Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Access and Travel

United States Department Revised Environmental of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service

January Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed 2005 Access and Travel Management Plan and Forest Plan Amendment #20

Snoqualmie Ranger District, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

For Information Contact: Team Leader: Doug Schrenk Snoqualmie Ranger District 42404 SE North Bend Way North Bend, WA 98045 (425) 888-1421, extension 233 [email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Page i

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...... 1 INTRODUCTION -- BACKGROUND ...... 1 CHANGED CONDITIONS FROM MARCH 2002 EA...... 1 REVISED PROPOSED ACTION (ALTERNATIVE E)...... 2 Proposed Road Decommissioning, Selected Conversion to Trail...... 3 Access to Private Lands ...... 3 Access to Mining Claims ...... 4 Proposed Seasonal Trail Use...... 5 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION...... 6 Purpose...... 6 Need ...... 6 REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 7 The Forest Plan ...... 7 Land Allocations...... 8 Tier 2 Key Watershed ...... 9 Selected Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines...... 9 Key Watersheds (1994 ROD, C-7):...... 9 Riparian Reserves (1994 ROD, C-31-37):...... 9 Forest-wide Recreation, Trail Standards and Guidelines (1990 Plan, 4-84-91)...... 10 Other Laws, Direction, and Analyses Considered ...... 12 DECISION FRAMEWORK...... 13 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 13 First “Scoping” Letter...... 14 EA Released for Public Comment, April 2002...... 14 Decision Notice Signed September 2003 ...... 15 Decision Appealed ...... 15 MAJOR ISSUES ...... 15 Soil, Water, Aquatic and Resources...... 16 How measured...... 16 Access ...... 16 How Measured ...... 16 Recreation...... 16 How Measured ...... 16 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES...... 17 INTRODUCTION...... 17 ALTERNATIVE NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL...... 17 Forest Service Maintain Road 5600 past the Proposed Closures for Private Landowner Access...... 17 Reason for Elimination from Detailed Analysis...... 17 Seasonal Closure of Road 5600 with a Gate at the Taylor River Bridge (Included in 2003 Decision)...... 17 Reason for Elimination from Detailed Analysis...... 17 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 18 Alternative A – No Action ...... 18 Alternative B ...... 19 Road 5600 Retained as ML 2 Road, Open to Public Motorized Use; Middle Fork Trail Seasonally Open to Mountain Bikes ...... 19 Alternative C...... 20 Road 5600 Gated at Dingford Creek, Closed to Public Motorized Use for 7.6 Miles; Middle Fork Trail Closed to Mountain Bikes ...... 20 Alternative C, continued ...... 21 Alternative D...... 23 Road 5600 Gated just past Junction with Road 5640, near the Taylor River Bridge, Closed to Public Motorized Use for 14 Miles; First 6 Miles of Middle Fork Trail Closed to Mountain Bikes...... 23 Alternative D, continued ...... 24 Alternative E – Proposed Action...... 25

Page ii

Road 5600 Gated at Dingford Creek, Closed to Public Motorized Use for 7.6 Miles; Middle Fork Trail Seasonally Open to Mountain Bikes...... 25 Alternative E – Proposed Action, continued ...... 26 MITIGATION MEASURES, MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD PRACTICES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 29 Soil, Water, and Aquatic Resources (standard mitigation and best management practices from fish biological assessment to mitigate sediment and eliminate or minimize impacts to soil water and aquatic resources) ...... 29 Vegetation (from Botany biological assessment/report)...... 29 Vegetation, continued ...... 30 Wildlife (from wildlife biological assessment and USFW Service concurrence 2003)...... 30 Northern Spotted Owls:...... 30 Marbled Murrelets...... 30 Deer and Elk Winter Range: ...... 30 Cultural Resources (from cultural report)...... 31 Traffic Control/Recreation...... 31 Fire ...... 31 MONITORING...... 31 All Alternatives ...... 31 Alternatives E...... 31 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES: HOW THEY RELATE TO THE MAJOR ISSUES...... 34 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 33 INTRODUCTION...... 33 LOCATION ...... 33 Land Ownership...... 33 Private Landowners...... 33 AIR QUALITY...... 34 SOIL/WATER RESOURCES ...... 34 Geology...... 34 Land Areas and Soils ...... 34 Surface Soil Erosion...... 34 Mass Wasting...... 35 Hydrologic Processes...... 36 Water Quality...... 37 Washington Department of Ecology 303(d) List: ...... 37 Management Effects...... 38 Vegetation Disturbance and Rain-on-Snow ...... 38 MINING...... 39 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 40 Historic Properties...... 40 Current American Indian Uses ...... 41 WILDERNESS RESOURCES...... 41 ROADLESS AREAS AND UNROADED CHARACTER ...... 42 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS...... 42 FIRE...... 43 INFRASTRUCTURE...... 44 Roads ...... 44 Trails...... 46 VEGETATION ...... 46 Vegetation Series ...... 46 Fragmentation ...... 47 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plants...... 47 Noxious Weeds...... 48 WILDLIFE ...... 48 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species, Critical Habitat...... 49 Northern Spotted Owl ...... 49 Marbled Murrelet ...... 50 Bald Eagle...... 50 Gray Wolf ...... 50

Page iii

Grizzly Bear...... 51 Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 52 Townsend’s Big Eared Bat...... 52 California Wolverine...... 53 Larch Mountain Salamander ...... 53 Van Dyke’s Salamander...... 53 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Management Indicator Species (MIS)...... 53 Other Species of Concern ...... 54 Migratory Birds/Landbird Conservation ...... 54 AQUATIC SPECIES...... 54 RECREATION ...... 55 Developed Recreation...... 55 Trailheads...... 55 Campgrounds ...... 56 Dispersed Recreation...... 57 Trails...... 57 Non-Wilderness Recreation Use ...... 57 Backcountry Area and Alpine Lakes Wilderness ...... 58 Winter Recreation ...... 58 Water Sports ...... 58 Hunting ...... 59 Recreation Special Uses ...... 59 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 59 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 60 INTRODUCTION...... 60 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects...... 60 Description of Past Actions...... 60 Description of Recently Approved Actions...... 61 Description of Current, Proposed and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions...... 61 Overview of Major Issues: ...... 62 Soil, Water, Aquatic Resources ...... 62 Access...... 62 Recreation...... 62 LAND OWNERSHIP...... 62 Land Ownership...... 62 Cumulative Effects...... 62 All Alternatives...... 62 Effects to Access, Private Land and Mining Claims ...... 63 Alternatives A (No Action) and Alternative B...... 63 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 63 Alternative D...... 64 Cumulative Effects...... 65 Alternatives A (No Action) and B ...... 65 Alternatives C and E...... 65 Alternative D ...... 65 AIR QUALITY...... 65 All Alternatives...... 65 Cumulative Effects...... 66 SOILS/WATER RESOURCES ...... 66 Alternative A (No Action)...... 66 Alternative B...... 66 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 67 Alternative D...... 67 Cumulative Effects...... 68 Alternative A, No Action...... 68 Alternative B...... 68 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action)...... 68 Alternative D ...... 68 RIPARIAN RESERVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS...... 69

Page iv

RF- 2: For Each existing or planned road meet Aquatic conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives by: minimizing road and landing locations in riparian reserves and minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow...... 69 Alternative A (No Action)...... 69 Alternative B...... 69 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 69 Alternative D...... 70 Rf-3: Determine the influence of each road on the ACS objective through watershed analysis. Meet the Aquatic conservation Strategy objectives by: Closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing road based on the ongoing and potential effects to the ACS objectives and considering short-term transportation needs...... 70 Alternative A (No Action)...... 70 Alternative B...... 70 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 70 Alternative D...... 71 Cumulative...... 71 MINING (ACCESS)...... 71 Alternatives A (No Action) and Alternative B...... 71 Alternatives C, D, and E (Proposed Action) ...... 71 Cumulative Effects...... 72 All Alternatives...... 72 HERITAGE RESOURCES AND AMERICAN INDIAN INTERESTS ...... 72 Historic Properties Rewrite:...... 72 Cumulative Effects...... 72 American Indian Interests and Uses ...... 72 Cumulative Effects...... 72 WILDERNESS RESOURCES...... 72 Alternatives A (No Action) and B...... 72 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 73 Alternative D...... 73 Cumulative Effects ...... 74 INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS AND UNROADED CHARACTER ...... 74 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 74 All Alternatives...... 74 Unroaded Character...... 75 Alternative A (No Action)...... 75 All Action Alternatives ...... 75 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 75 Alternative D...... 75 Cumulative Effects...... 75 Alternative A ...... 75 All Action Alternatives...... 75 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS...... 75 All Alternatives...... 75 Alternative A (No Action)...... 76 Alternative B...... 76 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 76 Alternative D...... 76 Cumulative Effects...... 77 FIRE...... 77 All Alternatives...... 77 Cumulative Effects...... 77 INFRASTRUCTURE...... 77 Alternative A (No Action)...... 77 Alternative B...... 77 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 78 Alternative D...... 78 Cumulative Effects...... 78 VEGETATION ...... 79 Timber/Vegetation Management...... 79 Alternative A (No Action)...... 79 All Action Alternatives ...... 79

Page v

Alternative B...... 80 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 80 Alternative D...... 80 Cumulative Effects...... 80 Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive ...... 80 All Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E ...... 80 Cumulative Effects...... 80 Alternative A (No Action)...... 80 Alternative B...... 81 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 81 Alternative D...... 81 Cumulative Effects...... 82 WILDLIFE ...... 82 Federal Threatened, Endangered Species and Critical Habitats ...... 82 Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet ...... 82 Alternative A (No Action) ...... 82 Alternatives B, C, D and E...... 82 Alternatives B, D and E (Proposed Action) ...... 82 Gray Wolf and Grizzly Bear ...... 83 Alternative A (No Action) ...... 83 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 83 Alternative B...... 83 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action)...... 83 Alternative D ...... 83 Bald Eagle...... 84 Alternative A (No Action) ...... 84 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 84 Alternatives B, D, and E (Proposed Action) ...... 84 Canada Lynx ...... 84 Alternative A (No Action) ...... 84 Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed Action)...... 84 Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 85 Alternative A (No Action) ...... 85 Townsend’s big eared bat...... 85 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 85 California Wolverine...... 85 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 85 Larch Mountain and Van Dyke’s Salamander...... 85 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 85 Management Indicator Species (MIS)...... 85 Alternative A (No Action)...... 85 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 85 American Marten (pine marten)...... 85 Piliated Woodpecker and Other Primary Cavity Nesters ...... 85 Mountain Goats ...... 86 Deer and Elk ...... 86 Other Species of Concern from the Northwest Forest Plan (As Amended By the March 2004 ROD to Remove Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines) ...... 86 Bat roost sites...... 86 All Alternatives...... 86 Migratory Birds/Landbird Conservation ...... 86 Alternative A (No Action...... 86 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 86 Cumulative Effects...... 86 All Species Except Grizzly Bear...... 86 Grizzly Bear...... 86 AQUATIC SPECIES...... 87 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) and Critical Habitat for TES Species ...... 87 All Alternatives...... 87 Aquatic Species and Habitat...... 87 All Alternatives...... 87 Alternative A (No Action)...... 88

Page vi

Alternative B...... 88 Alternatives C and E ...... 88 Alternative D...... 89 Cumulative Effects...... 89 RECREATION ...... 89 Impacts to Day-Hike Opportunities in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness within the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed...... 89 Alternative A (No Action)...... 90 Alternative B...... 90 Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) ...... 90 Alternatives D ...... 90 Cumulative Effects...... 90 Effects on Opportunities for Mountain Bikes...... 91 Alternative A (No Action)...... 91 Alternative B...... 91 Alternative C...... 92 Alternative D...... 92 Alternative E ...... 93 Cumulative Effects...... 93 Potential Effects/Conflicts with Trail Users by Mountain Bikes...... 93 Alternatives A (No Action)...... 93 Alternative B...... 94 Alternative C...... 94 Alternative D...... 94 Alternative E ...... 95 Cumulative Effects...... 95 Alternative A ...... 95 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 95 SOCIAL / ECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 96 Alternative A...... 96 Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action)...... 96 Cumulative Effects...... 96 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 97 Alternative A (No Action)...... 97 Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) ...... 97 Cumulative Effects...... 98 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...... 98 CHAPTER 5 – INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM, OTHER CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHER AGENCIES CONSULTED ...... 99 MEMBERS OF THE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ...... 99 OTHER CONTRIBUTORS ...... 99 AGENCIES CONSULTED...... 99

Page vii

Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest Western Washington Cascades Province

North Cascades National Park

CANADA UNITED STATES

Mt. Rainier National Park

Mt. Baker - Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed Cities / Towns Snoqualmie Analysis Area Boundary Population National Forest ------Major Forest River Private Lands within Systems < 1000 Forest Service Administrative Boundary Interstate Highway 1000 - 10,000 Mapscale = 1:2300000 Major Highways Lands Proposed for Exchange 10,000 - 100,000 USDA Forest Service Lands Proposed for Acquistion Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest > 100,000 Geographic Information Resource Team Surrounding National Forests 23 October 2000 National Parks Ross Lake National Recreational Area

Page viii Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

INTRODUCTION -- BACKGROUND This environmental assessment (EA) revises the March 2002 Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment. On September 26, 2003, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor John Phipps made a decision on this proposal, which was documented in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access and Travel Management Plan Decision Notice – FONSI (MBS 2003). In November 2003, Northwest Wilderness Programs, Lew Landers, Bob Jackson, Rick Dillhoff, Glenn Morita, John Cornish and Wesley Gannaway—all private landowners and mining claimants whose access to their lands and/or mining claims would be affected by the decision—filed appeals of the decision to the Regional Forester.1 Bart Cannon, a private citizen, also appealed the decision. On December 5, 2003, Acting Forest Supervisor Y. Robert Iwamoto withdrew the September 26, 2003 decision: there was a need to address and resolve the issue of access for the private landowners and mining claimants before the decision could be implemented, but within the short timeframe of the appeals process, the issues could not be resolved. From December 2003 to June 2004, several meetings were held between the private landowners, mining claimants and the Forest Service to resolve access issues.

CHANGED CONDITIONS FROM MARCH 2002 EA The March 2002 EA analyzed closing to motorized access the dispersed recreation campsites adjacent to Roads 5600 and 5640. In June 2004, Ranger District staff and Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust physically blocked motorized access into these dispersed campsites (as part of routine road maintenance) because of unacceptable rutting and driving off Road 5600 and 5640 into the Middle Fork and Taylor Rivers and their side- channels Since motorized access to these dispersed sites has been blocked, no further analysis will be necessary. Analysis of recreation use on all trails except Trails 1003, 1003.01, 1003.1, and 1003.2 (commonly known as the Middle Fork Trail) will not be examined in this EA. The original analysis determined current use to be the appropriate use on all trails except the Middle Fork Trail. The March 2002 EA analyzed decommissioning approximately 19.6 miles of road acquired by the Federal government as part of the Huckleberry Land Exchange. Better mapping identified that there were actually only about 17.0 miles of road identified for decommissioning. The 2003 Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration Decision Memo made a decision to decommission about three miles of these roads, located in section 23, T24N, R9E. Decommissioning work was completed in 2003, therefore only approximately 14.0 miles of Huckleberry Land Exchange roads will be analyzed for decommissioning in this EA.

1 Written request to review a decision under 36 CFR Part 215.

Page 1 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

The March 2002 EA also proposed changing the maintenance levels (ML) on 3.7 miles of Road 5600 from ML 3 to ML 4, 0.2 miles of Road 5600-510 from ML 2 to ML 3, and 2.8 miles of Road 5640 from ML 2 to ML 1. The maintenance level of Road 5600 will be decided in the Federal Highway Administration Middle Fork Road Improvement Project EIS, currently underway. The maintenance level of the first 0.2 miles of Road 5600-510 (ML 3) was determined in the 2003 Middle Fork Campground Environmental Assessment Decision Notice---FONSI. The revised proposed action (See the following section) for this EA proposes decommissioning and/or conversion of roads no longer needed for forest management. The first 2.8 miles of Road 5640 past where it is gated on the Taylor River Bridge was dropped from consideration in this EA because the original analysis determined this section of road would not be decommissioned. Finally, expansion of parking facilities at the Pratt River Bar and Camp Brown Dispersed sites will not be examined in this EA. Through the original analysis, it has been determined that with routine maintenance of the existing parking facilities (brushing and grading, as needed), these sites contain adequate area to accommodate needed parking for available dispersed day/camping use.

REVISED PROPOSED ACTION (ALTERNATIVE E) The Forest Service proposes to implement an access travel management plan for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Major components of the proposal include de- commissioning2 about 30.8 miles of National Forest System (NFS) road, and converting about 7.6 of those decommissioned road to a low-maintenance trail/private road and 2.3 miles to trail. (This compares to 36.4 miles of road decommissioning included the 2003 Decision.3) See Table 1, below, and Figure 2-5 in Appendix A. Additionally, the proposed action would open approximately 13. 8 miles of trails for mountain bike use on odd- numbered days, on a seasonal basis: roughly from April 15 through October 31, depending upon trail conditions (see below). This proposal includes a non-significant (under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)) Forest Plan amendment, to change the existing

2 Roads Proposed for Decommissioning no longer serve a current or planned future access need. When decommissioned, they would be removed from the Forest transportation system, maps, and database. The ground occupied by the road corridor would be managed according to the land allocation in which it is located. When a road is "decommissioned,” the actual treatment varies, depending upon the condition of the road. The primary objectives of decommissioning are erosion control (not elimination of erosion) and restoration of hillslope hydrology. Secondary objectives include: protection of aquatic habitat; accelerating re-establishment of the pre-existing native plant community; accelerating successional development towards a later seral stage; and enhancement of wildlife habitat. Decommissioning treatments will range from no treatment to total removal of the road prism and drainage structures. Treatment options might include: no treatment, pulling back the sidecast fill, removing all culverts, completing deep ripping of the road surface, re-contouring the slopes, and mulching and/or re-vegetation. 3 The March 2002 EA analyzed decommissioning approximately 19.6 miles of road acquired by the Federal government as part of the Huckleberry Land Exchange. Better mapping identified that there were actually only about 17.0 miles of road identified for decommissioning. About 3.0 miles were decommissioned in 2003 as approved in Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration Decision Memo. Therefore only approximately 14.0 miles of Huckleberry Land Exchange roads will be analyzed for decommissioning in this EA, which is 5.6 miles less than in the March 2002 EA. Also refer to Changed Conditions section, above.

Page 2 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

closure to mountain bikes on these trails. All proposed road decommissioning and conversion to trail or to a low-maintenance trail/private road would be completed as funding becomes available; work would start on this project during spring/summer 2005.

Proposed Road Decommissioning, Selected Conversion to Trail Table 1, on page 5, shows the total miles of road now proposed for decommissioning in the drainage. Road 5600, from roughly the Dingford Creek Trailhead to its terminus at Hardscrabble Trailhead (7.6 miles) would be converted to a multi-user trail (hiker/pack- saddle/mountain bikes), with special provisions for access for private landowners and mining claimants. See further discussion below. In conjunction with the trail conversion, sanitation facilities would be provided at the Dingford Creek Trailhead. Additionally, parking would be expanded to up to a maximum of 30 cars by reestablishing the original perimeter of the Dingford Creek Trailhead parking area. This would be accomplished by cutting and grubbing alder and brush that have encroached into the parking area and into the south shoulder of Road 5600 just prior to the trailhead. Once cleared the area would be graded to provide the expanded parking (up to 18-20 more vehicles). Also, 2.3 miles of Road 5600-50 (CCC road) would be decommissioned and converted to a multi-user trail (hiker/pack and saddle/mountain bike), starting at the west line of Section 25 to its junction with Road 56. Access to Private Lands To address the need for access to private lands and mining claims on Road 5600 past the Dingford Creek Trailhead, the following actions are proposed: • The Forest Service would install a gate on Road 5600, just past the trailhead (Dingford Creek Bridge). The segment would be closed to public motorized use and removed from the Forest transportation system: • The Forest Service would include pull culverts (about 15) and replace all but four culverts with driveable dips for access by hikers, pack-and-saddle stock, mountain bikes, and in-holder high-clearance vehicles. New pipes would replace the remaining four culverts. Additional work would include filling holes in the road; smoothing out the trail/private road surface (travel way), and brushing (cutting) vegetation along the sides of the travel way. This work would result in a low-maintenance travel way. If in-holders were to no longer need motorized access, no further road decommissioning would be necessary. • Private landowners would be granted private road easements to access their properties. Easements would be 10 feet in width, and vary in length, for each landowner, with an annual easement fee of $26.25 per acre of road included in each easement (as per Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11-2002.4). Easements would continue for as long as the property served is used in its current use (e.g. mineral collection, non-profit environmental education facility and hot springs, with related facilities). As stated above, if in-holders relinquish easements, no further decommissioning would be necessary. • As a condition of the private road easement, the Forest Service and private landowners would develop an operation and maintenance plan for Road 5600 from Dingford Creek to its terminus (see project files for sample plan, for review).

Page 3 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

• The Forest Service would perform all maintenance on the segment used as a National Forest System trail. • The landowners would perform all routine maintenance to insure the travel way prism remains intact and no damage occurs to the National Forest System (NFS) trail or on adjacent NFS land. Landowners would determine their own proportional share of the maintenance. They would meet annually with the Forest Service to review maintenance needs. • Should a significant storm event occur which blocks or washes out the private road/NFS Trail prism, the Forest Service would take appropriate steps to reconstruct the trail. Concurrently, should landowners decide they want continued vehicular access to their property; they would need to submit their proposal to the Forest Service for approval. • Upon receiving a proposal from the landowners, the Forest Service would work with the landowners to determine the steps that would be needed to reconstruct or rehabilitate both the trail and private road running surfaces. • The Forest Service would also consult with the landowners to determine the proportionate share of cost, establish the level of environmental analysis required, and provide an estimate of timelines for completion of the process. This could result in modifications to the private road easements and the operation and maintenance plan. Access to Mining Claims Mining Claimants would be given a key to the gate at Dingford Creek and granted motorized access to their mining claims. • They would not be required to perform maintenance, but would be allowed—at their choice and expense—to complete routine maintenance that would allow their continued motorized access. This would include cutting fallen trees, removing rocks or brushing the private road/trail. • If other than routine maintenance would be needed for their continued motorized access, claimants would first propose the work to the Forest Service, via either a notice of intent or a plan of operations related to their mining claims. • Any proposed work would be considered to be an integral part of their mining activity and would be processed under the Forest Service’s mining regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart A.

Page 4 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

Table 1 - NFS Roads, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Proposed to be Decommissioned or Converted to Trail. Road Number Road Segment Miles of Road Proposed Action 5600 Dingford Creek to terminus 7.6 Decommission to Private Road/Trail4 5600 spurs: -50 W. line Sec. 25 to Rd 5600 2.3 Decommission to Trail -110 All 0.3 Decommission -120 All 0.7 Decommission -210 All 0.5 Decommission -220 All 0.2 Decommission -410 All 0.4 Decommission -510 Past the MF Campground 0.3 Decommission -520 All 0.5 Decommission -950 All 0.1 Decommission -980 All 0.1 Decommission* 5640 Milepost 3.2 to terminus 1.7 Decommission 5640 spurs: -108 All 0.4 Decommission* -110 National Forest portions 0.6 Decommission* -112 National Forest portions 0.1 Decommission* -116 National Forest portions 0.3 Decommission* -120 National Forest portions 0.6 Decommission* -140 National Forest Portions 0.1 Decommission* Huckleberry National Forest Roads only 14.0 Decommission Exchange Roads5 TOTAL MILES 30.8 * These roads are grown in. No decommissioning treatment would be necessary. Only action to be taken would be removal of these roads from the Forest Transportation System.

Proposed Seasonal Trail Use The proposed action would open Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2 (totaling approximately 13.8 miles—commonly known as the Middle Fork Trail) for mountain bike use on odd-numbered calendar days (1, 3, 5 etc.), on a seasonal basis and for a three year trial period, beginning in 2005. • The designated season for mountain bike use would be April 15 through October 31. However, the actual date of opening the trails would be assessed, annually, by the Forest

4 See discussion of this road segment in text: it would be gated, closed to public motorized recreation access. Private landowners would be granted a private road easement for motorized access, and would enter into an operations and maintenance agreement with the FS. Mining claimants would be granted access to mining claims. 5 Refer to Figure 2-5 in Appendix A, which shows Huckleberry Land Exchange roads proposed for decommissioning.

Page 5 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

Service: the trails would not be opened until the agency determined they are capable of handling mountain bike use without long-term damage. • Evaluation criteria would include winter snow pack, seasonal precipitation, long-term weather patterns, and soil moisture content within the trail corridor. The trail would be posted as closed until officially opened for mountain bikes. This proposal would require a non-significant Forest Plan amendment to 1990 Forest Plan, Appendix H – Off Road Vehicle Use and Trail Closure Plan (page H-19), to remove the current mountain bike closure on these trails.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

Purpose The Forest Service has identified the roads listed in Table 1 as no longer needed for administrative management of NFS lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, a Tier 2 Key Watershed.6 Decommissioning these 30.8 miles of roads would help meet the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Key Watersheds to reduce existing system and non-system road mileage. Key Watersheds are also the highest priority for watershed restoration (USDA, USDI 1994, page C-7). Bicycle use in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed is growing in popularity. As a result, the Forest Service recognizes a need for more mountain bike user trails in this watershed—one of the drainages suitable for mountain bikes, located closest to the greater Seattle/Bellevue metropolitan area. Environmental and user groups support mountain bike use on the Middle Fork Trail, from the Middle Fork Trailhead to the Hardscrabble Trailhead, for a three year trial period, under the terms and conditions described in the Chapter 2 Alternative E monitoring section on pages 22-23 (Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley Policy Statement, August 2001). Such use would contribute towards meeting Forest- wide goals to provide a broad spectrum of recreation opportunities and experiences on the Forest (Forest Plan, USDA 1990, 4-84).

Need The cost of road maintenance ranges from $200 to $4,000 per mile on the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie, depending on the maintenance level and required work. (See Glossary for a definition of road maintenance levels.) The current funding is inadequate to manage the Forest road system. Less than 25 percent of the Forest roads are fully maintained to planned safety and environmental standards, with available funding (MBS Road Analysis 2004). With this large gap between needs and available funds, the roads listed in Table 1 are not being maintained.

6 Tier 2 Key Watersheds, one component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, contain high-quality water and may contain at-risk fish stocks. Key Watersheds overlay all Forest Plan land allocations.

Page 6 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

There is a need to reduce the number of un-maintained or inadequately maintained roads within the watershed, to better match the level of funding available, and to eliminate or reduce risks of adverse environmental impacts.7 . To meet desired future condition within Tier 2 Key Watershed, there is a need to decommission unneeded existing system roads within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed (USDA, USDI 1994, B-19 and C-7). Based on the present and expected future need to provide bicycling opportunities in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, and on environmental and user group support, there is a need to analyze opening Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2—commonly known at the Middle Fork Trail—to mountain bike use. There is a related need for a non-significant (under NFMA) Forest Plan amendment to allow mountain bike use—even seasonally, and for a three-year trial period—on the proposed trails. The amendment would adjust the Off Road Vehicle Use and Trail Closure Plan (MBS 1990 Forest Plan, H-19).

REGULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION This EA has been prepared in accordance with regulations established under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This documented is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (MBS 1990), as amended.

The Forest Plan Major amendments to the 1990 MBS Forest Plan include: • Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and the associated Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA, USDI 1994, and commonly known as the Northwest Forest Plan); • Record of Decision Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the Northern Spotted owl to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 2004a); and • Record of Decision To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines In Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA, USDI 2004b). The 1994 ROD includes seven land allocations which amend the allocations described in the 1990 Forest Plan.8 There is considerable overlap among some allocations and more than one set of standards and guidelines may apply. In addition, where the standards and guidelines of the 1990 Forest Plan are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to late- successional forest-related species than do those of the 1994-ROD, the existing standards

7 Decreased road maintenance suggests the potential for an increase of sediment input into nearby and connected aquatic systems. Potential mass wasting and road fill failures are likely to occur, if roads are not maintained to the standard to which they were designed. 8 One of these, Managed Late-Successional Reserves, does not occur on the MBS.

Page 7 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

and guides apply. The 1994 Forest Plan amendment also includes forest-wide standards and guidelines, in addition to those in the 1990 Plan, plus an Aquatic Conservation Strategy, designed to help improve the health of the aquatic ecosystem.9 Land Allocations The following are land allocations found within the project area. For additional details, refer to either the 1994 ROD or the 1990 Forest Plan. Riparian Reserves: This allocation, an Aquatic Conservation Strategy component, includes areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas. Riparian Reserves are mapped overlaying all other allocations. With very specific exceptions, timber harvest is generally prohibited (USDA, USDI 1994, C-32). Late-Successional Old Growth (LSOG): These areas contain late-successional and old growth habitat, located within the Marbled Murrelet Zone 1.10 LSOGs are managed under Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) standards and guidelines. LSRs, in combination with other allocations and standards and guidelines, will maintain a functional, interactive late- successional and old growth forest ecosystem, designed to serve as habitat for late successional and old growth related species. Matrix: The Matrix includes the federal land not in the other allocations. It is the area in which scheduled timber harvest may occur, both full and partial yield. Matrix may include non-forested areas and lands that are technically unsuited for timber harvest. Matrix allocations within the project area are: Recommended Wild and Scenic River – MA 5A (Recreation River) and 5B (Scenic River): Protect from degradation the outstanding remarkable values and wild, scenic, and recreation characteristics of recommended rivers and their environment, pending a decision on inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System.11 Deer and Elk Winter Range - MA 14: Deer and Elk Winter Range are managed to benefit deer and elk by providing a mix of successional stages to meet forage and cover requirements. Minimize disturbances between December 1 and April 1. Road closures may be implemented to reduce harassment from recreation or management activities.

9 The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) has four components: riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. 10 In Washington State, Zone 1 extends approximately 40 miles inland. 11 In Recommended Recreation River segments (MA 5A): evidence of a full range of management activities may exist, including existence of low dams, diversions, residential development, and past and present timber harvest. Rivers are readily accessible by railroad and bridge crossing. The streamside bank is generally natural in conditions. Water quality is such that waters are fishable and swimmable, or a water improvement plan exists or is under development in compliance with Federal and State laws. In Recommended Scenic River segments (MA 5B), rivers are free flowing and there is no substantial evidence of human activity. A few small community buildings or structures may be present, visible from the river. Evidence of timber harvest is not noticeable, and lands appear natural when viewed from riverbanks. The river is accessible by roads, which may occasionally bridge the river area. Short stretches of conspicuous or longer stretches of inconspicuous and well-screened roads or railroads paralleling the river area may be permitted. Water quality is such that waters are fishable and swimmable, or a water improvement plan exists or is under development, as in MA 5A.

Page 8 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

Timber Management Emphasis - MA 17: This MA provides for the production of timber; MA 17 lands will take on the appearance of intensively managed timberlands, typified by even ages of stands. Management activities will generally be dominant, access will generally be by road. Alpine Lakes Management Area12, MA 27 GF General Forest: Timber harvest occurs, with full range of silvicultural prescriptions used on suitable lands. Dispersed recreation sites, motorized activities are common and encounters with recreationists may be numerous. Alpine Lakes Management Area, MA 27 SF General Forest: Retain or enhance viewing and recreation experiences. Developments and use in the seen area from recreation sites, roads, and trails will meet visual quality objectives; use will be integrated with the natural landscape. Timber harvest permitted; meet the visual and recreational objectives. Tier 2 Key Watershed As noted above, Key Watersheds are one component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy; Tier 1 Key Watershed, Tier 2, or non-Key Watersheds overlay all other land allocations (including wilderness). The Key Watershed system serves as refugia considered to be crucial for maintaining and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids and resident fish species. The entire Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed is located within a Tier 2 Key Watershed—a source of high-quality water. See the 1994 ROD, B-18 to -19, and C-7. Selected Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Some particularly applicable standards and guidelines are discussed below, including some of the Forest-wide standards and guidelines that apply to the project. This list is not inclusive; refer to the Forest Plan as amended, for all standards and guidelines.

Key Watersheds (1994 ROD, C-7): • Outside Roadless Areas - Reduce existing system and non-system road mileage. If funding is insufficient to implement reductions, there will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key Watersheds. • Key Watersheds are highest priority for watershed restoration.

Riparian Reserves (1994 ROD, C-31-37): • RF-2: • For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives by: • Minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Reserves. • Minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow. • RF-3:

12 The selected alternative for the Alpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan (FEIS) and ROD (October 1981) was incorporated intact into the 1990 MBS Forest Plan.

Page 9 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

• Determine the influence of each road on the ACS objective through watershed analysis. Meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by: • Closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads based on the ongoing and potential effects to the ACS objectives and considering short-term transportation needs.

Forest-wide Recreation, Trail Standards and Guidelines (1990 Plan, 4-84-91) • Goal: provide a broad spectrum of recreation opportunities and experiences on the MBS. • Assure that the trail system meets the needs of trail users, while remaining consistent with resource capabilities and land allocations. A broad spectrum of trails will be provided. • In Roaded Management Areas: abandoned or closed portions of the road system will be considered for management as trails.

Page 10 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

Figure 1 Forest Plan Merged Land Allocations

werged2vnd2ellotions eomended2eretion2iverGvyq2 hispersed2eretionGeommended2eni2iver ilderness eommended2eretion2iverGv hispersed2eretionGvyq wture2nd2yld2qrowth2ildlife2ritt eommended2eni2iver hispersed2eretionGv wture2nd2yld2qrowth2ildlife2rittGvyq eommended2eni2iverGvyq qenerl2porest heer2nd2ilk2inter2nge eommended2eni2iverGv vte2uessionl2yld2qrowth2@vyqA wountin2qotGv rivte vte2uessionl2eserve2@vA imer2imphsis rivteGvyq eni2porest emiErimitive2xonEmotorized rivteGv eni2porestGeommended2eretion2iver poreground hispersed2eretion eni2porestGeommended2eretion2iverGvyq poregroundGeommended2eretion2iver hispersed2eretionGeommended2eretion2iverGvyq eni2porestGeommended2eni2iver eommended2eretion2iver hispersed2eretionGeommended2eretion2iverGv

Page 11 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

Other Laws, Direction, and Analyses Considered Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA): ANILCA, Sec. 1323 provides statutory authority for access to non-federal lands located within the boundaries of federal land administered by the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA Forest Service (FS). The Secretary of Agriculture “shall provide such access to non-federally owned land within the boundaries of the [NFS] as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment [of the non-federally owned lands]” (16 U.S.C. 3210). General Mining Law of 1872: The 1872 law declared “all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States…to be free and open to exploration and purchase.” It authorized placer and lode mining claims to be located by a procedure that is largely unchanged to this day. The Act also requires that not less than $100 worth of work be performed on each claim per year. There are approximately 18 un-patented mining claims in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Mining claimants have a right of reasonable access to operate and maintain the claim improvements. Current motorized access to many of these claims could be affected by the proposed action. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976: With respect to lands within the NFS (except wilderness), this act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to grant, issue, or renew right-of-way over, upon, under, or through NFS lands. The action proposed in this EA includes closing Road 5600 to public motorized access near Dingford Creek Trailhead. This action would require the Forest Service to issue private road easements to private landowners desiring roaded access past the proposed closure near Dingford Creek Trailhead. 36 Code of Federal Regulations 228, Subpart A ---Locatable Mineral: These regulations set forth rules and procedures through which the surface of NFS lands can be used in connection with operations authorized by the U.S. mining laws. The proposed action would grant mining claimants access passed the proposed closure of Road 5600 at Dingford Creek Trailhead. Any proposed work on this proposed private road/National Forest System trail by mining claimants would be considered an integral part of their mining activity and would be processed under the Forest Service’s mining regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart A. Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Analysis (MBS 1998): The Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Analysis describes the current condition of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Taylor, and Pratt River watersheds. It also, compares historic and current- conditions; describes how these ecosystems have functioned and are currently functioning; and based on current Forest Plan management direction describes how they are likely to function into the future. The watershed analysis identified findings and recommendations that serve to highlight desired conditions and the corresponding resource needs. The proposed action was developed, in part, based on these findings (MBS 1998, pages 5-7 and 5-16). As appropriate, information from this watershed analysis will be incorporated by reference into this environmental assessment. Forest-wide Roads Analysis, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (MBS 2003): Roads Analysis, a requirement of 36 CFR 212.5, has been completed (Forest-wide). The

Page 12 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

forest-wide analysis is an interdisciplinary, science-based process that provides the Responsible Official critical information needed to identify and manage a minimum road system that: 1) is safe and responsive to public needs and desires; 2) is affordable and efficient; 3) is in balance with available funding for needed management actions; and 4) has minimal adverse effects on ecological processes and ecosystem health, diversity, and productivity. Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley Phase II River Corridor Public Use Concept (Jones & Jones 1997): This study develops a use and management framework concept for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. It recommended the location, scale and level of facility development for day and overnight recreation use within one mile of the river corridor, from the mouth of the Valley to Dingford Creek. It proposed an interagency organizational structure—the Middle Fork River Council plus a river coordinator—to coordinate project development, management activities, and investment in the Valley. It also identified potential projects/tasks and responsible parties for implementation of Concept elements over a 5-plus year period; is also provided general recommendations for facilities financing, operations, and preliminary budget opinions for facilities development. Recommendations from the Concept report include: 1) closing currently-open spur roads off of Road 5600 because of illegal dumping and shooting; 2) permanently closing Road 5600 at Dingford Creek, with only authorized private vehicles permitted beyond a gate at Dingford Creek; 3) installing a phased-in gate at the Taylor River Bridge (Road 5600 milepost 12.2), to be closed when needed to control traffic in peak use periods, and to protect the upper portion of the road from damage when road conditions are particularly hazardous (e.g. the road is flooded).

DECISION FRAMEWORK Based on the analysis in this document, the Forest Supervisor (Responsible Official), Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, will decide: • Which roads, if any, would be decommissioned; • Whether to convert the roads proposed in the alternatives to trail for use by hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikers; and • Whether to open Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2 (Middle Fork Trail) to mountain bike use. Linked to this decision would be a non-significant Forest Plan amendment to the Off Road Vehicle Use and Trail Closure Plan (MBS 1990, Appendix H) to open the Middle Fork Trail for mountain bike use. Also linked to this decision would be granting private road easements to private landowners for motorized access to their private in-holdings.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement for this project began in 1994, with the Forest-wide Access and Travel Management planning process.

Page 13 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

In early 1996, the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, supported by a grant from the King County Council and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, convened a task force of local residents, landowners, resource experts, user groups, and public agency representatives to develop a concept for long-term use and management of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. This concept was documented in the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley Concept (Jones & Jones, 10/96) and the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley Phase II River Corridor Public Use Concept, (Jones & Jones 1997). In 1997, all roads under consideration for closure or decommissioning, and analyzed in this EA, were posted with a notice to that effect.

First “Scoping” Letter On March 6, 1998, a "scoping” letter for the proposed Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed access and travel management project was mailed to over 448 individuals, organizations, agencies, and to the Snoqualmie, Yakama, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot Indian Tribes.13 Public meetings were held on March 26, 1998 and April 13, 1998, and comments on the proposal were accepted. Approximately 560 written public comments and one petition (containing 50 signatures) were received in response to public scoping for issues, concerns and opportunities. Refer to the 2002 EA (Appendix D) and Appendix E of this EA for a summary of the comments received in response to scoping, and how the agency addressed them. On September 1, 1998, about 560 letters were sent to interested parties, requesting assistance in developing a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. About 90 individuals, agencies, and organizations replied, asking to be involved in the alternative development process. An alternative development public meeting was held on February 9, 1999; 56 individuals attended the meeting. Four draft alternatives were presented at that meeting, which were then corrected and modified, based on the public input resulting from the meeting. On May 18, 1999, a mailing was sent to all individuals who had expressed interest in assisting the Forest Service in the development process. This mailing included a written description of the four alternatives (as modified by the February 9, 1999 meeting); maps of the proposed alternatives; and Forest Service responses to public letters and comments. On June 2, 1999, another public meeting was held to present the final range of alternatives; 32 individuals attended this meeting. The project has been listed in several editions of the Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions.

EA Released for Public Comment, April 2002 An Environmental Assessment was released for public comment on April 8, 2002; the 30- day public comment period ran from April 9 through June 8, 2002. Of the 1,104 responses received, about 866 (78%) supported Alternative E, the Forest Service preferred alternative. Supporters included: the Alpine Lakes Protection Society; the American White Water Association; Back Country Bicycle Trail Club, East Lake Washington Audubon Society;

13 The Snohomish and Duwamish Tribes—both non-federally recognized—were also contacted.

Page 14 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

International Mountain Bicycling Association; Issaquah Alps; King County Executive Ron Sims and King County Councilman Larry Phillips; King County Rural Forest Commission; Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust; Northwest Ecosystems Alliance; Pack and Paddles Canoe Club; Puget Sound Alliance of Retired Americans; Seattle Audubon Society; Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Washington Trails Association; Washington Wilderness Coalition, MidFORC, The Mountaineers, and 850 individuals. Refer to the 2002 EA, Appendix G and the project analysis files for more details on the agency response to all comments received.

Decision Notice Signed September 2003 Forest Supervisor John Phipps made a decision on the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access and Travel Management project on September 26, 2003 (Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact). His decision was a modification of preferred Alternative E; modifications included: 1) starting in 2004, a three-year test period for mountain bike use, along with a specific monitoring plan; 2) opening Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2 to mountain bike use seasonally (generally from April 15 through October 31), but actual date of opening dependent on a number of criteria); and 3) eliminating the parking facilities at Pratt River bar and Camp Brown from the decision. It is estimated that about 85 percent of those who responded to the 2002 EA would support the Modified Alternative E.

Decision Appealed In November 2003, Northwest Wilderness Programs, Lew Landers, Bob Jackson, Rick Dillhoff, Glenn Morita, John Cornish and Wesley Gannaway—private landowners and mining claimants whose access to their lands and/or mining claims would be affected—filed appeals of the decision to the Regional Forester. Bart Cannon, a private citizen, also appealed the decision. On December 5, Acting Forest Supervisor Y. Robert Iwamoto withdrew the September 26, 2003 decision. This decision was withdrawn because there was a need to address and resolve the issue of access for the private landowners and mining claimants before the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access and Travel Management Plan could be implemented. From December 2003 to June 2004, several meetings were held among the private landowners, mining claimants, and the Forest Service to resolve the various access issues.

MAJOR ISSUES The following major issues were identified for consideration in this analysis. The issues were developed from these sources: public comment received during scoping, comments received at public meetings, Forest Service interdisciplinary team review; and from informal meetings with interested members of the public. Refer to Appendix E for a summary of public scoping comments and were they are addressed in this EA Measures have been developed for each major issue, for use in comparing how the alternatives address each issue. Refer to discussion in Chapter 2, Alternatives and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences of Implementing Each Alternative.

Page 15 Chapter 1- Purpose and Need for Action

Soil, Water, Aquatic and Resources The roads obtained in the Huckleberry Land Exchange and most of the spur roads off of Roads 5600 and 5640 were constructed for timber harvesting; these roads are no longer needed. Due to insufficient funding they have not been adequately maintained: many are not drivable or are brushed-in and difficult to drive. Because these roads are not being maintained to the standard for which they were designed, there is a concern over the potential for increased road sediment into aquatic systems, and mass wasting and road fill failures. How measured • Miles of unneeded road decommissioned and removed from the Forest transportation system.

Access There are non-federally owned lands and mining claims located past the proposed closure of Road 5600 at Dingford Creek Trailhead. Private landowners and mining claimants have a concern that current motorized access be maintained. How Measured • Narrative description of how access to private land and mining claims would be affected.

Recreation There is a concern over loss of day hike opportunities in the Upper Middle Fork Valley if Road 5600 is closed at Dingford Creek. Such a closure would limit day-hike opportunities to Alpine Lakes Wilderness destinations such as, Dutch Miller Gap and Williams Lake. There is also a concern over user conflicts and potential resource damage if mountain bikes are allowed on the Middle Fork Trail. How Measured • Narrative description on how day-use access into the Alpine Lake Wilderness would be affected. • Actual days open for mountain bike use; narrative description of effects.

Page 16 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION This chapter presents alternatives developed and considered by the Interdisciplinary Team (ID team) and a summary of how each alternative affects the major issues. The chapter itself is divided into sections: alternatives not considered in detail; alternatives considered in detail; and comparison of alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Forest Service Maintain Road 5600 past the Proposed Closures for Private Landowner Access Under this alternative, the segments of Road 5600 past (east of) the proposed closures would be kept on the Forest Transportation System for motorized private landowner access. These segments of road would be maintained to Maintenance Level 2 standards (high-clearance vehicles—see Glossary) and repaired as needed by the Forest Service. Motorized public recreation access would be prohibited. Reason for Elimination from Detailed Analysis This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because in scenarios where the Forest Service would close these road segments, they would no longer be needed for forest management. The Forest Service has no duty or obligation to maintain National Forest System roads for non-National Forest purposes and the agency is prohibited from expending its road monies to solely accommodate private uses. Private landowners would have the opportunity to maintain vehicular access to their lands by acquiring private road easements on Road 5600, past the proposed closure.

Seasonal Closure of Road 5600 with a Gate at the Taylor River Bridge (Included in 2003 Decision) The 2003 Decision included installation of a second gate on Road 5600, at milepost 12.2, the Taylor River Bridge---just prior to the junction of Road 5600 with Road 5640. Road 5600 between this junction and Dingford Creek and Road 5640 between its junction with Road 5600 and Snoqualmie Lake Trailhead would remain open for vehicles from April 15 through October 31. From November 1 to April 14, these road segments would be closed to public motorized access; however, access by in-holders and their constituents, and Forest Service administrative access would be allowed year-round. This proposal was developed to partially address one of the recommendations from the Concept Report, and in response to concerns from some members of the public. Reason for Elimination from Detailed Analysis During the appeal negotiation meetings (Fall 2003-Winter 2004), as the agency and the private landowners and mining claimants were discussing the details of potentially implementing this alternative, it became apparent that the Forest Service could not successfully implement this alternative, nor would the agency have the funding to monitor and keep the gate closed. For example, in order to allow access past the Taylor River gate to

Page 17 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

many constituents of Northwest Wilderness Programs (to access Goldmyer Hot Springs), information on how to open the gate would have to be widely distributed (via the web, newsletter etc.), thus defeating the purpose of the closed gate. The team also determined that administering the gate would require a level of monitoring and funding that is highly unlikely. Alternative D addresses permanent closure of Road 5600 near the Taylor River Bridge. A permanent gate at Dingford Creek, closing Road 5600 to public motorized use— which is included in Alternatives C, and E—Proposed Action—would address almost all of the public concerns. In addition, proposed monitoring of vehicle use, vandalism, and dumping is included in Alternatives C and E—Proposed Action. Therefore, the seasonal gate at the Taylor River Bridge alternative was not considered in detail.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL Five alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail. The four “action” alternatives respond to the major issues identified in Chapter 1, and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Note: mileages are estimates from the Forest Plan, road management objectives, map interpretation, and on the ground odometer checks. Maps of the Alternatives are located in Appendix A of this EA. Also, refer to the Mitigation Measures, Management Requirements, and Monitoring that apply to all action alternatives, near the end of this chapter.

Alternative A – No Action The No Action alternative, if implemented, would continue the status quo for the 30.8 miles of road or segments of road proposed for decommissioning in this EA. No roads would be decommissioned. The roads would remain on the transportation system and—as funding permit—would be maintained at their prescribed maintenance level. Refer to Table 2 and 3 for a comparison among alternatives. Road 5600-050 and Road 5600 from near the Dingford Creek Trailhead to it terminus would not be converted to a multiple user-group trail for use by hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes. Sanitation facilities would not be provided at Dingford Creek Trailhead and parking at the trailhead would not be expanded. Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2 would continue to be closed, year around, to mountain bike use.

Page 18 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative B Road 5600 Retained as ML 2 Road, Open to Public Motorized Use; Middle Fork Trail Seasonally Open to Mountain Bikes Alternative B was developed to respond to public concern over maintaining current motorized access to the terminus of Road 5600 and increasing mountain bike recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. This alternative also addresses the need to meet the Forest Plan desired future condition of reducing road mileage within the watershed. See Table 2 and 3, below, for a comparison of alternatives, and Figure 2-2, Appendix A, for a map of Alternative B. Also, see Mitigation, Management Requirements, and Monitoring, below. If Alternative B were implemented, Road 5600—from near the Dingford Creek Trailhead to its terminus at the Hardscrabble Trailhead—would remain a Maintenance Level 2 road, open to high-clearance vehicles and the public/landowners/mining claimants. The following roads/road segments would be decommissioned, a total of about 23.2 miles: • all of the Road 5600 spur roads (see Table 2, below); • the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640; • all Road 5640 spur roads located on National Forest System lands, and • all National Forest roads acquired in the Huckleberry Land Exchange (Does not include roads jointly used by Washington State Department of Natural Resources). • Alternative B also includes converting 2.3 miles of Road 5600-50 (old CCC road) to trail, for use by hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikers. Road decommissioning and trail conversion would be completed as funding becomes available Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2—totaling 13.8 miles—would be open for mountain bike use, annually, from April 15 through October 31. • The actual date of opening the trail would be assessed annually by the Forest Service, to determine the capability of the trail to accommodate mountain bike use, without long- term damage. The trail would not be seasonally opened to mountain bike use until trail conditions are stable for their use. • Evaluation criteria would include winter snow pack, seasonal precipitation, long-term weather patterns, and soil moisture content within the trail corridor. The trail would be posted as closed until officially opened for mountain bikes. Included in Alternative B is a non-significant (under NFMA) Forest Plan amendment. The 1990 Forest Plan off Road Vehicle Use and Trail Closure Plan (Plan Appendix H, MBS 1990) would be amended to allow mountain bike use on these trails.

Page 19 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative C Road 5600 Gated at Dingford Creek, Closed to Public Motorized Use for 7.6 Miles; Middle Fork Trail Closed to Mountain Bikes This alternative addresses the issues of aquatic impacts from roads not maintained to standard, access for private landowners and mining claimants, and user conflicts on the Middle Fork Trail. Alternative C was designed to address a number of the access and travel management components of the Concept Report.14 Except for the Middle Fork Trail remaining closed to mountain bikes, it is very similar to the proposed action. See Table 2 and 3 for a comparison of alternatives; refer to Figure 2-3 in Appendix A for a map of Alternative C. Also, see Mitigation, Management Requirements, and Monitoring, below. If Alternative C were implemented, a total of about 23.2 miles of road would be decommissioned and 7.6 miles would be decommissioned to a low-maintenance multiple use trail/private road. As in Alternative B, these include the following: • all of the Road 5600 spur roads (see Table 2, below); • the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640; • all Road 5640 spur roads located on National Forest System lands, and • all National Forest only roads acquired in the Huckleberry Land Exchange. • The 5600-50 Road, the old CCC road, would be decommissioned and converted to a trail for use by hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes—a total of 2.3 miles. Road decommissioning and trail conversion would be completed as funding becomes available. Road 5600—from near the Dingford Creek Trailhead to its terminus at the Hardscrabble Trailhead—would be decommissioned and converted to a multi-user trail (total of about 7.6 miles), with special provisions for access for private landowners and mining claimants; see below. In conjunction with the trail conversion, sanitation facilities would be provided at the Dingford Creek trailhead. Additionally, the current capacity of 10-12 cars, parking would be expanded to up to a maximum of 30 cars. This would be accomplished by cutting and grubbing alder and brush that have encroached into the parking area and into the south shoulder of Road 5600 just prior to the trailhead. Once cleared the area would be graded to provide the expanded parking (See Figure 2, below). To address the need for access to private lands and mining claims on Road 5600 past the Dingford Creek Trailhead, Alternative C includes the following actions: • The Forest Service would install a gate on Road 5600, just past the trailhead (milepost 18.5). The segment would be closed to public motorized use and removed from the Forest transportation system.

14 Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River Valley Phase II River Corridor Public Use Concept, Jones & Jones 1997.

Page 20 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative C, continued • Forest Service work would include pulling culverts (about 15) and replacing all but four culverts with driveable dips for access by hikers, pack-and-saddle stock, mountain bikes, and in-holder high-clearance vehicles. New pipes would replace the remaining four culverts. Additional work would include filling holes in the road; smoothing out the travel way surface to its current width, and brushing (cutting) vegetation along the sides. If in-holders were to no longer need motorized access, no further road decommissioning would be necessary. • Private landowners would be granted private road easements to access their properties. Easements would be 10 feet in width, and vary in length, for each landowner, with an annual easement fee of $26.25 per acre of road included in each easement (as per FSH 2709.11-2002.4. Easements would continue for as long as the property served is used in its current use (e.g. mineral collection, non-profit environmental education facility and hot springs, with related facilities). • As a condition of the private road easement, the Forest Service and private landowners would develop an operation and maintenance plan for Road 5600 from Dingford Creek to its terminus. 15 • The Forest Service would be required to perform all maintenance required on the segment used as a National Forest System trail. • The landowners would perform all routine maintenance to insure the road prism remains intact and no damage occurs to the National Forest System trail or on adjacent NFS land. Landowners would determine their own proportional share of the maintenance. They would meet annually with the Forest Service to review maintenance needs. • Should a significant storm event occur which blocks or washes out the private road/NFS trail prism, the Forest Service would take appropriate steps to reconstruct the trail. Concurrently, should landowners decide they want continued vehicular access to their property; they would need to submit their proposal to the Forest Service for approval. • Upon receiving a proposal from the landowners, the Forest Service would work with the landowners to determine the steps that would be needed to reconstruct or rehabilitate both the trail and private road running surfaces. • The Forest Service would also consult with the landowners to determine the proportionate share of cost, establish the level of environmental analysis required, and provide an estimate of timelines for completion of the process. This could result in modifications to the private road easements and the operation and maintenance plan. Mining Claimants would be given a key to the gate and granted motorized access to their mining claims. • They would not be required to perform maintenance, but would be allowed—at their choice and expense—to complete routine maintenance that would allow their continued motorized access. This would include cutting fallen trees, removing rocks or brushing the private road/trail. • If other than routine maintenance would be needed for their continued motorized access, claimants would first propose the work to the Forest Service, via either a notice of intent or a plan of operations related to their mining claims.

15 Examples of easements and operation and maintenance plans are available in the project files.

Page 21 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

• Any proposed work would be considered to be an integral part of their mining activity and would be processed under the Forest Service’s mining regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart A. Finally, if Alternative C were implemented, Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2 would remain closed to mountain bikes. No Forest Plan amendment would be needed.

Figure 2 Dingford Creek Trailhead. Under Alternatives C and E parking expansion would occur on the left side of the photo were cars are parked and small alder trees are growing.

Page 22 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative D Road 5600 Gated just past Junction with Road 5640, near the Taylor River Bridge, Closed to Public Motorized Use for 14 Miles; First 6 Miles of Middle Fork Trail Closed to Mountain Bikes. Alternative D was developed primarily to address the user conflict issue on the Middle Fork Trail; implementation of this alternative would also address Issue 1: Soil, Water, and Aquatic Resources. If Alternative D were implemented, about 37.2 miles of road would be decommissioned; 16.3 of those miles would be converted to multi-use trails, open to hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes. See Table 2 and 3 for a comparison of alternatives; refer to Figure 2-4 in Appendix A for a map of Alternative D. Also, see Mitigation, Management Requirements, and Monitoring, below. A total of about 37.2 miles of road would be decommissioned. As in Alternatives B and C, these include the following: • all of the Road 5600 spur roads (see Table 2, below); • the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640; • all Road 5640 spur roads located on National Forest System lands, and • all National Forest roads acquired in the Huckleberry Land Exchange. • The 5600-50 Road, the old CCC road, would be decommissioned and converted to a trail for use by hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes—a total of 2.3 miles. Road decommissioning and trail conversion would be completed as funding becomes available Road 5600—from just past (east) of its junction with Road 5640, near Taylor River, to the terminus at Hardscrabble Trailhead—would be gated, decommissioned, to a self- maintaining multi-user trail (total of about 14 miles). The road would be closed to motorized public access. The trail would be available to hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes, with no seasonal restriction for use. This action would provide immediate mountain bike access from the Middle Fork Trailhead to the upper Middle Fork Valley and the Middle Fork Trail at Dingford Creek. To maintain access to private lands and mining claims past the closure of Road 5600 near its junction with Road 5640, private landowners would be granted private road easements to access their properties. • The terms and conditions of the easements would be the same as those described for Alternative C. Mining Claimants would be given a key to the gate and granted motorized access to their mining claims. • The terms and conditions of the easements would be the same as those described for Alternative C.

Page 23 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative D, continued To reduce potential user conflict on the Middle Fork Trail, Alternative D would maintain the current mountain bike closure on Middle Fork Trail segments 1003 and 1003.1. • The closed segments would include the first 6.0 miles of the trail (Middle Fork Trailhead to the Dingford Tie), where hiker day use is expected to be greatest. Trails 1003.01 and 1003.2—a total of 7.8 miles—would be open for mountain bike use, annually, from April 15 through October 31. • The actual date of opening the trail would be assessed annually by the Forest Service, to determine the capability of the trail to accommodate mountain bike use, without long- term damage. The trail would not be seasonally opened to mountain bike use until trail conditions are stable for their use. • Evaluation criteria would include winter snow pack, seasonal precipitation, long-term weather patterns, and soil moisture content within the trail corridor. • The trail would be posted as closed until officially opened for mountain bikes. Included in Alternative D is a non-significant (under NFMA) Forest Plan amendment. The 1990 Forest Plan off Road Vehicle Use and Trail Closure Plan (Plan Appendix H, MBS 1990) would be amended to allow mountain bike use on Trails 1003.01 and 1003.2.

Page 24 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative E – Proposed Action Road 5600 Gated at Dingford Creek, Closed to Public Motorized Use for 7.6 Miles; Middle Fork Trail Seasonally Open to Mountain Bikes Alternative E, the proposed Action, was developed to address all three major issues (see Chapter 1). This Alternative is very similar to Alternative C, except that Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2—the Middle Fork Trail, totaling approximately 13.8 miles— would be open for mountain bike use on odd-numbered calendar days (1, 3, 5, etc.) on a seasonal basis and for a three year trial period, beginning in 2005. See Chapter 1, Proposed Action. See Table 2 and 3 for a comparison of alternatives; refer to Figure 2-5 in Appendix A for a map of Alternative C. Also, see Mitigation, Management Requirements, and Monitoring, below. If Alternative E were implemented, a total of about 23.2 miles of road would be decommissioned and 7.6 miles would be decommissioned to a low-maintenance trail/private road. As in Alternatives B, C, and D, these include the following: • all of the Road 5600 spur roads (see Table 2, below); • the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640; • all Road 5640 spur roads located on National Forest System lands, and • all National Forest roads acquired in the Huckleberry Land Exchange. • The 5600-50 Road, the old CCC road, would be decommissioned and converted to a trail for use by hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes—a total of 2.3 miles. Road decommissioning and trail conversion would be completed as funding becomes available Road 5600—from near the Dingford Creek Trailhead to its terminus at the Hardscrabble Trailhead—would be decommissioned to a low-maintenance multi-user trail (total of about 7.6 miles), with special provisions for access for private landowners and mining claimants; see below. In conjunction with the trail conversion, sanitation facilities would be provided at the Dingford Creek trailhead. Additionally, the current capacity of 10-12 cars, parking would be expanded to up to a maximum of 30 cars. This would be accomplished by cutting and grubbing alder and brush that have encroached into the parking area and into the south shoulder of Road 5600 just prior to the trailhead. Once cleared the area would be graded to provide the expanded parking (See Figure 2, above). To maintain access to private lands and mining claims past the closure of Road 5600 near the Dingford Creek Trailhead, private landowners would be granted private road easements to access their properties. Examples of private road easements and operation and maintenance plans are available for review in the project analysis file. • The terms and conditions of the easements would be the same as those described for Alternative C. Mining Claimants would be given a key to the gate and granted motorized access to their mining claims. • The terms and conditions of the easements would be the same as those described for Alternative C.

Page 25 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative E – Proposed Action, continued Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2—totaling 13.8 miles—would be open for mountain bike use on odd-numbered calendar days (1, 3, 5, etc), on a seasonal basis and for a three-year trial period, beginning in 2005. • The designated season for mountain bike use would be from April 15 through October 31. • The actual date of opening the trail would be assessed, annually, by the Forest Service, to determine the capability of the trail to accommodate mountain bike use, without long- term damage. The trail would not be seasonally opened to mountain bike use until trail conditions are stable for their use. • Evaluation criteria would include winter snow pack, seasonal precipitation, long-term weather patterns, and soil moisture content within the trail corridor. The trail would be posted as closed until officially opened for mountain bikes. • The Forest Service would monitor bike use on these trails during the three-year trial period. Results will help determine long-term mountain bike use on the Middle Fork Trail. The monitoring plan includes: 1. monitoring for physical degradation of the trail tread (change from the current condition); 2. determining compliance levels with posted regulations; and 3. evaluating user conflicts, visitor satisfaction, and safety. • Refer to required Monitoring, below. Included in Alternative E—Proposed Action is a non-significant (under NFMA) Forest Plan amendment. The 1990 Forest Plan off Road Vehicle Use and Trail Closure Plan (Plan Appendix H, MBS 1990) would be amended to allow mountain bike use on these trails. Finally, Alternative E—Proposed Action also includes monitoring along Road 5600 between the Taylor River Bridge and Dingford Creek trailhead for the following: vandalism (garbage and stolen car dumping), illegal shooting, and off-road vehicle driving in rivers, streams, and wetlands adjacent to this section of the road. Refer to required Monitoring on pages 22-23.

Page 26 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Table 2 - Roads and Proposed Action or Maintenance Level (ML), by Alternative. (The ML for Alternative A – No Action represents the current maintenance level.) Miles Proposed Action (or ML) by Alternative of Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Road # Road Segment Road 5600 Taylor River Bridge to 0.2 3 3 3 3 3 Road 5640 5600 From Road 5640 to 6.4 2 2 2 D & 2 Dingford Creek convert to trail* 5600 From Dingford Creek to 7.6 2 2 D & D & D & end convert convert convert to trail* to trail* to trail* 56 spurs: -50 From the west line of 2.3 1 D & D & D & D & Section 25 to Rd 5600 convert convert convert convert to trail to trail to trail to trail -110 All 0.3 2 D D D D -120 All 0.7 2 D D D D -210 All 0.5 2 D D D D -220 All 0.2 1 D D D D -410 All 0.4 3 D D D D -510 From Middle Fork 0.3 2 D D D D Campground to end -520 All 0.5 2 D D D D -950 All 0.1 2 D D D D -980 All 0.1 2 D** D** D** D**

5640 MP 3.2 to end 1.7 1 D D D D 5640 spurs: -108 All 0.4 1 D** D** D** D** -110 NF sections 0.6 1 D** D** D** D** -112 NF sections 0.1 1 D** D** D** D** -116 NF sections 0.3 1 D** D** D** D** -120 NF sections 0.6 1 D** D** D** D** -140 NF sections 0.1 1 D** D** D** D** Huckle- NF Roads only 14.0 2 D D D D berry Exchange Roads D: Decommission; D & convert to trail: Decommission and convert to trail for hikers, pack and saddle, and mountain bikes; D**: Decommission no treatment necessary. ML 1: closed to motorized access; 2: maintained for high-clearance vehicles; 3: maintained for passenger cars. * Private landowners would be granted private road easements to access their properties. Mining Claimants would be given a key to the gate and granted access to their mining claims.

Page 27 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 3 - Proposed User Group on the Middle Fork Trail, by Alternative Trail # Trail Segment Miles Proposed User Group, by Alternative Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E 1003 MF Trailhead to 5.7 Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Middle Fork junction 1003.01 Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & and 1003.2 Saddle* Saddle Saddle* Saddle* Saddle Mtn Mtn. Bike** Bike*** 1003.1 From MF Trailhead 0.3 Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Middle Fork & to Trail 1003 Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Taylor River Tie Saddle* Saddle Saddle* Saddle* Saddle Mtn. Mtn. Bike** Bike*** 1003.01 Dingford tie to 7.6 Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Middle Fork Road 5600 Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Saddle* Saddle Saddle* Saddle Saddle Mtn. Mtn. Mtn. Bike** Bike** Bike*** 1003.2 From Dingford 0.2 Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Hiker Dingford Tie Creek Trailhead to Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Pack & Trail 1003 Saddle* Saddle Saddle* Saddle Saddle Mtn. Mtn. Mtn. Bike** Bike** Bike*** * Open to pack and saddle, July 1 through October 31. ** Open to pack and saddle from July 1 through October 31. Open to mountain bikes roughly from April 15 through October 31. The actual date of opening would be determined, annually, by the Forest Service; see text for criteria. *** Open to pack and saddle from July 15 through October 31. Open to mountain bikes roughly from April 15 through October 31, on odd-numbered calendar days (1, 3, 5 etc.), and for a 3-year trial period, beginning in 2005. The actual date of opening would be determined, annually, by the Forest Service; see text for criteria.

Page 28 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

MITIGATION MEASURES, MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD PRACTICES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES The following are mitigation measures, management requirements, and standard MBS management practices, included as part of all action alternatives (B, C, D, and E). Most of these measures/requirements come from the wildlife, fish, and botany biological assessments, and/or other specialist reports.

Soil, Water, and Aquatic Resources (from fish biological assessment to mitigate sediment and eliminate or minimize impacts to soil water and aquatic resources) • If work is in the active channel, divert water around the project site. • There shall be no excavation, filling, or disposal of material within the wetted perimeter of the stream. • Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering the stream. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, silt fencing, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel-filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. • If flooding or weather results in detrimental sedimentation, cease operations until the conditions improve. • All disturbed ground shall be reclaimed using appropriate best management practices. Retain measures to prevent sediment from reaching streams until the soil is secure. If appropriate, native species should be used in re-vegetation (Refer to appropriate seed mixes in Botany Biological Evaluation located within the project analysis file). • Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward of the ordinary high water lone to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the stream. • The streambed shall be restored to the original gradient. • Pull back stream banks to angle of natural repose when removing culverts. • Leave all non-treated wood in the stream/lake/wetland. • Have hazardous spill clean-up materials on site. • Any machinery maintenance involving potential contaminants (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc) would occur at an approved site or outside the Riparian Reserve. • Prior to starting work each day, check all machinery for leaks (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc) and make all necessary repairs. • Any large woody material removed from a culvert inlet would be put back in the stream.

Vegetation (from Botany biological assessment/report) • If any undiscovered sensitive vascular plants, lichens, bryophytes, or fungi are discovered at any time prior to or during project implementation, work would be halted until the Forest Service is consulted and necessary mitigations enacted. • All machinery and equipment (including trailers to haul equipment and machinery) should be free of soil and vegetative material before entering the project area. Designated Forest Service personnel may inspect machinery and equipment as necessary.

Page 29 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Vegetation, continued

• The Forest-wide Prevention Strategy and Best Management Practices for noxious weed management would apply to all proposed road decommission and trail conversion work (Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, Forest Plan Amendment 14; also see Botany Biological Assessment Attachment 1, in project analysis file). • Erosion control material, such as commercial control mats or straw, for this project, should be weed free. Straw should be obtained from on of two sources: 1) a grower whose fields have been annually inspected by a county coordinator for the Washington State Noxious Weed Board, or 2) legally certified weed-free straw from Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. • The existing infestation of the noxious weed Scot’s broom near the terminus of Road 5600 would be treated by cutting the plants down. All reproductive material would be bagged and removed from the site. • Disturbed areas from road decommissioning should be seeded to prevent noxious weed establishment. Seed mixes should be one of the recommended for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest; refer to Botany Biological Evaluation, Attachment 2, in the project analysis file.

Wildlife (from 2003 wildlife biological assessment with USFW Service concurrence) Northern Spotted Owls: • To mitigate impacts to northern spotted owls all activities that create noise above ambient forest levels and within 0.25 miles of un-surveyed or nesting habitat would be restricted from March 1 to July 15. This restriction would apply to all or portions of the following roads: Road 5600 past Road 5640; Roads 5600-50, -110, -120, -210. -220, and -950; and the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640. Marbled Murrelets • To mitigate potential adverse impacts to marbled murrelets, when possible, avoid project activities in or near marbled murrelet nesting habitat with noise levels above ambient between April 1 and September 15. If this is unavoidable, such activities would only occur between 2 hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset between August 6 and September 15. Seasonal marbled murrelet restrictions apply to all or portions of the following roads: Road 5600 past Road 5640; Roads 5600-50, -110, -120, -210. -220, and -950; and the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640. Deer and Elk Winter Range: • Within deer and elk winter range, road decommissioning activities would not occur between December 1 and April 15. This restriction would apply to Roads: 5600-50, -110, -120, -220, -410, and -510.

Page 30 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Cultural Resources (from cultural report) • In the event that properties are located, the affected portion of the project would be redesigned to ensure that the properties would be avoided as determined by the Forest Service in accordance with the 1997 Programmatic Agreement (PA) at Section III.B.2 between the Forest Service, SHPO, and ACHP. • If avoidance procedures are not possible or if questions exist as to the effectiveness of the avoidance, the project would cease immediately, and the Forest Service would consult with the SHPO and ACHP, as described in the 1997 PA. • The actions proposed are included in Appendix B of the 1997 Programmatic Agreement, and are excluded from case-by-case review. For each road decommissioned or decommissioned and converted to trail, the Forest Archaeologist would determine whether any pre-inspection or monitoring during the activity would be conducted. • If inspection or monitoring is necessary, a report would be submitted to the Forest Archaeologist within 30 days of the last day of pre-inspection /monitoring for that road/trail activity. The Forest Archaeologist would review the report and certify the completion of the inspection and/or monitoring.

Traffic Control/Recreation • Provide for traffic management along roads. Warning and or closed road signs would be posted, as needed, on roads during periods of road decommissioning. • Work on roads open for public motorized access would be prohibited on weekends, holidays and after 3:00 pm on Fridays.

Fire • To provide fire resource protection during road decommissioning and trail construction, Forest Service contractors would follow Fire and Fuel Management contract clauses. The contract clauses are designed to ensure that equipment used as part of the contract is inspected for fire tools, spark arresters, and fire extinguishers. • The contractor must also abide by the Industrial Fire Precaution Level (IFPL) system between the months of April 15 through October 15 of each year. The IFPL system restricts operating times as fire danger increases.

MONITORING

All Alternatives • Update the 2003 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Roads Analysis to reflect the road management decisions, as a result of the site specific analysis documented in this EA.

Alternatives E • Monitor and evaluate the effects of keeping Road 5600 open for motorized access between the Taylor River Bridge and Dingford Creek Trailhead, once Road 5600 is paved to the Middle Fork/Taylor Trailhead. Specifically, monitoring will evaluate vandalism caused by garbage and stolen car dumping, illegal shooting, and off road vehicle driving in the river, streams and wetlands located adjacent to this section of road.

Page 31 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

The overall management objective for this section of road would be for no significant increase in the vandalism items listed above. Funding for monitoring will come from the MBS annual budget. Evaluation of monitoring results could lead to further analysis and action at line officer (District Ranger or Forest Supervisor) discretion. Possible actions include: o No action. o Increased Forest Service law enforcement presence on Road 5600 from Road 5640 to Dingford Creek Trailhead. o Further reducing opportunities for off road motorized access. o Timely restoration of resource damage caused by illegal off road vehicle driving. o Partial or year around closure of the road to unauthorized motorized public access. Monitoring would be conducting yearly by the Forest Service and/or by an outside service contract that would clean up and remove garbage and abandoned vehicles. The results of this monitoring should show conclusions and recommendations in a clear, concise, usable form, and should include the following: o A yearly comparison of actual amounts and locations of garbage, abandoned cars, recorded illegal shooting and off road vehicle damage. o Documentation of yearly damage and yearly change. o Recommended actions, mitigation, or monitoring. o Needs for continued evaluation. Initial monitoring would serve as a base line to measure the change in vandalism, as a result of paving Road 5600 to the Middle Fork Trailhead. If a decision is made to not pave the Road 56 monitoring would stop. If Road 5600 is paved, monitoring would continue for the next five years as funding permits or when there is no longer a question as to whether the desired future condition is being met. If, monitoring evaluation reveals that the desired condition is not being met, the Forest Service would intervene to correct the situation. • The Forest Service would monitor mountain bike use on Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2 (commonly know as---the Middle Fork Trail) during the three year trial period. The Forest Service would monitor mountain bike use on the trail during the trial period. These trails would be monitored: • For physical degradation of the trail tread (change from the current condition); • To determine compliance levels with posted regulations; and • To evaluate user conflicts, visitor satisfaction, and safety. District Recreation staff in partnership with user groups would conduct the monitoring. This monitoring plan is intended to be a minimum plan that could be funded by the Forest Service based on current budget levels. Nothing in the monitoring plan would be intended to prohibit the Forest Service from seeking collaborative partnerships with various user groups, which may be able to expand the scope of monitoring of trail conditions. Initial monitoring would serve as the baseline to measure any changes in physical conditions. Collection of use data and user comments would continue for a minimum of

Page 32 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

three years. A second condition survey of the trail would be conducted three years after the first survey Monitoring would include the following: o The 2001 Middle Fork Trail condition survey would be updated to obtain baseline condition of the trail. This survey would be repeated in three years. o Two (2) trail counters would be purchased to measure trail use; one would be located near the Middle Fork Trailhead and the other located near the Dingford Creek Tie Trail. Other counters may be added, if available. Data from the counters would be downloaded to a Forest Service computer by Forest staff or volunteers under agreement. o Registration boxes would be placed at each entry point. Volunteers or Forest Service employees would collect registrations sheets. These sheets would be compiled and counted by Forest staff or volunteers under agreement. o Volunteer mountain bike/hiker patrols: these patrols would be comprised of trained members representing all user groups (mountain bikers, hikers, and stock users). The patrols would help educate users of the new trail use regulations and document satisfaction and complaints from them. o Compliance, user conflicts, user satisfaction, and safety would be monitored via trail patrol reports, law enforcement reports, and public comments. Reports would be filed at the Snoqualmie Ranger District and reviewed by the District Staff. o Data on use and user comments would be collected each year and compiled. Letters from the public related to use of the trail and Forest Service responses would also be included. District staff would review the trail condition survey. Evaluation of this information would help form the basis for further regulatory action at the discretion of the District Ranger or Forest Supervisor. Funding for monitoring would come from the MBS annual budget, and from outside grants, when available.

Page 33 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES: HOW THEY RELATE TO THE MAJOR ISSUES Table 4 presents a summary comparison of the alternatives, in relationship to the major issues, identified in Chapter 1 and using the measures identified for each issue. Table 4 - Comparison of Alternatives Issues Alternative Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (No B E Action) (Preferred) Soil, Water, and 0.0 23.2 23.2 miles 23.2 miles Same as Aquatic would would be Alternative Resources decommissioned decommissioned C and 7.6 miles and 14.0 miles Miles of road would be would be decommissioned. decommissioned decommissioned to a low- to a low- maintaince maintaince multi-use trail/ multi-use trail/ private road private road Access No change in No change Private Same as Alt. C, Same as Alt. Narrative current in current landowners but easements C. description of how access. access. would be granted would be on 14.0 access is to pvt. road ease- miles of Road private land and ments on last 7.6 5600, annual mining claims miles of Road easement fees and would be affected. 5600; would operation and develop maintenance costs operation/ would be greater maintenance plan as a result of the with the FS. additional 6.4 Mining claimants miles of easement would be given required (See key to gate; effects on pages would be allowed XXX) to perform routine maintenance. Recreation No change in Same as Day hikers to Day hikers to Impacts to Narrative current day- Alternative Alpine Lakes Alpine Lakes day-use in description of how hike A for day- would park at would park near Alpine day-use access opportunities. use access: Dingford Crk junction of Road Lakes into the Alpine Hikers would no change. trail- 56 & 5640, near Wilderness Lakes Wilderness continue to head, and hike 7.6 Taylor River, would be the would be affected. be able to miles on new head, and hike 14 same as in drive to the multi-use trail, to miles on new Alt. C. terminus of Hardscrabble multi-use trail, to

Road 5600. trailhead. The Hard-scrabble (continued on next extra mileage trailhead. It is page) would likely limit estimated that the

Page 34 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Issues Alternative Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A (No B E Action) (Preferred) day hikes for all extra mileage except the most would eliminate

capable hikers. most to all day use in Alpine Lakes Wilderness from this portal. Actual days open for mountain bike The Middle An An additional 9.9 An additional 24 A total of use. Narrative Fork trail additional miles of trail miles of multi-use 13.8 miles description of would remain 16.1 miles would be open to trail would be on the potential conflicts closed to of trail mountain bikes. open to mountain Middle Fork and effects. mountain would be A new multi-use bikes, year round, Trail would bikes. open to trail on Rd. 5600- including 14 be opened to There would mountain 50 would be open miles of Road mountain be no user bikes. 2.3 year round. Road 5600, 2.3 miles bikes, on conflicts mi of new 5600 from on old Road odd- between trail on Rd Dingford Crk to 5600-50, and numbered mountain 5600-50 the end would opening the calendar bikes and would be also be open year 1003.01 and days, from other open year round to 1003.2 segments 4/15 through recreationists, round; Mid mountain bikes. of the Middle Fk 10/31. but no Fork Trail There would be Trail to mountain Alternating additional (13.8 mi) the potential for bikes. There bike use bike trails, would be user conflicts on would be the with either. open 4/15 both of these potential for user hiker/stock through newly converted conflicts. use would 10/31. trails.. result in less These trails user conflict would be on even- multi-use numbered (hikers, days. An stock, additional mountain 9.9 miles bikes), for would also the entire be available, open season. year round There would to mountian be the bikes on potential for newly user converted conflicts. segments of Road 5600 and 5600- 50.

Page 35 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION This chapter briefly describes the existing current condition of the project area. Information form the 1998 Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Analysis is incorporated by reference, where appropriate.

LOCATION The project planning area includes about 38.8 miles of National Forest System roads and approximately 13.8 miles of trails located within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Trails include those commonly known as the Middle Fork Trail: Trail # 1003, 1003.01, 1003.1, and 1003.2. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed is located in central Washington, on the west slope of the Cascade Mountains, in King County. The roads and trails within this project area are located within Sections 23, 25-27, and 35, T24N, R9E; Sections 7-9, 20-22, 25-27, 29, 30, and 36, T24N, R10E; and Sections 1, 2, 6-11, and 15-17, T23N, R11E.

Land Ownership There are approximately 93,350 acres of National Forest, State, County, and privately owned lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Roughly 96% or 90,350 acres are National Forest System lands; the remainder is owned by the State of Washington; King County; or private landowners (about 641 acres privately owned). Private Landowners • Green Crow property – 160 acres in Section 9, T24N, R10E • Moore property – 120 acres in Section 26, T24N, R10E • Northwest Wilderness Program Hardscrabble properties – 200 acres in Section 1, T23N, R11E and Goldmyer Hot Springs - approximately 20 acres in Section 15, T23N, R11E • Cascade Land Conservancy property – 60 acres in Section 36, T24N, R11E, and Section 34, T24N, R12E • Hardscrabble LLC property – 20 acres in Section 1, T23N, R11E • Bob Jackson’s Spruce Claims – 41.32 acres in Section 11, T23N, R11E • Lew Landers and Gary Maykut properties – 20 acres in Section 1, T23N, R11E and Section 36, T24N, R11E. The Green Crow property is located just prior to the proposed Road 5640 and associated spur road decommissioning. Green Crow has an easement on Road 5640 to their property. This property is under consideration for purchase by the Forest Service. The Forest Service has proposed purchasing the Moore and Cascade Land Conservancy properties; the former could be purchased by 2006. Northwest Wilderness Programs (NWWP) is a Washington Non-profit Corporation. Both Goldmyer Hot Springs and the Hardscrabble properties are located beyond proposed closures of Road 5600. Both properties are under a conservation easement held by Cascade Land Conservancy. This easement prevents the land from ever being mined, logged,

Page 33 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

developed, or otherwise damaged. In a typical year, between 3,000 and 4,000 people (including groups of school age children and youth groups) visit Goldmyer Hot Springs (Garvey, Schubert & Barer, 11/2003). Hardscrabble LLC property, Bob Jackson’s patented Spruce Claims, and the Lander/Maykut property are all located within the last two miles of the terminus of Road 5600. All are accessed by the segment of Road 5600 proposed for decommissioning and conversion to trail. Spruce Claims and the Landers/Maykut property are sources of specimens of quartz and sulfide minerals. Bob Jackson’s “Geology Adventures, Inc.” is a guide service that, in part, brings over 2000 students per year, either to the Spruce Claim or to an un-patented mining claim accessed by Road 5640 (Geology Adventures, Inc, 4/2002).

AIR QUALITY The air quality in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed is generally good. What degradation there is comes from off-site, specifically elevated ozone levels in the summer months that are a result of photosynthesis of hydrocarbons pushed by westerly winds from the Puget Sound Metropolitan area (MBS 1998).

SOIL/WATER RESOURCES

Geology Lands in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed are predominantly underlain with igneous rocks of the Snoqualmie batholith, with minor intrusions of volcanic and metamorphic rocks. Valleys within the Middle Fork have experienced multiple advances and retreats of alpine glaciers. With the exception of the alluvium along the Middle Fork and Taylor Rivers, all the surface deposits are the result of glaciations. There are major deposits of lacustrine-bedded silt and clay with sand lenses; many of the slope stability problems (landslides) in the watershed are associated with lacustrine deposits.

Land Areas and Soils Most of dominant landscape features within the project area have developed as the result of glacial action. The hard granitic bedrock that exists throughout the higher elevations was scoured by glacial ice, resulting in very steep, rugged slopes in the upper slope regions. A broad U-shaped valley floor was sculpted by the glaciers and later partially filled with glacial lake deposits. Surface Soil Erosion A comprehensive inventory of sediment sources originating from surface erosion processes has not been completed for the project area. The majority of soil types within the watershed are highly erodible when the surface cover (i.e., litter layer, vegetation, stones, etc.) is removed (Forest Service 1977 – Soil Resource Inventory). Roads can be a source of sediment, due to erosion of the running surface. Past, heavy commercial road use (associated with past timber harvesting), during periods of high precipitation, probably resulted in periodic erosion.

Page 34 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

No inventory of existing surface soil erosion sites (management or otherwise) has been completed for the Middle Fork. Mass Wasting No comprehensive landslide inventory has been completed for this watershed. The MBS Slope Stability Model was used during watershed analysis, to identify the locations which would be expected to have the highest probability of experiencing slope failures (mass wasting), under natural or undisturbed conditions. From a total watershed perspective, the project area is relatively stable in terms of mass wasting activity. According to the model, only about 11% of the total watershed area is considered to have a high potential for mass wasting—primarily in the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie and Pratt River watersheds. Only a small percent of the high-risk acreage for mass wasting (6%) is located within the Lower Middle Fork. Approximately one-half of the entire watershed area has a moderate potential, and 39% is interpreted as having a low potential for naturally occurring slope failure. While the Lower Middle Fork contains less total acreage of high risk, it actually contains the highest percent of high-risk acreage. Approximately 26% of the Lower Middle Fork watershed is considered, according to the MBS model, to have a high potential of experiencing naturally occurring mass wasting events. The Pratt, Upper Middle Fork, and Taylor River have 13%, 7%, and 9% of their areas rated as high risk, respectively. The most influential characteristics in determining relative slope stability within the Middle Fork appear to be surficial geology, soil parent material, and soil hydrologic group. While it is difficult to interpret all the various interactions of physical slope characteristics, it appears that the glacio-lacustrine deposits and glacial tills which exist along the valley bottoms and toeslopes of the Middle Fork, in conjunction with the relatively poor infiltration characteristics associated with these deposits, are the principal characteristics which influence mass wasting frequency and distribution within this watershed. Management activities have the potential of influencing naturally occurring slope stability characteristics. Road construction and clearcut timber harvest are particularly prone to altering the frequency and distribution of mass wasting activity. These activities have the potential of altering hillslope hydrology, soil strength, and other hillslope processes that determine site-specific slope stability characteristics. The relationship of roads, streams, age of vegetation and naturally occurring slope stability potential was evaluated through a GIS model in order to assess the influence of management activities on slope stability characteristics. (See the Middle Fork Watershed Analysis-Appendix C for a detailed description of the modeling assumptions and processes.) Management activities have had a low influence on the frequency and distribution of mass wasting activity within the Middle Fork. The highest influence probably occurred because of the railroad logging that occurred in the 1930's and 1940's. Since that period, very low levels of timber harvest and road building have occurred. According to the GIS model, the Upper Middle Fork watershed has the highest percentage of high-risk area associated with management activities. The existence of Forest Service Road 5600 along the lower slopes of much of this watershed is primarily responsible for this modeling interpretation. If evaluated at the sub watershed rather than the watershed scale,

Page 35 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

the Quartz Creek sub watershed (within the Taylor River watershed) actually contains the highest percentage of high-risk area associated with management activities. Quartz Creek contains a higher concentration of young stands (recent clearcut harvest) and frequency of road/stream intersections in conjunction with a moderately high percentage of naturally occurring high mass wasting potential. (MBS 1998) Figure 2 – Management-Influenced Mass Wasting Potential

wshhvi2pyu2xy evwsi eirih2exevs2eie

wngement2snfluened2wss2sting2otentil

viqixh uwtersheds yther2ywnership 2 righ2xturl2wss2sting2otentil 2 2 vow2otentil woderte2otentil righ2otentil

Hydrologic Processes The Middle Fork Snoqualmie watershed lies between the South and North Forks of the Snoqualmie River. The main stems of these rivers join near the City of North Bend, and together become the Snoqualmie River. The Snoqualmie River enters the Snohomish River system near the City of Monroe. These two systems make up the Snohomish River basin, one of the seven major river basins that drain the west slopes of the Cascade Mountains on the MBS. The main stem of the Snoqualmie River continues upstream as the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, above the confluence with the North Fork. There are about 40 miles of the main stem of the Middle Fork, and over 60 perennial and intermittent tributaries totaling about 1,800 miles. The head of the watershed is located in the Chain Lakes region near Crawford Lake. These lakes are several miles east of Snoqualmie Lake, which is one of the largest lakes in the watershed. The three main tributaries of this fourth-order watershed are Dingford Creek, the

Page 36 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Taylor River, and the Pratt River. River elevations on the main stem of the Middle Fork vary from 4,600 feet at the source outlet at Williams Lake at the head of the watershed, to about 400 feet, at the mouth near North Bend. Stream gradients vary from 10 to 20 percent, in step-pool or cascade dominated, narrowly confined reaches over the first ten miles of the main stem. Stream gradients drop to approximately 1 percent in the lower four miles. Here, the active channel varies in width from 30 to 75 feet. This channel meanders or braids through the 1 to 3-mile wide valley floor. The average stream density in the fifth-field watersheds, including both perennial and intermittent streams, varies from 5.56 and 6.05 stream miles per square mile in the Pratt and Lower Middle Fork Snoqualmie watersheds, respectively. In the Taylor and Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie watersheds, average stream densities are 6.36 and 7.18 stream-miles, per square mile, respectively. These stream density values are relatively average for the watersheds on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie—which, overall, has very high stream densities compared to most other forested areas of the country. There are approximately 112 road-stream crossings, and 235 trail/stream crossings on National Forest System lands within the project area (MBS 1998).

Water Quality All streams and rivers within the analysis area are classed under the current State of Washington Water Quality Standards as Class AA (“extraordinary”). This classification requires that the water quality exceeds the requirements for all, or substantially all, uses. The highest standards are generally for anadromous fish spawning and rearing, or other aquatic resources. Proposed changes to the water quality standards will drop this classification system for a use-based system, but for purposes of this document, standards for Class AA apply. Washington Department of Ecology 303(d) List: The most recent water quality assessment conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) does not propose any waterbodies in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed as impaired. This assessment has not yet been adopted, but is expected to be approved by EPA by the summer of 2005. The existing 303(d) list of impaired waters, the 1998 list, also shows no water quality impairments within the Middle Fork. The lower mile of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River was listed for temperature on the 1996 303(d) list, based on sampling in 1980 by the USGS at the discharge station near Tanner (near the town of North Bend, about 15 miles down stream from the project area). More recent data (1993 – 2001) obtained as part of Ecology’s ambient monitoring program shows no temperature violations in six samples during this period. Other parameters that meet water quality standards in this reach are pH and dissolved oxygen. Fecal coliform was found to violate standards through sampling in 2001. A TMDL addressing this impairment has been developed and approved by EPA. Downstream of the confluence of the North Fork and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers there is some concern for stream temperature but the data are not sufficient for a listing. An impaired listing has existed since 1998 for the river reach at the town of Snoqualmie. This impaired reach is 15 miles downstream from the National Forest boundary.

Page 37 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Several high elevation lakes in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed have been tested for total phosphorus and found to meet water quality standards. The limited water quality sampling indicates water quality to be good in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, but sampling is not sufficient to indicate whether all constituents meet standards in all areas. The water quality situation for most of the analysis area is largely unknown, because so little water quality sampling has been conducted. Management Effects Potential impacts from dispersed recreation use include contamination from hydrocarbons and various toxic wastes associated with the widespread illegal dumping of trash and camping wastes. Pollutants may occasionally result in localized stress or death of local or downstream aquatic organisms. The potential risk to human health is a greater issue, but neither impact is easily quantified and no attempts have been made to assess the extent of the problem in the analysis area. The Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers are known to have high turbidities and sediment loads. The glacial lake sediment deposits are characterized by clay and other interbedded deposits that are chronic contributors of fine sediments to the mainstem Middle Fork Snoqualmie River. A large mass failure at river mile 0.5 in the Pratt River contributes fine sediment from the lacustrine clays that comprise the failure. Increased activity associated with this landslide may be the reason for high turbidities in the lower Pratt River during the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, since there are no roads within the watershed. These sediments contribute to the turbidity in the Middle Fork. High turbidity may suppress both primary (algae) and secondary (invertebrate and fisheries) production in the streams. Other sources of sediment in the analysis area are debris avalanche chutes. Episodic events carry coarse and fine sediments and woody debris to the valley floors from high on the slopes. These debris slides cut across and deposit material on Road 5600, mostly above Dingford Creek, with each major storm event. Most of the sediment load in the watershed is from natural sources. The upper slopes are within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Over 50,000 acres are wilderness areas (nearly half the watershed area) (MBS 1998). There are additional areas in the watershed that are unroaded, non-wilderness. Management-related sediment is generally derived from timber harvest and roads, and the denuded areas in developed and dispersed recreation sites. Because of the land allocations in the watershed, timber harvest and related road construction, has been limited to the lower portions of the Pratt and Taylor Rivers, and to off-forest lands. There has been no timber harvest or road related construction on National Forest System lands within the watershed since the late 1980s. No foreseeable harvest is proposed. Vegetation Disturbance and Rain-on-Snow Vegetation disturbance from timber harvest on National Forest System lands in these watersheds was high (30% of a sub-watershed in hydrologically immature vegetation) in the late 1940s in the Pratt River and from the late 1940s to about 1980 in the Taylor River (MBS 1998). This level of disturbance likely caused increases in peak flows from rain-on- snow events and related increases in stream bank erosion and road related problems (culvert fill slope failures).

Page 38 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Vegetation disturbance levels for the watersheds have been below 10 percent since 1980. This suggests that increases in peak flows from rain-on-snow events have diminished from the highs in the late 1940s. Roads: Maintenance of road drainage features has not been kept up and road erosion still contributes to sediment loads. However, road densities are very low on National Forest System lands; approximately 0.30 miles per square mile. Road 5600 is located almost entirely within Riparian Reserves along the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, and portions of the road are within the floodplain. A road inventory (Bergeron et al. 1998) found that roads 5600120, 5600210, 5600410, and 5600510 (all proposed for decommissioning) contribute sediment directly into surface waters and/or have large culverts (36’ – 42’ in diameter) which are damaged and at a higher risk of plugging and failing. While these roads have low risk ratings through the road risk assessment, this field evidence demonstrates they are a source of sediment and that the culverts need treatment. The relative amounts of sediment from different sources in the analysis area have not been determined. While a sediment budget was completed for the South Fork Snoqualmie River, there is no sediment budget for the Middle Fork. With most of the harvested areas now supporting 50-60 year old trees, erosion from harvest has returned to pre-harvest levels. Roads remain as potential sources of sediment, and insufficient maintenance may be causing additional erosion concerns.

MINING The only ongoing mining in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed is mining for pyrite and quartz crystals. These deposits are considered geologically significant. The claims serve as a significant mineral collecting area in Washington State. Specimens of pyrite and quartz can be found in museums around the world. There are about 18 active claims in the upper watershed above Taylor River (Refer to Table 5); these are largely concentrated near Quartz Lake and past the Dingford Creek Trailhead between Goldmyer Hot Springs and Hardscrabble Creek. Claims are accessed from the Road 5600 and 5640 systems, by trail, by cross-country foot access, and/or by helicopter. Current access to 13 of these claims would be affected by the proposed closure and conversion to trail of Road 5600 at Dingford Creek. Table 5 - Mining Claims in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed within the National Forest Boundary. Claim Claimant Legal Discription Location Access Route Name/# Date Duchess Landers, T23N, R11E, NE Section 1 04/09/1962 Road 56, Trail #1030 & cross Maykut, & and T24N, R11E, SE Section country hike Morita 36 Stobokor George T23N, R11E, NW Section 1 11/15/2001 Road 56, cross country hike Anna Laura Jackson & T23N, R11E, NW SW 08/30/1951 Road 56, cross country hike Landers Section 1 Pl Jackson T23N, R11E, SW SE Sec. 2 04/18/2000 Road 56, cross country hike The Crystal Jackson T23N, R11E, SE Section 9 03/26/1998 Road 56, cross country hike Haven Copper Gilbreath, T23N, R11E, NE NW 08/30/1951 Road 56, cross country hike Queen Maykut, West Section 11

Page 39 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Spruce #27 Gilbreath, T23N, R11E, NE NW 07/20/1962 Road 56, cross country hike Landers, West Section 11 Spruce #38 Jackson & T23N, R11E, NW SW 07/20/1962 Road 56, cross country hike Maykut Section 11 Porter Brown T23N, R11E, SW Section 11 09/02/1993 Road 56, cross country hike Cascade #9 Dillhoff T23N, R11E, SW SE Section 07/20/1962 Road 56, cross country hike 11 & NW Section 14 Porter Atkinson T23N, R11E, SW Section 23 09/02/1998 Road 56, cross country hike Rainy Gilbreath, T24N, R10E, NW Section 16 07/06/1948 Road 5640, cross country Jackson hike Rainy #1 Gilbreath, T24N, R10E, NW Section 16 06/17/1966 Road 5640, cross country Jackson hike Rainy #2 Gilbreath, T24N, R10E, NW Section 16 10/11/1962 Road 5640, cross country Jackson hike Rainy #3 Gilbreath, T24N, R10E, NW Section 16 10/11/1962 Road 5640, cross country Jackson hike Purple Dillhoff T24N, R11E, SW Section 29 07/25/1981 Road 56, helicopter or hike Hope #2 and SE Section 30 cross country Purple George T24N, R11E, SE Section 30 07.25.1981 Road 56, helicopter, or hike Hope #4 cross country Nellie Dillhoff, T24N, R12E, NW SW 08/10/1951 Road 56, hiking cross Gilbreath, Section 34 country Maykut

CULTURAL RESOURCES Transportation, mining, logging, recreation, and Forest Service administration were the primary historic themes that affected the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. The proximity to the coast affected the development of transportation routes that connected with resources with effective import, export, and distribution markets.

Historic Properties In the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, 11 properties are listed in the Forest Heritage Resource database. All are associated with the historic period of use. Most sites represent historic transportation developments, with mining, logging, CCC and administrative themes also represented. The majority of sites have been located through the historic records. It is likely that more sites will be discovered as heritage resource inventories are conducted in the watershed. The project was reviewed under the terms of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) Regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in Washington State among the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The proposed action has been determined to be an “undertaking” pursuant to the definition provided at Section 301(7) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Activities proposed under all the Action Alternatives that include road decommissioning, installing gates, and road-to-trail conversions meet the conditions listed in Appendix B of the PA. These activities have limited potential to affect historic properties, if any properties are present. The Forest Heritage Specialist reviewed these projects, and determined they would be excluded from case-by-case review by the SHPO, provided the areas approved for

Page 40 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

actions under the selected alternative were pre-inspected, or monitored during construction. Inspection or monitoring will be done by a cultural resource specialist or cultural resource technician with current training. A case-by-case cultural resources survey was completed for the areas of the additional parking and sanitation facilities provided at Dingford Creek under alternatives C & E (Swain, 1999). No properties eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places were located. The survey documentation was forwarded to the SHPO in accordance with the PA. A Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is a kind of historic property that has significance because of its role in the beliefs, customs and practices of a community. Fieldwork to identify TCPs involves consultation with knowledgeable parties, such as identified elders or cultural leaders of an Indian community. Government-to-Government letters were sent to the Tulalip Tribes, the Yakama Indian Nation, and the Snoqualmie and Muckleshoot Tribes requesting information regarding the identification of such properties that may be affected by the proposed action. In addition, two non-federally recognized Indian communities were included in the public involvement process to illicit their input on the ATM project. No responses were received, and no significant locations have been identified.

Current American Indian Uses The Snoqualmie River watershed is within the Point Elliott Treaty area. It includes usual and accustomed fishing places of the Tulalip Tribes and the Yakama Indian Nation, adjudicated in U.S. v. Washington. The Snoqualmie River is also the traditional use area of the Snoqualmie Indians. The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe has been federally recognized by the Department of the Interior acknowledgement process, but they do not currently have the same off-reservation treaty rights as tribes that were party to U.S. v. Washington. An inventory of Native American religious use, practices, localities and resources on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest was completed in 1981 (Blukis, Onat and Hollenbeck 1981). Although the knowledge of many religious sites and resources is private, the inventory does identify an area of interest to the Duwamish Indians. The Duwamish are not federally recognized, but were included in the public involvement process. Indian individuals and their families may have used culturally significant localities that have been identified in the watershed for long periods. In some cases, special knowledge of these locations may have been passed from generation to generation. There is some indication that as land use privileges are lost on state and private lands, religious and cultural use of National Forest lands is increasing (Blukis Onat and Hollenbeck, 1981).

WILDERNESS RESOURCES Approximately 56 percent, or 50,736 acres of NFS lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed are classified as part of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness—which totals about 390,000 acres. The Wilderness is located between Interstate 90 (I-90) and State Route 2, and includes land on both sides of the Cascade Crest, on both the MBS and the Wenatchee National Forests. None of the project area is within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, but both Road 5600, above its junction with Road 5640, and the Middle Fork Trail are within ½ to 1 miles of the

Page 41 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

wilderness. These routes also provide access to 32.9 miles of system trail that access the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, including: Snoqualmie Lake Trail # 1002 Rock Creek Trail # 1013 Nordrum Lake Trail #1004 Dingford Creek Trail # 1005 Marten Lake Trail #1006, Hestor Lake Trail # 1005.1 Kaleetan Lake Trail #1010 Dutch Miller Gap Trail # 1030 High Lakes Trail # 1012 Williams Lake Trail # 1031.1 Pratt River Trail # 1035

Each year, about 67,500 visitors access Alpine Lakes Wilderness from within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie watershed. The heaviest use is at Snow, Melakwa, and Pratt Lakes, which are accessed by trails that originate in the I-90 corridor (MBS 1998). Use data from 1999 (MBS 1999) estimated that 2,337 people accessed the Alpine Lakes Wilderness from trails within the Middle Fork watershed: 417 on Dutch Miller trail, 472 from the Dingford Creek trail, and 1, 448 from Taylor River trail (MBS 1999).

ROADLESS AREAS AND UNROADED CHARACTER There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)16 within or adjacent to the project area. The nearest Roadless Areas are Glacier Peak K and Eagle Rock, located more than 20 miles north. (The boundary of the proposed “Wild Sky Wilderness” as currently drawn would incorporate the vast majority of these two IRAs.) An unroaded area is any area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and configuration sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated with its roadless condition. Unroaded areas do not overlap with Inventoried Roadless Area. The project area consists of approximately 34.5 miles of road and 13.8 miles of trail. The trail, though located on the opposite side of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, is within ¼ mile of Road 5600 for its entire length.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, three rivers have been recommended (both eligible and suitable) for designation as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System: the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Pratt, and Taylor Rivers (USDA1990b). These rivers were found to possess outstandingly remarkable values for recreation, wildlife and fisheries (MBS 1990a, Appendix E). No activities are proposed within the Pratt River corridor. Alternative D would close Road 5600 past its junction with Road 5640 to public motorized access. The first several hundred feet of this road segment are located within the Taylor River Recommended Recreation River corridor. It does not provide public access to the Taylor River.

16 Roadless areas were identified by direction of Secretary of Agriculture and included tracts of land 5,000 acres or larger that were roadless and undeveloped. Smaller areas were also included, if they were adjacent to existing wilderness. The MBS conducted an inventory to identify these lands during the Roadless Areas Review and Evaluation (RARE II) process in 1979. In 1984, Congress addressed the RARE II issue in the State of Washington by passing the “Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984.”

Page 42 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The Middle Fork is used for rafting, canoeing, kayaking, fishing, hunting and driving for pleasure along the river corridor. Most rafting, canoeing, kayaking, and fishing occur prior to the National Forest boundary, accessed from private, state and county land via Road 5600. The majority of the access points from within the National Forest are from portions of Road 5600 not proposed for decommissioning or closure motorized public access (Forest Boundary to Taylor River Bridge). Spotted owls have been located adjacent to the river in the Dingford Creek area. There is a large variety of wildlife species include elk, black-tailed deer, mountain goat, black bear and beaver. The river corridor contains extensive deer winter range, and riparian and furbearer habitat. There are resident cutthroat populations throughout the drainage. See discussions in the Wildlife and Aquatics sections of this EA. Under the Forest Plan they are being managed to maintain the values that make them suitable for the wild and scenic river designation. • The segments of the Middle Fork, Pratt and Taylor Rivers located within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness have been recommended by the Forest Plan for designation as "Wild Rivers.” Outside of wilderness, the Middle Fork has been recommended for designation as a "Scenic River" from the Wilderness boundary to the Taylor River confluence, and as a "Recreation River" from the Taylor River confluence to the confluence with the North Fork Snoqualmie River. • The segments of the Pratt and Taylor Rivers located outside of the wilderness, are recommended for "Recreation River" and “Scenic River,” respectively. Portions of project area Roads 5600-50, 5600-110, 5600-210, 5600-510, and Trail 1003.1 are located within the recommended recreation river corridor (MA 5A; see Chapter 1); segments of Roads 5600, 5600-520, 5600-950 and most of Trails 1003, 1003.01 and 1003.2 are located with the recommended scenic river corridor (MA 5B).

FIRE Lightning-caused wildfires have always been a part of the natural cycle affecting the structure of plant communities of forestland, and the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River drainage is no exception. Before modern fire protection efforts began in the early 1900's, lightning fires occurred infrequently and resulted in randomly distributed even-aged patches of vegetation, particularly on higher ridges and on south and east aspects above 2500 feet elevation. In the Middle Fork, the size and number of these fires was limited because much of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie drainage is within the wettest ecosystem on the Forest (Henderson, et al., 1992). In addition, broken topography and natural barriers contributed to limiting the size of these wildfires. Fire has not played a role of major change by large stand replacement fires in the Middle Fork. Historic fire return cycles are long-term, averaging 400-750 years, and even then, most of the fires were low intensity, slow spreading fires that did little damage to the overstory.

Page 43 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Since 1960, there has been an average of three to five, human-caused fires per year, averaging less than 1/10 of an acre. There was one, slightly larger fire in 1986: the Gray Fire, an industrial fire that stared from harvest operation on the Gray Timber Sale, burned approximately 30 acres. This pattern of infrequent, low intensity fires over the past 40 years is typical of the ecosystem found in the Middle Fork drainage. It is due, in part, to fire prevention efforts; but more importantly, the annual fire frequency is more dependent on weather than on the number of visitors or management activities. The pattern should be expected to continue in the future, although, the risk of a 750 year, stand-replacement fire cannot be ruled out. It is reasonable to assume future fires or fire protection efforts will not substantially affect the ecosystem diversity of the Middle Fork drainage. In fact, prescribed natural fire (allowing fires to burn under predetermined parameters) will likely be a management tool used in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness portion of the Middle Fork, to restore fire to historic levels.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Roads There are about 73.6 miles of existing National Forest, county, and private roads within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest boundary, in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Table 6 shows a breakdown by ownership. Although most roads were originally built for timber access, much of the road system has served multiple, forest management access objectives, including: public access for dispersed camping, hunting, fishing, wildlife and scenic viewing, berry picking, and trailhead access to both wilderness and non- wilderness areas. The current road density, within the National Forest Boundary is roughly 0.5 miles of road per square mile (73.6 miles / 145.86 square miles). Surfacing varies from crushed gravel to native material. Drainage is accommodated either through outsloping the road surface, or through use of ditches and culverts or stream crossings. Table 6 - Approximate Road Ownership within the MBS Boundary, MF Snoqualmie River Watershed. Jurisdiction Miles of Road National Forest System Roads 30.7 Huckleberry Land Exchange Roads to Forest Service 18.0* State and Private Roads 19.0 County Roads 5.9 Total 73.6 *Includes about 4 miles of roads obtained in the Huckleberry Land Exchange not solely on National Forest System lands and not proposed for decommissioning in this EA. The earliest roads built up the Middle Fork were mining roads; the first logging roads were constructed, beginning around 1928. The first 12 miles of Road 5600 are a county road (No. 98990): the first 8.5 miles are managed and maintained by King County and the last 3.5 miles by the Forest Service. At the request of the Forest Service and King County, this section of road is currently under consideration for paving under the Forest Highway program. The Federal Highway

Page 44 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Administration is conducting the analysis, and will document the results of the analysis in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Road Project Environmental Impact Statement. If approved, paving would begin in either 2009 or 2010. Traffic data counts were performed during the fall 2003, spring 2004, and summer 2004 to determine type, composition and count for five locations on Road 5600 (also known as the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Road).17. 1. Site 1 at Milepost 1.4, just before the start of the Middle Fork Road couplet. 2. Site 2, just past the couplet near the parking area for Mailbox Peak Trail. 3. Site 3 was located just prior to the Taylor River Trailhead. 4. Site 4 was located just after the Taylor River Trailhead to identify traffic going into the upper Middle Fork valley. 5. Site 5 was added after the initial count in the fall 2003 due to the significant drop in traffic from Site 2 to Site 3. It was located at milepost 6.0 just past the first Middle Fork Bridge.

Average, weekly two-way traffic counts by site were: o Site 1 – 395 vehicle o Site 2 - 238 vehicles o Site 3 – 104 vehicles o Site 4 – 89 vehicles o Site 5 – 183 vehicles Based on these traffic counts, it is estimated that approximately 61,100 vehicles (one-half of two-way traffic count) access the lower Middle Fork by Road 5600 annually. Of this number, about 2,700 vehicles, annually, drive as far as the Middle Fork Trailhead and approximately 2,184 vehicles travel beyond that trailhead, to destinations in the upper Middle Fork valley, such as the Snoqualmie Lake, Dingford Creek and Hardscrabble Trailheads or to mining claims, private property and Goldmyer Hot Springs. Most of the roads proposed for decommissioning were initially constructed in the 1970’s and 1980’s for timber harvest activities, including the roads acquired in the Huckleberry Land Exchange. The Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) constructed Roads 5600-50 and 5600 from Dingford Creek to Goldmyer in the 1930’s (Boswell 1990). Road 5600 from Goldmyer to its terminus was constructed in the 1950’s. The current access status of the roads proposed for decommissioning or decommissioning and conversion to trail is: Open to high-clearance vehicles: Road 5600 past Dingford Creek

17 Traffic counts were taken by DJ&A P.C. Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors, who have been contracted to complete the environmental analysis for the Federal Highway Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Road project. Count data is available in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Access and Travel Management Plan project analysis file.

Page 45 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Road 5600 spurs – 110, -210, -410, -510 past the approved, new Middle Fork Campground, -520, -950, and -980 Located behind closed gates and closed to motorized public access (and mostly brushed-in and not drivable, as well): All of the Huckleberry Land Exchange Roads Road 5640 past Snoqualmie Lake Trailhead and associated spur roads In storage (ML 1) and closed to motorized public access: Road 5600-50 Road 5600-220 Refer to the project analysis file for a segment-by-segment description of each National Forest System road (Road Management Objectives). The description includes: road number; road name; length; operational or current maintenance level; objective or future maintenance level; and a brief description of the road management objective, including potential for decommissioning.

Trails For information on trails, refer to the recreation section below.

VEGETATION

Vegetation Series Vegetation throughout the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed is quite variable. Forests are well within the range of natural variability. Large, late-seral stands dominate the mid- and upper-elevation zones, especially on NFS lands. The majority of low-elevation areas, located further down the watershed, are in the mid-seral stage, with little late seral forest. Much of the land acquired in the Huckleberry Land Exchange is in the early- to mid- seral stage. Approximately 25 percent of the watershed is in the Silver Fir Zone: silver fir and western hemlock are the dominant tree species and the projected climax species is silver fir, Abies amabilis. Within the project area, the Silver Fir Zone is found at elevations as low as 1,000 feet (on cool, wet sites) and as high as almost 4,000 feet on the driest sites. About 44 percent of the watershed falls within the Mountain Hemlock Zone. Silver fir and mountain hemlock are the dominant tree species, with mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) as the projected climax species. The Mountain Hemlock Zone occupies the upland areas in the watershed: it is found as low as 2,400 feet elevation in the coolest, wettest areas, and as high as almost 5,400 feet on drier sites. Approximately 14 percent of the watershed fall within the Subalpine Parkland and Alpine Zones; the Area Ecology Program has not yet classified this area into plant associations. The zones are structurally characterized by tree species growing in clumps or small "islands" of forest surrounded by open meadows, rock, snow, or ice. Tree species include mountain hemlock, Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), and/or subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The Parkland Zone can occur as low as 4,400 feet elevation (on the wettest

Page 46 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

sites) or starting at about 4,800 feet on the drier sites. Most of the Parkland Zone occurs in the Upper Middle Fork.

Fragmentation Fragmentation is the degree to which the landscape is broken into distinct patch types. Fragmentation can be a relatively permanent/natural feature, such as in the subalpine parkland, or a temporary, human-caused feature, such as a clearcut. As defined in the REAP (Peter 1993), an area in which 50% of the landscape is in patch clearcuts and 50% in old- growth forest is highly fragmented. An area that has been entirely clearcut, or burned or an area of contiguous old growth is considered as not fragmented. In general, the Upper Middle Fork and the Pratt River watersheds have the least amount of fragmentation; the lower Middle Fork has the most. There is very little fragmentation in the Middle Fork above the junction of Roads 5600 and 5640. Portions of the project area accessed by the Huckleberry Land Exchange roads, Road 5600 spurs – 110, -210, -220, - 410, and -510, and the last 1.7 miles of 5640 and it associated spur roads have been fragmented by patch clearcutting, resulting in more high-contrast “edge” than occurred historically, from fire and other natural disturbances. Barring large scale natural disturbance, such as fire, the amount of late-successional stand characteristics on national Forest lands within the watershed will increase and the amount of early-seral stand characteristics will decrease, due to the expected, minimal timber harvest in future years.

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plants There are no known or suspected Federally Threatened or Endangered plant species on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. On March 22, 2004 the Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines was signed (effective April 21, 2004). This decision removed the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan. Some of the species on the Survey and Manage list were transferred to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list (released April 26, 2004). Direction in the transmittal letter instructed the Forest Service to evaluate the impacts of proposed management actions on all former Survey and Manage species transferred to the Sensitive list, and that are identified as documented or suspected on the Forest, that have habitat within the project area, or may occur within the analysis area. Including former Survey and Manage species, there are currently 83 USFS Sensitive plant, lichen, bryophyte or fungus species known or suspected on the MBS (USDA 1999, USDA 2004b). There are known sites for two sensitive vascular plants (Campanula lasiocarpa and Galium kamischaticum) within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Surveys for vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens have been conducted in the project area18. These surveys fully comply with the current (as of March 2004) Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines and existing Special Status Species policies (March 2004 ROD, page 9). Galium kamischaticum was found near Road 5600-50.

18 Forest Service botanist field work – see project files.

Page 47 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Noxious Weeds Under Washington State Weed Law RCW 17,10.080, noxious weeds are species that are highly destructive, competitive, and difficult to control by cultural or chemical practice.19 Noxious weeds are typically found in disturbed areas such as roadsides, gravel pits, and harvest units. Populations of noxious weeds are increasing along travel corridors. Once these species are established in disturbed sites, they often spread into the surrounding areas and cause an imbalance in the natural succession process. Many native early seral species can be out-competed by noxious weeds. The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board lists noxious weeds as Class A (Species is limited in Washington. Control is required), Class B designate (Species has limited distribution within a state weed region. Prevention of seed production is required), Class B non-designate (Abundant or widespread within a state weed region. Control is local option, with goals of containment, gradual reduction, and prevention of further spread), and Class C (Widely spread in Washington. Individual counties may enforce control if locally desired). The Middle Fork project area was surveyed for noxious weeds. The following Class B non- designate weeds were documented: oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), and hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata). The following Class C weeds were documented: field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). None of these species are required for control in King County. Although not a state listed noxious weed, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) was found at Dingford Creek trailhead.

WILDLIFE The Federally listed species administered under the Endangered Species Act was addressed in a Biological Assessment submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The determination of effects was submitted to Level 1 consultation on May 2, 2001. USFWS concurred with the findings in the BA. The April 19, 2001 Wildlife Biological Assessment is located within the project analysis file. The project area is within or adjacent to suitable habitat for the following, Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered species: northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and bald eagle. In addition, critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet overlaps portions of the project area. There are no known confirmed Canada lynx records within the project area or the watershed. There is only a small amount of lynx habitat on the MBS. For this project, the nearest habitat is approximately 17 miles from the project area. Other species either documented or that may occur in the project area include: peregrine falcon, primary cavity nesters (e.g. pileated woodpecker), Townsend's big-eared bat, California wolverine, elk, black-tailed deer, mountain goat, marten, two species of (former) Survey and Manage salamanders (Larch Mountain and Van Dyke's salamander), and five

19 The most problematic, invasive species are those legally classified by the State of Washington as noxious weeds.

Page 48 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

species of (former) Survey and Manage mollusks. Other species of former Survey and Manage mollusks may occur, but are not expected to occur; thus, no surveys are required. Species that have been documented or are expected to occur on the MBS, but not likely to occur in the project area includes: the Common loon, Oregon spotted frog, and great gray owl.

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species, Critical Habitat There are five species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species List that are expected to occur or that may occur in the project area. Northern Spotted Owl According to the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed Analysis, there are eight known historic activity centers recorded in the watershed. The fifth-field watershed contains approximately 7,584 acres of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF), 11,148 acres of foraging habitat, and 14,816 acres of dispersal habitat (MBS 1998). Critical habitat (CHU #WA-32) does overlap portions of the project area. Late Successional Reserve (LSR #122) overlaps the lower half of Middle Fork Trail 1003 (from Trail 1003.1 to Rock Creek in Section 17, T23N, R11E). Portions or all of the following roads are located within 0.25 mile of suitable and critical northern spotted owl habitat: Road 5600, past Road 5640 5600-950 5600-50 the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640 5600-110 5640-108 5600-120 5640-116 5600-210 5640-120 5600 -220 5640-140

The Sustainable Ecosystem Institute (SEI) recently released a report, The Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 2004) (hereafter known as the SEI report) that compiled and summarized all available scientific information following the owl’s 1990 listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The purpose of the report, as contracted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), was to provide the FWS with guidance for an upcoming 5-year listing review process, as required by ESA. FWS is expected to complete the listing classification review before the end of 2004. The SEI report did not make recommendations about current management activities that are affecting populations within its range in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. The report suggests that major threats to the northern spotted owl are the effects of past and current harvest, loss of habitat to fire, and competition with barred owls. The report further states that the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines for riparian reserves, for example, are critical for maintaining spotted owls and other old-growth associated species.

Page 49 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The SEI Report encourages best management practices, such as the activities proposed by this project, to foster positive habitat stewardship for the long-term benefit of the northern spotted owl. Marbled Murrelet There are approximately 1,452 acres of suitable habitat located primarily in the upper reaches of the mainstem Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, Taylor River, Quartz Creek, and Pratt River. In addition, there are roughly 3,722 acres of recruitment habitat scattered throughout mostly the private land (MBS 1998). Critical Habitat (WA-10-c) overlaps portions of the project area. According to the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed Analysis, there are two known occupied sites (along the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie: T23N, R11E, Section 10; and along Quartz Creek: T24N, R10E, Section 16). Portions of the following roads are located within 0.25 mile of suitable and critical marbled murrelet habitat: Road 5600, past Road 5640 5600-950 5600-50 the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640 5600-110 5640-108 5600-120 5640-116 5600-210 5640-120 5600 -220 5640-140

Bald Eagle Bald eagles have been sighted during the winter and breeding season in the Middle Fork watershed; there are about 4,898 acres of potential nesting structure, and 4,872 acres of potential roosting habitat in the watershed. However, there is a lack of anadromous fish— the primary food source for the eagle—in the Snoqualmie River basin, above Snoqualmie Falls. There are waterfowl in the watershed that could provide a sufficient prey base, but due to the lack of anadromous fish, the presence of high recreation disturbance along the river and lakes, snow cover along high elevation lakes, and relatively few sightings of eagles in this area, this habitat is of little value to bald eagles for nesting (MBS 1998). Gray Wolf There has been one, Class 2 sighting of a gray wolf in the watershed.20 Suitable habitat is defined here as large areas of security habitat and available prey. Within the watershed, the combined open road and trail density is above 1.00 mile per square mile; wolves prefer denning and rendezvous sites to be located more than a mile from human activity. The watershed analysis identified approximately 6,682 acres of potential suitable denning and rendezvous habitat, mostly in wilderness. Potential security habitat exists northwest of the 5600/5640 road junctions. For this analysis, grizzly bear core habitat is also defined as gray wolf security habitat.

20 A Class 2 sighting is considered to be highly reliable, but no visual or sign was confirmed by a biologist.

Page 50 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Grizzly Bear This project is located with a Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone and Bear Management Unit (BMU) #01. National Forest System lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed fall almost entirely within BMU #1. Only the acres obtained in the Huckleberry Land Exchange are located outside BMU #1 (and they also lie outside of the existing boundaries for the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Area). There have been no confirmed sightings of this species within the watershed. The North Cascades is one of six grizzly bear recovery areas (USDI 1993). A BMU is an area capable of supporting a reproductive female grizzly bear. The North Cascades probably has fewer than 50 grizzly bears (Almack et al. 1993). Efforts to radio collar grizzly bears have been unsuccessful, so local habitat use patterns are unknown. The value of vegetation types, grizzly bear seasonal diets, and factors affecting population maintenance and expansion are also unknown and must currently be surmised from other grizzly bear recovery zones. The relative value of plant communities as grizzly bear foraging habitat is currently unknown, management situation zones have not been identified, and a cumulative effects methodology has yet to be developed. As an interim management tool, the three National Forests north of I-90 and the North Cascades National Park Complex developed a "no net loss" of core habitat policy to retain future options for recovering the grizzly bear. The focus of this policy is to maintain areas of relatively low human use. As a long-lived species with a low reproductive rate, grizzly bear mortality is a key factor determining grizzly bear population size. Risks of grizzly bear mortality are higher in areas where humans and grizzly bears interact. Grizzly bears experience higher mortality near roads; trails may also increase the risk of illegal shooting. Human use also increases the likelihood of bears being destroyed, following a conflict with humans (such as a chance encounter or food stored where it is available to bears). Habitat quality is also reduced within one-third of a mile from roads open to vehicles. Based on grizzly bear habitat use studies in Montana and British Columbia, core habitat is defined as areas within a BMU, further than one-third mile from open roads, motorized or high use trails. The baseline date for determining “no net loss” is July 31, 1997. Any planned reductions in bear core habitat—from new or reopened roads, or motorized or high use trails—must be offset by increases to core habitat in another area of the same BMU. The new core area (created by closing open roads, motorized or high use trails) would need to create an equal or greater area of core habitat, containing equal or greater value of seasonal foraging components, when compared to the core habitat that was lost. Portions of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie ATM analysis area, as well as the surrounding Wilderness, act as refugia to repopulate areas that are currently suitable habitat but may not contain bears. Road densities are relatively low, trail densities are moderate—although use of these trails is high—and security habitat contains highly suitable habitat, in moderate distribution for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie watershed, most of which lies entirely within BMU 1. The amount of available, suitable denning habitat is unknown, although it is expected to be high, due to plentiful high elevation security habitat combined with abundant suitable habitat during the winter months. Using the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for open road and high use or motorized trails, BMU's, early and late core areas, stand year of origin, and potential

Page 51 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

vegetation zones, an analysis was conducted of BMU #1 and the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed to determine existing conditions. Tables 7 and 8 show the amount of core and forage habitat in the Middle Fork and Taylor River watersheds. Table 7 - Existing Grizzly Bear Spring/Summer/Fall Foraging Habitat and Early/Late Core Habitat Areas within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed. Habitat Type MBS Acres Early Core 2,761 Early Fall Forage 2,771 Early Spring Forage 2,741 Early Summer Forage 2,741 Late Core 4,660 Late Fall Forage 4,610 Late Spring Forage 4,640 Late Summer Forage 4,640

Table 8 - Existing Grizzly Bear Spring/Summer/Fall foraging Habitat and Early/Late Core Habitat Areas within the Taylor River Watershed. Habitat Type MBS Acres Early Core 11,901 Early Fall Forage 11,900 Early Spring Forage 12,240 Early Summer Forage 12,040 Late Core 18,129 Late Fall Forage 18,389 Late Spring Forage 18,489 Late Summer Forage 18,289

Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species The following species, all included on the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal list (as revised in April 2004) are documented or suspected to occur on the MBS, and there are either known sites or suitable habitat in or new the project area: Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), California wolverine (Gulo gulo), Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli), and Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon varidykei). There are no known sites or suitable habitat for common loon (gavier immer), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), or Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in or near the project area; consequently, no impact would occur to these species or their habitat under any alternative, and they will not be discussed further in this document. Townsend’s Big Eared Bat This species generally requires caves, abandoned mines, or abandoned wooden bridges or buildings for roosting habitat, particularly for maternity colonies and winter hibernacula. These features do not occur near the project area; however, there are suitable roosting trees/snags in the old-growth stands adjacent to the project area. The project area could provide foraging habitat. Townsend’s big-eared bats feed mostly in the air along forest edges, roads, and open habitats, but can forage in almost any habitat (Johnson and Cassidy

Page 52 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

1997). There have been no sighting of this species within the project area, but it has been detected on the MBS. California Wolverine In the Washington Cascades, wolverines occur in alpine areas down through forested zones to the lower edge of forests. Generally, they are most common in alpine and subalpine zones, but will sometimes descend into valleys, particularly in winter where large game may be available. This species naturally occurs at low densities, with individuals ranging over large areas (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). Wolverines typically are known to inhabit large, sparsely populated wild and undeveloped or unroaded areas. They are susceptible to human disturbance, particularly near den sites. Potentially suitable denning habitat for the wolverine does not occur in or adjacent to the project area; however, the area may provide dispersal and foraging habitat for wolverines, particularly adjacent to the higher elevation roads. Larch Mountain Salamander Potential suitable habitat is present within the project area; surveys for this species are not required for road decommissioning. Van Dyke’s Salamander Protocol surveys for Van Dyke’s salamanders were completed in the project area within potentially suitable habitat. No animals were detected.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Management Indicator Species (MIS) Under the MBS Forest Plan, management indicator species have been designated for four habitat types: (1) threatened and endangered species habitat (bald eagle, American peregrine falcon (delisted in 1999), grizzly bear, gray wolf); (2) old-growth and mature forest (northern spotted owl, pine marten, pileated woodpecker); (3) snags and downed logs [primary cavity excavators (i.e. woodpeckers)]; and (4) big game winter range (black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, mountain goat). Bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and northern spotted owl have been discussed, above, in the sections on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Forested stands adjacent to the project area provide suitable pine marten denning habitat and suitable foraging and dispersal habitat (younger stands, riparian areas). This species is known to be present within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. The Forested stands adjacent to the project area also provide habitat for pileated woodpecker and other primary cavity excavators. There have been seven incidental sighting of pileated woodpeckers within the watershed. Some of the lower elevations roads obtained in the Huckleberry Land Exchange are located within deer and elk winter range (Forest Plan Management Area 14, part of the matrix). Deer and elk are known to winter along the lower mainstem Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, mostly on private land. Summering and calving occur in the Pratt, Taylor, and Quartz Creek drainages, with some elk moving to the higher elevations in the wilderness. The herd size is expected to be small compared to herds south of I-90.

Page 53 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

A mountain goat designated winter range area is located near Garfield Mountain. Numerous sightings of goats have occurred within the Middle Fork watershed. A healthy population of goats exists in the watershed and suitable habitat is available and well connected across the landscape.

Other Species of Concern21 The Standard and Guideline calls for the protection of caves, abandoned mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings that may be used as roost sites by bats, specifically fringed myotis, silver-haired bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. None of these roost site features are known to be located near the project area.

Migratory Birds/Landbird Conservation The habitat adjacent to most of the roads proposed for decommissioning contains primarily second growth forest. These young, forest types are not a limiting habitat factor for any priority bird species of the west side of the Cascades coniferous forest habitat type. The proposed project would not impact any habitat or forest vegetation.

AQUATIC SPECIES Past state and federal aquatic surveys within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed have documented the presence of resident populations of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and various species of sculpin (Cottus sp.) (MBS 1998). No anadromous salmonids, including Chinook salmon are present in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, as Snoqualmie Falls—located about 20 miles downstream from the project area—is a complete natural migration barrier. Also, no bull trout are known to be present above Snoqualmie Falls. State fisheries biologist have stated that, due to the existence of the falls, it is highly unlikely that bull trout have ever had access to either the South, Middle or North Forks of the Snoqualmie River (WDFW unpublished report 1999). The eastern brook trout population is introduced, but the rainbow and cutthroat populations may be native. Both rainbow and cutthroat trout were stocked in the project area as early as 1933 and as late as 1983. Brook trout stocking began in 1940, but ceased in 1963. Whitefish and sculpin populations within the project area are native. There are about 572 miles of perennial streams which are known to support fish within the project area, and are thought to provide the majority of potential habitat among the estimated 1,800 total stream miles within the watershed. Most of these 572 miles of known fish bearing sections are located within the lower-gradient, lower-elevation reaches of the Upper Middle Fork, which is the largest fifth field watershed in the Middle Fork drainage.

21 From the 1994 ROD, amending the 1990 MBS Forest Plan, and including the March 2004 ROD, which amended the Plan again, removing the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

Page 54 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

There are approximately 912 miles of intermittent streams in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed; they are by far the most abundant stream type present and the majority are found within the Upper Middle Fork.

RECREATION Looking at the entire Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River valley is one of the closest valleys to the Puget Sound Metropolitan area. Recreation use occurs throughout the project area. Recreation activities pursued within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie include driving, picnicking, fishing, whitewater kayaking, sight-seeing, photography, backpacking, climbing, rock hounding, car camping, day hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, swimming, rafting, hunting, trapping, off-road driving and motorcycling. Formal and informal foot and horse trails connect the Middle Fork Road 5600 to destinations throughout the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Traffic counts taken above private residences, in 2003 and 2004, indicate that each year, about 61,100 vehicles entered the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River valley on Road 5600. Approximately 2,700 of these vehicles are traveling Road 5600 to NFS lands. The majority of the activities take place within 0.25 mile of the road system and the Taylor and Middle Fork Rivers. Further, formal vehicle or head-counts have not been completed. Backcountry use in the project area is generally considered to be in the low use category, with about 1,500 users per year. However, three primary destinations fall into the higher use categories: Snow Lake, Snoqualmie Lake, and Melakwa Lake (MBS 1990, Appendix E). Nearly all of the visitors heading to Snow and Melakwa Lakes access these lakes from trails in the South Fork Snoqualmie River watershed.22 Approximately 15,000 hikers registered at the Alpental Trailhead, off I-90 in the South Fork (1999). In comparison, use at three trailheads within the Middle Fork, accessed from by Roads 5600 and 5640, was considerably lower: about 472 users registered at the Dingford Creek Trail; 417 registered at the Dutch Miller Gap Trail; and 1,448 registered at the Snoqualmie Lake Trail (MBS 1999).

Developed Recreation Trailheads In the project analysis area, there are four, maintained Forest Service trailheads with parking, located above the National Forest boundary. Only the Middle Fork/Taylor River Trailhead has sanitation facilities (toilets). There are also another eight informal parking areas, plus four other parking areas used by miners and their visitors. See Table 9, below. (In addition, the area includes an estimated 87 motorized dispersed use sites, located all along the river.)

22 Snow Lake currently receives the highest recreation use of any wilderness or backcountry destination on the MBS, and more than many front-country sites on the Forest.

Page 55 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 9 - District Count of Commonly Used Parking Areas in the Middle Fork Type of Trail- Number of Number Of Location Number of Vehicles head Parking Areas Outhouses Formal 4 Middle Fork 50 Cars15 truck and trailer 2 (stock) Snoqualmie Lake 15 Cars 0 Dingford Creek 10 Cars 0 Dutch Miller Gap 25 Cars 0 Informal 8 CCC Road 5 Cars 0 Pratt River 4 Cars 0 Garfield Mountain 10 Cars (Pvt. Prop.) 0 Wildcat Creek 5 - 10 Cars 0 Rock Creek 3 Cars 0 Thunder Creek 3 Cars 0 Goldmyer Hot 10-15 Cars 0 Springs Hardscrabble Lake 10-15 Cars 0 Mining 4 Quartz Creek 10 Cars 0 Green Ridge Lake 5 Cars 0 Spruce Claim 5 Cars 0 Mill Site 2 Cars 0 Campgrounds There were two developed campgrounds in the Middle Fork drainage, though both have been closed for some years. Mine Creek Campground, located on Department of Natural Resources property at MP 3.0, was closed about 10 years ago, due to budget cuts and law enforcement problems. The Taylor River Campground, located on the east side of Taylor River at its confluence with the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, was closed as a developed site in the mid-1980s, also due to budget cuts and vandalism problems. The recently-approved Middle Fork Snoqualmie River campground23 will provide approximately 45 new camping sites in the area. It is located near the confluence of the Taylor and Middle Fork Rivers, in an area previously used for timber management and rock extraction. Construction started in August 2004 and completion is expected in the summer of 2005. The campground will be fee based and offer a variety of over-night and day-use experiences/amenities. Because the facility will have a variety of loop and parking options that can be individually closed or open, some portions of the facility may be open to the public during the fall and spring months to meet demand for camping when other campgrounds on the District are closed. At this time, the determination has not been made if the campground will be managed under the existing Forest concessionaire arrangement or managed, separately, by Forest Service personnel.

23 Decision signed February 23, 2004.

Page 56 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dispersed Recreation

Trails Four formal trail systems provide regular access to the backcountry within the watershed: Rock Creek Trail #1013, Dutch Miller Gap Trail #1030, Dingford Creek Trail #1005, and the Snoqualmie Lake Trail #1002. The Middle Fork Trail (#1003, 1003.1, 1003.01, and 1003.2) connects all of these, essentially recreating the trail system, as it existed 90 years ago. The Rock Creek Trail is open for use by hikers. The Dutch Miller Gap and Dingford Creek Trails are open for use by hikers and pack and saddle. The Snoqualmie Lake Trail is open for hikers and pack and saddle up to and inside the Alpine Lakes Wilderness; the trail is open to mountain bikes as far as the Alpine Lake Wilderness boundary. The Middle Fork Trail is open to hikers and pack and saddle use. Near the proposed road decommissioning are the Pratt River Trail #1035 and the Thompson Lake Trail #1009; both access areas of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, though they are not used by many hikers. Access to the Pratt River had been located on privately-owned land, and a hiker-only cable suspension bridge. This footbridge washed out in 1975 and has never been replaced. A project analysis is currently underway to reconnect this trail to the Middle Fork Trail at the Middle Fork Trailhead. Middle Fork trails are in demand by the public. Low elevation, the opportunity to hike and camp in a forested setting, and easy access from Seattle (less than a one hour drive) combines to make this area an attractive year round destination. A complete inventory of trails and their management guidelines is located in Appendix D of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed Analysis (MBS 1998, page D-12 to D-21). Existing trail miles listed in the inventory may differ from those generated through GIS. Each of these trails was measured on the ground, using a cyclometer, which provides more accurate mileage. The following table is a summary of the trail miles located in the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie. Approved (not constructed) miles are estimates. Table 10 - Summary of National Forest Trail Miles by 5th Field Watershed (includes trail mileage accessed from the South Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed). Lower Upper Middle Taylor Pratt River Total Middle Fork Fork River Wilderness 0.0 20.9 21.2 8.6 50.7 Non-Wilderness 0.0 11.0 16.1 14.1 41.2 Total Existing 0.0 28.1 42.1 21.7 91.9 Approved * 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 *CCC/Taylor River Trail is under construction. This trail will be a major connector between the Mt. Si Road and Middle Fork/Taylor River Trailhead.

Non-Wilderness Recreation Use As noted above, the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River is one of the closest, forested areas to the Seattle Metropolitan area. The entire roaded portion of the river is used for day use and weekend camping, and a wide variety of recreation activities including day hiking, fishing, hunting, rafting, kayaking, picnicking, target shooting, climbing, mountain biking, photography, and simply driving for pleasure. Approximately 87 motorized/non-motorized

Page 57 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

dispersed campsites are located along the river and along Road 5600. These were inventoried through the Code-a-Site program in the mid 1970's (and most still exist). Short, user-built roadways and/or trails access most of the sites. Many of these dispersed campsites are full during the summer; they were full even when the old campgrounds existed (see above). Unfortunately, the lower portion of the river, from North Bend to the Taylor River, has a reputation for lawlessness. Vandalism, irresponsible shooting, garbage dumping, vehicle abandonment, and the use of 4-wheel drive vehicles off the road are only some of the types of incidents that have been noted or reported. “Friends of the Trail,” a non-profit organization, has removed approximately 200 tons of garbage and over 100 abandoned vehicles from the Middle Fork from 1996-2003. The group continues to work actively in maintaining and cleaning of these sites.

Backcountry Area and Alpine Lakes Wilderness About 50,736 acres in the Middle Fork drainage fall within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (which was classified in 1976). The wilderness boundary wraps around the roaded portion of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, approximately 1/2 mile from the road. Backpackers, climbers, and anglers constitute the great majority of trail users today. Trail use in this part of the Wilderness generally falls into a low use category of 0-500 users per year, per trail (MBS 1990, Page E-12). Since 1995, non-regulatory entry permits have been required for entry throughout the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Use numbers were generated using 1995 and 1999 usage data. Table 11 - Miles of Hiker, Stock and Mountain Bike Trail Accessed from Road 5600. User Group National Forest* Other** Hiker 72.2 15.5 Stock (Pack & Saddle) 57.5 0 Mountain Bike 9.8 0 Includes CCC/Taylor River Trail, which is currently under construction. ** Mailbox Peak, South Bessemer Mountain and Granite Lakes (Private lands)

Winter Recreation The Middle Fork is lightly used for snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. The road is not plowed and tends to get icy several miles below the point where the snow is would be considered good for these pursuits. Thus, public recreation in the Middle Fork is fairly limited from November through April. The snow line does vary from year to year, so ease of access and the number of users varies, and is unpredictable. The Middle Fork Trail, from the Taylor River upstream to Dingford Creek, will be accessible to hikers throughout the winter months, during most years. Low-elevation trails are in demand by the general hiking public.

Water Sports The Middle Fork valley is a popular destination for recreationists pursuing a variety of water sports. The river has been open only to catch and release fishing since 1986, and has become popular with fly fishers.

Page 58 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Whitewater kayaking and rafting occur in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River. There are put-ins, all along the Middle Fork, below the Taylor River confluence. Common take-out points are a short distance below the Middle Fork Trailhead Bridge, at the concrete bridge and Mine Creek, well below National Forest System lands on King County property.

Hunting Hunting for deer, elk, and black bear occurs between August and December each year. Most hunting takes place along the roads and is mostly day use.

Recreation Special Uses Recreation special use permits for events of 75 or more individuals are issued periodically within the Middle Fork valley. Occasionally, permits have been issued to small Outfitter Guides providing day trips and transportation to trailheads for tourists.

SOCIAL/ECONOMIC RESOURCES The economy of the local area, near the project, has changed from that of timber- dependency to one of great diversity. Until as recently as the late 1970's, this area was dependent on wood products. Most people are now employed in other industries, mirroring the changes in the overall Seattle-metropolitan area economy. Most of the people who are still associated with the wood products industry are employed either by the Weyerhaeuser Company, in the town of Snoqualmie, or one of the still remaining small logging companies. Businesses such as Nintendo of North Bend and Ski Lifts Inc. at Snoqualmie Pass employ a smaller segment of the local population. The majority of the local, adult working population is employed in Issaquah, Bellevue, Renton, and Seattle, working in various professional and technical jobs—thus, the North Bend area functions as a "bedroom community" for the Puget Sound basin. This trend will probably continue into the future. Even though law enforcement within the watershed has increased over the past few years, there is still considerable lawless behavior. Spur roads are often targeted for illegal dumping of garbage, hazardous wastes, appliances, automobiles (stolen and otherwise), and other household and construction products. The material that is illegally dumped is not only used as shooting targets, but is a source point of pollution into creeks and soils. The DNR has blocked all spur roads on DNR and King County property to control dumping, shooting and uncontrolled access to and into the river by vehicles.

Page 59 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION This chapter discloses the environmental consequences of implementing any of the five alternatives. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are estimated and disclosed. Environmental consequences discussions focus on major issues (and the measures for each), to assist in comparing the effects of each alternative. Reference is made to material from the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Analysis, where appropriate.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Direct Environmental Effects are defined as those occurring which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect Environmental Effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the proposed project, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use patterns, related effects on air and water, and other natural systems within the ecosystem. Cumulative Environmental Impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Impact to water quality from this action combined with other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be considered a cumulative impact. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered to potentially have a cumulative impact on this project include: changes in access on State and private lands accessed by Road 56 (Middle Fork Road); recent land Exchanges and purchases; Middle Fork Access and Travel Management (the project being proposed in this EA); Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration; CCC/Taylor River Trail: Federal Highway Administration Middle Fork Road Paving project; Pratt River Trail #1025 reconstruction; Middle Fork Campground; and Middle Fork Trail Bridge at Goldmyer Hot Springs. Description of Past Actions State and Private Land Access from Road 56: Access to and on state and privately owned lands in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed have changed significantly over the last 15 years. Prior to mid-80s the Granite Lakes, the Bessemer/CCC road system and most private logging spur roads were open to motorized recreation access. Mine Creek Campground, a State campground, and about 20 dispersed campsites on state and private land below the National Forest boundary were also open and available for developed and dispersed camping. Since the mid-80s, all state and private roads have been closed to vehicle access and all sites that were used for dispersed camping are now day-use only. Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration: In 2003, this project decommissioned and removed approximately 3 miles of roads obtained in the Huckleberry Land Exchange. These roads were no longer needed for forest management. Annual cost saved to maintain these roads to standard is approximately $1,170 (3 miles x $390/mile at ML 2).

Page 60 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Huckleberry Land Exchange and Other Land Purchases: The completion of the Huckleberry Exchange and purchase of several small tracts of land near Gifford and Granite Lakes have resulted in the transfer of approximately 5,637 acres of Weyerhaeuser Company lands and other private lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed to the Federal government (National Forest System). Along with the lands, the Forest Service also acquired approximately 17.0 miles of logging roads no longer needed to manage these lands. About three of these miles were decommissioned with Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration Project list above. Description of Recently Approved Actions CCC/Taylor River Trail: The CCC/Taylor River Trail is under construction. It will result in 3.5 miles of new trail connecting the CCC road (Road 5600-50) to the Middle Fork Snoqualmie/Taylor River Trailhead. The trail will accommodate non-motorized, multiple- use activities including hiking, mountain biking, and stock. The CCC/Taylor River Trail and the CCC road (2.3 miles of which are proposed for conversion to trail in this EA) would link to the King County Regional Trail system, which connects to numerous destinations within the western part of the County – including the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle. Middle Fork Campground: In 2004, a new campground was approved for construction; when completed, in the summer of 2005, it will include approximately 45 camping sites and 0.5 miles of new system road to access the camp sites. The facility will be located approximately 0.2 mile up Road 5600-510, near the confluence of the Taylor and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers. The campground will be fee-based and offer a variety of over night and day-use experiences/amenities. Because the facility will have a variety of loop and parking options that can be individually closed or open, some portion of the facility may be open to the public during the fall and spring months to meet demand for camping when other campgrounds on the Snoqualmie Ranger District are closed. Description of Current, Proposed and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Middle Fork Road Federal Highway Administration Project: The Federal Highway Administration, in partnership with King County and the U.S. Forest Service, is currently completing the Snoqualmie River Road Environmental Impact Statement. This project proposes to pave Road 5600 from about milepost 1.4 to the Middle Fork Trailhead (milepost 12.1). If approved, reconstruction of the road would be completed in approximately 2010. King County would assume maintenance on approximately 3.7 miles of road the Forest Service is currently maintaining by agreement. The estimated annual savings to the Forest Service would be $2,886 (3.7 miles x $780/mile) for road maintenance and about $49,00024 in road repair costs. Pratt River Trail Reconstruction: This project proposal includes reconstructing the Pratt River Trail #1025, from the existing Middle Fork Trail Bridge to where the trail is located on an existing railroad grade within the Pratt River Valley. Approximately 4.5 miles of trail would be reconstructed. The trail has been in existence since at least the early 1900’s. It is used by hikers and climbers, accessing the Preacher Mountain area, Rainy Lake, and the Pratt River Valley. Most of this section of trail is located within the flood plain of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River. Specifics of the project include relocating the trail to side

24 This figure is based on the average annual cost to repair this segment of road from 1990 to 2000.

Page 61 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

hills above the flood plain, installing a footbridge across Rainy Creek, and attempting to deal with user built routes to sites within the riparian areas. Middle Fork Trail Bridge at Goldmyer Hot Springs: Installation of a trail bridge across the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, near Goldmyer Hot Springs, is proposed; this project would provide safe access to Goldmyer Hot Springs and another Middle Fork Trail loop opportunity.

Overview of Major Issues: The major issues identified for this project include the following; refer to Chapter 1, page 15, for further discussion; Soil, Water, Aquatic Resources: Roads obtained in the Huckleberry Land Exchange and most of the spur roads off of Road 5600 and 5640 are no longer needed, and—due to insufficient funding—have not been adequately maintained. Many are brushed in and not drivable. There is a concern for increased road sediment into aquatic systems, and mass wasting and road fill failures. Access: Private landowners and mining claimants with interests located past the proposed closure of Road 5600 at Dingford Creek are concerned about maintaining current motorized access. Recreation: There is a concern over loss of day hike opportunities in the Upper Middle Fork valley if Road 5600 is closed to public, motorized access at Dingford Creek or below. Conflicts among users and resource damage are also a concern, if mountain bikes are allowed on the Middle Fork Trail.

LAND OWNERSHIP

Land Ownership None of the alternatives would affect land ownership within the project area. However Alternatives C, D, and E would affect access to private lands past the proposed closure of Road 5600, at Dingford Creek, to motorized public access. Alternative D would affect an additional 6.4 miles, as Road 5600 would be closed to public, motorized access from just east of the junction of the road with Road 5640. These effects will be displayed separately by alternative. Cumulative Effects All Alternatives This project along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have no cumulative effects on land ownership within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed.

Page 62 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Effects to Access, Private Land and Mining Claims Alternatives A (No Action) and Alternative B Private landowners using Road 5600 to access their properties, for non-commercial purposes, could continue to use the road without any type of written authorization. There would also be no change to access on Road 5600 for mining claimants or the public. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) The direct effects of implementing either of these alternatives, to the various landowners with property past the gate at Dingford Creek, are estimated to include: • An annual easement fee of $26.25 per acre of road included in the private road easement, using a 10 foot width and the length varying by landowner (FSH 2709.11- 2002.4). The approximate annual easement fees to private land access points would be as follows: • Goldmyer Hot Springs (Northwest Wilderness Programs property) - $145.18; • Spruce patented claims (Jackson property) - $194.09; • Hardscrabble (Northwest Wilderness Programs property) - $219.54; and • End of Road 5600 (Landers/Maykut property) - $241.82. Other impacts to private landowners, as a condition of the easement, would include compliance with the provisions of the Forest Service/Private Landowners Operation and Maintenance Plan, including, among other provisions, meeting annually with the Forest Service to review maintenance needs. The Forest Service would install and maintain the gate at Dingford Creek, and distribute keys to private landowners (including periodically changing the lock, with 30 days prior notice and distribution of new keys); thus direct impacts to private landowners from the gate would involve getting out of the vehicle, opening and then closing/locking the gate, for each motorized visit. If either of these alternatives were implemented, private landowners would be required to perform all routine maintenance to insure that the road prism remains intact and no damage occurs to the NFS trails or on adjacent NFS lands. Landowners would determine their own proportionate shares of road maintenance amongst themselves. However, the Forest Service would improve the surface and drainage as part of treatment required to convert this segment of Road 5600 to a trail/private road, including: replacing most culverts with drivable dips, smoothing the surface, and filling holes (maintaining current travel width), and brushing the trail/travel way (see Alternative descriptions). The trail/travel way should be fairly self-maintaining. If private landowners would choose to no longer maintain a private road easement no further road decommissioning treatment would be needed. The Forest Service would also perform all routine maintenance required for use as a NFS trail, as described in Chapter 2. It is estimated that each private landowner’s average, annual proportionate share to maintain this segment of Road 5600 as a private road would be about $1,400 to $1,500. Most of this cost would be associated with removal of fallen trees and debris slides on the road surface. This amount would vary year to year depending on the extent of the above variables.

Page 63 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The consequences of implementing either Alternative C or E (Proposed Action) should a significant storm event occur (one that blocks or washes out the private road/NFS trail prism) would include the following: • The Forest Service would take appropriate steps to reconstruct the trail. • Concurrently, should landowners decide they want continued vehicular access, they would need to submit their proposal to the Forest Service for approval. • Upon receiving a proposal from the landowners, the Forest Service would work with the landowners to determine the steps that would be needed to reconstruct or rehabilitate both the trail and private road running surfaces. • The Forest Service would also consult with the landowners to determine the proportionate share of cost, establish the level of environmental analysis required, and provide an estimate of timelines for completion of the process. This could result in modifications to the private road easements and the operation and maintenance plan. Based on Northwest Wilderness Programs’ (Goldmyer Hot Springs) experience of a road closure in the 1990s, the closure of Road 5600 to motorized public access at Dingford Creek would result in a sharp drop in usage at Goldmyer Hot Springs immediately after the closure, but the usage would gradually built to a point where it was 70-80% of current normal usage. (Currently between 3,000 and 4,000 people visit Goldmyer Hot Springs each year.) Usage by families and youth groups would drop off because the closure at Dingford Creek would require a 9 mile roundtrip hike25. Currently, patrons of Goldmyer Hot Springs can—with high-clearance vehicles—drive to within one-half mile of the hot springs, where they must ford the river and hike to the hot springs. However, Northwest Wilderness Program would have the option to provide high-clearance vehicle access for youth groups, young children and those unable to reasonably access the hot springs in one day. Alternative D The direct and indirect effects to landowners, if Alternatives D were implemented, are similar to those for Alternatives C and E. However, with the additional 6.4 miles of Road 5600 closed to public motorized use, some additional impacts are projected. • An annual easement fee of $26.25 per acre of road included in the private road easement, using a 10 foot width and the length varying by landowner (FSH 2709.11- 2002.4). The approximate annual easement fees to private land access points would be as follows: • Goldmyer Hot Springs (Northwest Wilderness Programs property) - $346.82 • Spruce patented claims (Jackson property) - $397.73 • Hardscrabble (Northwest Wilderness Programs property) - $423.18 • End of Road 5600 (Landers/Maykut property) - $445.46. It is estimated that the private landowners average annual proportionate share to maintain this segment of Road 5600 (14 miles) as a private road would be about $2,800-$3,000. Again, as with Alternatives C and E, most of this cost would be associated with removal of

25 May 2, 2002 letter from Garvey, Schubert & Barer (attorneys for NWWP) to Doug Schrenk, Forest Service.

Page 64 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

fallen trees, debris slides on the road surface, and brush removal; the amount would vary year to year, depending on the extent of the above variables. Closure of Road 5600 to motorized public use from just past its junction with Road 5640 would eliminate most of the 3,000 to 4,000 annual visitors to the hot springs. Loss of revenue from lost visitation and increased access costs would hamper Northwest Wilderness Programs’ (NWWP) ability to manage and protect Goldmyer Hot Springs. They would not be able to maintain year-around caretakers on the Goldmyer property, which could put the property and improvements on the property at risk of vandalism and/or destruction by vandals26. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A (No Action) and B Implementation of Alternatives A and B and the foreseeable project that would install a trail bridge across the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River near Goldmyer Hot Springs property would assure safe crossing of the river to the Hot Springs and would save patrons and Goldmyer personnel an additional 3-mile drive to Hardscrabble Trailhead and 4-mile hike or ride back down Trail 1003.2 to Goldmyer, when the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River is unsafe to ford. Alternatives C and E Cumulatively, implementation of the likely-to-be proposed trail bridge across the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River near Goldmyer Hot Springs gives NWWP easier access to the hot springs for maintenance and supplies. Alternatives C and E would close Road 5600 at Dingford Creek, which would require patrons of Goldmyer to hike or ride stock or mountain bikes about 4.5 miles to the Goldmyer crossing of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River. Installing the trail bridge at the Goldmyer crossing would assure a safe crossing of the river and would eliminate the temptation to ford the river when it is to high to avoid the additional about 6 mile hike or ride required to access the hot springs from the upper Middle Fork River crossing of Trail 1003. Alternative D Cumulatively, there would be no change in direct effects associated with Alternative D, with the implementation of the foreseeable project that proposes to install a trail bridge across the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River near Goldmyer Hot Springs property. The round trip of approximately 20 miles would still eliminate most public usage of the hot springs. The effects for those members of the public who would be able to hike or ride stock or mountain bikes to make the 10 mile trip to Goldmyer Hot Springs would be the same as described in the other alternatives.

AIR QUALITY All Alternatives None of the actions proposed in any of the alternatives are expected to affect air quality.

26 Same reference as cited in the above footnote.

Page 65 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects Because none of the actions proposed are expected to affect air quality, the alternatives proposed in this environmental assessment along with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not result in cumulative effects to air quality at the watershed level.

SOILS/WATER RESOURCES Alternative A (No Action) Current soil and water conditions and trends would persist under this alternative. Though the limited routine road maintenance would have beneficial effects, through some reduction of road related sediment reaching the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River and/or its tributaries, implementation of the no action alternative would result in a continuation of lack of - adequate maintenance to appropriate standards of unneeded roads (30.8 miles) in this drainage. They would continue to be potential sources of road sediment into aquatic systems from road runoff, mass wasting and road fill failures. While Road 5600 would remain open to public motorized access past Dingford Creek, the road would continue to be periodically closed, due to debris on the road or failure of the road prism. Most of this segment of road is located on naturally-occurring unstable soils (MBS 1998), which would continue to erode and move down slope, particularly in natural slide areas and at those locations where the river is eroding the toeslopes of unstable soil material. Alternative B Under Alternative B, 23.2 miles of road no longer needed for forest management would be decommissioned and removed from the forest transportation system. Road decommissioning ranges from no treatment (Road 5640 spurs) to removing unstable sidecast fills and removal of culverts (Road 5640, Huckleberry Roads and Road 5600 spurs). Disturbed areas resulting from this work have a heightened risk of surface erosion until vegetation establishes on the site (usually one growing season). This short-term erosion risk is minimized by mulching disturbed areas and assuring adequate channel width where culverts are removed and assuring the mitigation measures and standard management practices listed in chapter 2 are implemented. These same activities reduce the risk of fill failure and catastrophic loss of the road prism at stream crossings. The net effect is less sediment delivery to streams over the existing conditions. Approximately 11 miles of road slated for decommissioning are located in riparian Reserves. Removal of fill and culverts here would restore natural flow patterns and floodplain function (surface and subsurface flow would no longer be intercepted and/or diverted by the roads). As in Alternative A, Road 5600 above Dingford Creek —almost all located on naturally- occurring unstable soils—would continue to be impacted, annually, with debris on the road or failures of the road prism, with possible road closures. Those portions of Road 5600 on naturally-unstable ground would on occasion continue to erode and fall down slope, particularly at avalanche chutes and locations where the river continues to erode the

Page 66 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

toeslopes of unstable soil material. The degree of impact depends on the magnitude of winter storms. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Alternatives C and E include the same decommissioning (about 23.2 miles of road---with 11 in Riparian Reserve) as in alternative B. The effects of this decommissioning would be the same. In addition, the final 7.6 miles of Road 5600 (approximately 7 miles within Riparian Reserves) would be decommissioned from a Forest system road to a low maintenance National Forest System trail/private road that would allow motorized access for private in- holders and also serve as a non-motorized public trail (Should private landowners choose to terminate their private road easements no further road decommissioning would be needed). The net effect on the Forest road system would be a reduction of 30.8 miles of Forest road. As described in chapter 2, pages 20-21, the treatment to transition the road to a trail/private road including pulling and replacing approximately 15 ditch relief culverts with drivable dips, replacing culverts at four intermittent streams, to large for drivable dips with new larger diameter culverts, filling holes in the road, and smoothing out the travel surface would create a short-term risk for erosion of disturbed areas. Seeding and mulching would minimize this risk. If water is present in the intermittent streams, diversion of flow during culvert removal and replacement minimizes construction related sedimentation in the affected channels. Over the long-term, decommissioning 23.2 miles of road and treating and converting 7.6 miles of road 5600 would have greater value to soil and water resources by reducing the risk of catastrophic failure and chronic road erosion and by restoring natural flow patterns and floodplain function (as the roads will no longer divert runoff down or intercept subsurface flow). The last 7.6 miles of road 5600 that would be converted to trail/private road would continue to be located on naturally unstable lands and subject to occasional avalanche debris slides or slumping from river erosion were the trail/private road is located immediately adjacent to the Middle Fork Snoqualmie. Alternatives C and E would reestablish the original perimeter of the Dingford Creek trailhead parking area by cutting and grubbing alder and brush that have encroached upon it and the Shoulder of Road 5600 just prior to the trailhead. Once cleared the areas would be graded to provide parking for an additional 18-20 vehicles. Clearing and grading would result in disturbed areas that would have heightened risk of surface erosion. However, with implementation of standard management practices and mitigation measures identified in Chapter 2, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to soil and water resources would be low. Alternative D As in Alternatives C and E, Alternative D, if implemented, would result in the decommissioning of 23.2 miles of roads, determined as no longer needed for forest management in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie drainage. This alternative includes conversion of roughly 14 miles of Road 5600 to a National Forest System trail/private road, an additional 6.4 miles, compared to Alternatives C and E. These roads (37.2 miles) would be removed from the Forest transportation system. A total of 24 of these road miles are located within Riparian Reserves (including 13 miles of Road 5600). Short-term effects (one growing season or less) would be similar to those described for Alternatives C and E, above.

Page 67 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Over the long-term, removing roads from the riparian area would restore natural flow patterns and floodplain function (as the roads will no longer divert runoff down or intercept subsurface flow). Over the longer-term (roughly one-year after the treatment to convert it to trail/private road, the last 7.6 miles of trail/private road, which now receives minimal maintenance, would be in better shape than it has been for many years. This segment would continue to be located on naturally unstable lands and subject to occasional avalanche debris slides or slumping from river erosion where the trail/private road is located immediately adjacent to the Middle Fork Snoqualmie. Cumulative Effects Alternative A, No Action Implementation of Alternative A, plus the Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration, and the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Campground projects would, cumulatively, reduce National Forest road mileage in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed by approximately 2.5 miles. This reduction in mileage, plus paving of the lower Middle Fork Road as proposed in the Federal Highway Middle Fork Road Project, would cumulatively reduce the potential for road sediment into aquatic systems, and mass wasting and road fill failures. Cumulatively, the no action alternative plus the other projects would have the least benefit to soil and water resources, because combined they would reduce the amount of roads within the watershed the least. Alternative B Implementation of Alternative B, plus the Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration, and the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Campground projects, would cumulatively reduce National Forest road mileage in the watershed by approximately 25.7 miles. This reduction in mileage, plus paving of the lower Middle Fork Road as proposed in the Federal Highway Middle Fork Road Project, would cumulatively reduce the potential for road sediment into aquatic systems, and mass wasting and road fill failures. Alternative B, plus the other projects would cumulatively result in greater benefit to soil and water resources than Alternative A, because 23.2 more miles of road would be decommissioned within the watershed, including 11 miles in Riparian Reserves. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) The cumulative impact of implementing either Alternative C or E, when considered together with the above-referenced projects, would be a reduction of Forest roads miles in the by approximately 33.3 miles. This reduction in mileage, plus the proposed Federal Highway project, would cumulatively reduce the potential for road sediment into aquatic systems from surface erosion and mass wasting. Cumulative benefits to soils and water resources would be slightly better than Alternative B, because 7.6 more miles of road would be treated and converted to a low-maintenance trail/private road and stabilized. No further road decommissioning would be necessary. Alternative D Alternatives D plus the projects described above would cumulatively reduce National Forest road mileage in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed by approximately 39.7 miles. The reduction in road miles, plus the proposed Federal Highway project, would,

Page 68 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

cumulatively, reduce the potential for road sediment into aquatic systems from surface erosion and mass wasting. If Alternative D were implemented, and considering all other past, present and foreseeable projects, the cumulative benefits to soils and water resources would be highest among all alternatives considered.

RIPARIAN RESERVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS The effects of the alternatives on riparian resources are organized by applicable riparian reserves standards and guidelines (See chapter 1).

RF- 2: For Each existing or planned road meet Aquatic conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives by: minimizing road and landing locations in riparian reserves and minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow. Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no unneeded roads would be decommissioned, include approximately 11 miles located within riparian reserves. Natural hydrologic flow would continue to be affected were flow paths or subsurface flow is intersected by unneeded roads. These roads would continue to be sources of sediment into aquatic systems from road runoff, mass wasting, and road failures. Alternative B If Alternative B were implemented, a direct effect would be the decommissioning of about 23.2 miles of roads no longer needed for forest management. These would be permanently removed from the Forest transportation system. Culvert and road fill removal along 11 miles (map estimate) of roads in Riparian Reserves would restore natural flow patterns and floodplain function (the roads would no longer divert runoff down or intercept subsurface flow Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Alternatives C and E include decommissioning about 23.2 miles of road no longer needed for forest management. It would also convert the last 7.6 miles of Road 5600 to a low- maintenance trail/private road. No further decommissioning treatment would be necessary, if in-holders were to terminate their private road easements. As described in Chapter 2, pages 20-21 , the work to converting the road to a trail/private road (including pulling and replacing most culverts with drivable dips, installing new pipes as needed, filling holes in the road, and smoothing out the travel surface). Over the longer-term, one-year or less after decommissioning this road segment to trail/private road would reduce the potential of erosion and stream sedimentation. All of these roads would be removed from the Forest transportation system. About 18 miles of these roads (map estimate) are located within Riparian Reserves. Removal of road fill and culverts along these roads would restore natural flow patterns and floodplain function (the roads would no longer divert runoff down or intercept subsurface flow).

Page 69 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative D Alternative D, if implemented, would result in the decommissioning of 23.2 miles of roads, determined as no longer needed for forest management in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie drainage. It would also convert 14.0 miles of Road 5600 to a low-maintenance trail/private road. As with Alternatives C and E, no further decommissioning treatment would be necessary, if in-holders were to terminate their private road easements on this 14 miles of trail/private road. All of these roads would be removed from the Forest transportation system. A total of 24 of are located within Riparian Reserves (including 13 miles of Road 5600). Over the long-term, removing roads from the riparian area would restore natural flow patterns and floodplain function (as the roads will no longer divert runoff down or intercept subsurface flow). As stated above, the last 14 miles of Road 5600 would be converted from a Forest system road to a self-maintaining National Forest System trail/private road for in-holders motorized access --- an additional 6.4 miles, compared to Alternatives C and E. As described in Chapter 2, pages 20-21 , the work to converting the road to a trail/private road (including pulling and replacing most culverts with drivable dips, installing new pipes as needed, filling holes in the road, and smoothing out the travel surface). Over the longer-term, one-year or less after decommissioning this road segment to trail/private road would reduce the potential of erosion and stream sedimentation.

Rf-3: Determine the influence of each road on the ACS objective through watershed analysis. Meet the Aquatic conservation Strategy objectives by: Closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing road based on the ongoing and potential effects to the ACS objectives and considering short- term transportation needs. Alternative A (No Action) All 30.8 miles of road no longer needed for forest management would remain as Roads on the Forest transportation system. Current soil and water conditions and trends would persist under this alternative. Though the limited routine road maintenance could have beneficial effects, through some reduction of road related sediment reaching the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River and its tributaries, implementation of the no action alternative would result in a continuation of lack of adequate maintenance to appropriate standards of unneeded roads. They would continue to be potential sources for increased road sediment into aquatic systems from road runoff, mass wasting and road fill failures. Alternative B Alternatives B would decommission and stabilize 23.2 miles of road no longer needed for forest management. Approximately 7.6 miles of road no longer needed would remain on the transportation system. Maintenance of this segment of road would continue to be minimal, and consist mainly of cleaning culverts and removing debris from the road surface as needed. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Alternatives C and E would decommission and stabilize 23.2 miles of road no longer needed for forest management.

Page 70 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

These alternatives would close 7.6 miles and convert it to trail/private road. These 7.6 miles of road would be stabilized by pulling culverts (about 15) and replacing all but four culverts with drivable dips for access by hikers, pack-and-saddle stock, mountain bikes, and in- holder high-clearance vehicles. New right sized pipes would replace the remaining four culverts. Additional work would include filling holes in the road; smoothing out the travel way surface to its current width, and brushing (cutting) vegetation along the sides of the trail/private road. No further decommissioning treatment would be necessary if landowners and mining claimants cease to use these 7.6 miles as a private road. Alternative D Alternatives D would decommission and stabilize 23.2 miles of road no longer needed for forest management. It would close 14.0 miles of road to motorized public access and convert them to trail/private road. These 14.0 miles of road would be stabilized by making it a self maintaining trail/private road for access by hikers, pack-and-saddle stock, mountain bikes, and in-holder high-clearance vehicles. Work would include pulling ditch relief culverts and replacing them with drivable dips, right sizing culverts and stream crossings as necessary, filling holes in the road; smoothing out the travel way surface to its current width, and brushing (cutting) vegetation along the sides of the road. No further decommissioning treatment would be necessary if landowners and mining claimants cease to use these 14.0 miles as a private road. Cumulative See Soil/Water Resources section on pages 68-69 above.

MINING (ACCESS) Alternatives A (No Action) and Alternative B Present access to mining claims would remain unchanged Alternatives C, D, and E (Proposed Action) Mining Claimants would be able to maintain their current motorized access beyond the gate at Dingford Creek (Alternatives C and E) or beyond the gate just past the junction of Road 5600 with Road 5640 (Alternative D) by obtaining a key from the Forest Service. The key would be granted to Mining Claimants for the sole purpose of conducting mining operations on their claim). Access for any other activity or granting access to other individuals for any other activity would not allowed. When the gate is closed and locked, the road past the closure point would be closed to public motorized recreation access, but open for use by hikers, mountain bikers, and pack and saddle; therefore, as a result of implementing any of these alternatives, claimants would need to drive appropriately, for safety. Mining claimants would not be required to complete maintenance, but would be allowed; at they choose, to complete routine maintenance that would facilitate their continued motorized access. This would include cutting trees, removing rocks or brushing the trail/travel way.

Page 71 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

If other than routine maintenance is necessary for continued motorized access, mining claimants would need to first propose the work to the Forest Service—using either a notice of intent or a plan of operations related to their mining claims. Any proposed work would be considered an integral part of the mining activity and would be processed under the Forest Service’s mining regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart A. Related cost of maintaining motorized access, including necessary environmental analysis would be at mining claimant’s expense. Cumulative Effects All Alternatives Other past, present, or proposed foreseeable projects would not result in a cumulative change in motorized access for mining claimants. If the Middle Fork Road is paved to the Middle Fork Trailhead, as proposed in the Federal Highway Project, access time would be shorter, but mode of access would not be changed.

HERITAGE RESOURCES AND AMERICAN INDIAN INTERESTS

Historic Properties Rewrite: For all alternatives, no known historic properties would be affected. In the event that historic resources are located during pre-inspection or monitoring, or at any time during implementation, the project would be re-designed to ensure that the properties are avoided, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA). If avoidance is not possible, or if questions exist regarding the effectiveness of avoidance, the work on the project would cease immediately, and steps would be taken to protect and secure the find. The Forest would meet its obligations under the PA and consult with the SHPO and ACHP to consider the discovery. Cumulative Effects At the watershed level no know properties would be affected

American Indian Interests and Uses None of the Tribes responded to letters sent requesting for input into the project. Under all the alternatives, rights reserved by Indians in the treaties would be unchanged. Access to areas where rights are exercised would be changed if any of the action alternatives were implemented. However, no adverse impacts to Indian uses have been identified. Specific impacts to natural resources (e.g. water, wildlife) are addressed under the appropriate sections in this chapter. Cumulative Effects None identified.

WILDERNESS RESOURCES Alternatives A (No Action) and B Access: Day and overnight access to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness would not be affected if either of these alternatives were implemented. Access would continue to be determined by

Page 72 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

prevailing road and trail conditions, maintenance budgets, natural events (e.g. floods, landslides, etc.) and seasonal changes (weather and snow pack). Character: Naturalness and opportunities for solitude and challenge in a wilderness setting would remain the same if either Alternative A (No Action) or Alternative B was implemented. Wilderness character would continue to be influenced primarily by ease of access; attractions at destinations (e.g. lakes and summits); information in guidebooks and on the Internet; and changing demographics in nearby urban and suburban areas. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Access: Dutch Miller Gap would be 15 miles from the road end. The likely result is that fewer visitors would access this part of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, especially day users. Most backpackers would need approximately 2 days to reach Dutch Miller Gap and return. Some trail use would be diverted to alternative trails that provide shorter access routes to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Based on 1999 usage data, if all users were displaced from Dutch Miller Gap to the Snoqualmie Lake Trailhead, usage on this trail system would increase by approximately 29% from 1,448 visitations to 1,865. If all were displaced to the South Fork Snoqualmie River Trailheads visitation, would increase by less than 1% from about 52,092 visitations to 52,512 (MBS 1999). Equestrian use may increase if the Dutch Miller Gap Trail is maintained to stock standards, because the longer trip might appeal to riders. Use of the Dingford Creek Trail might increase marginally (about 400 users based on 1999 estimated use of Dutch Miller Gap Trail), as the gate on Road 5600 would be placed at this trailhead; the Dingford Creek Trail may meet the needs of day users and weekend backpackers displaced from the Dutch Miller Gap area. Character: The road closure (to public motorized access) at Dingford Creek would make areas farther up the Middle Fork Valley much more remote. Increased use of the Dingford Creek Trail might decrease opportunities for solitude and increase damage to trail facilities, campsites, shorelines, and other areas that attract visitors. Wilderness destinations formerly accessed from Dutch Miller Gap Trailhead (Dutch Miller Gap, Williams Lake, Chain Lakes, and Hardscrabble Lakes) would receive less use; there would likely be very few day users, and the remaining visitors would be predominantly overnight backpackers and stock groups. Over time, natural processes would heal past recreation impacts, resulting in a more natural- appearing environment and less obvious indications of human influence. This tendency might be offset if increased trail distances and trail improvements make the area more popular for stock users. Opportunities for solitude would increase with less visitation and fewer encounters between parties. Dutch Miller Gap would become one of the most remote trail destinations in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Some visitors would choose to approach the area via the Necklace Valley and Waptus Lake Trails. Most visitors would need at least three days to visit destinations along the Dutch Miller Gap Trail. Alternative D Access: Closing Road 56 near the Taylor River Bridge would add an additional day to most trips into the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, compared to Alternatives C and E. Destinations like Myrtle Lake and Hester Lake up the Dingford Creek Trail would be approximately 12 miles

Page 73 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

from the end of the road, requiring at least an overnight hike to access. Use above Dingford Creek would nearly always require multi-day trips (at least 3) by hikers and equestrians. Strong mountain bikers might be able to reach the current Dutch Miller Gap Trailhead and return to the Taylor River road end in a day. As with Alternatives C and E some use would likely be diverted to Alpine Lakes Wilderness destinations accessed via Snoqualmie Lake or South Fork Snoqualmie River trailheads. Based on 1999 usage data, if all users were displaced from Dutch Mill Gap to the Taylor River, usage on this trail system would increase by approximately 29% from 1,448 visitations to 1,865. If all were displaced to the South Fork Snoqualmie River Trailheads visitation, would increase by less than 1% from about 52,092 visitations to 52,512 (MBS 1999). Character: Changes in character would be similar to those discussed for Alternatives C and E, but more pronounced because trail distances would increase for all Alpine Lakes Wilderness destinations above the Taylor River Bridge, if Alternative D were implemented. Public motorized access to the Dingford Creek Trailhead would cease. Destinations reached via the current Dingford Creek and Dutch Miller Gap Trailheads would all become 6.4 miles further from the road end. Backpackers and stock users would become the predominant visitors to Dingford Creek Trail destinations like Myrtle and Hester lakes. Increased distance and future trail improvements might make destinations along the Dingford Creek Trail more attractive for equestrians, increasing impacts related to stock use. The area around Dutch Miller Gap would become the most remote portion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. For most people it would be at least a three-day return trip. The shortest access route for visitors to this area would be the Waptus River Trail or cross-country from the Necklace Valley. Opportunities for day use of Middle Fork trails inside the Alpine Lakes Wilderness would decrease but solitude and naturalness along trails and at destinations would be enhanced. Wilderness day use would shift to destinations accessed from the Taylor River and the South Fork Snoqualmie River. Day hikers and backpackers would find new unroaded opportunities outside the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, along the closed portion of Road 5600.

Cumulative Effects Other past, present, or proposed foreseeable projects would not result in a cumulative change in motorized access to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness from within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. However, if the Middle Fork Road is paved to the Middle Fork Trailhead, as proposed in the Federal Highway Project, access time would be shorter, but mode of access would not be changed.

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS AND UNROADED CHARACTER

Inventoried Roadless Areas All Alternatives As the e nearest Inventoried Roadless Area is located 20 miles north of the project area, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on inventoried roadless areas, if any of the alternatives are implemented.

Page 74 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Unroaded Character Alternative A (No Action) Since no roads would be decommissioned, Alternative A would result in no change in the current unroaded character of the project area and Middle Fork Snoqualmie watershed. All Action Alternatives In all action alternatives, the following roads would decommissioned: the Road 5600 spurs; the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640; NFS spur roads in the Road 5640 system, and all roads from approximately 1680 acres of NFS lands acquired in the Huckleberry land exchange (Section 25-27 and 35, T24N, R9E). With time, these lands would appear unroaded in character. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) While the last 7.6 miles of Road 5600 would be closed to public motorized use, if either of these alternatives were implemented (and converted to a trail/private road), the area would remain roaded in character, and private landowners would maintain a private road easement, for motorized use. Alternative D The direct/indirect effects of Alternatives D would be similar to Alternatives C and E: while an additional 6.4 miles of Road 5600 would be treated and converted to trail/private road private landowners would obtain a private road easement for the14 miles of travel way, and it would remain roaded in character. Cumulative Effects Alternative A Alternative A would result in no changed to the unroaded character of National Forest System lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. The Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration project decommissioned approximately 3 miles of road accessing approximately 250 acres in section 23, T24N, R10E. In time, these lands will appear unroaded in character. All Action Alternatives Cumulatively, and over time, the road decommissioning proposed in Alternatives B, C, D, and E, combined with that of the Bessemer project would result in about 1,930 acres of NFS lands in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie watershed changing from roaded to unroaded in character.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS All Alternatives As stated in Chapter 3, the Forest Plan determined the Middle Fork Snoqualmie and Taylor Rivers to be eligible and recommended them for designation into the wild and Scenic River System. This recommendation was made be cause these rivers are free flowing and possess outstandingly remarkable values for recreation, wildlife and fisheries None of the alternatives would affect the free flowing character of these rivers or adversely affect there outstandingly remarkable values.

Page 75 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Road to trail conversion and decommissioning roads would result in long term benefit to Wildlife and resident fish species by reducing the widths of linear openings and improving interior forest conditions and reducing road related sediment. The benefits would be proportional to the miles of road decommissioned or decommissioned and converted to trail. For more detail refer to Recreation, Wildlife and Aquatic sections. Under all alternatives these rivers would remain eligible for recommendation as designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would result in no change from the current condition. Present access opportunities for river recreation would remain. There would be no adverse impacts to wildlife species, specifically northern spotted owl. No habitat would be removed or modified (to a non-suitable condition). Impacts, primarily human disturbance from motorized vehicles and activities associated with vehicles (campers, shooting, dogs, parties, etc) would remain the same. Implementation of Alternative A would result in continued minimal (sediment from existing roads) or no impact on resident fish populations. Alternative B By decommissioning Road 5600-950, Alternative B would reduce road mileage within the Scenic River corridor by 0.1 miles and would also reduce visual impacts caused by vehicles parked along Road 5600-950 to access Goldmyer Hot Springs. It would decommission approximately 23.2 miles of unneeded road, which would reduce both short and long-term road sediment related impacts to resident fish and their habitat. Effects on wildlife within the river corridor would be the same as for Alternative A. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Alternative C and E would result in a reduction of about 8.2 miles of motorized public access (Road 5600 from Dingford Creek to its terminus, Roads 5600-520 and 950) within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River recommended Scenic River corridor. This would eliminate motorized recreation opportunities, such as fishing, hunting, camping, and access to for canoeing or kayaking the Middle Fork beyond Dingford Creek. However 7.6 miles of new multi-user trail and mountain bike and trail loop opportunities would increase under these alternatives. Decommissioning or decommissioning and conversion of 30.8 miles of roads to trail or trail/private road would result in long term benefit to wildlife and resident fish species by reducing the widths of linear openings, improving interior forest conditions, and reducing road related sediment. Alternative D Alternative D would result in a reduction of about 14.6 miles of motorized public access (Road 5600 from it junction with Road 5640 to its terminus, Roads 5600-520 and 950) within the recommended Scenic River corridor. This would eliminate motorized recreation opportunities, such as fishing, hunting, camping, and motorized access to the river above the Taylor River Bridge for canoeing or kayaking the Middle Fork. However 14.0 miles of new

Page 76 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

multi-user trail and mountain bike and trail loop opportunities would increase under these alternatives. Decommissioning or decommissioning and conversion of 38.4 miles of roads to trail or trail/low maintenance private road would result in long term benefit to wildlife and resident fish species by reducing the widths of linear openings, improving interior forest conditions, and reducing road related sediment. Cumulative Effects This project, along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have any cumulative effects that detract from the existing river setting and would not eliminate or reduce the eligibility of the Middle Fork or Taylor Rivers in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system, should they be nominated in the future. The Federal Highway Middle Fork Road project, construction of the Middle Fork Campground and reconstruction of the Pratt River Trail would result in increased recreation and access opportunities within the lower Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed.

FIRE All Alternatives The low incidence of fire starts and the very low number of acres burned, annually, in the Middle Fork, combined with the relatively small changes in total miles of roads and trails (proposed in all action alternatives) make differences in fire protection needs among alternatives insignificant. Cumulative Effects None identified.

INFRASTRUCTURE Alternative A (No Action) With no action, National Forest road access would not change in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. There are approximately 48.7 miles of NF roads within the watershed. If no action were implemented, approximately 5.1 miles would be open to passenger cars (ML 3), 16.5 miles would be open for high clearance vehicles (ML 2), 20.8 miles would be maintained for high clearance vehicles (ML 2) but closed to public motorized access, and 6.3 miles of road would remain in storage (ML 1). Alternative B This alternative would decommission and remove form the Forest Transportation system approximately 23.2 miles of road no longer needed for forest management. If implemented, there would be approximately 25.5 miles of National Forest system road within the watershed: about 4.7 miles would be open to passenger cars (ML 3), 14.0 miles would be open for high clearance vehicles (ML 2), and 6.8 miles would be maintained for high clearance vehicles (ML 2) but closed to public motorized access.

Page 77 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) These alternatives would decommission 23.2 miles and decommission the last 7.6 miles of Road 5600 a low-maintenance National Forest System trail/private road by removing most culverts and replacing them with drivable waterbars (dips). No further decommissioning treatment would be needed on this segment of trail/private road. All 30.8 miles would be removed from the Forest Road Transportation system. If either of these alternatives were implemented, there would be approximately 17.9 miles of NFS roads within the watershed: roughly 4.7 miles would be open to passenger cars (ML 3), 6.4 miles would be open for high clearance vehicles (ML 2), and 6.8 miles would be maintained for high clearance vehicles (ML 2), but closed to public motorized access. Alternative D This alternative would decommission 23.2 miles and decommission the last 14.0 miles of Road 5600 a low-maintenance National Forest System trail/private road by removing most culverts and replacing them with drivable dips. No further decommissioning treatment would be needed on this 14.0 miles of trail/private road. All 37.2 miles would be removed from the Forest Road Transportation system. There would be approximately 11.5 miles of NFS roads within the watershed: roughly 4.7 miles would be open to passenger cars (ML 3) and 6.8 miles would be maintained for high clearance vehicles (ML 2), but closed to public motorized access. Table 12 - Estimated Forest Service Road Costs by Alternative. Work Description Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E (No Action) (Proposed Action) Annual Road Maintenance Cost * $12,681` $5,460 $3,126*** $1,260*** $3,126 Cost to Decommission Roads $0 $209,160 $280,380 $337,960 $280,380 Cost to expand the Dingford Creek $0 $25,690 $7,000 $0 $7,000 Trailhead Annual Road Repair Costs ** $24,586 $0 $21,334 $0 $21,334 Total Road Related Costs $37,267 $239,206 $311,840 $339,220 $311,840 * Annual cost is based on maintaining roads fully to standard (ML 1- $100/mile; ML 2-$390/mile). ** Average Cost of Road 5600 past Taylor River by segment over a 10-year average (1990s) No repair dollars have been spent on other roads proposed for decommissioning. *** Includes Forest Service estimated commensurate share to maintain Road 56 as a trail past Dingford Creek for Alternative A and past its junction with Road 5640 for Alternative D. Cumulative Effects Implementation of this project, combined with those of the Bessemer Road Decommissioning and Restoration (about 3.0 miles), Middle Fork Campground (about 0.5 miles of new construction), and Federal Highway Administration Middle Fork Road Project

Page 78 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

(County would take or management of 3.7 miles of Road)27 would result in changes to the NFS Road Infrastructure and annual road maintenance and repair costs within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. These cumulative effects are displayed in Table 13. Table 13 - Cumulative Change in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed National Forest Road System Infrastructure and Annual Road Maintenance and Repair Costs Baseline Alt A Alt B and Alt C and E Alt D plus (Prior to (No Action) Other Past, Plus Other Other Past, 2003) and Other Past, Present, and Past, Present, Present, and Present, and Foreseeable and Foreseeable Foreseeable Foreseeable Project Project Projects Projects Miles of Road Managed 51.7 49.2 22.3 14.7 8.3 by the Forest Service Annual Road $3,861 $11,277 $13,611 $15,477 Maintenance Savings* Annual Road Repair $49,000 $49,000 $52,252 $73,586 Costs Savings** Total Costs Savings $52,861 $60,277 $65,863 $89,063 *Assume roads are maintained fully to ML standard. ** Based on a ten year average of road repair costs from 1990 to 2000.

Cumulatively at the watershed level there would be no change in miles of road open for dispersed motorized pubic access from those described for Alternatives A-E above (The 0.5 miles that would be constructed as part of the Middle Fork Campground would not be considered open for dispersed motorized public access.

VEGETATION

Timber/Vegetation Management Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would result in no change in present road access to approximately 5,70328 acres of land suitable for timber management within the watershed. All lands identified in the Forest Plan as available for timber harvest would be accessible. See the 1990 Forest Plan FEIS, page III-40. All Action Alternatives In the short term, decommissioning would disturb existing plants within road prisms, but with implementation of the vegetation standard management practices and mitigation

27 King County would assume maintenance on approximately 3.7 miles of road the Forest Service is currently maintaining by agreement. See EA page 62, Middle Fork Road Federal Highway Administration Project and footnote 24. 28 Within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, about 1,000 acres were identified as “J-8” or lands that cannot be reforested within 5 years, as required by law (MBS GIS database). These acres are considered to be NOT tentatively suitable for timber harvest activities. Roughly 50% of the acres in the watershed are allocated to Riparian Reserve, which (with very few exceptions) is a no-harvest land allocation (USDA, USDI 1994). Thus, about 5,703 acres are currently tentatively suitable for timber harvest under Alternative A, No Action.

Page 79 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

measures listed in Chapter 2, in the long term decommissioning would benefit native vegetation by eliminating vehicle access and restoring natural drainage. Alternative B Alternative B would eliminate road access to approximately 1,084 acres of lands suitable for timber management in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Taylor, and Quartz Creek drainages. Total accessible timber suitable for timber management within the project area would be approximately 4,619 acres. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Alternatives C and E would eliminate road and helicopter access to 2,473 acres of lands suitable for timber management in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Taylor, and Quartz Creek drainages. Total accessible timber suitable for timber management within the project area would be the approximately 3,230 acres. Alternative D Alternative D would eliminate road and/or helicopter access to about 2,716 acres of lands suitable for timber management in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Taylor, and Quartz Creek drainages. Total accessible acres of land suitable for timber management within the project area would be approximately 2,987 acres with implementation of Alternative D. Cumulative Effects At the watershed level, the alternatives proposed in this project along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, which do not affect timber/vegetation management, would not result in additive cumulative effects to timber/vegetation management within the watershed.

Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive None of the alternatives “result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing” (FSM 2670.32) for any sensitive plant, lichen, or fungi species within the Middle fork Snoqualmie river Watershed. All Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E No sensitive species would be affected by the alternatives. Although Galium komischaticum is located near a road segment proposed for decommissioning, the site is far enough away from the road that project activities would not impact this site. Cumulative Effects Since no plants would be affected by implementation of any of the alternatives proposed in this project, implementation of this project along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in cumulative effects to sensitive vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, or fungi within the Middle Fork watershed.Noxious Weeds Alternative A (No Action) Under this alternative, existing infestations of noxious weeds (see Chapter 3) would continue to spread along the roadway and into the surrounding forested understory. Competition with native plants for resources would continue.

Page 80 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Because herb Robert is shade tolerant (Washington State Noxious Weed control Board 2003) and because it is common along Road 5600, there is potential for this species to invade native plant communities and enter the Alpine lakes Wilderness. The population of Himalayan blackberry at the Dingford Creek trailhead would increase in size. There is an isolated population of Scot’s broom along the road in Section 1, near the terminus of Road 5600, which would likely increase in size. Alternative B Continued introduction of noxious weeds and continued spread of existing noxious weed populations would occur from vehicular use on the 18.7 miles of roads that would remain open to motorized public access. Overall, risk of introduction and spread of noxious weeds on roads would be reduced from Alternative A, because there would be 2.9 fewer miles open for public motorized access. In the short term, ground disturbance from decommissioning roads would provide suitable conditions for germination of noxious weed seed already existing in the soil and could increase noxious weed infestations. This would be minimized by implementing vegetation standard management practices the Mitigation Measures, listed at the end of Chapter 2— particularly the measure that includes treatment of existing noxious weed infestations prior to completing road decommissioning. In the long-term, decommissioning would have a positive effect by allowing native vegetation to recover. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Continued introduction of noxious weeds and continued spread of existing noxious weed populations would occur from vehicular use on 11.1 miles of roads that would remain open to motorized public access. However, if implemented, either Alternative C or E would further reduce the risk of introduction and spread of noxious weeds (compared to no action or Alternative B); because there would be 10.5 fewer miles open for public motorized access. As in Alternative B, in the short term, ground disturbance from decommissioning roads would provide suitable conditions for germination of noxious weed seed already existing in the soil and could increase noxious weed infestations. This would be minimized by implementing vegetation standard management practices and the Mitigation Measures described at the end of Chapter 2. In the long-term, decommissioning would have a positive effect by allowing native vegetation to recover. Alternative D Closing Road 5600 to vehicular traffic beyond its junction with Road 5640 would be most beneficial; because there would be fewer introductions of noxious weeds and more native vegetation restoration (this alternative would close the most miles of road currently open for public motorized access—16.9 miles). As with Alternatives B, C, and E, in the short term, ground disturbance from decommissioning roads would provide suitable conditions for germination of noxious weed seed already existing in the soil and could increase noxious weed infestations. This would be minimized by implementing vegetation standard management practices and the Mitigation Measures described at the end of Chapter 2. In the long-term, decommissioning would have a positive effect by allowing native vegetation to recover.

Page 81 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects As long as standard management practices and mitigations measures are implemented effectively, with this project, the Construction of the Middle Fork Campground, and the Federal Highway Middle Fork Road project there would be no expected cumulative increase in introduction and spread of noxious weeds within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Implementation of noxious weed control measures may result in a cumulative reduction of noxious weeds within the watershed.

WILDLIFE The following findings (effects) are documented from the April 2001 Wildlife Biological Assessment for this project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these findings on May 2, 2001 (MBS 2001).

Federal Threatened, Endangered Species and Critical Habitats Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet Alternative A (No Action) There would be no adverse impacts to northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Current management within suitable habitat (including critical habitat) for these species would remain the same. No suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat would be removed or modified (to a non-suitable condition). None of the small benefits from road decommissioning would be realized, if no action is implemented. Impacts, primarily human disturbance from motorized vehicles and activities associated with vehicles (campers, shooting, dogs, parties, etc) would remain the same. Several spur roads proposed for decommissioning under the action alternatives would likely continue to receive use for such activities as target shooting, which would occasionally pose hazards to these species (either from stray bullets or intentional shooting). Alternatives B, C, D and E No suitable habitat would be removed or modified as a result of project implementation. Decommissioning of roads would provide some long-term benefits by allowing such areas to grow to potential habitat, and decreasing edge effects in the long-term. Though not likely, there could be some temporary disturbance to these species from noise and increased human activity (site specific) such as road decommissioning, storm-proofing, and road-to-trail building activities. However, timing restrictions included as part of all action alternatives (see Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures) would minimize disturbance if nearby habitat is incidentally used by owls. Road to trail conversion and decommissioning roads would result in long term benefit to these species by reducing the widths of linear openings and improving interior forest conditions. Alternatives B, D and E (Proposed Action) Opening the Middle Fork Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01 and 1003.2 to mountain bikes is not expected to have adverse impacts to these species.

Page 82 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Gray Wolf and Grizzly Bear Alternative A (No Action) Though Alternative A would not have adverse impacts to these species, neither would the benefits from the action alternatives be realized. If no action were implemented, there would be no increase the amount of core and security habitat. Impacts from humans would continue, though such impacts are expected to be minimal, due to the presence of humans in the area: while trail densities are moderate in the drainage, trail use is high. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) No suitable habitat would be removed or modified as a result of project implementation. Decommissioning of roads would provide some long-term benefits by allowing such areas to grow to potential habitat and decreasing edge effects. There could be some temporary disturbance to these species from noise and increased human activity from the road decommissioning and storm-proofing activities. Opening the Middle Fork Trail to mountain bikes (in Alternatives B, D, and E) would have no adverse impacts to these species. Roads- to-trails conversion and decommissioning roads would result in long-term benefit to these species by reducing the widths of linear openings and improving interior forest conditions. No adverse effects would be expected from the activities proposed in the Action Alternatives, given the large home ranges; the abundance of suitable habitat in the larger landscape, including core/security habitat adjacent to the project areas; the temporary nature of potential disturbance (e.g. road decommissioning); the existing high use on Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01 and 1003.2; the high mobility of this species; and the fact that there has been no confirmed sightings of grizzly bear and a non-confirmed sighting of a gray wolf (therefore low probability in the foreseeable future) within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed. Alternative B Within the Grizzly Bear Management Unit, Alternative B would result in a net gain of 380 acres of early and 400 acres of late core habitat by decommissioning the last 1.7 miles of Road 5640 and associated spurs. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Decommissioning the last 1.7 miles or Road 5640 and associated spurs and the closures of Road 5600 at Dingford Creek to public motorized vehicles would change use levels on Rock Creek Trails 1013.3 and 1013.32, Dutch Miller Gap Trail 1030 and 1030.1, and Williams Lake Trail 1030.1 from high to low, which would increase early core habitat within the Grizzly Bear Management Unit by 3,540 acres and late core habitat by 2,465 acres. Alternative D In addition to the changes described in Alternatives B, C, and D, with closure of Road 5600 just past its junction with Road 5640 to motorized public access use levels on Dingford Creek Trail 1005 and 1005.01 and Hester lake Trail 1005.01 would also change from high to low. Implementation of Alternative D would result in an increase of 6,172 acres of early core Grizzly Bear habitat and 5,097 acres of late core habitat with in the Bear Management Unit. The effects by alternative are displayed in the following table.

Page 83 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 14 - Snoqualmie Grizzly Bear Management Unit Core Habitat Analysis Acres Alternative A (No Alternative B Alternatives C & Alternative D Action) E (Proposed Action) Early Core 64,598 64,978 68,138 70,770 Late Core 58,308 58,708 60,768 63,405 Change in 0 +380 +3,540 +6,172 Early Core Change in 0 +400 +2,465 +5,097 Late Core Bald Eagle Alternative A (No Action) There would be no adverse impacts to bald eagles under this alternative. Potential habitat would not be removed or modified. Adequate available prey for bald eagles is not likely in the area to sustain a reproductive population. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) There would be no adverse impacts to bald eagles under these alternatives. Potential habitat would not be removed or modified. Adequate available prey for bald eagles is not likely in the area to sustain a reproductive population. Road decommissioning would likely provide benefits to eagles (if they were present) by reducing motorized vehicles and allowing for some long-term habitat increases in areas that are currently non-habitat. Alternatives B, D, and E (Proposed Action) Opening the Middle Fork Trail or segments of the trail to mountain bikes would not adversely impact bald eagles. Canada Lynx Alternative A (No Action) Habitat for Canada lynx does not exist in the project area. Although it is possible that dispersing lynx may occur at some of the higher elevations in the wilderness areas from time to time, current uses are not expected to have adverse impacts to this species. Alternatives B, C, D and E (Proposed Action) Since habitat does not exist in the project area, there would be no impacts to Canada lynx. The nearest potential habitat is approximately 17 miles away form the project area. Decommissioning of roads near the wilderness boundary may provide some benefits to potential travel corridors for lynx. Changes in use on roads (road to trail) and trail (Mountain bikes on the Middle Fork Trail with Alternatives B, D, and E) are not expected to be significant from current uses. Staples (1995) described lynx as being generally tolerant of humans. There are no Lynx Analysis Units in proximity to the project area, so there would be no impacts to such areas.

Page 84 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species Alternative A (No Action) There would be no adverse impacts to Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species. Current management within suitable habitat for these species would remain the same. No suitable habitat would be removed or modified (to a non-suitable condition). Small benefits from road decommissioning that would not occur under this alternative would not be realized. Impacts, if any, from the current human use of the area would remain the same. Several spur roads proposed for decommissioning under the action alternatives would likely continue to receive use for activities, such as target shooting, which would occasionally pose hazards to these species (either from stray bullets or intentional shooting). Townsend’s big eared bat Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) There would be no adverse impacts to this species. Potential habitat would not be removed or modified in any significant manner. There are no known sightings of this species within the project area. California Wolverine Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) There would be no adverse impacts to this species. Potential habitat would not be removed or modified. Some disturbance could occur, locally and on a short-term basis, during road decommissioning. Larch Mountain and Van Dyke’s Salamander Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) There would be no impacts to these species. Habitat would not be removed, modified or cause irretrievable loss of habitat or direct harm to Larch mountain and Van Dyke’s salamander.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Environmental consequences to bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, grizzly bear, and northern spotted owl are discussed in the above sections on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Alternative A (No Action) Because no project activities would occur, effects to MBS management indicator species would not occur. Species may avoid habitat use along the roads depending on frequency or duration of use by motorized access Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) American Marten (pine marten) No impacts are expected to pine martens. Species may avoid habitat use along the roads depending on frequency or duration of use by motorized access. Piliated Woodpecker and Other Primary Cavity Nesters

Page 85 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

There would be no impacts to these species. Habitat would not be removed or modified. Some local short-term noise disturbance could occur locally during road decommissioning activities, but no irretrievable loss of habitat availability would occur. Mountain Goats There would be no impacts to this species. No habitat would be removed or modified. Proposed activities would not occur in proximity to habitat. Deer and Elk There would be no impacts to these species. Habitat would not be removed or modified. Some local short-term noise disturbance could occur locally during road decommissioning activities. However, timing restrictions included as part of all action alternatives (see Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures) would minimize disturbance.

Other Species of Concern from the Northwest Forest Plan (As Amended By the March 2004 ROD to Remove Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines) Bat roost sites All Alternatives As noted in Chapter 3, no caves, abandoned mines, or abandoned wooden bridges and buildings are located in or near the project area; therefore, there would be no effects under any of the alternatives.

Migratory Birds/Landbird Conservation Alternative A (No Action Continued motorized vehicle use of roads may cause minor disturbance, but no irretrievable loss of habitat or high mortality to these species would be expected to occur. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) Under all action alternatives, the proposed project would not cause negative effects to landbird population, because the proposed project would not cause irretrievable loss of habitat or incidental mortality during project implementation. Cumulative Effects All Species Except Grizzly Bear For all alternatives there would be no habitat disturbance, no impact or adverse impact for all wildlife species except grizzly bear. Therefore, there would be no measurable cumulative effects with implementation of any of the alternatives, along with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Grizzly Bear All alternatives, in combination with the CCC Trail and Pratt River Trail Reconstruction project would, cumulatively, impact core habitat acres within the Snoqualmie Grizzly Bear Management Unit. The CCC Trail would result in a net loss of 80 acres of early and late core habitat. The Pratt Trail would result in a net lost of 1,036 acres of early and 1,010 acres of late core habitat. The net loss of acres displayed for the Pratt River Trail Reconstruction

Page 86 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

project assumes the first four miles of the Pratt River Trail would change to high use and the remainder would not change form low use. These effects are displayed in Table 15. Table 15 - Snoqualmie Grizzly Bear Management Unit Core Habitat Analysis – Cumulative Acres Acres Baseline Alternative A Alternative Alternatives C Alternative (2001) (No B/CCC & E (Proposed D/CCC Action)/CCC Trail/Pratt Action) /CCC Trail/Pratt Trail/Pratt River Trail Trail/Pratt River Trail River Trail Reconstruction River Trail Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction Early 64,678 63,542 64,242 67,022 69,734 Core Late Core 58,389 57,299 57,699 60,768 62,396 Change in -1,116 -736 +2,424 +5,056 Early Core Change in -1,090 -690 +1,375 +4,007 Late Core

AQUATIC SPECIES

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) and Critical Habitat for TES Species All Alternatives Because Snoqualmie Falls—a natural barrier to anadromous fish—is located approximately 20 miles downstream from the actions proposed in the alternatives, and because no bull trout are known to be found above Snoqualmie Falls, implementation of any of the alternatives would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on this TES species located below Snoqualmie Falls or their critical habitat. These finding are documented from the 2/27/01 Fish Biological Assessment. Because of the no effect finding, no formal consultation with the U S fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries) is required nor was it initiated).

Aquatic Species and Habitat All Alternatives Trails within the Middle Fork, like roads, can deliver fine sediment to streams during storm events. According to district trail managers, there seems to be no perceptible differences in trail wear from hiking, mountain biking, or stock use, if trails are properly maintained (Tom Quinsey personal communication 1999). Therefore, it is assumed that impacts to fish (for species see Chapter 3) and their habitat are more a function of trail length and maintenance than trail user type. Therefore it is assumed that the affects of opening (Alternatives B, D, and E) or not opening (Alternatives A and C) Trails 1003, 1003.1, 1003.01 and 1003.2 to mountain bike on aquatic species and habitat would not vary between alternatives.

Page 87 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) Though the limited routine road maintenance would have beneficial effects, through some reduction of road related sediment reaching the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River and its tributaries, implementation of the no action alternative would result in a continuation of lack of maintenance to appropriate standards of unneeded roads in this drainage. They would continue to be potential sources for increased road sediment into aquatic systems from road runoff, mass wasting and road fill failures. This sediment probably would have minimal or no impact on fish, but if introduced during spawning season, could impact eggs within spawning beds. Alternative B Alternative B would decommission approximately 23.2 miles of unneeded road which would reduce both short and long-term road related impacts to fish and their habitat. There could be some short-term (one-year or less) impacts to aquatic species when roads are decommissioned. Erosion from exposed soils could reach nearby streams. However, with implementation of the soil, water, and aquatic standard management practices and mitigation measures included in Chapter 2, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Of the action alternatives, Alternative B would provide the least overall benefit to fish and their habitat because it would treat (through decommissioning or conversion to a trail/private road) the least miles of unneeded road. Alternatives C and E Alternatives C and E would decommission approximately 23.2 miles of unneeded road and treat 7.6 miles of Road 5600 which would reduce both short and long-term road related impacts to fish and their habitat. If these 7.6 miles were no longer needed as a private road no further decommissioning treatment would be needed As with Alternative B, there could be some short-term impacts to aquatic species when roads are decommissioned. Erosion of exposed soils could cause sediments to reach nearby streams. With implementation of the soil, water, and aquatic standard management practices and Mitigation Measures listed in Chapter 2, these impacts are expected to be minimal. About 9.9 miles decommissioned road would be converted to trail (Roads 5600 past Dingford Creek and 5600-05). Roads that are decommissioned and converted to trail would be expected to have reduced impacts to fish and their habitat compared to the no action alternative. Closing Road 5600 past Dingford Creek to public, motorized public recreation and making it a low-maintenance National Forest System Trail/Private Road would reduce road rutting and sedimentation caused by vehicles driving on the trail/private road. Alternative C and E would expand parking at Dingford Creek Trailhead by 18-20 vehicles. This would involve some clearing and grading around the existing lot, which would expose the disturbed areas to erosion during storm events. With proper erosion control and containment including, implementation of standard management practices and mitigation measures identified in Chapter 2, there would be little risk of erosion or sediment delivery to the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River (several hundred yards to the south).

Page 88 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

These alternatives would benefit fish and their habitat to a greater extent than Alternatives A and B because they would add the conversion of 7.6 miles of Road 5600 to a self maintaining trail/private road with the removal of all but four culverts, upgrading the remaining four culverts, and improvement of drainage. Alternative D Alternative D would provide the greatest potential benefit to aquatic species and their habitat because of the 23.2 miles of decommissioned roads and the 14 miles of Road 5600 that would be treated and converted to a forest trail/private road. No further decommissioning treatment would be needed on these 14.0 miles if no longer needed as a private road. Roads that are decommissioned and converted to trail would have less potential to impact fish and their habitat compared to the no action alternative. With implementation of the soil, water, and aquatic standard management practices and mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2, short-term decommissioning impacts are expected to be minimal. Within a year after the initial ground disturbance, decommissioned roads will be well vegetated with little or no potential for increased erosion. The portion of Road 5600 converted to a trail would have a much lower risk for culvert failure and catastrophic loss of the road prism at stream crossings. Less traffic will reduce the amount of surface erosion from the road and less delivery to streams. Cumulative Effects For cumulative effects to aquatic species refer to the Soil and Water section.

RECREATION

Impacts to Day-Hike Opportunities in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness within the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Currently, the public has motorized access to the full length of Road 5600 from its junction with Road 5640 and the Hardscrabble trailhead (Road 5600 terminus). From this end point, two popular wilderness destinations (Dutch Miller Gap and Williams Lake) have been accessed on a day hike basis both by hikers and pack & stock riders. Length to each is as follows: • Dutch Miller Gap is approximately 6.7 miles from Hardscrabble Trailhead • Williams Lake is approximately 6.4 miles from Hardscrabble Trailhead In looking at the two different types of methods (hiker versus stock) to reach these destinations, the following assumptions were developed to help measure the effects these alternatives would have on an outing (reaching, enjoying and returning) during a daylight period: • Roaded access would require high wheel clearance beyond Dingford Creek Trailhead • Average trail grade for both destinations ranges from 5-7% versus 2-4% for Road 5600 from the junction of Road 5640 to terminus at Hardscrabble Trailhead. • Closures to motorized public access would eliminate use of other motorized means of travel including quads, dirt bikes, or ATV’s.

Page 89 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

• Inexperienced hikers on a fairly gentle grade with good tread conditions and weather can travel at a rate of approximately 1½ - 1¾ miles per hour versus 2 – 2½ miles per hour by horse. • Rates of travel by road or trail will remain similar for comparison of changes in travel time. • A day outing experience would likely total no more than 10 hours in a day and would likely occur during the summer months (May thru September) when snow pack or day light conditions no longer obscure or limit access to wilderness trails. Alternative A (No Action) With this alternative, the average hiker would be able to reach and return from destinations such as Dutch Miller Gap or Williams Lake in one day (8-9 hours round trip). Alternative B In this alternative, day-use access to destinations such as Dutch Miller Gap or Williams Lake would be the same as Alternative A. Alternatives C and E (Proposed Action) Under these alternatives, the last approximately 7.6 miles of Road 5600 would be closed to public motorized access. This segment of road would be converted to a National Forest System Trail/private road. This would add an additional 7.6 trail miles to reach Dutch Miller Gap (6.7 miles) and Williams Lake (6.4 miles). As a result, the round trip hike time for the average or elderly hiker would increase from about 8-9 hours (Alternatives A and B) to approximately 16-19 hours. Most hikers would need 2 days to reach and return from Dutch Miller Gap or Williams Lake. Day-use opportunities to these areas would essentially be eliminated. Only the most capable hikers would be able to complete the hike in one day. Alternatives D Under Alternative D approximately 14 miles of road to trail conversion would be added to the existing trail mileage to reach Dutch Miller Gap (6.7 miles) and Williams Lake (6.4 miles) with the closures and conversion of Road 5600 to trail/private road just beyond its junction with Road 5640. As a result the round trip hike time for the average or elderly hiker would increase from the current time of 8-9 hours (Alternatives A and B) to approximately 24-28 hours. Most hikers would need 3 days to reach and return from Dutch Miller Gap or Williams Lake. Day-use opportunities to these areas would be eliminated. The most capable hikers would be able to complete the hike in two days. Cumulative Effects The alternatives proposed in this project along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not result in cumulative effects to day-use opportunities to Alpine Lakes Wilderness destinations within the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. Also refer to the Wilderness environmental effects section.

Page 90 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Effects on Opportunities for Mountain Bikes Table 16 - Miles of open National Forest Road and Trails. Alt A User Group (No Action) Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Roads Open to cars or 21.6 18.7 11.1 4.7 11.1 high clearance vehicles Hiker 72.2 74.5 82.1 88.5 82.1 Stock 57.5 59.8 67.4 73.8 67.4 Mt. Bike 9.8 25.9 19.7 33.9 33.5

Table 17 - Percent of Trails Open for Mountain Bike Use. Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Total Trail Miles 72.2 74.5 82.1 88.5 82.1 % of Trails open 14% 35% 24% 38% 41% for Mountain Bikes Alternative A (No Action) With Alternative A, there would be no change in current recreation opportunities for mountain bikes. There are approximately 72.2 miles of National Forest System trails accessed from within the project area. Under Alternative A approximately 14.7 miles would be open to hiker use only, 57.5 miles would be open to hiker/stock use, and 9.8 miles of trail would be open to hiker/stock/mountain bike use. Trail opportunities specifically in the non-wilderness (front-country) areas would remain at current levels. Given the user restrictions for trails within designated wilderness areas, potential congestion along these front-country trails would likely increase over time as the population increases in the region and mountain bike use increases. Loop opportunities would also remain constant since no new road to trail conversions would be created. All current dispersed motorized access would be maintained (approximately 21.6 miles), including to approximately 27 dispersed motorized campsites located on Road 56 past its junction with Road 5640 Alternative B The miles of trail would increase to approximately 74.5 miles. All 74.5 miles would be open to hiker use, 59.8 miles to hiker/stock use and 25.9 miles would be open for hiker/stock/mountain bike use. Loop opportunities would be similar to Alternative A (No Action) since Road 5600 remains open to public vehicle access to its terminus at Hardscrabble Trailhead. Stock or mountain bikes would have seasonal restrictions on the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Trail system. About 2.9 miles of dispersed motorized access would be lost. Access to motorized dispersed campsites on Road 56 past its junction would Road 5640 would be the same as Alternative B.

Page 91 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative C Under Alternative C, approximately 7.6 miles of new non-wilderness trail (Road 5600 past Dingford Creek) would be added to the Forest Trail system within the watershed for a total of 82.1 miles of trail. This would provide a 15.4 mile non-wilderness loop opportunity for hiker and pack and saddle (stock) user groups. The additional 7.6 miles of trail/loop opportunity should also help reduce hiker pressure on existing trails by providing more front country trail opportunity. Since the last 7.6 miles of Road 5600 would also be private road for in-holders, trail users could encounter an occasional vehicle driving on the trail/private road. These encounters would be rare as only 50-100 motorized in-holder trips would be anticipated per year. Vehicle speed would be slow (5-10 miles an hour) and trail/private road width would be wide enough to not incorporate both vehicles and hikers/stock. Because motorized use would be minimal, motorized speed would be slow and trail/private road width would be adequate to accommodate both trail users and vehicles, potential conflicts between in-holders and trail user groups would be expected to be minimal. All 82.1 miles would be open to hiker use, 67.4 miles to stock/hiker use and 19.7 miles would be open for mountain bike/stock/hiker use. About 4.5 miles of dispersed motorized access would be lost. Access to approximately 20 motorized dispersed campsites on Road 56 past Dingford Creek would be lost. However these sites would be available to for use by hikers, pack and saddle and mountain bikers.. Alternative D Under this alternative approximately 14.0 miles of new front-country trail would be added with the closure of Road 5600 near its junction with Road 5640. All 88.5 miles would be open to hiker use, 73.8 miles to stock/hiker use and 33.9 miles would be open for mountain bike/stock/hiker use. Loop trail options/length using the 14.0 mile trail/private road, Dingford Creek Tie (1003.2) or Middle Fork Trail1003, 1003.1, and 1003.2 would provide the most new front country trail loop combinations. The loops could include: • Middle Fork Trail from Middle Fork Trailhead/Converted Road 5600 back to Middle Fork Trailhead (about 28.0 miles) • Middle Fork Trail from Middle Fork Trailhead to trail tie at Dingford Creek/Converted Road 5600 back to Middle Fork Trailhead (about 13 miles) • Middle fork Trail from Middle Fork Trailhead to its terminus (Hardscrabble)/Converted Road 5600 to Middle Fork Trail at Dingford Creek Tie/ Middle Fork Trail to the Middle Fork Trailhead (about 27 miles) The additional 14.0 miles of trail/loop opportunity would reduce hiker/stock/mountain bike pressure on existing trails the greatest of any of the alternatives by providing the most front country trail opportunity. Since 14.0 miles of closed Road 5600 would be a private road as well as a National Forest Trail private, trail users could encounter an occasional vehicle driving on the trail/private road. These encounters would be rare as only 50-100 motorized in-holder trips would be anticipated per year. As with Alternatives C and E, vehicle speed would be slow (5-10 miles an hour) and trail/private road width would be wide enough to not incorporate both vehicles and hikers/stock. Because motorized use would be minimal, motorized speed would be slow and trail/private road width.

Page 92 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

About 10.9 miles of dispersed motorized access would be lost. Access to approximately 27 motorized dispersed campsites on Road 56 past its junction would be lost to motorized campers. However, all of these sites would still beavailable to for use by hikers, pack and saddle and mountain bikers. Alternative E Alternative E would result in 82.1 year around miles of trail in the Middle Fork. All of these miles would be open for hiker use, 67.4 miles to stock/hiker use, and 33.5 miles would be open for mountain bike /hiker/stock use. Loop trail opportunities and lengths would be the same as Alternative C, except mountain bikes would seasonally and on odd calendar day be allowed on the Middle Fork Trail system. Potential conflicts between trail user groups and vehicles would be the same as those described under Alternative C. As under Alternative C, about 4.5 miles of dispersed motorized access would be lost. Access to approximately 20 motorized dispersed campsites on Road 56 past Dingford Creek would be lost. However these sites would be available to for use by hikers, pack and saddle and mountain bikers.. Cumulative Effects Table 18 displays cumulative change in miles of trail open for mountain bike use, on National Forest System lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed, since 2000 that would occur with implementation of any of the alternatives plus past, present and foreseeable actions that have had an affect on mountain bike use in the watershed. These other actions include the CCC/Taylor River Trail (3.5 miles). Table 18 - Cumulative Change Miles of National Forest Trail within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed open for Mountain Bike Use. Baseline Alt A (No Alt B + Alt C + Alt D + Alt E (2000) Action) + CCC Trail CCC Trail CCC Trail (Proposed CCC Trail Action) + CCC Trail Miles of 6.3 9.8 26.1 19.7 33.7 33.5 National Forest System Trail open for Mountain Bike Use % Change --- +56% +411% +313% +538% +532%

Potential Effects/Conflicts with Trail Users by Mountain Bikes Alternatives A (No Action) Alternatives A would not change use on existing trails. This would limit single-track opportunities for mountain bikes. They would be restricted to the CCC/Taylor River and Snoqualmie Lake Trails.

Page 93 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative A gives hiker and stock users trails with no mountain bike use, but does not allow for mountain bike use without hiker or stock interference, giving appearance of user preference. Alternative B Alternative B would allow mountain bikes on the Middle Fork Trail system (1003, 1003.1, 1003.01 and 1003.2). This would increase trail mileage for the mountain bike community allowing for greater recreation opportunities. Allowing mountain bikes on the Middle Fork Trail would provide the opportunity for long and short loop opportunities if mountain bikers use Road 5600 for part of the loop. This would allow greater diversity of use. User conflict could result, stemming from limited sight distance and speed of travel of different user groups on the Middle Fork Trail. This could lead to users being startled by sudden approaches of others. In the case of stock use in particular, sudden startle could lead to an unsafe situation for all involved. In the case of others this can lead to a diminished recreational experience and conflicts between user groups. These conflicts could result in increased complaints to the Forest Service about other user groups. Allowing mountain bikes on the Middle Fork Trail could provide opportunities for greater understanding between user groups through increased interaction. Users who do not like multi-use trails may be displaced from the Middle Fork Trail to other trails. Alternative C As with Alternative A, this alternative would not change use on existing trails. It would provide additional multiple user group opportunities (hiker, stock, and mountain bike) by converting the CCC Road (5600-050) to trail and closing and converting Road 5600 above Dingford Creek to National Forest System trail/private road. This would provide more trails and greater opportunities to the three user groups. However, as with Alternative A, mountain bike single-track opportunities would be limited. Gives hiker and stock users trails with no mountain bike use, but does not allow for mountain bike use without hiker or stock interference, giving appearance of user preference. Alternative D Alternative D would provide less user conflict on the Middle Fork Trail than Alternative B because it would provide more multi-user opportunities by closing and converting Road 5600 past its junction with Road 5640 to trail/private road. It also would result in less user conflict than Alternative B because user groups have the choice to avoid areas where higher speed travel and limited sight issue (mountain bikes) may come up, and would anticipate these uses, if they decide to use the segment of the Middle Fork Trail (1003.01 and 1003.2) open to mountain bikes. This alternative would be more limiting to mountain bikes than Alternative B in that it would limit recreation opportunities on the Middle Fork Trail. It would not allow for the same long and short loops and would concentrate mountain bike use instead of spreading it out over the entire Middle Fork Trail system. This could cause an issue of crowding on this section of the Middle Fork Trail. This could also increase the potential for conflicts among users (hikers, stock and mountain bikers).

Page 94 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Opening Trails 1003.01 and 1003.2 to mountain bikes would increase the opportunities for conflict because this segment of trail has closed to that use. This alternative would give hiker and stock users a segment of the Middle Fork Trail (1003 and 1003.1) with no mountain bike use, but does not allow for mountain bike use without hiker and stock interference. This could give an appearance of user preference to mountain bikers. Alternative E Alternative E would provide increased single-track trail mileage for the mountain bike community by allowing mountain bikes on the Middle Fork Trail on odd calendar days, seasonally for a three year trial period. It would provide short and long loop opportunities, by utilizing the converted portion of Road 5600 above Dingford Creek and Road 5600 below Dingford Creek as a part of the loop. This would provide greater diversity of use. As with Alternatives B, D and E, it could provide an opportunity for greater understanding between user groups through increased interaction. Allowing mountain bikes on the Middle Fork Trail could result in increased complaints by users about each other. There could be potential complaints and conflicts because the Middle Fork Trail would only be open to mountain bike users on “odd calendar days”. This could be an enforcement problem or perceived as unfair distribution of use, leading to user conflict. User conflict stemming form limited sight distance and speed of travel of the different user groups could result. As with Alternatives B and D, this could lead to users being startled by sudden approaches of mountain bikes. This effect would be less than Alternative B, as users could anticipate what days they would encounter mountain bikes on the trail. By choice they could avoid mountain encounters by using the Middle Fork Trail on “even calendar days”, which would be closed to mountain bikes. Cumulative Effects Projects that would, along with this project, cumulatively effect potential conflicts between mountain bike, hiker and stock user groups within the watershed are the CCC/Taylor River Trail and Pratt River Trail Reconstruction. Alternative A Mountain bike use would be restricted to the CCC/Taylor River and Snoqualmie Lake Trails. This would continue to concentrate mountain bike use, which could cause an issue of crowding and potential for conflicts among other user groups on these two trails. Reconstruction of the Pratt River Trail would provide an additional 10 miles of trail open for hiking and stock use. Approximately ½ of this trail would provide low elevation year around use opportunity. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) Implementation of Alternatives B-E plus the CCC/Taylor River Trail and Pratt River Trail would reduce potential user conflict on National Forest trails within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed by providing more user opportunities. By increasing the length of trails available for use, it is likely that both the intensity of use and resulting conflicts

Page 95 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

would be less. Besides producing more miles of available trail reconstructing the Pratt River Trail would provide hikers and stock user groups an alternate trail with a use experience similar to the Middle Fork Trail without encountering mountain bikes.

Cumulatively the greatest dispersion opportunity would result from implementing Alternatives D and E (Proposed Action, followed by Alternative B. Alternative C along with the other past and foreseeable projects would result in the least opportunity for dispersion of the action alternatives.

SOCIAL / ECONOMIC RESOURCES None of the alternatives would have an effect on population dynamics (growth, composition, distribution and density, etc) within population areas adjacent to the project area and in Greater King County. The population in these areas is growing and expected to keep growing. The alternatives would also have no effect on minorities or social institutions such as education, politics, the military, or religion. For effects on social institutions and families accessing private lands past proposed road closures, land use, social recreation/leisure and economic costs of the alternatives, refer to the Land Ownership, Mining, Wilderness Resources, Infrastructure, and Recreation sections above. Alternative A With this alternative undesirable behavior, such as dumping cars (stolen and otherwise, irresponsible gun use, garbage dumping, and inappropriate off-road access, would continue unchanged. Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) All action alternatives would close approximately 4.8 miles of spur roads. Most vandalism and illegal shooting that occurs within the area happens on these roads. Closing these roads should result in a dramatic reduction in dumping, illegal shooting, and off-road driving. The more roads closed, the less opportunity for dumping and illegal shooting and driving. Alternative D would close the greatest number/miles of road to motorized public access, then Alternatives C and E followed by B. There would be no change associated with implementing Alternative A. Another effect would be more controlled use of National Forest System lands. With the closure of roads, where people can drive (on and off-road) would become more regulated. As above this effect would be greatest with Alternative D with the most miles of road closures, followed by Alternatives C and E. Alternative B would close the fewest miles of roads of the action alternatives; Alternative A (No action) would not change the current social behavior. Cumulative Effects There would be no measurable cumulative effects on economic factors, population dynamics, social institutions, or special social concerns (civil rights or historical/archaeological/cultural) with implementation of any of the alternatives, along with any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Page 96 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

However, the cumulative effects of past actions on private, King County, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources lands, that have eliminated overnight use and closed roads to public motorized access have sifted use on these land from uncontrolled (dispersed, go where you want, do what you want, camp where you want for as long as you want) to controlled (day use only and all roads but the Middle Fork Road closed to public motorized access), in the lower Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed valley. This change in the lower valley has shifted more uncontrolled use (camping, shooting, off main road driving, vandalism, dumping and illegal shooting) onto National Forest System lands in the middle and upper watershed. Implementing Alternatives B-E (greatest effect would be with Alternative D), building a developed campground in the Middle Fork, and paving the lower Middle Fork Road should result in a shift in human use in the whole watershed from uncontrolled to controlled. Almost all driving would be restricted to Road 56. This shift should result in a change in undesirable use patterns within the watershed. The negative effects and actions often associated with the watershed, such as all night parties, drug dealing, vandalism, dumping stolen cars, irresponsible gun use, garbage dumping, and inappropriate off road access should decline dramatically. The end result should be improved public safety, higher quality of recreational experience for everyone and less illegal activities within the watershed.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The project area is approximately 10 miles northeast of the City of North Bend. North Bend has a permanent population base of approximately 10,000 people. There is also an unincorporated population outside the city limits, several times larger than the City of North Bend, which is dependent upon the City for its goods and services. Alternative A (No Action) For Alternatives A, there would be no change to motorized access. This alternative would have no impact on current forest subsistence (removal and use of forest products or related activities) and recreation uses. Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Proposed Action) Some minorities, low-income residents, and Native Americans may be impacted by the alternatives restricting access. However, these effects would be localized, so small as to not be measurable, and would not be disproportionate to low income or minority groups. Under Alternative B, current motorized public access would be lost on 2.8 miles of road that would be decommissioned. Alternatives C and E would result in the loss of motorized public access on the 11.3 miles of road and Alternative D would result in the loss of motorized public access on 16.8 miles of road. For effects on Native Americans refer to the Heritage Resources and American Indian Interests section above.

Page 97 Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects No appreciable impacts are expected under the alternatives. Consequently, none of the alternatives proposed are expected to contribute to or lead to significant cumulative impacts to minorities, low-income residents, or Native Americans.

IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. It relates to the permanent loss of future options and applies primarily to nonrenewable resources. • For all alternatives, there would be no irreversible commitment of resources. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right- of-way or road. Under active management, irretrievable resource commitments are unavoidable, because managing resources for any given purpose necessarily precludes the opportunity to use those resources for other purposes. Direct, indirect and cumulatively at the watershed level, with the implementation of any of the alternatives (including No Action), the land occupied by roads no longer needed for forest management or by road converted to trail would continue to be irretrievably lost for other resource uses. • Alternative A – 33.6 miles of road • Alternative B - 9.9 miles (7.6 maintained as a Road and 2.3 converted to trail • Alternatives C, D, and E - 9.9 miles (7.6 maintained as a trail/private road and 2.3 miles converted to trail)

Page 98 Chapter 5 – Interdisciplinary Team, Other contributors and other Agencies consulted

CHAPTER 5 – INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM, OTHER CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHER AGENCIES CONSULTED

MEMBERS OF THE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM Jim Franzel - Snoqualmie District Ranger Doug Schrenk – Team Leader Steve Johnson – Vegetation/Ecosystem/Recreation Gifford Martinez – Engineering Lloyd Johnson – Reality Specialist

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS Karen Bergeron – Hydrologist Snoqualmie Ranger District James Davis – Regional Lands Specialist Tracy Fuentes – Botanist Snoqualmie and Skykomish Ranger Districts Jamia Hansen-Murray – Environmental Coordinator Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Dee Hastie – Information Receptionist Snoqualmie Ranger District Jan Hollenbeck – Archaeologist Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Paula James – GIS Cartographic Technician Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Rand Kapral – Fire Management Officer Snoqualmie Ranger District Gary Paull – Trails/Wilderness Specialist Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Rod Mace – National Hydro Assistance Team US Forest Service Eduardo Olmedo – Wildlife Biologist Snoqualmie and Skykomish Ranger Districts Tyler Patterson – Fishery Biologist Snoqualmie Ranger District Sonny Paz – Wildlife Biologist Snoqualmie Ranger District Laura Potash – Botanist Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Thomas Quinsey – Recreation Trails (Retired) Bill Ramos – Ecosystems/Recreation Lorette Ray – Public Affairs Specialist Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Jerry Sherrid – Soil Scientist Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Forrest Shoemaker – Right of Way Coordinator/Land Surveyor Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Bill Sobieralski – Wilderness Forestry Technician Snoqualmie Ranger District Jocelyn Somers – Office of General Council Bill Strong – Civil Engineer Road Manager Snoqualmie and Skykomish Ranger Districts Stephanie Swain – Biological Sciences Technician/GIS Snoqualmie Ranger District Don Thompson – Developed Recreation (Retired) Kathy White – Trails Design Specialist Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Viva Worthington – Botanist Cle Elum Ranger District

AGENCIES CONSULTED Cindy Levy - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Wildlife Level 1 Consultation completed 5/2/01)

-END-

Page 99