impact/No Effect 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 WIFV = Will Impact Individuals Or Habitat With A Consequence That The Action May Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Cause A Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species BI = Beneficial Impact NLAA = May affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect. LAA = May affect, and will Likely Adversely Affect

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 176

DATA TABLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF ALL ALTERNATIVES:

Data Table 1. Trail miles per square mile of priority habitat, by alternative Within 200’ of Within 30’ of Within 30’ of Within 150’ of Springs and Talus Cliffs In Pine Oak Streams Vernal Pools Square miles of Habitat: Burdoin (West) 0.04 0.10 0.71 0.20 0.01 Coyote (Middle) 0.33 0.23 0.66 0.54 0.01 Catherine (East) 0.08 0.35 2.17 1.13 0.03 Total 0.45 0.68 3.54 1.87 0.05 Miles of Trail within Square Miles of Habitat:

miles miles/ miles miles/ miles miles/ miles of miles/ miles of miles/ of trail mi2 of trail mi2 of trail mi2 trail mi2 trail mi2 Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.8 2.3 3.3 1.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 0.9 2.8 2.4 10.6 2.2 3.3 2.6 4.8 0.0 0.6 Catherine (East) 0.4 4.9 2.8 8.1 7.2 3.3 3.2 2.8 0.3 10.7 Overall Planning Area 1.3 3.0 5.4 7.9 11.7 3.3 7.1 3.8 0.3 6.6 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.8 2.3 3.3 1.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 0.9 2.8 2.4 10.6 2.3 3.4 2.5 4.6 0.0 0.6 Catherine (East) 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.8 3.0 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.2 8.0 Overall Plan Area Alt 1 0.9 2.1 3.9 5.7 7.5 2.1 5.1 2.7 0.2 5.0 Revised Alternative 2 Trail Systems Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 0.6 1.9 1.0 4.5 1.4 2.1 2.9 5.3 0.0 0.5 Catherine (East) 0.2 2.8 2.3 6.6 3.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 0.3 8.3 Overall Plan Area Alt 2/3 0.9 1.8 3.4 4.9 5.5 1.6 5.1 2.7 0.3 5.2 Alternative 3 Trail Systems Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 0.6 1.8 1.0 4.4 1.3 2.0 2.9 5.3 0.0 0.6 Catherine (East) 0.3 3.3 1.9 5.4 4.2 1.9 2.1 1.9 0.3 8.3 Overall Plan Area Alt 2/3 0.9 1.9 2.9 4.3 5.8 1.6 5.2 2.8 0.3 5.2 Note: Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures. Highlighted Trail Densities: 3.0-5.0 mi/mi² in yellow; 5.1-10.0 mi/mi² in orange; 10.1+ mi/mi² in red

Data Table 2. A summary of the number of priority habitats with trail density over 3 miles per square mile of available habitat within Burdoin/Coyote/Catherine planning area 3 - 5 mi/mi2 >5 - 10 mi/mi2 >10 mi/mi2 Total w/ > 3 mi/mi2 Existing 5 2 2 9 Alt 1 4 2 1 7 Alt 2 1 3 0 4 Alt 3 2 3 0 5

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 177

Data Table 3. A comparison of alternatives, displaying use types and restrictions Accompanying dogs Burdoin Coyote Catherine # of priority restriction habitat with >3 mi/mi2 Existing None Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted 9 Bike/Horse/ Bike/Horse/Hike Bike/Horse/Hike Hike Alt 1 None Unrestricted Unrestricted Hike 7 Bike/Horse/ Bike/Horse/Hike Hike Except in Open Space with no use. Alt 2 Owner Control Bike/Hike Bike/Hike Hike Burdoin/west half 4

Coyote. Horse, only On-leash year Upper Loop, round east half only May 1- Coyote and in November 30 Catherine Alt 3 Dogs on leash Bike/Horse/ Bike/Horse/Hike Hike/Bike/Horse Dec 1 - June 30 Hike July 1-Nov 30 5

Data Table 4. Analysis of disturbance score compiled by aggregating miles of trail located in priority habitat, weighted by sub-area habitat quality.

Total miles / square mile in Weighted score Weight priority habitat * Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 1 11 11 Coyote (Middle) 2 22 44 Catherine (East) 3 30 89 total 145 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 1 11 11 Coyote (Middle) 2 22 44 Catherine (East) 3 14 43 total 98 Revised Alternative 2 Trail System Burdoin (West) 1 1 1 Coyote (Middle) 2 14 28 Catherine (East) 3 21 62 total 92 Alternative 3 Trail System Burdoin (West) 1 1 1 Coyote (Middle) 2 14 28 Catherine (East) 3 21 62 total 92 * The higher the number, the greater the significance of the disturbance. Weighted score refers to the magnitude of disturbance from trail systems in priority habitats. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 178

Species with potential habitat within or adjacent to the project area are discussed in further detail in the following section.

Mid-Columbia Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Federal Threatened, Washington State Candidate Steelhead and coho are the 2 anadromous salmonid species that are known to regularly spawn in Major Creek, below the natural falls at river mile 0.3. The falls is comprised of 3 tiers that total 17’ in height. Since their arrival coincides with high spring flows, steelhead can intermittently pass upstream of these falls in some years, dependent on the flow levels. The entire mainstem of Major Creek as well as the lower 1.2 miles of each fork (west and east forks) of Major Creek are passable by steelhead, although spawning gravel accumulations are scarce and use is likely very low. The upper extent of steelhead spawning reaches from this system has not been quantified due to the checkerboard ownership of the stream channel. Catherine creek does not contain fish due to its intermittent nature, combined with an impassable waterfall and culvert near its confluence with the Columbia River.

Effects of all alternatives There are currently no trails within the Major Creek riparian area or riparian reserve. There are no effects to fish species from any of the alternatives.

Larch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli FS Sensitive, Washington State Sensitive, Oregon State Sensitive (Vulnerable), CRGNSA Sensitive Wildlife Site While from 1954-1985, sites were known only in or adjacent to a 31 mile stretch of the Columbia River Gorge. With intense surveys since 2000, the species is now found about 120 miles north of the Columbia River within the WA Cascades, as well as about 14 miles south of the Columbia River in Multnomah and Hood River Counties, Oregon. The current knowledge of the species range is likely incomplete and additional range extensions may include areas to the north, south and east. Currently, there are a little over 100 sites known on federal lands, with most occurring on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and fewer on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Wenatchee and Mount Hood National Forests. Although suitable habitat is patchily distributed, populations can be locally abundant across the majority of their range (Crisafulli, 1999).

Within the National Scenic Area in Washington, the range goes from Lawton Creek (Mt. Pleasant) to the Klickitat River. In the Columbia River Gorge, the Larch Mountain salamander has been referred to as a habitat specialist, and characterized as a talus obligate. Herrington and Larsen (1985) have found Larch Mountain salamanders in the Columbia River Gorge to be tightly associated with steep (>40%) forested talus areas with sparse understories. Salamanders were associated with habitats within talus that consisted of relatively small (0.4-2.4 inches in length) rocks, and during laboratory trials, they preferentially selected similarly sized substrates. At these talus sites, only a portion of the total talus area contained habitat of this size-class rock and several talus areas appeared to have suitable habitat, but lacked P. larselli. The talus interstices often contained large quantities of organic detritus and small quantities of soil, which helps retain moisture as well as sustains the salamander’s invertebrate prey base. Their dependence on this patchy microhabitat type, the species limited range, and poor dispersal capability, makes the species vulnerable to further loss of habitat from human disturbance. Due to their cool temperature and high moisture requirements, they are surface active only during short periods in spring and fall, migrating deeper into the talus during the summer and winter months.

This species was well documented in the talus habitat within the project area from past surveys.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 179

Effects of the Alternatives Important habitat features used by this species within the CRG appear to be small-sized rock with large quantities of organic detritus/soil that occur within a larger talus patch. They are keyed into these microsites that provide cool, moist conditions. Their exacting microhabitat requirements, and thus patchy distribution, within the larger talus area is of primary concern. Trail construction bisecting talus sites often requires that substrate removal be done to create a tread. Excavation within known Larch Mountain salamander locations may result in direct mortality as well as indirect causes of death brought on by altered habitat conditions.

Considerations for maintaining local populations include avoiding habitat loss or degradation, and maintaining undisturbed cool, moist surface and subsurface refuges. This includes avoiding excavation or rock removal within occupied habitats. Seasonal restrictions to cold and dry times (summer and winter) for construction may reduce direct effects of disturbances to surface-dwelling salamanders, although some habitat loss will still result.

The Coyote Planning area is low elevation and easily accessible year-round. Currently, predominant recreation use seasons in the planning area is during winter and spring (hikers and bikers), as well as fall months (orienteering and hiking). There are no studies that have been completed on the levels of impacts that are incurred from recreation use (hikers, bikes, horse- back riders and their accompanying dogs) of trails through talus during the cooler months of spring and fall when salamanders are most likely to be active at the surface. Salamanders are mostly nocturnal, but will also be found on or near the surface during daylight hours, hiding under rock or wood substrates. The cool and moist weather conditions required by salamanders are also when the least amount of recreationists will tend to be spending time outdoors. It is possible that some individuals may be inadvertently trampled or crushed by shifting rocks as a result of recreationists. This is especially true if users or their dogs go off the designated trail. This off-trail use continues to occur whether allowed or not by FS regulations. The nature of the uneven and sharp surface of the talus is expected to reduce this off-trail travel. Nonetheless, it is prudent to avoid a trail network in or adjacent to talus areas to reduce potential impacts to this difficult-to-study salamander. Eggs of this species still have not ever been discovered by biologists. Basic nesting information, such as micro-habitat requirements and timing are still unknown.

Talus habitat was listed as a priority habitat by WDFW due to its limited distribution and high wildlife value. As an example, 37 of the 58 species (64%) of amphibians that occur in the states of Washington and Oregon are documented from talus slopes (Herrington, 1988). Between 1981 and 1985, Herrington (1998) surveyed 183 talus slopes in the Cascade Range of southern WA and northern Oregon, noting that 60% had been altered by rock and/or tree removal. Micro-habitat of existing talus slopes are often altered by use as road building material or are bisected by transportation corridors. This is especially true for the Columbia River Gorge. Loss of this habitat, once it occurs, is usually permanent.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 180

The table below displays the trail miles within talus habitat, as well as the derived trail density per sub-area in available talus habitat (Clipped from Data Table 1).

Miles of trail Trail Density within within Talus Talus Habitat Habitat (miles/mi2) Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.3 Coyote (Middle) 0.9 2.8 Catherine (East) 0.4 4.9 Overall Planning Area - Existing 1.3 3.0 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.3 Coyote (Middle) 0.9 2.8 Catherine (East) 0.0 0.0 Overall planning area - Alt 1 0.9 2.1 Revised Alternative 2 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 0.6 1.9 Catherine (East) 0.2 2.8 Overall planning area - Alt 2 0.9 1.8 Alternative 3 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 0.6 1.8 Catherine (East) 0.3 3.3 Overall planning area - Alt 3 0.9 1.9 Note: Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures.

All alternatives have trails built through talus habitat that has altered and removed the immediate area micro-habitat for Larch Mountain salamander use. Revised Alternative 2 has the least density of trails through talus overall for the planning area. Alternative 3 requires the leashing of dogs from December 1 to June 30, while Revised Alternative 2, in the Catherine Creek sub-area, requires that dogs remain on leash year-round. While Alternative 3 covers the entire planning area for a part of the year, Revised Alternative 2 reduces the potential of off-trail disturbance to local salamanders year- round in the area rated highest in wildlife values (reference Data Table 3). Although likely to occur in very low numbers, some individuals may be injured or killed by the moderate to high use by recreation trail users during the spring and fall months. All alternatives “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”, as approximately 90% of talus will be left largely undisturbed within the planning area with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. (Assumption used for this figure includes recreation users and their dogs staying within 75’ of designated trails through talus, as well as assumptions that patches of microhabitat that shelter salamanders are distributed somewhat evenly throughout the larger talus area.

Western toad Bufo boreas Washington State Candidate, Oregon State Sensitive – Vulnerable Western toads have a broad distribution from Alaska to Mexico, across all of the western states; absent only from shrub- steppe habitat (Marshall, 1996). Population declines of this species have been noted range-wide. Worldwide, amphibians have existed on earth for over 300 million years, yet in just the last two decades there have been an alarming number of extinctions, nearly 168 species are believed to have gone extinct and at least 2,469 (43%) more have populations that are declining (Stuart et. al., 1994). There are several theories for this range-wide decline, but the cause(s) may be from a complex synergy of factors, including habitat destruction, alteration and fragmentation, introduced species, over- exploitation (capture for pet or food trade), increased UV-B radiation, chemical contaminants (pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer), emerging infectious diseases (chytrid fungus) and deformities (or malformations).

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 181

General concern about the Western Toad is due to rapid and unexplained declines in California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. In Washington, Western Toad declines have been documented in the Puget Trough and lower Columbia River. Of 21 historical sites along the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, none have been confirmed extant, and only one extant site is currently known to exist along this reach (Hallock and McAllister, 2005). Western toads are documented within the Washington portion of the Scenic Area, in the White Salmon River area and east to Major/Catherine creeks. They are likely found in other areas west of White Salmon where there are patches of suitable habitat. Although historically documented in Multnomah and Hood River counties within the NSA, there are presently no known sites within the lowlands of Hood River County and it is uncertain if sites in Multnomah County still harbor Western Toads.

Western Toads use three different types of habitat: spring aquatic breeding habitats, terrestrial summer range, and winter hibernation sites. Preferred breeding sites are permanent or temporary water bodies with shallow warm edges. Breeding occurs during spring, as snow melts away and water temperatures warm. Tadpoles choose to rear in areas with the warmest temperatures, typically the shallowest areas (Corkran and Thoms, 2006). After breeding, adult Western Toads re-disperse into terrestrial habitats of forests, meadows and grasslands. In a study at a higher elevation site in NE Oregon, radio-tagged toads moved from 180 to 6230 meters from aquatic breeding habitat to summer post-breeding terrestrial habitat in adjacent grassland or open forest (Bull, 2006). During late summer, large groups of toadlets emerge en-masse from breeding areas and also migrate into the surrounding terrestrial habitat. Western Toads must seek refuge to escape hot or dry conditions during summer. Diurnal and nocturnal activities are often related to seasonal changes in temperature; most western toads are diurnal during the spring and fall but are nocturnal during the warmer summer months. At low elevations, toads tend to be more nocturnal and seek shelter from desiccation and predators under rocks, logs, or in underground rodent burrows. They seek out deep burrows to hibernate during the cold of winter.

Effects of the alternatives Although negative impacts to herptile (amphibians and reptiles) populations has clearly been demonstrated by roads traversing sensitive areas, such as riparian buffers, research on the impact of trail systems on herptile populations is lacking. The Washington Herpetofaunal Atlas Project (a cooperative project of the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Land Management, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Forest Service) states concerns with this species’ vulnerability to road traffic during adult movements to and from breeding sites in the spring, and dispersal of newly metamorphosed toads away from breeding sites in the summer and fall. The Herp Atlas group recommends establishment of a buffer large enough around breeding areas to protect the integrity of the breeding habitat and promote connectivity between wetlands and terrestrial habitats (Hallock and McAllister, 2005).

Western toads breeding habitats are principally concentrated in or adjacent to the lower 1 mile of Catherine and lower 1/2 mile of Major Creeks, where water pools and becomes warm enough for breeding. This population is near the eastern-most extent of this species presence in the Gorge. Contact between Western toads and recreationists would be most likely occur during their migration periods in spring (adults) and late summer (toadlets), as they move between aquatic breeding habitat and their usual terrestrial habitat. An example of mortality that can occur at trail or road crossings is well-documented annually at Sunriver, Oregon where volunteers urge bicyclists to walk their bike on a portion of a trail adjacent to a breeding pond to reduce migrating toadlet mortality each summer. (http://videos.oregonlive.com/oregonian/2008/08/western_toads_on_march_near_su.html, http://www.ktvz.com/global/story.asp?s=6786325). Other areas have built overpasses to help separate hikers and bikers from the migrating toads. (http://www.whistler2020.ca/whistler/site/newsStory.acds?instanceid=7430036&context=1967982)

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 182

The table below displays the trail miles within 150 feet of stream habitat, as well as the derived trail density per sub-area within available stream buffer habitat (Clipped from Data Table 1).

Miles of trail within Trail Density within 150’ 150’ of Stream of Stream Habitat Habitat (miles/mi2) Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 1.3 6.7 Coyote (Middle) 2.6 4.8 Catherine (East) 3.2 2.8 Overall Planning Area – Existing condition 7.1 3.8 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 1.3 6.7 Coyote (Middle) 2.5 4.6 Catherine (East) 1.3 1.2 Overall Planning area - Alt 1 5.1 2.7 Revised Alternative 2 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.2 0.8 Coyote (Middle) 2.9 5.3 Catherine (East) 2.1 1.9 Overall Planning area - Alt 2 5.1 2.7 Alternative 3 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.2 0.8 Coyote (Middle) 2.9 5.3 Catherine (East) 2.1 1.9 Overall Planning area - Alt 3 5.2 2.8 Note: Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures.

Although mostly nocturnal during summer months, surface activity will occur diurnally during cool, cloudy or wet periods that occur during spring and late fall. This period of highest surface activity overlaps with the same periods that are used most heavily by recreationists in the planning area. The alternative with the lowest density of trail in the stream buffer within the Catherine sub-area will generally have the lowest potential for impact to the Western Toad. With reference to the table above, Alternatives 1 and 2 equally will have the least impact, followed by Alternative 3. The existing condition has the highest density of streamside trail and is therefore causing the highest potential impacts. It is believed that bikers will have a higher impact to Western Toads due to the speed at which they are able to travel along a trail. The slow- moving, dark, and small (1/2 - 3/4 inch) toadlets would be difficult to see and/or avoid from fast-moving bikes as compared to slower moving hikers and horse-back riders. Within the Catherine sub-area, equestrian use is limited to only the upper loop and from May 1 - November 30 in Alt. 2, and limited to July 1 – November 30 in Alt.3. Manure may possibly impact western toad spring breeding aquatic habitat, if manure gets into streams. Manure should be monitored for effects to the Western Toad. In the revised alternative (Revised Alternative 2), equestrian use will be maintained at low to moderate use (limited to 115 horses per day, and a party size of 8 horses per day).

from www.bentler.us 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 183

It is inevitable that some impacts to individuals do occur from a combination of their ease of capture by recreationists (tadpoles), as well as likely disturbance and mortality from getting crushed under foot, tire, hoof, or paw. Their slightly poisonous skin likely keeps them safe from direct mortality by leashed or unleashed dogs. This level of impact from direct mortality is expected to be at the individual, rather than the population, level although a high level of uncertainty exists due to the lack of baseline data for this population. Risk of population impacts increase directly with increasing recreation intensity. Long-term (>5 years) monitoring of this population should occur to detect any trends in this area. It is expected that the proposed trail alternatives (1, 2or 3), that will reduce trail density adjacent to streams, will reduce impacts to this species over the exisitng conditions.

California Mountain Kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata FS Sensitive (WA only), Washington State Candidate, Oregon Sensitive – Vulnerable As its name implies, the main population of CA mountain kingsnake reside in California and the Klamath mountains. Its habitat preference is open pine and oak forests containing many rock crevices and logs, avoiding dense coniferous forests (St. John, 2002). This slim and small (20-30 inches) snake is brightly colored in bands of red, black and white. They can easily be mistaken for the coral snake that only occurs in the southern United States, but the kingsnake itself is not poisonous. It is active diurnally during the spring and fall, but becomes mostly nocturnal during the heat of summer. This snake is an active forager for its primary prey of small lizards, bird’s eggs and nestlings, and small mammals. Snakes become inactive in cold temperatures and take shelter in underground shelters or under logs and large rocks. Similar to other snakes that occupy the same area, it most likely becomes active in late March or April and remains active through October. The disjunct population here in the Scenic Area has mostly been found in open oak/pine woodland, as well as nearby rocky riparian areas, from White Salmon River to the Klickitat River. The Washington occurrence is significant because it is at the northern extreme of the species' range and is isolated by over 200 miles from the rest of the range in southern Oregon and California. Although brightly colored, King snakes are secretive in habit, and known sightings are often opportunistic in nature. There have been specimens chanced upon in backyards and urban areas of White Salmon, with several other specimens were found dead along roads and highways. Little is known of its habitat requirements or population status, specific to Washington State. It was listed as a Candidate species due to its extremely limited range within Washington. Its habitat and presence is confirmed in the planning area. In WA, this snake is typically found at elevation under 400’, under rocks and rotting logs (Larsen et. al., 1997). Much less commonly, several specimens have been noted around the 900-1100’ elevation band.

Effects of the alternatives Habitat alteration, destruction of overwintering sites, and illegal, unregulated, collecting are the main threats to this species (Hallock and McAllister, 2005). California kingsnakes, unlike Western Toads, are not known to migrate large distances between discrete habitats as a part of their life history. Their diurnal hunting and foraging strategy among logs and rocks is expected to somewhat distribute this species within the pine/oak forest, as well as the riparian zone along streams, but the secretive nature of the animal makes them unlikely to be encountered. Some crossing of recreation trails may occur while snakes are foraging, but this may be a very short time period as snakes would be wary of being so exposed. Their bright colors make them very visible and inadvertent trampling on them by recreationists would be unlikely.

Recreationists that go off-trail (especially rock or log-hopping), as well as unleashed dogs, will have a much higher potential to cause direct mortality to individuals of this species as compared to on-trail recreation. The level of this activity occurring within the planning area will thus determine the level of impact to this species. This level of impact from direct mortality is expected to be at the individual, rather than the population, level although a high level of uncertainty exists due to the lack of baseline data for this population, nor any studies done to determine these effects. Long-term (>5 years) monitoring of this population should occur to detect any trends in this area.

Assumptions used in this analysis include: 1. The population is stable; ie. No population sink from illegal activity, such as collection for the pet trade, is occurring. 2. The secretive nature of the C.A. Mtn. kingsnake, coupled with their foraging habit in down logs, rocky substrates, and leaf litter spatially separate the snakes from on-trail recreationists. 3. The bright (red, white and black bands) on a kingsnake allows easy visibility to recreationists, thus mortality to individual snakes, that may occasionally cross a trail, is very low.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 184

Sharptail snake Contia tenuis Forest Service Sensitive (WA only), Washington State Candidate, Oregon Sensitive-Vulnerable The sharptail snake has an extremely secretive nature, with habitat and occurrence that overlaps the CA mtn kingsnake, within the WA portion of the NSA. Unlike the king snake, this species has a much wider distribution in the Northwest; including Wasco county, central Washington, as well as the Willamette Valley and southward. This small (ave 8-12”) snake leads a largely subterranean existence in search of its slug prey. In the Northwest, this species may be restricted to low elevations, in moist rotting logs or stable talus slopes, near streams or other moist habitats. This species has been found in numerous habitats where it can hide in cool and moist places, but is rarely encountered by people. Rocks and woody debris provide cover during periods when this snake is active, which is during cool and moist weather.

Effects of the alternatives Existing trails in talus and riparian habitats has removed some habitat for this species, with Alternatives (1,2 and 3) proposing to reduce this trail density in both habitats (reference Data Table 1).

This species’ fossorial habit is expected to largely separate this snake from any contact with recreationists in the planning area. In the cool weather of spring and fall, recreationists that go off-trail (especially rock or log-hopping), as well as unleashed dogs, will have a much higher potential to cause direct mortality to individuals of this species as compared to on- trail recreation. The level of this activity occurring within the planning area will thus determine the level of impact to this species. For this species, this level of impact from direct mortality is expected to be very low.

Night snake Hypsiglena torquata Forest Service Sensitive (WA) This small (ave 12-18”) snake has a distribution from Mexico, up through the SW United States, into the arid areas of Oregon and Washington and slightly into B.C.(St. John, 2002). As the name implies this snake is active only at night and is rarely seen by people. Within the planning area, it’s habitat consists of talus and oak/pine woodlands (Weaver, 2008). It’s nocturnal habit will likely separate this snake from any recreationists, thus precluding any direct impacts.

Effects of the alternatives The existing trail system is located in talus habitat that may have removed some habitat for this snake. It is expected that the proposed trail alternatives (1, 2or 3), that will reduce trail density within talus, will have no impacts to this snake species.

Bald Eagle Haliatus leucocephalus W.A. State Sensitive, Oregon State Threatened The bald eagle has a large distribution throughout North America, and is known to live and nest within the CRGNSA. In Washington State, statewide surveys conducted in 1998 recorded 664 occupied nest sites; with growth rate of 16.7% per year for eastern Washington and 9.5% for western Washington annually. Presently, the population may be near carrying capacity, modeled at approximately 4000 eagles state-wide, including non-breeders (Stinson, et. al, 2001). In the lower 48 states, the species has increased from a population estimated at less than 500 breeding pairs in 1967, when the birds were first listed, to a conservative estimate of at least 7,066 nesting pairs (Federal Register, 2006).

Locally, within the Columbia River Gorge, almost all nests are in relatively undisturbed sites, located on large trees within ½ mile of the Columbia River or a direct tributary. Primary prey species is fish, as well as some waterfowl. Bald eagles often construct multiple nests in one area, although only one is used per season. Twenty-three nest sites are known to have been active in 2009 in the National Scenic Area, with a subset of 15 nests (65%) on Forest Service managed land (personal communication, C. Flick). Bald eagles often forage around five to seven miles away from their nest sites. Courtship and nest building can start as early as January, with eggs laid starting in early March. In general, adult eagles become less sensitive to nest disturbance once the young develop by mid-June.

Effects of the alternatives

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 185

One active bald eagle nest site is on the northern edge of the planning area, within the Catherine sub-area. Bald eagles are well documented for being very intolerant of human disturbance within ¼ mile (or sight distance to 1/2 mile) of their active nest. The nest site has no trails within 1/4 mile of this nest, nor can the nest be seen from any trails in the area. The bald eagle pair undoubtedly chose this site due to the relatively remote location, away from present human activities. There are no effects to the bald eagle from any of the alternatives.

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus FS Sensitive, Washington State Sensitive, Oregon State Endangered The peregrine falcon is distributed worldwide, and ranges throughout North America (Wahl, 2005). American peregrine falcon was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October 1970. At that time, the peregrine falcon was essentially considered extirpated from Oregon and Washington due to reproductive failure from organochlorine pesticides (Pagel and Jarman, 1991). The species recovered rapidly at a national level and was federally de- listed on August 25, 1999 (Fed. Reg. August 25, 1999, 64(164) 46541-46558). Although peregrine populations are recovering, reproductive success of the subspecies in the Pacific Northwest is still being impacted by residual organochlorines. The peregrine falcon is a small, crow (male) to raven-sized (female), bird known for its fast and powerful diving flight and foraging habitats over large open areas. Having a water source available is the major attractant for open- country prey, such as waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as passerines. Nest sites are typically located in deep ledges (with overhangs), on sheer cliffs over 150’ in height, that are out of reach of mammalian predators and is within ½ mile to riparian, lacustrine, or marine habitat (Hays and Milner, 1999, Pagel, 1992). The nest site is usually located at the 40-80% height of the cliff. Pacific Northwest falcons have recently taken the opportunity to locate nests on suitable bridges, and tall buildings.

In 2009 within the NSA, there were 17 known nests, or eyries, of peregrine falcons monitored within Oregon. An additional 4 eyries are known and monitored in Washington State (personal communication, C. Flick). Surveys by CRGNSA in 2007 and 2008 discovered a new falcon eyrie within the planning area in the southern portion of Catherine sub-area. Suitable habitat is also present in the cliff area of Coyote Wall. It is suspected that the current high recreation use, consisting of hiker and mountain biker trails, immediately adjacent (above and below) to the cliff area are discouraging peregrine falcon use of this suitable nesting habitat. Whether present rock climbing locations are impacting peregrine falcons is unknown. One paper found that either rock climbing or nesting ravens negatively impacted peregrine fledgling success, and the combination both lowered fledgling success even more (Brambilla et al, 2004) Monitoring must be done in the future to address this issue in this planning area as well as the entire Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

Effects of the alternatives Similar to bald eagle and other raptors, peregrines are most susceptible to human disturbance during courtship and incubation, with nest tenacity by adults increasing as incubation progresses and hatching occurs (USFWS, 1982). The level of impact that a certain disturbance factor may have on peregrine falcons depends upon the familiarity of an individual or nesting pair to that particular disturbance. If peregrines are accustomed to a certain disturbance as a normal or routine occurrence, and the disturbance offers no known direct threat, then the peregrines will ignore it. If the disturbance is new, intermittent, or unexpected within their nesting territory, then the peregrines will be less tolerant of that disturbance. When peregrines have not experienced a human disturbance, or the activity is intermittent (e.g. log skidding, aircraft, or distant rockfall) then they can become noticeably concerned (ranging from curiosity fly-overs to intense territorial defense). Nesting success will depend on the duration, distance, and timing of the distance to nest.

One new site with two known peregrine nesting areas in this planning area are on the south and north side of Highway 8. While the location to the south of Highway 8 is not near any present locations, the nest site to the north of Highway 8 is located near trail CA1. For this reason, in Alt. 2 there is a seasonal closure from Feb. 1 through July 15 on the CA1 trail unless required yearly USFWS peregrine protocol surveys determine no occupancy for that year (timing based on a recommendation from WDFW’s Wildlife Biologist David Anderson which was based on recent peregrine protocol surveys) on the Ca1 trail unless required yearly USFWS peregrine protocol surveys determine no occupancy for that year. If no occupancy is confirmed from protocol surveys, then at that time, Ca1 could be opened earlier (possibly in May or June). Like the bald eagle, peregrine falcons choose eyrie locations away from human activity, especially when activities are located above the cliff habitat of the eyrie. With the seasonal closure of trail CA1, Revised Alternative 2 has the least impact of all alternatives. All alternatives reduce the suitability of the present cliff habitat to support peregrine eyries due to the high density of trails adjacent to available cliffs. The table below displays the trail density near available cliff habitat. Alternative 3, followed by Revised Alternative 2, has the lowest trail density, which allows for more habitat to be available for peregrine nesting habitat. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 186

Miles of trail within Trail Density within 30’ of 30’ of Cliff Habitat Cliff Habitat (miles/mi2) Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.1 0.8 Coyote (Middle) 2.4 10.6 Catherine (East) 2.8 8.1 Overall Planning Area – Existing condition 5.4 7.9 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.1 0.8 Coyote (Middle) 2.4 10.6 Catherine (East) 1.3 3.8 Overall Planning area - Alt 1 3.9 5.7 Revised Alternative 2 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 1.0 4.5 Catherine (East) 2.3 6.6 Overall Planning area – Revised Alt 2 3.4 4.9 Alternative 3 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0.0 Coyote (Middle) 1.0 4.4 Catherine (East) 1.9 5.4 Overall Planning area - Alt 3 2.9 4.3 Note: Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Washington State Candidate, Oregon State Sensitive – Critical The Northern goshawk has a wide distribution in North America, Europe and Asia in forested areas. In Oregon, most breeding areas are to the east of the Cascades, while in Washington, the species also occupies some sites in the Western Cascades and the Olympic peninsula. In the Northwest, the goshawk is associated with coniferous forests, especially ponderosa pine and higher elevation mixed conifer forests. Goshawk home range territories are often categorized into 3 primary areas: nest stand (20-30 acres), post-fledging family area, and foraging habitat. Breeding home ranges generally have the following characteristics overall: a high density of large trees, > 50% canopy cover, multiple canopy layers, and low understory/shrub density (Desimone and Hays, 1994). Within this home range, canopy cover within the nest stand varied from 60-88% in east-central WA and eastern Oregon studies. Goshawks forage in a wide variety of forest types. Goshawk prey varies by region and consists of a variety of small to large birds, chipmunks, squirrels, hares, and sometimes reptiles as the opportunity arises.

Effects of the alternatives The planning area is adjacent to some limited nest habitat, present in the Major creek headwaters. Surveys in 2007 and 2008 by the CRGNSA detected no nests in this area. All of the alternatives will have No Effect to this species nor its habitat.

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Washington State Candidate The golden eagle ranges throughout much of western North America in a variety of habitats. It is locally most common in open shrub steppe habitats (for foraging) with nearby cliffs (for nest sites) that provide protection from mammalian predators. Large trees are also known to be used by golden eagles for nesting, although much less commonly than cliff

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 187

sites. This species subsists primarily on large rodents such as rabbits, hares, ground squirrels, and prairie dogs. Golden eagles are most efficient predators in open areas where winds and thermal updrafts aid flying. They are less efficient where shrub and/or tree cover increases. Abundant shrub cover provides hiding and escape cover for prey. Physical obstructions close to the ground make hunting difficult. Habitat management for the golden eagle primarily consists of protecting areas used for nesting, resting, and foraging, and protecting habitat used by the prey base.

Effects of the alternatives All known nest sites within the Scenic Area are in open habitat; located from the Klickitat River and eastward. Although suitable habitat is present, there is no known golden eagle use of the planning area. Cliff habitat at Coyote Wall provides potential habitat for nesting golden eagles, especially coupled with the open grassland nearby. There are currently no golden eagle nests within this habitat. The area may not be used by golden eagles, similar to the peregrine falcon, due to the disturbance from high recreation use both above and below this cliff habitat. Effects to the golden eagle nesting and foraging habitat is similar to peregrine falcons in that the suitable nesting and foraging habitat becomes unsuitable due to high density of human use (refer to table in the peregrine falcon analysis, above).

Merlin Falco columbarius Washington State Candidate The Merlin is a small falcon that breeds throughout the northern forests and prairies of North America, Europe, and Asia. Locally, this species is a nomadic and occasional winter resident in southern Washington, including the Scenic Area. Known breeding areas are in Northern Washington and the Puget trough in semi-open areas that facilitate mid-air capture of small bird prey. Wintering habitat within the Scenic Area is considered to be any open area <1000’ elevation, where there is abundant prey of small birds. Merlins are very tolerant to nearby human activity; foraging near grain elevators and in major cities where small birds congregate in winter (BNA online).

Effects of the alternatives There are expected to be no effects to the merlin from any of the alternatives proposed due to the following factors: • the species’ short presence in the planning that coincides with the lowest recreation use period, • their high tolerance of human presence during this non-breeding period, and • the large amount of open (agricultural) foraging habitat that is available for this species in the local area.

Lewis’ woodpecker Malanerpes lewis Washington State Candidate, Oregon State Sensitive – Critical The Lewis’ woodpecker ranges throughout the western United States. Originally abundant throughout Washington and Oregon state, the species has experienced a dramatic decline due to loss (conversion) of its riparian and pine-oak woodlands, as well as decline in open habitat due to fire suppression. It is now only locally abundant east of the Cascades in open forests consisting of oak woodland, mixed oak – ponderosa pine forests, and riparian cottonwood corridors that provide them with the combination of tree cavities, and diverse food sources (Marshall et. al, 2006). Populations tend to be year-round residents within the Scenic Area, but may also seasonally migrate to lower elevations, or to milder climate, during winter. Birds are often colonial. This species will also use orchards, burned stands of Douglas fir-mixed conifer, and can also be found among urban areas adjacent to pine-oak woodland habitat. Lewis’ woodpeckers nest in large snags, often adjacent to water courses. This species takes insects on the wing or gleans from vegetation, eating carpenter ants, bees, wasps, mayflies, beetles and grasshoppers, and stashing mast of acorn, pine nuts and berries for winter use. It is an opportunistic feeder; eating insects in spring and summer and fruits and acorns in fall and winter. A year-round resident of pine/oak forests in Klickitat and Wasco counties within the Scenic Area, it is found in the pine/oak habitat within the planning area.

Effects of the alternatives There are expected to be no effects to the Lewis’ woodpecker from any of the alternatives proposed due to the following factors: • no changes to habitat will occur, especially nesting habitat in large snags, • the species will rarely come to the ground and thus has low potential to interface with recreationists, and • the species’ high tolerance for human presence around suitable habitat. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 188

Pilieated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Washington State Candidate, Oregon State Sensitive - Vulnerable This species is a year-round resident through forested eastern North America and into Canada, then south into montane regions of w. Montana, n. Idaho, and ne. Oregon; in the Pacific Northwest from central British Columbia south through Washington and Oregon west of the Cascades to central California. This is the largest woodpecker species in the Pacific Northwest, and nests locally in all coniferous forest types, except for juniper and monotypic lodgepole pine (Marshall et. al., 1996). Nesting habitat is typically in mature forests, or forest with remnant large snags or live trees. Mean diameter of trees excavated for nest cavities vary from 27 to 38 inch dbh in Oregon and Washington (Bull and Jackson, 1995). Large trees are also excavated for roosting at night and in inclement weather. Roost trees in western Oregon and NE Oregon ranged from 16-82 inch dbh (Lewis and Azerrad, 2003). Foraging can occur in much younger forests, as well as deciduous riparian areas, in search for prey species of ants, termites, beetle, and other insects. The pileated woodpecker excavates into primarily dead standing or down wood for prey species, as well as scaling and chipping bark. Timber harvest has been the most significant impact on its habitat through the removal of large-diameter trees, snags, and downed woody material that supports nest and roost sites, foraging habitat, and cover. Nesting occurs around late March to early July (Lewis ands Azerrad, 2003).

Effects of the alternatives Similar to the Lewis’ woodpecker, there are expected to be no effects to the pileated woodpecker from any of the alternatives proposed due to the following factors: • no changes to habitat will occur, especially nesting habitat in large snags, and • the species’ fairly high tolerance for human presence around suitable habitat.

Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Forest Service sensitive (WA) The Lesser Goldfinch is a small, social, seed-eating songbird that inhabits a wide variety of habitats of the western United States, southward to Mexico. South of the United States, it is widespread through Mexico and Central America, and its range extends into northern and western South America. It is often nomadic and sporadic in occurrence (Watt and Willoughby, 1999). This goldfinch is uncommon and very local in the State of Washington, only occurring in a limited area in southwestern Klickitat County. It is always associated with oak habitat and adjacent open fields. The species is listed by the Forest Service as sensitive in Washington State due its extremely small distribution in the state which is also the northernmost range of this species. It is known to be in the planning area as well as eastward into Balfour-Klickitat Park near Lyle.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 189

Effects of the alternatives The lesser goldfinch uses trees and tall shrubs for nest building. It’s habit of foraging for seeds, flowers, buds, fruits, and infrequently insects, on the ground and on short grasses and shrubs are the only time it may come in contact with recreationists or their dogs. Direct mortality from recreationists is extremely unlikely and is not considered a concern for this species in the planning area. Of primary concern is the extremely limited range of this species in Washington state and the potential to reduce its range due to chronic disturbance of its limited habitat in the oak woodlands of western Klickitat County. The density of trails in open pine/oak, as well adjacent grassland habitat, will determine the level of foraging disturbance that be incurred by this species. The table below summarizes the trail density in grassland and oak/pine habitat, by alternative.

Trail Density within Trail Density within Grassland Habitat Oak/Pine Habitat (miles/mi2) (miles/mi2) Existing Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 0 Coyote (Middle) 9.9 3.3 Catherine (East) 6.3 3.3 Overall Planning Area - Existing 6.2 3.3 Alternative 1 Trail System Burdoin (West) 0.0 3.3 Coyote (Middle) 7.3 3.4 Catherine (East) 2.0 1.4 Overall planning area - Alt 1 3.2 2.1 Revised Alternative 2 System Burdoin (West) 1.6 0.3 Coyote (Middle) 9.0 2.1 Catherine (East) 5.0 1.8 Overall planning area - Alt 2 5.5 1.6 Alternative 3 Trail System Burdoin (West) 1.6 0.3 Coyote (Middle) 9.1 2.0 Catherine (East) 4.3 1.9 Overall planning area - Alt 3 5.2 1.6 Note: Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures.

Alternative 1 has the least trail density in foraging habitat, but allows for off-leash dogs year-round that can range far through adjacent habitat, potentially flushing feeding birds.

Revised Alternative 2 and 3 have a higher trail density in grassland, but a lower trail density in oak/pine habitat, and in addition. Alternative 3 requires the leashing of dogs from December 1 to June 30 (much of the wintering and nesting season for goldfinches). This alternative reduces the disturbance zone width throughout the project area for part of the year. Revised Alternative 2 requires the leashing of dogs year-round in Catherine Creek sub-area. This alternative reduces the disturbance zone width in the Catherine Creek sub-area (the lower trail density/ higher rated sub-area for wildlife) year- round from trail users. Revised Alternative 2 may have reduced disturbance zones compared to Alternative 3 due to the limitation of hiker (and in the Upper Catherine sub-area, equestrian) only use in the Catherine sub-area. A bike rider’s ability to move much faster than a hiker, or typical horse-back rider, has a higher probability of surprising and flushing birds using habitat adjacent to the trail.

It is suspected that trails densities of over 5 miles per square mile of suitable habitat may start to show some measurable effects to this limited population due to a loss of 30% of the use-ability of habitat in the planning area. All action alternatives (1, 2 and 3) all stay generally below this threshold and should therefore not impact the viability of this site for lesser goldfinches. Long-term (>5 years) monitoring of this population should occur to detect any trends in this area.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 190

Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Forest Service sensitive (WA) This neotropical migrant ranges throughout the SW U.S. and into central America in open arid habitat, with Washington State at the most northern edge of its breeding distribution. Within Washington State, it is limited in distribution to central and south-central Washington; mainly in Klickitat County, with some populations up to Okanogan/Wenatchee area (Cardiff and Dittman, 2002). The ash-throated flycatcher is a secondary cavity nester. In Klickitat County, its habitat association is oak-pine woodland, especially with large diameter trees of both species. This species does not breed in dense forested montane habitat. Within these general requirements, main necessities are presence of shrubs or trees with trunks or branches thick enough to serve as nest-cavity substrates, presence of ≥1 woodpecker species to excavate cavities, and relatively dry and open woodland or scrub habitat for foraging. Diet is almost exclusively arthropods, such as spiders, leafhoppers, wasps, flies, beetles, and other prey gleaned from branches.

This species is locally common, with the North American population shown to be increasing (Wahl et. al., 2005). It’s limited distribution and concerns for available habitat in Washington led to its monitor status. In Washington, preferred Oregon white oak woodland breeding habitat is increasingly rare and local. One study in Klickitat County found ash- throated flycatchers used oak for 90% of its nesting, with average diameter of nest trees being 14” dbh. Nesting landscape habitat was characterized by tall, wide oak trees. Breeding season is approximately from late April to mid-July. Breeders are relatively tolerant of human disturbance at the nest (Cardiff and Dittman, 2002). This species leaves the local area by late July to August to return to its southern wintering grounds.

Effects of the alternatives Potential impacts to this species is very similiar to the Lewis’ woodpecker due to their similar habitat needs and foraging styles. None of the alternatives are expected to negatively impact individuals or the population due to several factors: • no changes to habitat will occur, especially nesting habitat in large snags, • the species largely forages in tree tops for arthropods and thus has low potential to interface with recreationists, • dogs will be on leash in the Catherine Creek sub-area year-round (rated with the highest for wildlife values in the entire planning area) in Alternatives 2. This will reduce the chances that dogs will disrupt any foraging that may occasionally take place near the ground or within low shrubs in the Catherine Area. In Alternative 3, with dogs-on- leash from December through June, the entire project area is protected during the breeding season for most bird species.

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi Washington State Candidate This swift is a neotropical migrant that breeds from southwestern Canada through the western United States to Mexico, Central America, and northern Venezuela. Arriving in Washington by May, and leaving around mid August to late September, this species migrates out of the country, into the southern portion of its range, to winter. They can occur as singles, but are much more commonly noted in communal colonies. The Vaux’s swift requires large (>21” dbh) snags and hollow trees for nesting and roosting habitat. This habitat is most commonly found in mature forests, where this species is found at its highest density. This requirement was the reason for their placement on the State’s candidate species list, due the limited supply of this habitat feature in second-growth forests (Wahl et. al., 2005). Swifts have taken to using available residential and industrial chimneys as nest and roost sites, especially during migration. Breeding season is around May to early August in the local area. The Vaux’s swift forages for insects, in flight, over a wide variety of habitats; urban areas, water, open fields and forested areas.

In late spring and summer, Vaux’s swift are present within the planning area while foraging. Large (>21’ dbh) trees with hollow centers are generally lacking within the planning area, but could sporadically be present in the northern portions of the planning area near Catherine and Major Creeks (mainly Catherine and Burdoin sub-areas).

Effects of the alternatives Vaux’s swifts are neo-tropical migrants and are thus only in the planning during the breeding season that last from May to aproximately late August. They nest high up in treetops or artificial cavities (chimneys for example) and forage even

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 191

higher over the tree canopy itself. This species is well known for its tolerance to human presence. Due to these factors, none of the alternatives are expected to negatively impact this species within the planning area.

Western gray squirrel Scirus griseus FS sensitive (WA), Washington State Threatened, Oregon State Sensitive – Undetermined Western gray squirrels are distributed from Washington to California in mixed oak and conifer forests. Currently within Washington, gray squirrels are limited to 3 isolated populations; Puget Trough (Fort Lewis), Klickitat and eastern Skamania County, and Chelan/Okanogan Counties (Linders and Stinson, 2007). Although Klickitat County contains the largest population of the 3 areas, it is also believed to be declining (Vander Haegen et. al., 2005). In 1993, the state of Washington listed the western gray squirrel as ‘threatened’ due to declining populations state-wide resulting from habitat loss and conversion, fluctuating food supplies, disease, interspecific competition, road kills and illegal shooting. In the Klickitat region, habitat for the Western gray squirrel occur where oak woodlands and pine forest converge, an ecotone between the upland Douglas-Fir forests and the lowland grassland/oak savanna. Stand composition is typically Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-Fir, with riparian area that may include bigleaf maple, Oregon ash, black cottonwood, and quaking aspen. Optimum stands are conifer-dominated of large diameter, mast producing trees, usually of pine and oak. A diversity of trees species, and the presence of oak were also important habitat components (Linders and Stinson, 2007). Mature trees produce more mast (acorn, pine/fir seeds) than younger stands; a critical winter food item. Leaf nests are generally found in pine or Douglas fir trees, with cavities in oaks used whenever available. High-use stands in the Puget Trough included a mix of conifers, oaks, and other hardwoods such as big leaf maple and Oregon ash in the canopy. Large, healthy oaks and conifers (especially ponderosa pine) are more likely to provide greater quantities of mast foods and more nest and den sites compared with smaller trees of the same species. Proximity to water may also be important, with more nests generally found from 540’ to 1800’ of a water source.

Western gray squirrels are confirmed in the planning area through nest surveys that ran from 2006 to 2008. Nest clusters were more numerous in remote areas of the canyons in Major Creek, as well as Catherine Creek (Catherine sub-area), although nests were also found quite near existing trails, high up in the tree canopy. The squirrels themselves were rarely seen in the 3 years of survey.

Effects of the alternatives Western gray squirrel populations are declining from a growing number of cumulative factors. Although significant mortality from roads in, or connecting suitable habitat, is well documented from vehicle collisions, it is unlikely that trail use would cause direct mortality of this type. Squirrels are quite secretive and don’t often come to the ground if they sense any danger in the immediate area. Trailed recreation does not remove any key habitat nor cause direct mortality, but does cause disturbance to nesting and foraging individuals. This cumulative impact is the main concern for the population in the planning area since it is uncertain as to what the trigger point may be that causes the population to slide from threatened to extirpated status.

Western gray squirrels are largely arboreal in habit, which reduces chances of contact with ground-bound recreationists. Their typical response to human (predators) is to remain still, or to move to the other side of the tree to avoid detection. Despite this propensity for tree-bound living, they do need to go to the ground for such activities as migration, foraging for underground fungi (an important food source), as well as drink. The higher the density of trails, and their associated level of use, within the oak/pine habitat, the more the squirrels must shift their ground activity to times when recreationists are not present. This results in reduced periods for ground-based activities such as foraging, and may further stress an already stressed population. The table below displays the trail density in oak/pine habitat with the different alternatives.

Trail Density within Oak/Pine Habitat (miles/mi2) Burdoin (West) 3.3 Coyote (Middle) 3.3 Catherine (East) 3.3 Overall Planning Area - Existing 3.3 Burdoin (West) 3.3 Coyote (Middle) 3.4 Catherine (East) 1.4 Overall planning area - Alt 1 2.1 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 192

Burdoin (West) 0.3 Coyote (Middle) 2.1 Catherine (East) 1.8 Overall planning area – Revised Alt 2 1.6 Burdoin (West) 0.3 Coyote (Middle) 2.0 Catherine (East) 1.9 Overall planning area - Alt 3 1.6 Note: Calculations were derived via GIS, with table displaying rounded figures

All alternatives (1, 2 and 3) propose to eliminate existing trails in the NE corner of Catherine sub-area, significantly dropping trail density in occupied squirrel habitat. This will provide a measure of refugia for some of the best remaining western gray squirrel habitat in the local area. The limited trail work starting in mid-summer should not significantly impact populations of breeding western gray squirrels. Alternatives 2 and 3 have the lowest overall trail density in oak/pine habitat. Revised Alternative 2 requires that dogs be on-leash year-round in the Cathernine sub-area (the area where more squirrel nests were found). Alternative 3 requires that dogs be on-leash during critical winter and nesting seasons, which addresses risk to disturbance impacts and potential for population decline project area wide.

Dogs have more opportunity to explore while running free if off-leash in an area like the Catherine sub-area, because its topography is more open. The Burdoin and Coyote sub-areas have a more constricted topography with more talus slopes and more abrupt terrain, which may limit a potential off-leash dog to explore. This is another reason Alternative 2, with dogs-on-leash in the Catherine area year-round may be more beneficial to squirrels, and other wildlife than the seasonal closure suggested by Alternative 3.

Alternative 3 allows for 3 user types (reference Data Table 3) in the Catherine sub-area, but does not allow dogs-off-leash project wide from December 1 through June 30. This dogs-on-leash time period benefits winter ranger deer and most breeding birds, but partially covers the breeding season of western grays squirrels. Revised Alternative 2 keeps dogs-on- leash year round in the Catherine Creek sub-area, but never in the Burdoin Mountain and Coyote Wall sub-areas. Revised Alternative 2 allows for 2 user types in the Catherine sub-area with equestrian use only on the upper loop. This sub-area has the highest quality habitat and nest density of all three sub-areas. Since trails are concentrated largely in the lower ½ of the Catherine sub-area (with lower squirrel use), Revised Alternative 2 would have less much impacts to western gray squirrels in the Catherine Area, but would have slightly more impacts in the Burdoin Mountain and Coyote Wall sub-areas. This analysis may need to be re-evaluated if future studies find different disturbance zones between bicyclists, hikers and horse-back riders as it relates to tree squirrels.

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service sensitive, Washington – Candidate, Oregon – Sensitive critical

Townsend’s big-eared bats are found throughout the Western United States as well as isolated populations in the Eastern U.S. Washington GAP data indicate their presence in all counties in Washington. Critical habitat for this species is hibernacula habitat in the form of large caves, lava tubes, mines, or old buildings. Disturbance of these bats while in torpor causes a critical loss of energy reserves and reduced rates of survival. Their decline range-wide is thought be linked to increased disturbance of roost sites through recreational climbing, mining, and vandalism. Noctural in habit, Townsend’s big-eared bat bats travel long distances from roost sites to forage on moths and other night-flying insects.

Effects of the alternatives There are no known caves, mines or abandoned old buildings within the planning area that would harbor roost sites for bats, but this species may use the planning area to opportunistically forage. Foraging bats will not come in contact with day use of the planning are by recreationists. None of the trail alternatives will affect cave habitat, and will thus have no effect to this species or its habitat.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 193

Barren Juga Juga hemphilli hemphilli Forest Service sensitive

Columbia Duskysnail Lyogyrus n. sp. 1 Forest Service sensitive

Pristine Springsnail Pristinicola hemphilli Forest Service sensitive (WA) These 3 aquatic snail species were grouped together as they use the same habitat of cold, clear, and well-oxygenated spring- fed systems. These habitats are often very small in area and disconnected from each other in the general landscape. 2007 and 2008 surveys of springs and streams within the planning area located the pristine springsnail, but not the other 2 species. Spring habitat within the planning area is very limited and is a priority habitat for wildlife. Existing trails in all alternatives (1,2 and 3) were proposed to be moved away from springs by at least 150 feet to allow for natural functions.

Effects of the alternatives None of the alternatives will change the physical structure of the habitat around the springs or alter the water quality of the spring itself. This will result in no effect to the snail inhabitants.

Dalles sideband Monadenia fidelis minor FS Sensitive, Washington State Candidate This species is known from watersheds that are tributary to the Columbia Gorge; from Hood River east to the vicinity of The Dalles on both sides of the river, and in upland sites in watersheds tributary to the lower Deschutes River in Wasco County, within Mt. Hood National Forest. It inhabits talus or moist rocky areas around streams, seeps and springs within steppe or dry forest plant communities. This species is active only during dawn and dusk during the spring and fall seasons. During the summer and late winter, snails are found deep in talus accumulations which are adjacent to springs or streams and which serve as refuge sites from desiccation and protection from predators while they are immobile. Forest litter and woody debris are considered necessary to provide food and cover while foraging. Loose soil is necessary for egg laying. The Dalles sideband has been found with the Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli).

Effects of the alternatives This species was not found within the planning area during 2007 and 2008 surveys. The implementation of all alternatives (1, 2 and 3) will have no impact on this species. Habitat of talus and riparian will not be degraded by any alternatives, and in some cases will be markedly improved by removal of existing trails.

Mardon Skipper Polites mardon Federal Candidate, Forest Service Sensitive, Washington State Endangered The mardon skipper is currently known to occur in 4 small disjunct populations within Washington, Oregon and California (Potter, 1999). In the southern W.A. Cascades, the mardon skipper is found in open, fescue grasslands within Ponderosa pine savanna/woodland, at elevations ranging from 1900' to 5100'. Sites vary in size from small, ½ acre or less meadows, to large grassland complexes, and site conditions range from dry, open ridgetops, to areas associated with wetlands or riparian habitats. Within these grassland environments, a variety of nectar source plants are important. The short, open stature of native, fescue bunchgrass stands allows mardon skippers to access nectar and oviposition plants. During the past 150 years, native grasslands have been developed, fragmented, and degraded. Fire historically played an important role in maintaining grassland plant communities. More than 95% of the original prairie grasslands are gone from western Washington. Mardon skippers were likely more widespread and abundant prior to large-scale loss of their open, fescue dominated, grassland habitat.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 194

Effects of the alternatives Protocol surveys in 2006 did not detect this species within the planning area. This was expected, as the grassland habitat within this site is more xeric than areas of known distribution. The implementation of all alternatives (1, 2 or 3) will have No Impact on mardon skipper butterflies. The action Alternatives will not degrade moist meadow or grassland habitat within the planning area.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 195

APPENDIX B - SCOPING COMMENTS

PUBLIC AND COLLABORATIVE GROUP SCOPING COMMENTS The scoping letter and project description, dated April 22, 2008 was mailed or e-mailed to approximately 220 individuals, organizations and agencies. This notice was also added to the CRGNSA website. A total of 48 comment letters or e-mails were received. The individual points made in the comment letters are summarized below. Some of the points made were repeated by other commentors. The Forest Service response to the comment is included in the right column:

Comment Resolution and/or FS Response

1 Hiking only on Tracey Hill is arbitrary and not Alternative 3, The Mixed Use research based—keep open to all uses. alternative was developed and brought forward in order to further analyze the effects of mixed uses. See Chapter 3 for the results of this analysis. 2 Eliminates long distance loop rides. Alternative 1 would reduce long distance loop rides with the elimination of trails in the Open Space. Alternative 2 and 3 would somewhat reduce those opportunities when compared to the existing situation. However, opportunities will be retained when combined with the Atwood Road and connecting trails from the Coyote Wall to the Catherine Creek areas. 3 Connector Trails spread people out and reduce Connector trails were used where user conflicts and trail damage. they did not create adverse affects to sensitive resources. 4 Link Courtney loops. The Courtney “loops” were linked into a trail from Atwood Road to the lower parking lot. See Chapter 2 for the alternative maps. 5 Mountain bikers are not getting full Mountain biker comment into representation. this analysis was important to the development of all of the alternatives. See Chapter 4 for a list of contributors. 6 Basis for hiker-only should be explained. As explained during the public collaboration period, there are differences to the effects on resources among types of users. See Chapter 3, Natural Resources for the effects analysis.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 196

7 Limit biking to dry season only Mitigation including erosion (June 21-Sept 21). control measures and trail rerouting should correct erosion and sediment problems currently seen on trails. See Chapter 3, Natural Resources for the effects analysis. 8 Syncline Trail really needs to be closed. The Syncline trail will be retained in both Alternative 2 and 3. Natural resource impacts caused by the existing route will be mitigated. The upper portion of the trail will be rerouted away from the cliff environment and n trails will be decommissioned. Lower trail will be redesigned with to ensure natural resource and trail location is sustainable over the long run. Unwanted trails (trail braiding) will be decommissioned. 9 Create an Eastside Loop. Alternative 2 and 3 creates an eastside loop trail in the Catherine Cr. area. Loop trail opportunities in the upper slopes of Catherine Cr. and Tracy Hill were considered, but not proposed to protect natural resource values (disturbance to wildlife). 10 Historical use naturally limits bike use so not Alternative 3, The Mixed Use necessary to formally limit it to the few who alternative was developed and would like to use it. brought forward for analysis. 11 Keep more of the existing trails and mixed use, Future expansion is shown in the show future expansion. Burdoin analysis area trail and parking lot. This trail and parking area will not be built until decommissioning of all non- system trails is complete. 12 Flawed process, good at first, then last minute Thank you for the candid review. changes “back-room feel”. We hope to communicate in a collaborative manner the need and rationale for changes more effectively in the future. 13 Link hidden valley to Maui This was done. See alternative maps. 15 Glad a plan is finally getting put into action. Thank you.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 197

16 Support “controlled dogs” regulation. Thank you. 17 Loose dogs are disruptive. Thank you. 18 Support the divisions of use as it follows Alternative 2 best illustrates this historical use. approach. See Chapter 2. 19 Don’t close trails at the top of Catherine Creek. Due to the effects of disturbance to the wildlife refugia and to private land, only cross-country pedestrian use would be allowed in the area. 20 Require Forest Pass in parking area. We agree that this is a good idea. We will follow the formal process for approval once the parking area is constructed. 21 Need parking area at the top and retain The Forest Service parking for Catherine Creek parking. Catherine Creek is in the county ROW and is not currently a formal lot. The alternatives include a small parking area “at the top” near Atwood Road 22 No Major Creek crossing. Ford works fine and No Major Creek crossing is crossings will encourage motorized use. planned. 23 Need a direct connection to the parking lot. No We added a connection from the hiking on roads. parking lot to the proposed trail system leading to the Coyote analysis area. Linking the trail in the Burdoin analysis area to the parking lot off of the road would require coordination with Klickitat County. 24 Support protection buffers for resources and Thank you. private land. 25 Separate trail possible next to Courtney road? We would have to approach the Klickitat County. The trail would have to be in the County right of way or it would be on private land. 26 Use Kreps site for recreation (on top), doesn’t See Chapter 2 for the location make sense to remove it. and design of the two proposed Forest Service parking lots. One is located “on top” near the Kreps site. 27 No conflicts to warrant restrictions of any user There were conflicts as listed in groups. these comments between user groups and there are conflicts between the use of the area for recreation and for wildlife habitat.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 198

28 Keep Catherine hiker only to protect soil and Alternative 2 was developed (in plants. part) to provide this. 29 Historic horse use in Catherine area, horses, per We agree. See effects to natural se, are not the problem. resources in Chapter 3 for a full analysis. 30 Most horse riders will stay on trail if informed. We appreciate that. 31 Consider horse use with restrictions and Alternative 3 was developed (in information such as limits on size of groups and part) to provide this. season of use. 32 All trails should be mixed use, horse users small Alternative 3 was developed (in in number, ride in dry season. part) to provide this. 33 Hiker plus horse rather than just hiker Alternative 3 was developed (in part) to provide this. 34 Need parking on county road near Catherine The parking for Catherine Creek Creek is in the county ROW and is not currently a formal lot. The alternatives include a small parking area “at the top” near Atwood Road. The desired condition for the future is to work with Klickitat County to define a small formal lot near Catherine Creek. 35 Define what “dogs under control” means “Dogs under control” means either leashed or controlled through verbal command. Those not capable of control through verbal command must be leashed. “Dogs on leash” requires all dogs to be leashed regardless of talent for verbal commands. 36 State reasons for Hiker-only. The differential effects to natural resources of the various trail uses are discussed in Chapter 3, under effects to natural resources. 37 Signs, bathrooms, etc. are important parts of the We agree. The action plan. alternatives include these items. 38 Equestrian voices were not heard. We are sorry for this perception. We hope to improve it in the future. We made every effort to provide for all user groups as much as the capacity of the land and resources would allow. 39 Burdoin/Coyote wall not suitable for horses— Those who do use and enjoy the use is light. area are nevertheless concerned that the use is provided. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 199

40 Not safe to share the same trail with bicyclists, Conflicts will likely occur but hiker and bikers are a better match. proper design will reduce speed of the bike and proper sight distances can mitigate many conflicts and safety issues. All users will be encouraged to engage in proper trail etiquette. For example, bikes yield to all users. Trail etiquette will be posted at trailheads. See the description of alternatives in Chapter 2 and the Desired Conditions in Chapter 1. 42 Horse use not appropriate in Catherine Open The differential opinions of each Space as delineated on page 2 of the proposed user group was considered in the action. development of the two action alternatives. 43 Protect natural values, horses can damage with Alternative 2 was developed (in soil compaction, weeds. part) as one way to prevent this. 44 No confidence in FS weed and recreation use We are sorry for this perception. monitoring. We hope to improve it in the future. Funding for monitoring continues to be a challenge. We are incorporating support from user groups as part of our proposal. This would include monitoring as described in Chapter 1 and 2. 45 No room for horse trailer parking in Catherine We agree. The parking for Creek. Catherine Creek is in the county ROW and is not currently a formal lot. 46 Klickitat trail is enough for horses. The differential opinions of each user group was considered in the development of the two action alternatives. 47 Give local horse users a special pass and don’t All potential horse users were allow anyone else. given consideration in the development of the recreation plan. The Forest Service does not have a type of pass for local users. 48 Allow hiking all the way to the top of Tracy Cross-country hiking is allowed Hill. in all of the action alternatives as long as new non-system trails are not created. 49 No bikers should be allowed in Catherine OS. Alternative 2 does not allow biking in most of Catherine OS.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 200

50 Let dogs run free, no problems now. The alternatives require that dogs be under control at all times. 51 No bikers, dangerous with hiking. Alternative 2 does not allow biking in most of Catherine OS. 52 Keep the trail at edge of Syncline in Burdoin. This trail is mostly on private land and cannot be sanctioned by the Forest Service. 53 In support of project, trails are very well Thank you. designed. 54 DNR comment is that the area should be well One of the purposes of this managed to protect biological richness. recreation management plan was to provide this outcome. 55 Need parking area on East end. The parking near the intersection of Courtney Road and SR-14 is the most eastern opportunity under Forest Service management. 56 Post signs for information and education. This is part of both action alternatives (2&3). 57 Limited bike use in Catherine Creek. Alternative 2 was developed (in part) to provide this. 58 Dogs should be controlled or on leash. We agree. 59 Biking is highly erosive, put in powerline, gas This would not fulfill the purpose ROWs. for the new recreation management plan as defined in Chapter 1. 60 Need solitude and natural areas. Alternative 2 was developed (in part) to provide this. 61 Confine horses to Atwood Road. Alternative 1, the implementation of the existing Open Space Plan requires this. 62 Need a new trail to the huge double-trunk Due to the effects of disturbance Ponderosa Pine. to the wildlife refugia and to private land, only cross-country pedestrian use would be allowed in this area. 63 Switch the users allowed on Atwood Road to This is not possible due to the mixed and allow hikers only on the trail just to public access for all users on the west of Atwood (portion running north and Atwood Road. south.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 201

64 There is a trail leading to my property. There are two county roads shown on the Alternative maps in Chapter 2 that will remain open to public access that the Forest Service is not able to change. Trails on private land were rerouted around if possible so that an alternative federal route is available. Some trails remain that are in close proximity to private land but a federal route is available that is off private land. 65 Fire risk is the biggest issue We agree that risk of fire is high in this area. The Forest Service is addressing fire resilience on federal lands with the Burdoin Mt. and Catherine Forest Restoration projects. 66 Parking and traffic dangerous on Courtney Rd. Alternative 1 does not allow for parking or trails on Courtney Road. 67 Keep all parking at the bottom of Courtney Alternative 1 does not allow for Road. parking on Courtney Road. The parking at the bottom of Courtney will be built first. Its adequacy will be evaluated before a new lot is built under the other alternatives. 68 Clarify that “mixed users” exclude motorized. The alternatives now define mixed use as all non-motorized use. 69 Post sign excluding motorized. This will be part of the sign plan for the area. 70 Proposed trails are too close to private property We recognize that private in the Courtney Road Area. property is in close proximity to this trail. 71 Make sure you consult WSDOT concerning WSDOT will be consulted. plans for parking onto SR-14.

PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS FROM MARCH 2, 2010

The individual points made in the comment letters are summarized below. A total of 250 comments were received during this scoping period. Some of the points made were repeated by other commentors. The Forest Service response to the comment is included in the right column:

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 202

# Comment Response The access to the pedestrian This issue has been addressed and is reflected in 1 trail encourages people to Revised Alternative 2. walk along Highway 8. Trail has been designated as mountain bike and The trail west of Rowlan hiker trail. Trail will be designed to accommodate Lake is steep and potential 2 both uses with good sight lines. Steep sections dangerous. Please consider (above 15%) will be rerouted or reconstructed at designating for "Hikers Only" more sustainable grades. Keep trail #### (Jeff's Trail) 3 as an alternative to building a This change is reflected in Revised Alternative 2. replacement Connector trails spread Connector trails were used where they did not create 4 people out and reduce user adverse affects to sensitive resources. conflicts and trail damage. Allow bikers in Catherine Any future uses, changes, or modifications to the 5 Creek on certain trails when selected alternative will require the completion of a use expands. new environmental analysis. To include the Coyote Trail as an official Forest Service System trail, legal access will need to be granted to the Forest Service by the land owner. Mt. Bike user groups could work with the land owners to Can Coyote Trail be adopted obtain formal permission to use and perhaps adopt 6 by a biking user group? the trail, however it will not be made part of the Forest Service Trail System unless acceptable access is granted to the Forest Service such as an easement that meets Forest Service conditions and requirements. Private landowners identified access across private land as an issue in the 2008 public scoping efforts. Proactively address access The Forest Service has no authority to develop trails issues across private land to across private land and all proposed trails in the 7 continue existing use Revised Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 were re- patterns. routed to avoid non-NFS land. The only exception was roads under County jurisdiction that cross other ownerships. This has been addressed in Revised Alternative 2 8 Expand parking and Alternative 3. How do you protect Native We are protecting significant cultural resource sites 9 American cultural sites with through trial design, monitoring, education and area increased recreation use? closures Concerned that horse We understand you concern and please see the draft manure monitoring will not 10 Implementation Plan in Appendix D for a further protect rare and unique discussion. plants in the area. Thank you for listening about 11 Your welcome. rare plants. 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 203

Botanical surveys have been completed by a Complete botanical surveys botanist along a 100 foot corridor of all proposed trail 12 along all proposed trail routes and were timed to capture all peak blooming corridors. periods. Botanical surveys have been completed by a Complete botanical surveys botanist along a 100 foot corridor of all proposed trail 12 along all proposed trail routes and were timed to capture all peak blooming corridors. periods. Current equestrian use is not having appreciable Horse manure spreads effects to water, soil and botanical resources. invasive plant species and Allowed horse use which is limited by season and can change the nitrogen daily and annual allocations were developed to 13 levels in soils and altering the mimic existing use. If existing levels are currently plants ecosystem. Horse not having an effect on natural resources than the manure must not remain on Forest Service has not identified any reason why the ground. horse manure should be packed out. The soils at Catherine Creek and Coyote Wall host a unique diversity of The establishment of a trail system and limiting all 14 wildflowers and wildlife and mountain biking activities will prevent soil erosion. are susceptible to soil erosion created by the action of mountain bikes. The meadowlarks need Agreed. All alternatives will protect wildlife. See 15 protection. Chapter 3 for a full discussion. Please develop a monitoring plan to address the impacts Please see the Draft Implementation Plan in 16 to habitat which supports the Appendix D. rare plant species. Protect sensitive plants east Alternative 1, 2, and 3 provide significant restrictions 17 of Atwood Road and to recreation activities to protect sensitive plants in Catherine Creek. this area. Self exploration and cross-country travel for The amount of the trails will pedestrians will continue in all alternatives. Trails to 18 negatively impact the hiking private land were rerouted in Alternative 2 and 3 to from my property. avoid conflicts with private landowners. The Forest Service will establish an implementation The effectiveness of the plan to close or block all routes not selected for removal of existing inclusion in Alternative 2 and 3. Only routes on 19 unauthorized bike trail that Forest Service System lands are covered by the trespasses across our private implementation plan. The Forest Service can not property. authorize any activities on private land. The plan must include a An implementation plan will be developed for the strong implementation plan selected alternative. Alternative 2 and 3 were 20 and balances the needs of all developed to address the issues identified during users while protecting all public scoping. natural resources. 21 Will dogs be required to be The Forest Service has no authority on County 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 204

on leash on old Highway 8. administered roads and cannot restrict dog use on this road. Thanks for keeping the trails 22 Your Welcome. dog friendly. The Forest Service understands the impacts to Please consider off-leash recreation users when dog leash rules are dog management with dogs implemented, however, as described in Chapter 3 under voice control. There the dogs off-leash effect wildlife. The leash 23 are very few trails in the restrictions in Alternative 2 and 3 are focused on CRGNSA that allow dogs off protecting the most sensitive wildlife habitat in the leash. Catherine Open Space area while allowing unrestricted dog use in the remaining areas. The Forest Service has placed dog restrictions in Alternative 2 and 3 to protect sensitive wildlife habitat Please place dogs on leash 24 in the Catherine open space. The restrictions are to protect wildlife. described in Chapter 2 and the effects analysis in Chapter 3. Catherine Creek has become a major dog walking area. Visitors need to understand 25 that their dogs can be canine The Forest Service appreciates your concerns. sewage pipes and be encouraged to pick up after their animals. Dogs should not be allowed. The Forest Service appreciates your concerns. The Sandy River Delta is 26 Alternatives 2 and 3 mitigate effects to natural nearly overrun with dogs with resources while accommodating all user groups. dog feces everywhere. It needs to be determined that if dogs are not on leash 27 This is reviewed in Chapter 3. they would negatively impact nesting birds. All user should register at the trail head inaddtion to horse users. Please establish a The Forest Service has not identified any need for 28 method to register any other user group to register at trailheads. complaints to the Forest Complaints can be registered at the GRCNSA office. Service when citizens discover violations. Please preserve Catherine Alternatives 2 and 3 were designed to accommodate 29 Creek area for pedestrians to all user groups, protect natural resources, and allow protect natural resources. the pedestrian users to enjoy this area. Alternative 1 and 2 separates hiker and biker in the I don't feel hiking and Catherine Creek Planning area to mitigate user 30 mountain biking are conflicts. While the Coyote and Burdoin planning compatible activities. areas are open to both uses, trail design will done to accommodate both uses. It is acknowledge that 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 205

there will be some conflict between user groups in these areas. Horses are not allowed in this area in both The area between labyrinth Alternative 1 and 2 with the exception of the Atwood and Catherine Creek should Road. Bikes are allowed in both Alternative 2 and 3. be protected like the area 31 Bike use in this area was deemed acceptable by east of Catherine Creek. resource specialists. Several user made trails are Bike and horses should not eliminated in all Alternatives to mitigate impacts to be allowed. natural resources. Limits on bike and horse use Botanical plant surveys were implement for all 32 should be implemented west proposed routes in the Catherine Open space area. of Atwood Road. Horse use should be 33 restricted on designated Revised Alternative 2 limits horse use to trail Ca3. mountain biking trails. All three alternatives include restrictions to limit the Please limit horse and impacts of horse and mountain bike use in the mountain bike use in the 34 Catherine Creek area to protect wildflowers. Horse Catherine Creek area to and mountain bike use is restricted to existing trails protect wildflowers. in all alternatives. Document the results of all Botanical surveys have been completed by a sensitive plant surveys along botanist along a 100 foot corridor of all proposed trail 35 all proposed trail corridors routes and were timed to capture all peak flowering and avoid harm to rare periods. plants. Does the maximum party size of 8 horses per day Both. Maximum party size is 8 horses. Total 36 mean no groups larger than number of horses per day is 8. that or total number horses per day. I am a horseman and don't Thank you for your comment. Alternative 2 includes believe that horses should be limits horse and pedestrian use to only one trail and 37 allowed on human use trails, the remainder of the trails are dedicated to bikes and at least during the rainy pedestrians. season. Using weather conditions to The operating period was selected to meet the regulate horse use is better seasonal period of dry weather. The establishment 38 than an established of one trail built for horse use will also limit effects operating period. during the operating period if precipitation occurs. Your plan to limit horse use to 118 units does not make sense. One boarding sta ble A total of 115 horse was finally selected as a has 35 horses out to pasture representative of the existing use for the Catherine 39 out to pasture on 20 acres for Area. The rationale for this selection is described in 8 hours a day, 365 days a Appendix C. year, and grass grows. An annual walk through of 118 horses over 4700 acres is

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 206

nothing. Do not ban horses from this area. It has never been documented that will have 40 Alternatives 2 and 3 allow horse use. any more impact than a hiker if they are restricted to stay on trails. Thank you . The plan for equestrian use was The plan for horse use 41 developed in conjunction with representatives of the appears ok. equestrian community. Thank you for including horse use in the Catherine A total of 115 horse was finally selected as a Creek. I am handicapped representative of the existing use for the Catherine 42 could not see this area Area. The rationale for this selection is described in except by horseback. I Appendix C. would like to see the yearly numbers increased to 300. Can you develop a Forest Service is exploring this option with the reservation system similar to National Recreation Reservation System. This 43 the one used by Oregon or system is web based that allows "24-7" access to Washington Parks for horse anybody anywhere in the nation to reserve use. campsites. I feel that horse access is being overly restricted. This area lies on a dry, rocky site The plants that are there now have managed to with over a hundred years of survive heavy grazing but we have lost a significant 44 historic heavy use and number of other species such as balsam root and grazing. I do not see any lupine. major impacts from historic land use. Alternative 1 and 2 excludes mountain bikes east of the Atwood Road in the Catherine Creek area. The Hikers and bikers must be Atwood Road and Trail Ca2 allows both groups in kept separate. They need Alternative 2. Trail Ca2 will be designed to 45 their space and we need accommodate both groups. This trails will be ours. designed to provide technical challenge for tm bikes, specifically to keep speeds down. The terrain also lends it self to excellent sight distances. We are protecting significant cultural resource sites Please ensure the vision 46 through trial design, monitoring, education and area quest pits are protected. closures Please maintain the policy of allowing people on foot to 47 All three alternatives allow off-trail exploration. explore off-trail throughout the entire planning area. 48 Require all users to register Voluntary trail registration will be implemented. 49 I am concerned about hikers Most recreationist in the Catherine Creek area 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 207

traveling off trail in sensitive confine there travel to established routes. In both areas. Alternative 2 and 3, many of these routes will be retained and some will be reconstructed to ensure trail and environmental sustainability. Most sign cant impacts from off trail use will likely be new user paths developing in sensitive areas. Off trail use will be monitored by systematically monitoring trail density during trail maintenance activities. If any non-system trails become established as a result of off trail use they will be remediated in a timely manner. If trail densities continue to exceed design levels after monitoring remediation is implemented, the following management options will be considered: prohibit off trail use, total area closures or user permits. I am concerned about hikers 49 traveling off trail in sensitive See above areas. The bicycles have enough space from Courtney Road/Coyote Wall. They 50 Alternative 1 excludes bikes in this area. should not come farther east than the Indian Pits except for the Atwood Road. Consider monitoring the number mountain bikers so This is monitoring is not included but the Forest 51 you can document the need Service will give this consideration. to limit access. Sign trails junctions to show This will be completed as part of the implementation 52 users the routes available for plan. use. Allow bikes where horses are The action alternatives were developed to protect 53 allowed until actual conflict natural resources, not conflicts between user groups. appears. At this time there are no plans to implement a per day limit on bikes. All uses will be naturally limited Enforceable limits on bike by parking available at the bottom of Courtney Road 54 numbers per day on all trails. and Catherine Creek. Alternative two proposed to build a 25 car trailhead at bottom of Courtney Road where most mountain bikers access area. Will a bike patrol program Routine and saturation patrols are planned during 55 ever be available during high high use periods. use times. Planned trails systems in Alternative 2 and 3 take Bicyclers should be into consideration existing user created trails and accommodated on service 56 roads to develop a sustainable trail system. In roads under power lines Alternative 2, mountain bike use is excluded on trails throughout the region. and existing road beds east of the Atwood Road to

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 208

minimize user conflict. I do not understand the rationale for not allowing mountain bikes on the Mt. Bikes are excluded from the equestrian trail to 57 Catherine Creek trail that will minimize user conflicts. allow horses, however this is an area where few bikers normally go. Access to and offering a wide range of mountain bike trails is very important. Please do not reduce the number of Thank you for your comment. All attempts were 58 trails in this area. Mountain made in Alternative 2 and 3 to accommodate bike riding is important for mountain bike users. the local community as well, the syncline is a very important MTB destination. Please consult local International Mountain Biking The Forest Service is open to consulting with IMBA 59 Association (IMBA) of the during the design phase. design of mountain biking trails. It is critical to success that the new mountain biking 60 trails be ready to use before Forest Service agrees. blocking off access to the closed trails. Please limit mountain bike use in the Catherine Creek Revised alternative 2 and Alternative 3 includes 61 area to protect wildflower and restrictions in timing or trail use for mountain bikes. other natural resources. The Forest Service should greatly limit bike and Revised alternative 2 and Alternative 3 includes 62 equestrian use in fragile restrictions in timing or trail use for mountain bikes areas such as Catherine and horses. Creek. I would still like to see the FS/NSA prioritize the development of a master plan for the NSA in regards to providing quality access Thank You for your comments. The Forest Service 63 for all users, currently and and Columbia Gorge Commission is considering projected for 10, 15, 20, 25, such and undertaking. 50 years. Lets get the planning process ahead of the problems with a master plan in place think user

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 209

groups would more readily accept changes to their use in specific areas if access was provided or expanded in other parts of the NSA. I fully support the limitation of Alternatives 2 and 3 were designed to accommodate users and intensity in the 64 all user groups, protect natural resources, and allow area directly above Catherine the pedestrian users to enjoy this area. Creek. The Forest Service has not restricted hunting in the Does the Forest Service 65 area. This is under the jurisdiction of the Washington permit hunting in the area. Department of Wildlife. Restrooms will likely be installed at the proposed Will a restroom and garbage Lower Courntey Road Trailhead. Forest Service will 66 can be installed with Kiosk at initially encourage Pack-It-Out concept versus a Courtney Creek. garbage receptacle. What about improved Forest Service is open to including such a sign at 67 signage including warnings trailhead Kiosks or Bulletin Boards. about noxious weeds. We support a sign-in system 68 similar to entry to wilderness Voluntary trail registration will be implemented areas. Please protect the Gorge, it Alternatives 2 and 3 were designed to protect natural 69 one of the most beautiful resources in this area. places on earth! Signs should be posted that clearly delineate trails & their use type. Signs should threaten fines for illegal use by horses, bicycles, and especially motorized vehicles. Confiscation of Forest agrees with signs clearly delineating trails and bicycles, motorized vehicles, user types. Regulatory signs (signs prohibiting and horses should be certain uses) will be posted at trailhead kiosks or considered, especially to 70 bulletin boards. Forest Service will also post signs facilitate fine collection. on trail etiquette, and respecting private and tribal Signs should also suggest trust property. Trail map will be developed to clearly fines for illegal trail building & identify trails and posted. alteration, and placement of illegal signage. Signs should request respect for tribal and private land. Perhaps a color coating system can be used to map (at the trailheads)& mark trails (along them). Rock climbers is a new There are no prohibitions to Rock Climbing in any 71 activity that is seeing alternative. The Forest Service will continue to increasing use in the area. monitor this activity.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 210

The Tribe should be asked to comment on the proposed The Tribal Govemerments have been contacted as 72 management plan, as we part of our scoping efforts. should respect our neighboring nation. Please don't prohibit rock There are no prohibitions to Rock Climbing in any 73 climbing in the planning area. alternative. I also support the development of a rock climbing management plan, The Forest Service acknowledges rock climbing in which would put forth a the study area. Rock climbing will be monitored and 74 series of 'best practices' to studied at a future date. The Forest Service is open manage climber impact, and to working with this use group in the development of a plan for education and a rock climbing management plan. awareness of climbers and the public. It is essential that the Forest Service develop a strong An implementation plan will be developed for the 75 enforcement, selected alternative. A draft implementation plan is implementation, and included in Appendix D. monitoring plan. Thank you for the good job 76 and working with the diverse Your Welcome. groups. The new EA must provide a thorough description of the remarkable botanical resources in the planning Thank you for your input. Please see Chapter 3 for a 77 area. A thorough description description of botanical resources. would serve to properly frame the resource threats that the Recreation Plan seeks to address. The Forest Service should take special care in presenting the importance of Thank you for your input. Please see Chapter 3 for a the botanical resources in the description of botanical resources. Draft 78 EA and in the substantive Implementation and mentoring plans are included as provisions of the Recreation an appendix. Plan and any authorized implementation, monitoring, and enforcement plans. To protect the natural The trail through Minor Creek shown in alternative 3 resources in the Minor Creek was relocated in Revised Alternative 2 to protect 79 drainage the Forest Service Minor Creek natural resources. There is no need to should investigate the purse this scenario. ASK PAM for more help. opportunity to lease the tribal

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 211

lands on the eastern end of the planning area to provide alternative trail access through Forest Service land. The monitoring provision the Forest Service should include measures to monitor when conditions are These concerns will be reviewed in our five year appropriate for horse use 80 monitoring report described in Appendix D in the and triggers for considering draft implementation plan. extended seasonal closures if the default closures are not sufficient to prevent adverse impacts. Current equestrian use is not having appreciable effects to water, soil and botanical resources. Allowed horse use which is limited by season and Equestrian users should be daily and annual allocations were developed to 81 required to pack out all mimic existing use. If existing levels are currently manure. not having an effect on natural resources than the Forest Service has not identified any reason why horse manure should be packed out. The Forest Service should clearly articulate any monitoring protocols for tracking impacts from manure that would be deposited in the planning area. The design of any monitoring protocol must be sufficiently rigorous to These concerns will be reviewed in our five year capture the worst-case 82 monitoring report described in Appendix D in the impacts such as the draft implementation plan. introduction of invasive weeds in riparian areas. Monitoring programs must also include baseline data, standards for measuring change, and triggers for responding to any trends that would lead to adverse impacts. The Recreation Plan should include a provision requiring The plan does provide for a horse bridge across 83 the construction of a horse Catherine Cr. bridge across Catherine Creek. 84 User group levels may still Voluntary trail registration will be implemented.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 212

exceed the capacity of the planning area to absorb hoof, tire, and foot traffic. The Forest Service should require registration at all trailheads. Group size will only be limited for Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permits which tend to have large parties The Forest Service should of 8 or more. Average group size for National Forest 85 also consider limiting party visitors in the Columbia River Gorge NSA is 2.6 size for all user groups. people per group. Limiting party size is not necessary at this time with the exception of Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permits. Invasive plants should be documented for all surveys While invasive plants were not specifically surveyed 86 results to establish a for, their presence was noted when they were baseline for future accounted for in the field. monitoring. Off leash dogs also present a safety hazard on trails 87 This is discussed in Chapter 3. shared by hikers, bikers and equestrians. The recreation plan should Alternative 2 includes a closure order to protect this 88 include provision to protect sensitive natural resource. the Catherine Creek arch. The EA should include some discussion on the effects 89 This is discussed in Chapter 3. from rock climbing in the planning area. The Forest Service should develop a stakeholder Forest Service agrees and plans on involving 90 working group that will assist stakeholders. with implementation and monitoring efforts. We strongly encourage the dog on leash requirement to Thank you for your input. Alternatives 2 and 3 the entire Burdoin Mountain, include dog lease restrictions to protect the most 91 Coyote Wall, and Catherine sensitive wildlife habitats in the Catherine Creek Recreation Plan Area to planning area. reduce disturbance to wildlife. We also request that an enforcement plan be An implementation plan which will address public developed and adequately education and enforcement will be developed. 92 funded to remedy the Funds and resources will be allocated based on numerous abuses to this need and units priorities relative to Management of area's important natural the NSA as a whole. resources. The management

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 213

plan will only be successful with the commitment of resources to change human behavior and educate the public. Adding additional users will lead to a parking nightmare 93 that may result in resource This is discussed in Chapter 3. damage and a safety hazard on the road. I am very concerned about the area west of Catherine Creek. It contains habitat for the Columbia River Gorge endemic plants, the Botanical surveys were completed and while Columbia Gorge Desert individual plants may be impacted the population will 94 Parsley, Lomatium remain viable. Revised Alternative 2 avoids these columbianum and Barrett's sensitive species. Penstemon, Penstemon barrettiae. The plan as proposed poses unacceptable risks to these species. All maps used for comment need to clearly identify each affected trail segment and habitat area with a name or Thank you for your comment. Revised Alternative 2 95 number so that comments includes specific trail numbers. can consistently refer to an area and everyone knows what area is being discussed without ambiguity. The current map for the Revised Alternative 2 does not include a trail designation in the legend for “Proposed all non-motorized users.” In order to properly comment Maps in revised alternative 2 have been updated to 96 on the plan, there needs to include this suggestion. be a distinction on the map between existing trails and new ones that will be constructed or significantly altered to handle this traffic. User levels for each type of Use will be monitored through trail registration and recreation (bike, equestrian, 97 routine patrols. Use of trail counters will also be hiker, and hunter) must be considered. monitored

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 214

Areas that have been impacted by recreation use Trail etiquette signs, routine patrol and education will 98 must be shared with the be primary means to communicate this message. public so they know to avoid them. The power line/cliff area west of Atwood Road shown on the Revised Alternative 2 map with an orange highlight in particular is a very tempting location for The proposed trail in this area has been routed to construction of unauthorized avoid impacts to the sensitive cliff environments routes by bike users because while providing an interesting and challenging bike it resembles Coyote Wall. It route. Off trail use will be monitored by should be designated “foot systematically monitoring trail density during trail travel only” until such time maintenance activities. If any non-system trails 99 that the biking community become established as a result of off trail use they demonstrates that they can will be remediated in a timely manner. If trail police themselves and densities continue to exceed design levels after restore the damage to monitoring remediation is implemented, the following Coyote Wall. If bike travel management options will be considered: prohibit off can’t be prohibited on this trail use, total area closures or user permits. segment, then the USFS must provide specific measures to monitor improper use and apprehend violators. Forest Service is exploring this option with the In order to be fair to National Recreation Reservation System. This equestrian users, a permit system is web based that allows "24-7" access to 100 system that doesn’t require a anybody anywhere in the nation to reserve computer is important. campsites. Access to the system is by both computer and telephone. I support Revised Alternative 2 as presented at the public meeting on March 2, 2010. I am opposed to any “tweaking” of the plan to add additional mountain bike or equestrian trails beyond Revised Alternative 2 was developed to protect 101 those presented in Revised sensitive plants and wildlife in the planning area. Alternative 2.This plan must protect the unique habitats for plants and wildlife at both Catherine Creek and Coyote Wall. Equestrian and mountain bike use must be

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 215

prohibited in areas supporting sensitive plants and wildlife. Agreed. The current levels of use indicate no Hikers can damage plants adverse effects to natural resources and the creation 102 and soil through off trail of a designated trail system in Revised Alternative 2 usage. and Alternative 3 should help protects plants and soil. This area should be The Open Space land use designation provides that 103 managed more like a natural area is managed as a natural area. area. Compromises should exist which allow all user classes, The Forest Service has developed Revised 104 with some limitations, to Alternative 2 meet the needs of all recreation users enjoy the area for its unique groups. features. Barrett's pensetemon The low level of rock climbing is not effecting this occupies the cliff habitat and 105 species and the Forest Service will monitoring the can be affected by rock effects of rock climbing to this species. climbing activities. The USFS should publicly acknowledge the May- November period to be the To prevent significant resource and trail damage the 106 default choice, not an Forest Service at its discretion can temporarily close entitlement or alternative to a trail. seasonal assessment of trail condition. Access limits apply to horses and not to people. While it is goal to provide access to all people, the Forest Service has desecration regarding this issue. "There is no requirement to use drastic measures to provide accessibility if doing so would unacceptably change the character of the setting and the recreation opportunity. Deviations are permitted An equestrian once argued from certain technical provisions of the Forest for opening CC to horses in Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines where one or the spring on the grounds more of four conditions for departure exist and an 107 that her husband wanted to exception applies. 1) Where compliance would see the wildflowers, but had cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, reduced mobility and could or significant natural features or characteristics. 2) not access them on foot. Where compliance would substantially change the physical or recreation setting or the trail class, designed use, or managed uses of the trail or trail segment or would not be consistent with the applicable land management plan. 3) Where compliance would require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by federal, state, or local law, other than state or local law whose sole purpose

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 216

is to prohibit use by persons with disabilities. 4)Where compliance would be impractical due to terrain or prevailing construction practices." (Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines, May 22, 2006.) It was assumed that one family or group typically have vehicles that accommodate up to four horses. The per-day limit should be 4 The party size of 8 would allow two families/groups horses, equivalent to a single with 1 four horse trailer each. Forest Service is “family party”. The USFS- exploring the option of using the National Recreation 107 proposed standard of two 4- Reservation System to issue equestrian use permits horse parties per day is too to use the area. This system is web based that high and invites cheating. allows "24-7" access to anybody anywhere in the nation to reserve campsites. A reservation system would reduce the potential for cheating. Please make clear that the currently proposed rule against off-leash dogs east of Atwood Road has the effect of banning dogs with horse Revised Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 include clear 108 parties except on Atwood language concerning dog restrictions. Road. As trail riders like to run their dogs with the horses, this ban should be stated explicitly, to prevent false expectations. Dog owners should be required to collect and remove their animals’ dung deposits. This is now The area is not an urban parkland there are currently standard practice in urban no requirements in any alternative to pick up dog 109 parks. It is just as waste. Users will be encourage to "pick up" after unacceptable for hikers to their pets as a part of good trail etiquette. have to dodge dog poop as it is for them to have to look out for horse manure. The USFS has not publicly recognized yet the need to control horse-manure retention in the Plan area, The current horse use levels indicate that there are preferring instead just to currently no adverse effects to natural resources and 110 “monitor” the environmental that a monitoring plan is sufficient to protect natural effects of dung deposits on resources within the planning area. the horse trail. Easy to say and hard to do, at least in a rigorous fashion. Local plant populations of We acknowledge your concerns and have completed 111 individual species can a rigorous botanical survey of the proposed trail

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 217

experience order-of- location along a 100 foot corridor during all of the magnitude fluctuations from spring flowering periods. The findings of the BE year to year, a survey is not state that while individuals may be inadvertently complete until it has been affected there will be no effect to plant populations. repeated for several years The amount of area being disturbed is relatively running. For this reason, it is small has most of the trails are all ready established. not even logically possible to complete a rigorous, multi- year, baseline survey unless you are prepared to exclude all horse traffic for several years. Please document the uniqueness of the botanical resources of the Catherine Creek planning area. The best way to do that is not to rely on local plant advocates The documentation of the botanical resources of the for material, but to request Catherine Creek area are described in Chapter 3 and written opinions from a the BE. The Revised Alternative 2 includes changes handful of northwest from the original alternative to specifically protect academic botanists who 112 botanical resources such as the elimination of trails have had direct experience from Minor Creek. The Forest Service appreciates with CC. Without such a all the opinions concerning botanical resources narrative, conservationists regardless of whether they are a local plant advocate will be inclined to conclude or a professional botanist. that the USFS still sees this area primarily as an outdoor playground, despite the fact that at least five rare, threatened, or endangered plant species reside there. The USFS should adopt a carefully tooled mosaic of access and activity limits The Forest Service has developed the two action 113 affecting all CC user groups alternatives to meet this requirement. in order to protect the special natural features of the area. The Coyote Wall/Catherine The proposed action, Revised Alternative 2, was Creek area should be designed to facilitate the diverse recreational user 114 managed first and foremost groups while protecting wildlife and botanical for the native plan resources within the planning area. communities that exist there. The Catherine Creek area needs to be recognized and The Forest Service acknowledges the uniqueness of 115 preserved for the uniqueness the botanical resources of the Catherine Creek area. of its native botany, a view that can be supported by a

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 218

number of Northwest academic botanists who have had direct experience with this area. Ways must be found to control, monitor and manage uses of the area so damage to the ground cover, soils and existing plant populations can be The proposed action, Revised Alternative 2, was minimized. This will require 116 designed to facilitate the protection of botanical compromises from all user resources within the planning area. groups and will only prove effective if the Forest Service provides effective education, user registration and enforcement of the policies set in place. All users- hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians Voluntary trail registration for all trail users will be 117 should be required to register implemented before entering the Plan area at any trailhead. Open dates for horse users are given as specific dates The operating for horse used was based on the that are unchanged from professional opinions of the recreation and resource year to year. A plan that 118 staff members has the best period for allows for flexibility from year accommodating the needs of the resources as well to year would be responsive as the needs of the user group. to climate and conditions on the ground. Open dates for horse users are given as specific dates The operating for horse used was based on the that are unchanged from professional opinions of the recreation and resource year to year. A plan that 119 staff members has the best period for allows for flexibility from year accommodating the needs of the resources as well to year would be responsive as the needs of the user group. to climate and conditions on the ground. Hikers, although of less impact than mountain bikes Chapter 3 discusses the impacts from hikers to and horses, also affect botanical resources. At the current use levels the botanical diversity, since impacts to botanical resources are not leading to a to 120 individual plants can only adverse effects to botanical resources. User groups sustain so many footsteps will be educated on the importance of protecting before being crushed or botanical resources. otherwise severely injured. A

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 219

limitation in the size of hiker parties and education about how to traverse off trail needs to be provided. The Catherine Creek - Syncline area is a rare Botanical surveys were completed along a 100 foot habitat for a beautiful and 121 corridor to identity if trail reroutes are needed to unusual display of flowers, project specific species. and trails may need to be rerouted to protect them. I am hoping that the limits on number of horses apply to Revised Alternative 2 specifically identifies that the 122 the whole study area and not number of identified horses is limited to the entire just the area east of the planning area. Creek. The public can call the Forest Service office in Hood Please post signage that has River, Oregon. The Forest Service will review to 123 phone numbers were people determine if a phone numbers should be posted on can report violations. signs. I did everything I could to encourage the FS to buy the Kreps property that includes Thank you for your comments. The Forest Service 124 the Syncline and Maui Falls appreciates your efforts in the acquisition of this Creek, and I did it for the parcel. wildflowers and the scenic value, with hiking in mind. A previous effort by the Forest Service to acquire the property was unsuccessful. The Forest Service is Explore Options to Retain willing to approach the land owners in the future 125 Coyote Trail about either a land or easement purchase, however trail easements across private land have proven difficult to acquire. Re-locate Cutover Trail. With the removal of upper Hidden Canyon and Shoestring, it will make it In Revised Alternative 2 trail Co8 has been adopted 126 difficult to ride a very scenic to address this issue. and high quality biking trail that traverses the rocky meadows above Rowland Lake Enhance Existing/Proposed In Revised Alternative 2 trail Co7 and Ca2 have been 127 Trails above Rowland Lake adopted to address this issue. At this time we have not prohibited bike shuttling as there may be legitimate "cross country" bike use with Encourage “No Bike 128 shuttling. "Downhill riders" with heavy bikes are a Shuttling” concern. Most of the bike trails will be designed at a Trail Class 1 or 2 with the intent of developing a

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 220

sustainable trail system that will provide a mix of technical and "intermediate" rides which lends itself to "cross country" type experiences. Forest Service is open to discouraging "downhill riders" if significant trail/resource damage or user conflicts occur. Forest Service believes that proper design of reroutes and new trails and reconstruction of existing trail should resolve this issue. Properly designed Encourage No Riding When 129 and maintained trails will allow water to naturally Trails are Wet. drain. Regardless, the Forest Service will encourage responsible riding and if necessary encourage staying off trails until conditions improve. Alternatives 1-3 all provide hiker and bike trail The issue of no hiker biker opportunities. Shoe String was eliminated to mitigate trails, No Shoe String impacts to the pine-oak priority habitat which is the replacement, and 130 primary habitat for the Washington listed sensitive decommissioning classic western grey squirrel. Coyote Cliffs and Cry Baby gorge trails are all flawed and will be closed because they cross private property need to be addressed. with no legal access. Obey the 1/2 rule to prevent Trail design and reconstruction will follow the 1/2 rule 131 erosion and braided trail where appropriate. formation. Road to trail conversions Some roads will not be converted to trails where they require a complete redesign will continue to provide motorized administrative 132 not just putting the trail on access (i.e.. BPA, Indian Trust Land etc.). True road the road bed. to trail conversion will be designed appropriately. Use positive control points to 133 Forest Service agrees with this design standard. anchor trail user to the trail. We believe the CRGNSA should continue the collaborative process it used to develop the physical trail system to create a realistic implementation monitoring plan. We off the following for consideration: Engage user Forest Service will continue its collaborative efforts groups in implementation of with stakeholders during the implementation stage 134 a volunteer stewards and long term maintenance. See monitoring plan. program; develop An implementation plan will be developed to address memorandum of many of these issues. understanding for stakeholder group to sign that clarifies expectations for acceptable trail use, monitoring and conflict resolution, including criteria to trigger a trail closure or

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 221

other enforcement action; track data on visitors such as frequency, user type, knowledge of trail etiquette, quality of their recreation experience; create a system to collect stakeholder input; establish a monitoring plan including photo point monitoring as a tool for data collection and education; fund Forest Service staff time to have a person present on busy weekends to provide education and enforcement; commit to a periodic review involving stakeholder groups to assess the plan's effectiveness and make changes as necessary.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 222

APPENDIX C – RECREATION USE

Recreation Use Calculation Assumptions: • 2.5 people per vehicle based on the Draft National Visitor Use Monitoring Report for the Columbia River Gorge NSA 2006. • 3.1 hours average duration of stay for dispersed recreation based on the Draft National Visitor Use Monitoring Report for the Columbia River Gorge NSA 2006. • Daily turnover rate of 2 is based on 3.1 hours duration of stay and 8 hour day (0900-1700). • 2006 Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH) average daily traffic (ADT) at the ODOT Bridal Veil traffic counter was used as a basis to determine percent capacity during high, shoulder and low use season. During high use seasons for Forest Service sites along the HCRH average site capacity approaches 100% during the weekend and 50% during the weekdays. The 2006 ADT reflects a shoulder season that is 56% of the high use season (May-Aug) and a low use season is 33.6 % of the high use season. Percent capacity was adjusted to account for seasonal differences, distance from the Portland Metro Area and professional experience. Estimated Capacity by Season

High Use Season (February – May; 120 days) Weekend: 80% capacity (36 days) Weekdays: 30% capacity (84 days)

Shoulder Use Season (June & September – October; 91days) Weekend: 50% capacity (24 days) Weekdays: 5% capacity (66 days)

Low Use Season (November – January & July - August; 154 days) Weekend: 15% capacity (44 days) Weekdays: 2% capacity (110 days) Trailhead Capacity (after development)

Catherine Creek 25 cars Lower Courtney 25 cars Upper Courtney 12 cars

Discussion: Total recreation use is based on theoretical capacity and adjusted for estimated capacity during the use season. Given the projected general population growth in the market area and recreation trends in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area it is reasonable to expect that parking will reach capacity on the majority of sunny weekends during the high use period within the next 5 -10 years. Use on some weekends may exceed capacity of the parking areas and parking could occur in overflow areas along the shoulder of Courtney Road, SR-14 and County Road 8. Weekday growth should not be as dramatic, use would not be expected to increase significantly over 35% of capacity based on the fact that is during the work week. Weekend shoulder season could grow, but will be highly influenced by weather and how early higher elevation trails open. Use is not expected to grow during the low use

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 223

season, since the limiting factor is the weather (rain & snow in the winter months and high temperatures in the summer months).

Estimated Recreation Use Calculations

Capacity

Parking People/ Theoretical Trailheads Spaces Vehicle PAOT Turnover/Day Capacity/Day Lower Courtney 25 2.5 62.5 2 125 Upper Courtney 12 2.5 30 2 60 Catherine Creek 25 2.5 62.5 2 125 Total 310

High Use Season (February-May; 120 days)

WD WE Capacity Capacity Theoritical 80%x36 30%x84 Avg People/ Trailheads Capacity/Day days days Total Day Lower Courtney 125 3600 3150 6750 56.25 Upper Courtney 60 1728 1512 3240 27 Catherine Creek 125 3600 3150 6750 56.25 Total 310 8928 7812 16740 139.5

Shoulder Use Season (June & September-October; 91 days)

WD WE Capacity Capacity Avg Theoritical 50%x24 5%x66 People/ Trailheads Capacity/Day days days Total Day Lower Courtney 125 1500 3150 4650 38.75 Upper Courtney 60 720 1512 2232 18.6 Catherine Creek 125 1500 3150 4650 38.75 Total 310 3720 7812 11532 96.1

Low Use Season (November-January; 154 days)

WD WE Capacity Capacity Avg Theoritical 15%x44 2%x110 People/ Trailheads Capacity/Day days days Total Day Lower Courtney 125 825 275 1100 9.166667 Upper Courtney 60 396 132 528 4.4 Catherine Creek 125 825 275 1100 9.166667 Total 310 2046 682 2728 22.73333 Estimated Total Annual Use 31000

Recreation Trends

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 224

Recreation use in the study area is expected to grow over time. While it is difficult to predict absolute growth and trends it is clear there will be a trending upward for some of the activities considered in the study area. “The population in the three states is increasing, which means demand for recreation will also increase, all other things being equal.” “Population growth will be one driver of increasing use, but word of mouth recommendations and media exposure are expected to play even a larger role.” (Hall, Heaton, and Kruger, 2009). In Oregon the primary growth counties are near the Portland Metro Area. Clark County is one of the fastest growing counties in the Washington. The market zone considered in this analysis included Clark, Skamania and Klickitat Counties in Washington and Multnomah, Hood River, Wasco, Clackamas and Washington Counties in Oregon. This supports recent NVUM studies that concluded that over 58% of Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area visitors traveled a distance of less the 50 miles.

Census Data Oregon Census Data County Projected %Change 2000-2007 %Change 2000-2030 Clackamas 10% 57.7% Hood River 4% 38.5% Multnomah 5.9% 20.8% Wasco 0 11.4% Washington 14.7% 75.4%

Washington Census Data County Projected %Change 2000-2007 %Change 2000-2030 Clark 17.4% 40.4% Klickitat 4.6% 29.2% Skamania 7.9% 26.5%

Table 9. Percent of National Forest Visits by distance traveled to Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (National Visitor Use Monitoring CY 2000 and FY 2006 data)

Miles from National Forest Survey Respondent’s Home Visits (%) to Interview Locationb 0 - 25 miles 24.3 26 - 50 miles 33.8 51 - 75 miles 9.4 76 - 100 miles 2.3 101 - 200 miles 5.6 201 - 500 miles 5.4 Over 500 miles 19.2

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 225

(b) Table 13. Activity participation on Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (National Visitor Use Monitoring CY 2000 and FY 2006 data)

Round 1, CY 2000 Round 2, FY 2006 % of visitors % who said % of visitors % who said Average who it was their who it was their hours spent Activity participated in primary participated in primary in primary this activitya activityb this activitya activityb activityc Viewing natural features 74.50 25.37 82.2 33.3 2.0 (scenery) Relaxing 47.80 19.02 34.6 3.6 5.1 Hiking or walking 60.35 33.99 69.9 40.9 2.7 Horseback riding 0.06 0.01 0.3 0.2 7.3 Bicycling 7.16 5.78 5.3 4.2 2.6 a Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%. b respondents were asked to select one activity as their main reason one; some selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%. c Computed only for those who indicated the activity was the main activity. This information was collected starting in Round 2.

Washington State 2008 SCORP

Washington state-wide Participation Rates Activity 2002 2007 Nature activities 43% 53.9%

Hiking/Walking 53% 73.8% Bicycling (Including Mt. Bike) 21% 30.9% Horse 3% 4.3%

Horse Use Estimate Assumptions

• Impacts from existing level of horse use do not appear to be causing irreparable resource damage. • Horse use is likely to be environmentally sustainable though implementation of mitigation measures such ensuring horses stay on designated trails, avoid sensitive shallow soil habitat, seasonal closure and party size. • Through field observations it is estimated that on average there are no more than approximately 2 horses/weekend day during the high use period. Use during the weekend appears to be much lower and estimated to be about 2 horses/ week during the same period. It is assumed there is little to no use during the low use season (2 horses/weekend). For the purpose of this estimate shoulder season use will be the same as the high use period. o High Use period May-June o Low Use period July-September 2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 226

o Shoulder Season October-November • Party size limit is 8 per day. The party size of 8 would allow two families/groups with 1 four horse trailer each.

High Use (May 1-June 30) + Shoulder Season (October 1 - November 30) Week Day Use Weekend Use 2 horses/week x 8 2 horses/WE Day x 36 Total Horses weeks days 16 72 88

Low Use (July 1 - September 30) Weekend Use Total Horses 2 horses/WE x 13 WE 26 26

Grand Total Horses: 114

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 227

CRGNSA Management Plan SMA Guidelines for Recreation development

1. New developments and land uses shall not displace existing recreational use.

2. Recreation resources shall be protected from adverse effects by evaluating new developments and land uses as proposed in the site plan. An analysis of both onsite and offsite cumulative effects shall be required.

3. New pedestrian or horse trails shall not have motorized uses, except for emergency services.

4. Mitigation measures shall be provided to preclude adverse effects on the recreation resource.

5. The facility guidelines are intended to apply to individual recreation facilities. For the purposes of these guidelines, a cluster or grouping of recreational developments or improvements located relatively close to one another is considered an individual recreation facility. Developments or improvements within the same recreation intensity class are considered as separate facilities if they are separated by at least 1/4 mile of undeveloped land (excluding trails, pathways, or access roads).

6. New development and reconstruction of scenic routes (see Part III, Chapter 1: Recreation Development Plan) shall include provisions for bicycle lanes.

7. A local government may grant a variance of up to 10 percent to the guidelines of Recreation Intensity Class 4 for parking and campground units upon demonstration that all of the following conditions exist:

A. Demand and use levels for the proposed activity(s), particularly in the area where the site is proposed, are high and expected to remain so and/or increase. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) data and data from National Scenic Area recreation demand studies shall be relied upon to meet the criterion in the absence of current applicable studies.

B. The proposed use is dependent on resources present at the site.

C. Reasonable alternative sites offering similar opportunities, including those in Urban Areas, have been evaluated, and it has been demonstrated that the proposed use cannot be adequately accommodated elsewhere.

D. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in this chapter.

E. Through site design and/or mitigation measures, the proposed use can be implemented without adversely affecting scenic, natural, or cultural resources and adjacent land uses.

F. Through site design and/or mitigation measures, the proposed use can be implemented without affecting treaty rights.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 228

G. Mass transportation shall be considered and implemented, if feasible, for all proposed variances to Recreation Intensity Class 4.

8. Proposals to change the recreation intensity class of an area shall require a Management Plan amendment pursuant to policies 1 through 4 in "Amendment of the Management Plan" (Part IV, Chapter 1: Gorge Commission Role).

9. The recreation intensity classes are designed to protect recreation resources by limiting land development and land uses.

SMA PROVISIONS: RECREATION INTENSITY CLASSES

SMA Guidelines

1. Recreation Intensity Class 1 (Very Low Intensity)

The emphasis is to provide opportunities for semi-primitive recreation.

A. Permitted uses are those in which people participate in outdoor activities to realize experiences such as solitude, tension reduction, and nature appreciation.

B. The maximum site design capacity shall not exceed 35 people at one time on the site. The maximum design capacity for parking areas shall be 10 vehicles.

C. The following uses may be permitted:

(1) Trails and trailheads.

(2) Parking areas.

(3) Dispersed campsites accessible only by a trail.

(4) Viewpoints and overlooks.

(5) Picnic areas.

(6) Signs.

(7) Interpretive exhibits and displays.

(8) Restrooms.

2. Recreation Intensity Class 2 (Low Intensity)

The emphasis is to provide opportunities for semi-primitive recreation.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 229

A. Permitted uses are those that provide settings where people can participate in activities such as physical fitness, outdoor learning, relaxation, and escape from noise and crowds.

B. The maximum site design capacity shall not exceed 70 people at one time on the site. The maximum design capacity for parking areas shall be 25 vehicles.

C. All uses permitted in Recreation Intensity Class 1 are permitted in Recreation Intensity Class 2. The following uses may also be permitted:

(1) Campgrounds with vehicle access.

(2) Boat anchorages designed for no more than 10 boats at one time.

(3) Swimming areas.

3. Recreation Intensity Class 3 (Moderate Intensity)

The emphasis is on facilities with design themes emphasizing the natural qualities of the area. Developments are complementary to the natural landscape, yet can accommodate moderate numbers of people.

A. Permitted uses are those in which people can participate in activities to realize experiences such as group socialization, nature appreciation, relaxation, cultural learning, and physical activity.

B. The maximum site design capacity shall not exceed 250 people at one time on the site. The maximum design capacity for parking areas shall be 50 vehicles. The GMA vehicle capacity level of 75 vehicles shall be allowed if enhancement or mitigation measures for scenic, cultural, or natural resources are approved for at least 10 percent of the site.

C. Accommodation of facilities for mass transportation (bus parking, etc.) shall be required for all new Recreation Intensity Class 3 day-use recreation sites, except for sites predominantly devoted to boat access. D. All uses permitted in Recreation Intensity Classes 1 and 2 are permitted in Recreation Intensity Class 3. The following uses may also be permitted:

(1) Campgrounds with improvements that may include water, power, sewer, and sewage dump stations.

(2) Boat anchorages designed for not more than 15 boats.

(3) Public visitor, interpretive, historic, and environmental education facilities.

(4) Full-service restrooms that may include showers.

(5) Boat ramps.

(6) Riding stables.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 230

4. Recreation Intensity Class 4 (High Intensity)

The emphasis is on providing roaded natural, rural, and suburban recreation opportunities with a high level of social interaction.

A. Permitted uses are those in which people can participate in activities to realize experiences such as socialization, cultural and natural history appreciation, and physical activity.

B. The maximum design capacity shall not exceed 1,000 people at one time on the site. The maximum design capacity for parking areas shall be 200 vehicles. The GMA vehicle capacity level of 250 vehicles shall be allowed if enhancement or mitigation measures for scenic, cultural, or natural resources are approved for at least 20 percent of the site.

C. Accommodation of facilities for mass transportation (bus parking, etc.) shall be required for all new Recreation Intensity Class 4 day-use recreation sites, except for sites predominantly devoted to boat access.

D. All uses permitted in Recreation Intensity Classes 1, 2, and 3 are permitted in Recreation Intensity Class 4.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 231

APPENDIX D – DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Coyote Wall/Catherine Creek Recreation Plan EA

This is a draft implementation plan presented to the public so they have an understanding of how the Forest Service plans to implement the recreation plan. This draft will be finalized after a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact is completed. The proposed action may be approved in total, or modified in part within the scope of the analysis as described in the EA so portions of the draft implementation plan may change based on the final decision.

Coyote Wall/Catherin Creek EA Alternative 2 Trial Classification, Design Parameters and Managed Use Trail Number Name Designed Use Managed Use Trail Class Remarks Ca1 Hiker Bike/Hike 3 Old Road Bed Ca2 Bike Bike/Hike 1 Ca3 Horse Horse/Hiker/Bike 3 Atwood Road & BPA Road Segment Ca3 Horse Horse/Hiker 2 Old Road Bed (Road to Trail Conversion) & NewTrail Segment Ca4 Hiker Hiker Only 2 Co1 Bike Bike/Hike 2 Co2 Bike Bike/Hike 2 Co3 Bike Bike/Hike 1 Co4 Bike Bike/Hike 3 Abandoned SR-14 Segment (Paved) Co4 Bike Bike/Hike 3 Old Ranch Road (Road to Trail Conversion) Co5 Bike Bike/Hike 2 Co6 Bike Bike/Hike 2 Co7 Bike Bike/Hike 1 Co8 Bike Bike/Hike 1 B1 Bike Bike/Hike 2 B2 Bike Bike/Hike 2

Designed Use: The Managed Use of a trail that requires the most demanding design, construction and maintenance standards. Managed Use: The mode of travel that is actively managed and appropriate on trail based on design and management Trail Class: The prescribed scale of development for a trail, representing its intended desiang and management standards Trail Class 1: Minimally Developed Trail Class 2: Moderately Devloped Trail Class 3: Developed Trail Class 4: Highly Developed Trail Class 5: Fully Developed

Development

Trail

Guiding philosophy: a) Existing trails will be decommissioned within a year of construction or rerouting new trails in the same vicinity; b) involve stakeholders and Forest Service recreation and resource staff in prioritizing projects; and c) to the extent possible involve stakeholders and Forest Service recreation and resource staff in design of trails in sensitive areas.

Trail projects priorities should consider the following:

1. Decommission new user developed trails immediately. New user trails are identified as trails developed after inventoried trails shown in the EA. 2. Reroute and decommission trails leading to private property. 3. Reroute and/or decommission trails in priority or sensitive habitats and sensitive cultural sites.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 232

4. Reconstruct or reroute trails in poor condition (rutting, cupping, braiding, width etc.) and causing resource impacts. 5. Reconstruct or reroute trails in poor condition. 6. Construct new trails that: 1. Mitigates natural resource impacts. 2. Provides or maintains loop opportunities.

Trailhead and Other Facilities

Trailheads and other support facilities developments should consider the following: 1) Provide for public safety, 2) resolve natural resource impacts, 3) resolve conflicts with adjacent private land owners, and 4) provide for recreation users convenience.

Priority 1 The Lower Coyote trailhead will be developed on National Forest at the intersection of SR-14 and Courtney Road to resolve traffic/pedestrian safety issues stemming from congestion. At this time no funds are available. Forest Service will pursue funding through internal capital investment funds and Forest Highway Enhancement Grant Funds.

Priority 2 The Forest Service will work with the state and county transportation agencies to control parking and create a defined parking area for the Catherine area along Old Highway 8.

Priority 3 To the extent that the Forest Service plans will not affect access to private property. Through signing and user education the Forest Service will stress the importance of respecting private property and not blocking access to private property within the planning area especially in the vicinity of Courtney and Atwood Roads.

Signing

Directional Signs

Forest Service will work with stakeholders to:

1) Identify names for each trail.

2) Identify key locations for signs such as trailheads, other access points and trail/road intersections. Signs will identify trail name, mileage of trail and miles to significant intersections and/or trails.

3) Prioritize signing needs. Prioritization should take into consideration use level, reducing confusion, promoting safety, discourage use of old routes to leading to private land.

4) Purchasing and installation of signs.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 233

Informational Signs

Develop signs that will communicate respect for private property and trail etiquette. Use standard “Yield To” signs wherever possible.

Develop a trail map that can be posted at trailheads and access points. Trail map could also be produced as a hand-out.

Work with stakeholders to identify key locations for signs such as trailheads, other access points and trail/road intersections.

Trail and Facility Maintenance

Trail maintenance frequency will be based on Trail Management Objectives and Forest Service Standards.

Facility maintenance will meet Forest Standards. Frequency of maintenance will be based on level of use. At this time frequency is likely to be 2-3 time/week (litter patrol, restroom cleaning) during the high use season. Shoulder season 1 time/week and 1/ two weeks during low use season.

An Annual Maintenance Plan will be developed in conjunction with key partners. Roles, responsibilities, and expectations will be identified.

Maintenance techniques for the Rowland Lake Rock Feature Trail were discussed with representatives from the Yakama Nation. There is a large area of flood sediments near the east end of the trail that we think should be used to create a trail surface. This might improve the tread so that users will stop pulling rocks out of the tread. We also discussed turning the discarded rocks over-so the dirty side is down. The trail will be less conspicuous if we do this. We will also be disassembling the “Buddha Piles” as we find them during our archaeology site monitoring trips. [m1]

High Use: March – June Shoulder: July – October Low Use: November – February

Information/Law Enforcement

Immediately draft Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Orders for; • Peregrine falcon seasonal closure. • “Day Use Only” and No Camping regulations. • Prohibition on campfires. • Leash requirements for pets. • Area Closure surrounding Catherine Creek Arch[m2]

Post signs immediately after CRF Order are executed.

During the 1st year after the Decision Notice is issued, education will be the strategy employed to develop awareness of the peregrine falcon closure and changes to the trail system. Public will be informed through the combination of a news release, websites, signs and personal contacts.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 234

Message to the public should include the following information: seasonal closure/other prohibitions and the reason for them, changes to the trail system, map of the area, trail etiquette, staying on approved trails (for safety and protection of sensitive resources), respect private property and leave no trace ethics[m3].

• News Release: media outlets and user groups. • Website: Forest Service, FOCG, CAMBA and other external websites such as Portlandhiker.com. • Signs: see Sign Section • Personal Contacts

Forest Service personnel will conduct several “saturation” patrols to provide information to the public during the high and shoulder use season.

In the long run the Forest Service will work with stakeholders to serve as the Forest Service “eyes and ears” for enforcement issues. Stakeholders will not be involved with enforcement of Forest Service regulations. Any violations should be reported to the Forest Service. If it is safe to do so Stakeholders who observe a violation are encouraged to gather as much information as possible (name if possible, time of day, vehicle description and license plate number).

Forest Service will routinely patrol and use “saturation” patrols to monitor the area with emphasis on the closure area during the first year. Notice of Violations will be issued at the Officers discretion after the education period has ended.

Partnership

The Forest Service is committed to working with CAMBA and WTA in the development and maintenance of the Coyote Wall/Catherine Cr. trail system and associated support facilities. Forest Service will work with CAMBA and WTA to develop a formal working agreement that will outline roles and responsibilities of each party. The following should be considered when developing the agreement:

• Joint development of an annual trail improvement, operation and maintenance plan that describe tasks, roles and responsibilities. • Reporting protocol for observed trail work, damage to facilities and trail, unsafe conditions, violation of regulations etc. • Key contacts. • Opportunities for fund raising. • Volunteer training,

Monitoring

Five years after project implementation the interdisciplinary team will conduct a review of the project, prepare a monitoring report, and make recommendations to the Area Manager concerning

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 235

the continued management of resources in the area. List of potential monitoring questions were developed using an adaptive management approach with regard to this project.

• Were trails decommissioned as per plan? • Were erosion problems fixed? • Were mitigation measures followed? • Were management actions taken as per plan? • What is the most effective monitoring cycle? • Are miles per square mile of non-system trails increasing or decreasing over time and where are these changes occurring? • Are user and/or private land conflicts increasing or decreasing over time? • Is horse use maintained at pre-implementation plan levels? • Annual horse use monitoring on Trail Ca3. • Where is the location and what is the mileage of new user-created trails each monitoring cycle? • Monitor cultural resource sites specifically called out in the cultural resource report (Dryden 2008[m4]).

Monitoring Plan Questions Method Who When Were trails and roads re-routed and Trail Inventory Trail Coord. 1 Year decommissioned as per plan? Field Review IDT 5 Year Were erosion and other trail problems Trail Inventory Trail Coord. 1 Year fixed? Field Review IDT 5 Year Compare requirements w/ Were management actions taken as per the implemented and/or Planner 1 Year Implementation Plan? designed project IDT 5 Year Field Verification What is the most effective monitoring Planner 5 Year cycle? IDT Review Closure Order Implemented. Law Are miles per square mile of non-system 1 Year Number NOV, Warning Enforcement trails increasing or decreasing over time? 5 Year Notice, Incident Report Officer completed Track complaints (phone Are user and/or private land conflicts calls, emails, letters, Rec. Program increasing or decreasing over time? Ongoing personal contact) Manager

Contact Stakeholders Where is the location and what is the Trail Inventory Trail Coord. 1 Year mileage of new user-created trails each Field Review IDT 5 Year monitoring cycle? Walking the trail to determine the presence or absence of weed species, qualitative estimate Trail Coord. Effects from horse use on trail Ca3. of the amount of Forest Annual horse manure present Botanist along the trail, and establishment of permanent photo monitoring points.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 236

Trail density shall be systematically monitored. Non-system trail development shall be remediated in a timely manner through cooperation with users. If trail densities continue to exceed design levels after monitoring and remediation is applied, the following management options shall be considered:

. Prohibition on all off-trail use, . Total area closures, . User permits, or . Enforcement actions.

Peregrine falcon will be monitored as per Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife protocol. Sensitive species will be monitored as per Forest Service and Washington Department of Wildlife protocol. Inventoried cultural sites within the planning area will be monitored in accordance to Forest Service protocol.

2010 - Burdoin Mtn, Coyote Wall, Catherine Creek Area Recreation Plan EA Page 237