Environmental Assessment Stanley Lake Recreation Complex

Home , McGown Peak, Sawtooth Lake, Stanley Lake

United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture

Forest Service Stanley Lake Recreation Complex

September, 2011 Reconstruction Project

Sawtooth National Recreation Area Sawtooth National Forest Custer County, Idaho

T. 11 N., R. 12 E., Section 27, 28, 33 and 34.

For Information Contact: Steve Frost Sawtooth National Forest – Sawtooth NRA 5 North Fork Canyon Road Ketchum, ID 83340 (208) 727-5022

USDA FOREST SERVICE MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... iii List of Figures...... iii Acronyms Used ...... iv INTRODUCTION ...... vi CHAPTER 1 ...... 2 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 2 Proposed Action ...... 9 Management Framework...... 10 Decision Framework ...... 10 Public Involvement ...... 11 Issues ...... 11 Issue 1 – Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level ...... 12 Issue 2 – Relocating the Inlet Campground will diminish waterfront camping opportunities...... 13 Other Resource Concerns to be Analyzed...... 14 Concerns Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 14 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 15 Alternatives ...... 15 Alternative 1 ...... 15 Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 18 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Detailed Analysis ...... 25 Mitigation Measures Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 25 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 28 CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 30 Fish, Stream and Riparian Resources ...... 31 Recreation ...... 57 Forest Vegetation and Fuels ...... 83 Botany ...... 88 Other Effects ...... 95 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 101 REFERENCES...... 102 APPENDIX A – RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS...... 106 APPENDIX B – CHANGES FROM 30-DAY NOTICE ...... 114 APPENDIX C – STANLEY LAKE HAZARD TREE POLICY ...... 116

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

List of Tables ______Table 1. Forest Plan Direction for Wetland, Floodplain, and Riparian Areas...... 4 Table 2. Forest Plan Direction for Transportation Safety ...... 6 Table 3. Forest Plan Direction for Vegetation and Fuel ...... 8 Table 4. Alternative Comparison by Key Issues Indicator ...... 28 Table 5. Alternative Comparison by Effectiveness Measures ...... 29 Table 6. Road & Trail Width Assumptions ...... 32 Table 7. Endangered fish species status...... 42 Table 8. Forest Plan direction fish, riparian, & aquatic...... 45 Table 9. Comparison of travel way surfaces in RCAs and wetlands...... 55 Table 10. Wetland occupied or altered by facilities or recreation use...... 56 Table 11. Comparison of campsites in RCAs and wetlands...... 56 Table 12. Recreation and Facilities Forest Plan Direction ...... 64 Table 13. Recreation Effects, Summary Comparison by Issues ...... 81 Table 14. Recreation Effects, Summary Comparison by Effectiveness Measures ...... 82 Table 15. Forested Vegetaton and Fuels Forest Plan Direction...... 84 Table 16 – Forest and Fuels Effects, Summary Comparison by Effectiveness Measures ...... 87 Table 17. Sensitive & Forest Watch Plant Species ...... 89 Table 18. Alt. 1, Sensitive & Forest Watch Species Direct Effects ...... 91 Table 19. Alt. 2 and 3, Sensitve & Forest Watch Species Direct Effect ...... 92 Table 20 – Botany Resource Effects, Summary Comparison by Effectiveness Measure ...... 95

List of Figures ______Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...... v Figure 2. Project Area Map...... v Figure 3. Stanley Lake (Photo courtesy of Jim Larson) ...... vi Figure 4. Existing Developed/Dispersed Sites...... 1 Figure 5. RV Caught in Rising Water, June 25, 2011 ...... 3 Figure 6. Alternative 2 – Proposed Actions in the Developed Recreation Complex ...... 19 Figure 7: Fuel Reduction Zone in Developed Campgrounds ...... 22 Figure 8. Alternative 3 - Proposed Actions in the Developed Recreation Complex ...... 24 Figure 9. Overview of the analysis area...... 35 Figure 10. Site 6, Inlet CG, June 27, 2008...... 36 Figure 11. Stanley Lake inlet road, June, 2006...... 36 Figure 12. Inlet Campground, June 27, 2008...... 36 Figure 13. Inlet boat ramp area...... 36 Figure 14. Shore conditions below Stanley Lake CG...... 36 Figure 15. Campsite-to-lake footpath, 2010...... 36 Figure 16. Campers beyond rock barriers, 2009...... 37 Figure 17. Sandy shoreline to left, protected shore to right...... 37 Figure 18. Trail 640 section proposed for removal...... 37 Figure 19. Proposed new Trail 640 route...... 37 Figure 20. Job Creek road removal, Oct., 2007...... 37 Figure 21. Former Job Creek road, Aug. 2008...... 37 Figure 22. Graphic comparing travel way acres in RCA & wetlands...... 56 Figure 23. Flooded Inlet Campsite, June 29, 2011 ...... 60 Figure 24. Current Developed Campsites Within 200 Feet of Water ...... 69 iii

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Acronyms Used AIS Aquatic Invasive Species BMP Best Management Practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWD Coarse Woody Debris EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game LWD Large Woody Debris MIS Management Indicator Species MPC Management Prescription Category NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group PL Public Law RCA Riparian Conservation Area ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SNRA/Sawtooth NRA – Sawtooth National Recreation Area SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions TEPC Threatened, Endangered, Protected, and Candidate (species) TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (species) USDA United States Department of Agriculture VQO Visual Quality Objective WARS Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

Figure 2. Project Area Map

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

INTRODUCTION

tanley Lake is known for its spectacular setting -- a high elevation lake mirroring back the towering peaks of the aptly named Sawtooth Mountains. Stanley Lake is located approximately Seight miles west of the city of Stanley. Paved roads provide easy access for a wide spectrum of vehicles and users. As opposed to the larger area lakes, visitors here find a sheltered and intimate lakeside setting. The entire 180 acre lake can be viewed from numerous vantage points, with McGown Peak sharply defining the backdrop to the southwest. It’s a magnificent, yet knowable landscape drawing thousands of visitors per year. Some come seeking a quiet retreat, others a chance to reconnect with friends and family – a visit to Stanley Lake provides an ideal setting for both.

Nearby Redfish and Alturas Lakes also offer easy access via paved roads, but are seven-to-ten times larger than Stanley Lake. These larger lakes draw more of the waterskiing and personal watercraft enthusiasts that benefit from miles of lake to explore. These uses aren’t precluded at Stanley Lake, but its smaller size predominantly attracts fishing boats, kayaks and canoe use. The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex includes developed campgrounds (fees charged), multiple areas of unconfined or dispersed camping (no fees charged, no improvements provided), a Figure 3. Stanley Lake (Photo courtesy of Jim Larson) trailhead, scenic overlook, and boat launch. Unlike the other area lakes, there are no resorts, visitor centers, organization camps, or recreation residences. All here are transient visitors. Although equally accessible to passenger cars, Stanley Lake offers a vastly different experience than the larger and busier lakes.

This combination of spectacular scenery, easy access, and relative serenity has long drawn those seeking a special place for recreation and renewal. Repeat visitors are exceptionally connected to this landscape, are intense about the experiences they value here, but may also have diverse expectations from one another. User numbers are increasing, as are user impacts. Recreation impacts over the years have begun to degrade the very environment they depend on.

The improvements built in the wetlands, near the inlet of Stanley Lake Creek, are some of the area’s most popular lakefront destinations. Visitors have easy access to sandy beaches and water’s-edge camping. This low-lying area remains comfortably cool in the warmest summer days. Much of the Inlet Campground and access roads to the boat launch are built on fill brought in to raise improvements over the frequently high water table. This area floods and degrades the recreation improvements on a nearly annual basis, decreasing available days for visitor opportunities, and increasing maintenance costs. Unpredictable road washouts have also occasionally left visitors without adequate ingress or egress.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Moreover, much of the natural wetlands in the area have been intensively modified to support roads and campsites. Vehicles present in the former wetlands have the ongoing risk of leaking oil, gas, graywater, and other pollutants onto inlet roads and parking areas. The presence of these facilities degrades the wetlands they were built in. Healthy functioning wetlands are essential to the health of Stanley Lake. Despite the enormous popularity of these wetland recreation sites, we are compelled to find a better compromise between the health of these wetlands and recreational use of the area.

It has been decades since the aging lakefront developments have been updated to meet current health, safety, and accessibility standards. The local trail system currently directs 3,500 annual trail users onto area roads as a means to access Trail #640. Hikers share the road with a variety of recreational vehicles and boat trailers. The sandbar boat launch is similarly congested with vehicles using it as the end-of- the-road turnaround point, for boat launching, and boat trailer parking -- all occurring alongside families using the area to play on the sandbar beach. Facilities for day-users do not meet current demand, and there are currently no fully accessible opportunities for reaching the water’s edge. The redesign of these and other features to improve safety and accessibility is long overdue.

Many visitors to the area prefer recreating and camping away from the developed sites. Currently this is allowable anywhere within 300 feet of a forest system road designated open to vehicle use. The roads in the Stanley Lake Creek watershed have for many years provided ample opportunities for dispersed camping use. Impacts from dispersed camping have accelerated. Campers frequently pioneer new campsites rather than using established sites. This expanding network of sites creates increasing resource impacts, degrading both the forest and the recreation experience.

Managers are also increasingly concerned by the size, location, and camper oversight of campfires at dispersed sites. The risk of fire escape increases where the fires are too large, too close to combustible material, or inadequately monitored and put out. Forest managers have attempted to limit the establishment of additional camps, particularly in riparian areas, but with limited success. Within 300 feet of a road, restricting impacts is currently reliant on the creation (and frequent replacement) of vehicle barriers. If dispersed camping opportunities are to remain, increased management of these sites is necessary to reduce fire risk and resource impacts.

Visitor numbers and impacts are increasing at a time when the local natural environment is particularly vulnerable. The recent mortality of the majority of mature lodgepole pine has left much of the area with a loss of shading, screening, and natural restrictions to foot traffic. Regeneration of groundcover, shrubs and trees will be delayed until foot traffic is directed and managed. Even then, active seeding of shrubs and forbs, and transplanting of trees will be necessary to replace the vegetation lost from the developed recreation areas over the years.

An ongoing hazard tree management effort is occurring in the developed recreation sites. We recognize a need to continue to expand our removal of hazards along road corridors, in dispersed camp sites, and all other areas where people congregate.

The beauty of Stanley Lake has drawn generations of visitors, and continues to be enthusiastically discovered by newcomers. We want to maintain opportunities for a quality recreation experience, and sustain the natural environment that depends on. We have an opportunity to improve resource and recreation conditions, ensuring the area can be enjoyed for many years to come.

vii

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Existing Developed/Dispersed Sites

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need for Action ______The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex, located approximately eight miles west of Stanley, ID, includes developed and dispersed camping areas, trailheads, a scenic overlook, and boat launch facilities. The area receives heavy use, occupancy for the developed campgrounds for the full season (Memorial Day to mid-September) averages 77% and peak season use (July 1st – Labor Day) averages over 95%. The trailhead, overlook, and boat ramp facilities follow a similar use pattern with above capacity parking at the boat ramp and capacity use at the trailhead and overlook on most weekends. A combination of decades of heavy use and poorly located facilities has led to numerous health, safety and resource concerns in the complex.

The 2003 Sawtooth Forest Land & Resource Management Plan (USDA 2003) provides desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that are relevant to evaluating needs in the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex, as well as prescribing responsive actions to those needs. The proposed action addresses the gaps between the desired condition described in the Sawtooth Forest Plan, and current conditions within the project area.

The Forest Plan provides comprehensive direction relative to the project as follows:

“Area management and protection emphasis is centered on ecological restoration and rehabilitation projects, a diversity of plant and animal species, and recreation opportunities enhanced in such a way as to preserve natural settings.” (Forest Plan Sawtooth NRA Desired Condition)

“Recreation use shall not be allowed to significantly impact other Sawtooth NRA values.” (Forest Plan Standard 02100)

“Complete recreation complex plans for high use areas with attention to lakeshore activities, parking, boat launches, and day uses. Complete plans for Pettit Lake, Alturas Lake, Stanley Lake, and Grandjean, including identification of development levels and vegetation management. Evaluate compatibility of sites at Alturas Inlet and Stanley Lake Inlet with riparian objectives.” (Forest Plan Objective 0276)

Based on the differences between current conditions and Forest Plan desired conditions, five areas of need have been identified in the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex.

1. There is a need to protect and improve wetlands near the Stanley Lake Creek inlet. 2. There is a need to improve safety, accessibility, and usability of area facilities. 3. There is a need to improve transportation safety and reduce conflicts between pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic. 4. There is a need to manage the dispersed recreation in the Stanley Lake area. 5. There is a need to improve vegetation health, reduce falling tree hazards, and reduce fire hazard.

These needs, and corresponding Forest Plan direction for each, are discussed in detail below.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Need 1 – Improve wetlands There is a need to protect and improve the quality of wetlands in the Stanley Lake Creek inlet area, as well as resolve persistent annual road and campground resource damage. Much of the Inlet Campground, the boat launch, boat trailer parking area, and the roads serving these uses occupy former wetland and floodplain habitats.

Recurring flooding of the Inlet Campground campsites and road washouts is an annual problem. Floodwater in the Inlet Campground regularly affects 7-10 campsites, rendering them unusable for up to a third of the brief summer season. As the lake recedes, stagnant ponds of water and repair needs are left behind. Annual damage occurs to the campsites, access road tread, shoulder, ditch, and cross drains, which cumulatively deliver fine sediment directly into the wetlands and Stanley Lake. Given the hundreds of vehicles in the campsites and boat parking area annually, the floodwaters likely also move oil, anti-freeze and other residue pollutants. The road accessing this area periodically has segments that wash out during the visitor season, leaving compromised ingress Figure 5. RV Caught in Rising Water, June 25, 2011 and egress to the area.

The lakes and streams of the area are designated critical habitat for endangered Snake River sockeye and Snake River Chinook salmon, are historic habitat for threatened Columbia River bull trout and Snake River steelhead, and current habitat for kokanee and sensitive Westslope cutthroat trout. Stanley Lake is one of the five lakes in the headwaters of the Salmon River that historically supported sockeye salmon. Stanley Lake Creek has also been designated as eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation for outstanding scenic, recreational, and fisheries values.

The Forest Plan provides the following relevant direction for wetland, floodplain, and riparian area management:

esired Conditions “Wetlands and floodplains are maintained where they are properly functioning, and restored where degraded.” D “Riparian and aquatic ecosystems have appropriate types and amounts of vegetation.”

“Streams and lakes provide clean water, appropriate temperatures, and a variety of connected habitats to support native and desired non-native aquatic species.”

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Forest Plan Direction for Wetland, Floodplain, and Riparian Areas. Type Number Forest Plan Direction Where practical alternatives exist, roads in RCAs1 that are degrading Goal FRGU05 riparian-dependent resources should be evaluated for obliteration or relocation. Where recreation facilities or practices have been identified as potentially contributing to degradation of water quality, aquatic species or occupied Goal REGU07 sensitive and watch plant habitat, facilities and practices causing degradation should be considered for relocation, closure, changes in management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance. Provide habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and Goal SWGO15 desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities. Protect habitat for salmon and other fisheries. Focus on protecting and restoring populations and habitat of sockeye salmon in the morainal lakes Objective SNOB02 of the Sawtooth Valley, kokanee salmon habitat in inlet streams, and populations and habitat of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout and 2 other salmonids native to the SNRA . Reduce lakeshore pressure at the morainal lakes, particularly in areas of Objective 0247 current or historic sockeye shoal spawning. Manage the eligible Wild and Scenic River corridors to their assigned classification standards, and preserve the outstandingly remarkable values MPC 2.1 0214 and free-flowing status, until the rivers undergo a suitability study and the Standard study finds them suitable for designation by Congress or releases them from further consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Complete recreation complex plans for high use areas with attention to lakeshore activities, parking, boat launches, and day uses. Complete plans for Pettit Lake, Alturas Lake, Stanley Lake, and Grandjean, including Objective 0276 identification of development levels and vegetation management. Evaluate compatibility of sites at Alturas Inlet and Stanley Lake Inlet with riparian objectives. 1 RCA: Riparian Conservation Area 2 SNRA: Sawtooth National Recreation Area

This analysis will measure wetland acres that are either occupied by development, functionally altered (habitat conversion is apparent), or diminished (areas not functioning at potential). This measure will be used to compare the effectiveness of alternative actions in reducing wetland impacts.

Need 2 – Facility Improvements The infrastructure of the developed sites in the Stanley Lake Complex has not received a major update in decades. The toilets and hand pumps in the campgrounds area are out-of-date. Hand pumps do not meet current standards to prevent contamination from surface water, and neither the hand pumps nor

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

toilets are accessible1 to all visitors. There are currently no fully accessible trails or waterfront recreation opportunities at Stanley Lake.

The scenic overlook provides day users a vista point looking over the lake and towards the Sawtooths. Picnic tables, a restroom and a trail down to the lake are utilized by at-capacity crowds in the summer. Heavy foot traffic in the area has led to multiple user-created trails descending the steep slope from the overlook, creating erosive footpaths to the lakeshore. There is public demand for expanded lakeside day use opportunities.

The Forest Plan provides the following relevant direction for facility management:

esired Conditions “Facilities--such as roads, trails, campgrounds, and administrative sites--are constructed, D reconstructed, or eliminated as needed to provide a balance of safe, effective, and environmentally responsible management activities.”

“Recreation programs and facilities meet all applicable local, state, and national standards for health and safety.”

“Opportunities for physically challenged recreationists are maintained or expanded at developed facilities and through management of dispersed activities.”

Objective 0278 of the Forest Plan states “Convert, as needed, lakeshore camping sites to strictly day use.”

The effectiveness of each alternative will be measured in this analysis by comparing accessible facilities present, total days of developed campsite use available, and risks to drinking water.

Need 3 – Transportation Safety Due to the substantial recreation use around the Stanley Lake area, there is a need to provide a safe and efficient transportation system for vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic.

The only existing means of transportation from the east end campgrounds to the west end of Stanley Lake is the paved Stanley Lake Road. This busy road is frequently shared by bicyclists and campers biking or walking to the inlet area. The access road to the Inlet Campground is also a part of Trail #640 to Bridal Veil Falls and other Sawtooth Wilderness destinations. Approximately 3,500 annual trail users must share a ¼ mile stretch of road with recreational vehicles, boat trailers, cars, and trucks. The co- location of the trail with a frequently busy road is a safety concern.

The Stanley Lake Boat Launch is located on a natural sand bar adjacent to the inlet stream. The sand bar is an ideal location for families playing on the sand, in the lake, and the inlet stream. The sand bar also serves as the parking area for all boat launch users and is typically filled beyond capacity. This site is the turn-around for all vehicles that enter Stanley Lake Inlet Campground. This combination poses a threat to pedestrians and playing children as vehicles attempt to navigate the often congested parking area. During peak use, the traffic and lack of parking controls occasionally impedes use as a turn-around.

1 Accessible in this document refers to meeting current federal accessibility standards and guidelines. 5

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Moving the boat launch away from the beach play area and providing a separate parking area and turnaround would substantially reduce current risks between pedestrians and vehicles.

The Forest Plan provides the following relevant direction for transportation safety:

esired Condition “Recreation facilities are managed to provide safe experiences and opportunities. Recreation D programs and facilities meet all applicable local state and national standards for health and safety.” Table 2. Forest Plan Direction for Transportation Safety Type Number Forest Plan Direction Identify safety hazards on Forest classified roads, establish Objective FROB03 improvement priorities, correct or mitigate the hazard. Provide and maintain a safe, efficient Forest transportation system Goal FRGO01 that meets resource management and access needs, while mitigating degrading resource effects. Manage motorized and non-motorized travel and travel-related facilities to: • Provide for public safety, Goal REGO05 • Meet resource objectives and access needs, • Mitigate road and trail damage, and • Minimize maintenance costs and user conflicts.

The effectiveness of each alternative will be gauged by how well it separates pedestrians and vehicles, boat launching from beach use, and reduces conflict in parking areas.

Need 4 –Reduce Dispersed Camping Impacts

There is a need to actively manage the dispersed recreation occurring in the Stanley Lake Creek watershed. Many campers prefer using undeveloped, or dispersed, campsites located alongside area roads. The sites in this popular area are heavily used and protecting resources has become increasingly difficult.

Dispersed camping and the activities associated with it have grown in the last decade. Campers and their accoutrements vary from simply a car and a tent, to campers that arrive with cars, recreational vehicles, and off-road vehicles. Increasing camper numbers and equipment demands has caused both an expansion of the number, and size (impacted area) of the sites. Under current management, visitors may locate campsites anywhere within 300 feet of forest system roads, and are not limited to the size of the camp. Campsites are sometimes selected along streambank, lakeshore, and wet meadows, compacting and denuding riparian areas. Forest managers have previously attempted to barricade vehicles from these sensitive areas, but with limited success.

Exposed human waste can be a problem in some of these areas, and poses a health risk to the public. Fire spread from unattended campfires is an additional safety concern. Rock fire rings are randomly

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

located and constructed, sometimes in areas with highly combustible fuels surrounding a poorly contained fire ring.

Dispersed camping opportunities are important to a large portion of the camping public. Resource concerns and health and safety issues have created a need for managing dispersed camping sites via a program that will enhance and improve the dispersed camping experience. To maintain this opportunity without causing a deteriorating resource condition, the dispersed sites need to be designated and managed to minimize resource impacts.

The Forest Plan provides the following relevant direction for dispersed recreation:

esired Condition “Dispersed recreation sites and uses are located and conducted in an environmentally D responsible manner and managed to established standards.”

Forest Plan Objective 0287 states, “Close or relocate dispersed campsites and access routes…that develop or are at risk of developing the following conditions: unacceptable vegetation loss, soil erosion; or soil compaction; public waste and litter, and crowding that adversely affects other users’ experiences.”

The effectiveness of each alternative will be gauged by comparing the presence of designated campsites, fire rings, and enforceable provisions for restricting use to designated campsites.

Need 5 -- Improve Vegetative Health, Reduce Tree Hazards, Reduce Fire Hazards

There is a need to actively manage the vegetation in and around the Stanley Lake area. The Stanley Lake area has received heavy recreation use for decades, especially near the lakefront. There has been a steady loss of overstory trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species due to direct physical damage from vehicles, pedestrian trampling, and campsite injuries, as well as additive effects of drought, disease, and soil compaction. The recent beetle epidemic created the most widespread and visible mortality, but the vegetation condition was declining and at risk long before the beetle outbreak.

The beetle infestation accelerated the loss of overstory trees, further contributing to a loss of canopy and shading. Remaining trees are frequently in poor health from physical damage, mistletoe and western gall rust. Disease, poor soil conditions, and the loss of neighboring trees leave the remaining green trees vulnerable for additional mortality and wind throw. The current downward trend in vegetation health does not meet resource objectives and detracts from the experience of forest recreation users.

Along with the loss of vegetation, there are many areas within the developed sites with a loss of duff, litter, and woody debris. This material has been removed through both firewood gathering and campsite maintenance practices that formerly raked and removed groundcover. With no vegetation, no groundcover, and soil compaction, accelerated erosion is occurring throughout the developed sites. Healthy natural regeneration is not occurring under these conditions.

Visitors throughout the complex are naturally drawn to the water’s edge. Very few designed and managed footpaths have been installed to accommodate this. Instead, decades of users have created an unlimited number of pioneered paths to the water’s edge, along all the developed areas. Erosive gullies 7

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

are developing in several areas where paths to the lakeshore run down steep grades. Multiple, overlapping footpaths have reduced the vegetation cover that formerly served to stabilize soil along and above the shoreline. Pedestrians need a means to travel along the lake, and down to the water’s edge, without degrading the shoreline vegetation in doing so.

The Stanley Lake shoreline condition was inventoried in 2001. Where recreation developments are present, groundcover is reduced, the shoreline bank has been moderate to severely altered, and desirable woody debris in the water, at the waterline, and directly upland is absent or lacking. These recreation related impacts are present along nearly half (43%) of the Stanley Lake shoreline (Rothwell 2001, Wofford 2008).

The lodgepole pine overstory is largely dead or diseased. 80-90% of the dead lodgepole can be expected to naturally fall within the next 10 years. Most of the forested area outside of developed recreation sites has not been treated to remove dead trees. The risk to visitors can be both from direct tree impact, as well as losing emergency access out of the complex due to trees across the road. There are areas outside of the developed campgrounds where down lodgepole contributes to excessive fuel loading and increased fire hazards. The Sawtooth NRA recognizes a need to manage these hazards alongside system roads and designated campsites in the Stanley Lake area.

The Forest Plan provides the following relevant direction for managing vegetation and minimizing hazards from trees and excessive fuels:

esired Condition “Soil protective cover, soil organic matter, and coarse woody material are at levels that maintain or restore soil productivity and soil-hydrologic functions where conditions are at risk D or degraded.”

Table 3. Forest Plan Direction for Vegetation and Fuel Type Number Forest Plan Direction Identify developed recreation sites with priority vegetation management Objective REOB14 needs, and develop comprehensive vegetation management plans to address those needs. During planning for new sites, or the reconstruction of existing sites, Goal developed recreation sites should be designed to channel foot traffic REGU16 towards common use areas in order to preserve ground cover and “green islands” of vegetation within the site. Provide for protection of life, investments, and valuable resources Goal FMGO05 through appropriate vegetation, fuel, and wildland fire management. Restore or maintain native vegetation that provides naturally resilient and productive shoreline habitats, through management of lakeside recreation Objective 0251 use and developments, with emphasis at Stanley, Redfish, Little Redfish, Perkins, Pettit, and Alturas Lakes.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The effectiveness of each alternative will be evaluated based on whether groundcover can be reestablished throughout the complex in ten years, hazard trees are managed, and excess fuel accumulation removed. Proposed Action______

The Proposed Action was developed to specifically address the needs stated above. The Sawtooth National Forest, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, proposes several actions within the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex. (For a more detailed discussion of the Proposed Action, see Chapter Two – Alternative 2)

Wetlands near the Stanley Lake inlet would be improved by: • Removal and rehabilitation of campsites 5-14 at Stanley Lake Inlet Campground. • Removal and rehabilitation of the road leading to the existing ‘sand bar’ boat ramp at Stanley Lake Inlet Campground. • Removal and restoration of a portion of trail constructed in the wetlands along Stanley Lake Creek.

Area facilities would be improved by: • Construction of a new 14 unit campground loop adjacent to Stanley Lake Campground. (Replacement of 14 sites removed at Inlet, overnight capacity remains the same) • Conversion of campsites 2-4 at Stanley Lake Inlet to day-use picnic sites. • Replacement of aging hand pump water systems and restrooms throughout the developed sites on Stanley Lake with accessible facilities. • Construction of an accessible fishing dock or platform.

Transportation safety would be improved by reducing conflicts between pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic: • Construction of a new pedestrian/bicycle path along the north shore of Stanley Lake connecting Stanley Lake Campground with the sandbar beach located at Stanley Lake Inlet. • From the current trailhead, relocate the trail leading to Bridal Veil Falls (trail #640). • Development of a hardened boat launch near Inlet campsite 1. (campsite to be relocated) • Improved parking facilities, including the development of a parking area capable of safely accommodating 15-20 vehicles with boat trailers.

Dispersed camping will be managed: • Outside of the developed campgrounds, campsites would be designated within 300 feet of National Forest System Roads. • Camping outside of the designated sites would not be allowed.

Vegetation health, tree hazards, and fire risk would be managed: • Re-establish vegetation in the developed campground. • Stabilize erosive areas. • Reduce risks from tree hazards and fuel loading. • A 10-year Vegetation Management Plan for Stanley Lake would be developed to guide implementation of vegetation management actions. 9

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Management Framework ______The proposed action has been developed in consideration of the following management direction:

The Forest Plan The Forest Plan provides management direction for the National Forest System lands (NFS) within the project analysis area. Direction is provided as desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines.

Management Areas and Management Prescriptions: The project area lies within the Upper Salmon River Valley Management Area of the Sawtooth NRA. Within this management area, the Forest Plan directs management actions for the Stanley Lake area to emphasize “Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources,” (Management Prescription 3.2).

The Stanley Lake Creek watershed is also a high priority for the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) with an active emphasis. These strategies integrate many of the goals and objectives of both the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act

Sawtooth National Recreation Area (Sawtooth NRA) The mission of the Sawtooth NRA is to fully implement Public Law 92-400, “…to assure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values, and to provide for the enhancement of the recreation values associated therewith…”. The Forest Plan identifies the desired condition for each of the listed values, and thresholds for impacts to those values.

Wild and Scenic River Corridor The Stanley Lake Creek corridor (1/4 mile either side of the high water mark) was designated during the Forest Planning process as eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. River segments determined to be eligible are protected as a potential addition to the national system of river protection until such a time as a “suitability” evaluation and subsequent decision is made. Decision Framework ______The Sawtooth NRA, Area Ranger is the deciding official making determinations on this project. Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and alternative actions in order to make the following determinations:

• The proposed project complies with applicable standards and guidelines found in the Forest Plan and all laws governing Forest Service actions. • Sufficient site-specific environmental analysis has been completed. • The proposed project benefits the public and is in their best interest.

With these assurances the deciding officer must decide:

• Whether to adopt the proposed action, take no action, or adopt a different strategy that still fully meets the purpose and need for action.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

• What, if any, additional actions should be required to better manage natural resources and recreational opportunities in the project area. Public Involvement______The proposed project has been continually listed in the quarterly Sawtooth National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since July 2007. The SOPA provides the public a list of proposals that are undergoing environmental analysis and is posted at the Forest Service website.

In the summer of 2008, district employees posted a map and document with the proposed changes on sign boards throughout the recreation complex. The map and document were posted again in the Stanley Lake area during the summer of 2009.

The formal 30-day notice and comment period (Notice of Proposed Action) occurred from October 1 through October 30, 2009. Legal notification of the comment period was published in the Challis Messenger (the newspaper of record) on October 1, 2009, with a courtesy publication in the Idaho Mountain Express on September 30, 2009. A letter and map were sent on September 30, 2009 to the project’s list of interested parties. A news release was sent electronically on October 1 to media outlets. Individually addressed letters to tribes with an interest in area projects were sent October 1, 2009. The news release and map were posted outside of the Stanley community center. Information on the proposal was also placed on the Sawtooth National Forest public web page on October 1, 2009 under the Projects & Plans section (in addition to the SOPA posting). This project has generated a high level of interest from recreational users and the media. The Forest Service received over 60 comments regarding the proposal.

In addition, numerous agencies have been contacted and consulted during the planning process, including Custer County Commissioners and their appointed resource advisory groups.

Though comments were mixed, many respondents did not want to see the Inlet Campground removed, the boat launch moved, and expressed reservations regarding other elements of the proposed action. Users who are happy with the current experience are concerned Forest Service improvements would lead to over-development of the area. We have responded to several of the more common concerns received by altering the original proposal. The proposed action would not enlarge the overnight capacity at the campgrounds, not increase user density, and not eliminate dispersed camping. Concerns remain regarding the appropriate level of development for the complex, and the loss of Inlet Campground opportunities.

Issues ______

Public involvement generated many comments regarding the proposal, but not all comments are issues. Issues considered in this analysis are unresolved conflicts regarding anticipated effects of the proposed actions. Issues are not general comments regarding the proposed action’s purpose and need. Key issues were defined as unresolved conflicts regarding effects of the proposed action. Non-Key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest 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. Concerns related to the stated purpose and need of the project are generally addressed by the effects analysis in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences. A

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

summarized list of comments, and the Forest Service response to those comments, may be found in Appendix A.

Key issues were identified as follows:

Issue 1 – Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level Long time visitors are experiencing the impacts of increased recreational use at Stanley Lake. More users have created more conflicts. The proposed project is perceived as further contributing to those conflicts, rather than resolving them. Though recreation expectations of individuals vary, a large number of users were concerned the proposed actions at Stanley Lake would further diminish the peaceful retreat they’ve enjoyed for generations, and detract from the overall rustic character of the complex. The nearby Redfish Lake recreation complex is cited as an example of the noise, traffic and congestion they hope to always be able to avoid at Stanley Lake.

Development concerns from scoping comments can be grouped into three themes: Increased User Congestion • Increased numbers of campsites • Increased concentration of campsites • Loss of screening in campsites (an existing condition concern)

Loss of Natural Soundscape • Boat motors – Size and timing of larger motor boat use may accelerate with a developed boat launch • Generators – Campgrounds have no limits on location or timing of generator use (an existing condition concern).

Facility Development Level -- Renovations would diminish the rustic appeal of the complex • Impacts of a developed boat ramp and parking area (new pavement, new concrete) • Developed trails replacing footpaths • Loss of undeveloped (dispersed) camping

The Sawtooth NRA likewise desires redevelopment of this area to be carefully considered in view of its unique niche as the smallest of the paved-access lakes. The site has every scenic draw of the neighboring lakes, but does not have the size to absorb a large number of users. Thus Stanley Lake has been identified for less development than the larger Redfish Lake. The Recreation Development Scale is used by the Forest Service to establish and maintain desirable characteristics of developed recreation sites. Throughout the developed Stanley Lake complex, development has previously been designated Development Scale Three – Moderate Site Modification. All new and renovated facilities in the developed complex would retain this development level. (For comparison, Redfish is developed to Development Scale Four, “Heavy” Site Modification standard)

The Sawtooth Forest Plan also directs Stanley Lake to conform to a “Roaded Natural” recreation opportunity. This standard further defines compatible development and the limits of alteration appropriate for the complex.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

In response to comments, the original proposal has been modified in a number of ways. There would be no expansion of developed campsites as originally planned. The 14 Inlet campsites would be closed and replaced, but the proposal of creating 15 additional campsites has been eliminated. Additionally, the new 14 site campground would stretch out along alongside the northeast side of the lake, rather than congregating the new campsites above the existing Stanley Lake campground. Dispersed camping outside of the developed campgrounds in the vicinity would remain as a recreation opportunity.

These modifications to the proposed action were introduced to minimize site development, and avoid concentrating users. The congestion concerns listed above have been addressed with modifications to the original proposed action and are not considered further as issues.

The soundscape concerns have been noted and may be addressed in the future management of the complex. A need to manage noise impacts was not a part of the original purpose of this proposal, and changing the type and size of watercraft was not a part of the public scoping. This then is a non-key issue outside of the scope of the action. Watercraft management can still be addressed in the future, in conjunction with Custer County. (The Forest Service has shared public comments received with the County Commissioners, including the numerous comments requesting boat motor limitations) The management of generators in the campground can be introduced as needed, without being a part of the environmental analysis. The issue of impacts to the development level of the recreation complex is appropriate to include in the EA analysis as follows:

Issue 1 – Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level

For addressing the changes to the development level of the complex, the analysis will evaluate whether the proposed facility changes are consistent with the established development levels for the complex:

Indicator: Recreation Site Development Level Indicator: Designated Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Roaded Natural)

The Recreation analysis in Chapter 3 evaluates the proposed actions’ consistency with the assigned Development Level and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.

Issue 2 – Relocating the Inlet Campground will diminish waterfront camping opportunities. Numerous comments were opposed to closing the Inlet campsites despite the flooding issues. Many indicated their enjoyment of camping at Stanley Lake is centered on campsites being on the lake front. They have been using these campsites for years and associate this experience with their heritage. They are worried that if the proposed action goes forth, their recreation experience will be lost or negatively changed. Other respondents supported closing these campsites because of wet conditions, resource concerns, and more equitable access for all users to the lakeshore.

This issue will be evaluated by considering the total number of developed creek side and lakefront camping opportunities.

Indicator: Number of developed campsites within 200 feet of water (creek or lake). 13

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The recreation analysis in Chapter 3 will compare current and proposed lakefront camping opportunities via the indicator shown above.

Other Resource Concerns to be Analyzed This proposal has been developed to address the five needs stated previously. In order to assess how well the actions proposed meet the originally identified needs, 15 measures have been identified. The analysis in Chapter 3 will include a review of these measures within the appropriate resource sections. A comparative table at the end of Chapter 2 summarizes these findings.

Visual and wildlife resources are also required to be analyzed by law, regulations, and/or policy. They will be analyzed in detail in a specialists report in the project record, and briefly summarized and disclosed in Chapter 3.

Concerns Not Analyzed in Detail Many comments to the proposal expressed a concern regarding the lack of watercraft limits. People feel the character of Stanley Lake is small, remote and quiet, and that the lake is too small for water skiing, large boats, and jet skis. Multiple suggestions were made that boat use on the lake should be limited to paddlers, small boat engines less than 5 horsepower, or electric motors. Comments requested the proposed action be revised to address the type of boat use type (e.g. personal watercraft, size of boat, motorized vs. non-motorized) permitted on Stanley Lake.

The Sawtooth Forest Plan doesn’t allow boats with motors on Perkins, Yellowbelly, or Little Redfish Lakes. There are no motor restrictions on any other Sawtooth NRA lake, including Stanley Lake. (Forest Plan Standard 02107)

Limiting or changing type and size of watercraft on Stanley Lake was not part of the public scoping for the project. Limiting the size, class, and type of boats allowed on Stanley Lake is outside the scope of the proposed project.

Although the Forest Plan currently shows no restriction on Stanley Lake, and the current proposal doesn’t include a change to waterway management, restricting watercraft could be reviewed in the future, in partnership with Custer County. The County authorizes use on surface waters within the County. We have shared the numerous concerns received regarding boat motors with Custer County, and they may be receptive to addressing this in the future.

Please see Appendix A for a summary list of additional comments and concerns received and considered. Some of the concerns we have addressed by modifying the project. Others were determined to be largely process concerns, already resolved through existing law, regulation, or policy. Some, like watercraft limits, were beyond the scope of this analysis.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the project and concludes by summarizing the alternatives in a comparative table, defining the primary differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Alternatives ______All alternatives have activities delineated into the following components:

• Component 1 –Inlet Area Renovation and Restoration • Component 2 – Developed Campground Renovation (Stanley Lake and Lakeview Campground) • Component 3 – Trail Management • Component 4 - Dispersed Camping Management • Component 5 – Vegetation Management

Actions Common to all Alternatives

1. The Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) within the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex would be corrected through a non-significant amendment of the Forest Plan. Project level ‘truthing’ occurs to ensure that VQO mapping, completed at a Forest scale, is accurate for the site. A site-specific review of the current VQOs in the area identified a need to update the VQO from Retention to Partial Retention in existing recreational developments. This change brings the site into compliance with Forest Plan direction regarding visual resources and the scenic environment. The analysis for this update is discussed in Chapter 3, Visual Resources and contained in full in the Visual Resources report. (Phillips 2011) The decision to implement this amendment will be made by the Sawtooth National Forest Supervisor, following a determination of significance regarding the proposed change. The VQO change will be issued as a separate decision from all other proposed project elements.

2. The policy for managing hazard trees in the area was clarified during the analysis process and is described in Appendix C. This policy to protect public safety is applicable for all three alternatives.

Alternative 1 No Action The No Action Alternative provides a baseline against which impacts of the various action alternatives can be measured and compared. Under this alternative, none of the specific management activities proposed to address the identified needs would occur. Ongoing and permitted uses on National Forest System lands would continue within the project area. Developed and dispersed recreation, boating, existing roads and trails would not be affected by this alternative. Management activities previously approved by other environmental analyses and decision documents would also continue to be implemented.

Component 1 – Inlet Area Renovation and Restoration The Stanley Lake Inlet Campground would remain, including 14 campsites, access roads, and associated facilities. Developed wetlands in the inlet area would not be restored. Recurring flooding and road 15

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

washouts would continue. Annual damage to the campsites, access road, and culverts would continue to demand ongoing repair and maintenance. The risk to safe vehicle egress during a flooding event would continue. Seven-to-ten campsites could remain unusable for several weeks after campground opening.

Funding to reconstruct high maintenance facilities in the Inlet Campground area may eventually be received, but would likely continue to be a lower funding priority than infrastructure repair projects located outside of wetlands, or projects relocating facilities out of wetlands. Given the large backlog of other facilities awaiting funding for repair, it is likely the facilities at Stanley Lake Inlet would continue to not meet current design and accessibility standards for the foreseeable future.

The existing natural sandbar boat ramp would remain. High water would continue to periodically preclude use of the boat ramp, often into July. The boat preparation, turnaround and launching area would continue to be used without separation from beach and swimming users. Parking for the sand bar boat launch would continue to be shared with day use visitors seeking beach and hiking opportunities.

No additional day use opportunities would be added to the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex. An accessible fishing dock would not be built.

Component 2 -- Developed Campground Renovation No new construction of developed campsites would occur to replace aging facilities at the Inlet Campground. Campsites would not receive tent pads and updated site furniture. Campsite perimeters would remain undefined. The campground manager location at Stanley Lake Campground would not change.

Component 3 Trail Management Trail #640 No changes would be made to trailhead parking. From the trailhead, Forest Trail #640 would remain co- located with the access road to the Inlet Campground and boat launch. Trail users, recreational vehicles, boat trailers, and cars would continue to share the route for approximately a 1/4 mile stretch. The co- location of road and trail would continue to present a safety concern.

Shoreline Trail A trail would not be constructed along the north shore of Stanley Lake. Area roads would continue to provide access for hikers and bicyclists traveling from the east end campgrounds to the west end of Stanley Lake and Stanley Lake Creek. Shared use on this road by cars, boat trailers, recreational vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians would continue to pose safety hazards.

Campground Paths Without a connector trail, users would continue to create redundant and frequently erosive access trails down to and around the lake. Redundant and erosive paths between campsites and facilities would remain and continue to expand.

Component 4 – Dispersed Camping Management Dispersed campsites in the Stanley Lake Creek watershed would not be designated, and all areas within 300 feet of the roads would, in the near term, remain open to vehicle camping. Camping impacts would continue to increase as users create additional campsites and expand existing campsites. Dispersed camping boundaries would not be defined for enforcement. Limiting impacts would continue to be

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

reliant on the creation (and replacement) of vehicle barriers. If the trend of increasing resource impacts continued, many of these camp areas would be considered for closure.

Standing hazard trees killed by the beetle epidemic would be felled or removed in dispersed camping areas, through recreational and personal use firewood gathering. No contract for mechanical removal would occur. The predominantly dead standing timber would continue to randomly fall, presenting risks to area campers and occasionally blocking egress out of the area with multiple down trees across the road. Where the fall rate exceeds a reasonable risk, and Forest Service capacity to manage the falling trees, some camp areas may face a temporary closure for safety considerations.

Fires would not be restricted to contained, metal fire rings. Fuel may not be adequately removed around user created fire rings. Risk of escaped and unattended fires would remain at the current level, or increase as additional campsites are user-created. Accumulations of dead, down fuel may occasionally be burned as part of Forest Service fuel management. The system roads providing dispersed camping access would not have safety improvements. Road management would not create pullouts and turnarounds for adequate vehicle ingress and egress.

Component 5 -- Vegetation Management (Additional actions that may occur throughout the Stanley Lake Watershed, including fuel loading and hazard tree management not previously introduced in Components 1-4 above)

Outside of RCAs, system roads in the area would remain open to personal firewood cutting and gathering within 300 feet of the road edge. Campers would also continue to collect firewood. Standing trees deemed a high risk hazard would continue to be felled, unless the risk can be otherwise mitigated. No salvage sale of dead standing timber would be conducted in the area. In the absence of a salvage sale, Forest Service personnel would remove forest hazards. Areas, particularly the dispersed camp areas, with a large concentration of high-risk hazard trees may exceed Forest Service resources and require temporary closures until the risk abates.

Felled hazard trees could continue to be utilized for firewood, outside of RCAs. Accumulations of dead, down fuel may occasionally be burned as part of Forest Service fuel management. Routine roadside vegetation maintenance would continue. Thinning in dense thickets of saplings would not occur.

Developed Sites Revegetation within the campgrounds was approved in a prior decision document and could be implemented, but is unlikely to occur as a stand-alone action. Funding for overall complex renovation would not be received, and associated actions such as replanting would be unlikely. There would be no change in current campground vegetation management practices.

Dispersed Campsites As discussed above under Component 4, staying within 300 feet of system roads would be the only limitation to dispersed campsite location and use. Soil compaction and vegetation degradation would continue as users expand their impacts beyond existing campsites. The ability to protect and restore areas damaged from camping use would be limited in the absence of enforceable camping restrictions.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Alternatives 2 and 3 The Modified Proposed Action – The Proposed Action was developed to specifically address the Purpose and Need as stated in Chapter 1. After receiving and reviewing comments from the public on the original proposed action, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area has modified the action to better meet resource needs and public concerns. Despite modification, the action remains essentially similar to that advertised during October of 2009.

Major components of the proposed action include: • Component 1 – Inlet Area Renovation and Restoration • Component 2 – Developed Campground Renovation (Stanley Lake and Lakeview Campground) • Component 3 – Trail Management • Component 4 - Dispersed Camping Management • Component 5 – Vegetation Management Throughout the developed Stanley Lake complex, development has previously been designated Development Scale Three – Moderate Site Modification. All new and renovated facilities in the developed complex would retain this development level.

Component 1 –Inlet Area Renovation and Restoration Stanley Lake Creek inlet facilities and roads would be relocated. The Stanley Lake Inlet Campground would be closed, facilities removed, and the currently occupied wetlands area rehabilitated. 14 new campsites and associated facilities would be constructed on the northeast corner of Stanley Lake in the vicinity of Stanley Lake Campground (See Figure 6). These new campsites would replace the 14 campsites that would be removed at Stanley Lake Inlet Campground. Overnight capacity for developed camping would not change.

Construction on the new campground would occur during the summer of 2013 (May – October). Salvage logging to remove hazard trees and prepare the new campground for construction would occur in 2012 or 2013, after August 10 and before December1. The existing Inlet Campground would not be closed until the new replacement campground is complete.

A new boat launch would be developed near the entrance to the existing Stanley Lake Inlet Campground (see Figure 6). Boat launch would consist of two lanes with handling docks on both sides. From slightly above the maximum lake level down, the ramp would be constructed of pre-cast concrete planks. Above the concrete ramp, the boat prep area would be paved, while the boat trailer/tow vehicle parking area would be native material. Associated facilities would also be reconstructed, including a restroom and parking area for 15-20 vehicles and trailers. Following this construction, the road accessing the existing sandbar boat ramp would be removed and rehabilitated. This includes removal of fill material and establishment of native vegetation.

A day use picnic area would be developed adjacent to the newly developed boat launch, where Stanley Lake Inlet Campground sites 2-4 currently exist. Day use facilities would include picnic tables, grills and restrooms. Campsites would become walk-in day use sites. The current road accessing campsites would be narrowed down to a 48” trail to access the picnic sites. Roadway not needed for trail use would be removed and rehabilitated. An accessible fishing dock is also proposed and would be located between the relocated boat ramp and the Stanley Lake Creek inlet.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 6. Alternative 2 – Proposed Actions in the Developed Recreation Complex

Component 2 – Developed Campgrounds

The aging facilities at the Inlet Campground would be removed and relocated as introduced in Component 1. For the remaining areas in the developed complex, hand pump wells and access paths would be upgraded to fully accessible standards. The reconstructed wells would have a concrete pad and casing height to minimize the risks of water contamination.

Campsite perimeters would be defined and include tent pads and updated site furniture. Restroom facilities would be upgraded to fully accessible concrete toilets. The campground manager would be moved from Stanley Lake Campground site #8 to site #1, including the relocation of the septic holding tank. This move would open up a highly desirable lake view campsite for public use.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Component 3 – Trail Management

Trail #640 Trailhead parking for Trail #640 would be reconfigured to fully utilize its entire existing footprint. The surface would remain native. Plans include a replacement unloading ramp for stock, that would be relocated closer to the new trailhead.

From the trailhead, Trail #640 would be rerouted to head directly west until joining the existing alignment approximately ¾ miles up the Stanley Lake Creek drainage. (See Figure 6) This new configuration is intended to reduce user conflicts by separating users of Trail 640, including motorized and equestrian users, from the congested pedestrian day-use trails at the lakefront.

A portion of the existing 640 route alongside Stanley Lake Creek would be retained and absorbed into the new Shoreline Trail.

Shoreline Trail A new 48 inch, multi-user trail (foot, wheelchair, bicycle) would be constructed using native material along the north shore of Stanley Lake, connecting the developed campgrounds with the new day use area, accessible fishing dock, sandbar beach, and Stanley Lake creek. The trail would terminate ¼ mile upstream from the sandbar, at a point established along Stanley Lake Creek. (see Figure 6)

The trail would be located to minimize impacts to shoreline and wetland habitats, limiting the need for boardwalks or bridges. Where feasible, the trail would utilize previously established routes rather than creating areas of new disturbance. In the area of Inlet Campground, at least two portions of the new trail would utilize segments of existing road. The road width would be narrowed to a 48” trail, and the remaining roadway would be removed and rehabilitated. Cross drainage would be provided as needed. An elevated boardwalk would span the wetland inlet area that currently separates the existing boat launch area from the Inlet Campground.

The trail would fork to provide a choice of trail access to the lake or a short, scenic trail hike along Stanley Lake Creek. Trail access to the sandbar beach would be maintained. The route alongside Stanley Lake Creek would again utilize existing travel routes, removing and rehabilitating all portions not needed for a trail. Limited improvements such as benches or picnic tables may be provided. The trail would terminate ¼ mile upstream. Beyond this point, the existing Trail #640 would be closed to the intersection with the new trail route (see Figure 6). Imported tread fill material would be removed, and the area rehabilitated with native vegetation and woody debris.

The new multi-user trail would focus existing lakeshore travel, and enable removal and rehabilitation of multiple user-developed footpaths down to and along the lakeshore. The expansive network of footpaths from the campsites (and the Overlook day use area), can be consolidated into fewer downhill feeder paths at more appropriate and durable locations. Where needed, logworm or rail fencing may also be utilized in combination to encourage use of preferred paths. Accommodating the trail may require modification of some existing campsites.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Campground Paths Preferred campsite-to-campsite paths would also be identified, and the redundant paths encumbered, limiting the total number of social paths between campsites and facilities.

Component 4 - Dispersed Camping Management

Dispersed camping within the Stanley Lake watershed would occur at designated sites only and provide limited amenities. Overall capacity and opportunities for dispersed camping would remain approximately the same following site designation.

The Stanley Lake Designated Dispersed Camping Program includes:

a) Selecting and establishing dispersed campsites that are consistent with management direction within the Forest Plan. A partial list of considerations in site selection includes: • No new sites allowed within 150 feet of lakeshores. • Designate dispersed sites consistent with Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) objectives. • Sites would not be designated within 150 feet of lynx denning habitat. • Sites should be adequately screened from primary roads. Existing sites that are not selected and designated would be closed and rehabilitated. b) An information board available to explain changes in management, and provide orientation and safety information. c) Each campsite will be designated. This is typically done via a signpost. d) Each designated dispersed site would have a metal fire ring. Campfires allowed in the metal fire rings only. Combustible material removed from 10 feet around, and 20 feet overhead, of the fire ring. e) Hazard trees within 100 feet of the site would be managed. Down trees can be removed if coarse woody debris exceeds 5 tons per acre. f) Pockets of heavy wood fuel (jackpots) may be removed or redistributed within 150 feet of campsite. g) A restroom could be constructed, as needed, but no other site improvements (i.e. tables, hardened tent pads) would be provided. h) Road access would be maintained at a Level II maintenance level. i) Sites would receive regular patrol and monitoring. j) Designated sites can be moved or closed by the Forest Service for management concerns.

Component 5 – Vegetation Management

The project seeks to improve the aesthetics of the landscape, the health and vigor of trees and groundcover, minimize erosion, and reduce hazards from falling trees and excessive fuel loading. Several actions specific to these objectives include revegetation, erosion control, tree hazard and fuel reduction. These actions would require long-term implementation and monitoring through the next decade. This section summarizes the actions listed in the Stanley Lake Vegetation Management Plan (Rineholt 2011). The Vegetation Management Plan includes additional details to facilitate implementation throughout the next decade, and is a part of the project record.

The Stanley Lake vegetation management needs vary by zones within the drainage. The developed recreation sites, the wetland restoration sites, the dispersed campsites, and the roads corridor have 21

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

proposed actions listed separately. Some of the vegetation management actions are previously listed under project components 1-4, above. The remaining proposed actions are listed below, by zone. a. Developed Sites Includes Stanley Lake and Lakeview Campgrounds, day- use areas, and all other developed sites in the lakefront complex. Portions of the developed recreation sites have lost all woody debris, litter, duff, and protective vegetative groundcover. Recovering these sites would require a long term effort.

Within this heavily used area, sites immediately adjacent to ignition sources (parking, campsites, grills, etc.) are identified as fuel reduction zones (NWCG 1999, see Figure 7: Fuel Reduction Zone in Developed Campgrounds). These are typically 10 feet around and 20 feet overhead of combustion sources. These currently bare areas would not be re-vegetated. The boundaries between areas to revegetate, and the areas to keep clear of combustibles would be better defined following the delineation of campsites. • Limit groundcover clearing to the fuel reduction zone. • Outside of fuel reduction zones, re-vegetate tree, shrub and groundcover through a mix of planting, seeding, and natural regeneration. • Tools for revegetation may include site preparation, mechanical tree spade transplants, shovel planting, Figure 7: Fuel Reduction Zone in Developed direct seeding, thinning, watering, or other. Campgrounds • Retain or replace woody debris outside of the fuel reduction zones. Woody debris may come from felled hazard trees in the area, or other nearby project activities. • Eliminate firewood gathering within campgrounds and day use areas until woody debris is replaced and revegetation is well established. • Identify preferred paths to minimize the extent of foot traffic impacts. • Manage hazard trees within 70 feet from facilities. Downed trees should be used on site to meet coarse woody debris objectives, as nurse logs, erosion barriers, etc. b. Wetland, Streamside, and Lakeshore Areas • The road and recreation facilities in the wetlands near the inlet of Stanley Lake Creek are planned for removal as part of the reconstruction project. Both the constructed facilities and the fill they were built over would be removed. Wetland areas that have been only indirectly affected by the developments would generally be expected to rapidly re-vegetate naturally. The remaining areas may receive treatment for soil compaction, and be replanted with native seed and transplants. • Lakeshores that lie immediately adjacent to recreation developments would be managed to maintain native vegetation. • Fallen or felled trees would be retained and managed on site in shoreline and streamside areas. Preferred paths would be identified and redundant paths encumbered. Use of the Shoreline Trail would be directed and facilitated for shoreline travel. 22

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

• In areas where no naturally durable and sustainable lakeshore access trail exists, steps or other hardened path may be constructed. • Where water’s edge plant communities have been lost, restorative plantings and protective actions may be initiated. c. Dispersed Campsites • Protection and rehabilitation of degraded former dispersed sites adjacent to Stanley Lake and Stanley Lake Creek is ongoing and involves establishing foot paths, encumbering off road vehicle traffic, erosion control, and revegetation. • Maintain a minimum of 5 tons per acre of coarse woody debris between designated dispersed campsites. • Manage hazard trees 100 feet from designated campsites. Trees may be removed offsite unless needed to meet 5 tons per acre coarse woody debris objectives. • Vehicle-tree hazards would be removed from Forest Roads to allow minimal clearance appropriate for the road maintenance level, and provide adequate ingress/egress and turnarounds during a fire emergency. • Areas of excessive fuel loading (down material) within 150 feet of campsites can be treated by burning, mechanical removal, or redistribution. The Sawtooth NRA Fuels/Fire staff would determine conditions that constitute a fuel hazard due to volume or arrangement. • Fires restricted to fire ring, combustible vegetation cleared 10 feet from fire ring and 20 feet above.

d. Road Corridors Road corridors for this project are defined as a tree height distance from the outer edge of Forest System roads. 70 feet is the average height of area trees. The vegetation management priority for road corridors is protection of the roadway, driver safety, and ensuring adequate ingress/egress for the popular recreation complex. There are no alternate driving routes in or out of the area, and the system road corridors would be managed as defensible space, where the vegetation is modified and maintained to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire. Priorities for this zone would modify vegetation and woody debris objectives used elsewhere in this plan.

• System road corridors in the Stanley Lake area would continue to receive the same routine maintenance of roadside vegetation as the rest of the Forest. • Where the road corridor is within 300 feet of developed campgrounds, the direction for “Developed Sites” would prevail, to protect screening between road and campground. • Other than in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), no minimum coarse woody debris guideline is established for the corridor. • Within RCAs, trees or snags that are felled would be left unless determined by an aquatic specialist not to be necessary for achieving soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions. • Manage hazard trees 70 feet (or tree height) from roadside. Trees in the road corridor may be mechanically removed offsite unless within an RCA. • Areas of excessive fuel loading (down material) within 150 feet of the roadside can be treated by burning, mechanical removal, or redistribution. The Sawtooth NRA Fuels/Fire staff would determine conditions that constitute a fuel hazard due to volume or arrangement. • Future ground disturbance and costs can be minimized by periodic thinning of dense thickets of lodgepole pine seedling/saplings in the road corridor (within 70 feet of the road). Initial thinning in sapling sized trees (4 inches diameter or less) would help form wind firm trees along the roadway

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

corridor. Subsequent thinning in lodgepole larger than 4 inches should not reduce the total crown area by more than 25%, in any single thinning.

Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2 in all aspects except the design of Trail #640. Alternative 3 represents the Trail #640 access originally presented for public comment. 640 trail users would leave the trailhead parking area, use the Shoreline Trail along the lake, then branch off to the existing 640 route running alongside Stanley Lake Creek. (see Figure 8) The existing 640 trail segment in the willows along Stanley Lake Creek would not be closed and rehabilitated. Lakeside trail users would share portions of the Shoreline Trail with equestrian and motorized users enroute to Trail #640.

Figure 8. Alternative 3 - Proposed Actions in the Developed Recreation Complex

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Detailed Analysis In response to public comments on the proposal, additional alternatives were considered. The following alternative was examined but eliminated from detailed consideration:

Reconstruct the Inlet Campground and Access Roads The chronic maintenance demands from flooding in the Inlet Campground, and across the roads to the boat launch and the campgrounds, could be reduced with reengineered facilities. The entire area would require significant development to adequately withstand annual flooding. The recreation experience would be similar to current conditions, but within a more highly developed environment.

This alternative would lessen flooding maintenance issues, and reduce the risk of having a road wash out and compromise safe ingress and egress. It would not extend the currently limited season of use. Moreover, it would do nothing to address the primary purpose and need of this project to improve wetland integrity. Occupied wetland areas would not be reduced, instead more fill and disturbance within wetlands would occur. The Forest engineering staff recommended the facilities in this area not be reconstructed in place and instead be relocated, if feasible. (Robnett 2011)

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this proposal and was dismissed from detailed analysis. Mitigation Measures Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Additional relevant and reasonable measures to improve the proposed action:

Monitoring • Photo documentation of pre-project, implementation phase, and post-project conditions would be conducted. Follow-up monitoring to assess the success of the project in achieving the intended objectives would be anticipated, at a minimum, the year following implementation, and then at 3- to-5 year periodic intervals thereafter. • Monitor the success of revegetation and woody debris recruitment, and pedestrian traffic controls. • Note the success of tree seedlings in the developed sites to determine if additional plantings and protections are needed. • Monitor for noxious weeds post-disturbance.

Construction and Staging • May 23rd to September 18th is currently the operating season for the developed campgrounds at Stanley Lake. When possible, avoid user conflict by conducting disruptive activities outside of the campground operating season. • To minimize the potential for introducing hazardous material to the aquatic system, a spill prevention and control countermeasures plan would be prepared by the construction contractors and approved by the USFS prior to project implementation. • Gravel or borrow material source sites with noxious weed species present shall not be used, unless effective treatment or other mitigation measures are implemented. • Gravel or borrow material would come from existing approved sources. • Staging areas, when required, would be located either within the existing trailhead, the former decking site opposite the entrance to the Stanley Lake Campground, or at the former Stanley Lake 25

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

gravel pit, all outside RCAs. Rehabilitation would occur following use where/as necessary. • Fuel storage would only occur within staging areas. Refueling would not occur within RCAs. Engine and hydraulic fluids would be monitored for leaks. • To the extent possible, fill material removed as part of restoration would be stockpiled within staging areas for project construction use, reducing the total amount of fill material needed from offsite sources. • In order to avoid unnecessary disturbance, new construction involving ground disturbance would occur during the summer season once site conditions have dried sufficiently. • Revegetation, using native species, would be implemented on all disturbed areas immediately following construction.

Riparian and In-Water Activities • Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) prevention and education materials would be posted at the new boat ramp, encouraging clean practices by private boaters and anglers and providing information regarding the risks of moving fish between water bodies. AIS boat inspections, currently provided in partnership with the Idaho Department of Agriculture, would randomly occur at the boat ramp during the busy summer season, as funding and availability allows. • As necessary to achieve project objectives, the proposed Federal action includes the authorization and issuance of any permits required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by the US Army Corp of Engineers, or the Environmental Protection Agency, cooperating agencies. • Where new construction occurs within RCAs, existing vegetation would be protected to the extent possible. • Where new construction occurs within RCAs, standard sediment prevention and retention practices would be utilized (e.g. silt fence, wattles) unless an aquatic specialist determines natural filters are clearly sufficient. • For new construction or rehabilitation in wet environments (wetlands), activities would occur in late summer and fall when site conditions are at their driest. • All equipment used for construction or rehabilitation work within RCAs or water would be high pressure cleaned of external oil, grease, dirt and mud, and have leaks repaired offsite or within a staging area. Spill packs would also be on hand for minor leaks/spills. • If needed, water drafting sites would be pre-identified through coordination with an aquatics specialist to avoid spawning and key rearing areas. All drafting equipment and operations would meet screening criteria of openings ≤ 3/32” with approach velocities < 0.40 feet per second. • Containment practices, such as silt fence, would be utilized during the paving of the boat prep area in order to isolate the lake from the activity. • The pre-cast concrete planks for the boat ramp would be set by equipment remaining on shore if feasible. Should entry be necessary, the equipment would be cleaned (see provision), then work progressively down the ramp being installed, thus remaining on the ramp at all times when within the water. Should minor leveling be required for the planks, coarse pre-washed aggregate would be added by hand or with equipment. Ramp construction would occur after September 1st. • No concrete pours would occur in-water. Should concrete pours be required within RCAs, methods would be utilized to assure no uncured concrete enters the lake or waterways. Discharge of uncured excess concrete, and the washing of tools and equipment, would occur only within staging areas where there is no potential for effluent to reach surface waters. • Docks (e.g. boat handling, fishing) would utilize untreated wood, or non-wood, products. • For the new boardwalk:

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

o Structural supports for the new boardwalk would be metal or concrete. Supports located within saturated or standing water conditions would utilize metal and/or precast concrete elements. Elsewhere, should poured concrete pads or cylinder footings be utilized, pours would be consistent with the defined practices (above). o Wood products treated with chemical preservatives would be limited to the structural elements above the highwater elevation. o The boardwalk tread surface would either be untreated materials, or a wear surface applied over treated products. o Wood preservatives utilized would be appropriate for such use, and consistent with EPA, IDEQ (2008), and NOAA (2009) guidance, and selected as informed through such recommended sources as: Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments — A Specification and Environmental Guide to Selecting, Installing and Managing Wood Preservation Systems in Aquatic and Wetland Environments (“Specification Guide”) (Western Wood Preservers Institute, 2006a). o The contractor shall demonstrate treated products have been certified as compliant with Best Management Practices for Treated Wood in Western Aquatic Environments (“BMP Manual”) (Western Wood Preservers Institute, 2006). o Treated wood products would be inspected on arrival and any pieces found to have visible residues or bleeding of preservative would be rejected. o Prefabrication of the structural elements would occur offsite to the extent possible. o For the fabrication objectives that must be completed on site, construction debris would be captured, retained (e.g. tarps) and disposed of properly.

Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat • If an agency botanist determines such actions are warranted, noxious weeds within and/or adjacent to project sites would be avoided or treated for eradication prior to implementation. For 2 -3 growing seasons following implementation, areas disturbed would be monitored for noxious weeds. • When needed, noxious weed treatments would be by hand, or via Agency approved chemicals, practices, limitations, and terms existing at the time of intended use. As such, no use of herbicides would occur without prerequisite consideration of the potential effects to ESA threatened, endangered, protected, candidate (TEPC) or sensitive species, and/or Section 7 consultation, either as tiered to a programmatic analysis, or project specific analysis. • All heavy equipment used as part of the action would be high pressure washed to remove all visible plant parts, dirt, and material that may carry noxious weed seeds, and/or invasive life forms, prior to entry into the project area. The same equipment would be cleaned again prior to leaving, if warranted. • When needed to support mechanical tree removal, landings would be established in previously disturbed sites outside of RCAs, such as dispersed campsites. • Commercial materials used for sediment containment (e.g. wattles) would be noxious weed free. • Where live conifer trees are utilized for project restoration objectives, they would generally be between 7 and 12 inches diameter. Likewise, standing trees with cavities or with raptor or raven nests would not be felled for project restoration. • Trees would not be removed within mapped lynx denning habitat. • Restrict tree felling within a 650 foot radius buffer around goshawk nests, and a 200 foot radius buffer around raptor nests. Nest location information would be provided by the wildlife biologist. Trees within this buffer may be selectively removed based on wildlife biologist review and 27

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

recommendations. • Harvest activities would occur after August 10 and conclude by December 1.

Visual Resources • Color concrete boat ramp planks to match adjacent soil color. • Use natural (cedar preferred) materials on the dock and conceal galvanized fasteners.

Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides two tables. The first table is a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative in relation to key issues. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where differences can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. The second table looks at the elements representative of the stated purpose and need for the project, comparing how well that intent is met by alternative. The tables summarize information presented and more fully explained within Chapter 3. Table 4. Alternative Comparison by Key Issues Indicator

Key Issue & Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Indicators No Action Proposed Action Issue 1 -- Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level. Indicator: Site development will Site development will Site development will remain at Recreation Site remain at the assigned remain at the assigned the assigned Level 3 – Moderate Development Level 3 – Moderate Site Level 3 – Moderate Site Site Modification. Level Modification. Modification. Indicator: Site will maintain Site will maintain Site will largely maintain Consistency with consistency with consistency with Roaded consistency with Roaded Designated Roaded Natural Natural Recreation Natural Recreation Opportunity Recreation Recreation Opportunity Opportunity Spectrum Spectrum guidelines. Some risk Opportunity Spectrum guidelines. guidelines. of excess social encounters Spectrum where Trail 640 and Shoreline Trail overlap.

Issue 2 -- Relocating the Inlet Campsites will diminish waterfront camping opportunities. Indicator: Number of 23 waterfront campsites 9 waterfront campsites campsites within 9 waterfront campsites available available available 200 feet of water (creek or lake).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 5. Alternative Comparison by Effectiveness Measures Purpose & Alternative 1 – No Alternative 2 – Need Measure Alternative 3 Action Proposed Action Element Wetland Acres Occupied or altered by facilities or recreation use: • Occupied by Development 2.6 Acs. Occupied 1.3 Acs. Occupied 1.7 Acs. Occupied Improve • 1 1.1 Acs. Altered 0 Ac. Altered 0 Ac. Altered wetlands Functionally Altered 2 9 Acs. Diminished 2 Acs. Diminished 1 Ac. Diminished near the • Diminished Stanley Lake TOTALS = 12.7 Acs. -- Alt. 1 3.3 Acs. -- Alt. 2 2.7 Acs. -- Alt. 3 inlet. 1altered includes areas where habitat conversion is apparent. 2 diminished includes areas not functioning at potential due to altered hydrologic regimes, etc., see Fish, Stream and Riparian Resources, Chapter 3 for more explanation. Drinking water High Low Low contamination risk Improve Hand pumps and No Yes Yes safety, restrooms are accessible accessibility, Potential days of and usability 4,634 days 4,914 days 4,914 days developed campsite use of area facilities. Accessible paths present No Yes Yes Accessible fishing No Yes Yes platform present Yes, but a segment Separation of vehicle of Trail 640 will mix roadway from other No Yes pedestrians with Reduce recreation users horse and conflicts motorbike. between Parking managed to pedestrian, reduce conflicts between bicycle and cars, boat trailers, No Yes Yes vehicle recreational vehicles and traffic. trailhead users Boat launching is not co- located with sandbar No Yes Yes beach activities

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

(Table 5 cont.) Purpose & Alternative 1 – No Alternative 2 – Measure Alternative 3 Need Action Proposed Action Element Campsites are designated No Yes Yes for users Fires are restricted to fire Manage the No Yes Yes dispersed rings recreation Campsites are not allowed Yes, but difficult to campsites in within 150 feet of Yes Yes enforce. the Stanley lakeshore Lake area. Enforceable provisions in place to restrict use to No Yes Yes designated campsites

Groundcover and Without planting vegetative screening and establishing Groundcover and Groundcover and Improve between campsites, along footpaths, vegetation will be vegetation will be vegetation lakeshore, and in groundcover and adequately adequately health in the remaining areas needing vegetation will not reestablished within reestablished within recreation rehabilitation is re- be adequately the next 10 years. the next 10 years. complex. established within 10 reestablished within years the next 10 years.

Hazard trees will be managed. Excess Hazard trees will be Hazard trees will be fuel removal along Hazard trees managed and managed. Excess managed. Excess road corridors Reduce excess fuel removed fuel removed via fuel removed via restricted to falling tree where appropriate burning or burning or burning. (no hazards and mechanical means. mechanical means. excess fuel mechanical loading. removal)

CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter summarizes the existing environment of the affected project area and discloses the potential effects of implementing the alternatives presented in Chapter 2. The focus for this analysis is to consider effects in relation to 1) the key issues identified in Chapter 1, and 2) the stated purpose and need for the project. The resource areas (fisheries/steam/riparian, recreation, forest vegetation/fuels, and botany) analyzed in this section address key issues, or were directly related to the purpose and need for undertaking the project. Additional resources that must be analyzed due to law, regulation, or policy are included under Other Effects.

As introduced in Chapter 1, Management Framework, the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction project falls within Sawtooth Forest Plan Management Area 2 – Upper Salmon River Valley (USDA Forest Service 2003). The Management Prescription Category (MPC) encompassing the

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

project area is MPC 3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources. The objective of this prescription is to minimize risks from management actions, and to actively restore or maintain conditions for TEPC/Sensitive fish, wildlife, and botanical species.

This chapter is organized by resource area. The first two sections of this chapter (Fish, Stream, and Riparian Resources and Recreation Resources) contain the bulk of the analysis regarding the key issues identified in Chapter 1, as well benchmarks for evaluating how well the alternative meets the stated purpose and need for the project. Subsequent sections reviewing other resources build upon information shared with these first two resource areas. As such, the intent is for the resource analysis of this chapter to be considered in the order presented, for a full understanding of effects.

Within each resource discussion, existing conditions of the affected environment are described first. The “No Action” alternative is described next, providing a baseline for evaluation and comparison to the “Action” alternatives that follow. Each action alternative has the following effects reviewed: • Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. • Indirect effects are caused by an action, but occur at a later time or different place. • Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7 and 8).

The alternatives will be evaluated in relation to the identified issues, and effectiveness of meeting the purpose and need for the project. A determination is also made, by resource, on the project’s consistency with Forest Plan direction as provided in Chapter 1, as well as the entirety of Forest Plan direction. Forest Plan consistency is covered in more detail within individual resource reports in the project record. The analysis presented is a summary of the specialist report findings. The project record has the reports in full, as well as a “substantial impairment review” which provides an additional checklist of compliance with the intent of PL 92-400. Fish, Stream and Riparian Resources Analysis Focus Wetlands (including streamside and riparian environments) can be altered both directly and indirectly by the encroachment and use of facilities constructed within them. The existing developments within the streamside and wetland environments adjacent to the inlet of Stanley Lake have experienced these chronic impacts. As such, a purpose and need of the proposed action has been identified:

Protect and improve the quality of wetlands near the Stanley Lake inlet.

The following sections consider the degree to which the proposed action and alternatives, as well as taking no action, achieve this objective. The specific measure identified for this comparison is:

Wetland occupied or altered by facilities or recreation use.

Within this analysis, wetlands are considered a subset of the broader term of riparian conservation areas (RCAs), used and defined within the Sawtooth Forest Plan. RCAs include traditional riparian corridors adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams, as well as those within and/or surrounding wetlands, lakes, and springs. The analysis, then, also assesses lakeshore and wetland conditions and 31

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

contrasts the area of roads and trails under each alternative that would lie within RCAs within the analysis area. Since within the project area these RCA features are seamless between lake, wetland, and stream waters, the results are combined for an overall contrast. The analysis also considers the potential of the alternatives to influence the general conditions of RCAs, as well as water quality and TES (threatened, endangered and sensitive) fish species, in qualitative terms.

The focus of this analysis lies within the area of extensive development and or use adjacent to Stanley Lake – that is, the north shore area of Stanley Lake, as well as areas north of its inlet stream for approximately 0.8 miles, and of the outlet stream for 0.4 miles. In this analysis, these extents constitute the area of concern and is referred to as the analysis area (Figure 9). It is recognized that other minor objectives, uses, and developments of the proposed action lie outside this focal area, but their current and potential influences to these resources would be negligible to those within this core analysis area.

Analysis Methods In order to evaluate the measure wetland occupied or altered by facilities or recreation use, characterization of the existing and/or proposed infrastructure and the affected and/or potentially affected resources within the analysis area was necessary. Many of the quantitative conclusions within this analysis relied on project specific delineations made and established for analysis within a Geographic Information System (GIS).

Wetlands: The approximate bounds of wetlands within the analysis area were primarily delineated using 2002, 2004, and 2009 aerial photography, including color-infrared, with some field verification and refinement. For the north edge of the analysis area the results of mapping associated with the National Wetlands Inventory (USDI, 1999, draft) for the Elk Meadow Quadrangle was also used and referenced. The quadrangle to the south (Stanley Lake) has not yet been mapped by the National Wetlands Inventory.

RCAs: The approximate bounds of RCAs were delineated around/adjacent to core streams, lakes, and wetland habitats within the complex, per guidance provided within the Forest Plan. Essentially the RCA bounds extend approximately 150 feet (roughly equal to twice the maximum height of lodgepole pine) from streams, and 75 feet (one tree height) from the margins of the lake and wetlands. Table 6. Road & Trail Width Assumptions Travel Way Surfaces: The location and extent of system road and Width Width trail surfaces within the analysis area began with the segments as in in Type contained within corporate geo-datasets. The system road and trail upland wetland route locations within this dataset were then refined and amended (ft) (ft) based on conditions evident on aerial photography or through field 2 lane road 24 30 knowledge. These revisions primarily applied to features such as campsite road spurs, within developed campgrounds, which were 1½ lane 18 24 absent from the corporate dataset. For proposed developments, road routes where approximated based on current descriptions. User- 1 lane road 12 16 created roads, or social trails, (i.e. non-system) were not included. motorized 6 10 Each road and trail segment within the resulting dataset was then trail assigned an estimated, but characteristic, width that may vary by trail 4 8 alternative and/or location of the landscape. The table at left lists the width assumptions considered for each segment within the analysis boardwalk ~ 4 32

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

area. It is recognized that actual conditions vary continuously, and sometimes greatly, on the ground for these travel way surfaces. However, the actual extent was not known, nor was the resolution of the existing aerial imagery sufficient to make such a delineation. Instead, the approach used was intended to provide a reasonable approximation for contrasting potential differences between the alternatives.

Campsites: In order to assess the potential influence of both developed and dispersed campsites on the resources considered here, center points of the sites were delineated. Centers for related infrastructures, such as toilets, were also noted. These centers were informed from sources such as legacy campground drawings, but primarily approximated from 2009 aerial imagery. Again, the approach used was intended to provide a reasonable approximation for contrasting potential differences between the various alternatives.

For the analysis, a developed site was considered to directly influence RCA or wetland conditions if its center was within 70 feet. Obviously this influence is highly variable site to site, but 70 feet represents the distance for which site hazard trees are managed. A dispersed site was considered to directly influence RCA or wetland conditions if its center was within 150 feet, a distance based on the proposed management of hazardous fuels.

Affected Environment

The features of the Stanley Lake Creek drainage are primarily derived from past glaciation. The topography ranges from near vertical at the ridgetops, to essentially flat on the glacial outwash and depositional lands. The geologic parent material within the drainage is exclusively granite, and the precipitation comes primarily as snow in winter, with infrequent intense summer thunderstorms. Granitic derived soils are typically easily disturbed and erosive. This condition is accentuated as the hill slope steepens and/or vegetative cover diminishes. As such, the steep source area of the drainage results in high natural erosion rates within the watershed, as evidenced with the abundant sandy bedload within the inlet. In addition, in 2006 the Trailhead Fire burned approximately 1,400 acres within the headwater extreme of the watershed.

The analysis area is primarily divided between two defined landtype associations: Sawtooth End Moraine Lands, and the Wet Alluvial Lands (Rahm and Larson 1972). The area east of the inlet lies on the Sawtooth End Moraine Lands, which is formed on materials deposited at the terminal margins of past glaciers. Soils are weakly developed, with high infiltration rates, low fertility and erodibility on gentle topography. Never-the-less, when disturbed and exposed to the forces of water, particularly on specific areas of steep topography (e.g. lake front), these granitic bottomland areas remain fragile.

The broad wetlands associated with the west (inlet) end of Stanley Lake are characteristic of Wet Alluvial Lands – bottomlands immediately adjacent to lakes and drainageways. This landtype has very gentle topography, and relatively deep and productive soils. Many of these lands and their soils are saturated during parts or all of the year due to annual hydrologic cycles (floodplain) and, as such, serve as a principle agent of natural flow storage and regulation. They also often serve as buffers to the more hydrologically active lands above, as well as filter areas for sediments spilling onto floodplains.

Streams Stanley Lake Creek originates along the high divide which separates the Salmon River drainage from the South Fork of the Payette River drainage. Approximately 27 miles of perennial streams channels are

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

shown on 1:24,000 maps within the drainage. Of these, 24 miles lie above Stanley Lake, of which only 4 miles are believed to be naturally accessible to fish in the low gradient reaches of Stanley Lake Creek, and wetland tributaries, prior to Lady Face Falls.

Streams in their headwaters serve as source areas for the vast majority of watershed sediments. In their mid reaches they primarily transport these accumulated sediments through channels firmly confined between resistant walls. Finally, within the flat gradient lower reaches, on the valley floor, they receive and integrate all upstream conditions within the watershed, and usually see a net increase of sediment deposited on their adjacent floodplains. Stanley Lake Creek below Lady Face Falls, primarily functions as a low gradient response reach integrating sediments deposited on its floodplain. However, much of the abundant sediments originating within the highly erosive headwaters passes to Stanley Lake, where it annually maintains a small, steep faced, sandy delta before sinking to the depths of the lake.

An inventory of physical habitat conditions within this segment of Stanley Lake Creek was conducted in 1992 (USDA 1992). The inventory identified dynamic stream and riparian conditions driven primarily by the influence of sediment and large wood. Streambanks were generally found to be moderately stable, but ever-changing as driven by the abundant bedload sediments. Average stream width within the reach was 15 feet. At that time, this segment was grazed by cattle as part of the Stanley Basin Allotment. The pasture was removed from the allotment in 1993. As a result, though no quantified assessment has since been conducted, observed physical conditions appear to have improved to a degree. Despite the influence of high natural sediment loads, suitable spawning and rearing habitats exist (USDA 1979, USDA 1992).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 9. Overview of the analysis area.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 11. Stanley Lake inlet road, June, 2006. Figure 10. Site 6, Inlet CG, June 27, 2008.

Figure 12. Inlet Campground, June 27, 2008. Figure 13. Inlet boat ramp area.

Figure 14. Shore conditions below Stanley Lake CG. Figure 15. Campsite-to-lake footpath, 2010.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 16. Campers beyond rock barriers, 2009. Figure 17. Sandy shoreline to left, protected shore to right.

Figure 18. Trail 640 section proposed for removal. Figure 19. Proposed new Trail 640 route.

Figure 20. Job Creek road removal, Oct., 2007. Figure 21. Former Job Creek road, Aug. 2008.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

In contrast to stream conditions overwhelmed by fine sediments above Stanley Lake, stream conditions below the lake are naturally limited of fine sediment. Stanley Lake serves as a sediment sink for all but the smallest of watershed sediments. Stream conditions and habitats are typically established on a foundation of glacial lag deposits (immobile cobbles and boulders from which all finer material has been scoured away) rather than active depositional features. Substrates within the outlets of the morainal lakes of the Sawtooth Mountains have been found to be, on average, 200 percent larger than those of the inlets, and width to depth ratios are 135 percent greater (Arp, et al 2007). Accordingly, when conditions were assessed below the lake in 2002, in most segments, pools were found to be absent or rare, and fast moving habitats (e.g. riffles) predominated, with an average width of 34 feet. Fine sediments within these habitats were very low, and banks were almost exclusively classified as stable (USDA 2002).

Though habitat complexity is somewhat naturally constrained by the coarse structure of the habitats, the segment upstream of the terminal moraine contains the best habitat, including areas of high quality spawning substrate (USDA 1989). Instream large wood debris (LWD) was common in previous surveys, though not abundant, both above and below the lake. Such wood generally adds complexity to streams and benefits aquatic habitats. With the recent natural mortality/turnover of the predominantly lodgepole forests at streamside, LWD is now likely abundant and expected to increase.

Though near natural stream conditions and/or potential are thought to now exist throughout the majority of the watershed, specific locations of encroachment and/or trampling occur where facilities exist and/or people concentrate. These specific conditions are present in the vicinity of the Inlet Campground/Boat Launch, as well as at points along the outlet where concentrations of dispersed camping occurs, and at the dayuse area and bridge at the mouth of the watershed. These impacts are chronic where they occur, though management actions have been implemented at the outlet and dayuse areas attempting to curtail their expansion.

In many segments conditions continue to improve following management changes or treatments that have removed chronic impacts. The operation of one small mine in the headwaters, and its access road, was discontinued several decades ago. In 1993, cattle grazing was removed from the watershed concluding a century of intensive grazing. In 1997, prior to its paving, a mile of the main Stanley Lake access road (70456) was relocated to a new alignment which avoided a ½ mile segment where the former route and creek were tightly confined as they passed through the terminal moraine. The former road, as well as the extensive adjacent areas of dispersed camping, were closed and rehabilitated. This change addressed the single greatest source of fine sediments downstream of the lake, as well as reestablished the long-term potential for recovery of streamside functions.

In 1999 the Bridalveil Falls trailhead was relocated from its location adjacent to Stanley Lake Creek, and the former location closed and rehabilitated. Also in 1999, the one small private irrigation diversion from Stanley Lake Creek was screened in order to prevent the entrainment of fish into the ditch. In 2005 600 feet of low profile logworm fence segments were constructed which separated Stanley Lake Creek from the Bridalveil Falls Trail near its origin at the Inlet Campground. The fence was intended to encumber general foot traffic thereby providing relief to the suppressed streamside vegetation. Photo monitoring of all these treatments has consistently shown success in meeting the principle restoration objectives.

Persistent stream, lake, and wetland pressures have also been recognized associated with the dispersed recreation use occurring along the outlet. Damaging expansion of heavy use areas has been chronic in

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

this isolated area. The expansion has occurred from both creep in the existing bounds of sites, as well as from leaps into new areas from pioneered user created roads. Active management of this deteriorating situation was initialed in 1997 when several stems of unauthorized vehicle access routes (including vehicle access to the lake) were closed with barriers and rehabilitated. Nevertheless, these physical treatments have been consistently altered, penetrated, or circumvented by some visitors since that time (Figure 16). Reinvestment on several occasions has been necessary in order to reestablish, expand, and/or revise these physical controls in order to prevent the chronic deterioration of the area.

Idaho DEQ has assigned designated beneficial uses for all waters of the state. If a waterbody does not have uses specifically designated, then the general uses apply. All waterbodies within the Stanley Lake Creek drainage are considered Undesignated Waters and are protected for Cold Water Biota and Primary or Secondary Contact Recreation. IDEQ has assessed water quality at four locations within the Stanly Lake drainage since 1995 and concluded that beneficial uses are fully supported. As such, no waters within the Stanley Lake Creek drainage, nor those downstream in Valley Creek, are included in IDEQs most recent 2008 Integrated Report of impaired waterbodies (i.e. 303 (d)) (IDEQ 2009). However, with the intensive use and development within and around the lake, water quality risks remain ever-present (Figure 13).

For much of the summer season potential pollutants are constantly present and in use within the developed facilities of the analysis area. These substances include: vehicle and equipment fuel and lubrication, either within the vehicles or in portable containers; cooking fuel; washing and sanitation substances; pesticides; as well as gray-water and human waste held within self contained Recreational vehicles or site toilets. While evidence of gray-water dumping has been observed within the developments from time to time, no major spills of any of these other substances has been reported or documented. Nevertheless, the potential sources and risks are readily apparent, and it is assumed that some unquantifiable level of these chronic pollutants are routinely present within the wetland soils underlying parking and camping areas (e.g. leaking vehicles, spills, etc.). Some of these pollutants may reach surface water indirectly via groundwater, or directly such as with the annual flooding “flush” of the Inlet developments, and within the lake where motorized and recreation uses are high.

Lakes Stanley Lake is 180 acres in size with a maximum depth of approximately 88 feet. It sits in the floor, at the terminal end, of a former glacier. It is bounded on the south by a steep faced lateral moraine, and by mounds of glacial till on the north and east. The west shore of the lake is a flat advancing margin of wetlands facilitated by the constant deposition of the inlets. The dominant terrestrial habitats of each of these areas are distinct.

Shoreline conditions at Stanley Lake are either essentially near pristine, or considerably altered as a result of development and use. The conditions of Stanley Lake shorelines were assessed in 2001, prior to the recent lodgepole mortality. Seven geomorphic or socially distinct segments of shoreline were identified within which shoreline units were evaluated. These results were later analyzed and summarized (Rothwell 2001, Wofford 2008). Recreation developments were located within 3 of the 7 segments which collectively comprised approximately 43 percent of the shoreline of Stanley Lake. One- hundred percent of units where development was present had moderate or severe bank alterations, compared to only 21% when development was absent (Figure 14, Figure 17).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

These same stark contrasts were observed in nearly every parameter evaluated, including ground cover and the presence of course woody debris. As compared to units with development, a 5 fold increase of large, in-water, wood was observed in units where development was absent. Likewise, in the adjacent upland shore areas, the presence of coarse wood was characterized as ‘abundant’ in 70% of units. Where development had occurred, no units were characterized as ‘abundant’ for coarse wood. Interestingly, lodgepole regeneration was found to occur more often in units with developments than in those where developments were absent, perhaps as a result of conditions more favorable to seedling establishment (i.e. bare soil and sunlight).

Despite the intensive uses occurring near recreation sites, the basic plant species necessary for functioning shoreline habitats remain in diminished health and extent (Figure 14). In a few locations, such as where lake campsite trails have severely eroded, some physical treatments have been applied in the past to curtail further deterioration. However, most constitute temporary fixes that have since failed and/or are in need of reconstruction. Designated lakeside vehicle access and use was closed to a 300 foot segment of shoreline at the extreme end of the Stanley Lake Campground many decades ago. However, the access roadway (±550 feet) was left and remains essentially unchanged today.

Unauthorized access of full sized recreation vehicles and associated dispersed camping was removed and precluded from a segment of lakeshore near the outlet in 1997 (Figure 17). Day use of this popular area continues, including the persistent unauthorized access of visitors riding ATVs. As a result, the shoreline habitat response to the initial 1997 closure to vehicles was less encouraging than had been anticipated. In response, approximately 200 feet of logworm fencing was erected along the shoreline in 2009 in order to encumber the general foot traffic continuing in the area. Additional barriers were also added to preclude ATVs. Shoreline transplants were then added to these protected areas.

Riparian Conservation Areas (including wetlands) Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. RCAs include riparian habitats and their influence zones associated with perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, lakes, springs, reservoirs, and other similar areas. Here proper riparian functions and ecological processes are crucial to maintenance of the area’s water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery systems, and associated biotic communities and habitat (Spence et al. 1996, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

RCAs within the core analysis area are associated with Stanley Lake, Stanley Lake Creek, and wetlands. Riparian vegetation within these areas consist of sedges and grasses, as well as willow, alder, birch, and similar shrubs. Trees and/or large wood is also an important component of these complex habitats, and is supplied by an overstory of conifer trees, almost exclusively lodgepole pine, both within and adjacent to the hydric habitats. Using guidance provided within the Sawtooth Forest Plan (USDA 2003), RCA areas were defined and delineated for the core analysis area (see Figure 9). Essentially, the core of these RCAs are the sensitive stream, lake, and wetland habitats within the complex. In addition, the adjacent uplands also influence their function and integrity, and, therefore, the RCA bounds extend approximately 150 feet (roughly equal to twice the maximum height of lodgepole pine) from streams, and 75 feet (one tree height) from the margins of the lake and wetlands.

Improving wetland conditions constitutes a principle purpose and need of the action. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

support, or under normal circumstances do or would support, a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. An approximation of the wetland bounds within the analysis area is shown in Figure 9. Wetlands within the project area can be distinguished within two broad settings: 1) those that reside in low, flat topography, typically within backwaters or floodplains of the lake or creek, and 2) those on elevated and sloping topography originating from seeps and springs in uplands. The former constitutes the majority of wetlands within the analysis area.

A major reconstruction occurred in 1999 to the Bridalveil Falls Trail. Roughly ¾ mile of trail segments were realigned to avoid exceptionally wet areas as well as several small fords of perennial tributaries. Another 1 ¼ mile was reconstructed, including turnpike tread in some badly damaged and impassable segments (Figure 18). The trailhead was also relocated from its location adjacent to Stanley Lake Creek. It, and the abandoned trail routes, were then closed and rehabilitated. In 2001 and 2007 two segments (~ ¼ mile) of the Job Creek Road were relocated out of wetlands near the mouth of the watershed (Figure 20, Figure 21). Several other changes have also benefited wetland functions in specific locations (see Streams, this section).

Within the analysis area, no developments require crossings of Stanley Lake Creek, though several minor road and trail culvert crossings of springs and wetland channels exist. The majority of the facilities within the complex are located on upland areas, however, some reside within wetlands, particularly those associated with the Inlet Campground and boat launch. In order to accommodate use, facilities within wetlands are typically associated with supplementary fill that must be imported into such areas in order to elevate and provide a foundation upon which the facilities (e.g. roads, campsites, and buildings) are constructed (Figure 10). As such, wetland habitats and functions are directly lost where occupied by this supplementary fill.

Basic wetland functions and habitats can also be altered where such fills impede or modify the spatial or temporal movements of water. Wetland habitats can also be influenced through the use and management of the facilities within wetlands, such as when vegetation hazards to roads, campsites, or structures are addressed, or through soil compaction and vegetation trampling by visitors. Finally, the management or manipulation of functionally key wetland species, such as beaver or their habitat structures, can also alter wetland processes and potential.

Approximately 1.2 miles of road surfaces (roads and campsite spurs, and 0.8 miles of trail tread are located within the delineated RCAs, of which roughly 75% lies within actual wetland habitats. Twenty- two of ~59 existing campground facilities (campsites and toilets) reside within mapped RCAs, of which 10 are within wetlands.

Fish The large lakes at the headwaters of the Salmon River once provided focal and transitory habitats for a number of native fish species. Populations of most native salmonids have since declined, while some non-native salmonids have been introduced and thrived. The Stanley Lake drainage is believed to have supported all salmonids native to the upper Salmon historically.

In 1956 the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) constructed a migration barrier at the outlet of the lake on National Forest. The barrier, combined with chemical treatments, were prescribed in order to establish and manage a sport fishery. Since then, natural upstream fish access to the lake, and the upper

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

watershed, has been precluded by the barrier. The full extent to which this structure has altered larger scale functions is unknown, but some situations remain apparent. For example, juvenile Chinook and steelhead have been observed just downstream of the barrier, having moved upstream from their Valley Creek natal habitats seeking better rearing conditions (i.e. primarily temperature), but are precluded from reaching them due to the barrier. Another ecological change occurred in 1975 when the IDFG introduced 15,219 non-native fingerling lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) into Stanley Lake. This one- time introduction has become a successful, self-sustaining, lake trout population, drawing anglers to a regional trophy fishery.

Similar barriers were constructed during the same period at Pettit and Yellowbelly Lakes, though no lake trout introductions subsequently occurred. ESA recovery objectives and obligations have provided the incentive to remove these barriers and re-open habitats. In 1996 the barrier was breached at Pettit Lake and in 2000 the barrier at Yellowbelly Lake was removed. Both lakes saw an immediate response from native fish previously precluded – bull trout returned to both lakes and juvenile Chinook salmon have been observed in their inlets. Options for the fate of the barrier at Stanley Lake are being considered, though the existence of the lake trout fishery presents challenging considerations not present at the other lakes.

All four salmonids that are Federally listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act within the upper Salmon River are associated with Stanley Lake Creek: Snake River sockeye and Chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead, and Columbia River bull trout. Westslope cutthroat trout, a Forest Service sensitive species, is also confirmed within the drainage. The ESA status of the species of special concern are listed in Table 7. Table 7. Endangered fish species status. Federal Register Common Federal Current Listed Species Critical Habitat Name Register Listing Status Listing Snake River Oncorhynchus 56 FR 58619, endangered 58 FR 68543, sockeye nerka Nov. 20, 1991, Dec 28, 1993 salmon June 28, 2005 Snake River Oncorhynchus 57 FR 14653, threatened 58 FR 68543, sp/su Chinook tshawytscha Apr 22, 1992, Dec 28, 1993 salmon June 28, 2005 64 FR 57399, Oct. 25, 1999 Snake River Oncorhynchus 62 FR 43937, threatened 70 FR 52630, steelhead mykiss Aug 18, 1997, Sep 2, 2005 Jan 5, 2006 Columbia Salvelinus 63 FR 31674 threatened 75 FR 63898, River bull confluentus June 10, 1998 Oct 18, 2010 trout westslope Oncorhynchus 65 FR 20120 not warranted n/a cutthroat clarki lewisi Apr 14, 2000 trout

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Sockeye designated critical habitat includes Stanley Lake and its inlet and outlet. Critical habitat has also been designated for Chinook salmon and steelhead, and includes Stanley Lake Creek to Lady Face Falls for Chinook salmon and to the existing IDFG barrier for steelhead. No critical habitat for bull trout has been designated within the Stanley Lake Creek drainage.

Lakes are fundamental to the reproduction of Snake River sockeye salmon and historically sockeye utilized all accessible lakes in the upper Salmon. Interviews with locals in 1895 indicated use of Stanley Lake by sockeye (Evermann 1896). In sampling in 1935 within Stanley Lake “redfish” were recorded, though they may have been kokanee (Rodeheffer 1935). No sockeye adults have been known to return to Stanley Lake since they were listed for protection under ESA in 1991. To date the recovery efforts with adult sockeye have focused at Redfish Lake, with juvenile and smolt introductions at Alturas and Pettit Lakes. The Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICBTRT) recommendation for recovery is to achieve and maintain viable populations within Redfish, Alturas, and Pettit Lakes, with secondary emphasis on recovery efforts within Stanley and Yellowbelly Lakes (ICBTRT 2007). Meanwhile, it is possible that natural recolonization could be attempted (though futile until the barrier is addressed). With increasing adults returning as a result of the captive broodstock program, straying by adult sockeye has become more pronounced. For example, sockeye were observed 13 river miles up the East Fork Salmon River in 2009. Similarly, in 2009 and 2010, sockeye spawning occurred in Redfish Lake Creek downstream of the lake, where never before documented (Heindel, IDFG sockeye manager, per comm).

Chinook spawning consistently occurs within Valley Creek near the mouth of Stanley Lake Creek, yet spawning within Stanley Lake Creek itself has not been documented even though some reaches appear to contain suitable spawning habitat. The natural, seasonal, heating of water flowing from the lake may present a incompatible thermal regime to the current Chinook recruitment. Other than the IDFG barrier at the lake, no other man-made or natural barriers exist below the lake. Use of the Stanley Lake Creek drainage by steelhead is currently unknown, however an adult steelhead was observed in 1978 attempting to pass the IDFG barrier (Contreras, et al 1978). Juveniles of both Chinook and steelhead have been observed in Stanley Lake Creek below the barrier.

Bull trout are identified within the Sawtooth National Forest Plan as a Management Indicator Species (MIS). Stanley Lake Creek occurs within the Upper Salmon Core Area, as defined in the USFWS draft bull trout recovery plan. There are only a few local populations considered “strong” within the Upper Salmon Core Area. Some of these are associated with other lakes. The lakes are known to provide key overwintering habitat for fluvial bull trout throughout the upper Salmon River basin (Schoby 2007). All the large, valley bottom lakes in the Salmon headwaters are currently occupied by bull trout except Stanley Lake. This anomaly likely persists as a result of the IDFG barrier at the outlet. As mentioned earlier, bull trout quickly re-established in Pettit and Yellowbelly Lakes following removal of their barriers. Surveys in 1935 within Stanley Lake recorded “dolly varden”, as bull trout were typically referred to at the time (Rodeheffer 1935).

Westslope cutthroat trout are a Forest Service sensitive species. As with bull trout, fluvial cutthroat have also been documented overwintering within other lakes (Schoby 2007), but are also precluded at Stanley Lake by the barrier. Above the barrier, cutthroat remain rare and are likely outmigrants from IDFG stocking of high lakes. No recent sampling has been conducted in the analysis area, but in 1992 cutthroat were only observed in the headwaters of Stanley Lake Creek. A few cutthroat were observed at a sampling site just below Ladyface Falls (2 miles upstream) in 2008.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Non-native eastern brook trout were introduced within the drainage in the early 1900s and have become the dominant species within the Stanley Lake Creek drainage and throughout Valley Creek. In both 1992 and 2008 surveys above the lake, brook trout dominated all habitats below Ladyface Falls. Downstream of the IDFG barrier within the outlet, brook trout were common in sampling in 2002 and 2009, particularly within the lower gradient reach above the terminal moraine, but were outnumbered overall by juvenile Chinook and/or steelhead. Brook trout presence within the drainage constitutes a substantial limiting factor on native ecosystems.

A significant bloom of Didymosphenia geminate (aka didymo) currently extends the length of the outlet of Stanley Lake Creek to Valley Creek. During nuisance blooms, didymo cells can create large amounts of stalk material that form thick mats of grey, white, or brown cottony material that coat the bottom of rivers and streams. Didymo is believed to be native to North America, but its range has been expanding. The bloom in the outlet of Stanley Lake was first noted in 2008, and has likely diminished the quantity and quality of the aquatic habitats for salmonids. The potential persistence of the bloom is unknown.

Baseline conditions within the Stanley Lake drainage, as considered using the Matrix of Effects Pathways and Indicators, concludes that overall the area is “Functioning at Unacceptable Risk” (Section V.C. within USDA 2011). Of the 23 indicators of aquatic physical and biological health, 22 percent functioning at unacceptable risk and another 26 percent and were functioning at risk. Though 52 percent of the indicators were believed to be functioning appropriately, most of the key pathways influencing population biological/genetic integrity and persistence are not functioning.

Throughout the majority of the watershed, stream habitat conditions are believed to be near, or trending towards, their potential. Nevertheless, site specific situations of encroachment, trampling, alteration, or diminished habitat potential exist where facilities have been established and/or people concentrate within or adjacent to fish habitats. These situations exist along developed lakeshores, at stream and wetland habitats within the Inlet development, at dispersed campsites along the outlet, and at the dayuse area near the mouth. The security of fish residing, or temporarily occupying such areas for spawning, etc., is also likely undermined by the concentrated recreation use. The alteration and simplification of the natural conditions that likely existed within the inlet ecosystem historically is perhaps the most meaningful. The interconnected system of complex floodplain, wetland, backwater, and spring fed habitats likely influenced fish life histories within the drainage to an extent disproportionate to the size of the area. Historic lake shore conditions likely had a similar influence by, for example, providing an extensive terrestrial food source to fish occupying habitats well beyond the shoreline.

Relation to Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project falls within Management Area 2 – Upper Salmon River Valley. The Management Prescription Category (MPC) encompassing the project area is MPC 3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources. This prescription is designed to minimize temporary and short-term risks and avoid long-term risks from management actions to soil/hydrologic conditions and aquatic, botanical and terrestrial habitats. The objective of this prescription is to actively restore or maintain conditions for TEPCS fish, wildlife, and botanical species, or 303(d) impaired water bodies through a combination of management activities and natural processes. The Stanley Lake Creek watershed is also a high priority for the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) with an active emphasis. In essence, these strategies and guidance integrate many of the goals and objectives of both the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The core restoration objectives of the project along Stanley Lake Creek also lie within the overlay MPC 2.1 – Wild and Scenic Rivers and Their Corridors. In addition to the clear restoration emphasis of these MPCs and the WARS, many other goals, objectives and standards for riparian, water, and fish resources from the Forest Plan apply. Of these, the following Forest-wide and Management Area 2 direction is particularly applicable:

Table 8. Forest Plan direction fish, riparian, & aquatic. Type Number Forest Plan Direction Where practical alternatives exist, roads in RCAs that are degrading Goal FRGU05 riparian-dependent resources should be evaluated for obliteration or relocation. Where recreation facilities or practices have been identified as potentially contributing to degradation of water quality, aquatic species Goal REGU07 or occupied sensitive and watch plant habitat, facilities and practices causing degradation should be considered for relocation, closure, changes in management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance. As funding allows, implement restoration activities in accordance with the current Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy or Forest Objective TEOB09 Service-approved portions of recovery plans to: a) Restore listed fish species distribution, b) Restore desired habitat conditions, c) Conserve genetic diversity, and d) Provide for genetic exchange. Maintain surface and ground water in streams, lakes, wetlands, and Goal SWGO03 meadows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats; the stability and effective function of stream channels; and downstream uses. Provide habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and Goal SWGO15 desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities. Trees or snags that are felled within RCAs must be left unless determined not to be necessary for achieving soil, water, riparian, and aquatic desired conditions. Felled trees or snags left in RCAs shall be Standard SWST10 left intact unless resource protection (e.g., the risk of insect infestation is unacceptable) or public safety requires bucking them into smaller pieces. Protect habitat for salmon and other fisheries. Focus on protecting and restoring populations and habitat of sockeye salmon in the morainal Objective SNOB02 lakes of the Sawtooth Valley, kokanee salmon habitat in inlet streams, and populations and habitat of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout and other salmonids native to the SNRA.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Type Number Forest Plan Direction Manage the eligible Wild and Scenic River corridors to their assigned classification standards, and preserve the outstandingly remarkable Standard 0214 values and free-flowing status, until the rivers undergo a suitability study and the study finds them suitable for designation by Congress or releases them from further consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Reduce lakeshore pressure at the morainal lakes, particularly in areas of Objective 0247 current or historic sockeye shoal spawning. Provide riparian woody and hydric vegetation composition, age class structure, and pattern, that restores or maintains stream bank stability, Objective 0250 low width/depth channel ratios, and provides for a properly functioning condition along the main stem Salmon River, Valley Creek and significant tributaries. Manage habitat to reduce brook trout and provide a competitive Objective 0253 advantage to native salmonids, with emphasis in the Valley Creek drainage. Within the Sawtooth Valley sub-populations, maintain the strong local populations of bull trout within Alturas Lake Creek, Yellowbelly Lake Objective 0255 Creek, and Fishhook Creek. Initiate restoration of watershed conditions and fish habitat within Valley Creek to help strengthen the bull trout populations. Complete recreation complex plans for high use areas with attention to lakeshore activities, parking, boat launches, and day uses. Complete plans for Pettit Lake, Alturas Lake, Stanley Lake, and Grandjean, Objective 0276 including identification of development levels and vegetation management. Evaluate compatibility of sites at Alturas Inlet and Stanley Lake Inlet with riparian objectives. .

The project would also be consistent with the other applicable Forest-wide and MA2 direction, including: TEGO01, TEGO04, TEGO05, TEGO06, TEST03, SWGO01, SWGO02, SWGO04, SWGO05, SWGO10, SWST04, SNGO01, 0201, and 0228.

Though clear restoration emphasis was prescribed within the revised Sawtooth Forest Plan in 2003, considerable restoration efforts had been implemented in the Stanley Lake Creek watershed since sockeye salmon were first listed for protection under ESA in 1991 (see resource descriptions above). The proposed action would maintain and contribute to these comprehensive changes. Photo monitoring of all these treatments has consistently shown success in meeting the principle restoration objectives.

Environmental Effects

Three alternatives were considered within the following analysis: 1) No Action, and 2) Modified Proposed Action, and 3) the Original Proposed Action, henceforth typically referred to as Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. The no action would maintain the status quo, while the two action alternatives would address the purpose and need and implement the objectives as described and refined through the planning process. 46

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 (No Action -- Direct and Indirect Effects

Streams The conditions described within the purpose and need and affected environment would persist. Continued improvement to stream conditions within the watershed, resulting from past management actions, would be expected. Nevertheless, approximately 7 developed campsites/facilities, as well as the boat launch and parking area, would remain immediately adjacent to Stanley Lake Creek or channels of the inlet wetland. Approximately 5 dispersed campsites would remain adjacent to the outlet of Stanley Lake Creek. These developments and uses would continue to have direct impacts to site specific stream and streamside conditions. Also, the chronic low level supply of pollutants would continue, as would the risk of heightened impacts from a more substantial potential spill. These risks would remain particularly pronounced at the boat launch and where campsites are within or adjacent to sensitive stream, wetland, or lakeside habitats (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13).

Under the No Action alternative, dispersed campsites would continue to be legally appropriate when established anywhere within 300 feet of the authorized road network. Approximately 66 apparent sites were inventoried associated with this network within the drainage in 2002. A natural concentration occurs near Stanley Lake Creek at the outlet. These sites have continually pressed into, or immediately adjacent to, sensitive habitats areas where they are inappropriate and unsustainable. Routine establishment, reestablishment, and expansion of physical barriers has been required to protect such areas (Figure 16). A slow expansion in both the number and individual extent of dispersed campsites within the watershed would be expected. Some would be located in fragile environments, including adjacent to Stanley Lake Creek, requiring persistent and expanding administration and investment to exclude. Should the ability of the agency to sustain this relative management focus within this area falter, greater impacts to the creek would certainly be realized.

Lakes The degraded and declining conditions of lakeshores within the analysis area would continue as described in the affected environment. Numerous developed campsites would continue to line the shoreline area, most with individual access trails leading directly to the lake (Figure 15). Eventually the lingering clumps of shoreline vegetation would likely be lost (Figure 14), which may further accelerate the degradation. The continued mortality of the overstory of lodgepole pine, without the protection and establishment of a well distributed replacement stand would also accelerate and expand areas of exposed surface erosion. With the continued loss of lakeside vegetation buffers, chemical and nutrient water quality threats could also grow. Finally, as with streams, impacts to the lakeshore area near the outlet would remain chronic, and present a constant threat, particularly if a high level of administration could not be maintained.

Riparian Conservation Areas (including wetlands) Approximately 3.5 acres of road and trail surfaces would continue to occupy habitats within RCAs (Figure 10, Figure 18). Of these, roughly 2.6 acres occupy actual wetland habitats, nearly all within the Inlet area (see Table 9, and Figure 11, Figure 12). Another 1.1 acres of wetland habitat within the inlet would remain altered as a result of the alteration of natural hydrologic flow regimes, as well as intensive visitor use. Twenty-two developed campsites lie within RCAs and another 4 directly influence conditions within RCAs. Likewise, 10 are within actual wetland habitats, and additional 9 sites lie immediately adjacent to wetlands. No dispersed site is currently known to be located within wetlands, though several have been closed and encumbered previously. However, 5 sites lie within RCAs

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

surrounding the wetlands, and as many as 11 others are located just beyond these, and close enough to likely have direct influence to wetlands or their RCAs (see Table 10).

Under the status quo, conditions of the various sensitive RCAs habitats, including wetlands, within the analysis area would continue their slow decline. Essential vegetation types would be lost through tramping and alteration, exposing the former habitats to potential scour and conversion. Discrete vegetated shoreline faces (i.e. banks) will give way to broad sandy beaches. This sequence has already occurred at localized high use segments at Stanley Lake (e.g.Figure 17), and within extensive shoreline and/or streambank areas elsewhere within the Sawtooth NRA, such as Redfish Lake. General observations, and conditions quantified through lakeshore inventories, illustrate the risk at Stanley Lake.

Fish The drainage has been a focus of many restorative actions since the first ESA fish listing in 1991. Nevertheless, as described within the Affected Environment, site specific situations of diminished and degrading habitats remain within the analysis area, most associated with recreational use or developments. These same specific situations can often present diminished security to fish utilizing the habitats. These chronic conditions would persist and enlarge somewhat through time, though their overall influence to fish populations would likely remain small at the watershed scale.

Cumulative Effects Since there are no direct effects as a result of not implementing the proposed action, there are no cumulative effects either.

Consistency with Sawtooth Forest Plan The No Action alternative would be inconsistent with the MPC 3.2 prescription, as well as with the goals and objectives, including the WARS priority emphasis. Failure to take action to address recognized impacts to sensitive habitats, as described in the affected environment and the purpose and need, would fail the stewardship commitments and emphasis prescribed for the watershed: “Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources”. Similarly, direction contained in specific direction (e.g. FRGU05, REGU07, 0247) would be neglected.

The potential for bull trout reestablishment (an MIS species, and ESA Threatened) within Stanley Lake Creek would remain precluded by conditions (i.e. IDFG barrier) unrelated to the proposed action.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -- Direct and Indirect Effects

Streams The conditions described within the purpose and need and affected environment would be improved in the short and long-term, along with the continued expected improvement to stream conditions resulting from past management actions. Approximately 7 developed campsites/facilities, as well as the boat launch and parking area, would be permanently removed from streamside areas, as well as approximately 0.5 miles of trail along Stanley Lake Creek. While a subtle improvement to stream conditions would be expected throughout this inlet reach, the principle improvements would be realized at very site specific locations formerly damaged by concentrated use. Similarly, with selection and designation of dispersed campsites, it would be anticipated that no more, and likely fewer, than the 5 existing dispersed campsites immediately adjacent to Stanley Lake Creek at the outlet would remain.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The requirement to legally utilize only designated sites would also be expected to remove the chronic incentive to expand into new campsite areas, as has been the challenge in the past (Figure 16).

The chronic low level supply of pollutants would continue where vehicles and uses concentrate. However, the general separation of these locations established with Alternative2 and sensitive stream, lake, and wetland habitats would be substantially improved. That is, where formerly these pollutants entered the inlet habitats directly and were flushed into the stream and lake with annual flooding, with Alternative 2 those uses, for the most part, would occur in uplands and beyond the influence of annual flooding. This same added buffer would also reduce the threat of impacts should a more substantial spill occur in the future. Nevertheless, motorized use would continue immediately adjacent to the lake at the boat launch and prep area. As such, though the risks would be sharply reduced, they would not be eliminated.

Temporary effects to stream conditions and water quality could occur at very specific locations along the wetland channels and perhaps Stanley Lake Creek within the inlet area during implementation of the restoration objectives, and during snowmelt in the first year or two following implementation. Similarly, brief effects would also occur where culverts are installed for the new alignment of Trail 640 over small wetland channels. However, monitoring of several similar projects has shown that with the prescribed project timing, designs, and practices, these effects would be minimal and of short duration. The anticipated recovery of the productive Inlet area would be expected to quickly transition to a net reduction from the previous management conditions in the short and long-term.

As has been readily apparent over the decades, much of the Inlet development lies within the base floodplain (i.e. 100 yr) of Stanley Lake Creek and Stanley Lake. The outcome of implementing Alternative2 would be substantial improvement to the altered natural functionality of the floodplain. As such, the action would be consistent with Floodplains Executive Order 11988.

Lakes A slow recovery would be expected to initiate generally along the degraded conditions of lakeshores within the analysis area, however, with concentrated use remaining in the complex, natural conditions in some shoreline segments would remain unachievable. At least 5 campsites, as well as the existing boat launch and parking area, immediately adjacent to the shoreline would be removed. Elsewhere, with construction of the shoreline trail, as well as promoting revegetation within the existing developments and adding site fencing and other encumbrances, existing impacts such as the downslope movement of sediments should be sharply reduced in the long-term, and a notable improvement of lake shore areas should be possible. The improvements would be expected to be greatest near the inlet where the intensity of existing use would be sharply reduced. In contrast, conditions near the outlet may see limited change due to the potential of additional use originating from the new nearby campground.

The new construction anticipated for the replacement campground and day use parking areas would be isolated from lakeshores to a degree that minimal direct influence would be expected from either construction or long-term use. However segments of the shoreline trail, as well as the boat launch and prep area, would be constructed in close proximity to the lake, with limited vegetative buffer. The application of proven standard practices would be expected to minimize the temporary effects to only slight levels. These risks of temporary effects would be expected to be offset in the short and long-term by the restorative changes made possible by the shoreline trail. Relocating and consolidating the current network of user created social trails to a focal route, in a more durable and sustainable location, would

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

be expected to relieve some pressure from shoreline habitats. These changes would be expected to result in improvements to the integrity of the shoreline area and a reduction of scoured sediments in the short and long-term.

Though construction of the new boat launch facilities, as well as segments of the shoreline trail, would require the clearing of some existing potential large woody debris sources around the lake, all would remain on site and used for restoration purposes. Nevertheless, future recruitment on approximately 0.1 acres of these permanently committed surfaces would be lost. This loss would be more than offset by the re-established potential on 0.5 acres of surfaces where the Inlet facilities are removed and restored along both Stanley Lake and Stanley Lake Creek. Similarly, the continued management of hazard trees within 9 remaining lakeside developed campsites would also alter the recruitment potential. These effects would be tempered by the fact that, though hazard trees in such locations would be felled, they would be retained on site for ecological purposes. Furthermore, the recruitment potential would return to natural conditions at 10 former lake and stream-side campsites that would be removed and restored within the Inlet.

For construction and restoration objectives, prescribed practices, such as routinely cleaning and inspecting heavy equipment, as well as refueling them outside the RCA, would prevent any potential for fuel related pollutants. Design objectives as well as implementation provisions relating to construction of the new boardwalk would avoid any threat of concentrated effects during construction, and minimize any continuing influence. The effectiveness of these prescribed BMPs has been routinely demonstrated (IDEQ 2008, NOAA 2009).

With concentrated use remaining at the lake, some of the ongoing risks of small fuel or other pollutant spills would persist or simply be relocated (i.e. boat ramp) with the action. However, removing vehicles and toilets from the Inlet wetland, as well as reconfiguring the dayuse parking conditions, and rerouting horse and motorized travel to a less sensitive Trail 640 route, would be expected to provide a slight overall reduction in some of these ever-present risks. Similarly, conversion to designated site camping would also be expected to provide a slight improvement over current risks.

Riparian Conservation Areas (including wetlands) Under Alternative2, the compromised conditions within RCAs and wetlands discussed in the affected environment would be substantially addressed. Hydrologic functions and vegetation types formerly lost would initiate a return.

Approximately 1.5 acres of road and trail surfaces would remain that currently occupy habitats within RCAs. Of these, roughly 0.9 acres occupy actual wetland habitats, nearly all within the Inlet area (see Table 9, and Figure 11, Figure 12). In addition, new trails would add 0.6 acres of surfaces within RCAs, of which 0.4 acres would be within wetlands.

However, the action would remove and rehabilitate approximately 1.9 acres of roads and trails from RCAs, of which 1.5 acres would be actual wetland habitats. As such, a net reduction of 1.4 acres within RCAs or 1.3 acres within wetlands habitats would result as compared to existing conditions. In addition, hydrologic functions would be improved to another 1.1 acres of wetland within the Inlet where it was severed/blocked by road fills many decades ago. Similarly, 15 of 22 developed sites that currently lie within RCAs would be removed, including 9 of 10 that currently reside within actual wetland habitats (see

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 10).

These results reflect only the physical changes that would occur to areas of the inlet that currently demonstrate substantial direct alteration from roads or use. However, the extensive wetland area currently diminished as a result of roads, facilities, and visitor use management within the inlet ecosystem (± 9 acres) would be expected to quickly regain lost functionality and complexity. For example, annual floods would again disperse water, sediments, and nutrients to corners currently precluded or limited from these natural functions. Beaver would likely reassert themselves as a foundation species throughout the area, greatly expanding the variety and function of available habitats, while also dynamically altering flow regimes and species composition. Though some facilities and influence would remain, or be created as a result of new trail sections, overall the inlet would not only have considerably less infrastructure, but also less intensive management intrusion, thus allowing natural processes to again dictate much of the outcomes. Similarly, the actions benefits would be concentrated in those topographically low wetlands directly connected to the lake and creek. With implementation of Alternative2, all roads, and nearly all other developments would be removed from these low lying wetlands surrounding the lake.

Addressing impacts to the inlet wetland/RCA is a primary purpose of the proposed action. Replacement facilities are required in order to provide for the recreational opportunities and services of those to be removed from the Inlet. All the replacement facilities except the boat launch would be established outside RCAs. Similarly, while Alternative2 would provide a net reduction of road and trail surfaces, in order to assure continued visitor access to existing destinations and amenities, approximately 1.3 miles of new trail and boardwalk would be constructed, including 0.6 miles in RCAs. A large portion of the new trail would be constructed through shoreline RCAs adjacent to the existing developments. Though it would add managed trail miles, it is intended to replace, reduce, and discourage the extensive network of user created, social trails in the same areas (Figure 14, Figure 15). Alternative2 would also remove and rehabilitate 0.5 miles of the existing trail 640 in the RCA adjacent to Stanley Lake Creek (Figure 18). As such, a net benefit to RCA resource conditions would be expected, and perhaps a net reduction in actual trail miles (i.e. social and system).

The backwater wetland inlet, around which the current Inlet Campground facilities are located would experience some temporary influence as a result of the removal of the facilities and access road. These effects would occur as the roadways are removed and essentially conclude with the last bucket of fill lifted from the wetland. Project timing, as well as design features and practices, would be expected to minimize any unnecessary disturbance during implementation. Recovery of these habitats would begin immediately and be expected to proceed rapidly (e.g. Figure 20, Figure 21) based on monitoring of several similar recent and similar projects (e.g. at Alturas 1999, North Fork 2000, Stanley Creek 2004, Basin Creek 2005, Job Creek 2007). Benefits to both the quality and quantity of the habitats would be initiated in the short and long term.

Alternative 2 anticipates the continued management of hazard trees that threaten developed campsites, and also initiating hazard tree management at designated dispersed campsites. Such hazards typically would be felled and utilized on site for ecological purposes, particularly when within RCAs, thus slightly accelerating the natural cycle of standing → downed wood, but maintaining much of the ecological functions. The new campground would be sufficiently removed from RCAs that no RCA influence would occur from these treatments, however 11 existing developed facilities (campsites and toilets), and perhaps as many as 13 dispersed sites will include areas within RCAs where hazards may 51

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

be mitigated. In contrast, these persistent management influences would be eliminated at 15 former lake and stream-side developed facilities within the Inlet that would be removed and restored to natural processes.

Where concentrated and intensive visitor use continues, RCA functions would continue to be chronically compromised to some degree. Also, RCA functions may be slightly diminished during the initial implementation period when new facilities are constructed within RCAs, and the rehabilitation of former facilities has just begun. Nevertheless, as a result of these actions, net and meaningful benefits to the overall conditions of RCAs within the action area would be expected, particularly in the short and long-term. Likewise, with full implementation of Alternative2 there would be a substantial decrease of infrastructure and management intervention within wetlands. As such the action would be fully consistent with the Wetland Executive Order 11990.

Fish No meaningful temporary effects would be realized to fish habitats within Stanley Lake Creek with implementation of the restoration actions. Those that would occur at the shores of Stanley Lake, with the construction of new facilities, would be expected to be minimal as a result of the site specific nature of the objectives, as well as the design timing, features, and practices prescribed. Of the TES fish species considered, only cutthroat trout have a remote possibility of occupying habitats within the analysis area above the IDFG barrier. Nevertheless, though currently inaccessible, the inlet of Stanley Lake is designated critical habitat for the recovery of both Chinook and sockeye salmon. With the removal of developed campsites from along Stanley Lake Creek at the Inlet, and the conversion to designated dispersed campsites along the outlet, habitat conditions and security would see improvements in those site specific locations where damaged previously by concentrated use. Restoration of the inlet wetland and shoreline areas would likely have benefits to fish extending beyond their margins, through such mechanisms as enhanced forage sources, LWD recruitment, sediment capture and retention. These habitat improvements would then await the eventual return of TES fish once the IDFG barrier has been addressed.

Cumulative Effects On National Forest system lands the uses and existing infrastructure not addressed by the proposed action would persist – primarily recreation uses and the roads and trails that access and service them. The authorized transportation network within the analysis area is essentially considered as part of the described effects of each alternative. Within the Stanley Lake Creek watershed, there is approximately 11 and 13 miles of system roads and trails respectively. Though not specifically quantified, roughly 10 and 50 percent, respectively, may lie within RCAs. The road system lies in the lower watershed on gentle topography and generally far from water. The trail system, in contrast, lies primarily in the upper watershed, and routes through the broad wetlands west of Stanley Lake, then along streams in the headwater source area and tributaries. Though riparian functions can be altered by trails, their extent and severity is typically much less than that associated with roads. Implementation of Alternative 2 would improve this condition slightly.

Beyond that considered within the proposed action, the majority of recreation use within the drainage consists of foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcycle travel on trail systems within the upper watershed. Effects to riparian, stream, and fish resources in the backcountry can occur at very localized habitats, such as near campsites or trail crossings, but are generally inconsequential at larger scales.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Vegetation treatments have occurred within the lower watershed during the past decade, both before and after the initiation of mountain pine beetle outbreak. Less than 100 acres have been treated through primarily selective mechanical harvest. Comprehensive harvest within the existing campgrounds occurred in 2007, and removed all the dead or dying overstory (i.e. the majority of the overstory). Little was retained for use on site, instead anticipating that additional mortality would be forthcoming and could be utilized for site objectives. This change has opened the sites considerably, expanding areas of foot access, and, as a consequence, trampling and degradation of site conditions has occurred, as discussed within the affected environment. No other vegetation treatments are currently planned or anticipated within the drainage beyond those considered within the proposed action. Implementation of Alternative 2 would address some of the conditions that have developed through natural and management influences. Retaining and incorporating felled hazard trees into developed sites would serve to reverse the current site exposures and facilitate regeneration of the new forest cover.

Use of the Cape Horn Sheep Driveway, by one band of sheep in the spring and fall, is expected to continue. However, the sheep bridge over Stanley Lake Creek on the driveway near the mouth of the watershed collapsed long ago. Since then, sheep have crossed on the highway bridge. Historically, the driveway was utilized much more intensively, and permanently altered soil and vegetation conditions within this strip. Intensive cattle grazing occurred for many decades within the drainage prior to 1993. In 1993 the majority of the Stanley Lake Creek drainage was removed from the Stanley Basin Allotment, and the remaining portion was indefinitely closed as part of the Elk Meadows pasture. Effects from this historic intensive use, including intensive sheep use earlier in the past century, lingers in some areas. Seasonally wet meadows, such as those west of the lake, were particularly central to the past livestock use and consequently most altered. Revising the Trail 640 alignment through this area with implementation of Alternative 2 would assist in the recovery of the area (Figure 18, Figure 19).

One small private irrigation diversion exists within the Stanley Lake Creek drainage, on public land, downstream of the lake. From this diversion, a ditch extends ½ mile within the drainage, before crossing into the adjacent Job Creek drainage and eventually to private land. The small bank only structure, and proportionally small flow withdrawal, presents no upstream influence to fish passage. The diversion intake was screened in 1999 to avoid any juvenile entrainment. Periodic ditch maintenance reactivates exposed sediments, however a substantial buffer, over gentle topography, separates the ditch from the stream.

Finally, as has been discussed elsewhere, the IDFG barrier would remain the principle impact to fish populations within the watershed. The abundance of non-native brook trout also constitute a substantial limiting factor. IDFG’s exotic lake trout fishery also presents limitations to existing fish populations and presents substantial potential risks to the entire upper Salmon River system (Martinez, et. al. 2009).

Consistency with Sawtooth Forest Plan Alternative 2 is directly applicable to, and in part motivated by, the clear restoration emphasis of MPC 3.2 and WARS for the Management Area. It is also responsive to the letter or spirit of the many other goals, objectives and standards for riparian, water, and fish resources within the Forest Plan. The action would address stewardship commitments and emphasis prescribed (MPC 3.2) for the watershed: “Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources”. It would also be responsive to specific direction within the Plan (e.g. FRGU05, REGU07, 0247).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The potential for bull trout reestablishment (an MIS species, and ESA Threatened) within Stanley Lake Creek would remain precluded by conditions (i.e. IDFG barrier) unrelated to the proposed action.

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects

For the most part, the potential effects associated with Alternative 2 apply equally to Alternative 3. The only difference between the two action alternatives relate to how the alignment of Trail 640 would be treated. Alternative2 would close, remove, and rehabilitate a large portion of the existing trail, to be replaced by a new trail alignment, in a new location to the west. Alternative3 would maintain Trail 640 in its current location except where a short new segment would be established within the former Inlet Campground area. Since nearly the entire segment of the exiting Trail 640 alignment within the analysis area lies within RCA and wetland habitats in the Inlet area and along Stanley Lake Creek, it is the balance of the effects to these specific resources that constitutes the difference between the action alternatives. Only conditions that contrast these differences will be discussed further.

The temporary effects to stream channels associated with the installation of small culverts within the new Trail 640 wetland crossing under Alternative 2 would not be necessary under Alternative 3, since a new alignment would not be constructed. However, instead, approximately ½ mile of existing trail within the RCA of Stanley Lake Creek would remain (Figure 18) that the new alignment of Alternative 2 would have replaced (Figure 19). As such, the subtle benefits to streams anticipated in Alternative 2 would not be realized with Alternative 3.

In addition to the retention of Trail 640 near Stanley Lake Creek, this main travel route would continue to cross through the heart of the inlet wetland, including an extended new segment suspended, via boardwalk, above particularly wet and sensitive habitats. Under Alternative 3, this would remain the principle trail route open to foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcycle users. As such, the chronic low level occurrence and risk of chemical or nutrient pollutants entering waterways would be both more extensive and more direct under Alternative3 than with Alternative 2, though likely less overall than with the no action alternative. Similarly, the Alternative 3 Trail 640 alignment would retain more extensive proximity to designated critical habitat for ESA listed fish. As such, the Alternative 3 alignment and uses would diminish habitat security, and perhaps the overall capability of the habitats as compared to the Alternative 2 alignment.

Overall, under Alternative 3 less new trail in RCAs and wetlands would be constructed than with Alternative 2, but the net result of trail surfaces remaining from the action would be greater, since none would be removed either. Beyond the actual trail surfaces, Alt. 3 could result in slightly less connected influence to wetland functions, since the potential effects associated with the upper crossing of the wetland drain, as in Alternative 2, would be avoided (see Table 9, and Figure 11, Figure 12).

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects for Alternative3 would be identical to those associated with Alternative2, except Alternative3 would provide essentially no improvement to the overall occupancy of trails within RCAs within the watershed. Similarly, retaining the Trail 640 alignment within the RCA of Stanley Lake Creek may not realize the same level of cumulative benefits with the earlier removal of cattle.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Consistency with Sawtooth Forest Plan Alternative 3, the original proposed action, is directly applicable to, and in part motivated by, the clear restoration emphasis of MPC 3.2 and WARS for the Management Area. It is also responsive to the letter or spirit of the many other goals, objectives and standards for riparian, water, and fish resources within the Forest Plan. The action would address stewardship commitments and emphasis prescribed (MPC 3.2) for the watershed: “Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources”. It would also be responsive to specific direction within the Plan (e.g. FRGU05, REGU07, 0247).

The potential for bull trout reestablishment (an MIS Table 9. Comparison of travel way surfaces in RCAs species, and ESA Threatened) within Stanley Lake and wetlands. Creek would remain precluded by conditions (i.e. In RCAs (acres) In wetlands IDFG barrier) unrelated to the proposed action. (acres) Feature Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Fish, Stream, and Riparian Resources unchanged 2.7 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.6 0.6 1 Effects Summary roads unchanged 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.8 2 There would be potential effects to stream and lake trails shore conditions, as well as to RCA and wetland Total 3.5 1.5 2.0 2.6 0.9 1.4 habitats from the action alternatives. The effects Existing associated with the implementation activities would new 0.0 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 primarily be temporary and could be minimized roads1 and/or avoided through thoughtful and consistent new trail 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 implementation of design practices and project new 0.0 0.03 0.01 0.0 0.03 0.01 objectives. In the short and long-term, the action boardwalk alternatives would be expected to result in only trail from 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 positive benefits to these resources as compared to road the status quo (i.e. no action). The differences Total 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 between the action alternatives, then, is only the New degree and extent to which improvement to these road and 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.8 resources would be possible. And these differences trail relate specifically to how the two action alternatives removed1,2 treat the alignment of Trail 640, since the entire rehab of 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 segment of the exiting alignment lies within the trail from sensitive RCA habitats of the Inlet area and along road Stanley Lake Creek. Total 0.0 1.9 1.3 0.0 1.5 1.0 Rehab

1 includes developed campground site spurs Table 9 and Table 10 provide comparative 2 does not include user created social trails summaries between the alternatives with respect to the identified measure: wetland occupied or altered by facilities or recreation use. Additional descriptive contrasts can be found in the environmental consequences narrative.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Wetland occupied or altered by facilities or recreation use. In wetlands (acres) Wetland Influence Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 occupied 2.6 1.3 1.7 functionally altered3 1.1 0 0 functionally diminished4 9 2 1 Total 12.7 3.3 2.7

3 areas where habitat conversion is apparent or would be expected to be so. 4 additional areas may also be functionally diminished from their potential as a result of their position and influence relative to roads and trails within wetlands, as well as through management and visitor influence (e.g. altered hydrologic regimes, vegetation treatments, beaver mitigation; see Affected Environment, Wetlands, pg 9). These subtle influences are essentially unquantifiable but their potential relative scale can be contrasted. To do so, professional judgement was applied to aerial imagery to delineate or predict where the core of such influences would occur – typically areas above and/or below road fills at wetland drainage ways.

Table 11. Comparison of campsites in RCAs and wetlands. RCAs (number) wetlands (number)

Feature Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 developed campsites/facilities in 22 7 7 10 1 1 dispersed campsites in 5 <5 <5 0 0 0 developed campsites/facilities within 70 feet of 26 11 11 19 4 4 dispersed campsites within 150 feet of 16 <16 <16 11 <11 <11

Figure 22. Graphic comparing travel way acres in RCA & wetlands. Comparison of acres of travel way surfaces within RCAs Comparison of acres of travel way surfaces within wetlands

4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 Alt1 Alt2 Alt3

-1.00 Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 -2.00

-2.00 within removed -3.00 total existing total new removed within removed total existing total new -4.00 total rehab -3.00 total rehab

Note: where travel way surfaces are either removed or established new within wetlands, nearly all would occur within the topographically low wetlands directly connected to the lake and creek. With implementation of either action alternative, all roads would be removed from these low lying wetlands surrounding the lake.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Though small areas within sensitive habitats would be developed as part of the action, in so doing, the action would make possible the restoration of a much more substantial area of such habitats. With the inherent productivity of such areas, the temporary impacts that will result to such areas from the restoration activities would be expected to quickly shift to rapidly accumulating benefits in the short and long-term. This expectation is supported by the extensive successful experience the Sawtooth NRA has established with implementation of these types of construction and restoration actions (e.g. Figure 20, Figure 21).

The current proposed action (Alternative 2) would realize greater benefits than the original proposed action (Alternative 3). However, either would provide considerable improvement, particularly to the complex inlet wetland ecosystem. Notable protection and restoration would also be expected at lakeshores from the action alternatives, though lakeshore areas that remain adjacent to concentrated use would likely remain below their potential. Either of the action alternatives would relocate much of the use associated with the chronic low-level supply of pollutants currently occurring at the Inlet facilities, and create a much greater buffer against the future threat of a substantial spill.

As a result of the many restorative management actions that have occurred within the watershed, stream and wetland habitats are currently generally at, or trending towards, their natural potential. Though the improvement that would result with implementation of an action alternative could be considered site specific within the context of the watershed, the areas that would be the focus of the restorative actions (i.e. Inlet wetland, and the lakeshore) would have greater ecological benefits than their footprint on the landscape may indicate. In addition, the implementation would contribute and continue the additive benefits now being realized from the many other site specific restorative actions that have proceeded it. Failure to act would also neglect the stewardship responsibilities and focus prescribed within the Forest Plan, and maintain the chronic effects recognized in the purpose and need for the action. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, so long as the IDFG barrier remains in place, access for TES fish species to such habitats would remain precluded. Recreation The area of analysis for recreation resources includes the Stanley Lake developed recreation areas, and concentrated use areas of dispersed camping in the general forest area within the watershed. This recreation report is supplemental to information presented in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Analysis.

Analysis Focus

The two issues introduced in Chapter 1 are both recreation resource concerns. The recreation analysis will evaluate the issues across all alternatives, using the identified indicators for comparison.

Issue 1 -- Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level. Indicator: Recreation Site Development Level Indicator: Consistency with Designated Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Issue 2 -- Relocating the Inlet Campsites will diminish waterfront camping opportunities. Indicator: Number of campsites within 200 feet of water (creek or lake). 57

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Additionally, several measures were identified to track the effectiveness of proposed actions in meeting the purpose and need of the project. The following sections consider the degree to which the proposed action and alternatives, as well as taking no action, achieve stated objectives. The following measures will be reviewed in the recreation analysis:

Improve safety, accessibility, and usability of area facilities. Measures: • Risk of drinking water contamination • Accessibility of hand pumps and restrooms • Potential days of developed campsite use • Accessible paths in complex • Accessible fishing platform present

Reduce conflicts between pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic. Measures: • Separation of vehicle roadway from other recreation users • Parking managed to reduce conflicts between cars, boat trailers, RVs and trailhead users • Boat launching is not co-located with sandbar beach activities

Manage the dispersed recreation campsites in the Stanley Lake area. Measures: • Campsites are designated for users • Fires are restricted to fire rings • Campsites are not allowed within 150 feet of lakeshore • Enforceable provisions in place to restrict use to designated campsites

Affected Environment

Developed Recreation Sites

Campgrounds The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex includes three developed campgrounds with 39 campsites. The Lakeview and Stanley Lake Campgrounds are located on upland bluffs along the northeast corner of the lake. The Stanley Lake Inlet Campground is on the northwest corner of the lake. All but 4 of the Inlet campsites are located in low lying wetlands. All three campgrounds are constructed to Level 3 design standards. Peak season use (July 1- Labor Day) averages over 95% occupancy.

The inlet roads and facilities were constructed on fill to elevate them from high water. 7-to-10 of the Inlet camping sites are closed into July on normal water years due to flood conditions, resulting in lost recreation opportunities and increased maintenance costs. The average campground use season runs

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

from Memorial Day to mid September. On a typical year, overnight stay opportunities are reduced 19%2 by the delayed opening of water-impacted sites at Inlet campground. Overall potential stays is down 6% when jointly considering all three campgrounds.

Day use The developed Overlook day-use area is located between the Lakeview and Stanley Lake Campgrounds. This day use area provides parking, interpretive displays, picnic tables, restrooms and a trail to the lake’s edge. The site provides limited fully-accessible opportunities. The trail down to the lake is not fully accessible. The site is frequently near capacity for both parking and at capacity for picnicking.

Other day use opportunities exist for visitors who park in the trailhead or boat launch parking areas, and then pack in their day-use amenities to the shore. There are no developed day-use picnic areas outside of the Overlook, and no fully accessible day-use opportunities.

Boat Launch and Parking Area The boat launch for the lake utilizes a natural sandbar next to the Stanley Lake Creek inlet. The launch and associated parking is minimally developed. The launch, parking area, and access road are frequently flooded into July.

The sandbar area is a magnet for visitors and is often congested during the peak season. It serves as a boat launch, parking area, and the end-of-the-road turnaround for traffic into the recreation complex. The sandbar is also a destination for non-boaters enjoying the sandy lake front, or playing in the nearby creek. Trucks and trailers, beach goers with children, and turnaround traffic all share the same relatively small and uncontrolled area. This incompatible mix of uses creates a traffic safety risk during the busy season.

When not flooded, the sandbar provides a readily useable launch site that is very popular with many boaters for both its simplicity and functionality. However, it can be difficult for first time boaters to the lake to recognize where to prep the boat, launch and park their vehicle and trailer. Overflow parking occurs at the trailhead parking lot, which is approx ¼ mile away.

The existing boat docks are in disrepair and in need of replacement. Boaters have a difficult time using them as a handling dock where people and gear are loaded and unloaded once the boat is in the water.

Trails Trail #640 provides the primary access into the northern end of the Sawtooth Wilderness. Bridal Veil Falls, Hanson Lakes, and Sawtooth Lake are popular destinations for day-use hikers and overnight backpackers. The route first takes hikers towards the lake, requiring them to share a ¼ mile of busy roadway accessing the Inlet Campground and sandbar area. Approximately 3,500 annual trail users are exposed to moderate RV, boat trailer, and vehicle traffic as they travel from the trailhead to the point where the trail leaves the road and heads west towards the wilderness. The co-location of the trail with a frequently congested road is a safety concern.

2 Assumptions: Stanley Lake Complex Potential Stays - 18 weeks average season (Memorial Day to the end of September) x 7 days x 39 sites = 4,914 potential stays. Average time lost due to flood damage - 5 weeks x 7 days x 8 sites = 280 unusable days. 4,914 – 280 = 4,634 actual potential stays, increasing this by 280 would increase total potential stays by 6%. Inlet Campground Potential Stays – 18 weeks average season x 7 days x 14 sites = 1764 potential stays. Average time lost due to flood damage - 5 weeks x 7 days x 8 flooded sites = 280 potential stays. 1764 – 280 = 1484 or 19% 59

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The trailhead is currently bisected by Elk Mountain Road, which requires vehicles to back out of parking spaces crossing the active traffic lane. The stock unloading ramp is in disrepair and poorly located near the entrance to the parking area. The parking lot is adequate in terms of size with an approximate capacity of 40 cars. Approximately two thirds of the parking surface is suitable for passenger cars or vehicles pulling trailers. The remainder of the lot is uneven and less usable for passenger cars. The surface is native material and not striped. The far end of the lot needs leveling and instructional signing to maximize parking capacity.

Campers at the Stanley Lake and Lakeview Campgrounds are drawn to the sandy shore and creek in the inlet area. Currently there is a narrow user created footpath following the lakeshore that connects Lakeview and the Inlet Campgrounds. This unmaintained route crosses several wet areas and is generally not conducive for pedestrian or bicycle use. Instead, local recreation visitors tend to walk or bike along Stanley Lake Road.

Health, Safety and Maintenance Issues The concrete pads and drains of existing hand pumps are not the appropriate dimensions, and the well casings are too short. Until these are updated, there is an increased risk of drinking water contamination from surface water. The water is tested and would not be made available unless safe, but the risk remains. In addition, neither the hand pump assemblies nor the pathways leading to the hand pump are accessible.

The three existing toilets at Stanley Lake Inlet are over 40 years of age and should be updated with current accessibility and ventilation requirements.

For at least the past twenty years, 7-10 of the campsites (depending on the level of winter runoff) are flooded for up to 6 weeks each operating season. The Stanley Lake Inlet Campground and boat ramp access road floods yearly. Several times in recent years recreationists have had to exit the campground and boat ramp area after a forty-foot section of road (18 inches deep) has been washed away. This flooding results in a moderate risk of damage to all the vehicles, RVs, and boat trailers exiting the campground. In addition, this road is also part of the Stanley Lake Trail. Therefore, approximately 3,500 annual trail users share a ¼ mile section of road with motor vehicle traffic. Figure 23. Flooded Inlet Campsite, June 29, 2011

Accessibility There are currently no fully accessible developed facilities in the Stanley Lake area. Portions of the Overlook day-use area and restrooms in the campgrounds are accessible. However, in many instances the paths leading to the restrooms are not accessible.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Dispersed Recreation Many visitors to the area prefer recreating and camping away from the developed sites. Currently camping is allowed within 300 feet of a forest system road designated as open to vehicle use. The roads in the Stanley Lake Creek watershed have for many years provided numerous opportunities for dispersed camping use. Impacts from dispersed camping have accelerated in recent years. Campers frequently pioneer new campsites rather than using established sites. This expanding network of sites creates increasing resource impacts, including soil compaction and vegetation loss. Managers are also increasingly concerned by the size, location, and camper oversight of campfires at dispersed sites. The risk of fire escape increases where the fires are too large, too close to combustible material, or inadequately monitored and put out. The Forest Service has attempted to limit the establishment of additional camps or designate dispersed camping sites, particularly in riparian areas. Vegetation Decline

The developed recreation areas have been steadily losing vegetation and groundcover for decades, largely due to heavy foot traffic. Drought and disease have added pressure to an already vulnerable environment. The recent pine beetle epidemic killed the majority of mature pine in the area and left the remaining trees vulnerable to wind-throw. The loss of mature trees has decreased the developed sites’ ability to screen users from each other, and no longer offers the natural environment appropriate and expected for those sites.

Outside of the developed complex, the beetle-killed pine alongside roads and dispersed campsites have not been felled or removed. The standing dead pine have decayed sufficiently to be at their maximum natural fall rate, putting roads and recreationists at risk.

Visitor Use

The following information provides a reasonable overview of visitors and is based on Sawtooth Forest- wide visitor use monitoring (USDA 2006).

The average party size is 2.7 people. The average visit length at developed day-use sites is approximately 3 hours. The average stay at developed campsites is 4 days. Overnight campers were equally divided between those that seek a developed campground, and those utilizing the general forest area for undeveloped camping.

Recreation Development Scale

The Recreation Development Scale is used by the Forest Service to establish and maintain desirable characteristics of developed recreation sites. Current facilities in the developed recreation area represent both Development Scale Two and Three.

Development Scale Two is characterized as Minimal site modification: • Rustic or rudimentary improvements designed primarily for protection of the site rather than the comfort of the users. • Use of synthetic materials avoided. • Minimum controls are subtle.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

• Little obvious regimentation. • Spacing informal and extended to minimize contacts between users. • Primary access usually over primitive roads. • Interpretive services informal, almost subliminal.

The existing natural sandbar boat launch area is currently a Development Scale Two.

Development Scale Three is characterized as Moderate site modification: • Facilities about equal for protection of natural site and comfort of users. • Contemporary/rustic design of improvements is usually based on use of native materials. Inconspicuous vehicular traffic controls usually provided. • Roads may be hard surfaced and trails formalized. • Development density about 3 family units per acre. • Primary access may be over high standard roads. • Interpretive services informal if offered, but generally direct.

Except the boat launch and boat trailer parking, the other facilities in the developed recreation complex most closely resemble the characteristics of Development Scale Three. All new and renovated facilities in the developed complex have been designated to not exceed Development Scale Three. For comparison, Redfish is developed to Development Scale Four, Heavy Site Modification standard.

The dispersed camping along roads outside of the developed lakeside area represent Development Scale One -- Almost no site modification. • Rustic or rudimentary improvements designed for protection of the site rather than comfort of the users. • Use of synthetic materials excluded. • Minimum controls are subtle. • No obvious regimentation. • Primary access usually over primitive roads • Spacing informal and extended to minimize contacts between users.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The goal of recreation management is to provide appropriate opportunities for recreation experiences by managing the natural resource settings, and the activities which occur within it. To guide recreation management, the Sawtooth NRA has been delineated into a range of recreation settings known as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The ROS is expressed in terms of appropriate activities, the natural setting, and the users’ experience unique to each class within the ROS. The six major classes, in order of less developed to more developed, are Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi- Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban (USDA 1982). The Sawtooth Forest Plan incorporates ROS mapping to provide a foundation for recreation management decision making.

The entire project area has been mapped into the Roaded Natural (RN) ROS class. This designation is mid-range of the six classes and has a wide margin of acceptable conditions. RN setting indicators help define the expected experience for the class, as well as the limits of acceptable change.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Roaded Natural Setting Indicators (USDA 1990)

Access – Access includes type and mode of travel. Appropriate access design under RN includes the complete array from non-motorized, to paved roads designed for passenger vehicles. Routes are generally barrier-free, but unlike the more developed Rural and Urban classification, access is not required to be uniformly barrier-free for persons with disabilities.

The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex offers a variety of recreation access and activities. Motorized use is restricted to designated roads and trails. Barrier free trail access is not currently available.

Social Encounters – This indicator refers to the number and type of other recreationists met along travelways, or camped within sight or sound of others. Goals are defined for the area to provide solitude, or the opportunity for social interaction. Increasing the number of visitors to an area changes the kind of recreation experience offered, attracting new users but causing others to leave. Moderate to low contact on trails and developed sites are expected between users in a Roaded Natural setting. There is an opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with some chance for privacy. Self-reliance on outdoor skill is of only moderate importance. Little challenge and risk is expected in a RN setting. High contact in developed sites and on roads and trails is incompatible with RN designation.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex encounters exceed intended RN limits where hikers headed into the wilderness, and day-users of the lake, are all funneled into the same lakeside routes that they must further share with vehicles.

The loss of vegetative screening in the developed campground areas also challenges the setting description of having only moderate-to-low contacts with others. Both overstory and understory vegetation is being lost faster than it is being replaced, losing a sense of privacy between sites.

Visitor Management – Visitor regulations and controls are noticeable but utilize native-like materials that harmonize with the natural environment. The type and level of interpretive information provided is limited and simple in design such as simple wayside exhibits and casual interpretation by forest staff.

The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex characteristics are consistent for this setting.

Facilities and Site Management – Site development is rustic, but with facilities providing some comfort and designed to provide site protection (hardening). Native materials are used, synthetic materials should not be evident. The facility design emphasis balances protection of the natural site and the comfort of users.

The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex characteristics are consistent for this setting.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Visitor Impacts – The amount of environmental change is limited by subtle site hardening. Site hardening is not dominant on the landscape.

The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex characteristics are consistent for this setting.

Sawtooth NRA Recreation Niche

The Sawtooth NRA recreation niche is envisioned as a program actively connecting people with the landscape. Trails accommodate a variety of motorized and non-motorized uses. Trail systems link communities to the Forest yearlong. Concentrated use is along corridors allowing a sense of remoteness in most of the forest. In addition to off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles, a well established system of single track trails meets a regional demand for motor bike use. Non-motorized uses include: hiking, skiing, horseback riding, and mountain biking. Interpretive programs are used as a tool to manage use, engage visitors and protect the natural environments. The scenic mountain settings support mountain biking, skiing, hiking, climbing and lakeside camping.

Within this niche, the Forest seeks to provide sustainable quality recreation opportunities, measured by the following success factors: • Increase visitor satisfaction • Support local communities • Be financially sustainable • Be environmentally sound

Forest Plan Direction

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project falls within Management Area 2 – Upper Salmon River Valley. The Management Prescription Category (MPC) encompassing the project area is MPC 3.2 – Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Hydrologic Resources. The project also lies within the overlay MPC 2.1 – Wild and Scenic Rivers and Their Corridors.

Forest Plan direction driving the purpose and need for the project is displayed in Chapter 1. The following Forest-wide and management Area 2 direction is particularly applicable to the recreation resource:

Forest-wide Direction Table 12. Recreation and Facilities Forest Plan Direction Type Number Forest Plan Direction -- Facilities Provide and maintain a safe, efficient Forest transportation system that Goal FRGO01 meets resource management and access needs, while mitigating degrading resource effects. Goal FRGO02 Provide and maintain safe and efficient Forest facilities. Identify safety hazards on Forest classified roads, establish improvement Objective FROB03 priorities, correct or mitigate the hazard.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Type Number Forest Plan Direction -- Facilities Ensure that potable water provided at any public or administrative facility Objective FROB07 is safe to protect the health and safety of the public and Forest personnel as required by law. During fine-scale analyses in areas where roads and facilities are identified as a potential concern or problem contributing to degradation of Objective FROB12 water quality, aquatic species or occupied sensitive or Watch plant habitat, evaluate and document where the contributing facilities are and prioritize opportunities to mitigate effects. Where practical alternatives exist, roads in RCAs that are degrading Guideline FRGU05 riparian-dependent resources should be evaluated for obliteration or relocation. Where opportunities to mitigate facilities and road management practices causing degradation have been identified, consider mitigating through Guideline FRGU11 measures such as relocation, closure, and changes in management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance.

Recreation Direction Type Number Forest Plan Direction -- Recreation Manage recreation uses and facilities to mitigate degrading effects from Goal REGO04 recreation to other resources.

During fine-scale analyses in areas where recreation facilities are identified as a potential concern or problem contributing to degradation Objective REOB01 of water quality, aquatic species or occupied sensitive or Watch plant habitat, evaluate and document the location of the facilities causing degradation and prioritize opportunities to mitigate effects. Utilize the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to evaluate and Objective REOB02 tailor proposed projects and activities in order to maintain desired recreation opportunities and the quality of recreation experiences. Update existing ROS inventories as part of project-level planning and Objective REOB03 implementation if project activities cause a change in recreation setting conditions significant enough to reclassify the affected area. Maintain the necessary data to determine the individual and/or Objective REOB04 cumulative changes in ROS classes relative to the management area ROS strategy. Monitor recreation resource conditions, visitor use levels, types of uses, Objective REOB10 and visitor expectations to guide recreation management actions. Continue to improve accessibility on the Forest in compliance with all Objective REOB13 federal laws and agency guidelines. Identify developed recreation sites with priority vegetation management Objective REOB14 needs, and develop comprehensive vegetation management plans to address those needs.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Type Number Forest Plan Direction -- Recreation Develop ADA transition plans for developed recreation sites and begin Objective REOB16 implementation of those plans to enhance recreation opportunities and experiences. When new recreation facilities and trails must be located in RCAs, they shall be developed such that degrading effects to RCAs are mitigated. Standard REST02 Where reasonable and practical location alternatives exist, new recreation facilities and trails should be located outside of RCAs. When proposed management actions may affect dispersed recreation Guideline REGU06 sites, those potential effects should be evaluated during project-scale analysis. Where recreation facilities or practices have been identified as potentially contributing to degradation of water quality, aquatic species or occupied Guideline REGU07 sensitive and watch plant habitat, facilities and practices causing degradation should be considered for relocation, closure, changes in management strategy, alteration, or discontinuance. During planning for new sites, or the reconstruction of existing sites, developed recreation sites should be designed to channel foot traffic Guideline REGU16 towards common use areas in order to preserve ground cover and “green islands” of vegetation within the site. During fine-scale analyses in areas where dispersed and developed recreation practices or facilities are identified as a potential concern or problem contributing to adverse affects to TEPC species or degradation Objective TEOB27 of their habitats, evaluate and document where the problems are and prioritize opportunities to mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, adverse effects to TEPC species.

Sawtooth National Recreation Area Direction Type Number Forest Plan Direction Manage both federal and private lands to ensure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife Standard 0201 values and to provide for the enhancement of the associated recreational values in accordance with Public Law 92-400.

Upper Salmon River Valley Management Area

Type Number Forest Plan Direction Coordinate with the appropriate state and local agencies to manage Objective 0290 motorized use on morainal lakes Develop education, monitoring, and travel management and enforcement Objective 0293 programs to minimize conflicts and to provide quality recreation experiences. Objective 0295 Evaluate existing roads and trails for mechanized use opportunities.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Type Number Forest Plan Direction Allow increase in, or new construction of, recreation facilities to provide for expanding recreation demands within the established recreation development levels. Ensure that recreational development does not Standard 0299 prevent attainment of other resource desired conditions, including conditions for aquatic, riparian, soil-hydrologic, botanical, and wildlife resources. Recreation use shall not be allowed to significantly impact other SNRA Standard 02100 values. Powerboat engines must exhaust directly into the water to reduce noise Standard 02103 levels from motorized watercraft. No new camping facilities will be constructed within 150 feet of Standard 02105 lakeshores to avoid degradation of scenic, soil-hydrologic, riparian, and aquatic resources. Limit boating on morainal lakes as follows: Standard 02107 e) Stanley Lake – No motor size restriction. Management activities on National Forest System lands should meet desired recreation settings. Impairment of the recreation values may occur when an action creates a change in the desired recreation setting by one ROS class of any area on the SNRA and occurs over a time period of greater than six months cumulatively. Substantial impairment of the recreation values may occur when an action creates a long term or Standard 02108 permanent change in the desired recreation setting by one or more ROS class and that effects 2 percent or more of the acreage in that individual ROS zone. Substantial impairment may also occur when cumulatively an ROS classification across the entire SNRA is altered by more than 1 percent as a result of smaller changes within individual ROS zone designations. Construction of new facilities adjacent to lakeshores and streams should Guideline 02110 be avoided to avoid degradation of scenic, soil-hydrologic, riparian, and aquatic resources.

Wild and Scenic River

Stanley Lake Creek has been determined eligible for Wild and Scenic River classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C 1271-1287). The Act seeks to protect and enhance a river’s natural and cultural values and provide for public use consistent with its free flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. River areas that are found to be eligible are then classified as wild, scenic, or recreational, based on the development of shoreline, watercourse, and access. Within the project area, the eligible creek segments are classified as recreational. For river segments determined to be eligible, direction to protect the river as a potential addition to the National System is in effect until such a time as a “suitability” evaluation and subsequent decision is made.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) -- Direct and Indirect Effects

Developed Recreation Sites

Campgrounds • Inlet Campground and associated facilities would remain in a flood-prone area with recurring flood-related maintenance. Campsite availability would continue to be limited during high water. • Creek side and lake front camping opportunities would be maintained. There would be 23 (14 at Inlet, 3 at Lakeview, 6 at Stanley Lake) developed campsites available within 200 feet of a creek or lake. (See Figure 24) • There would be 4,634 total days available. • The existing network of user-developed trails would not be replaced with a single collecting trail.

Day use The existing Overlook Day Use area would remain the only developed day-use area. Road access to the sandbar would remain, along with associated day use.

Boat Launch and Parking Area The boat launch and parking area would remain unchanged. Both would remain limited for use until after seasonal high water recedes.

Trails There would be no change to trail parking, trail heads or trail routes.

Health, Safety and Maintenance Issues Both the hand pumps and toilets would be scheduled for eventual replacement. Funding their replacement would be difficult absent the larger project to relocate facilities. Investing in facilities that continue to degrade water quality doesn’t align with Forest Plan direction and also doesn’t compete well for limited funding.

Water hand pumps throughout the complex would continue to have a risk of contamination from surface water. The hand pump assemblies and the pathways leading to the hand pump would not be accessible. The three existing toilets at Stanley Lake Inlet are over 40 years of age. These would continue to not meet accessibility and ventilation design requirements.

Periodic road wash-outs due to flooding would continue. The risk of damage to vehicles, RVs, and boat trailers attempting to exit via a washed-out road would remain.

The Stanley Lake Trail would continue to be co-located with a busy roadway in the developed recreation area. The campgrounds and sandbar beach would have no connector trail and campers would continue to drive, walk, or bike on the busy main road into the complex.

Accessibility -- There would continue to be no fully accessible facilities.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 24. Current Developed Campsites Within 200 Feet of Water

Dispersed Recreation Dispersed campsites in the Stanley Lake Creek watershed would not be designated, and all areas within 300 feet of the roads would, in the near term, remain open to vehicle camping. Camping impacts would continue to increase as users create additional campsites and expand existing campsites. Campfires would not be restricted to metal fire rings. Therefore, threats of wildfire caused by fire escaping from rock fire rings remain and rock fire rings will continue to proliferate within the area leading to more soil sterilization. Dispersed camping boundaries would not be defined for enforcement. Limiting impacts would continue to be reliant on the creation (and replacement) of vehicle barriers. If the trend of increasing resource impacts continued, many of these camp areas would be considered for closure.

Unmanaged hazard trees within the dispersed camp areas would require a temporary closure of some camp areas until the risk abated.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Vegetation Decline Measures taken to limit ongoing damage to vegetation and groundcover could be implemented but would not likely be funded absent the larger reconstruction project.

The remaining mature lodgepole pine trees would remain at increased risk to loss form wind-throw and mortality, for the foreseeable future.

Recreation Development Scale – Comprehensive Impact The recreation complex would be fully compatible with the designated Development Scale Three, Moderate Site Modification.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Comprehensive Impact The alternative would be fully consistent with Roaded Natural, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.

Sawtooth NF Recreation Niche This alternative would be fully compatible with the Sawtooth Recreation Niche. However, this alternative is the least desirable in terms of meeting the Success Factors of 1.) Increase visitor satisfaction, 2.) Be financially sustainable, and 3.) Be environmentally sound.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -- Direct and Indirect Effects

Developed Recreation Sites

Campgrounds Inlet Campground Closure -- Relocating the Inlet Campground and associated facilities would eliminate periodic flooding repair expenditures necessary to keep the sites minimally functioning. The replacement campground would have all sites available throughout the operating season, increasing visitation opportunities. The number of developed campsites would not increase, but the total days available would increase by 6%.

The replacement campground for Inlet would be designed to offer lake and mountain views. Nonetheless, it would not replicate the experiences currently provided within the Inlet Campground. The nearness of water is the prevailing characteristic of Inlet campsites. Both the Stanley Lake Creek and Stanley Lake shoreline are steps away. You can see and feel the water in off-lake breezes in these low elevation sites. Users appreciate having campsites so convenient to water play.

The replacement campground would be located out of wetlands, and not directly on the shoreline. It would be in lodgepole pine uplands and more similar in feel to the two existing campgrounds. The new campsites would be connected to the lake with a trail, but the sites themselves are located well away from the water. There would 9 developed campsites available within 200 feet of a creek or lake 3. This is a reduction of over half of the waterfront campsites.

3 The proposal includes moving the campground host from a lakefront site, to the entrance of the campground, adding one additional lakefront site for public use within Stanley Lake Campground. 70

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The benefits to closing and relocating the campground would be to extend the use season, reduce maintenance, and restore functioning wetlands. The new campsites would not replace, in-kind, the Inlet Campground experience. Some campers appreciate the need to restore wetlands, and embrace the concept of relocating these campsites. For many repeat customers of the Inlet Campground, this is not the case. The lost opportunity for camping in close access to the water may drive a decision for them to not return to Stanley Lake under the changed condition. Though some long- time campers may not return, use and demand is not expected to decline.

Shoreline Trail -- Impacts to Campgrounds -- The existing campgrounds would be affected by the construction of the Shoreline Trail developed to provide pedestrian and bicycle access from the campgrounds to the inlet area. The trail would be designed to minimize adverse impacts to the lake’s riparian conservation area. As such, the trail would often fall along an upland route that would pass beneath existing campsites. The trail is close enough to impede directly on a few existing campsites; these would need to have slight location shifts to accommodate the new trail. The trail would allow a free-flow of use along nearly the entire north shore, from the Stanley Lake Creek inlet, nearly to the outlet. That opportunity would likely increase foot and bicycle traffic to the campground area.

Although the intent of the trail is to concentrate existing foot traffic to appropriate paths, the unintended effect would be the introduction of non-camping visitors into the camping area, and often close to campsites. This lateral trail would change a dispersed pattern of foot traffic, to a concentrated flow of bike and foot traffic laterally around the developed side of the lake. While it would achieve the intent of minimizing ground and vegetation impacts, it would concurrently increase the number of social encounters, and the kind of encounters (adding bicycles to the mix) experienced by the campers in sites adjacent to the new trail.

Campground Paths – Basic footpaths would be established between campsites and facilities, and the many redundant social paths encumbered and restored. This would be necessary to enable the re-establishment of appropriate vegetation within the campground. The paths would be developed with the minimum design and controls necessary to be effective. The net effect would be fewer paths within the campground.

Day use The existing Overlook Day Use are would remain essentially the same, but with improved trail access. The proposed Shoreline Trail would provide a fully accessible path that would bisect the Overlook area, giving visitors a choice of foot travel beyond the site.

Additional day use opportunities would be created further west along the lakeshore. The new day use areas would be located next to the new boat launch area. Development would be minimal, with picnic tables, restrooms and grills available for use. Depending on demand, some of these day-use sites may be considered for a reservation system in the future allowing families and small groups some security in their day-use recreation plans. The shoreline trail would bisect this site as well, allowing day-users to connect all developed areas along the waterfront, including a new accessible fishing dock. The fishing dock would be located in the same general location as the current boat ramp and inlet beach.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The addition of developed day-use sites would better accommodate the volume of day use visitors, and give them additional opportunities for experiencing the lakefront. The Overlook functions well as a brief stop for picnicking and photography, but located on a bluff, away from any trail system, it is limited for the daylong lakefront recreation many seek. The new day use area, closer to the water’s edge, better affords a lake-level base camp opportunity from which to spend a longer day visit exploring the area. Visitors have indicated a need for day-use sites that better utilize lakefront recreation opportunities, instead of this being exclusively available to overnight campers. This proposal responds to that need.

Total developed day-use sites would increase by three sites, but total day-use opportunities (developed and otherwise) would remain approximately the same as current. The sandbar would remain accessible by trail, but would lose the convenient drive up and unload features it currently has. The new day use area next to the new boat launch would provide a drop off and unloading area.

Boat Launch and Parking Area The boat launch would be relocated to accommodate wetland restoration. The relocated launch would include additional boat launch amenities designed to increase user safety. A two lane concrete boat launch with handling docks along both sides of the ramp, trailer turnaround/boat preparation areas, and dedicated boat trailer parking would result in a more regimented and developed site than the current natural sandbar. Color would be added to the concrete at the launch to match adjacent soil and rock. The docks would be surfaced in wood to blend into the surrounding area. The use of asphalt in the boat prep area would be minimized to retain a more natural experience, while providing a hardened surface to protect against erosion. Striping will be used to mitigate safety concerns at the Shoreline Trail crosswalk. Striping for public convenience will be used sparingly. Hardening and synthetic materials would be minimized, to retain as natural an environment as possible.

The boat launch and parking is designed to accommodate existing use. There is no intent to either expand or restrict boat use. The same types of boats and same volume of users would be expected to utilize the replacement boat launch.

First time boaters to the lake should immediately recognize where to prep the boat, launch and park their vehicle. New handling docks on both sides of the ramp would make loading people and gear safer, easier and be more readily available. Some users would find the new boat launch environment more convenient and easier to use. Others would prefer no change had occurred to the informal opportunities for launching and parking at the sandbar. The overall experience for recreational boaters is expected to remain similar to current conditions.

The Development Scale of the boat launch would change from Two – Minimal Site Modification, to Three – Moderate Site Modification. This change falls within the assigned maximum Development Scale.

Trails Parking The trailhead would be reconfigured and signed to better utilize the space for parking vehicles, trailers, and unloading stock. The existing stock ramps would be removed and new stock ramps

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

would be provided at the west end of the lot. Traffic lanes for the Elk Mountain Road would be established along the north side of the lot. The surface material would remain native and leveling would occur to allow for better access to passenger cars and vehicles pulling trailers.

Day use and boat trailer parking would occur in this same lot. These uses would be instructed via signing to use the parking spaces on the east side of the lot near the entrance. Visitors accessing Trail #640 would be instructed to park in the back of the lot, which is in close proximity to a new trailhead information board and the start of Trail #640.

Trail #640 Unique to this alternative is the reroute of Trail #640, which heads west from the trailhead and stays north of the Stanley Lake Creek wetland until it reconnects with the existing alignment approximately one mile up canyon (see Figure 6). Allowable uses on this trail would not change and remain open to foot, bicycle, stock and two wheeled motorized vehicles to the Wilderness boundary. Within the first mile, some segments of this trail would be elevated above wet areas with puncheons, culverts, or bridges. The reroute would eliminate about half of the existing elevated trail segments found in wetland areas along the old alignment.

The primary benefits from rerouting Trail #640 would be to reduce the likelihood of encountering others and minimizing the potential for conflict. This alternative directs all Trail #640 use, including stock and motorized, away from the busy lakefront area. The Shoreline Trail would not need to accommodate both Trail #640 users and lakefront day use. Separating these uses reduces the total volume of traffic going to the lake, and lowers the likelihood of encounters. It eliminates incompatible use concerns from mixing stock and motorized use in an already busy day use area.

Trail users are no longer directed to the lake, and along the Stanley Lake Inlet. Most of those areas are still available by the Shoreline Trail, but not as a part of Trail #640. There may be trail users that are sensitive to the loss of the trail section along the creek. As a primary access into the northern end of the Sawtooths, the trail would continue to offer abundant creek, vista and lake opportunities. There will still likely be trail users reluctant to abandon the current trail alignment along Stanley Lake Creek. Acceptance of the new route will depend on users recognizing the advantages of a route with fewer total social encounters as they leave from the trailhead, and fewer conflicts between trail users.

Shoreline Trail The construction of the Shoreline Trail would create a new recreational opportunity in the area. It would replace and consolidate segments of existing user-developed footpaths into a continuous hardened trail. Proper trail alignment and drainage, combined with closing and restoring unnecessary and unsustainable user created trails, would improve resource conditions along the lakefront. It would improve safety by eliminating the need for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to connect developed sites with heavily used roads. Horse and motorized use would be prohibited along the entire length of the Shoreline Trail.

The trail would connect the newly constructed campground on the east side of the complex to an end point approximately ¼ mile upstream and alongside Stanley Lake Creek, west of the Inlet. The trail would effectively connect all lake front developed sites from the campgrounds, to the Stanley Lake Creek inlet.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

From the Inlet heading west, it would follow the existing trail along the creek to the point where the existing trail pulls away from, and leaves, the creek. Terminating the trail here allows continued public access to popular spots along the creek. From this point west to the junction with the newly rerouted Trail #640, the existing trail would be closed and obliterated.

Recreation impacts from the trail are discussed above under Campground and Day Use. The new feature is not expected to increase visitation to the area, but it would enable a free flow of that visitation along the entire developed recreation complex. This additional opportunity to travel halfway around the lake on a dedicated trail is expected to easily attract use.

It would be designed to fall within the assigned Development Scale (Three). The transition of this use from a network of rudimentary footpaths, to an engineered, 48-inch wide, fully accessible trail would add a more developed feature to the complex. The concentration of pedestrians and bikes would increase total social encounters due to anticipated use levels along the new trail. This developed feature may exceed “moderate-to-low” numbers of contacts for campers in some campsites along the trail. (Roaded Natural Social Encounter indicator)

Health, Safety and Maintenance Issues Hand pumps throughout the complex would be reconstructed to prevent contamination from surface water. The hand pump assemblies and the pathways leading to the hand pump would be accessible.

The three existing toilets at Stanley Lake Inlet are all over 40 years of age would be replaced (within the new campground) to meet accessibility requirements and ventilation design requirements.

Periodic road wash-outs due to flooding would be eliminated from the Inlet area. Road wash-outs could occur in any location with a high-intensity storm, but has not been observed in the complex other than in the Inlet area. The risk of damage to vehicles, RVs, and boat trailers attempting to exit via a washed-out road would be largely eliminated.

Trail #640 would no longer be co-located for a ¼ mile with a busy roadway in the developed recreation area. Rather, it would share a few hundred feet of the Elk Mountain Road, which receives very light traffic by comparison. The campgrounds and sandbar beach would be connected by trail, eliminating the need for campers to drive, walk, or bike on the busy main road into the complex. The Shoreline Trail would require one road crossing, which would be striped as a crosswalk for safety, in the vicinity of the relocated boat launch.

Accessibility Accessible opportunities would expand. The Shoreline Trail, new day-use area, and new fishing dock would all be fully accessible. Facilities upgraded or replaced would be accessible. Some campsites would be fully accessible.

Dispersed Recreation Implementing Alternative 2 would introduce additional management into the dispersed recreation sites. In addition to the resource protection criteria listed in the proposed action description, sites would be

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

selected to try and duplicate a similar experience to what users now enjoy. This includes a mix of isolated and grouped sites. Site selection would generally seek to provide privacy between sites. The number of selected campsites would offer similar capacity for camping as current.

The mortality of most mature lodgepole pine profoundly impacted the camp areas in the last decade. Removing the remaining dead trees would reduce the amount of visual screening remaining. Following logging, the sites may initially feel open and exposed until the lodgepole regeneration matures. This is not a desirable condition, but necessary to manage the risk of hazard trees sufficiently to allow continued use. A one-time removal would have a large initial visual impact, but allow regeneration to establish and grow without repeated equipment entry and disturbance. Fall campers would be displaced during the logging operation.

Restricting camping to designated-sites-only would be more regimented than users previously experienced. Designating dispersed camping sites is now common management practice throughout the Forest Service, but may be a new concept for some long-time campers in the area. A general acceptance of this change is expected to occur over time.

Other than metal fire rings and posts designating campsites, little constructed change would occur in the dispersed camping environment. An outhouse may be included in the more concentrated use areas. Restricting fires to a metal fire ring would minimize soil sterilization caused by the proliferation of indiscriminate rock fire rings.

The greatest effects to the dispersed camping environment occurred with the beetle mortality. The minor improvements to the area would not change the character of the campsites and there would be a similar capacity for campsites as current. The sites would continue to fall well below the limits of Development Scale Three and would remain appropriate with Roaded Natural ROS indicators.

Vegetation Decline Measures taken to limit ongoing damage to vegetation and groundcover would improve vegetative health in the developed complex. The benefits to recreation would be slowly realized as denuded campgrounds slowly regain groundcover, vegetation and a natural site appearance.

For all areas of the complex, developed or dispersed, establishing and protecting tree seedlings would eventually pay-off with improved vegetative health and screening.

The remaining mature lodgepole pine trees would remain at increased risk to loss form wind-throw and mortality, for the foreseeable future.

Visitor Use There is neither a fee change associated with the proposal, nor a plan to alter the existing system of reservations. A portion of the campgrounds would remain available for first come/first serve. The proposed action is designed to continue offering similar recreation opportunities to those currently present. As such, there is no change expected in the overall recreation opportunities. Visitation may increase up to 6%, since flooding and subsequent water damage to camping sites would not be an annual occurrence. The visitor use as described in the affected environment, including the nature and length of stays, would not be influenced by the proposal.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The construction project would be designed to minimize disruptions to visitors. The Inlet Campground and boat launch would not be closed until the new campground and launch was complete. The existing alignment of Trail #640 would remain open to the same uses and the new reroute would be completed before closing the old alignment. Some short term disruptions would occur at the trailhead when equipment is used to level surface material. Logging and construction activity is expected to occur in late summer and into the fall. The activity would create short term disruptions to visitors.

Recreation Development Scale – Comprehensive Impact The planned reconstruction of the trailhead parking area and one campground would retain a Development Scale Three for these sites. The boat launch and boat/trailer parking would be reconstructed to a more highly modified Development Scale (from Two-to-Three). The introduction of minor controls to the dispersed camping area changes the effective Development Scale there from One to Two. Three new features would be added to the developed complex; the Shoreline Trail, a new day- use area, and an accessible fishing dock. The large network of user-developed footpaths within the campgrounds would be minimized.

The redevelopment and new features would create a more highly modified environment than is currently present. The design and engineering of these projects would include provisions to keep the redevelopment as rustic as possible. The proposal does not increase the density of family units per acre. The recreation complex would still be fully compatible with the designated Development Scale Three, Moderate Site Modification.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Comprehensive Impact Access Consistency with the Roaded Natural class would be maintained and improved with the addition of barrier-free trail access to the complex. Social Encounters Reconstruction is not expected to change the nature or frequency of human interactions with the following exceptions: • Rerouting Trail #640 away from the developed complex would reduce social encounters along this stretch and improve the trail’s adherence to the RN class. • Over time, the active revegetation efforts are expected to re-introduce necessary screening between campsites and other facilities, reducing the sight and sound of others and improving the complex’s relationship to the RN setting. • The Shoreline Trail would concentrate and channel users onto defined trails vs. the numerous dispersed footpaths currently present. This trail would increase total encounters and may at peak use times exceed the RN direction for moderate-to-low contact between trail users. • Where the Shoreline Trail flow of bicycle and pedestrian traffic passes by developments, the total level of new contacts would increase again as trail users’ transient presence repeatedly impacts occupants of developed sites. Due to the expected experience, this frequent contact is less of a concern to day-use sites, but a greater concern to impacted campsites.

Lakefront campsites in Lakeview and Stanley Lake Campgrounds are oriented to the lake view and currently have no development between the sites and the lake. The trail design will utilize sloping topography to locate the trail below the view of campsites, to the degree possible. Despite design efforts to minimize impacts, the new trail would add a feature and flow of traffic that could alter the experience for some campsites. 76

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

• The establishment of preferred social paths within the campground would not create more total encounters, but would decrease the space between users in the encounters. Pedestrians would be more noticeable to each other sharing a limited number of footpaths versus the current uncontrolled, dispersed pattern of foot traffic.

Considered in total, the action would tend to maintain or enhance the prescribed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum objectives for the area. The exceptions would be those areas of the Shoreline Trail that pass within sight of adjacent campgrounds, and potentially use on the trail itself.

An inconsistency in one indicator does not automatically require a change in the ROS designation. Both the intensity of the inconsistency—the severity of the effect on setting, access or use—and its spatial extent must be considered and weighed. The social encounter impacts are limited spatially to a small segment of the recreation complex, and temporally to peak daytime use hours. This potential inconsistency for a limited area and duration would not trigger a change in the ROS designation. The alternative would be consistent with Roaded Natural direction for Visitor Management, Facilities and Site Management, and Visitor Impacts.

Sawtooth NRA Recreation Niche This alternative would be fully compatible with the Sawtooth Niche and is the most desirable of the alternatives in terms of meeting the four recreation Success Factors (increase visitor satisfaction, support local communities, be financially sustainable, be environmentally sound).

Wild and Scenic River Evaluation A Wild and Scenic River Evaluation was completed on the proposed action, Alternative 2. The goal of this evaluation was to determine the level of potential impacts from the proposal as it relates to the eligibility of the rivers in the project area under the Wild & Scenic River Act.

Within the project area, the proposed activities will not impact the eligibility of river segments for Wild & Scenic River status. The project would relocate several recreation facilities out of wetlands and further away from the creek. Relocated facilities would be located and designed to harmonize with their natural and cultural settings, protect identified river values including water quality, and be screened from view from the river to the extent possible. Some existing recreation developments (trails, beach activities, picnicking) within the corridor would be maintained. The proposed project is in conformance with the Wild & Scenic River Act (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Alternative 3 -- Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 represents the same proposed action as Alternative 2, minus the proposed reroute for the initial segment of Trail #640. Only differing effects due to the Trail #640 route will be discussed below.

Trails Trail #640 From the trailhead parking area the trail would drop down to the lake, follow the Shoreline Trail south to the inlet beach area, then turn west along Stanley Lake Creek to connect with the existing alignment of Trail #640. Allowable uses on this trail would remain open to foot, bicycle, stock and two-wheeled motorized to the Wilderness boundary. The trail would no longer be co-located along a busy road as it is currently. Though no longer sharing the trail with vehicles and RVs, Trail #640

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

users would continue to experience congestion along the shared use segment of the Shoreline Trail.

The travelways in the inlet area would be reduced from multiple roads and trails to just the Shoreline Trail, which would serve both Trail #640 users and Stanley Lake visitors to the sandbar beach and inlet area. A single trail in the area will minimize wetland impacts, but channel users into closer and more frequent encounters with each other. This alternative would not reroute Trail #640 horse and two wheeled motorized use away from the lake, increasing potential conflicts on the shared use section of the Shoreline Trail. Visitor safety would be compromised by mixing stock and motorized use in an already busy day use area.

The shared segment of trail would be designed to fall within the assigned Development Scale (Three). However, the concentration of stock, motorized, pedestrian and bicycle traffic would dramatically increase the total social encounters and would likely exceed ROS direction for “moderate-to-low” numbers of contacts for Trail #640 users. (Roaded Natural Social Encounter indicator)

Shoreline Trail The trail would connect all of the developed sites from the newly constructed campground on the east side of the complex to the Inlet. From this point it turns into Trail #640. Though most of the trail would restrict equestrian and motorized use, the segment where it overlaps Trail #640 would include these uses, as discussed in the previous section. The Shoreline Trail would be designed to be fully accessible to Stanley Lake visitors of all ages and abilities. Use within the overlapping section of the Shoreline Trail and Trail #640 would require these differing users to monitor other users present, and exercise an extra margin of caution to safely share the trail.

The trail would be designed to fall within the assigned Development Scale (Three). The concentration of stock, motorized, pedestrian and bicycle traffic would increase the total encounters along the shared use section of Trail #640 and would likely exceed ROS direction for “moderate-to-low” numbers of contacts for trail users. (Roaded Natural Social Encounter indicator)

The additional social encounters created by the Shoreline Trail’s adjacency to developed campsites would be the same as discussed for Alternative 2.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Comprehensive Impact Access Consistency with the Roaded Natural class would be maintained and improved with the addition of barrier-free trail access to the complex. The shared segment of Trail #640 and the Shoreline Trail would require additional precautions by all users to safely share a trail between users of all modes.

Social Encounters The alternative would be fully consistent with Roaded Natural setting direction for Visitor Management, Facilities and Site Management, and Visitor Impacts.

Considered in total, the action would tend to maintain or enhance the prescribed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum objectives for the area. The exceptions would be as previously noted under

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative Two for Shoreline Trail impacts. Additionally, there would be an exceedance of the Social Encounters setting indicators in those areas of the shared segment of the Shoreline Trail and Trail #640. This combined trail area would create an increase in contacts over Alternative Two. This potential inconsistency would still be sufficiently limited in intensity and spatial extent to not trigger a change in the ROS designation; the overall proposal would still enhance Roaded Natural objectives.

Sawtooth NRA Recreation Niche This alternative would be fully compatible with the Sawtooth Niche. This is the second most desirable alternative in terms of meeting the recreation Success Factors. While it improves the financial sustainability of the area and improves existing wetland conditions, this alternative still falls short of Alternative 2 in terms of meeting the “increase visitor satisfaction” factor as it relates to trails.

Cumulative Effects – Alternatives 2 and 3 This project was designed as a comprehensive analysis for multiple needs in the area. As such, nearly all potential recreation activities in the watershed are proposed and evaluated cumulatively within this EA. The only additional potential action in the area would be the realignment of segments of the Elk Mountain Trail Loop. This popular mountain bike trail currently shares approximately 1 mile of the Stanley Lake Road. Routing the trail off the main road was previously analyzed in a separate EA (USDA 1999), but the action has not been implemented. The need for this realignment still exists, but it has not been identified as a priority trail project. There is currently no plan or funding for accomplishing this work.

The Affected Environment, and Environmental Effects, previously described in this Recreation section, incorporate the influence of prior actions. Prior actions influencing the recreation experience include: • Relocating a mile of the Stanley Lake Road ½ mile to the north in order to avoid chronic effects to Stanley Lake Creek. The reconstructed road replaced a rocky dirt road, with a paved surface. • Dispersed camping was removed from the outlet of Stanley Lake where resource conditions had severely deteriorated. Dispersed camping was also eliminated immediately across the road from the developed campgrounds, and from roadways closer to the mouth of Stanley Lake Creek. • In 1998, one and a half miles of Trail #640 was reconstructed (reroutes, elevated tread, drainage facilities) in order to avoid annual damage to extensive wet meadows above the Lake. • In 1999, the trailhead located on the banks of the inlet of Stanley Lake Creek was relocated ¼ mile north. • In 2001, 1/8 mile of abandoned roadway in wetland habitat near the mouth of Stanley Creek was removed. • In 2005, a lengthy segment of the inlet of Stanley Lake Creek was treated with log-worm fence to direct and concentrate visitor foot traffic. • The outlet area of Stanley Creek had log-worm fencing and other traffic controls constructed. • In 2007 the dead and dying trees were removed from the developed campgrounds.

Proposed and prior actions cumulatively impact visitors’ recreation experience. Restrictions on waterfront camping and increased visitor regulation are discussed below.

Water Access Many of the prior actions listed above were implemented to achieve restoration goals within the watershed. Each action, though improving watershed conditions, also added constraints to visitors 79

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

seeking waterfront recreation. Users, particularly dispersed campers, have found the sites they formerly used either moved further away from the creek, or removed altogether. Roads and trails have also received prior modifications to remove them from negatively influencing the watershed. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would further this trend by removing roads and developed campsites in waterfront areas. The loss of waterfront camping would be additive to previous removals in the area. Although the analysis area is limited to the Stanley Lake Creek watershed, the Sawtooth NRA recognizes that similar management restoration activities are reducing riparian-oriented recreation opportunities in multiple NRA watersheds.

Visitor Management Controls have been introduced to the area to minimize users’ impacts. Though slight, prior actions began the process of redirecting users away from sensitive resource areas, and towards more appropriate areas through closures, relocation, and barriers. The proposed action in Alternatives 2 and 3 include more controls of visitors – from foot traffic to designated dispersed camping. Much of the developed complex will have some redesign to better accommodate use and manage impacts. Although the proposals were determined to be consistent with guidelines for site development and the ROS, they nonetheless continue a trend towards more active management and regimentation of visitors in the area. Some visitors are sensitive to these changes. A more highly managed environment may diminish their recreation experience if they seek a retreat to a natural, uncontrolled environment.

The cumulative effects to recreation have been considered in project design. The action alternatives were designed to recognize the desire for recreational access to water, as well as limiting unnecessary user controls.

Forest Plan Consistency – All Alternatives The No Action alternative (Alternative 1) fails to advance the facility and recreation management direction, but would be in compliance with the Forest Plan direction. Alternative 2 and 3 are responsive to Forest Plan direction for visitor safety, accessibility, and resource protection. Both action alternatives fully implement Forest Plan guidance for recreation and facility management.

Environmental Justice The effects of the proposed action and the alternatives are discussed in this chapter. These effects are expected to be similar for all human populations regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income level. None of the alternatives entails any known inequitable distribution of social or environmental consequences to a particular group or segment of society.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Recreation Effects Summary Table 13. Recreation Effects, Summary Comparison by Issues

Key Issue & Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Indicators No Action Proposed Action Issue 1 -- Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level. Indicator: Site development will Site development will Site development will Recreation Site remain at the assigned remain at the assigned remain at the assigned Development Level 3 – Moderate Level 3 – Moderate Site Level 3 – Moderate Site Level Site Modification. Modification. Modification. Indicator: Site will largely maintain Consistency with consistency with Roaded Site will maintain Site will maintain Designated Natural Recreation consistency with consistency with Roaded Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Roaded Natural Natural Recreation Opportunity guidelines. Some risk of Recreation Opportunity Opportunity Spectrum Spectrum excess social encounters Spectrum guidelines. guidelines. where Trail 640 and Shoreline Trail overlap.

Issue 2 -- Relocating the Inlet Campsites will diminish waterfront camping opportunities. Indicator: Number 9 waterfront campsites 9 waterfront campsites of campsites within 23 waterfront available (60% available (60% reduction) 200 feet of water campsites available reduction) (creek or lake).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 14. Recreation Effects, Summary Comparison by Effectiveness Measures

Purpose Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – & Need Measure Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Element Risk of drinking water High Low Low contamination Improve Hand pumps and No Yes Yes safety, restrooms are accessible accessibility, Potential days of and usability 4,634 days 4,914 days 4,914 days of area developed campsite use facilities. Accessible paths present No Yes Yes Accessible fishing No Yes Yes platform present

Separation of vehicle Yes, but a segment roadway from other of Trail 640 will mix recreation users No Yes pedestrians with horse and Reduce motorbike. conflicts between Parking managed to pedestrian, reduce conflicts between bicycle and cars, boat trailers, No Yes Yes vehicle recreational vehicles and traffic. trailhead users Boat launching is not co- located with sandbar No Yes Yes beach activities Campsites are designated No Yes Yes for users Fires are restricted to fire Manage the No Yes Yes dispersed rings recreation Campsites are not allowed Yes, but difficult to campsites in within 150 feet of Yes Yes enforce. the Stanley lakeshore Lake area. Enforceable provisions in place to restrict use to No Yes Yes designated campsites

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Vegetation and Fuels Analysis Focus

The following measures were selected to track the effectiveness of the proposed actions in meeting the purpose and need of the project. The relevant forest vegetation and fuels-based measures include:

Vegetation health in the recreation complex. Measures: • Groundcover and vegetative screening between campsites, along lakeshore, and in remaining areas needing rehabilitation is re-established within 10 years.

Falling tree hazards and excess fuel loading. Measures: • Hazard trees managed and excess fuel removed where appropriate

These measures will be reviewed as part of the forested vegetation and fuels environmental effects analysis.

Affected Environment The recreation complex is located at approximately 6,500 foot elevation, at the base of nearby McGown Peak. Soils in the area are generally granitic, coarse, and well drained. The dominant overstory is lodgepole pine in the flats, changing to Douglas-fir and subalpine fir on north and east slopes. Aspen and Engelmann spruce can also be found intermixed within the area. The primary habitat type is Lodgepole Pine/Elk Sedge (Steel et al. 1981), which tends to persist as the dominate conifer for many generations with little evidence of replacement by other conifers.

70% of the mature lodgepole pine in the vicinity died from the mountain pine beetle infestation that started in 1999 with most of the mortality occurring by 2004. This loss of the overstory has negatively impacted desirable recreation amenities such as shading and screening. The smaller diameter trees not attacked by the beetle are susceptible to wind-throw. Many of these remaining trees also show evidence of physical damage and tree diseases such as western gall rust and mistletoe. Years of heavy use in the recreation sites and uncontrolled foot traffic have contributed to soil compaction, loss of vegetation, and a deteriorating overstory.

A hazard tree removal project was implemented in 2007 that removed close to 3000 trees in the Stanley Lake campgrounds. Campground trees that have died or fallen after the salvage harvest have been removed annually. Lodgepole pine will usually seed in these new created openings, but natural regeneration has not successfully taken hold in these heavily used campgrounds. Salvage logging of beetle-killed trees in the Stanley Lake area occurred only in the developed recreation areas.

Prior to the infestation, a thinning and fuels reduction project was undertaken along the Stanley Lake Road near the entrance to the campgrounds to provide a fuel break, improve tree vigor, and enhance views of the travel corridor (USDA 1999). This project successfully reduced bark beetle tree mortality in the treated areas. Openings created in the thinned areas are now established with new seedlings that will lead to increased structural diversity. These treated areas are the exception to general forest conditions in the area. Outside of the developed recreation area, and the 1999 thinning project, the

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

beetle killed trees in the vicinity remain.

Roadside areas outside of RCAs are currently open to firewood cutting. In decades past, timber cutting for post and poles, house logs, and sawtimber has occurred but little evidence of this activity is present in the project area.

The high level of mortality of lodgepole pine outside the developed recreation complex is leading to dramatically increased fuel loading. As deadfall increases, the area may become more susceptible to high intensity wildfire resulting in risk to public and firefighter safety. Typical lodgepole pine stands not affected by epidemic level MPB outbreaks have (dead) fuel loadings of 3-8 tons/acre. Fuel loading 10 years after the epidemic passes are estimated to be 20-30 tons/acre. Table 15. Forested Vegetaton and Fuels Forest Plan Direction Type Number Forest Plan Direction Use fire alone or with other management activities to treat Goal FMGO04 natural and activity fuels to a level that reduces the risk of uncharacteristic or undesirable wildland fires. Provide for protection of life, investments, and valuable Goal FMGO05 resources through appropriate vegetation, fuel, and wildland fire management. Continue to identify high fire hazard areas in wildland/urban Objective FMOB05 interface areas Identify developed recreation sites with priority vegetation Objective REOB14 management needs, and develop comprehensive vegetation management plans to address those needs. During planning for new sites, or the reconstruction of existing sites, developed recreation sites should be designed to channel Goal REGU16 foot traffic towards common use areas in order to preserve ground cover and “green islands” of vegetation within the site.

Provide for commercial harvest opportunities associated with Objective 02132 restoration activities to reduce fire and insect hazard. Use tree removal to maintain vegetative and ecosystem diversity, maintain or enhance SNRA values, maintain healthy forest Objective 02133 stands, and provide forest products for personal and commercial uses. Use release, weeding, and precommercial thinning to maintain Objective 02134 healthy stands and enhance SNRA values.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1(No Action)-- Direct and Indirect Effects

Developed Recreation Sites If no action were taken to improve groundcover and vegetative screening, the developed recreation sites would continue to decline in vegetation and forest health. In many areas, bare ground is exposed and

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

erosion is occurring. It is anticipated that through time, erosion would continue to occur and in some areas close to the lake, gullies and ruts would continue to expand and deepen.

Uncontrolled foot traffic would continue to prevent the establishment of new seedlings. The existing stand of trees would deteriorate and continue to breakdown and decline, with very limited regeneration of new trees to take their place. The shade and screening within the development would increasingly be lost.

Under current direction, hazard trees are identified, cut, and either removed off site or quickly cut up for campfire wood by campers. Since the wood is quickly disposed of there is generally not a fuel loading concern within and adjacent to the developed sites.

Road Corridor and Dispersed Camping Areas -- Hazard Trees and Fuels Areas outside of developed sites, such as dispersed sites and road corridors, have many trees that have been dead for over 10 years and are now routinely falling. Hazard tree risks would continue to be managed. Management may include felling hazard trees, or if felling exceeds forest resources, areas may be temporarily closed to public use until the extreme risk conditions subside.

No mechanical removal of fuels would occur. Fuel reduction would be limited to firewood collectors and slash burning. Forest Service crews would continue to burn slash piles left by wood collectors. Not all slash would be burned. Slash burning may not be desirable where fuel arrangement is excessively heavy, or where burning the deadfall would threaten remaining green trees. It is likely that the overall fuel loading would increase as firewood utilization and slash burning alone would not keep pace with the accumulation of dead and down material.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Developed Recreation Sites As hazard trees are identified and dropped, they would be left on site and not removed for firewood. (The developed sites are deficient in coarse woody debris) Leaving these trees on site would allow them to act as “nurse trees” that would slowly accumulate and decay on the forest floor. Strategically moving logs to desired locations would aid in controlling foot traffic, reducing soil compaction, and enabling new trees to take hold. This would in turn improve soil stability, slow erosion, and improve water retention.

Planting trees in areas that are denuded would eventually improve the forested recreation setting by increasing screening and shade trees. Efforts to increase stand diversity by planting a variety of native tree species such as Douglas-fir, subalpine fir and Englemann spruce, would create healthier stand conditions and improve aesthetics of the recreation complex. With a diverse forest, future insect and disease attacks would not uniformly attack the entire stand. A more resilient overstory would develop over the years.

To promote tree species diversity, character trees such as any existing Douglas-fir or subalpine fir would be retained and adjacent lodgepole pine trees would be cut to no more than 10-20 feet around these trees. Limited thinning around desirable healthy trees would improve tree vigor and the overall health of the existing stand. If needed, dense young stands of lodgepole pine would also be thinned to separate

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

trees crowns, promoting branch spread for increased screening. In time, the trees would become more wind firm and less susceptible to wind-throw.

Plantings and foot traffic management would make an immediate improvement for revegetation success. Over 5 years the change in management proposed should also improve groundcover and begin to provide adequate conditions for natural regeneration to supplement plantings. In 10 years the developed sites would have groundcover and vegetation adequately re-established. It would likely take decades for this re-established vegetation to mature sufficiently to once again provide shade and screening amenities. Vegetative conditions would improve within the recreation complex, over the long-term.

Road Corridor and Dispersed Camping Areas -- Hazard Trees and Fuels Hazard trees would be managed alongside roads and designated campsites. Salvage logging would provide a cost-effective means to treat larger areas than Forest Service staff would be capable of. Tree cutting would occur during late summer and into the fall to minimize conflicts with recreational traffic and nesting species. Some dispersed camps sites would be impacted with a closure during active logging operations. Firewood cutting would be restricted for one season until the salvage operation is complete, then reopened. There are ample opportunities nearby for both dispersed campers and firewood cutters and the impacts of a temporary closure would be minimal.

It is likely that many of the dead trees would be removed without skidding and would be picked up with mechanical self loaders stationed alongside the road. However, there may be some instances where skidding of logs would have to be done so the wood can be loaded and removed at a safer location. Signs posted along the roadway would alert the public that work is in progress.

Any ground disturbance caused by skid trails would be closed and rehabilitated after use. The ground would be scarified and woody debris spread over the area for site rehab. While tree removal activities take place, logs, limbs and tops would be temporarily noticeable and could be unsightly to some, in the short term. Tree boles and limbs would be cut to within 2 feet of the ground to reduce visual unsightliness. Slash would either be burned on site or removed off site.

In riparian conservation areas, hazard trees would be dropped and left on site unless they are not needed for soil, water, riparian, and aquatic needs. These areas would see an increase in dead and downed trees and an increase in fuel loading.

Thinning small trees along the road corridor would improve tree vigor and reduce maintenance costs in the long-term. Thinning in small diameter trees would increase wind firmness of the remaining trees in the future, and would lessen their susceptibility to insect and disease attacks.

Outside of riparian conservation areas, excess fuel loading would be removed. Vegetation along the roads would be sufficiently modified and maintained to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildland fire (defensible space).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 introduces an alteration in Trail #640 location. All forest vegetation and fuels treatments would remain the same for this alternative. The trail relocation does not change effects from that discussed as part of Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives The Affected Environment section introduced prior actions relevant to proposed forest and fuels activities. The effects described for each action alternative incorporate the influence of these prior actions. The only additional potential action in the area relevant to fuels and forestry cumulative effects would be the realignment of segments of the Elk Mountain Trail Loop. This popular bike trail currently shares the paved road for a segment. Routing this off the main road was previously analyzed in a separate EA (USDA 1999), but the action has not been implemented. The need for this realignment still exists, but it has not been identified as a priority trail project. There is currently no plan or funding for accomplishing this work. The trail work would be north of the main road and north of the lakefront complex, where most of the proposed activities would occur. If funded and implemented, it would involve limited forested vegetation removal for the new trail route.

Forest Plan Consistency – All Alternatives Alternative 1 fails to advance the forested vegetation and fuels management direction, but would be in compliance with the Forest Plan. Alternative 2 and 3 both fully implement Forest Plan guidance for vegetation and fuel management.

Forest Vegetation and Fuels Effects Summary

Table 16 – Forest and Fuels Effects, Summary Comparison by Effectiveness Measures

Purpose Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – & Need Measure Alternative 3 Element No Action Proposed Action

Hazard trees will be managed. Excess Hazard trees will be Hazard trees will be Hazard trees managed and fuel removal along managed. Excess managed. Excess Reduce excess fuel removed road corridors fuel removed via fuel removed via falling tree where appropriate restricted to burning. burning or burning or hazards and (no mechanical mechanical means. mechanical means. excess fuel removal) loading.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Botany The EA content below will summarize and highlight two botanist reports; the complete reports are available as part of the project record. (Taylor 2011a, Taylor 2011b)

Analysis Focus The following measures were selected to track the effectiveness of the proposed actions in meeting the purpose and need of the project. The relevant botanical resource related measures include:

Improve vegetation health in the recreation complex. Measure: • Groundcover and vegetative screening between campsites, along lakeshore, and in remaining areas needing rehabilitation is re-established within 10 years.

This measure will be reviewed as part of the botanical resources environmental effects analysis.

Affected Environment

Non-forest areas dominant overstory species include mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) green rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus) bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), currant (Ribes cereum), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Native bunch grass and forb species associated with upland openings are Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Wheeler’s bluegrass (Poa nervosa), bottlebrush squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), Sanburg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata ), pussytoes (Antennaria microphylla), sandwort (Arenaria capillaries), balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), silky lupine (Lupinus sericieus), sego lily (Calochortus nuttallii), and yarrow (Achillia millefolium), several species of buckwheats (Eriogonum sp), and numerous genera of Asteraceae including, Senecio, Erigeron, Hieracium, and Symphyotrichum species.

Wet meadow areas are prevalent above Stanley Lake and along Stanley Lake Creek inlet. These areas are associated with lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) and pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens. The wet meadow along Stanley Lake Creek inlet has an element occurrence of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species least moonwort (Botrychium simplex)

Existing riparian area vegetation around Stanley Lake and Stanley Lake Creek varies from a variety of willow species and hydric grasses and sedges to spruce bogs, and wetlands with peaty mineral saturated substrates. The primary associated vegetation includes Engleman spruce (Picea engelmannii ), little green sedge (Carex viridula ssp. viridula) , elephants head (Pedicellaris groenlandica), rough bentgrass (Agrostis scabra), analogue sedge (Carex simulate), shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa, fewflower spikerush (Eleocharis quinqueflora), Wolf’s willow (Salix wolfii), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), beaked sedge (Carex rostrata). Stanley Lake Creek riparian areas support element occurrences of two Forest Watch cares species Buxbaum's sedge (Carex buxbaumii)and Pale Sedge (Carex livida).

The Stanley Lake Recreation Complex has undergone a steady loss of overstory trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species due to recreation user damage, soil compaction, drought, insects and disease. Along

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

with the loss of vegetation, there is a loss of duff, litter, and woody debris and in many areas little to no natural regeneration is occurring.

ESA Listed Plant Species -- Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) The Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for one federally listed threatened terrestrial plant species. Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is not known to occur within the project area. Surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses orchid in the analysis area were conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The surveys found no individuals. Surveys did identify the lakeshore riparian area within project areas as having characteristics associated with potential habitat. However, due to the decades of recreational use around the lakeshore, the vegetation is denuded, trampled, soil is compacted subsequently soil erosion and alterations to shoreline hydrology have occurred so therefore the recreational use areas are no longer considered potential habitat.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Species The Sensitive species list reflects species for which populations or habitats appear to be trending downward, or those for which little are known. Forest Watch species are indentified in the Sawtooth Forest Plan, and updated periodically to identify local species of concern. These species may not meet all the criteria for being designated a Sensitive species, but are tracked by Forests when sufficient population viability concerns exist.

Twenty six Sensitive and Watch species are not included further in this analysis for the project since their occurrences and suitable habitats do not exist in the analysis areas. Five Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Plant Species will be included in this analysis: Table 17. Sensitive & Forest Watch Plant Species Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Plant Species Species Affected Environment Slender Moonwort Potential habitat for slender moonwort does exist on the Sawtooth (Botrychium National Forest; however no additional populations of this species have lineare) been located in the project area. Considering the diverse habitats slender moonwort is known to occupy; areas of suitable habitat exist within the project areas. Least Moonwort There are two occurrences of least moonwort in or near the proposed (Botrychium project in similar lodgepole habitat. Least moonwort is known to occur simplex) in Stanley Lake and Elk Creek. The Stanley Lake meadow occurrence is located directly adjacent to the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex along the Stanley Creek Inlet trail and into the meadow. Surveys in 2008, 2009, and 2010 did not find additional occurrences but did identify areas of suitable habitat within the project areas. Stanley thlaspi There are known occurrences approximately three miles from Stanley mustard (Thlaspi Lake Recreation area. Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana and Festuca aileeniae) idahoensis communities exist in the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex, however surveys conducted located no Stanley thlaspi mustard individuals.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Plant Species Species Affected Environment Buxbaum's sedge Buxbaum’s sedge does occur along Stanley Lake Creek, side channels, (Carex buxbaumii) standing water areas and adjacent ponds. Typically associated peaty mineral saturated substrates in areas with Carex oederi, Pedicellaris groenlandica, Agrostis scabra, Carex simulata, Dasiphora fruticosa. Surveys conducted in 2008, 2009 and 2010 did locate occurrences within the areas proposed for activities in Alternatives #2 and #3. Pale Sedge (Carex There are known occurrences approximately three miles from Stanley livida) Lake Recreation area. Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana and Festuca idahoensis communities exist in the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex, however surveys conducted located no Stanley thlaspi mustard individuals.

Non-Native Invasive and Noxious (Weed) Plant Species Non-native invasive and noxious plant species degrade native plant communities by altering species composition, structure and function of native ecosystems and can affect factors such as wildlife forage, fire interval, and community succession. In areas adjacent to the project there are non-native invasive species growing in areas that have ongoing disturbances such as roads, trails, parking areas, campgrounds and on private land. The following are species known to occur on the Sawtooth NRA near the project area.

• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a creeping rooted perennial that is common in riparian areas on the Sawtooth NRA. It grows along the Salmon River and its tributaries. It is highly mobile from wind-born seeds and the soil seed bank holds Canada thistle seeds that germinate and grow when areas are disturbed. • Rush Skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea) heavily infests along highway 21 to the east of the Sawtooth National Forest and occurs along roads in low densities on the Sawtooth NRA. It is highly likely that this species does or will occur within the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex area. • Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) is widespread on the Sawtooth NRA and is found adjacent to Stanley Lake Recreation Complex area. • Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris ) is known to occur along roads accessing the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex area. • Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) infestations occur within the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex area and adjacent along access routes. • False or Scentless Chamomile (Tripleurospermum perforatum) is known to occur adjacent to the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex area along access routes.

Additionally, non-native invasive species along State Highway 21 include infestations of smooth brome (Bromus inermis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium,) alfalfa (Medicago sativa), field brome (Bromus arvensis ), bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), and mullein (Verbascum Thapsus).

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

ESA Listed Plant Species The No Action Alternative would have No Direct Effects on the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid or its unoccupied potential habitat. Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Species Table 18. Alt. 1, Sensitive & Forest Watch Species Direct Effects Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Species NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE -- DIRECT EFFECTS The No Action Alternative could have Direct Effects to slender moonwort. These disturbances include off road travel by vehicles and OHV that could trample individuals and create ground disturbance that Slender Moonwort increases the potential of introducing non-native plant species into suitable habitat that could compete for resources with slender moonwort The No Action Alternative could have Direct Effects to least moonwort Least Moonwort for the same reasons listed for the slender moonwort above. The No Action Alternative would have No Direct Effects to Buxbaum’s Sedge Buxbaum’s sedge. The No Action Alternative would have No Direct Effects to Pale Pale Sedge Sedge. Stanley thlaspi The No Action Alternative would cause Direct Effects to Stanley mustard thlaspi mustard for the same reasons stated above for the moonworts.

Indirect Effects could occur to all the above mentioned species occurrences and/or suitable habitat, under the no action alternative. These affects would include the introduction and spread of non-native invasive and noxious species changing community composition and successional pathways, delivering additional sedimentation downstream to suitable TEPC species habitat and inadvertently altering hydrologic regimes. The use of road maintenance chemicals and herbicides could be toxic to plant pollinators, soil microbes, and mycorrhizal fungi associated with the above mentioned species either eliminating pollinators from the area that would change reproduction and/or changing affiliated soil conditions.

Non-Native Invasive and Noxious (Weed) Plant Species Existing levels of risk of introduction or spread of non-native invasive and noxious plant species would continue to exist, under the no action alternative. Treatment of noxious weeds within the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex area would continue. The use of chemicals in the environment could indirectly change community species composition and successional pathways. The use of herbicides could eliminate pollinators from the area that would change the reproductive cycles of the plant species dependent of those pollinators altering reproduction, alter soil microbes and mycorrhizal fungi and change community composition.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Recreation Complex Vegetative Health The ongoing loss of groundcover throughout the developed recreation complex would not be addressed. The overall vegetative health within the complex would continue the downward trend previously described.

Alternatives 2 and 3 (Action Alternatives) – Direct and Indirect Effects

ESA Listed Plant Species Areas along the Stanley Lake shore and Stanley Lake Creek have characteristics of potential habitat and associated species and are located at a great enough distance from the heavy recreational use to be considered potential habitat. These areas of potential habitat are at a great enough distance from the actions associated with alternatives #2 and #3 that they would not be affected.

Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative #2 and Alternative #3 to Relocate Recreation Facilities in the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex would have No Direct Effects on the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid or its unoccupied potential habitat.

All Alternatives could produce Indirect Effects to Ute ladies’-tresses orchid unoccupied potential habitat that exists in the Stanley Lake area. The equipment and vehicles for ongoing maintenance activities and the implementation of action alternatives could inadvertently introduce and/or spread non- native invasive and noxious species that could alter community composition and successional pathways which could out compete Ute ladies’-tresses for resources. The use and application of chemicals and herbicides could be toxic to plant pollinators associated with Ute ladies’-tresses orchid eliminating them (pollinators) from the area and altering reproduction and soil conditions.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Species Table 19. Alt. 2 and 3, Sensitve & Forest Watch Species Direct Effect Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Plant Species ACTION ALTERNATIVE -- DIRECT EFFECTS Considering the diverse habitats slender moonwort is known to occupy, several areas of potential habitat exist within the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex. Some of these habitats could be disturbed during implementation of proposed activities. These disturbances include off road travel by vehicles and equipment that could trample individuals. Ground disturbing activities within the potential habitat could alter Slender Moonwort mycorrhizal fungi and soil conditions necessary for this species. Ground disturbing activities could destroy the spores of this species that exist in the soil. Potential habitat could be Directly Affected by the Proposed Action Alternative, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The implementation of Alternatives #2 and #3 could disturb the known least moonwort occurrence and unoccupied potential habitat. These Least Moonwort disturbances include off road travel by vehicles, and equipment that could trample individuals and create ground disturbance that would be 92

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Forest Watch Plant Species ACTION ALTERNATIVE -- DIRECT EFFECTS detrimental to the survival of individual least moonwort, create soil compaction and alter the potential habitat. Alternatives #2 and #3 could have Direct Effects on least moonwort individuals and unoccupied potential habitat but would will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The implementation of Alternatives #2 and #3 could disturb the known occurrences of Buxbaum’s sedge and additional unoccupied potential habitat. Alternatives 2 & 3 could have Direct Effects on Buxbaum’s sedge individuals. This includes death of individuals or groups through construction of new trails, removal of existing fill, existing trail rehabilitation, and proposed wetland rehabilitation. Actions Buxbaum’s sedge contributing to these effects include vegetation removal, soil disturbances, and alteration of hydrological regimes. Impacts would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. (Buxbaum’s sedge is a perennial stoloniferous sedge and expected to be capable of resprouting if the root system is temporarily disturbed during implementation of the proposed action) Alternatives #2 and #3 could have Direct Effects on unoccupied potential habitats that exist within the project areas. Actions contributing to these effects include soil disturbances, and alteration of Pale sedge hydrological regimes. Impacts would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The suitable habitat identified within the proposed project area could Stanley thlaspi be Directly Affected but would will not likely contribute to a trend mustard towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

These determinations are based on implementing Stanley Lake Recreation Project in compliance with mitigation measures that minimize impacts, including those on any habitat components. No impacts are expected to the degree that survival or reproductive successs is negatively affected in the long-term. If new occurrences of the species were located in areas where new ground disturbance was intended to occur, measures to minimize disturbance would take place.

Indirect Effects could occur to all the above mentioned species occurrences and/or suitable habitat, under both action alternatives. These affects would include the introduction and spread of non-native invasive and noxious species changing community composition and successional pathways, delivering additional sedimentation downstream to suitable TEPC species habitat and inadvertently altering hydrologic regimes. The use of road maintenance chemicals and herbicides could be toxic to plant pollinators, soil microbes, and mycorrhizal fungi associated with the above mentioned species either

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

eliminating pollinators from the area that would change reproduction and/or changing affiliated soil conditions.

Non-Native Invasive and Noxious (Weed) Plant Species The Proposed Action Alternatives could potentially introduce and/or increase the existing infestations of non-native invasive and noxious weeds in the project. All sites with non-native invasive species have viable seed in the soil and movement of this soil scarifies the seed and aids in germination as well as moving seed to other locations.

This action includes avoidance of non-native invasive and noxious plant species. Equipment and vehicles involved in implementation activities would be pressure washed prior to entering Forest. The project are would be monitored for noxious weed infestation annually.

Herbicide applications may be employed for noxious weed treatments and would utilize approved chemicals, practices, limitations, and terms existing at the time of intended use. As such, no use of herbicides would occur without perquisite consideration of the potential effects to TEPC species, and/or Section 7 consultation, either as tiered to a programmatic analysis, or project specific.

All Alternatives include the continued use of herbicides to treat noxious weed infestations. The use of chemicals in the environment could indirectly changing community species composition and successional pathways. The use of herbicides could eliminate pollinators from the area that would change the reproductive cycles of the plant species dependent of those pollinators altering reproduction, alter soil microbes and mycorrhizal fungi and change community composition.

Recreation Complex Vegetative Health Vegetation improvement would be implemented through plantings with seedlings produced from locally collected, genetically adapted seed, as well as locally collected native seed mixes. Planting and seeding would increase understory groundcover within the complexes’ disturbed areas and stabilize soil along lakeshore and creeks. This in conjunction with actions that remove campsites, roads and walking paths from sensitive areas, the installation of control fences, designated lake access areas, and installing raised walking paths, would greatly improve overall native vegetation health and vigor. The re-establishment of natural hydrological regimes would also improve the hydrophytic vegetation in Stanley Creek and adjacent wetlands.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives No specific time limit was established for past actions for this cumulative effects discussion. The boundary for this discussion includes the Stanley Lake Creek drainage. This discussion includes present, forseeable and past management activities, but is not to be considered inclusive of all activities within the area.

Fire suppression and alteration of the fire regime has affected vegetation. The effects of fire exclusion include changes in canopy density and understory species composition. Commercial timber sales and fuels reduction projects have impacted vegetation in and adjacent to this area. Impacts from these activities include canopy removal, soil compaction and a potential source of non-native invasive species on vehicles and equipment used for implementation.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Past management activities and disturbances have contributed to the establishment and distribution of non-native invasive and noxious plant species in the project area. Past forest activities, such as grazing, vegetation treatments, recreation uses, road maintenance and travel along roadways, including gravel and paved roads probably affected the abundance and distribution of noxious or invasive weeds in the project area. However, without information on known distribution of non-native invasive and noxious plant species, the past effects of management actions would be unclear. Sources of introduction for noxious or invasive weeds are often unclear and difficult to verify.

The effects described for each alternative incorporate the influence of these prior actions. There are no known additional projects planned for the project area that could cumulatively affect the botanical resources reviewed above. Cumulative effects associated with Alternative 2 & 3 to individuals or potential habitats of slender moonwort, least moonwort, Buxbaum’s sedge, pale sedge, and Stanley thalspi mustard, could occur with implementation of the proposed action. The level of affects would not be to the extent that would contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Cumulative effects associated with the No Action alternative would continue to exist as in the past. Ongoing and permitted uses on National Forest System lands would continue within the project area.

Forest Plan Consistency –Alternatives 2 and 3 The proposed project is consistent with the Sawtooth NF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

Botany Effects Summary

Table 20 – Botany Resource Effects, Summary Comparison by Effectiveness Measure

Purpose Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – & Need Measure Alternative 3 Element No Action Proposed Action

Groundcover and Without planting Improve vegetative screening and establishing Groundcover and Groundcover and vegetation between campsites, along footpaths, vegetation will be vegetation will be health in the lakeshore, and in groundcover and adequately adequately recreation remaining areas needing vegetation will not reestablished within reestablished within complex. rehabilitation is re- be adequately the next 10 years. the next 10 years. established within 10 reestablished within years. the next 10 years.

Other Effects Visual Resources There were no visual resource issues identified in relation to the proposed project. The purpose of the project does not include a specific visual resource need. As such, the EA content for this resource will

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

summarize the findings of the specialist report. The complete report is available as part of the project record. (Phillips 2011)

The Sawtooth NRA follows direction in the Sawtooth Forest Plan describing acceptable levels of landscape modification. The Sawtooth NRA has been classified and mapped according to Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) prescribing the level of activities compatible with the landscape. This system describes a range of desired conditions, but more importantly provides a means of assessing the potential visual effect of various proposals, relative to prescribed management objectives found within our current Forest Plan. These planning guidelines and management direction are provided to assure the protection of Sawtooth National Forest scenic values, and cannot be compromised. The VQOs in the project area are:

Retention – provides for management activities that are not visually evident to the casual Forest visitor. Activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture which are frequently found within the characteristic landscape. Changes in size, intensity, patterns etc. should not be evident.

Partial Retention - provides for management activities which remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color or texture common to the characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., remain visually subordinate.

Inclusive in the visual analysis completed for the proposal is a project-level review of the adopted VQOs. Project level ‘truthing’ of VQOs occurs to ensure that mapping, completed at a Forest scale, is accurate for the site. A site-specific review of the current VQOs in the area identified a need to update the VQO from Retention to Partial Retention. This change would reflect the existing recreational developments in the area, as well as Forest Plan VQO direction for managing Wild and Scenic River areas. If the revised VQO is adopted as a non-significant Forest Plan amendment, the Forest VQO map will be modified accordingly.

The need for the update and the total area of the update do not change as a result of this project. The revised VQO reflects the current recreation activities and would permit the Forest Service to maintain consistency in administering and operating these areas in the future, much as they have in the past.

Affected Environment

Much of the project area is located along the north shore of Stanley Lake and an area north of the lake outlet between the creek and the access road. The landscape slopes gradually toward the lake with the steepest sections along the northeast corner of the lake. Vegetation varies between dry upland sites dominated by lodgepole pine to several wet areas adjacent to the lake with a more diverse community of forbs and shrubs. Most of the proposed development is confined to the upland sites by design. Views from almost anywhere within the project area are afforded by the open expanse of the lake and the attraction is the Sawtooth range beyond with Mt. McGown dominating the viewshed background.

All of the proposed project area is viewable within the immediate foreground viewing distance zone. Visibility is determined from travel routes and use areas.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

The general public has varying levels of sensitivity to management activities in this area, typically dependent upon the activity occurring. People use this area to recreate and to access other recreational opportunities. Due to the very high level of recreation use this area receives, users would likely display a high-level of sensitivity to the landscape character.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1: No Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action Alternative, the site would continue to function as is and the VQO update would still be implemented with a slight adjustment in boundaries compared to the proposed action. The visual effects of the No Action Alternative are minimal. As a result of the non-significant Forest Plan Amendment described above, the existing recreation impacts to the visual resource would come into compliance with the updated Forest Plan VQOs.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Discussion of the proposed design elements associated with the proposed action assume that the VQO update is implemented; each Alternative is analyzed against meeting the revised VQOs at a minimum.

Boat Ramp: The relocated boat ramp would be constructed of concrete plank with an associated dock and otherwise minimally developed (signage etc.). Access and staging would occur adjacent to the new proposed day use area. Concrete planks would be colored to match adjacent soil color. Natural materials would be used on the dock and galvanized fasteners concealed. With the mitigations described, this feature would meet the updated VQO of Partial Retention.

Inlet Day Use Recreation Area (including Forest Trail #640 Trailhead) The day use area would include picnic tables, a restroom, and cooking facilities (grill or fire ring). Access would be walk-in from an adjacent parking area and hardened surfaces would be of natural materials. The trailhead would be improved with delineated parking through use of wheel stops, which would also act as edge control. The natural surface reroute of trail #640 would not affect visuals.

Use of natural materials for the picnic tables and native surfacing for the day use sites along with log or log worm parking barriers for the parking areas would help mitigate visual impacts associated with this development. With the mitigations described above, these features would meet the updated VQO of Partial Retention.

Shoreline Trail (including accessible fishing pier) An accessible natural surface trail is proposed to connect the lakeshore recreation sites from the inlet bar, around to Stanley Lake campground. An accessible fishing dock is proposed near the inlet and a raised walkway would be required to cross a wet slough near the inlet. Natural materials would be used on the dock and raised walkway, and galvanized fasteners concealed. With the mitigations described above, this feature would meet the updated VQO of Partial Retention.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Stanley Lake Campground Expansion Campground would be expanded along a spur extending parallel with the lakeshore from the existing campground. Typical campground site elements would include picnic tables, fire rings, hardened campsites, signage and a restroom. This feature would meet the updated VQO of Partial Retention.

Dispersed Camping Area Along Forest Roads 70640 and 70640A This proposal is to formalize (with a sign and fire ring) the allowed dispersed campsites in this area and reclaim the remainder. Due to the extreme low level of development and the vegetated setting which screens and keeps viewing distances minimal – the proposal is expected to meet the updated VQO of Partial Retention.

Summary – Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: With visual mitigations, this Alternative would meet the applicable existing and updated VQOs.

Alternative 3 Effects for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects were identified for visual resources.

Forest Plan Consistency All alternatives were determined to be consistent with adopted VQOs, which provides Forest Plan direction for visual resources.

Wildlife The Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for numerous species, including many of special concern due to population declines or habitat degradation. Project impacts are routinely evaluated for all listed and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Forest Service classified sensitive species, for Management Indicator Species (MIS), and for migratory birds. The responsible official may also request consideration of additional species and their habitats if there are unique concerns regarding the project.

Many of the species which receive special emphasis for effects analysis occupy an expansive territory. They may be known to occur in central Idaho, have suitable habitat in the project area, but have not to- date been documented in the project area. They are nonetheless evaluated for project impacts if they, or their prey, have the potential to use habitat affected by the project.

There were no wildlife related issues identified in relation to the proposed project. The purpose of the project does not include a specific wildlife need. As such, the EA content for this resource will summarize the findings of two wildlife specialist reports. The complete reports showing all direct, indirect and cumulative effects, for all alternatives, are available as part of the project record. (Garwood 2011a, Garwood 2011b)

Direct and Indirect Effects -- All Alternatives The proposed project is expected to have both negative and beneficial impacts to wildlife and the habitat they use. The wetlands restoration proposed would benefit species that utilize this habitat for all or part of their lifecycle. 98

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Managing vegetation to reduce fuel risks, and felling hazard trees would alter forested habitat. These activities would occur in or adjacent to existing roads and developments. Creating the replacement campground would require new development in forested habitat. Considered together, a net loss of forested habitat is anticipated with both of the action alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3).

Alternative 2 impacts differ only slightly from Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would impact more forested area (.4 acres). (Alternative 2 includes a reroute of Trail #640 that enables a larger area of wetlands restoration, but creates new trail in forested habitat)

Both action alternatives include numerous mitigations to minimize negative effects to wildlife.

Endangered Species Effects The ESA requires the Forest Service to maintain or improve habitat for species with an identified viability concern. The Forest Service analysis of ESA species is documented in the project Biological Assessment (Garwood 2011). Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is consulted for review of Forest Service project level ESA determinations.

There would be no change to the existing condition for ESA listed species with Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would not likely adversely affect Canada lynx or wolverine, would not jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf, and would have no effect on greater sage-grouse or yellow-billed cuckoo. Alternative 3 effects present a slight improvement to total lynx and wolf habitat by impacting 2% less forested habitat than Alternative 2.

Forest Service Sensitive Species Effects The Forest Service sensitive species list reflects species with population or habitat trending downward, or those for which little are known. Impacts should be avoided or minimized to sensitive species. If impacts cannot be avoided then the Forest must analyze the significance of the potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern, and on the species as a whole. Impacts may be allowed but the decision must not result in a trend toward federal listing.

There would be no change from current impacts with Alternative 1, for all sensitive wildlife species. Alternative 2 would have no impact on pygmy rabbit, bighorn sheep, mountain quail, or white-headed woodpecker. These determinations are based on the conclusion that there is no habitat for these species in the project area. Alternative 2 may impact individuals of fisher, common loon, bald eagle, northern goshawk, great gray owl, flammulated owl, boreal owl, and northern three-toed woodpecker but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing of these species. Alternative 2 would have a beneficial impact on the spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, peregrine falcon, and spotted frog because of the overall improvement of wetland habitat as a result of the project.

Alternative 3 effects present a slight improvement to fisher, common loon, bald eagle, northern goshawk, great gray owl, flammulated owl, boreal owl, and northern three-toed woodpecker habitat, by impacting 2% less forested habitat than Alternative 2.

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Management Indicator Species Effects MIS species are identified because their populations are thought to represent the effects of management activities, and because they may serve to represent effects on other species with similar habitats. MIS species are designated in the Sawtooth Forest Plan, which provides the following direction:

“Mitigate management actions within known nesting or denning sites of MIS or Sensitive species if those actions would disrupt the reproductive success of those sites during the nesting or denning period. Sites, periods, and mitigation measures shall be determined during project planning.” (Wildlife Resources Standard WIST03).

Habitat for one MIS species, pileated woodpeckers, is present in the project area. Important habitat components for pileated woodpecker include large snags for nesting and foraging and coarse downed wood for foraging. Alternative 1 would have no change in impacts from current conditions. Alternative 2 and 3 would result in a decrease in total available habitat. However, due to the mountain pine beetle outbreak there are many snags within the project area which have been falling and would continue to fall over the next decade. This process would continue to provide coarse downed wood for pileated woodpecker foraging.

Tree falling for construction of the campground and restoration work would take place late summer and fall, outside of the woodpecker nesting season so that no active nests would be disturbed. Trees considered high risk could be felled anytime, so some risk of felling an active nest would exist The timing restriction of most project vegetation management activities meets the mitigation requirements for MIS management and all alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan direction.

Migratory Bird Effects The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as further defined by interagency agreement, directs federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principals, measures, and practices into agency activities and to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions.

Alternative 1 would have no change in impacts from current conditions. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase wetland habitat and decrease forest habitat. These habitat changes would benefit those species that require wetlands, and be detrimental to those requiring forested habitat. The project has been designed to reduce mortality to nesting birds and is in compliance with direction to protect migratory birds.

Forest Plan Consistency All alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction for wildlife conservation.

Cumulative Effects A full list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities considered for cumulative effects considerations is included in the project record specialist report for wildlife (Garwood 2011). The report concluded there would be no cumulative wildlife effects associated with Alternative 1. The wetland restoration activities of Alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute positive cumulative effects to species that use riparian and wetland habitats. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also contribute negative cumulative effects due to a decrease in forested habitat quality, and an increase in human activity in the area.

100

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state and local agencies, and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: Interdisciplinary Team Members: Steve Frost, Recreation Specialist and Interdisciplinary Team Leader Shawn Robnett, Forest Engineer Matt Phillips, Landscape Architect Deb Taylor, Botany Jim Rineholt, Forester Matt Filbert, Fire and Fuels Manager Mark Moulton, Fish/Water Program Leader Robin Garwood, Wildlife Biologist Bret Guisto, Cultural Resources Kim Hofeldt, Editor

Agency Advisors: Sara Baldwin, Area Ranger, Sawtooth NRA Carol Brown, Assistant Forest Planner Rebecca S. Nourse, Sawtooth Forest Supervisor

Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Entities: US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marines Fisheries Service Idaho State Historic Preservation Office Custer County Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Idaho Department of Fish and Game

101

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

REFERENCES Arp, C. D., J. Schmidt, M. Baker, and A. Myers 2007. Stream geomorphology in a mountain lake district: hydraulic geometry, sediment sources and sinks, and downstream lake effects. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, 525–543

Contreras, G., M. Scott, R. Medel, and B. DeCarufel 1978. Annual Progress Report for the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Aquatic Habitat Action Program FY78. On File, Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

Evermann, B.W. 1896. A report upon salmon investigations in the headwaters of the Columbia River in the State of Idaho, in 1895. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission 16:151-202.

Executive Order 11988, 42 F.R. 26971, May 24, 1977. Floodplain Management. Signed by President Jimmy Carter, Washington, D.C.

Executive Order 11990, 42 F.R. 26961, May 24, 1977. Protection of Wetlands, Signed by President Jimmy Carter, Washington, D.C.

FEMA 1988. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Custer County, Idaho, Map Number 16037C0725 C. Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program.

Federal Highway Administration. 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US Department of Transportation. Available online: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Garwood, R. 2011a. Biological Assessment and Evaluation of the Effects of Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project on Terrestrial Wildlife Species. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

Garwood, R. 2011b. Wildlife Report for Stanley Lake Renovation Project. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Reconstruction -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

ICBTRT 2007. Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs: Review Draft. Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team. Available at: http: //www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_documents/ictrt_viability_criteria_reviewdraft_2007_body.pdf

IDEQ, 2008. Guidance for the Use of Wood Preservatives and Preserved Wood Products In or Around Aquatic Environments. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.

IDEQ. 2009 Department of Environmental Quality Working Principles and Policies for the 2008 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality

Martinez, P.J., P. Bigelow, M. Deleray, W. Fredenberg, B. Hansen, N. Horner, S. Lehr, R. Schneidervin, S. Tolentino, A. Viola 2009. Western Lake Trout Woes. Fisheries Vol 34, No 9. American Fisheries Socitey.

102

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Moulton, M. 2011. Valley Creek All Aquatics Biological Assessment Binder (after page STAN-22). Biological Assessment of Effects of Ongoing and Proposed Federal Actions on the Valley Creek Subpopulation of listed Snake River Sockeye, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Snake River Steelhead, Columbia River Bull Trout, and sensitive Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

Moulton, M. 2011. Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project, Fish, Stream and Riparian Resources Report. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) 1999. Recreation Area Fire Prevention. NFES 2601, National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705.

NOAA, 2009. The Use Of Treated Wood Products In Aquatic Environments: Guidelines to West Coast NOAA Fisheries Staff for Endangered Species Act and Essential Fish Habitat Consultations in the Alaska, Northwest and Southwest Regions. NOAA Fisheries - Southwest Region.

Phillips, M. 2011. Visual Evaluation for the Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

Public Law 92-400. 1972. Establishing Sawtooth NRA: An Act to establish the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in the State of Idaho, to temporarily withdraw certain national forest land in the State of Idaho from the operation of the United States mining laws, and for other purposes.

Quigley, Thomas M. and Sylvia J. Arbelbide, Tech. Eds ., 1997, An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Vol. III, Chapter 4, Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and Habitats, General Technical Report PNWGTR- 405, Portland, Oregon, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Rahm, G. and K. Larson. 1972. Land characteristics and soil and hydrologic evaluation for the Sawtooth, White Cloud, Boulder, and Pioneer Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region

Rineholt, J. 2011. Stanley Lake Vegetation Management Plan. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

Robnett, S. 2011. Roads Analysis for the Road System Associated With the Stanley Lake Renovation Project. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

Rodeheffer, I.A. 1935. A survey of the waters of the Challis National Forest, Idaho. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries. Washington, D.C.

Rothwell, E. 2001. Stanley Lake Lakeshore Condition Inventory 2001, Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Report on file, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Ketchum, Idaho.

103

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Schoby, Gregory P. 2007. Seasonal Migrations of Bull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, and Rainbow Trout In the Upper Salmon River Basin, Idaho, Report 2003, 2004, 2005. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Report # IDFG 07-12

Spence, Brian C., Gregg A. Lomnicky, Robert M. Hughes, Richard P. Novitzki, 1996, An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation, TR-4501-96-6057, ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR (available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon)

Steele, R.; Pfister, R. D.; Ryker, R. A.; Kittams, J. A. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. General Technical Report INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1981. 138 p.

Taylor, D. 2011a. Biological Assessment and Evaluation of Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Action on Terrestrial Plant Species. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

Taylor, D. 2011b. Botanical Specialist’s Report for Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project. Unpublished report, on file with the Sawtooth NRA, Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project -- Project File, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service. 1979. Aquatic Habitat Surveys, Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Report on file, Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service 1982. Forest Service ROS Users Guide

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Level II Riparian Evaluation, Stanley Lake Creek. Report on file, Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service 1990. Forest Service ROS Primer and Field Guide, R6-REC-021-90.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Stanley Lake Creek Habitat Inventory 1992. Data on file, Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Stanley Lake Vegetative Analysis, Environmental Assessment. Project Record on file with the Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Stanley Lake Creek Habitat Inventory 2002. Data on file, Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Project Red Tree. Project Record on file with the Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Revised July 2003. Twin Falls, Idaho. Two Volumes.

104

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sign and Poster Guidelines for the Forest Service, EM 7100-15. Forest Service, Engineering Staff, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service 2006. National Visitor Use Monitoring for Sawtooth National Forest. September 2006. USDA Forest Service Region 6.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Biological Assessment of Effects of Ongoing and Proposed Federal Actions on the Valley Creek Subpopulation of listed Snake River Sockeye, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon Snake River Steelhead, and Columbia River Bull Trout and sensitive Westslope Cutthroat Trout. On file Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. Project: Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project. Report on file, Project Record on file with the Sawtooth NRA, 5 North Fork Canyon Road, Ketchum, ID 83340.

USDI, 1999. National Wetlands Inventory, Elk Meadow, Idaho Quadrangle (DRAFT). United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Western Wood Preservers Institute, 2006. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic and Other Sensitive Environments. Vancouver, WA.

Western Wood Preservers Institute, 2006a. Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments — A Specification and Environmental Guide to Selecting, Installing and Managing Wood Preservation Systems in Aquatic and Wetland Environments. Vancouver, WA.

Wofford, J. 2008. Effects of Recreational Use on Lake Shore Conditions in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Report on file, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Ketchum, Idaho.

105

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A – RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project

Following is a summary of the public letters, emails, and phone calls received during the 30-day “Notice of Proposed Action” public comment period for the project. The comment period occurred from October 1 through October 30, 2009. (See EA, Chapter 1, Public Involvement for details)

58 responses to this proposal were received. Most of the responses had multiple concerns or comments with different facets of the proposal. The comments displayed below are excerpted from the original letter to represent the essence of the comment or concern. The complete text of the comments may be read in the project file. Similar comments were grouped together for response. If the Forest Service comment response references the EA, it will include the location in the EA where the issue was addressed. The comments of general support for the project are not further noted in this appendix.

These comments were reviewed by the team assigned to developing and reviewing this proposal, and the deciding official for the project. The team was able to modify the original proposal based on many of the comments. These adjustments are slight and do not reflect a substantially different action than what was previously scoped.

Public involvement generated many comments regarding the proposal, but not all comments are issues. Key Issues considered in this analysis are unresolved conflicts regarding anticipated effects of the proposed actions. Key Issues are not those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest 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.

A large proportion of comments received oppose the basic premise of removing facilities from the inlet area wetlands. Improving wetlands integrity is the foundation behind the purpose and need of the project, and closely adheres to Forest Plan management direction. We could develop no alternative that both met the purpose and need, and retained facilities in the inlet area wetlands. We can however recognize that in the analysis, the no-action alternative reflects the desired outcome of many respondents who would prefer to see no change occur at Stanley Lake.

Some comments reflected a concern with Stanley Lake management, but not with respect to the proposed action. These comments are outside the scope of this project, but are passed on to managers for consideration with future projects. We also received comments that raised issues about the effects of the proposed action. The deciding official evaluated these concerns and selected two as being key issues that required additional review and disclosure in the Environmental Assessment.

The following table summarizes comments received, the Forest Service response to the comments, and key issues identified from comments.

106

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Comments/Concerns Specific Suggestions and Comments Forest Service Response to Disposition of Comments— Primary Categories Comments and Suggestions Key Issue Identification #1 – Don’t close the Inlet Close these sites during flooding and Leaving the sites in place would Keeping the inlet campsites does not Campground then charge more for their use later in continue resource impacts caused by meet the project purpose and need for Many people state that they love the season when the sites are dry. road and campsite washouts. improving wetland integrity. (EA, camping right on the lake front, and Chapter 1) Not removing these the inlet campsites in general are their Charging more for premium sites facilities is equivalent to taking no preferred location. does not meet USFS policy for action. providing equal access to all. Others support closing these ------Taking no action is considered in the campsites because of wet conditions Is there an engineering solution to The Roads Analysis1 indicated an analysis under Alternative 1. and other resource concerns. keep the Inlet sites from flooding? engineering solution would be costly; gains would not equal the benefits of Other supportive comments to closing removing the road and recreation sites the sites were based on access within the wetlands. concerns. They stated all people ------should have access to the lake – not Inlet sites that don’t flood would be just those with lakeside campsites. Keep inlet sites that don’t flood. converted to day use, to meet the Convert sites to day use. need for lakefront recreation access. ------The changed camping experience in Relocated campsites will not Comment integrated into proposed the replacement campground will duplicate the Inlet Campground action. Proposed action extends the be evaluated as a key issue. (See EA experience. The new campground southeast campground spur to Chapter 1, Issue 2 – Relocating the should have lakeviews. accommodate the relocated camp Inlet Campground will diminish sites. This would still provide some waterfront camping opportunities, replacement campsites with a lake and Chapter 3, Recreation analysis) view, though without a location on the lake shore.

1 A Roads Analysis for the Road System Associated with Stanley Lake Renovation Project was prepared by the Sawtooth National Forest engineering staff and approved by the Sawtooth NRA Area Ranger. The analysis is a part of the Environmental Analysis Project Record located at the Sawtooth NRA.

107

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Comments/Concerns Specific Suggestions and Comments Forest Service Response to Disposition of Comments— Primary Categories Comments and Suggestions Key Issue Identification #2 – Don’t close the road to the sand Make maintenance and design Leaving the road in place would Keeping the road to the sandbar does bar modifications to lessen flooding continue resource impacts. not meet the project purpose and need People love the sand bar and don’t damage: to improve wetland integrity. (EA, want the road closed to get there. • clean the culvert Roads Analysis1 indicated an Chapter 1) Not removing the road is They feel that closing the road would • put in a larger culvert engineering solution would be costly; equivalent to taking no action. severely limit access to the lake. • put in a bridge gains would not equal the benefits of • build up the road removing the road and recreation sites Taking no action is considered in the • put down gravel and let within the wetlands. analysis under Alternative 1. water flow over it Access to the sand bar would be maintained with the construction of an accessible trail.

108

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Comments/Concerns Specific Suggestions and Comments Forest Service Response to Disposition of Comments— Primary Categories Comments and Suggestions Key Issue Identification #3 – Don’t relocate the boat launch The proposed site is relatively Forest engineers have determined the See #2 above. Access to the sandbar Some people feel the current boat shallow and boxed in by underwater proposed new boat launch site is boat launch requires the road remain, launch at the sand bar is an ideal hazards. feasible. which is equivalent to taking no launch location and are concerned ------action. Taking no action is considered about changing the boating An improved boat launch will lead to The boat launch (and associated in the analysis under Alternative 1. experience with a developed boat too many boats, and bigger boats. parking) proposed would neither launch. increase nor decrease launch opportunities for a differing number or size of boats. ------A constructed concrete ramp would The Sawtooth NRA is obligated to ------be out of character at Stanley Lake construct facilities that are consistent Proposed action effects to the with assigned development levels, character of Stanley Lake will be recreation opportunity spectrum, and evaluated as a key issue relative to visual quality objectives. the reconstruction proposal, including a concrete ramp. See Chapter 1, Issue1 – Renovations will exceed an appropriate development level, and Chapter 3, Recreation analysis and Visual Resources.

109

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Comments/Concerns Specific Suggestions and Comments Forest Service Response to Disposition of Comments— Primary Categories Comments and Suggestions Key Issue Identification #4 – Maintain dispersed camping Allow dispersed camping somewhere Comment integrated into proposed Dispersed camping would be Many people camp in the dispersed – some people like to get away from action. Proposal would establish managed, but not eliminated. (See area because they like to get away others. Install toilets and fire pits. dispersed camping criteria for EA, Chapter 2, Alternative 2, from the noise of the developed application throughout the watershed. Component 4 – Dispersed Camping campground and they want to get Dispersed sites would be designated. Management) away from people. Some state that Overall capacity to remain they have not noticed any detrimental approximately the same. Fire rings effects from their use of the area. would be installed, toilets could be installed. Others applaud the Forest Service’s ------efforts to close or actively manage Close the road to the “maze” but The road would remain open for use, dispersed camp areas because of allow walk-in use. so long as the designated campsite unattended fires and human waste program is successful in controlling issues. Vehicles “joy riding” off impacts. Closing the road could be designated travel routes in the area reviewed in the future, if needed. was also a concern. ------Formalize the use in the “maze” into The current management change group sites and charge for them would be restricted to designating dispersed sites, with no current plan for charging for these. Designated group sites are currently available in the general vicinity (Elk Creek).

110

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Comments/Concerns Specific Suggestions and Comments Forest Service Response to Disposition of Comments— Primary Categories Comments and Suggestions Key Issue Identification #5 – Limit boat motors and jet skis Boat use on the lake should be limited We are not proposing changes to the Limiting or changing type and size of on Stanley Lake to paddlers, small boat engines less type of boat use on Stanley Lake. watercraft on Stanley Lake was not People feel the character of Stanley than 5 horsepower, or electric motors. The proposed action is intended to part of the public scoping for the Lake is small, remote and quiet and maintain current boating project. Limiting the size, class, and that the lake is too small for water opportunities. type of boats allowed on Stanley skiing, large boats, and jet skis. The Lake is outside the scope of this wake from the larger boats and jet project. If this issue is pursued in the skis is also thought to contribute to future, it would need to be addressed soil erosion on the lake front. by Custer County waterways and marine patrol, which authorize use on County waterways. We have shared input to this project with the County, and they are receptive to addressing this in the future.

#6– Maintain the character of Keep it small and uncrowded. Comment integrated into proposal, Proposed action effects to the Stanley Lake campsites would only be built to character of Stanley Lake will be Respondents who commented on the Don’t add additional campsites. replace campsites lost from Inlet evaluated as a key issue relative to character of Stanley Lake stated that Campground closure. No expansion the reconstruction proposal. See they like the small, remote, quiet feel Keep it simple. of overnight camping is proposed. Chapter 1, Issue1 – Renovations will of the area and they don’t want it to exceed an appropriate development develop into a Redfish-Lake size Keep it natural/rustic. level, and Chapter 3, Recreation development. analysis and Visual Resources.

#7—Noise level Generator use should be subject to Though not proposed as a part of this This topic is related to the previous quiet hours. project, the Sawtooth NRA can two. administratively implement generator A generator-free loop should be restrictions, as needed. available. #8-- Accessibility Accessible fishing platform shown in The fishing platform location was re- Comments were integrated into Comments were very supportive of scoping is in a poor location. evaluated after receiving public proposed action. providing accessible recreation comment. The location proposed is opportunities to people of all abilities. now closer to the sand bar beach, reached by a new accessible trail.

111

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

Comments/Concerns Specific Suggestions and Comments Forest Service Response to Disposition of Comments— Primary Categories Comments and Suggestions Key Issue Identification

#9—Shoreline Trail The Shoreline Trail may be located Shoreline Trail impacts will be Most comments on this topic were near several existing campsites, evaluated and disclosed in the supportive. Some questioned the need impacting their sense of privacy. This analysis. for it and the disruptive impact of the would only occur where necessary trail to campsites it will travel by. due to terrain limitations.

#10—Tent Camping The proposal was not scoped to A shift to tent-only camping was not Comments expressed a desire to eliminate RV/camper sites in favor of identified as part of the project’s establish tent-only camping at Stanley tent-only camping. The project purpose and need, and there is no Lake. objective is to maintain similar intent in this proposal to eliminate campground opportunities post- RV’s or campers from a portion of construction, as presently available. campsites. However, a portion of the replacement campsites may better fit Some sites may however be better the terrain being sized and designed suited to tent camping, and designed for tents, and creating a limited accordingly. number of tent-sized sites would not be inconsistent with the proposal. Camping outside of the developed campgrounds would still be available at designated dispersed campsites, and may be preferable for some tent campers. #11—Group Camps Creating group camp sites is not Creating group camp sites is not a Comments expressed a desire to consistent with the concern to component of the proposed action. create group camp sites, both from maintain Stanley Lake’s quiet users of these sites, and non-group character. Group camps tend to be Group use at the day-use sites, during campers that would prefer to have louder, often later into the evening. day use hours, may be an opportunity larger, louder groups separated from offered in the future. general campers. The additional day use sites proposed may be reservable for group use in the future, with group gatherings limited to daytime hours.

112

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

113

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX B – CHANGES FROM 30-DAY NOTICE

The formal 30-day Notice of Proposed Action occurred from October 1 through October 30, 2009. (See EA, Chapter 1, Public Involvement for further details)

In response to comments, the advertised proposal has been modified. The modifications described below are incorporated into Alternative 2, the proposed action. As per 36 CFR 220.7.b.2.iii, the description of the proposal may include a brief description of modifications and incremental design features developed through the analysis process. The map originally sent out with the 2009 Notice of Proposed Action is attached below for comparison.

1. There would be no expansion of developed campsites as originally planned. The advertised proposal included a new campground with 24-30 campsites, expanding total developed campsites by 10-15. The Modified Proposed Action would replace the 14 Inlet campsites planned for removal, but the proposal of creating 15 additional campsites has been eliminated.

2. The 14 site replacement campground is in a slightly different location. It would stretch out along the northeast side of the lake, rather than sandwiching the new campsites above the existing Stanley Lake campground, and below the main road. The new location would afford more opportunities for lake and mountain views, and avoid the congestion concerns from a concentrated network of campsites.

3. Dispersed camping outside of the developed campgrounds in the vicinity would remain as a recreation opportunity. Appropriate sites would be designated for use, and others closed, but the overall capacity is expected to remain the same.

4. The accessible fishing platform shown on the October 2009 map is relocated closer to the Stanley Lake Creek inlet.

5. From the Stanley Lake Trailhead, the Trail #640 route is altered with Alternative 2. The modification is responsive to the project objective of reducing traffic conflicts. User conflicts are expected to be decreased by separating congested day-use trails at the lakefront, from #640 trail users on horseback and motorbike. This alteration would also allow some additional wetland area to be restored along Stanley Lake Creek.

Alternative 3 includes modifications 1-4, but not modification 5. Alternative 3 trail locations are the same as shown in October 2009.

Modifications 1-4 were adopted in response to comments, and #5 was developed to improve traffic safety, as well as reduce the total social encounters between trail users. The changes do not represent a substantially different action than what was previously scoped.

114

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

October 2009 Map of Proposed Actions:

115

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX C – STANLEY LAKE HAZARD TREE POLICY

Stanley Lake Hazard Tree Policy 1. The recreation staff is responsible for conducting annual preseason hazard inspection and documentation in the developed recreation sites. The Sawtooth NRA forester is available to assist.

2. The annual review will identify hazard trees and note high risk hazards. High risk trees are those presenting an imminent risk to a target -- those areas that have concentrations of people, parked vehicles, and permanent structures.

3. Trees ranked as a high hazard will be felled or otherwise addressed prior to allowing use in the affected area. Lower risk hazard trees will be monitored and the risk managed, but site closure is not required prior to mitigating the risk.

4. Hazard tree training from the Forest Health Protection staff is available for both recreation staff and concessionaires. The staff forester can assist in scheduling training.

5. Minimize the need for trees with active nests or occupied cavities to be felled.

Preferred timing for hazard tree felling is August 10 to February 28. No additional mitigation for migratory birds is necessary during this period. Though fall is the ideal period for felling, current conditions created by the beetle epidemic create an ongoing windthrow and mortality problem throughout the year. A fall hazard tree treatment can’t preclude the need for a spring season inspection and treatment period. If staff is only available to review and treat hazards once per year, in the off season, this will likely occur in the spring, until at least 2015.

May 1-15 provides a second period for tree felling with low risk to songbird species. Sensitive owl species, great gray and boreal, may be present and breeding during this period, trees to be felled should be first checked for boreal cavities and great gray large nests.

High risk hazard trees may be felled May 15-August 10, during nesting season. High risk trees may develop in nesting season following summer storm events. High risk hazards will be managed. Managing the risk may mean moving the target, topping, or felling the tree. High risk trees will be felled unless the hazard can be otherwise mitigated.

6. Felling Practices -- A fallen tree with an exposed root wad is preferable to a cut stump. Some hazard trees may be as easily pushed over, than cut. If cutting, cut stumps flush (within 4”) to the ground. Waffle- cut stump faces and cover them with a shovel full of dirt to help dull the cut face, and facilitate decomposition.

7. On-site use of felled or fallen trees – Much of the developed recreation areas around Stanley Lake are in need of ground cover, soil re-building and revegetation. The sites are expected to be closed to firewood gathering until sufficient coarse woody debris (CWD = 3” diameter material and larger) is again present.

116

Stanley Lake Recreation Complex Reconstruction Project Environmental Assessment

During this period of restoration, downed trees and woody debris in the developed recreation areas will be used on site. If practical, they may be left where they lay as natural barriers to protect vegetation, or used elsewhere around Stanley Lake. Besides leaving on the ground as a barrier, they may be utilized to delineate campsite boundaries, construct foot trails, create barrier fencing, etc.

For trees left lying on site, tree boles should be limbed so they rest completely in contact with the ground, along their entire length. Slash should also be in contact with the ground as much as possible, preferably no higher than 12 inches. Smaller diameter slash material (less than 3”) may be removed or redistributed as needed.

Slash and woody debris will be pulled away from facilities, from within campsite fuel reduction zones, and 10 feet from fire rings, grills and other combustion sources.

8. If a hazard tree management policy is subsequently developed for the Sawtooth NRA, it will supersede this limited direction for Stanley Lake.

117