United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Travel Management Plan & Forest Plan Amendment Environmental Assessment

Umpqua National Forest; Lane, Douglas and Jackson Counties, Oregon December 2014

For More Information Contact:

Jane Beaulieu, Environmental Coordinator Umpqua National Forest 2900 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97471 Phone: (541) 957-3466 Email: [email protected] Fax: (541) 957-3495

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Contents ...... i Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... - 1 - Background ...... - 1 - Travel Management Rule ...... - 1 - Planning Area Location and Environmental Setting ...... - 1 - Current Management Direction ...... - 3 - Purpose and Need ...... - 4 - Existing Condition ...... - 4 - Desired Condition ...... - 5 - Proposed Action ...... - 5 - Decisions to be Made ...... - 6 - Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Other Planning Documents and Analyses ...... - 6 - Laws and Regulations: ...... - 6 - Tiered Environmental Impact Statements ...... - 7 - Previous Access and Travel Management Plans and Local Assessments ...... - 7 - Scoping...... - 8 - Issues and Concerns ...... - 8 - Concerns That Did Not Drive Alternatives: ...... - 9 - Issues That Drove Alternatives to the Proposed Action: ...... - 10 - Project Implementation ...... - 11 - Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... - 13 - Introduction ...... - 13 - Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Detailed Study ...... - 13 - Eliminate Seasonal Restrictions ...... - 13 - Open, Close, Construct or Decommission Roads ...... - 13 - Wilderness Proposal ...... - 14 - Previous Proposed Action (Alternative A) and Alternatives B and C ...... - 14 - Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... - 14 - Existing Condition ...... - 14 - Items Common to all Alternatives (including NO ACTION) ...... - 20 - Alternative 1: No Action ...... - 21 - Action Alternatives ...... - 22 - Items Common to all Action Alternatives ...... - 22 - Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... - 23 - Alternative 3 ...... - 23 - Alternative 4 ...... - 24 - Alternative 5 ...... - 25 - Alternative 6 ...... - 26 - Comparison of Alternatives ...... - 27 - CHAPTER 3 ...... - 29 - Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... - 29 - Introduction ...... - 29 - Forest Transportation System - Roads ...... - 30 - Existing Condition ...... - 31 - Cumulative Effects ...... - 34 - Recreation ...... - 35 - Management Direction ...... - 35 - Existing Condition ...... - 36 -

i Alternative 1 - No Action ...... - 43 - Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ...... - 44 - Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... - 48 - Alternative 3 ...... - 50 - Alternative 4 ...... - 53 - Alternative 5 ...... - 55 - Alternative 6 ...... - 55 - Cumulative Effects ...... - 56 - Congressionally Designated Areas ...... - 56 - Wilderness ...... - 56 - Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) ...... - 57 - Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... - 57 - Potential Wilderness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... - 58 - Visual Resources ...... - 60 - Management Direction ...... - 60 - Existing Condition ...... - 62 - Alternative 1 - No Action ...... - 62 - Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ...... - 63 - Cumulative Effects ...... - 63 - Aquatic Resources: Water Quality and Quantity, Fisheries ...... - 64 - Existing Condition ...... - 64 - Environmental Consequences ...... - 69 - No Action Alternative and Existing Condition Comparison ...... - 74 - Alternative 1 - No Action ...... - 76 - Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... - 77 - Alternative 3 ...... - 79 - Alternative 4 ...... - 80 - Alternative 5 ...... - 81 - Alternative 6 ...... - 83 - Cumulative Effects ...... - 83 - Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy ...... - 87 - Wildlife Resources ...... - 93 - Biological Evaluation ...... - 93 - Affected Environment ...... - 96 - Consistency with the Umpqua’s 1990 LRMP ...... - 96 - Scientific Literature on the Impacts of Roads ...... - 96 - Threatened and Endangered ...... - 98 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Landbird Analysis ...... - 115 - Survey and Manage Species ...... - 119 - Botanical Resources ...... - 124 - Noxious Weeds ...... - 124 - Unique and Mosaic Habitats ...... - 127 - Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species ...... - 129 - Survey and Manage Botany ...... - 134 - Fire and Fuels ...... - 145 - Management Direction ...... - 145 - Existing Condition ...... - 145 - Alternative 1 - No Action ...... - 147 - Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ...... - 147 - Cumulative Effects ...... - 148 - Vegetation Management and Soils Productivity ...... - 148 - ii Management Direction - Vegetation Management...... - 148 - Existing Condition ...... - 148 - Effects Common to All Alternatives ...... - 149 - Soil Productivity ...... - 149 - Management Direction and Existing Condition – Soil Productivity ...... - 149 - Total Soil Resource Commitment across the Forest from Roads and Trails ...... - 150 - Cultural Resources ...... - 152 - Introduction ...... - 152 - Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction ...... - 153 - Effects Analysis Methodology ...... - 154 - Affected Environment ...... - 157 - Environmental Consequences ...... - 158 - Law Enforcement ...... - 161 - Existing Condition ...... - 161 - Alternative 1 - No Action ...... - 162 - Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ...... - 162 - Cumulative Effects ...... - 162 - Other Resources ...... - 162 - Air Quality ...... - 162 - Climate ...... - 162 - Economics ...... - 163 - Specifically Required Disclosures ...... - 163 - CHAPTER 4 ...... - 164 - Consultation with others ...... - 164 - Introduction ...... - 164 - Agency Consultation ...... - 164 - Interdisciplinary Team ...... - 165 - References ...... - 167 - Appendix 1 Current Travel Management Direction ...... - 169 - Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) ...... - 169 - Desired Future Condition of the Forest (Forest Plan p. IV-5 thru IV-10)...... - 169 - Forestwide Resource Management Goals (Forest Plan p. IV-11 thru IV-95) ...... - 170 - Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Recreation (Forest Plan p. IV-14 to IV-18) ...... - 171 - Dispersed Roaded and Unroaded Recreation ...... - 171 - Off-Road Vehicles ...... - 172 - Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Transportation (Forest Plan p. IV-81 to IV-85) ...... - 172 - Transportation System Management and Maintenance ...... - 172 - Oregon Cascades Recreation Area Management Plan (Forest Plan Appendix E) ...... - 174 - Management Direction by Zone (Forest Plan p. E-13 to E-23) ...... - 174 - Recreation Travelway Management Guide (Forest Plan Appendix F) ...... - 175 - Objectives (Forest Plan p. F-1) ...... - 175 - National Direction (Forest Plan p. F-1 to F-2) ...... - 176 - State Direction (Forest Plan p. F-2) ...... - 176 - Forest Guidelines (Forest Plan p. F-2 to F-3) ...... - 177 - Access and Travel Management Plans (ATM) ...... - 178 - Forest Orders ...... - 178 - Appendix 2 Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan ...... - 181 - Appendix 3 Existing Condition Trail Survey ...... - 186 -

iii List of Tables

Table 1. Management Areas Currently Open to Motorized Cross-Country Travel ...... - 3 - Table 2. Management Areas Currently Closed to Motorized Cross-Country Travel ...... - 3 - Table 3 – State of Oregon Classification of Off-Highway Vehicles ...... - 15 - Table 4. Roads Open for Motorized Use: Existing Condition (Baseline for Effects Analysis) - 20 - Table 5. Trails Open for Motorized Use: Existing Condition (Baseline for Effects Analysis) . - 20 - Table 6. Roads and Trails Closed to Motorized Use: Existing Condition (Baseline for Effects Analysis) ...... - 20 - Table 7. Roads and Trails having the same mileage for all alternatives ...... - 21 - Table 8. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 1 ...... - 21 - Table 9. Area Open to Motorized Cross-Country Travel: Alternative 1 ...... - 22 - Table 10. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 2 ...... - 23 - Table 11. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 3 ...... - 24 - Table 12. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 4 ...... - 25 - Table 13. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 5 ...... - 26 - Table 14. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 6 ...... - 26 - Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives: Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use ...... - 27 - Table 16. Comparison of Alternatives: Cross-Country Travel, Corridors, Pull-outs, and OHV areas ...... - 27 - Table 20 – Trails: Proposed use by Alternative ...... - 46 - Table 30. Roads Closed in All Action Alternatives Due to Resource Concerns ...... - 77 - Table 31. Roads closed in all action alternatives that cross OC Coho occupied and Critical Habitat ...... - 78 - Table 32. Proposed changes1 in road use within one site potential tree height (180 feet) of OC Coho occupied and Critical Habitat, by Alternative ...... - 79 - Table 36. Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Aquatic Species ...... - 92 - Table 37. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act ...... - 94 - Table 38. Characteristics Making a Species Vulnerable to Road Effects (from Forsman et al. 2003) ...... - 94 - Table 39. Regional Forester Sensitive Species as of 12/09/2011 for the Umpqua National Forest . - 94 - Table 40. Umpqua National Forest Management Indicator Species ...... - 95 - Table 41. Potential Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owl Disturbance within 60m of Roads & Trails ...... - 99 - Table 42. 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Sub Units on the Umpqua National Forest - 100 - Table 43. Summary of Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species on the Umpqua National Forest ...... - 104 - Table 44. Umpqua National Forest Management Indicator Species: Habitats & Presence .... - 105 - Table 45. Habitat Effectiveness by Road (HEr) Densities for Deer and Elk ...... - 109 - Table 46. Habitat Class by Alternatives for the pine marten on the Umpqua National Forest - 113 - Table 47. Birds of Conservation Concern in Bird Conservation Region 5, Northern Pacific Rain Forest ...... - 116 - Table 48. Focal Landbird Species by Forest Stage and Habitat (Altman and Alexander 2012) - 118 - Table 49. 2001 Survey and Manage Terrestrial Species Occurring on the Umpqua National Forest ...... - 120 - Table 50. Noxious Weed List for the Umpqua National Forest ...... - 125 - Table 51. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species ...... - 132 - Table 53. Wildfire Ignitions on the Umpqua National Forest by Source, 2002 to 2012 ...... - 147 -

iv Table 54. Effects to Fire and Fuels by Alternative ...... - 148 - Table 55. Forest Orders Pertaining to Motor Vehicle Use ...... - 179 - Table 56. Proposed changes to the Forest Plan by citation ...... - 181 -

List of Figures Figure 1. Umpqua National Forest Map ...... - 2 - Figure 2. Intersection of Roads 3200 and 3200-269 ...... - 17 - Figure 3. Road 3200-269 ...... - 17 - Figure 4. Fish Creek Trail ...... - 18 - Figure 5. Fish Creek Trail ...... - 18 - Figure 6. Beaver Creek Trail (trail is at orange flagging) ...... - 19 - Figure 7. Bunchgrass Meadows Trail (trail is to the right of the large tree) ...... - 19 - Figure 9. Elk numbers by management unit for wildlife management units that occur on the Umpqua National Forest from 1992-2013. These are not population numbers, but results from winter aerial detection surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife...... - 108 - Figure 10. Black-tailed deer numbers by management unit for wildlife management units that occur on the Umpqua National Forest from 1992-2012. These are not population numbers, but results from spotlighting surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife...... - 108 - Figure 11. Bald Eagle Reproduction on the Umpqua National Forest from 1990-2012...... - 110 - Figure 12. Peregrine Falcon Reproduction on the Umpqua National Forest from 1990-2013. - 111 -

v

Umpqua National Forest

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action The Umpqua National Forest is proposing to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas available for motor vehicle use on the Forest to fulfill the requirements of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. This chapter has the following sections: background, purpose and need, proposed action, decisions to be made, relationship to laws, regulations, other planning documents and analyses, scoping, issues and concerns, and project implementation. Background

Travel Management Rule Former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth identified unmanaged recreation as one of the four threats to National Forest Lands. Nationally, the increase in the use and capabilities of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) has resulted in route proliferation, resource damage, and user conflicts. New regulations were needed to address these issues so the Forest Service can continue to provide motorized recreation opportunities while sustaining the health of National Forest System (NFS) lands.

The Forest Service published the final rule on travel management regulations in the Federal Register (FR) Volume 70, Number 216, November 9, 2005, pp. 68264-68291. The final rule revised regulations in 36 CFR 212, 251, 261 and 295. National Forests and Grasslands are to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. These designations will be identified on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and will be reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes to the designated system. When designations are made and a MVUM is published, motorized travel off the designated system will be prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13 (36 CFR 212.50(a)).

The responsible official may incorporate previous administrative decisions regarding travel management made under other authorities, including designations and prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in designating National Forest System roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)).

The rule recognizes that motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate way for people to enjoy their National Forests in the right places and with proper management. Motor vehicle use on the Umpqua National Forest is a popular form of recreation for many individuals, families, and groups. A designated system of roads, trails, and areas is needed to provide for this motorized use, protect resources, and implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule.

Planning Area Location and Environmental Setting The project area includes the transportation system of motorized roads, trails and areas within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest, and those roads outside the Forest boundary but under Forest Service jurisdiction (see Figure 1). There are approximately 986,000 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Umpqua National Forest, which is located in southwest Oregon and includes portions of Lane, Douglas and Jackson Counties. The Forest is comprised of four Ranger Districts: Cottage Grove, North Umpqua, Diamond Lake and Tiller. Situated on the western slopes of the Cascade Range, the Umpqua National Forest includes the headwaters of the North and South Umpqua rivers and Row River. Dense stands of hemlock, true fir, Douglas-fir and cedar transition to lower elevation forests of mixed conifers and hardwoods. The waterways and diverse landscapes of the Forest create desirable habitat for many species of fish and wildlife in addition to providing outstanding recreational opportunities for local communities and visitors.

- 1 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Umpqua National Forest Map

- 2 - Umpqua National Forest

Current Management Direction The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or LRMP) designated 14 Management Areas (MAs) on the Forest. These management areas are land areas managed towards a common focus. Table 1 and Table 2 list management areas open to motorized cross-country travel and closed to motorized cross-country travel, respectively. Management Areas 12 and 13 were established to emphasize a specific resource, fisheries for MA 12 (Steamboat Creek and tributaries) and minerals for MA 13 (Fairview-Bohemia mineralized area). Their land areas overlap other management areas and their management direction is intended to be supplemental to the underlying management area direction.

Note: All mileage and acreage figures listed in this document are approximate. Mileage was determined from GIS data and rounded. Acreage was either taken from the Umpqua Forest Plan or it was determined from GIS data and rounded.

Table 1. Management Areas Currently Open to Motorized Cross-Country Travel Percent Management Name Acres Of Areas Area Forest 1 Unroaded Recreation 7,600 1 Semi-Primitive Motorized Oregon Cascades Calamut & Thirsty Point (Semi-Primitive 5 21,200 2 Recreation Area Motorized) 7 Wild and Scenic River 6,400 1 North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Corridor 8 Experimental Forest 700 > 0.5 South Umpqua Experimental Forest Sustainable Timber 10 571,700 58 Various Areas Through-out the Forest Production 11 Winter Range 251,200 25 Closed to OHVs December through April TOTAL 858,800 87

Table 2. Management Areas Currently Closed to Motorized Cross-Country Travel Percent Management Name Acres Of Areas Area Forest 1 Unroaded Recreation 18,600 2 Semi-primitive non-motorized Concentrated Lemolo Lake 2 8,500 1 Developed Recreation Diamond Lake 3 Winter Sports 3,800 > 0.5 Mt. Bailey Boulder Creek 4 Wilderness 71,800 7 Rogue-Umpqua Divide Mt. Thielsen Oregon Cascades North Umpqua, West Thielsen (Semi-Primitive 5 15,700 2 Recreation Area Non-Motorized) Jobs Garden, Umpqua Rocks, Inner Canyon Basalts, Umpqua Hot Springs, Crystal Spring, 6 Special Interest Areas 5,000 1 Cow Creek Gorge, Slide Creek Fossil Beds, Emile Big Tree, Incense Cedar Grove, Illahee Rock, Spring River, Huckleberry Patch Limpy Rock Research Natural 9 2,500 > 0.5 Cougar Butte Areas Squaw Flat

- 3 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Percent Management Name Acres Of Areas Area Forest Undeveloped Intact 14 1,400 > 0.5 Hardesty Mountain/Mt. June Ecosystems TOTAL 127,300 13

The Umpqua Forest Plan identifies the forest-wide goals of developing and managing an economical and safe Forest transportation system that is responsive to land and resource management goals (LRMP p. IV- 81) and providing a broad spectrum of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities to all segments of society (LRMP p. IV-11). Standards and Guidelines for Recreation contained in the Umpqua Forest Plan state: “Off-road vehicle (ORV) opportunities will be directed towards blocked roads (Maintenance Level 1 roads), developed trails, the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA), and dispersed unroaded recreation management areas. Off-road vehicle use will be managed to assure that significant resource damage and/or conflicts with non-motorized users do not occur” (LRMP p. IV-18).

The OCRA was established as part of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, and includes the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness and the Diamond Peak Wilderness. The OCRA Management Plan (LRMP Appendix E) provides management direction for the non-wilderness portion of the OCRA. The non-wilderness portion of the OCRA is divided into seven zones, four of which lie within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest. The North Umpqua and West Thielsen Zones are managed to provide semi-primitive non- motorized (SPNM) recreation opportunities. The Calamut Lake and Thirsty Point Zones are managed to provide semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation opportunities.

The Recreation Travelway Management Guide (LRMP Appendix F) provides guidance for travel management of vehicles used for recreation. Each district followed this direction in the development of District-level Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plans which serve as the basis for the existing condition and the No Action Alternative described in Chapter 2. Purpose and Need The purpose and need of this project is to implement Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule and designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year, and publish a motor vehicle use map. In order to implement Subpart B, the Umpqua Forest Plan needs to be amended to prohibit motor vehicle use off of the designated system (i.e., close the Forest to cross-country travel).

This project does not propose any new ground disturbing activities or site-specific modifications. This proposal does not apply to or analyze for motorized access for permitted activities, such as grazing permits, firewood permits or special use permits.

Existing Condition Currently, the Umpqua National Forest uses individual Forest Orders (Table 55 in Appendix 1) to prohibit or seasonally restrict motor vehicle use on specific roads or trails or in certain areas; all other areas are open to motor vehicle use. Umpqua Forest Plan direction allows cross-country motorized travel on approximately 87% of the Forest. However, due to the steep topography and dense vegetation, opportunities for cross-country motorized travel are limited.

Currently, there are inconsistencies in guidance pertaining to travel management on the Umpqua National Forest. The Umpqua Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines for Recreation (LRMP p. IV-18) state, “ORV

- 4 - Umpqua National Forest opportunities will be directed towards blocked roads….” The Recreation Travelway Management Guide (LRMP Appendix F) and District ATM Plans allow for ORVs on Maintenance Level (ML) 1 roads in most Management Areas. District ATM maps were published (1994-2002) that do not show ML 1 roads, but clearly state that ORVs can be used on blocked or closed roads, roads that are open but not maintained for public travel, and roads that are maintained for public travel but are also signed as open to ORVs. However, Forest Service Handbook 7709.59; Road System Operations and Maintenance Handbook (February 5, 2009) defines a Maintenance Level 1 road as being “closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses”.

Currently there are trails identified as available for motor vehicle use on the District ATM maps, but the class of motor vehicle has not been defined. In addition, whether motor vehicles can still travel on these trails has not been verified in many years.

Desired Condition The system of roads, trails, and areas available for motorized use by class of vehicle and by time of year is designated, and a MVUM showing the designated system has been published for Forest motorists.

The Travel Management Rule requires that all motor vehicle use off of the designated system of roads, trails, and areas (i.e., cross-country travel) be prohibited (36 CFR 261.13). The amendment to the Umpqua Forest Plan would change travel management direction from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.” Forest Orders, Road Management Objectives (RMOs) and Trail Management Objectives (TMOs) would be revised or rescinded as necessary to be in compliance with the designations made under the Travel Management Rule.

The inconsistency between the Umpqua Forest Plan and Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 would be resolved by determining which ML 1 roads would be closed to all motor vehicles due to natural resource concerns, which ML 1 roads would be changed to ML 2 roads and open to all motor vehicles, and which ML 1 roads would have motorized trails co-located on them. Proposed Action The Umpqua National Forest proposes to amend the Umpqua Forest Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off of the designated system of roads, trails, and areas available for motor vehicle use. The Proposed Action (see Chapter 2) would amend Standards and Guidelines for Recreation and Transportation and multiple Management Prescriptions. Management direction for all or portions of six Management Areas (approximately 858,800 acres) would be changed to prohibit motorized cross-country travel, and general travel management direction on the Forest would be changed from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.” A list of proposed Forest Plan amendments is contained in Appendix 2 (Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan).

The Proposed Action would close the Forest to cross-country travel and would designate the existing system routes (roads and trails) that have motor vehicle use and those roads that are currently physically capable of being used by motor vehicles, but did not show recent use. Routes would be designated by type of vehicle and season of use based on Umpqua Forest Plan and District ATM plan management direction as well as observed current motor vehicle use patterns. A Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would be produced, free of charge, showing those roads, trails, and areas open for motorized use on the Umpqua National Forest. The MVUM would be reviewed, updated as needed and published annually. The updated MVUM would show any new routes the Responsible Official had decided would be open for motorized use, and would not show any routes that were no longer open for motorized use.

- 5 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Decisions to be Made Based on the analysis documented in this Environmental Assessment, the Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest would decide the following:

 Whether to implement the project through one of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6) or a combination of alternatives and to amend the Umpqua Forest Plan in accordance with 36 CFR 219.15(c)(4), or to not implement the project at this time (No Action Alternative).  If the project is implemented, what monitoring is necessary to achieve resource goals, objectives, and the purpose and need.  Whether there is a significant effect on the human environment that would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The Forest Supervisor’s decision would be documented in a Decision Notice. The proposed project is intended to address regulatory activities rather than project-level activities. Past decisions regarding site- specific road management actions, such as road decommissioning, would not be revisited. Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Other Planning Documents and Analyses

Laws and Regulations: There is clear congressional and executive intent for the USDA Forest Service to manage and reasonably regulate uses on National Forests within limits that Forest resources can support.

The Organic Administration Act (1897) gave the Forest Service the responsibility “to regulate occupancy and use and to preserve the forests therein from destruction” (16 USC §551).

The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 stated the Forest Service’s authority to manage the National Forests and Grasslands “for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes (16 USC §528).”

The Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964 stated “…the Congress hereby finds and declares that the construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails within and near the national forests and other lands administered by the Forest Service is essential if increasing demands for timber, recreation, and other uses of such lands are to be met…” (16 USC §532-538).

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provides for preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation. (16 USC §470).

Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969) “…to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man, [and] enrich the understanding of ecological systems and resources important to the Nation…” (42 USC §4321).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to “…. carry out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species (16 USC §1536(a) (1).”

The National Forest Management Act (1976) requires National Forests to be managed according to land and resource management plans that provide for multiple-use and sustained yields (16 USC §1660).

- 6 - Umpqua National Forest

Executive Order (EO) 11644 (1972), as amended by EO 11989 (1977) and revised 36 CFR §212 outline the Forest Service’s responsibilities to “…establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.”

Other laws and regulations that guide this analysis include the National Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [as amended through Public Law 106-580, Dec. 31, 2000], Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

In managing motor vehicles on National Forest System roads, the Umpqua National Forest is consistent with state laws and regulations. The Oregon State Motor Vehicles Division has regulations for operating non-highway legal motor vehicles on roads, and the mixing of highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821 specifically addresses off-highway vehicles (OHV) and establishes vehicle classes, driver requirements, equipment requirements and where various classes of vehicles may and may not operate.

Development of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is in accordance with implementation regulations of National Forest System Land Management Planning (36 CFR 219), Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (36 CFR 218), and Council of Environmental Quality, National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508).

Tiered Environmental Impact Statements This EA is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Land and Resource Management Plan – Umpqua National Forest (USDA, 1990), as amended, including the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA, 1994).

Previous Access and Travel Management Plans and Local Assessments The Forest Plan directed the development of District Access and Travel Management (ATM) plans (LRMP Chapter IV and Appendix F) and provided prescriptions for management of road and off-road vehicles and trail access and travel. The District ATM plans were originally completed in 1994.

The 1994 ATM Plans were updated in later years to identify the primary and secondary road system essential for public access and travel throughout the Forest. The intent of the updated District ATM Plans was to allocate limited road maintenance funds to the highest priority roads first. Primary Roads would get highest priority for funding, followed by Secondary Roads, and then “Other” roads.

Following the direction of the Northwest Forest Plan, watershed analyses were completed on the Forest. All of these analyses have recognized the importance of roads and their effects on the environment and many make recommendations regarding specific roads and their management. This Environmental Assessment is narrow focused on travel management. Recommendations in the watershed analyses will be considered in more site specific projects in the future.

In 2003, the Umpqua Roads Analysis Report compiled information useful for making informed decisions about road management. It had three primary objectives. The first objective was to determine the key road system (the primary and secondary road system), and to validate this concept as a tool for making decisions about road management. Second, to capture the accumulated information gained from public involvement and compiling Ranger District input in order to better inform land managers about the benefits and liabilities of roads, indicate some areas needing improvement in road management, ways to

- 7 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment mitigate risks, and sources of additional information. Third, to provide guidance for watershed scale and project scale roads analysis.

All of this information was used by the interdisciplinary team as background information in developing the Proposed Action. Scoping The Forest began pre-scoping for this project in early 2008. The Forest established a travel management website and public comment was solicited through news releases in the local media, brochures, and the website. The project proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in July 2008 and has been posted on the SOPA quarterly since then. Project presentations were made to various organizations, user groups and interested publics. Open houses were held in Cottage Grove and Roseburg, Oregon in July 2008. Based on preliminary issues identified through pre-scoping and coordination with other federal, state, county and other local entities, tribal governments and interested publics, the Forest developed a Proposed Action. On April 10, 2009 a scoping letter describing the Proposed Action was mailed to about 300 interested members of the public. This information was also posted on the Umpqua National Forest website. Public comment was again solicited through news releases in the Roseburg News Review, The Register Guard and other media sources, and open houses were held in Cottage Grove and Roseburg in June 2009. Due to the high level of public interest generated by the Proposed Action, the Forest worked closely with interest groups and individuals and extended the public scoping period through September 2009. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were developed based on public comments and issues raised during the scoping process. In March 2010, the Forest sent the EA to over 400 interested members of the public, posted it on the Umpqua National Forest website, and a legal notice was published in the Roseburg News Review and The Register Guard. Over 150 comments were received during the 30 day comment period. Many public comments suggested a need for further assessment of ML 1 roads and dispersed recreation sites to determine what the current condition was. The Forest Supervisor decided to defer issuing a Decision Notice until additional field information was collected.

From summer 2011 through fall 2013, field inventories of entrance points to ML 1 roads, some forest system trails, and known dispersed recreation sites were conducted. For the entrance points to ML 1 roads, information was gathered on the type and effectiveness of barriers at the entrance points, whether the road was overgrown with vegetation or otherwise impassable, whether or not the road was receiving vehicle use, and if so, what was the largest vehicle using the road. Field inventories of the trails identified for motor vehicle use by District ATM maps and other trails known to be receiving motor vehicle use were conducted to determine if motor vehicle use was occurring, and if so, by which class of motor vehicle, and whether natural resource damage was occurring. Field inventories of known dispersed recreation sites were conducted to determine if use was occurring at these sites.

Based on the field inventories, the existing condition was updated, and the Forest Supervisor decided to revise the Proposed Action and alternatives. The effects of the alternatives were analyzed and documented in a revised EA. The revised EA is being released to the public for scoping and public comment. The Forest Supervisor will consider public comment before circulating a draft decision. The draft decision will be distributed as per 36 CFR 218. Issues and Concerns In the planning process, issues and concerns raised during the scoping process are generally addressed in one of four ways:

- 8 - Umpqua National Forest

Clarification of Purpose and Need and/or Proposed Action – There was concern that the Purpose and Need, as stated in the previous EA (March 2010) was too broad and necessitated an analysis of the effects of the entire Forest road and trail system. As a result, the Purpose and Need was re-worded to clearly state the intent of the project and limit the focus to designating those roads, trails, and areas available for motorized use and closing the Forest to cross-country motorized travel.

Development of Project Design Features (PDFs) - Project design features (PDFs) are management actions included in the proposed action or alternatives that would reduce or avoid anticipated environmental effects which might otherwise stem from project implementation. PDFs are described with the alternatives in Chapter 2.

Effects Analyzed in Chapter 3 – The following concerns were raised through the public scoping process and are addressed through specific resource areas in the alternatives analyzed under Affected Environment and Environmental Effects (Chapter 3) in this document.

Comments were received stating a concern that the Forest’s natural resources might be adversely affected by the designation of a system of motorized routes on the Forest. Comments suggested that reducing the current amount of motorized use on the Forest would reduce wildlife disturbance, the spread of invasive species (weeds), and destruction of historical/cultural/archeological resources as well as enhance water quality, soils/site productivity, and fish and wildlife habitat. These topics are addressed in the Aquatic Resources, Wildlife Resources, Botanical Resources, and Heritage Resources sections of Chapter 3.

Comments were received that stated current uses of the Forest, such as motorized access for dispersed camping, hunting, fishing, and other traditional uses might be reduced or eliminated through the designation of a motorized route system. Other comments indicated opportunities for solitude might be enhanced or increased through the designation process. These topics are addressed in the Recreation Resources, Potential Wilderness Areas, and Inventoried Roadless Areas sections of Chapter 3.

Development of Alternatives – Some issues and concerns raised during the scoping process are either addressed through existing management direction, or are beyond the scope of the project, or are unresolved conflicts of available resources that can be used to formulate and compare alternatives. The following sections describe these issues and concerns.

Concerns That Did Not Drive Alternatives: The following concerns were raised during the public scoping process and are either addressed through existing guidance or are beyond the scope of this project:

1. Unnecessary and Unconstitutional Regulation – The Forest received some public comments that the Travel Management Rule was not necessary for this Forest and other commenters stated it was unconstitutional. The purpose and need as well as the authority for implementation of the Travel Management Rule are addressed in the “Background” and “Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Other Planning Documents and Analyses” sections of Chapter 1. This concern is addressed, because implementation of the travel management rule is consistent with the provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 (February 8, 1972), “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” as amended by E.O. 11989 (May 24, 1977), and this project implements Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. 2. Emergency Response – Some commenters stated they believed emergency response would be impacted after publication of the MVUM, because there would be less road access. However, the use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes is exempted from designations under the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.51(a)(5)); therefore this concern is addressed.

- 9 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

3. Big Game Retrieval – Some commenters wanted an exemption to the Travel Management Rule and be able to travel off-road to retrieve big game. Although the final rule does provide the responsible official the authority to designate the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of designated routes, and/or specified time periods, solely for the purposes of big game retrieval, Forest Service Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) policy precludes designating exceptions for big game retrieval, and authority to designate exceptions for big game retrieval has not been delegated to the Forest Supervisor; therefore this concern is beyond the scope of this project. 4. Access for Disabled Users – The Forest received some public comments that people with disabilities needed to have more access especially when retrieving big game and should be exempt from the Travel Management Rule. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Forest Service directives (FSM 2353.17 and 7715.79) prohibit discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, but do not require expanded access or special exceptions for motorized use by persons with disabilities. The restriction against motorized off-road travel, including big game retrieval, is applicable to all motorized users; therefore this concern is beyond the scope of this project. 5. Side-by-Sides - There are increasing numbers of “side-by-side” OHVs available for motorized recreation. While most of these vehicles are greater than 50 inches in width and over 1,200 pounds in weight, there were public comments that impacts from these vehicles are less than those of Class II (full-size) vehicles and as a result, should be grouped with Class I vehicles (OHVs 50 inches or less in width). Forest Service directives state NFS roads and trails are designed and maintained for motorcycles (single track vehicles), vehicles 50 inches or less in width, and vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. Forest Service management guidance has not changed to recognize new vehicle classes or develop new standards for these vehicles; therefore, it is beyond the scope of this project to group side by side vehicles with Class I vehicles or develop new standards for these vehicles. 6. Enforcement – Some public comments indicated the Forest would need more funding and law enforcement officers to enforce the Travel Management Rule. Implementation of the final rule would not increase the Forest’s budget or the number of law enforcement officers. The Forest Service is committed to using those resources it has available to accomplish the purposes of the Travel Management Rule in a focused and efficient manner. Education and cooperative relationships with forest visitors would support enforcement efforts by promoting voluntary compliance. This concern was not identified as an issue that drove any action alternatives. This concern is analyzed in the Law Enforcement section of Chapter 3. 7. Mixed Use – Some public comments were received concerning the safety of allowing highway legal vehicles and non-highway legal vehicles (OHVs) on the same road. Mixed use has been evaluated through an administrative engineering analysis. Public safety is a key consideration in the analysis. Mixed use as determined through this background analysis is included in the existing condition and would be reflected on the MVUM; therefore this concern is addressed through existing guidance.

Issues That Drove Alternatives to the Proposed Action: The following issues and concerns were raised either internally by the interdisciplinary team or by the public during the scoping process. These issues were used to develop the alternatives. The alternatives are explained in detail in Chapter 2 and the effects of the alternatives are described in Chapter 3.

 Maintenance Level 1 Roads - Alternatives were developed to resolve the issue of the inconsistency between the Umpqua Forest Plan direction which identifies most ML 1 roads as open for vehicles 50 inches or less in width, while Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 states ML 1 roads are closed, but may be suitable for non-motorized uses. This issue would be resolved by determining which ML 1

- 10 - Umpqua National Forest

roads would be closed to all motor vehicles, which ML 1 roads would be changed to ML 2 roads and open to all motor vehicles, and which ML 1 roads would have motorized trails co-located on them, and what class of vehicle(s) would continue to operate on the trail. Each alternative would be measured by the mileage of ML 1 roads that would be closed to all motor vehicles, the mileage of ML 1 roads that are changed to ML 2 roads, and the mileage of ML 1 roads that have motorized trails co-located on them and what class of vehicle(s) would continue to operate on those trails as compared to the existing condition.

 Trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas - The Forest received public comments suggesting trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) should not be designated for motorized use due to the effects motorized use would have on those recreating for solitude and quiet recreation, and natural resource concerns, such as disturbance to wildlife, soil erosion and compaction, and impacts to water quality. In addition, it was suggested that designation of these trails for motorized use might preclude these areas from being considered for wilderness designation. Alternatives were developed to address the issue of whether trails in IRAs should continue to be designated for motorized use.

Each alternative would be measured by the miles of trails designated for motorized use in IRAs as compared to the existing condition.

 Motorized Access to Dispersed Recreation Sites and Non-System Roads, Trails, and Areas Providing Recreational Opportunities - The Forest received public comments concerning access to dispersed recreation sites off of system roads. Most of these sites are used for camping during the summer or during hunting season. Other sites are used for picnicking, parking for access to swimming locations, or other recreational activities. These existing sites are accessed by existing roads that can range from 50 feet off a system road in a pull-out to several hundred feet off of a system road. Field surveys of dispersed recreation sites found that in some cases non-system roads were several hundred feet in length. Surveys found some system snowmobile trails were being used in summer months by OHVs and full-size vehicles and these trails along with system roads provided a recreational driving loop opportunity. Surveys found an approximate two acre area off of the 2614- 430 road near East Lemolo Campground that was being used by OHVs.

The Forest received public comments with concerns that designating corridors off of system roads to allow access to dispersed recreation sites would cause damage to Forest natural resources, including adverse effects to vegetation, wildlife, soils, and water quality.

Alternatives were developed to address the issue of whether to continue to allow access to existing dispersed recreation sites via corridors, pull-outs, or by adding longer non-system roads to the Forest’s road system.

Each alternative would be measured by the miles of non-system roads converted to system roads, and the acreage of corridors, pull-outs, and OHV areas compared to the existing condition. Project Implementation Implementation of this project would occur with the publication of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). These maps would be available free of charge at Umpqua National Forest District Offices and Supervisor’s Office. The MVUM would also be available on the Umpqua National Forest website.

- 11 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule would place more responsibility on the public to obtain the MVUM and to remain on routes designated for motor vehicle use. The MVUM would serve as an enforcement tool, identifying the legal use of the designated system for the public. Initial implementation of the project would focus on public education. This would allow forest visitors to become familiar with the new system and use of the MVUM.

The effectiveness of implementing Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule would be monitored by recording the number of MVUMs distributed to the public, reviewing the number, type, and location of violations, and reviewing the condition of the designated roads, trails, and areas. The Forest Service would continue to involve the public in refining a sustainable motorized transportation system that balances motorized use with resource protection. It will be a continuing process to resolve specific access issues that were not directly addressed in the initial publication of the MVUM. Any future changes to motor vehicle use, based upon appropriate environmental analysis or correction of errors on previous versions, would be included in updates to the MVUM. The Forest would continue to pursue community partnerships to help sustain motorized recreation opportunities through route maintenance and management.

- 12 - Umpqua National Forest

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Introduction The Forest Supervisor established an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) of resource specialists to address issues and concerns that were raised through public scoping, and to develop alternative proposals to meet the Purpose and Need. This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for this project. Some alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail for various reasons as described below. The Interdisciplinary Team evaluated roads, trails, and areas for motorized designation. The alternatives analyzed here were designed based on public input and guidance contained in 36 CFR 212.55, Criteria for designation of roads, trails, and areas, Forest Service Manuals, Handbooks, and the Forest Plan.

Initial public scoping was initiated to develop alternatives for in early 2008. As a result an IDT was formed and initial scoping comments were used to develop a Draft EA that was presented to the public in March of 2010. This generated significant interest from motorized user groups, hunters, industry and environmental groups who all had a vested and conflicting interest in the designation of Roads, trail and areas for motorized use. In addition the criteria and data used to identify roads initially did not include site specific field inventory data on type of vehicle use on the ML 1 roads under consideration but was based on various criteria such as soils, topography, watershed location as well as corporate knowledge of use patterns.

After public meetings and significant comments in 2010 on the initial alternatives, it was decided to conduct extensive field inventories in early winter 2011 – summer 2013 for use and condition of ML 1 entrance points. This data would be used to help inform the future decision needed. This new document is much reduced in scope and responsive only to those items that are requirements of the Travel Management Rule that will lead to the Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas for Motorized Use, and the amendment(s) to the forest plan that must be implemented in order to comply with the CFR. Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Detailed Study The following alternatives were considered by the Forest Supervisor to address comments raised during public scoping. They were eliminated from detailed study for various reasons.

Eliminate Seasonal Restrictions This alternative was suggested in public comments submitted in response to the original Proposed Action. Comments indicated seasonal restrictions were confusing, unenforceable and unnecessary. This alternative was not fully developed. Seasonal restrictions were established with the Umpqua Forest Plan (LRMP pp. IV-132-135) and District ATM plans to minimize disturbance to wildlife during critical periods (e.g., wintering, calving/fawning, and nesting) and direct motorized use away from sensitive habitats. These resource concerns and the current seasonal restrictions are still valid, part of the existing condition, and would be followed with this designation process. A proposal could be considered at a later time to determine if there would be any changes to these seasonal restrictions.

Open, Close, Construct or Decommission Roads Many route specific comments were received requesting the Forest Service consider the construction of new OHV routes, physically opening or closing existing roads, and decommissioning roads. An alternative addressing these comments was not fully developed, because it is beyond the scope of the project. This project is intended to designate roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicle use, rather than project-level, ground disturbing activities such as constructing, opening, closing or

- 13 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment decommissioning trails or roads. Any future proposals for these types of activities would be considered under separate, site-specific NEPA analysis.

Wilderness Proposal The Forest received public comments during scoping suggesting certain trails should not be designated as motorized, because this might adversely affect the suitability of certain areas being included in a citizen proposed wilderness proposal. Potential wilderness is analyzed in the Chapter 3 Recreation section, but an alternative addressing these comments was not analyzed in detail because it is outside the scope of this project. This project is not a Forest Plan revision process where areas would be recommended for possible wilderness designation or to be studied for wilderness. Designating motorized trails would not preclude areas from wilderness designation in the future. Congress can designate any area as wilderness, and management prescriptions can be changed if they conflict with the wilderness designation.

Previous Proposed Action (Alternative A) and Alternatives B and C The Forest developed a Proposed Action (Alt. A), and subsequently two alternatives (Alt. B: Motorized Recreation Emphasis and Alt. C: Non-Motorized Recreation Emphasis) to address issues identified through the public scoping process using existing and available resource records. The alternatives were analyzed in an EA and released for public comment in March 2010. A Decision Notice based on that EA was not issued. Since that time, the Forest Supervisor has narrowed the scope of the project and the Forest has conducted field inventories to determine current motor vehicle use patterns on ML 1 roads, trails available for motor vehicles as identified by District ATM maps and other trails known to receive motor vehicle use, and known dispersed recreation sites. Based on information from these surveys, the Proposed Action and alternatives have been revised, and Alternatives A, B, and C no longer meet the Purpose and Need for this project. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Existing Condition A comprehensive list of current travel management direction is contained in Appendix 1 (Current Travel Management Direction) of this EA. Information and management direction concerning the Umpqua National Forest road and trail system can be found in the Umpqua Forest Plan, Forest Closure Orders, the District ATM Plans and maps, Road Management Objectives, Trail Management Objectives, and Forest and District-scale maps. Some of the information in these documents is no longer valid, and in some cases, there is conflicting information. Publishing the MVUM would replace the multiple sources of route information and give the public a definitive single source for determining motorized route designations on the Forest.

National Forest System (NFS) roads are categorized by assigned Maintenance Levels (ML) 1-5, in accordance with road management objectives identified and documented for each road. ML 3-5 roads are typically paved single or double lane roads and are maintained for passenger cars. Forest Service budget direction places higher priority on managing and maintaining these roads for safe public use. Of the 517 miles of ML 3-5 roads, 366 miles are open to highway legal vehicles only. Certain segments of ML 3-5 roads (149 miles) have undergone a motorized mixed use safety analysis and are open for use by OHVs (non-highway legal vehicles) in order to enhance motorized recreation opportunities.

There are 2,973 miles of ML 2 roads that are managed for high clearance vehicle use, of which 19 miles are open to highway legal vehicles only. ML 2 roads are typically gravel roads, although some are native surface and some are paved. ML 2 roads receive maintenance as budget and scheduling allow, but often are not maintained on an annual basis, and may be inaccessible from blown down trees and slides for

- 14 - Umpqua National Forest extended periods of time. Many ML 2 roads do not receive scheduled maintenance, but are maintained in conjunction with specific land management project access needs or to prevent resource damage.

There are 1,209 miles of ML 1 roads, not maintained for public travel, but the Umpqua Forest Plan allows use of these roads by Class I (vehicles 50 inches or less in width) and Class III (motorcycles) OHVs. Most, but not all of these roads have a physical barrier, such as an earthen berm, logs, or boulders, at the entrance. Many of these roads receive some motor vehicle use, including some that have Class II (full size, four-wheel-drive) vehicle use. Other ML 1 roads are overgrown with vegetation or are otherwise impassible and do not receive any motorized use.

Table 3 – State of Oregon Classification of Off-Highway Vehicles Off-Highway Vehicles Class Size of Wheel Base Weight I 50 inches or less 1200 pounds or less II 66 inches or greater Greater than 1800 pounds III Motorcycle (2 wheeled-vehicle) Not Applicable IV 65 inches or less 1800 pounds or less Note: Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV), Off-Road Vehicles (ORV), and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) are terms often used to describe vehicles operating off-road. Class I vehicles are often called ATVs or “quads”, but could also be “three-wheelers”. Class I vehicles have handlebars for steering and a seat designed to be straddled by the operator. Class II vehicles are full-size, 4-wheel drive vehicles, such as jeeps and pickups. Class III vehicles are motorcycles and can operate on single track trails. Class IV vehicles are often called “side-by-side” vehicles and have a steering wheel and non-straddle seating. NFS roads and trails are designed for motorcycles (single track vehicles), vehicles 50 inches or less, or vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. For this analysis and for the MVUM, Class IV vehicles are grouped with Class II vehicles, because they are greater than 50 inches in width.

There are approximately 118 miles of road managed by other government agencies (State, County, and Bureau of Land Management) and 149 miles of road located on privately owned lands within the Umpqua National Forest. Of the 149 miles on private land, 37 miles are not under federal jurisdiction and public access is controlled by the private landowners. There are 17 miles of road under Forest Service jurisdiction that exist beyond private land, but there is no legal easement that allows the public to cross the private land.

There are approximately 28 miles of roads on the Forest currently managed for administrative access only and closed to public use (e.g. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-licensed area, Special Use Permit areas, etc.). In addition, there are 4 miles of ML 1 road that have been closed to motorized use through prior NEPA decisions (e.g. timber sales, restoration projects, etc.).

Table 4 lists the mileage of roads on the Forest that currently have motor vehicle use and those roads that are currently physically capable of being used by motor vehicles, but did not show recent use. The table also lists the mileage of roads within the Umpqua National Forest boundary, but not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (other agency and private roads). For ML 1 roads, the table lists the mileage of roads that receive motor vehicle use by type of vehicle based on field inventory data. Beginning in fall 2011, the Forest Service conducted an inventory of entrance points for ML 1 roads to determine current motor vehicle use patterns. The results of the inventory showed that 663 miles, or 59% of ML 1 roads receive motor vehicle use.

Table 5 lists the mileage of trails on the Forest that are being used by motor vehicles by type of vehicle. This was based on a field inventory of trails identified by District ATM plans as available for motor vehicle use, and trails that were known to receive motor vehicle use, but not included in the District ATM

- 15 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment plans. These trails were surveyed to verify whether motor vehicle use was occurring and to determine whether natural resource damage was occurring.

Table 6 lists the mileage of roads and trails closed to public use. Based on the field inventory, 354 miles of ML 1 roads are not open to motor vehicle use, because the roads are overgrown with vegetation or are otherwise impassible, and there is no evidence of motor vehicle use. Based on the field inventory, there are 15 miles of trails that were identified for motorized use by District ATM plans that are currently not well suited for motorized use because they are overgrown with vegetation, they have numerous down logs across the trail and/or the trail has not been maintained, or the trail tread is steep and narrow or is non- existent, there are numerous, steep, narrow switchbacks or inadequate turnaround areas, and there was no evidence of motor vehicle use.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 are photos of the 3200-269 road which is an example of a ML 1 road that is closed, because it is overgrown with vegetation. Figure 4 and Figure 5 are photos of the Fish Creek Trail. This is an example of a trail designated for motor vehicle use by the District ATM plan that is closed, because it is overgrown with vegetation and has numerous down logs across the trail. Figure 6 and Figure 7 are photos of the Beaver Creek Trail and the Bunchgrass Meadows Trails. These are examples of trails designated for motor vehicle use by the District ATM plan, but are temporarily closed due to numerous hazardous trees and down logs across the trails, which was a result of recent fire activity. These trails are temporarily closed under a Forest Order (CFR 261.50) until public safety hazards are abated.

Collectively, these tables represent the existing condition of motorized use for the Umpqua National Forest. The existing condition serves as the baseline for effects analysis of the proposed alternatives. The potential effects of each alternative are discussed in terms of social and environmental changes from the existing condition.

Maps of the existing condition and action alternatives are posted on the Umpqua National Forest website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/umpqua/landmanagement/?cid=FSBDEV3_056208. Larger hardcopies of the maps are available for viewing at all Ranger District offices and the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Roseburg, Oregon.

- 16 - Umpqua National Forest

Figure 2. Intersection of Roads 3200 and 3200-269

Figure 3. Road 3200-269

- 17 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Fish Creek Trail

Figure 5. Fish Creek Trail

- 18 - Umpqua National Forest

Figure 6. Beaver Creek Trail (trail is at orange flagging)

Figure 7. Bunchgrass Meadows Trail (trail is to the right of the large tree)

- 19 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 4. Roads Open for Motorized Use: Existing Condition (Baseline for Effects Analysis) Road Use by Vehicle Type Road Miles Total Miles ML 2-5 ML 1 Highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Open to all vehicles 3079 0 3079 ML 1 roads being used by full size vehicles 0 398 398 ML 1 roads being used by vehicles 50” or less in width 0 230 230 ML 1 roads being used by motorcycles only 0 36 36 ML 1 roads not being used, but physically open for use 0 168 168 Total 3464 832 4296

Table 5. Trails Open for Motorized Use: Existing Condition (Baseline for Effects Analysis) Trail Use by Type of Vehicle Total Miles Trails being used by all classes of vehicles 11 Trails being used by vehicles 50 inches or less in width 8 Trails being used by motorcycles only 81 Trails not being used, but physically open for use 13 Total 113

Table 6. Roads and Trails Closed to Motorized Use: Existing Condition (Baseline for Effects Analysis) Roads and Trails Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads Closed to Motorized Use – 17 11 0 28 Administrative Use Only Roads Closed to Motorized Use – Previous 0 4 0 4 NEPA Decision Roads Closed to Motorized Use – 0 354 0 354 Overgrown or Impassible No Legal Public Access - NFS roads beyond private land and without an easement across 9 8 0 17 private land. Private roads on private lands within the 22 15 0 37 Forest boundary with no public right of way. Total 48 392 0 440

Items Common to all Alternatives (including NO ACTION) 1. None of the alternatives propose any new ground disturbing activities. 2. Any damage to natural resources is prohibited under 36 CFR 261. 3. Existing direction for seasonal motorized travel restrictions for big game and peregrine falcons would remain in place for all alternatives. (LRMP pp. IV-132-135). 4. None of the alternatives change the designation of existing roads for motorized mixed use. Motorized mixed use is defined as a road where both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles can travel. 5. None of the alternatives change the public motor vehicle access on any existing ML 2-5 roads.

- 20 - Umpqua National Forest

6. Roads that are “Closed to Motorized Use” and roads that have “No Legal Public Access” would remain closed in all alternatives. 7. Roads not under Forest Service jurisdiction, such as State, County, Bureau of Land Management, and private roads, are outside the scope of this document. The following mileages are the same for all alternatives:

Table 7. Roads and Trails having the same mileage for all alternatives Roads and Trails Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Highway Legal Vehicles Only 385 0 0 385 Roads Closed to Motorized Use – 17 11 0 28 Administrative Use Only Roads Closed to Motorized Use – Previous 0 4 0 4 NEPA Decision No Legal Public Access - NFS roads beyond private land and without an easement across 9 8 0 17 private land. Private roads on private lands within the 22 15 0 37 Forest boundary with no public right of way. Total 433 38 0 471

Alternative 1: No Action Under this alternative, the Forest Service would not designate a system of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use and would not amend the Forest Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system and no Motor Vehicle Use Map would be produced. The Forest Plan would not be consistent with the 2005 Travel Management Rule and would allow cross-country travel vehicle use to continue in certain management areas on the Forest (See Table 1).

Table 8 lists the mileage of routes that are open to motor vehicles based on current management direction from the Umpqua Forest Plan and the District ATM plans. District ATM plans did not designate which classes of motor vehicle could operate on motorized trails. In order to facilitate meaningful effects analysis of all alternatives, vehicle type for current management direction of trails was determined based on tread width and design. Table 9 lists areas that are currently open to motorized cross-country travel.

Table 8. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 1 Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Roads open to all vehicles 3079 0 3079 Roads open to vehicles 50” or less in width 0 1186 1186 Trails open to motor vehicles 6 6 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 13 13 Trails open to motorcycles 87 87 Total 3464 1186 106 4756

- 21 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 9. Area Open to Motorized Cross-Country Travel: Alternative 1 Season of Use Acres Open Year around 607,600 Open Seasonally 251,200 Total 858,800

Action Alternatives All of the action alternatives would amend the Umpqua National Forest Plan to make it consistent with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. Direction for six Management Areas (approximately 858,800 acres) and related Management Prescriptions would be changed to prohibit motorized cross-country travel. See Appendix 2 (Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan) for a comprehensive list of the specific proposed changes by citation. Each action alternative would designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and amend the Umpqua Forest Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system. These alternatives would change the existing status of access and travel management on the Forest from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.”

Items Common to all Action Alternatives 1. The designation of a road or trail for motorized use would include all trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the road or trail. 2. The designation of a road would include existing pull-outs to allow for parking of vehicles up to 50 feet from the edge of the road for camping or dispersed recreation (approximate distance it takes for a vehicle with a trailer to get off the road safely). Any damage to natural resources is prohibited under 36 CFR 261. 3. Motor vehicle use (access or camping) within 30 feet of any streams, wetlands or water bodies would not be allowed. As such, crossing a stream, wetland or water body on a motor vehicle is prohibited unless on a designated road or trail at a designed crossing location. 4. The designation of a trail would include the width of the trail and the distance necessary to allow other users to pass where it is safe to do so without causing damage to NFS resources and facilities. 5. Roads and trails that are closed due to overgrown vegetation or otherwise impassible would remain closed. 6. Twelve (12) ML1 roads (9 miles) would not be designated for motor vehicle use due to natural resource concerns. 7. Eleven (11) existing trails (15 miles) would not be designated for motorized use due to design/physical limitations. 8. ML1 roads that have motorized trails co-located on them would become part of the National Forest Trail system while also remaining part of the National Forest road system, and would be available for use in conjunction with specific land management activities in the future. 9. The ML 1 roads and trails currently not open for motor vehicle use would not be shown on the initial MVUM. The MVUM would be reviewed, updated as needed and published annually. The updated MVUM would show any new routes the Responsible Official had decided would be open for motorized use, and would not show any routes that were no longer open for motorized use.

- 22 - Umpqua National Forest

Alternative 2: Proposed Action This alternative would amend the Umpqua Forest Plan and close the Forest to cross-country travel. This alternative would designate the existing system routes (roads and trails) that have motor vehicle use, and those roads that are currently physically capable of being used by motor vehicles, but did not show recent use. Approximately 829 miles of trails co-located on ML 1 roads would be designated as motorized trails open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. Approximately 91 miles of trails being used by motor vehicles would be designated as open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle.

Existing pull-outs would be designated with the ML 2-5 roads to allow for parking of vehicles up to 50 feet from the edge of the road for camping or dispersed recreation (approximate distance it takes for a vehicle with a trailer to get off the road safely). No new ground disturbance is being authorized. This would involve 3,464 miles of road and 11,088 acres. With GIS, the acreage was calculated by taking the miles of road multiplied by 50 feet either side of the road when the ground is less than 15% side slope. The actual acreage of existing pull-outs is not known, but it is substantially less than this maximum acreage.

Table 10. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 2 Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Roads open to all vehicles 3,079 0 3,079 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” 0 829 829 or less in width Trails open to all motor vehicles 6 6 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 13 13 Trails open to motorcycles 72 72 Total 3,464 829 91 4,384

Alternative 3 Based on public comments, an alternative was developed that would amend the Umpqua Forest Plan and close ML 1 roads to motor vehicle use and close trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) to motor vehicle use. This alternative is the same as Alternative 2 with the following exceptions:

 No ML 1 roads would be designated for motorized use (approx. 1,185 miles).  No trails in IRAs would be designated for motorized use (approx. 31 miles).

- 23 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 3 Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Roads open to all vehicles 3,079 0 3,079 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” 0 0 0 or less in width Trails open to all motor vehicles 6 6 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 9 9 Trails open to motorcycles 45 45 Total 3,464 0 60 3,524

Alternative 4 There were public comments identifying specific roads, trails and dispersed recreation areas that are an important part of their traditional motorized use of the Forest. An alternative was developed to incorporate those routes and areas into the designated system. This alternative is the same as Alternative 2 with the following additions:

1. Twenty six (26) existing non-system roads (approx. 3 miles), accessing dispersed recreation sites greater than 300 feet from the edge of NFS roads, would be added to the road system as ML 2 roads and would be available for motorized use by all vehicles. 2. The system snowmobile trails that are being used in summer months by OHVs and full-size vehicles (approx. 12 miles) would be added to the trail system for use by all vehicles from May 1 to November 30. Winter months would be for use by snowmobiles. These trails along with system roads provide recreational driving loop opportunities. 3. An existing non-system trail, approximately 980 feet in length, would be designated as a system trail for OHVs 50 inches or less in width, to connect the Fuller Lake Trail (#1543) to the 3810-380 road. 4. An existing trail, Calamut Way (#1454), approximately 2.5 miles long and leading past Calamut Lake, would be designated for use by OHVs 50 inches or less in width for 1.9 miles between the 700 spur of Forest Road 60 road and the second junction of the Calamut Lake Trail (#1494). The remaining 0.6 miles, between the second junction of the Calamut Lake Trail and the junction with Waterbag Way (#1455), would be designated for use by motorcycles. This trail was added to the trail system after the ATM plans were completed in 1994 and is currently receiving use as a motorized trail by the respective vehicles. 5. An existing trail, Waterbag Way( #1455), approximately 3.7 miles long, starting at Forest Road 60 and ending at the Calamut Lake Trail (#1494), would be designated for use by motorcycles. This trail was added to the trail system after the ATM plans were completed in 1994 and is currently receiving use as a motorized use by motorcycles. 6. An existing trail, Hemlock Remote Camp (#1522C), approximately 0.2 miles long, leading to Hemlock Lake campsites off the Yellow Jacket Loop Trail (#1522), would be designated for use by motorcycles. This trail was added to the trail system after the ATM plans were completed in 1994 and is currently receiving use from motorcycles.

- 24 - Umpqua National Forest

7. An existing OHV area southeast of East Lemolo Campground and the intersection of the 2614 and 2614-430 roads would be designated to allow motorized use off of designated roads and trails (approx. 2 acres). The outer boundary of the area would be signed, in order that recreationists would know the designated boundaries of the area. 8. Corridors 300 feet from the edge on either side of some ML 2-5 roads would be designated so existing dispersed recreation sites could be accessed via existing routes. No new ground disturbance is being authorized. Motor vehicle use (access or camping) within 30 feet of any streams, wetlands or water bodies would not be allowed. These corridors would provide motorized access to most of the existing dispersed campsites on the forest. This would involve approximately 487 miles of ML 2-5 roads and 9,517 acres. With GIS, the acreage was calculated by the miles of road multiplied by the width of the corridor (300 feet if one side of the road, 600 feet if both sides of the road) when the ground is less than 15% side slope. The actual acreage of existing dispersed campsites and routes to those sites is not known, but it is substantially less than this maximum acreage. 9. There are 6 known sites of the 2001 list of Survey and Manage Mollusks (3 chace sideband and 3 Oregon shoulderband sites) within these 300 foot dispersed camping corridors or the 50 foot pull-out areas. Each site would be buffered by a site potential tree height (150 feet) and closed to vehicles through a Forest Order and signage.

Table 12. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 4 Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Roads open to all vehicles 3,082 0 3,082 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” 0 829 829 or less in width Trails open to all motor vehicles 18 18 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 15 15 Trails open to motorcycles 77 77 Total 3,467 829 110 4,406

Alternative 5 Based on public comments, an alternative was developed that reclassifies certain ML 1 roads and snowmobile trails as ML 2 roads, and co-locates trails on some of the ML 1 roads and makes them available to all classes of vehicles. This alternative is the same as Alternative 4, with the following additions:

 ML1 roads with no barriers that are currently functioning as ML 2 roads and receiving use by full- size vehicles would be changed to ML 2 roads and designated for motorized use by all vehicles (approx. 314 miles). Existing pull-out areas along these roads would be designated to allow for parking of vehicles up to 50 feet from the edge of the road for camping or dispersed recreation (approximate distance it takes for a vehicle with a trailer to get off the road safely). No new ground disturbance is being authorized and motor vehicle use (access or camping) within 30 feet of any streams, wetlands or water bodies would not be allowed. This would involve an additional 314 miles of road and 1,369 acres over Alternative 4. With GIS, the acreage was calculated by taking the miles of road multiplied by 50 feet either side of the road when the ground is less than 15% side slope. The actual acreage of existing pull-outs is not known, but it is substantially less than this maximum acreage.

- 25 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

 System snowmobile trails receiving use by OHVs and full-size vehicles in the summer months (approx. 12 miles) would be designated as ML 2 roads and available for motorized use by all vehicles from May 1 to November 30. Winter months would be for use by snowmobiles.  ML 1 roads with barriers that are currently receiving use by full-size vehicles would have motorized trails co-located on them and be available for use by all vehicle classes (approx. 85 miles).

Table 13. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 5 Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Roads open to all vehicles 3,408 0 3,408 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for all vehicle 85 85 classes Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” 430 430 or less in width Trails open to all motor vehicles 6 6 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 15 15 Trails open to motorcycles 77 77 Total 3,793 515 98 4,406

Alternative 6 Based on public comments, an alternative was developed that closes existing motorized trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas while maintaining the current existing motorized use on ML 1 roads and continue to allow use on ML 1 roads that are physically capable of being used by motor vehicles, but did not show recent use. This alternative is the same as Alternative 5, with the following exception:

Nine (9) existing trails located in IRAs would be closed to motorized traffic (approximate length of 31 miles).

Table 14. Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use: Alternative 6 Vehicle Type Road Miles Trail Miles Total ML 2-5 ML 1 Roads open to highway legal vehicles only 385 0 385 Roads open to all vehicles 3,408 0 3,408 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for all vehicle 85 85 classes Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” 430 430 or less in width Trails open to all motor vehicles 6 6 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 11 11 Trails open to motorcycles 50 50 Total 3,793 515 67 4,375

- 26 - Umpqua National Forest

Comparison of Alternatives Table 15 shows the differences in mileage of routes open to motorized use by alternative, as compared to the existing condition. Table 16 shows the differences in acreage of cross-country travel, corridors, pull- outs, and OHV areas by alternative, as compared to the existing condition.

Table 15. Comparison of Alternatives: Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use Vehicle Type Miles Existing Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Condition Highway legal vehicles only 385 385 385 385 385 385 385 Open to all vehicles 3,079 3,079 3,079 3,079 3,082 3,408 3,408 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads 398 0 0 0 0 85 85 available for all vehicle classes Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” or less in 265 1186 829 0 829 430 430 width Trails open to all motor vehicles 11 6 6 6 18 6 6 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 8 13 13 9 15 15 11 Trails open to motorcycles 81 86 72 45 77 77 50 Total 4,227 4,755 4,384 3,524 4,406 4,406 4,375

Table 16. Comparison of Alternatives: Cross-Country Travel, Corridors, Pull-outs, and OHV areas Area Acres Existing Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Condition Cross-Country Travel 858,800 858,800 0 0 0 0 0 Corridors for access to existing dispersed N/A* N/A* 0 0 9,517 9,517 9,517 recreation sites via existing routes Parking at existing pull- out areas along ML 2-5 N/A* N/A* 11,085 11,085 8,856 10,229 10,229 roads OHV area near East N/A* N/A* 0 0 2 2 2 Lemolo Campground Total 858,800 858,800 11,085 11,085 18,375 19,748 19,748 N/A – Not Applicable because the Forest would remain open to cross-country travel and dispersed recreation sites and the OHV area would continue to be accessed.

Purpose and Need All alternatives, with the exception of the Alternative 1 (No Action), meet the Purpose and Need of the project. They designate a system of roads, trails, and areas available for motorized use, and would amend the Umpqua Forest Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off of the designated system. These alternatives meet the requirements and intent of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule.

Issues and Concerns Issues and concerns either identified internally by the IDT or by the public through the scoping process are addressed through the alternatives analyzed in this Environmental Assessment.

- 27 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Maintenance Level 1 Roads Alternative 1 (No Action) has the most ML 1 roads open for vehicles 50 inches or less in width and represents the existing condition. All action alternatives would close 11 miles of ML 1 roads to prevent damage to Forest natural resources. Alternative 5 and 6 has more roads available for Class II (full-size, four-wheel-drive) vehicles by changing some ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads, and authorizing all classes of vehicles on some trails co-located on ML 1 roads. Alternative 3 would close all ML 1 roads to motor vehicles.

Trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas Alternative 3 and 6 would not designate trails for motorized use in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). For Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, trails in IRAs that are currently designated as being available for motorized use by District ATM plans would continue to be designated for motorized use by the size of vehicle that is currently using the trail. With Alternative 1 (No Action), trails in IRAs that are currently designated as being available for motorized use would continue to be designated for motorized use, but the type of motor vehicle that could use the trail would not be specified, because the District ATM plans did not specify what type of motor vehicle(s) could use the trail.

Motorized Access to Dispersed Recreation Sites and Non-System Roads, Trails, and Areas Providing Recreational Opportunities With Alternative 1 (No Action), motorized access to dispersed recreation sites is limited only by Management Area direction (e.g. Semi-primitive non-motorized, Wilderness) and federal regulations prohibiting resource damage (36 CFR 261.9 and 261.15(h)). Alternatives 2-6 provide for designation of existing 50 foot (from the edge) pull-outs along ML 2-5 roads. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 provide access to existing dispersed recreation sites via existing routes through the designation of 300 foot (from the edge) wide corridors along some ML 2-5 roads as well as the 50 foot pull-outs. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would add twenty six (26) non-system roads (approx. 3 miles) that access dispersed recreation sites greater than 300 feet (from the edge) of system roads to the road system as ML 2 roads and would be available for motorized use by all vehicles. Alternative 4 would designate some system snowmobile trails that are being used in summer months by OHVs and full-size vehicles as system trails for use by all vehicles from May 1 to November 30. Alternatives 5 and 6 would designate these same trails as ML 2 roads for use by all vehicles from May 1 to November 30. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would designate an existing non-system trail, approximately 980 feet in length, as a system trail for OHVs 50 inches or less in width, to connect the Fuller Lake Trail #1543 to the 3810-380 road. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would also designate approximately 2 miles of existing system trails for OHVs 50 inches or less in width and approximately 4 miles of existing system trails for use by motorcycles. Alternatives 4 and 5 and 6 would designate an approximate 2 acre existing OHV area southeast of East Lemolo Campground and the intersection of the 2614 and 2614-430 roads.

- 28 - Umpqua National Forest

CHAPTER 3

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Introduction The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed existing guidance, Forest assessments, relevant literature, and used their professional judgment and knowledge of the Forest to determine how implementation of the proposed alternatives are likely to affect the environment. This chapter provides a description of the affected environment in the project area and the expected environmental consequences of the alternatives. The affected environment includes the physical, biological, social, and economic environment and provides the baseline conditions against which environmental consequences are evaluated. In addition to field reviews, much of the effects analysis was conducted using Geographic Information System (GIS) data. GIS generated acreage and mileage figures differ slightly from surveyed acreage and mileage. This discrepancy (<1%) is negligible and does not impact the determination of environmental consequences of the proposed actions. This chapter also incorporates by reference all reports and analysis prepared by resource specialists, which are summarized in this chapter.

The expected environmental consequences are disclosed as the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the alternatives. Direct effects are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are those that are a result of the action, but occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. Cumulative effects are those which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Effects are quantified where possible.

A wide variety of land use activities have occurred within the project area in the past, continue to occur presently, and may be expected to occur within the reasonably foreseeable future. Past actions and the activities that are presently occurring on the Forests comprise the existing condition and constitute the baseline for the effects analysis. Relevant past and present actions that were considered include, but are not limited to:

♦ Development and maintenance of the Forest transportation system ♦ Recreational uses (developed and undeveloped) ♦ Timber harvest ♦ Forest stand improvement ♦ Fire management ♦ Fuels management ♦ Special Use Permits ♦ Habitat enhancement ♦ Noxious weed control The effects analysis is based on reasonably foreseeable consequences under management according to the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1990 as amended by the NWFP). Reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered those activities, not yet undertaken, that have existing decisions, funding, or proposed actions that are out for public review or comment. Ongoing

- 29 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment activities such as road maintenance fluctuate from year to year and an average annual amount was considered for cumulative effects analysis.

The table below (Table 17) summarizes relevant reasonably foreseeable activities that may contribute to cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives outlined in Chapter 2.

Table 17. Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Planning Area

Activity Type Total Miles Description and Extent of Activity Approximately Ongoing maintenance of road system Road Maintenance 650 miles/year Includes ML 2- 5 roads Approximately Remove culverts, install water bars, block entrance Road Inactivation 45 miles and place in storage Remove culverts, reestablish stream channel beds and Approximately banks, pullback shoulders or landings, subsoil road Road Decommissioning 58 miles surface, revegetate and remove from Forest Road System Approximately Install gate, seasonal restriction Road Gating 1.8 miles (closed) 9/15 thru 10/31

The intent of the Travel Management Rule is to reduce and prevent adverse resource impacts caused by unmanaged motorized use and to maintain and protect the health of ecosystems and watersheds. The proposed alternatives analyzed here are programmatic in nature and are intended to deal with regulatory activities rather than project-level activities. This project does not:

♦ Identify any roads or trails for physical closure or decommissioning, ♦ Allow for new motorized use in camping corridors, or ♦ Propose any new ground disturbing activities. The analysis focuses on the effects associated with the Forest Plan amendment that restricts all motorized use to a designated system of roads, trails and areas and eliminates motorized cross-country travel. It also analyzes the effects of providing exceptions to the motorized cross-country prohibition through the designation of camping corridors. Forest Transportation System - Roads

Management Direction Direction for management of Forest Service road systems is contained in Forest Service Manual 7700 – Travel Management, Forest Service Handbook 7709.55 – Travel Planning Handbook, and Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 – Road System Operations and Maintenance Handbook.

National Forest System (NFS) roads are categorized by assigned maintenance levels (ML) 1 - 5, in accordance with road management objectives identified and documented for each road. ML 1 roads are in storage for periods exceeding one year between intermittent uses. They are typically closed at the entrance with physical barriers to eliminate all traffic and some may be under closure orders to prohibit traffic. They are opened for short term use by specific land management activities, generally not available for public use during that activity, and are closed again following use. ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles, while user comfort and convenience are not considerations for low clearance vehicles (passenger cars). Use by low clearance vehicles is discouraged by signing and/or other physical

- 30 - Umpqua National Forest indicators at the entrance. Some ML 2 roads are managed for administrative use only, may be closed with gates to eliminate other traffic, and may be under closure orders to prohibit other traffic. ML 3 roads are maintained for use by standard passenger cars, though user comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. ML 4 roads are maintained to provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience for passenger cars. They are typically paved single or double lane roads, though some are aggregate surfaced. ML 5 roads are maintained to provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience for passenger cars, and are typically paved double lane.

ML 3, 4 and 5 roads are subject to management in accordance with the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-564). Forest Service budget direction places higher priority on managing and maintaining these roads for safe public use than on ML 2 roads.

Motorized Mixed Use of NFS Roads Motorized mixed use occurs when an NFS road has been designated for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal motor vehicles. (FSM 7705 and 7710)

Unless excepted by federal regulation, under Oregon state law (ORS 821.020 and 821.055), off-road (non-highway-legal) vehicles may be operated on NFS roads open to the public that are not maintained for passenger cars, or on any gravel NFS road other than two-lane gravel roads.

The Travel Management Rule provides that: “Traffic on roads is subject to State traffic laws where applicable except when in conflict with designations established under subpart B of this part or with the rules at 36 CFR part 261 (36 CFR 212.5(a)(1)).” Implementation of the Travel Management Rule includes designation on the MVUM of those roads where motorized mixed use occurs. In that context, Forest Service direction states (FSM 7710), “Where the responsible official proposes to depart from state traffic law or change current travel management direction by authorizing motorized mixed use where it would otherwise be prohibited, that decision must be advised by documented engineering analysis conducted by a qualified engineer.” In addition, Forest Service Region Six direction states “Even when State law allows motorized mixed use, the decision authorizing motorized mixed use on all NFS roads must be advised by documented engineering analysis conducted by a qualified engineer.” (R6-FSM-7710-2009-1.)

An engineering analysis was conducted in accordance with FSM 7709.55 Ch. 30. This motorized mixed use analysis (MMUA) was guided by the Forest Service publication Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest System Roads (EM-7700-30). The MMUA identified public safety risks that may be incurred as a result of allowing motorized mixed use on designated roads or road segments. Currently, motorized mixed use is allowed on 2,930 miles of ML 2 roads, and 149 miles on ML 3 and 4 roads.

Existing Condition There are 4,715 miles of NFS roads managed by the Umpqua National Forest. Of these, 1,209 miles are managed as ML 1 roads. They are typically native surfaced, though some are gravel. There are 2,974 miles are managed for high clearance vehicle use as ML 2 roads. They are typically gravel roads, though some are native surface and some are paved with asphalt. There are 517 miles of ML 3 - 5 roads (349 miles ML 3, 127 miles ML 4, and 41 miles ML 5), open and suitable for use by passenger cars.

The ML 3 – 5 roads are considered to be the “primary” road system and are highest priority for routine, annual maintenance. Of the 2974 miles of ML 2 roads, a higher priority is placed on 1,049 miles considered to be “secondary” roads, which together with the primary roads, form the “key road system” (Umpqua Roads Analysis Report, 2003). Secondary roads receive maintenance as budget and scheduling allow, but are not maintained on an annual basis, and may be inaccessible from blow down and slides for

- 31 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment extended periods of time. The remaining 1925 miles of ML 2 roads do not receive scheduled routine maintenance, but are maintained in conjunction with and at the time of specific land management project access needs and are more likely to be inaccessible from blow down and slides for extended periods of time.

There are approximately 130 miles of road within the Umpqua National Forest that are managed by other government agencies (state, county, Bureau of Land Management) or by neighboring national forests.

There are approximately 168 miles of road located on privately owned lands within the Umpqua National Forest. Other government agencies (state, county, Bureau of Land Management) manage and control public access on 19 miles of those. There are 112 miles under federal jurisdiction by virtue of acquired right of way easements and public access is controlled by the Forest Service. The remaining 37 miles are not under federal jurisdiction and public access is controlled by the private land owners or easement holders other than the Forest Service. Additionally, the Forest Service manages 62 miles of road located on private lands outside the Umpqua National Forest, with acquired right of way to access national forest lands, and with public access controlled by the Forest Service.

There are 17 miles of road under federal and Forest Service jurisdiction, but for which there is no federal or other public agency jurisdiction on the other roads needed to access or utilize them. These are locations where roads located on privately owned lands and without federal jurisdiction, extend onto Forest Service lands or meander on and off of Forest Service Lands. These portions of roads are generally not accessible for public motorized use because they cannot be accessed without crossing privately controlled roads. However, some may receive public use where the private landowner permits or does not restrict public access. Such access is not controlled by the Forest Service.

Some NFS roads on and managed by the Umpqua National Forest are primarily maintained by private entities. These are some of the roads where private entities have acquired easements, permits, or other agreements to access lands under their ownership or to access privately operated facilities on National Forest lands. These particular roads predominately serve the access needs of the private entity, and the Forest Service has only incidental, administrative access needs. These roads are closed to public access other than that associated with the activities of the facility operators. There are 3 miles of ML 1, and 16 miles of ML 2 roads are in this category.

Many NFS roads of all maintenance levels have easements established for use by private entities or non- federal government agencies, but where the Forest Service is the primary road maintainer. Maintenance responsibilities are jointly shared however, and the private or non-federal government user is responsible for a share of maintenance commensurate with their use. Maintenance agreements include standards to ensure the road is maintained in a condition and level of public accessibility consistent with the established maintenance level for each road, regardless of who performs the maintenance. Public motorized access is typically allowed on these roads, and they have been included in this analysis.

Some roads primarily maintained by the Forest Service are managed under prior management decisions or closure orders that specifically exclude all motorized traffic, including OHVs. These include some roads accessing Forest Service administrative sites, roads beyond unsafe bridges or fords, and roads closed with timber sale NEPA decisions for resource protection. There are 12 miles of ML 1 road and less than one mile each of ML 2, 3, 4, and 5 roads in this category that would remain closed in all alternatives.

Maintenance Level 1 Road Inventory In late 2011, an inventory of entrance points to ML 1 roads was conducted, with some follow up inventory in 2012 and 2013. An entrance point is the location where according to existing records, an ML 1 road begins at a connection with an ML 2 or higher level road or at the point where an ML 2 or higher

- 32 - Umpqua National Forest level road turns into an ML 1. In this context, there may be a small system of multiple ML 1 roads with separate interconnecting intersections beyond a single entrance point. Information was gathered on the type and effectiveness of barriers at entrance points, whether or not there were indications of the road receiving vehicle use, and if so the largest vehicle type using the road as well as how much use was occurring and when. The inventory also looked at road segments beyond the entrance point to determine feasibility of the routes for use by different vehicle types as well as to assess concerns associated with resource risk and vehicle use. Time and other practical constraints did not allow a survey of all miles of ML 1 roads. There are approximately 2,325 entrance points associated with 1,209 miles of ML 1 roads.

Of the 1,209 miles of ML 1 roads, 25 miles are associated with entrance points that were not located despite searching coordinates from established mapping – presumably due to the extent of overgrowth. It was assumed that these roads are receiving no use. An additional 31 miles were inaccessible at the time of the inventory or overlooked in the inventory process. For these roads, it was assumed these roads were feasible for motor vehicle use but were currently not being used.

A total of 2,189 entrance points were inventoried associated with 1,153 miles of ML 1 road. Some of the findings follow, with percentages based on overall ML 1 road mileages or if stated, the number of entrance points inventoried:

♦ Approximately 59% of roads showed indications of use by motorized vehicles since the road had been closed, barricaded, or last used for project activities such as timber harvest or fire suppression. ♦ Approximately 44% of roads showed indications of use by motorized vehicles within the prior five years. ♦ Approximately 31% of roads showed indications of regular and recent use by full sized vehicles, and many of those roads had no barriers nor did they appear to be any different than a typical ML 2 road. ♦ Approximately 12% of roads showed indications of use by motorized vehicles no wider than 50- inches within the prior five years. ♦ Less than 2% of roads were assessed to be feasible for use by full sized vehicles, but had no indications of use by motorized vehicles since the road had been closed, barricaded, or last used for project activities such as timber harvest or fire suppression. ♦ Approximately 10% of roads were assessed to be feasible for use by vehicles less than 50-inches wide, but had no indications of use by motorized vehicles since the road had been closed, barricaded, or last used for project activities such as timber harvest or fire suppression. ♦ Approximately 60% of entrance points had barriers other than gates of some sort in place, with a wide range of effectiveness and many roads were used by vehicles driving around otherwise effective barriers. ♦ Approximately 5% of entrance points had gates in place, many of which appeared to be left open yearlong and others not maintained as effective closures. ♦ Entrance points were not located for approximately 25 miles of road despite searching coordinates from established mapping – presumably due to the extent of overgrowth.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 1 would have no effect on the roads transportation system, and the existing condition would be unchanged.

- 33 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative 2 would designate 829 miles of ML 1 roads for use as motorized trails for vehicles under 50- inches in width and 380 miles of ML1 roads would not be designated for public motorized use. The rest of the roads transportation system would be unchanged from the existing condition.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would designate no ML 1 roads for use as motorized trails. All existing ML 1 roads would not be designated for public motorized use. The rest of the roads transportation system would be unchanged from the existing condition.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would designate 829 miles of ML 1 roads for use as motorized trails for vehicles under 50- inches in width and 380 miles of ML1 roads would not be designated for public motorized use. An existing 3 miles of non-system roads currently being used for public access to dispersed campsites would be added to the system as ML 2 roads with motorized mixed use allowed. The rest of the roads transportation system would be unchanged from the existing condition.

Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would designate 430 miles of ML 1 roads for use as motorized trails for vehicles under 50- inches in width. A total of 85 miles of ML 1 roads would be designated for use as motorized trails for all vehicle size classes. A total of 314 miles of ML 1 roads would be reclassified as ML 2 roads with motorized mixed use allowed. A total of 380 miles of ML1 roads would not be designated for public motorized use.

An existing 3 miles of non-system roads currently being used for public access to dispersed campsites would be added to the system as ML 2 roads with motorized mixed use allowed.

An existing 12 miles of winter use trails (SNO-Trail) currently being used by full sized vehicles would be added to the system as ML 2 roads with motorized mixed use allowed.

The rest of the roads transportation system would be unchanged from the existing condition.

Alternative 6 Under Alternative 6, the roads transportation system would be identical to that in Alternative 5.

Cumulative Effects Past decisions to decommission roads over approximately twenty years have reduced the total mileage of NFS roads on the Umpqua National Forest. In this time period, approximately 177 miles of road have been decommissioned. Approximately 95 of those miles have been ML 2 roads, open to public travel but not maintained for passenger cars. The other 82 miles have been ML 1 roads, not open to public travel by full sized vehicles. Past decisions also include approximately 58 miles of road decommissioning not implemented that may be implemented in the foreseeable future, further reducing total road mileage. Approximately 19 of those miles are ML 1 roads, approximately 38 miles ML 2, and less than one mile of ML 4. Watershed restoration planning efforts may also lead to future decisions for road decommissioning.

Past decisions also include inactivation of ML 2 roads. Inactivation puts the roads into storage by removing culverts, installing water bars and blocking the entrance to prevent use by motorized vehicles. The road is then classified as ML 1. Approximately 50 miles of inactivation has been implemented in the last twenty years. Approximately 45 miles have not been implemented from past decisions that may be

- 34 - Umpqua National Forest implemented in the foreseeable future. Watershed restoration planning efforts may also lead to future decisions for road inactivation.

Limited maintenance on existing ML 2 roads, especially the approximately 1,925 miles that are not part of the key road system as secondary roads, may result in some reduction of drivable road mileage in the foreseeable future. Encroachment of roadside tree and brush growth, slides, rock-fall, and tree blow-down all contribute. Countering this is the maintenance these roads receive in conjunction with various land management project activities, or with road maintenance performed in conjunction with wild fire suppression activities. This type of intermittent maintenance may result in substantial increases in drivable road mileage for some years following increases in the level of project activities.

Wild fires may result in accumulation of road side snags or unstable slopes in some areas, leading to public safety concerns and decisions to close roads either short term or for multiple years until the concerns are adequately mitigated.

Roads that may become impassable in the future due to unmaintained conditions, damage from natural events, or that pose substantial safety concerns or potential resource risk from motorized vehicle use, may be removed from the Motorized Vehicle Use Map in future revisions if the conditions and concerns are not remediated or mitigated. Recreation

Management Direction Management of motorized recreation opportunities on the Forest is based on the direction provided by the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), which utilizes the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Management Areas, Standards, Guidelines and Prescriptions to provide guidance towards meeting the overall Forest Goal of ‘Providing a broad spectrum of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities to all segments of society’.

Management of recreation resources on the Forest, specifically motorized use, is based on the ROS. The ROS classifications range from Primitive (P), Semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), Semi-primitive motorized (SPM), Roaded natural (RN), Roaded modified (RM), and rural (R). Appendix F of the LRMP, the Recreation Travelway Management Guide, provides a summary of direction for recreation use of vehicles by prescription and vehicle type for roads, trails and management areas.

The Forest Recreation Niche defines the best suited recreation experiences the Forest can offer, balancing supply with demand, that are sustainable over time. During development of the Niche, the Forest was grouped into five categories: Diamond/Lemolo Lakes, the Rogue-Umpqua Scenic Byway, Cascades Dispersed, Wilderness areas, and Winter Recreation. The Umpqua Recreation Niche is focused on regionally distinctive water features and destination opportunities such as lakes, rivers, and waterfalls located in the Lakes and Byway categories. Funding for recreation facilities is prioritized in these areas to support the Niche. Motorized recreation opportunities for summer Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) are focused in the areas assigned Cascades Dispersed.

Based on direction provided in the Recreation Travelway Management Guide (LRMP Appendix F), each district developed an Access and Travel Management (ATM) Plan. These ATM Plans, completed in 1994 and updated in 1996-1998, identified routes and areas available for use by Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs) as well as primary roads for access by passenger cars. District ATM Plans allow for use of ORVs 50 inches or less in width on Maintenance Level (ML) 1 roads in most Management Areas. The district ATM maps published do not show ML 1 roads, but clearly state that ORVs can be used on “Blocked or closed roads

- 35 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment not indicated by this map or by signs as closed to motorized use”, “Roads that are open, but that are “not maintained for public travel””, and ‘Roads that are “maintained for public travel” but are also signed as open to ATVs.” There are trails identified as available for motor vehicle use on the District ATM maps, but the class of motor vehicle is not defined.

Existing Condition

Motorized Recreation Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV), Off-Road Vehicles (ORV), and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) are terms often used to describe vehicles operating off-road. OHV use is divided into Class I, II, and III. Class I vehicles are often called ATVs or “quads”, but could also be “three-wheelers”. Class I vehicles have handlebars for steering and a seat designed to be straddled by the operator, while Class III vehicles can be best described as single track motorcycles. Both Class I and III OHVs are evaluated together as ‘vehicles 50 inches or less in width’. Class II OHVs include full sized, 4-wheel drive vehicles over 1,800 lbs. or over 50 inches in width (e.g. jeeps and pickups). Class IV vehicles are often called “side-by-side” vehicles or Utility Vehicles (UTVs) and have a steering wheel and non-straddle seating. Class IV vehicles are between 50 and 65 inches in width and between 1,200 and 1,800 pounds. Currently, NFS roads and trails are designed for motorcycles (single track vehicles), vehicles 50 inches or less, or vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. In accordance with current design and maintenance standards for NFS roads and trails, Class IV vehicles are grouped with Class II vehicles because they are greater than 50 inches in width. Of the three classes of OHVs, Class I OHVs are the most common on the Umpqua National Forest.

Observations by Forest recreation personnel indicate there are two primary types of recreational OHV use on the Umpqua. For some users, the vehicle is primarily used as a mode of transportation to access a recreational activity (i.e. dispersed camps, trail heads, hunting locations, etc.), while for other users riding the vehicle itself is the recreational activity (i.e. trail and road system riding). The two uses are referred to as “general OHV use” and “motorized trail activity”, respectively. In general, motorized vehicle access benefits hunters and other users who may be disabled or physically limited and would otherwise be unable to access remote areas of the Forest. The National Visitor Monitoring Program (NVUM) provides science-based information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on the Forest. Studies were conducted on the Umpqua National Forest in 2001, 2007, and 2012 interviewing visitors as they exited the forest. However, because activity descriptions were revised in 2007, specifically motorized use categories, an accurate comparison between 2001 and 2007 is not possible. In 2007 OHV use was further categorized into “motorized trail activity” and “general OHV use”. Activity descriptions in the 2012 data is comparable to the 2007 data and is listed in the table below along with the All-Terrain Vehicle Permit sales for the State of Oregon. According to the 2007 NVUM data, total visits to the Umpqua National Forest were estimated at 534,000 ±30.8% and 506,000 ±25.6 in 2012.

- 36 - Umpqua National Forest

Table 18 National Visitor Use Monitoring Activity Participation by Year

Umpqua NF National Visitor Use Monitoring - Activity Participation By Year Activity % * in % * Change % Main % Main Change Avg Avg Change 2007 in Activity‡ Activity‡ Hours Hours 2012 in 2007 in 2012 Doing Doing Main Main Activity Activity in 2007 in 2012 Backpacking 1.7 1.6 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 40.7 40.72

Bicycling 8.6 4.8 -3.8 1.6 1.3 -0.3 6.8 6.9 0.09 X-Country Skiing 2.0 0.6 -1.4 0.5 0.3 -0.2 12.0 7.7 -4.33 Developed Camping 18.5 18.8 0.3 3.0 3.9 0.9 38.8 40.1 1.36 Downhill Skiing 1.3 0.0 -1.3 0.4 0.0 -0.4 12.3 0.0 -12.31 Driving for Pleasure 25.7 35.2 9.5 0.9 7.0 6.2 9.1 3.0 -6.04 Fishing 16.6 22.4 5.8 7.0 13.8 6.8 10.9 11.5 0.61 Gather Forest Products 6.0 4.0 -2.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 2.8 2.82 Hiking / Walking 45.7 51.3 5.6 8.9 12.8 3.8 3.8 3.2 -0.52 Horseback Riding 1.3 0.2 -1.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 8.0 6.0 -2.00 Hunting 22.8 11.0 -11.8 20.3 8.9 -11.4 10.2 12.4 2.16 Motorized Trail Activity 1.7 0.1 -1.6 0.7 0.0 -0.7 6.0 8.0 2.00 Motorized Water 5.1 3.0 -2.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 3.0 12.5 9.51 Activity Nature Center 6.9 8.6 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.1 3.0 -1.13 Activities Nature Study 7.3 9.9 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.7 1.67 No Activity Reported 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.7 -0.3 0.00 Non-motorized Water 4.0 2.0 -2.0 1.8 0.8 -1.0 7.4 7.3 -0.13 OHV Use 1.4 1.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 Other Mot Activity 4.2 0.4 -3.8 2.9 0.1 -2.8 15.0 5.0 -10.00 Other Non-motorized 9.8 6.4 -3.4 1.9 1.2 -0.7 2.5 3.2 0.75 Picnicking 12.8 9.7 -3.1 4.8 0.8 -4.0 48.4 16.5 -31.84 Primitive Camping 2.0 8.0 6.0 0.1 0.8 0.7 42.9 63.5 20.67 Relaxing 43.3 47.0 3.7 12.5 9.2 -3.3 21.5 17.5 -4.03 Resort Use 14.0 7.6 -6.4 1.1 2.3 1.1 33.7 40.9 7.14 Snowmobiling 10.3 2.6 -7.7 8.2 1.7 -6.4 10.1 2.8 -7.22 Some Other Activity 8.2 13.1 4.9 7.0 9.2 2.2 5.9 2.9 -2.95 Viewing Natural 48.5 63.9 15.4 14.6 21.6 7.0 5.6 5.8 0.23 Features Viewing Wildlife 41.1 34.6 -6.5 1.0 1.7 0.7 3.1 2.8 -0.25 Visiting Historic Sites 6.2 16.8 10.7 0.8 1.1 0.4 2.2 1.7 -0.54

*Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than100%. ‡Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%. Source: US Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring data 2007, 2012

- 37 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Umpqua NF National Visitor Use Monitoring - Special Facility Use By Year Percent of National Forest Visits* Indicating Use of Special Facilities or Areas

Special Facility or Area % of National Forest % of National Forest Visits† 2012 Change Visits† 2007

Designated ORV Area 12.7 1.2 -11.5

Developed Fishing Site 11.6 17.2 5.6 Developed Swimming Site 13.8 8.6 -5.2 Forest Roads 5.5 1.9 -3.6 Information Sites 6.7 10.9 4.2 Interpretive Displays 2.8 8.6 5.8 Motorized Dual Track Trail 6.0 1.4 -4.6 Motorized Single Track Trail 6.0 3.6 -2.4 None of these 42.0 23.9 -18.1 Scenic Byway 33.3 65.3 32.0 Visitor Center or Museum 5.2 10.4 5.3

* A National Forest Visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time.A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits.

† Survey respondents could select as many or as few special facilities or areas as appropriate. Source: US Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring data 2007, 2012 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data collected by the Forest Service shows a decline in visits to facilities designed for motorized use (see table above), such as designated ORV areas, forest roads, and motorized dual and single track trails though in some cases such as motorized trail activity, fewer people are spending more time participating in motorized activities. Table 18 shows OHV use as flat and other motorized activity in decline. Visits to Forest Scenic Byways is one exception to this trend with an increase of 32%. Primitive camping, which is dependent upon forest roads saw an increase in participation and length of time spent doing the activity, see Table 18.

Registration data from the state of Oregon, see figure below, shows off highway motorized use as relatively flat or declining except for Class IV UTVs.

A variety of social, economic, weather, and other related conditions affect amounts and types of recreation use on National Forest System Lands and are beyond the scope of this analysis.

- 38 - Umpqua National Forest

Figure 8 Oregon Registration Data for OHVs

Source: Oregon Parks and Recreation Department - Recreation Programs and Planning

Roads Allowable use of NFS roads on the Forest include 385 miles available to highway legal vehicles only, 3,079 miles available to all vehicles, and 1,185 ML1 miles available to vehicles under 50 inches in width (Table 8). In addition there are 118 miles of roads under other jurisdiction (State, County, and BLM) open to public use. State law prohibits Class I OHV use on paved roads unless specifically provided for by the agency having jurisdictional authority of the road.

The Forest completed a survey of all ML 1 road entrances to determine actual use on these roads (Table 4). The survey results show that actual use differs markedly from the allowable use (i.e. vehicles 50 inches or less in width). The data collected on ML 1 entrance points revealed that 398 miles of ML 1 roads are being used by all vehicles (Class I, II and III), 229 miles are being used by vehicles 50 inches or less in width (Class I and III), and 36 miles are being used by motorcycles only (Class III). In addition, 168 miles of roads were found to be feasible for motorized use but showed no signs of use and 354 miles were found to be overgrown and unfeasible for use by any type of motor vehicle. The survey emphasizes the fact that many of these ML 1 roads are feasible for use by full sized vehicles. They are functioning as, and are indistinguishable from, ML 2 roads.

- 39 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Trails Allowable use of NFS motorized trails include 6 miles available to all motorized vehicles, 13 miles open to vehicles 50 inches or less and 87 miles open to motorcycles only (Table 8).

The Forest completed an inventory of trails receiving motorized use by means of on-the-ground surveys and specialist reports. Trail surveys assessed the trail width, grade, and tread cross slope as well as various other features such as switch-back geometry, design limitations; evidence of rilling and/or rutting; proximity to meadows or other sensitive resources, steep drop offs; and on-the-ground signage, if pertinent. Because motorized vehicles do not always leave tracks, frequency and type of use was determined based on feasibility and District Resource Specialist knowledge of the area.

Data collected during the trail survey indicate that actual use does not vary substantially from allowed use as specified on the 1994 ATM maps (Table 19). Of the 106 miles of motorized trails identified on the ATM maps, approximately 12 miles are not receiving motorized use and were found to be infeasible or not well suited for any type of motor vehicle use. Approximately 2.5 miles of trail determined to be unsuitable for motorized use are being used by motorcycles. There are 7 miles of trails receiving motorized use that were added to the NF trail system after the 1994 ATM Plans were completed, and as such were not analyzed during the development of those plans. About 12 miles of SNO-Trails (winter use trails) are being used by full-size vehicles during the summer months. These trails are identified in Table 19 and Table 20.

Cross-Country Travel While much of the Forest is open to motorized travel, opportunities for cross-country use of motorized vehicles are extremely limited due to steep terrain, dense vegetation, and natural obstacles. Because of this, cross-country OHV use on the Forest is very low and expected to remain so. Much of the off road use that does occur takes place during hunting season in the form of game retrieval. Concerns with off road OHV use include “mud bogging” in wet areas and ground disturbance to riparian areas along with unique and meadow mosaic habitats.

An area approximately 1.6 acres in size is regularly being used by OHVs. This area is located directly across from the East Lemolo Campground. The area has traditionally accommodated individuals staying at the campground wishing to recreate with Class I OHVs. East Lemolo Campground is well suited to Class I OHV users because the campground itself is graveled, allowing motorized users to legally travel from the campground to the OHV area. The OHV area is primarily used by campers at East Lemolo though some dispersed camping occurs adjacent to the area. The area generally consists of an oval track approximately 50 yards in length by 25 yards in width and has not discernibly expanded over the last five years.

Dispersed Camping Dispersed camping, defined as camping at sites having no developed facilities, is undoubtedly the most traditional type of recreational use occurring on the Forest. Except for specific area prohibitions, most of the Forest is open to dispersed camping. To date, over 525 traditional or high use sites have been identified and inventoried on the Forest. The sites are primitive in nature and used primarily during the summer and during hunting season in the fall. The sites are most often located on flat areas along streams, old log landings at the end of spur roads, and wide flat areas adjacent to roads or around the edges of meadows. These sites usually support other recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, mushroom and berry picking or relaxation and escape from the urban environment. Most of these dispersed sites are within 300 feet of a NFS road and accessed by user-created routes that are not part of the NFS road system. During a recent dispersed site inventory, 26 sites were recorded beyond 300 feet of a NFS road.

- 40 - Umpqua National Forest

Approximately 3 miles of non-system routes are being used by full size vehicles to access these remote sites. Some sites are used by the same families or groups of friends year after year. While a considerable amount of camping use on the Forest occurs in Forest Service developed campgrounds, these dispersed sites are very popular and important to the people who use them. Riparian areas and unique and mosaic habitats, such as meadows, are the biggest concern for resource damage. In the past, high use dispersed sites with known resource damage were evaluated and a determination was made whether to manage or eliminate access and use based on site specific resource concerns. Some high use locations have been managed to limit vehicle use through barrier placement.

Non-Motorized Recreation Non-motorized recreation occurs throughout the Forest. Non-motorized activities generally require some type of motor vehicle use to get to the activity area, even though the activities themselves are considered non-motorized (hiking, horseback riding, camping, fishing, nature viewing, etc.) Excluding hunting, which may include “road hunting”, 55-70% of NVUM respondents reported non-motorized activities as their primary activity. There are currently 589 miles of non-motorized trails, three designated wilderness areas, and a variety of LRMP Management Areas and prescriptions that prohibit motorized use.

Table 19. Trails: Vehicle Type by Alternative

Actual Alt. Alt. Trail # Name Miles ATM Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 6 Use 4 5 Noonday Wagon 1405 6.2 Road M Full Full Full Full Full Full Full 1405A Sultana Way 0.2 M Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Bohemia NRT 1407 3.6 (portion) M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M 1407 Bohemia NRT 3.4 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1417 Knott 4.3 M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M Knott/Adams 1417A .05 Connect M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M 1426 Beaver Creek* 6.4 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1426A Elkhorn* 1.9 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1438 Pig Iron 2.5 M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1442 Upper Potter Mt. 2.9 M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1443 Watson Butte 1.4 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1446 Pit Lake 0.5 M <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” Rodley Butte 1452 4.3 (portion) M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M Rodley Butte 1452 2.9 (portion) M <50” <50” <50” N-M <50” <50” N-M 1452A West Lake 2.7 M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M Calamut Way 1454 0.6 (portion) N-M MCY None None None MCY MCY MCY Calamut Way 1454 1.9 (portion) N-M <50” None None None <50” <50” <50” 1455 Waterbag Way 3.7 N-M MCY None None None MCY MCY MCY 1457D Pizza Connect 0.5 M <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50”

- 41 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Actual Alt. Alt. Trail # Name Miles ATM Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 6 Use 4 5 SNO-1457 Crater Lake Trail 7.8 N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A 1461 Dread and Terror 4.5 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1464 Skookum Lake 0.8 M None MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1468 Lemolo Falls 1.1 M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1475 Fish Creek 2.0 M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1494 Calamut Lake 1.7 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1503 Grotto Falls 0.3 M MCY MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1504 Shadow Falls 0.6 M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1505 Hemlock Creek 3.1 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1509 Overhang 0.2 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1512 Copeland Creek 2.6 M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1513 Williams Creek 5.0 M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M 1517 Snowbird 3.5 M <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” Mace Mt. 1518 1.6 (portion) M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M Mace Mt. 1518 0.7 (portion) M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY Mace Mt. 1518 0.9 (portion) M MCY MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M Mace Mt. 1518 1.2 (portion) M <50” <50” <50” N-M <50” <50” N-M Yellow Jacket 1522 5.3 Loop M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY Hemlock Lake 1522A 1.1 Loop M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY Hemlock Remote 1522C 0.2 Camp N-M MCY None None None MCY MCY MCY 1522E Cavit Tie 1.0 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1523 Black Creek 1.4 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1525 Cougar Shelter 0.3 M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M 1526 Flat Rock 0.7 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1528 Lookout Mt. 0.5 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1530 Riverview 4.1 M Full <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” 1530 Riverview 2.1 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1530A Riverview Tie 0.3 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1532A Long Ridge 0.9 M MCY MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M 1534 Bulldog Rock 5.1 M MCY MCY MCY N-M MCY MCY N-M 1535 Wild Rose 2.9 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1540 Emile Big Tree 0.1 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY Fuller Lake 1543A 0.2 Motorized N-M <50” None None None <50” <50” <50”

- 42 - Umpqua National Forest

Actual Alt. Alt. Trail # Name Miles ATM Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 6 Use 4 5 Fuller Lake 1543 0.2 (portion) M None MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M Fuller Lake 1543 0.5 (portion) M <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” <50” Emile Shelter Big 1549 0.1 Tree M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1561 Smith Ridge 0.5 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1562 Little Black Rock 0.7 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1575 Bunchgrass * 4.2 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1575A Coffin Butte * 0.3 M MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY MCY 1585 Acker Rock 0.4 M MCY MCY N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M SNO-1589A Lake West 0.3 N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A SNO-1589E Lemolo 2.0 N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A Elephant Mt. SNO-1589F 1.0 Loop N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A Windigo/Bear SNO-1589T 0.2 Connect N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A SNO- Non-System 0.2 60009984A Route N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A SNO- Non-System 0.4 60009984B Route N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A Non-System SNO-6530760 0.2 Route N/A Full N/A N/A N/A Full N/A N/A N-M = Non-Motorized MCY = Class III <50” = Class I Full = Class II * Temporarily closed under Forest Order 310 (Whiskey Fire)

Alternative 1 - No Action Under this alternative, The Forest would not be in compliance with the Travel Management Rule. There would be no change or effect on motorized recreational use of NFS roads by highway legal and non- highway legal vehicles. There would be no change in the mileage or locations of roads available for motor vehicle use. While ML 1 roads would remain open only to vehicles 50 inches and less in width, current use of 398 miles by full size vehicles would likely continue, albeit illegally, until those roads are gated, blocked or overgrown with vegetation. The 354 miles of ML 1 roads that are overgrown and impassable would remain open but unusable by motor vehicles. Similarly, there would be no change or effect on motorized recreational use of NFS trails by OHVs. The 7 miles of trails not analyzed or identified on the 1994 ATM maps would continue to receive motorized use.

Under this alternative, cross-country travel would not be prohibited. There would be no change or effect on off road OHV recreation opportunities. Forest visitors would remain subject to violation under existing Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) provisions if their motorized cross-country travel causes damage to natural resources [36 CFR 261.15(h) or 36CFR 261.9(a)].

Since there would be no prohibition on cross-country travel and no changes to motorized access, there would be no effect on dispersed camping on the Forest. Existing CFR provisions would continue to make Forest visitors subject to citation if their motorized access or use of dispersed campsites causes damage to natural resources.

- 43 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Under the No Action Alternative, an MVUM would not be published and Forest visitors would continue to rely on District and Forest-wide maps to determine motorized access opportunities.

The Forest would continue to operate through a reactive management strategy, implementing site specific plans along with travel and/or camping prohibitions when resource impacts are determined to be unacceptable or not in conformance with LRMP direction, standards, and guidelines. Resource impacts would continue to occur in a similar manner and frequency over time.

Under this alternative, there would be no changes or effects on non-motorized recreation opportunities on the Forest.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Motorized Recreation All of the action alternatives would designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and amend the Umpqua Forest Plan to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system. These alternatives would change the existing status of access and travel management on the Forest from “motorized use open, unless designated as closed” to “motorized use closed, unless designated as open.” Under all action alternatives, forest visitors would have an additional responsibility to carry a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) to determine which routes are open for motorized recreation activities.

Roads Under all action alternatives, motorized vehicles would be allowed on existing travel ways, park pads and pull-out areas up to 50 feet from the road shoulder on all NFS roads designated for motorized use. This exception to the cross-country prohibition would allow Forest visitors to safely park vehicles and trailers off the roadway while engaging in dispersed recreation activities. It also provides legal motorized access to a substantial portion of the existing dispersed campsites on the Forest.

Under all action alternatives, there would be no change in NFS road access for highway legal vehicles. Current use would continue and there would be no decrease in road mileage or in road locations open for highway legal vehicles (385 mi.). As a result, there would be no effect on recreational uses and opportunities associated with highway legal vehicle use on Forest roads.

Under all action alternatives, roads that are physically closed with vegetation (overgrown) or otherwise impassable would not be designated for motorized use. Based upon the results of the recent inventory, approximately 354 miles of ML1 roads fall into this category. These roads would remain part of the National Forest road system, and would be available for use in conjunction with specific land management activities in the future. There would be no effect to motorized recreation use because these roads are not currently being used and are infeasible for any type of motor vehicle use.

Under all action alternatives, approximately 9 miles of ML 1 roads would be closed (i.e. not be designated for motorized use) due to inaccessibility and/or ongoing resource damage caused by motor vehicles.

Three (3) miles of ML 1 roads currently being used would be closed due to ongoing resource damage caused by motor vehicles. These roads include:

. 1610-436, 438, 440, 444 (2.5 mi.) . 6800-950 (portion - 0.4 mi.) The 1610 roads are along Devils Knob Creek on the Tiller Ranger District (RD). The 1610-436, which provides the only access to the other listed 1610 spurs, has an unarmored stream crossing that delivers

- 44 - Umpqua National Forest unacceptably high sediment loads to an anadromous fishery (Jackson Creek) when used. The 6800-950 road is near Huckleberry Gap, also on the Tiller RD. This road parallels the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Trail (#1470) for a short distance and is frequently used by Class I and III OHVs to gain access to the non- motorized trail and make illegal motorized use in the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness. This 3 mile decrease in available routes would have negligible direct effects to motorized users as this is a comparatively small percentage of the ML 1 roads available for motorized recreation use and these roads do not represent the sole access to an area or destination spot.

Six (6) miles of ML 1 roads currently not receiving use would be closed due to inaccessibility and/or the resource damage that would occur through their use by motor vehicles. These roads include:

. 1610-410 (0.8 mi.) . 2759-680 (0.4 mi.) . 2800-353, 354 (2.6 mi) . 3100-670 (0.6 mi.) . 3230-200,800 (1.6 mi.) The 1610-410 road, on the Tiller RD has an impassable stream crossing at Three Cabin Creek where the culvert and fill have been removed. The 2759-680 road, on the North Umpqua RD, accesses a mineral site that has recurrently been the scene of illegal excavation by mechanized equipment. The 2800-353 road, on the Tiller RD and access for the 354 spur, has an impassable ford at the South Umpqua River. The 3100-670 road, also on the Tiller RD near Beaver Creek, has had a spring emerge in the roadbed. Motor vehicle use on this road would result in sediment delivery to an anadromous fishery (Jackson Creek) via Beaver Creek. The 3230-800, and a 0.2 mile portion of the 200 spur, are inaccessible due to an impassable stream crossing at Callahan Creek. There are two alternate routes of physical access, but no legal public access, to these road segments. Not designating these 6 miles of ML 1 roads would have a negligible effect on motorized recreation use because most (5.6 mi.) of these roads are not currently being used and are infeasible or inaccessible for motor vehicle use and the remaining short segment (0.4 mi.), while open and accessible, facilitates illegal use.

Trails Under all action alternatives, approximately 15 miles of trails identified as motorized in the 1994 ATM would not be designated for motorized use (Table 20). Based on data collected during the recent trail inventory, these trails were determined to be not well suited to motorized use due to design limitations and/or safety concerns.

Of the 15 miles considered unsuitable for motorized use, only 2.5 miles showed any signs of recent use by motor vehicles. These trails showed signs of motorcycle use only, and include:

. 1503 – Grotto Falls (0.3 mi.) . 1518 – Mace Mt. (portion) (0.9 mi.) . 1532A – Long Ridge (0.9 mi.) . 1585 – Acker Rock (0.4 mi.) Acker Rock (#1585) is located on the Tiller RD and the remaining three trails are on the North Umpqua RD. Grotto Falls (#1503) is a short, out-and-back, destination trail that accesses Grotto Falls. There is a narrow bridge on the trail and no turnaround at the falls. There is a segment of trail near the falls where there is no safe place to get a vehicle off the trail to let pedestrians pass. This upper section of Mace Mt.

- 45 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

(#1518) is extremely steep with tight switchbacks inadequately designed for motor vehicle use. There are steep drop offs in this segment with narrow talus trail tread. Long Ridge (#1532A) provides access to McKinley Rock, a popular place for technical rock climbers. The trail is steep and narrow with poor tread cross slope. There are steep drop offs and several spots where there is no safe place to get a vehicle off the trail to let pedestrians pass. Acker Rock (#1585) provides access to the Acker Rock Fire Lookout, which is used administratively and as part of the Forest’s recreation rental system. The road to the trail (2838- 950) is gated and the trail has steep grades and switchbacks. A decrease of 2.5 miles of trail available for motorcycle use represents 3% of trails and less than 0.1% of all routes available for non-highway legal motorcycle use. This nominal reduction in miles available for motorcycle use would have minimal effect to motorized recreation use on the Forest.

Of the 15 miles of trail identified as unsuitable for motorized use, 12.5 miles are not being used by motor vehicles; consequently there would be no effect to motorized recreation use by not designating them for motorized use.

Cross-Country Travel All action alternatives would eliminate cross-country motorized travel opportunities and limit motorized vehicles to designated roads and trails in accordance with the provisions of the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

This change involves about 858,800 acres that are technically open for cross-country travel under the Forest Plan. The actual amount of cross-country travel occurring is very low and limited by steep terrain and dense vegetation on the vast majority of the 858,800 acres. As a result, closing these areas to motorized cross-country travel is expected to have minimal effects on recreation opportunities or use. Limiting vehicles to roads and trails reduces the opportunity for those who view cross-country travel as a technical challenge as well as users who use motorized vehicles to get to remote off trail locations. All action alternatives have the potential to displace this activity to other land ownerships, or if recreationists choose to continue this activity on National Forest lands, they do so illegally. Successful hunters that wish to use an OHV to retrieve legally taken game animals would be directly affected as they would no longer have that option. All game retrieval would be by means of pack animal or other traditional non-motorized methods.

Non-Motorized Recreation Highway legal vehicles are the primary form of access for most non-motorized recreation that occurs on the Forest. Since there would be no changes to road access for highway legal vehicles under any action alternative, there are not expected to be any substantive effects on non-motorized recreation opportunities. Forest visitors that prefer non-motorized recreation would benefit from all the action alternatives because cross-country travel would be eliminated along with the correlated sound and sight of motorized vehicles in those areas.

Table 20 – Trails: Proposed use by Alternative Motorized To Non-Motorized (Alternatives 2 - 6) Trail # Name Miles Comments 1438 Pig Iron 2.5 -Trails not suitable for motorized use due to design/physical limitations. 1442 Upper Potter Mt. 2.9 -Trail #1512 (2.6 mi.) and a portion of 1468 Lemolo Falls 1.1 Trail #1518 (0.9 mi.) are within IRA’s. 1475 Fish Creek 2.0 -Trails 1503, 1518, 1532, 1585 (2.5 mi.) 1503 Grotto Falls 0.3 receive MCY use. Remaining trails

- 46 - Umpqua National Forest

1504 Shadow Falls 0.6 (11.9 mi.) receive no motorized use 1512 Copeland Creek 2.6 1518 Mace Mt. (portion) 0.9 1532A Long Ridge 0.9 1543 Fuller Lake (portion) 0.2 1585 Acker Rock 0.4 Total 14.4

Non-Motorized To Motorized (Alternatives 4 - 6) Trail # Name Miles Comments 1454 Calamut Way 2.5 -Trails added to FS trail system after 1455 Waterbag Way 3.7 ATM Plans were completed and currently receiving motorized use. 1522C Hemlock Remote Camp 0.2 1543A Fuller Lake Motorized 0.2 Total 6.6

Motorized To Non-Motorized In Ira (Alternatives 3 And 6) Trail # Name Miles Comments 1407 Bohemia NRT (portion) 3.6 -Trails within IRA’s. 1417 Knott 4.3 -Trail #1512 (2.6 mi.) and a portion of Trail #1518 (0.9 mi.) are within IRA’s 1417A Knott/Adams Connect .05 and included in “Trails not suitable for 1452 Rodley Butte 7.2 motorized use due to design/physical limitations.” 1452A West Lake 2.7 1513 Williams Creek 5.0 1518 Mace Mt. (portion) 2.8 1525 Cougar Shelter 0.3 1534 Bulldog Rock 5.1 Total 31.1

Winter Use To Yearlong Use (Alternative 4) Trail # Name Miles Comments SNO-1457 Crater Lake Trail 7.8 -Routes categorized as winter use SNO-1589A Lake West 0.3 (snowmobile) trails currently receiving summer use by all classes of vehicles. SNO-1589E Lemolo 2.0 -Three segments (0.8 mi) are not NFS SNO-1589F Elephant Mt. Loop 1.0 trails. SNO-1589T Windigo/Bear Connect 0.2 SNO-60009984A Non-System Route 0.2 SNO-60009984B Non-System Route 0.4 SNO-6530760 Non-System Route 0.2 Total 12.1

- 47 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

No Change (Alternatives 1 - 6) Trail # Name Miles Comments 1405 Noonday Wagon Road 6.2 -Motorized trails that have no change in 1405A Sultana Way 0.2 vehicle type or season of use in all 1407 Bohemia NRT (portion) 3.4 alternatives. 1426 Beaver Creek * 6.4 1426A Elkhorn * 1.9 1443 Watson Butte 1.4 1446 Pit Lake 0.5 1457D Pizza Connect 0.5 1461 Dread and Terror 4.5 1464 Skookum Lake 0.8 1494 Calamut Lake 1.7 1505 Hemlock Creek 3.1 1509 Overhang 0.2 1517 Snowbird 3.5 1518 Mace Mt. (portion) 0.7 1522 Yellowjacket Loop 5.3 1522A Hemlock Lake Loop 1.1 1522E Cavit Tie 1.0 1523 Black Creek 1.4 1526 Flat Rock 0.7 1528 Lookout Mt. 0.5 1530 Riverview 6.2 1530A Riverview Tie 0.3 1535 Wild Rose 2.9 1540 Emile Big Tree 0.1 1543 Fuller Lake (portion) 0.5 1549 Emile Shelter Big Tree 0.1 1561 Smith Ridge 0.5 1562 Little Black Rock 0.7 1575 Bunchgrass * 4.2 1575A Coffin Butte * 0.3 Total 60.8 * Temporarily closed under Forest Order 310 (Whiskey Fire)

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, there would be no change in NFS road access for highway legal vehicles or for mixed use. 385 miles of Forest roads would be open to highway legal vehicles only and 3,079 miles would be open to mixed use. This represents current use on ML 2-5 roads and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under this alternative, travel on ML 1 roads would continue to be limited to motorized vehicles 50 inches or less in width, in accordance with Forest Plan direction. Under Alternative 2, approximately 828 miles

- 48 - Umpqua National Forest

(70%) of ML 1 roads would have trails co-located on them and designated for motorized use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

This would exclude full size vehicles from approximately 398 miles (48%) of ML 1 roads that are currently receiving full size use. Many of these ML1 roads are easily travelable by full sized vehicles and appear virtually identical to ML 2 roads. This change from the current situation would result in a decrease of 398 miles (11%) of motorized recreation opportunities for full size vehicles on the Forest. This restriction would affect Forest visitors who currently use full size vehicles to access dispersed campsites through these ML1 roads. Similarly, this restriction would also affect users who enjoy driving full sized vehicles on challenging forest roads or who may wish to access certain remote portions of the Forest and continue on foot. There would be no effect to recreation opportunities for Class I and III OHVs.

Under this alternative, 6 miles of existing trails would be designated for use by full size vehicles, 13 miles for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width, and 72 miles for use by motorcycles only. This represents allowable use as identified on the 1994 ATM maps, excluding 15 miles of trails determined to be unsuitable for motorized use.

Under Alternative 2, about 12 miles of SNO-Trails currently being used by full-size vehicles during the summer months would not be designated for motor vehicle use May 1st thru November 30th (Table 20). These segments of SNO-Trail are located on the Diamond Lake RD and serve as connectors between roads open to mixed use. They appear and function as ML 2 roads and provide a route between Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake for non-highway legal vehicles. These segments connect OHV staging areas, trails, and ML 2 and ML 3 roads together to create a larger web of looping OHV routes. The majority of OHV routes around Diamond Lake depend on these connector SNO-Trails. Under this alternative, use of these routes during the summer months would be prohibited. This would adversely affect motorized recreation use around Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake by reducing OHV loop opportunities, segmenting routes and eliminating the opportunity for a legal resort-to-resort route for non-highway legal OHVs. Current motorized use would likely continue, illegally, unless these routes are blocked or gated.

Under Alternative 2, approximately 7 miles of trails currently being used by vehicles 50 inches or less in width would not be designated for motorized use.

An existing non-system trail connecting the Fuller Lake Trail (#1543) to the 3810-380 road, approximately 980 feet in length and currently being used by OHVs 50 inches or less in width, would not be added to the trail system and designated for motorized use.

All or portions of 3 existing NFS trails, currently receiving motorized use, would not be designated for use by motor vehicles. These trails were added to the NF trail system after the 1994 ATM Plans and were not analyzed for motorized use. These trails include:

. 1454 - Calamut Way (2.5 mi.) . 1455 - Waterbag Way (3.7 mi.) . 1522C - Hemlock Remote Camp (0.2 mi.) Calamut Way (#1454) and Waterbag Way (#1455) are located on the Diamond RD and Hemlock Remote Camp (#1522C) is on the North Umpqua RD. The southern portion of Calamut Way (#1454), from Kelsey Valley Forest Camp to its junction with the 6000-700 road (2.2 mi.), is steep, narrow, and prone to erosion. This section is not being used by motor vehicles. The northern section, from the 6000-700 road to Calamut Lake (1.9 mi.), is relatively flat with a wide tread and is receiving use by OHVs 50 inches or less in width. This section of the trail leads to two dispersed camping sites. The remaining portion of the trail (0.6 mi.), from the dispersed camping sites to the junction with Waterbag Way (#1455), has a narrower

- 49 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment tread and is being used by motorcycles only. Both portions of this northern section of Calamut Way (#1454) are within the Calamut Zone (Semi primitive motorized) of the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) which emphasizes semi primitive motorized recreation opportunities.

Waterbag Way (#1455) begins at the 6000-000 road in Windigo Pass and connects with Calamut Way (#1454) near Calamut Lake (3.7 mi.). This trail is also located in the Calamut Zone of the OCRA and is being used by motorcycles only. It has a tread width of 12-20 inches and a good tread cross slope.

Hemlock Remote Camp (#1522C), approximately 0.2 miles long, accesses Hemlock Lake dispersed camping sites off the Yellow Jacket Loop Trail (#1522). The trail is within the Yellow Jacket Unroaded Recreation Management Area (URMA) which emphasizes semi primitive motorized recreation opportunities. This trail traverses gentle slopes and has a tread width of 12-20 inches with good tread cross slope. The trail is currently receiving motorized use by motorcycles only.

A decrease of 2 miles of trail available for OHVs 50 inches or less in width (Class 1 vehicles specifically) represents 11% of trails and less than 0.1% of all routes available for Class I OHV use on the Forest. A decrease of 5 miles of trail available for motorcycles represents 5% of trails and less than 0.1% of all routes available for motorcycle use on the Forest. This restriction from current use would have an adverse effect on those Forest visitors that currently enjoy making motorized use of these trails and access the Calamut Lake and Hemlock Lake dispersed campsites using Class I OHVs. Prohibiting motorized use of trails within URMAs and OCRA zones specifically identified for emphasis of semi primitive motorized recreation would be confusing to the public. This minor (7 mi.) reduction in miles available for motor vehicle use would have minimal effect to overall motorized recreation use on the Forest.

Under Alternative 2, no camping corridors (exceptions to the motorized cross-country travel prohibition) would be designated. Travel off all NF system roads beyond 50 feet from the edge of the road would be prohibited. Additionally, all existing non-system routes would be closed to motorized travel. This would have a fairly substantial adverse effect on motorized recreation opportunities on the Forest by eliminating motor vehicle access to a large number of existing dispersed campsites. While the actual campsites would still be available, motorized access to the campsites would be limited. If users continue to access dispersed campsites with motorized vehicles, they would do so illegally. Effects are focused on Forest visitors who prefer to disperse camp on NFS lands rather than using developed campgrounds. This user group includes most hunters, as they typically prefer to use dispersed campsites during the fall hunting seasons, but also includes Forest visitors who prefer to camp in solitude throughout the summer months.

Under this alternative, the OHV Area east of Lemolo Lake would not be designated as an open area. The oval track and associated dispersed campsites would no longer be open for motorized use. This would directly impact Forest visitors who camp in East Lemolo Campground specifically for the purpose of using the adjacent OHV area. It would also affect those visitors who currently enjoy dispersed camping in the OHV area itself. Elimination of the OHV area would directly affect motorized recreation use on the Forest by eliminating a known and established use area.

Under Alternative 2, in addition to the cross-country travel prohibition, 19 miles of trails currently receiving motorized use (SNO-Trails=12 mi.; non-ATM trails=7 mi.) would be closed to motor vehicles. This would benefit non-motorized recreationists who would be adversely affected by the sight and sound of motorized vehicles in the areas they use.

Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, there would be no change in NFS road access for highway legal vehicles or for mixed use. Highway legal vehicles would be allowed on 385 miles of Forest roads and 3,079 miles would

- 50 - Umpqua National Forest be open to mixed use. This represents current use on ML 2-5 roads and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under this alternative, motorized travel on all ML 1 roads would be prohibited. No trails designated for motorized use would be co-located on these roads. This would eliminate motor vehicle use on 829 miles of ML 1 roads that are either currently receiving use or are feasible for motorized use. It would exclude full size vehicles from approximately 398 miles of ML 1 roads that are currently being used by full size vehicles. It would exclude vehicles 50 inches or less in width from 430 miles of ML 1 roads that are either currently receiving use (262 mi.) or are feasible for use (168 mi.) by Class I and Class III OHVs. This change from the current situation would result in a reduction of routes available for full size vehicles by 10% and for vehicles 50 inches or less in width by 11% for a total of 829 (19%) mile decrease in roads available for motorized recreation use.

Eliminating motorized access on ML 1 routes would have an adverse effect on Forest visitors who have traditionally accessed, or wish to access dispersed campsites, hunting areas and remote hiking locations or gather berries, mushrooms or other forest products by motorized use of these routes. Similarly, prohibiting motorized travel on ML1 routes would affect people who enjoy sight-seeing and exploring the National Forest road system as their primary recreation activity. Some ML 1 routes provide the linkage between other roads open to non-highway legal vehicles. Closure of these ML 1 routes would sever these linkages and decrease the amount of long distance and loop opportunities for non-highway legal vehicles. Non-highway legal OHVs would have to be loaded, towed or trailered between roads open to mixed use.

Under Alternative 3, management of the existing National Forest trail system would be similar to that under Alternative 2 with the exception of trails within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Under this alternative, 6 miles of existing trails would be designated for use by full size vehicles, 9 miles for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width, and 45 miles for use by motorcycles only.

Under this alternative, all or portions of 9 trails, about 31 miles, located in IRAs would not be designated for use by motorized vehicles (Table 20).

There are 2 trails that were determined to not be well suited for motorized use due to design/physical limitations that are within IRAs. These trails would not be designated for motorized use in any of the action alternatives. These trails include:

. 1512 - Copeland Creek (2.6 mi.) . 1518 - Mace Mt. (0.9 mi.) Copeland Creek (#1512) is on the Diamond Lake RD in the Calf-Copeland IRA. This trail has not been maintained in over 20 years and there is no discernable tread. This trail could best be described as an unimproved path through the forest, or game trail. It is not currently being used, or considered travelable by motor vehicle.

Mace Mt. (#1518) .9 mi. This section is on the North Umpqua RD in the Williams Creek IRA. It is extremely steep with tight switchbacks inadequately designed for motor vehicle use. There are steep drop offs in this segment with narrow talus trail tread. Recent inventory results showed signs of use by motorcycles.

Of the remaining 31miles of trails in IRAs, approximately 4 miles are currently receiving use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width,

. 1452 - Rodley Butte (portion) (2.9 mi.)

- 51 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

. 1518 - Mace Mt. (portion) (1.2 mi.) and about 27 miles are being used by motorcycles only. . 1407 - Bohemia NRT (portion) (3.6 mi.) . 1417 - Knott (4.3 mi.) . 1417A - Knott/Adams Connect (.05 mi.) . 1452 - Rodley Butte (4.3 mi.) . 1452A - West Lake (2.7 mi.) . 1513 - Williams Creek (5.0 mi.) . 1518 - Mace Mt. (portion) (1.6 mi.) . 1525 - Cougar Shelter (0.3 mi.) . 1534 - Bulldog Rock (5.1 mi.) Bohemia NRT (#1407) is located on the Cottage Grove RD. The southern half of this 7 mile long, historic National Recreation Trail is in the Canton Creek IRA. It is a wide trail with good tread cross slope and receives substantial equestrian and pedestrian use as well as use by mountain bikes and motorcycles.

Knott (#1417) and Knott/Adams Connect (#1417A) trails are on the Cottage Grove RD in the Fairview IRA. Knott (#1417) is a moderately steep to very steep trail with fair tread cross slope and offers challenges to both hikers and motorcycle users. Knott/Adams Connect (#1417A) is a short side spur off the main trail that leads to Marten Spring and connects to the 2241-000 road and Adams Mt. Way (#1419).

Rodley Butte (#1452) and West Lake (#1452A) are on the Diamond Lake RD in the Mount Bailey IRA. The western portion of Rodley Butte (#1452), from the 3703-600 road to a point north of Mt. Bailey, is very steep and wide. The tread is between 50 to 120 inches wide with slopes up to 35% and fair to good tread cross slope. The trail is being used by OHVs 50 inches or less in width during the summer months and is used for Sno-Cat skiing (Catchline trail) during the winter. While the eastern portion of Rodley Butte (#1452) has an overall gentler profile than the western portion, there are several short sections where the grade can approach 30%. This section of the trail contains rock obstacles that make it infeasible for use by Class I vehicles but it does receive light use by motorcycles. West Lake (1452A) takes off from Rodley Butte (#1452) very near the trailhead at the northwestern end of Diamond Lake and runs north to where it connects to the 4790-400 road. The trail tread is composed of pumice and ranges from narrow to wide, where it follows an old roadbed. It has one short segment where the slope is 25-30%. Motorized use is low and made by motorcycles only.

Williams Creek (#1513) and Mace Mt. (#1518) are on the North Umpqua RD in the Williams Creek IRA. Williams Creek (#1518) begins at the Williams Creek Campground, on the North Umpqua River, and follows the Williams Creek drainage up to an intersection with BLM Road 9.0. This is generally a moderately steep (10%-25%) trail with a few sections approaching 35%. It has a narrow tread composed primarily of duff. It currently receives light use by motorcycles. Mace Mt. (#1518), 3 miles to the west, begins off the 4710-000 road on the North Umpqua River, and runs up the Falls Creek drainage where it intersects with the 4705-500 road. The lower portion of the trail is steep with a narrow tread of duff. This portion of the trail is being used by motorcycles. The middle portion is extremely steep, in excess of 50%, and rugged with a narrow, talus tread with tight switchbacks poorly designed for motorized use. While there is some evidence of use by motorcycles, this section is not well suited for motorized use. The upper

- 52 - Umpqua National Forest portion is fairly flat and overlaps a bulldozed firebreak with a tread width varying between 50 inches and 120 inches. This upper portion receives moderate use by OHVs 50 inches or less in width.

Cougar Shelter (#1525) is on the North Umpqua RD in the Cougar Bluffs IRA. It is a short trail of the 4711-630 road that leads to a rustic shelter overlooking the Cougar Creek drainage. It is a flat, gentle trail with an average tread width and receives low use by motorcycles and non-motorized users.

Bulldog Rock (#1534) is on the North Umpqua RD in the Bulldog Rock IRA. The trail is very steep 25%- 35% with one 30 foot segment over 55%. The tread averages 18 inches in width with good tread cross slope. The trail receives low use and due to its technical nature, motorized use is limited to experienced motorcycle riders.

This change from the current situation would reduce the routes available for vehicles 50 inches or less in width by an additional 31 miles to that proposed under Alternative 2. Under this alternative, a total of 38 miles of existing trails would be closed to motorized use, representing a 43% decrease in the amount of existing trails available for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width and less than a 0.1% decrease in total routes open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width on the Forest. This would adversely affect Forest visitors who enjoy the challenges of technical trail riding using Class III OHVs. It would eliminate nearly half of the motorized recreation opportunities for that segment of the public that engage in technical trail riding as their primary recreational activity.

Similar to Alternative 2, under this alternative no camping corridors would be designated and the Lemolo OHV area would be closed to motorized use.

Of all the action alternatives, Alternative 3 has the least amount of road miles open to motorized use. This would benefit non-motorized recreationists who would be adversely affected by the sight and sound of motorized vehicles in the areas they use. Forest visitors who enjoy hiking would benefit from an increased sense of quietness attributed to natural surroundings and a lack of motorized vehicles. This quietness would also extend to users who wish to camp in these areas. Generally, however, such user groups focus their hiking trips to existing trails due to the increased connectivity and available parking at trail heads along with iconic remote destinations such as a wilderness or the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA). Despite that, a small percentage of users who like to hike through the forest on and off trail would benefit from the solitude and quietness provided by this motorized vehicle restriction.

Alternative 4 Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, under this alternative there would be no change in NFS road access for highway legal vehicles. Highway legal vehicles would be allowed on 385 miles of Forest roads. This represents current use on ML 3-5 roads and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under this alternative, 3,082 miles would be open to mixed use. Approximately 3 miles (26 routes) of non-system routes would be added to the transportation system as ML 2 roads open to mixed use. These routes provide access to inventoried dispersed campsites further than 300 feet from a NFS road and are currently being used by full size vehicles. This represents current use and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under Alternative 4, as in Alternative 2, travel on ML 1 roads would continue to be limited to motorized vehicles 50 inches or less in width, in accordance with Forest Plan direction. Approximately 828 miles (70%) of ML 1 roads would have trails co-located on them and designated for motorized use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

- 53 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Under this alternative, 18 miles of existing trails would be designated for use by full size vehicles, 15 miles for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width, and 77 miles for use by motorcycles only.

Under Alternative 4, about 12 miles of SNO-Trails currently being used by full-size vehicles during the summer months would be designated for motor vehicle use May 1st thru November 30th (Table 20).

One (1) existing non-system trail connecting the Fuller Lake Trail (#1543) to the 3810-380 road, approximately 980 feet in length and currently being used by OHVs 50 inches or less in width, would be added to the trail system and designated for motorized use.

All or portions of 3 existing NFS trails, currently receiving motorized use, would be designated for use by motor vehicles. These trails were added to the NF trail system after the 1994 ATM Plans and were not analyzed for motorized use. These trails include:

. 1454 - Calamut Way (2.5 mi.) . 1455 - Waterbag Way (3.7 mi.) . 1522C - Hemlock Remote Camp (0.2 mi.) Five (5) miles would be designated for use by motorcycles only and an additional 2 miles for OHVs 50 inches or less in width. Including the 12 miles of SNO-Trails, a total of 19 additional miles of existing trails would be added to the motorized trail system described under Alternative 2. This represents current use and as such, there would be no change and no effect to motorized recreation uses and opportunities.

Under this alternative, approximately 487 miles of camping corridors would be designated. These corridors are exceptions to the motorized cross-country travel prohibition and would allow legal motorized access to existing dispersed campsites using existing routes within 300 feet from either side of identified roads. These camping corridors were identified based on public comments, dispersed campground surveys and local knowledge. Camping corridors were also designed to be easily identifiable on the ground with a map (e.g. start and stop at road junctions or other easily identifiable landscape features). As such, these corridors include some segments of road where dispersed sites are not present. In addition, 3 miles (26 routes) of non-system routes accessing dispersed campsites further than 300 feet from the road would be added to the NFS road system (included and described above in roads open to mixed use). This would allow motorized use on routes accessing inventoried dispersed campsites that exceed the 300 foot corridor width or the 50 foot existing road pull-out area, depending on location. In order to mitigate unmanaged growth, further expansion and creation of routes and parking areas would be prohibited. The objective of adding camping corridors and routes to the NFS road system is to include as many dispersed campsites as possible in order to not exclude visitors from using existing sites while minimizing proliferation of new sites and access routes. Because the number of Forest visitors is not expected to change as a result of implementing the Travel Management Rule (i.e. the designation process), no abrupt increase in new site establishment is expected. Over time, some illegal establishment of new sites or expansion of existing sites may occur as population increases. Because the majority of routes accessing dispersed campsites would allow motorized vehicle travel, effects on Forest visitors wishing to camp in dispersed sites would be minimal and would be limited to dispersed sites that were missed in the survey and therefore not included in either the 300 camping corridor or other access routes.

Under Alternative 4, the OHV Area east of Lemolo Lake would be designated as an Open Area, allowing for off-road motorized use. Existing use of the area is not expected to increase as the OHV area has not grown in many years. Because of its small size and remote location, it is not a destination spot for Forest visitors who’s primary recreation activity is OHV riding. Because this area is currently receiving

- 54 - Umpqua National Forest motorized use, designation of this area for motorized use would have no effect on motorized recreation opportunities.

Alternative 5 Under this alternative, there would be no change in NFS road access for highway legal vehicles. Highway legal vehicles would be allowed on 385 miles of Forest roads. This represents current use on ML 3-5 roads and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under Alternative 5, approximately 3,408 miles of Forest roads would be designated as open for mixed use. In addition to the 3,082 miles identified in Alternative 4, an additional 314 miles of ML 1 roads and 12 miles of SNO-Trails currently being used by full size vehicles would be categorized as ML 2 roads and designated for use by all motor vehicles. These are ML 1 roads that have no entrance barriers of any kind. They are easily travelable by full sized vehicles and appear and function identical to ML 2 roads. Their categorization as ML 2s can more precisely be described as assigning an accurate Maintenance Level to these roads based upon recent inventory data. The 12 miles of SNO-Trails have no barriers as well and have the same form and function as ML 2 roads. This represents current use and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under this alternative, 85 miles of ML 1 roads currently being used by full size vehicles would have trails co-located on them and be designated for use by full size OHVs. These ML 1 roads have entrance barriers (e.g. earth berms, logs, rocks) that can be navigated by high clearance, 4-wheel drive vehicles and are feasible for travel by full size vehicles. This does not represent a change from current use and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under Alternative 5, about 430 miles of ML 1 roads currently being used by vehicles 50 inches or less in width would have trails co-located on them and be designated for use by OHVs 50 inches or less in width. This represents current use and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Under this alternative, 6 miles of existing trails would be designated for use by full size vehicles, 15 miles for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width, and 77 miles for use by motorcycles only. This represents current use and as such, there would be no effect to the associated motorized recreational uses and opportunities.

Similar to Alternative 4, under this alternative, approximately 487 miles of camping corridors would be designated, allowing legal motorized access to existing dispersed campsites using existing routes within 300 feet either side of identified roads.

Similar to Alternatives 4, the OHV Area east of Lemolo Lake would be designated as an Open Area, allowing for the continuing use of a known and established use area.

Of all the action alternatives, Alternative 5 most closely resembles the motorized use occurring on the Forest today. It would eliminate motorized use on those roads where motor vehicles are causing resource damage and those trails unsuitable due to design and/or physical limitations. It would have the least effect on motorized recreation opportunities and use because it takes into consideration existing use patterns.

Alternative 6 Alternative 6 is similar to Alternative 5 except that under this alternative, all or portions of 9 trails, about 31 miles, located in IRAs would not be designated for use by motorized vehicles. See Table 20.

- 55 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

This would benefit non-motorized recreationists who would be adversely affected by the sight and sound of motorized vehicles in the IRAs. Similarly, it would adversely affect those Forest visitors who enjoy riding and sightseeing in primitive areas.

Cumulative Effects Since the late-1980’s, when the Forest had the greatest amount of roads open to motorized use, the opportunity for motorized recreational vehicle use has been reduced to some degree by road decommissioning. In addition, some roads have become impassable by vegetation growth and windthrown trees.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule would further reduce opportunities for motor vehicle use on the Forest, primarily due to the elimination of cross-country travel and reduction in use of ML 1 roads as motorized trails.

There is the potential for increased use on roads and trails where motor vehicles are allowed after a MVUM is published. After a MVUM is published, motorized recreationalists may be more inclined to travel to the Umpqua National Forest to make use of the motorized system of roads and trails. It is expected this effect will be minimal. A noticeable increase in motorized use after releasing a MVUM has not been observed on adjacent National Forests or other forests in this Region.

In the future, some roads may become impassible due to the inability to maintain all of the roads on the transportation system. In addition, future road decommissioning would also reduce the amount of road available for motorized use. Roads would be removed from the MVUM as they become impassible or are decommissioned. This could adversely affect those who recreate on lower maintenance level roads and could be a beneficial effect for those who favor non-motorized recreation. Conversely, there may be the addition of some road mileage in areas where future management activities occur. This could benefit those who wish to recreate in lower maintenance level roads, but could adversely affect those who favor non-motorized recreation.

Increased use on mixed use roads may lead to unacceptable safety concerns. Monitoring of mixed use would occur, and MVUM revisions would respond to safety concerns. The amount of mixed use roads may change over time based on this.

Appropriated funds for trail maintenance are not expected to increase in the future. Additional trail construction requests would need to be evaluated to determine how the trails would be maintained. Trails over ML1 roads would likely not be maintained and can be expected to gradually grow in with vegetation and become impassible. As trails become impassible, they would be removed from the MVUM. The loss of trails over ML1 roads could benefit users who prefer non-motorized recreation but could adversely affect users who wish to recreate on trails with vehicles under 50” in width.

Increases in population in surrounding areas have the potential to increase demand for all types of recreation on the Forest. Visitor use and satisfaction is monitored through the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program, which is currently on a five year cycle. Monitoring results for the year 2013 are not yet available. Congressionally Designated Areas

Wilderness The Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 designated three wilderness areas on the Umpqua National Forest. These include the Boulder Creek, Mt. Thielsen and Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness Areas, totaling

- 56 - Umpqua National Forest approximately 71,800 acres. These areas are managed in accordance with the guidance provided in their respective Wilderness Management Plans (LRMP Appendices B, C, and D respectively). The use of motor vehicles or mechanized equipment in designated wilderness is prohibited. None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) propose any motorized use within designated wilderness and as such, there would be no change and no effect to these areas. There are approximately 12 miles of ML 2 roads that describe the boundary (i.e. directly adjacent to) of the Boulder Creek Wilderness Area and approximately 10 miles that describe the boundary of the Rouge-Umpqua Divide Wilderness Area. These roads are currently open to motorized use and are used to access wilderness trailheads as well as non- wilderness trailheads. Under all alternatives, these roads would continue to be used by motor vehicles. While the sights and sounds of their continued use may affect wilderness visitors, the effects are minimal, localized and short-lived. Their continued use by motor vehicles would not substantially reduce opportunities for solitude or degrade intrinsic wilderness values.

Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) The OCRA was established as part of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, and includes seven non- wilderness zones, four of which lie within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest. The OCRA Management Plan (LRMP Appendix E) provides management direction for the non-wilderness portion of the OCRA. The North Umpqua and West Thielsen Zones, totaling approximately 15,700 acres, are managed to provide semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) recreation opportunities. None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) propose any motorized use within these zones and as such, there would be no change and no effect to these areas. The Calamut Lake and Thirsty Point Zones, totaling approximately 21,200 acres, are managed to provide semi-primitive motorized (SPM) recreation opportunities. None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) propose to eliminate motorized use in these zones and as such, there would be no change and no effect to these areas. While the action alternatives would affect the amount of motorized access in these zones to varying degrees as described in the Recreation section above, they would still be managed to provide semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities in accordance with their designations authority (Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984) and Forest Plan guidance (LRMP Appendix E). None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) would affect their congressional designation status.

Wild and Scenic Rivers The North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River was designated under the Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988 “…for the protection of remarkably outstanding features for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” The North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1992), developed in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and Oregon State Parks & Recreation Department, provides management direction for the 6,400 acre North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) identified within the corridor include fisheries, water quality and quantity, recreation, scenic and cultural. Alternative 1 would not change any of the motorized use occurring within the wild and scenic river corridor; therefore there would be no effect to Outstandingly Remarkable Values. All of the action alternatives would eliminate cross-country travel within the corridor which would have a beneficial effect on water quality, the foundation for the other Outstandingly Remarkable Values. While the action alternatives would affect the amount of motorized access within the corridor to varying degrees as described in the Recreation section above, it would continue to be managed to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values in accordance with its designation authority (Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988) and the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1992). None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) would affect its congressional designation status.

- 57 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Steamboat Creek, Upper North Umpqua, and Boulder Creek have been found to be Eligble Wild and Scenic Rivers though they have not been designated by Congress. The LRMP list the tentative Wild and Scenic River classifications and ORVs. See table below.

Table 21 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Outstanding Tentative Highest River Name Remarkable Feature Classification

Upper North Umpqua Scenic Wild/Recreation Boulder Creek Scenic Wild Steamboat Creek Anadromous Fish Recreation

Alternative 1 would not change any of the motorized use occurring within the eligible wild and scenic river corridor; therefore there would be no effect to the ORVs. All of the action alternatives would eliminate cross-country travel within the corridor which would have minimal beneficial effects on scenic values and beneficial effects on water quality which is key for anadromous fish. While the action alternatives would affect the amount of motorized access within the corridor to varying degrees as described in the Recreation section above, it would continue to be managed to protect the ORVs in accordance with the LRMP and the Oregon Omnibus Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) would affect the potential for Congressional designation.

Potential Wilderness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas

Management Direction and Existing Condition Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (70) sets forth the guidance on evaluating project impacts to areas that may be considered as potential wilderness areas. Areas qualify for placement on the potential wilderness inventory if they meet the statutory definition of wilderness (FSH 1909.12 (71.1-Inventory Criteria)). Approximately 171,100 acres on the Umpqua National Forest meet the Forest Service’s definition of potential wilderness. Of this potential wilderness, approximately 110,100 acres (64%) are Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) and managed in accordance with the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule of 2001. The 2001 Roadless Rule generally prohibits road construction and timber cutting, sale or removal in IRA’s (36 CFR 294). In addition to potential wilderness there are approximately 120,100 acres of other undeveloped areas. These are areas that are not IRAs and also do not meet the Forest Service’s definition of potential wilderness. These areas may have special resource values due to their undeveloped character.

Roadless Area Values and Characteristics include: High quality or undisturbed soil, water and air; diversity of plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi- primitive non-motorized, and semi primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference landscapes; natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; or other locally identified unique characteristics.

There are no NFS roads within potential wilderness or IRAs on the Forest. Currently there are approximately 57 miles of motorized trails within potential wilderness, 34 miles of which are within

- 58 - Umpqua National Forest

IRAs. Of the 34 miles of trails in IRAs, approximately 4 miles are currently receiving use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width and about 30 miles are being used by motorcycles only.

Effects Common to All Alternatives None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) proposes to create any new roads or trails and as such would meet the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule of 2001.

None of the alternatives would degrade existing potential wilderness or IRA characteristics or remove any areas from consideration as a Potential Wilderness Area (PWA).

The use or presence of motor vehicles does not affect whether an area meets the criteria for inventory as potential wilderness nor does it preclude it from consideration for congressional designation as wilderness. The presence of IRAs does not prohibit motorized use on existing trails or areas within or adjacent to IRAs. Similarly, there is no restriction against motorized use on roads, trails or areas within or adjacent to undeveloped areas.

Because motorized use does not affect the designation of PWA, IRA, or undeveloped areas, and because motorized use is not precluded from these areas, none of the alternatives would affect the status of PWAs, IRAs or undeveloped areas. The use of motor vehicles on trails would not affect the classification of these areas, but may affect some Forest visitor’s expectations for solitude and quiet in these areas.

Alternatives 1: No Action Under this alternative, no motorized route system would be designated and motorized cross-country travel would not be prohibited. There would be no change from the current situation and no effects to potential wilderness, IRAs or other undeveloped areas.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Under all action alternatives, approximately 3 miles of trails within IRAs identified as motorized in the 1994 ATM would not be designated for motorized use (Table 20). Based on data collected during the recent trail inventory, these trails were determined to be not well suited to motorized use due to design limitations and/or safety concerns. These trails include:

. 1512 - Copeland Creek (2.6 mi.) . 1518 - Mace Mt. (portion) (0.9 mi.) Copeland Creek (#1512) is in the Calf-Copeland IRA and is not currently being used, or considered travelable by motor vehicle. This section of Mace Mt. (#1518) is in the Williams Creek IRA. Recent inventory results showed signs of use by motorcycles. Elimination of motorized use on these trails would not affect the status of PWAs or IRAs. Forest visitors that prefer non-motorized recreation and expect solitude and quiet in these areas would benefit from the reduction of the sound and sight of motorized vehicles in IRAs. Due to the reduction in motorized activity there may be a minimal beneficial impact on soil, water, air or other IRA characteristics noted above in the area of the listed routes.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, camping corridors would not be designated on any Forest Service system roads. If enforcement is successful, this would eliminate motorized access to a large number of dispersed campsites on the forest. With motorized access limited to the 50 foot pull-out area, use at many dispersed sites would decrease or stop completely. Over time, these dispersed campsites would grow in and look

- 59 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment undeveloped (approx. 60 years). This would increase the amount of undeveloped areas and some may meet the criteria for potential wilderness under FSH 1909.12 (71.1).

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 Under these alternatives, approximately 31 miles of trails in IRAs currently open to motorized use by OHVs 50 inches or less in width would be designated for motorized use (Table 20). This represents the current management direction based on LRMP guidance, FSH and 1909.12 and the 2001 Roadless Rule. As such, there would be no effect to the status of PWAs, IRAs or undeveloped areas. The continued motorized use on these trails would not affect the classification of these areas, but may affect some Forest visitor’s expectations for solitude and quiet in these areas. The designation of these trails is not likely to affect the IRA characteristics listed above.

Alternatives 3 and 6 Under these alternatives, approximately 34 miles, or an additional 31miles, of trails in IRAs currently open to motorized use by OHVs 50 inches or less in width would not be designated for motorized use Table 20. While elimination of motorized use on these trails would not affect the status of PWAs or IRAs, Forest visitors that prefer non-motorized recreation and expect solitude and quiet in these areas would benefit from these alternatives because the sound and sight of motorized vehicles would be eliminated. Due to the reduction in motorized access there may be a minimal beneficial impact on soil, water, air or other IRA characteristics noted above in the area of the listed routes. Visual Resources

Management Direction The scenic resources on the Umpqua National Forest were inventoried under the Forest Service’s Visual Management System (VMS). The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) assigned a range of Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) to Management Areas depending on the broad focus of each Management Area and the specific management direction contained in assigned Prescriptions. The VQO is described along a range of naturalness or degree of acceptable alteration to a landscape, and the VQO can vary dependent on where one is located on a particular road. VQOs are defined as follows: Retention (R) is where humans’ activities are not evident to the forest visitor; Partial Retention (PR) is where humans’ activities may be evident, but are subordinate to the characteristic landscape; Modification (M) is where humans’ activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture; and Maximum Modification (MM) is where human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but it should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed from a distance.

Due to the dense nature of the vegetation across much of the forest motorized use on roads and trails which are designed for that purpose has minimal effect on the scenic resource and is not likely to degrade scenic quality below established VQOs.

Motorized use off designated routes and motorized access for dispersed camping can affect scenic quality by denuding vegetation, and causing visible “tracks” or disturbed areas that alter the natural form, line, color and texture of the landscape. This is usually most evident in the foreground of travel routes, in open meadow areas, riparian areas or hill climb areas adjacent to roads. The duration of ground disturbance is also a factor in determining whether an activity meets a route or area VQO. Generally, if the alteration is still evident after one year, it is considered resource damage.

- 60 - Umpqua National Forest

Major travel corridors are assigned the highest visual sensitivity levels (Level 1 and 2), and are also referred to as “viewsheds” in the LRMP (IV-19 to IV-26).

Table 22. Sensitivity Levels 1 and 2 by Road

Ranger District Road VQO Sensitivity Level Cottage Grove Co. Rd. 2460, 2473, 2470 PR 1 773 to Fairview Peak PR 2 North Umpqua Hwy. 138 R 1 Steamboat Road 38 PR 2 Little River Rd. 27 & 2700- M 2 495 Diamond Lake Hwy. 138 R or PR 1 Rd. 2610, 2610-400 R or PR 1 Hwy. 230 R or PR 1 Rd. 4795-300 R or PR 1 Rd. 60 M 2 Rd. 6000-958 PR 2 Rd. 37 R 2 Rd. 3700-870 PR 2 Rd. 4793 to -100 jct. PR 2 Rd. 4795-300 &-380 R 2 Tiller Rd. 2925-800 M, PR 1 Rd. 6800-950 R 1 S. Umpqua Rd. 28 PR 2 Rd. 2715-950 PR 2 Rd. 2823 R, PR 2 Rd. 2830 & 2830-600 PR 2 Rd. 2840 to Beaver Swamp PR 2 TH County Rd. 36 PR 2 County Rd. 1 PR 2

Sensitivity Level 3 “Recreation Access Routes” are also managed as a priority for visual enhancement and rehabilitation in the foreground along routes accessing trailheads and developed recreation sites, (not applied to other level 3 roads).

- 61 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 23. Recreation Access Routes for Sensitivity Level 3, Organized By District and Road

Ranger District Road VQO Sensitivity Miles or Level Section Cottage Grove Brice Creek Rd. 22 & PR, M, MM 3 13.5 2212 Layng Creek Rd. 17 M, MM 3 1.0 North Umpqua Wilson Creek Rd. 4770 R, PR, M, MM 3 9.3 Snowbird Rd. 2715 R, PR, M, MM 3 3.0 Reynolds Rd. 3850 & PR, M 3 10.0 3817 Diamond Lake Medicine Creek Rd. R, PR, M 3 4.0 4775 Tiller Jackson Creek Rd. 29 & M, MM 3 19.5 2947 Castle Rock Rd. 2823 R, PR 3 2.5 Rd. 2900-550 R, M 3 1.0

Table 24. High Visual Sensitivity Routes Proposed as Camping Corridors Organized by District and Alternative.

District Alternatives Alternatives 1,2 & 3 4,5 & 6 No Corridors 300 foot corridors Cottage Grove None 2470 (SL1) 22 (SL3) North Umpqua None 27 (SL2) 38 (SL2) 2715 (SL3) 3850 (SL3) Diamond Lake None 37 (SL2) 60 (SL2) Tiller None 2925-800 (SL1) 29 (SL3)

Existing Condition The majority of existing dispersed camps along high visual sensitivity routes have been inventoried. There are two roads that fall within the VQO of partial retention: 2470 and 2925-800. The remaining roads fall within VQOs modification or maximum modification.

Alternative 1 - No Action There would be no changes in or effects on motorized use adjacent to high visual sensitivity roads. The Forest would continue in a reactive management strategy and implement site specific plans and/or camping prohibitions when resource impacts are unacceptable or in violation of LRMP direction, standards and guidelines, and regulations: (36CFR 261.15[h] or 36CFR 261.9[a]).

- 62 - Umpqua National Forest

Effects to visuals from Alternative 1 arise from continued cross-country travel which may result in visual resource degradation in the form of tracks. ATV use in riparian areas and unique and mosaic habitats are the biggest concern for damage from a visual perspective. Cross-country travel on the Forest, however, is not very high.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Under all action alternatives, cross-country travel would be prohibited. This would eliminate the associated visual impact from cross-country travel in the future as ATV use and ATV size potentially increase. Effects Common to Alternatives 4, 5, and 6

Under alternatives 4, 5, and 6, there would be minimal effects to visuals as the existing visual condition would be maintained. None of the alternatives would create new dispersed campsites and existing campsites would be maintained. User expansion of existing access routes, dispersed sites, or other forms of resource damage may degrade the visual quality in the foreground and may require additional enforcement and rehabilitation of affected areas on a case by case basis. Generally dispersed campsites have a minimal impact on visual quality due to the dense fast growing vegetation, relatively small size of many dispersed sites, and frequent occurrences of screening vegetation. Since they are typically visually subordinate to the landscape the VQOs of retention to partial retention are likely to be met.

Because dispersed campsites meet the VQOs for partial retention, and because none of the alternatives propose adding any new dispersed campsites, the designation of the 300 foot corridor on portions of high use roads are not likely to affect VQOs. Specifically, two roads have a VQO of partial retention, 2470 and 2925-800.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 the Forest would not designate the 300-foot camping corridor. This would reduce all motorized use from dispersed campsites beyond the 50 foot pull-out area. Over time, dispersed campsites beyond 50 feet would grow back in due to lack of use and would minimally improve visual quality

Cumulative Effects Different management activities and natural fire events have affected the visual resources of the Forest over time. Past regeneration timber harvest, road construction, and firewood gathering from the 1950’s to the 1990’s affected viewsheds. After the LRMP was published, management activities have taken visual resources into account.

On the North Umpqua Ranger District the Baked Apple fire in 2002, the Rattle Fire in 2008, and Williams Creek Fire in 2009 affected the viewsheds from portions of Highway 138 by removing vegetation (shrubs and branches of trees) and blackening tree trunks. On the Tiller Ranger District, in 2002 the Tiller Complex affected viewsheds from portions of Forest Service Road 28 by removing vegetation and blackening trees. In 2009 the Boze Fire affected viewsheds from portions of Rd. 28 and Rd. 2715-950 in the same manner.

In the future, D-Bug Hazardous Fuels Timber Sale Project proposes fuel reduction activities in the Diamond Lake area. In the short term along certain roads, the VQO of retention is proposed to be reduced to partial retention and partial retention to modification. Viewsheds from portions of the following roads would be affected: Highways 138, 230, Roads 2610, 2610-400, 4795-300, 60, 6000-958, 37, 3700, 3700-

- 63 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

870, and 4793 to 4793-100 junction. Refer to the D-Bug Draft Environmental Impact Analysis (pgs. 281- 291) for more information concerning the effects of the project to the visual resources of these areas. In the future, the Cow Creek Timber Sale has the potential to affect the visual resources of County Road 36 on the Tiller Ranger District. The environmental analysis for this proposed timber sale has not been completed. Other reasonably foreseeable activities that may contribute to cumulative effects include road maintenance, inactivation, decommissioning, and gating. These projects are described in Table 17.

None of the listed project along with the proposed alternatives are likely to create cumulative impacts that would degrade scenic quality below the established VQOs. Aquatic Resources: Water Quality and Quantity, Fisheries

Existing Condition Beginning at the crest of the Cascade Mountains, the Umpqua River Basin drains about 3 million acres in SW Oregon, primarily within the boundaries of Douglas County. The Umpqua National Forest encompasses nearly 1 million of those acres, including large portions of the headwaters and mainstems of the North and South Umpqua Rivers. The Umpqua River is one of only two river basins in Oregon that flow directly to the Pacific Ocean from the Cascades (the other is the Rogue River); all of the remaining rivers in Oregon flow into either the Columbia River basin (e.g., Willamette, Deschutes, McKenzie, Santiam, etc.) or drain the Oregon Coast Range (e.g., Coos, Coquille, Siuslaw, Yaquina, etc.). This situation has led to the long-term geological isolation of the Umpqua from other aquatic systems and resulted in unique biological resources, such as the evolution of three endemic fish species that are found nowhere else.

Flowing northwesterly from the Calapooya Divide between the Umpqua and Willamette River basins is the Row River, a major tributary to the Coast Fork of the Willamette. The Forest manages approximately 120,000 acres in headwater areas of this basin, including Layng Creek.

The Umpqua River system is renowned for its anadromous fisheries values, including important commercial and sport fisheries for Chinook salmon and a world-class sport steelhead fishery in the mainstem and North Umpqua River. Due in large measure to the location of NF lands within the basin, fish habitat and water quality are disproportionately important to these fisheries values - with nearly all the “healthy” salmon and steelhead subpopulations being spawned and reared in rivers and streams within NF boundaries. The Forest also provides refuge habitat for several “at-risk” salmon species, such as the Federally ESA-listed (Threatened) Oregon Coast (OC) Coho salmon. The portion of the South Umpqua River within the Forest boundary serves as critical habitat for recovery of coho, a species with coast-wide implications for sport and commercial fisheries, and is the sole remaining habitat for a unique subpopulation of spring Chinook that is on the verge of extinction. Additionally, the Cottage Grove District portion of the Forest provides existing refuge and potential re-colonization habitat for the Threatened Oregon chub currently proposed for ESA de-listing.

There are seven fish species and two aquatic mollusk species that have special status and/or management focus for the Umpqua National Forest:

Threatened Aquatic Species 1. Oregon Coast Coho salmon of the Oregon Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (Federally listed as threatened under ESA [retained June 20, 2011 (76 FR 35755)] with designated Critical Habitat [February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816)]) ; USFS Management Indicator Species) - Oregon Coast Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) use approximately 115 miles of streams within the project area for

- 64 - Umpqua National Forest

spawning, rearing, and migration, predominantly located on the Tiller Ranger District. This Listed Fish Habitat (LFH) is largely considered to be of low to moderate importance in the conservation of this species at the province scale (OR Coast ESU), relative to lower gradient streams within this ESU (USDC 2007). The Cottage Grove Ranger District has no coho due to the Dorena Dam. 2. North American Green Sturgeon – Southern DPS (Federally listed as threatened under ESA with designated Critical Habitat) – North American Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) are known to occur in only the mouth and estuary of the Umpqua River, over 100 miles downstream from the project area. (As such, project alternatives would have no effect upon this species or its designated Critical Habitat.) 3. Oregon Chub (proposed in February 2014 to be removed from the ESA, currently federally listed as threatened under ESA with designated Critical Habitat) - The Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri) is indigenous to the Willamette River Basin. Habitat selection by this species is in floodplain habitats with little or no water flow. This species occupies one small pond on the Cottage Grove Ranger District that is not adjacent to the existing transportation system. (As such, all project Alternatives would have no effect upon this species or its designated Critical Habitat due to the very limited range of this species on the Forest.)

Aquatic Species of Management Focus 4. Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are located in lower gradient reaches of the North and South Umpqua river basins. They spawn in these low to moderate gradient reaches utilizing larger spawning substrate than the other salmonids. The very small South Umpqua population is facing many pressures. They use approximately 55 miles of stream in the mainstem of the South Umpqua River from Tiller to the confluence of Black Rock and Castle Rock Forks and associated tributaries, as well as Jackson Creek from its mouth to Bean Creek, for spawning, rearing and migration. The Cottage Grove Ranger District has no Chinook due to the Dorena Dam. 5. Pacific Coast (PC) chum salmon (FS Sensitive) – Pacific Coast chum salmon (O. keta) are located approximately 180 miles downstream of project area in the Pacific Ocean. (As such, all project Alternatives would have no impact upon this species or its designated Critical Habitat.) 6. Oregon Coast (OC) steelhead trout (FS Sensitive) – Oregon Coast steelhead trout (O. mykiss) use over 200 miles of stream within the project area for spawning, rearing, and migration. They are distributed across most perennial streams of the Tiller and North Umpqua Ranger Districts and in small portions of the Diamond Lake Ranger District abutting the North Umpqua District. They are not found on the Cottage Grove Ranger District, which has no anadromy due to the Dorena Dam. 7. Cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki) are the most widespread fish species on the Forest, so the potential to effect the individual populations would be greatest with these fish. The anadromous life history of this species, the Oregon Coast (OC) cutthroat, is distributed across most perennial streams of the Tiller and North Umpqua Ranger Districts and in small portions of the Diamond Lake Ranger District abutting the North Umpqua District. They are not found on the Cottage Grove Ranger District, which has no anadromy due to the Dorena Dam. Resident cutthroat are distributed upstream of barriers to anadromy, including most perennial waters of the Cottage Grove Ranger District. 8. Umpqua Chub (FS Sensitive) - The Umpqua chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti) is endemic to the Umpqua River Basin (the mainstem Umpqua River, South Umpqua River, and to a lesser extent North Umpqua River). Habitat selection by this species is moderate to slow flowing water (runs and channel margins). 9. Namamyia plutonis (FS Sensitive) - This aquatic caddisfly is suspected to occur on the Forest based upon its documentation elsewhere in southwest Oregon and preference for mature temperate riparian

- 65 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

habitats to maintain appropriate water levels and temperatures for development. Lack of information on population distribution and abundance of this species will hinder effective conservation and management. 10. Rotund Lanx (FS Sensitive) - The rotund lanx (Lanx subrotuna) is known to occur on the Umpqua National Forest. The rotund lanx is a small freshwater limpet and the current distribution appears to be scattered and local in portions of the North Umpqua River, and portions of the South Umpqua and major tributaries around Roseburg including Cow Creek. The rotund lanx is found in unpolluted rivers and large streams at low to moderate elevations. They prefer highly oxygenated, swift-flowing streams with stable cobble, boulder or bedrock substrates. They are not typically found where aquatic plants and algae occur. 11. Western Ridged Mussel (FS Sensitive) – The Western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) has been identified on the Umpqua National Forest. Western ridged mussels occur in streams of all sizes and are rarely found in lakes or reservoirs. They are found mainly in low to mid-elevation watersheds, and do not often inhabit high elevation headwater streams where western pearlshells can be found. They often share habitat with the western pearlshell throughout much of the Pacific Northwest. They are more tolerant of fine sediments than western pearlshells and occupy depositional habitats and banks. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with unstable or very soft substrates. Lack of information on life history, reproduction, and ecology of western ridged mussels will hinder effective conservation and management. Other fish taxa native to the project analysis area include dace, sculpin, shiner, pikeminnow, and resident and anadromous lamprey. Because these species occupy portions of the same habitat used by native salmonids, any potential effects described in this analysis are anticipated to be relevant to those of species within these other taxa.

Numerous other non-native fish taxa have been introduced in various areas of the Forest, including brook and brown trout, kokanee, bass, chub, and shiner, among others.

The need for high quality water from the Forest will be increasing for the foreseeable future – thus water and aquatic habitat management will remain a vital task for the Umpqua NF. The Umpqua NF has always played an important role in water resource management, affecting the quality and quantity of water flowing into the Willamette and Umpqua River basins. With anticipated changes in basin hydrology, such as timing and quantity due to global climate change coupled with increased demand from population growth, this role will undoubtedly become even greater in the future.

Beneficial Uses of Water and 303(d) listed Streams On January 14, 2014 the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality revised and renewed a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. This MOU documents the US Forest Service and Oregon DEQ strategy for managing and controlling point and nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution from US Forest Service-managed lands in the State of Oregon. This MOU sets out the procedures for the US Forest Service and DEQ to cooperatively implement State and Federal water quality rules and regulations. The physical, chemical and biological conditions of “Waters of the State” that support beneficial uses (defined in Region Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 468B – Water Quality and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41) will be protected, restored and maintained by working in a proactive, collaborative and adaptive manner through this MOU (US Forest Service 2014).

To comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, and the Standards and Guidelines of the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management

- 66 - Umpqua National Forest

Plan (LRMP), the beneficial uses of waters must be identified and management activities planned so they would not interfere with or be injurious to the beneficial uses of adjacent or downstream waters. The relevant beneficial uses of the Row River, and the North and South Umpqua Rivers, as determined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) include the following: 1) public and private domestic water supply; 2) industrial water supply; 3) irrigation; 4) livestock watering; 5) resident fish and aquatic life; 6) wildlife and hunting; 7) fishing; 8) water contact recreation; and 9) aesthetic quality (ODEQ, 2003 and 2005).

In addition to providing the public water supply for the southern Willamette Valley, much of the high- quality water for downstream domestic, commercial, and agricultural use in the Umpqua Valley also originates on the Forest. This includes the public water supply for Glide, Roseburg, and numerous rural residents from the North Umpqua and the south-county communities of Tiller, Days Creek, Canyonville, Tri City, Myrtle Creek, Dillard and Winston from the South Umpqua River. The Forest’s many lakes and impoundments also provide many varied recreational experiences that depend on high water quality and productive fish habitat.

The ODEQ has identified water quality impaired streams and bodies of water throughout the State of Oregon as required by the Clean Water Act. The Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was signed in 2007. Forest-wide implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) are generally accepted by the State of Oregon as a management approach that will maintain or allow for attainment of water quality standards (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2006). The Umpqua Basin TMDL includes the Umpqua Basin Water Quality Management Plan and references the South Umpqua Sub-basin Water Quality Restoration Plan (Umpqua National Forest 2008a) and North Umpqua Sub-basin Water Quality Restoration Plan (Umpqua National Forest 2008b). The Willamette Basin TMDL includes reference to the Willamette Basin Water Quality Restoration Plan: North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, Middle Fork and Coast Fork Sub-basins (Willamette and Umpqua National Forests 2008). These Plans guide restoration activities to move a given watershed and stream reach towards meeting water quality standards in the future.

Since the TMDLs and Water Quality Restoration Plans where developed for the Umpqua and Willamette Basin the State of Oregon DEQ and US EPA have added water quality impaired stream reaches in (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2012). The newly added stream reaches and lakes are included in Table 25. Stream and lakes added to the Oregon DEQ impaired waters (303d) list that are not under a TMDL or WQRP will be addressed utilizing the 1999 protocol (US Forest Service and BLM 1999) until the Basin TMDLs can be amended.

Table 25. Water Quality Impaired Stream Reaches or Lakes on the Umpqua National Forest Without a Current TMDL. (Road crossing information may indicate roads that parallel the stream channel)

Roads Crossings Basin Stream Stream/Lake Name Pollutant Criteria (Umpqua Name Miles NF/Other land owner)

Middle East Fork Evans 0 to 17.7 0/17 Rogue Creek Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient quality to Biological Cavitt Creek 0 to 15.6 support aquatic species without 2/4 Criteria North detrimental changes in the Umpqua resident biological communities. East Fork Copeland 0 to 3 1/1 Creek

- 67 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Lake Creek 0 to 11.5 0

Unnamed Stream 0 to 4.8 0

North Umpqua River 91.7759 to The development of fungi or other 0 / Lemolo Lake 94.2449 growths having a deleterious Aquatic effect on stream bottoms, fish or Weeds Or other aquatic life, or which are Algae Fish Lake 4.4249 to injurious to health, recreation or 0 Creek/Fish Lake 4.8159 industry may not be allowed.

Boulder Creek 0 to 10.7 0

Donegan Creek 0 to 4.1 0 South Biocriteria: Waters of the state Umpqua East Fork Elk Creek 0 to 3.1 must be of sufficient quality to 0/1 Biological support aquatic species without Criteria Falcon Creek 0 to 4.4 detrimental changes in the 1/1 resident biological communities.

Fish Lake Creek 0 to 6.2 0

Prong Creek 0 to 4.2 0

All of the stream crossings on the East Fork of Evans Creek are off of the Umpqua National Forest. All of the crossings of listed section of Cavitt Creek have aggregate surfacing. The crossing of the listed section of East Fork of Copeland Creek has aggregate surfacing. The crossing in East Fork of Elk Creek is not on Umpqua National Forest administered land. The crossing on the listed section of Falcon Creek has aggregate surfacing. It is uncertain how roads may impact these stream segments as they are listed as water quality impaired for biological criteria with an unknown pollutant. Sediment, flow changes and temperature changes are the primary impacts of roads on water quality. It is not possible to directly assess the road impacts or the impacts of alternatives for these stream segments as the pollutants causing impairment are as of yet unknown. Watershed Analyses

Watershed analyses are a key part of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, part of the Northwest Forest Plan which amended the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan in 1994 (Table 26).

Table 26. Watershed Analyses completed on the Umpqua National Forest with the most recent iteration date.

District Watershed Name Most recent iteration

Brice Creek 1997 Cottage Layng Creek 2005 Grove Sharps Creek 1999 Diamond Boulder Wilderness

- 68 - Umpqua National Forest

Lake Diamond/Lemolo Lake 1998 Fish Creek 1999 Lower Clearwater River 1999 Medicine Creek Upper Clearwater River 1996 Upper Fish Creek Upper North Umpqua 1997

Diamond Lake/ North Calf/Copeland 2001 Umpqua

Canton Creek 1995 Cedar Creek 1995 City Creek 1996 North Little River 1995 Umpqua Middle North Umpqua 20011999 North Umpqua River 1999 Rock Creek 1996 Upper and Lower Steamboat 2007 Boulder/Ash 1997 Buckeye/Zinc 1996 Cow Creek 1995 Deadman/Francis 1997 Tiller Dumont 1995 Elk Creek 1996 Jackson Creek 2012 Upper South Umpqua 2004

Due to the site specific scale of these analyses, the road related recommendations therein will be addressed in future project level planning rather than in this document, which is focused more broadly on implementing the Travel Management Rule.

Environmental Consequences At the landscape scale, it is well documented that motorized routes can modify the frequency, timing, and magnitude of disturbance to aquatic systems. The current motorized travel system on the Forest includes over 4,750 miles (Table 8) and over 858,000 acres (Table 9) available for cross-county travel by motorized vehicles, although a substantial portion of this area may not be actually accessible or used. Many of these routes are located within proximity to occupied fish habitat and sensitive watershed areas. The overriding adverse effect of this motorized travel system on the fisheries resource is via sediment input to stream systems, and to a lesser degree fragmentation of aquatic habitats and associated species due to impassable road/stream crossings. These conditions have contributed to decreased distribution and abundance of native fish stocks, notably anadromous salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout.

The action alternatives (Alternative 2-6) contain potential changes to the Umpqua Forest Plan, requiring amendments that are designed to provide management and enforcement consistency. One thing these amendments would substantially change is the amount of off-road motorized opportunities, with little of

- 69 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment the Forest open to that use, as it would be restricted to narrow corridors adjacent to some roads. While widespread and unregulated cross-country travel on the Umpqua NF is fairly rare due to the challenges of operating vehicles in the difficult terrain presented by the Forest’s dense vegetation and irregular topography, adverse consequences can happen where it does occur; such as in and adjacent to stream courses, in riparian areas, and in meadow habitat. Another change would be the designation of camping corridors. Dispersed camping is inherently associated with roads and generally within the same zone of impact as the road. Dispersed camping is unlikely to generate measureable watershed impacts over and above those associated with roads. The action alternatives include prohibitions for damage to land, vegetation, or streams including the cutting of trees (36 CFR 261.9 and 261.15(h)). Under these conditions, dispersed camping activities would have no more than a localized, short-term direct and indirect effect on aquatic resources. This project involves the identification of a motorized travel system and publication of a Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), for all vehicles, including OHVs, on the Forest. Following completion of the MVUM, motorized travel on the Forest would be restricted to designated routes and areas only. The baseline condition includes the potential adverse impacts to aquatic resources such as water quality, aquatic biota communities and aquatic habitat from this existing route network. Changes in allowable road and motorized trail use would constitute the majority of variability in effects of alternatives. The magnitude and extent of road and trail impacts to aquatic resources is highly variable depending on site-specific characteristics. General effects of roads and trails on water quality and the fisheries resource are described below.

General Effects Roads, particularly those located in proximity to riparian areas, pose a threat to aquatic biota habitat quality and population structure. Roads can route sediment into water bodies, alter hydrologic processes, fragment aquatic habitat (i.e., migration barriers), and provide a vector for introduction of aquatic nuisance species and hazardous materials. Additionally, roads can provide access to and concentrate human and livestock use within riparian areas. This can lead to degradation of stream banks, in-channel aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation.

Under all of the action alternatives, roads and motorized trails (routes) would be identified for use within Forest watersheds, including many that support fish populations and other aquatic biota. Some of these routes are located within Riparian Reserves, and thus have a higher potential to produce adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota communities and habitats, than routes outside of these areas. Riparian Reserves on the Umpqua National Forest were designated under the Northwest Forest Plan (1994) as one element of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS).

The following list (Gucinski et al. 2001; Coe 2004) is specific to the analysis of the effects of motorized vehicle use on roads and trails on aquatic resources such as water and fish habitat quality and quantity on the Umpqua National Forest and is expected to occur under all alternatives.

1. A stream with adverse effects to water quality as a result of sediment from unpaved roads and trails (or other causes) generally shows one or more of the following characteristics: pools have been partially or completely filled in with sediment, an unnatural amount of fine-grained material occurs throughout much of the channel, the channel is wide and shallow, recent erosion of the channel is unnatural, and the streambanks are unstable. 2. Motorized vehicle use generally requires a road or travelway for vehicle passage. In the case of cross- country travel, a rough travel-way footprint is developed as a direct result of repetitive use. Roads and trails disrupt natural runoff and water flow by capturing and concentrating both surface and subsurface drainage. Concentrated water flows typically increase both erosion and deposition since they are able to move larger quantities and particle sizes of sediment. As road density in the

- 70 - Umpqua National Forest

watershed increases, so does the magnitude of the effect. Ultimately, in mountainous areas, elevated runoff with its increased sediment load will typically increase channel width and reduce channel depth at some point downstream, causing increased bank erosion, generating even more sediment. Typically, stream temperature naturally increases as water flows downstream into wider channels that have more solar exposure. Accelerated erosion and deposition can add to heat gain by increasing the water surface exposed to direct sun through channel widening (bank erosion/loss of shading vegetation) and channel filling (deposition of sediment). Roads and trails in proximity to perennial streams can increase water temperature more directly, because they are constructed and maintained through some removal of vegetation that shades the water. 3. Rates of erosion due to roads and trails have been extensively studied and documented in published literature (Coe 2004). Exposure of native material on the travelway, cut banks, and fill slopes associated with roads and trails provides a continuous source of loose material that can be moved to streams via road drainage. Vehicle use of roads and trails generally increases surface erosion through substrate displacement, rutting, and dust generation. Roads and trails are often surfaced with rock or pavement and drainage is managed by ditches and culverts to reduce weathering and deterioration of the road as well as to reduce accelerated erosion and sediment deposition in streams. 4. The reduction or elimination of motorized vehicle traffic in an off-road area or on a road or trail near a stream will result in less sediment delivered from the road or trail to the stream over time, and this in turn will reduce the risk of adverse effects to water and fish and other aquatic biota habitat quality from roads and trails. This is because the reduction or elimination of vehicle traffic on a road or trail, over a period of time, would re-vegetate with grass, shrubs, or trees. As a result, the amount of material that is readily available to erode from the road to a nearby stream should be reduced. The available research has shown that the erosion rates from a closed road will often decrease and approach background levels as the density of vegetation on the surface of the road increases. 5. The elimination of motorized vehicle traffic on a road or trail near a stream during periods of wet road conditions will result in less potential for sediment to be delivered from the road to the stream. Vehicle use on wet roads tends to cause ruts and damage to the roads, which tends to increase erosion of sediment from the road during rainfall events and periods of snowmelt. No alternatives call for seasonal restrictions in road or trail use to address possible rutting and/or erosion. 6. The density of roads and trails at the watershed scale will not be substantially changed as a result of any of the alternatives. The primary reason for this assumption is that these alternatives involve the closure of routes to motorized vehicle use by the public and not the physical removal of roads. None of the action alternatives propose road removal, restoration, or decommissioning, except by naturally occurring revegetation. Although roads would be closed to public motorized travel, they would continue to be Forest System roads that are available for administrative use. For this reason, road density at the watershed scale would remain the same as a result of closing these roads to public motorized travel. 7. For this analysis, site scale indicators for sensitive aquatic resources are the distance a road or trail is located within the riparian reserve, and the number of stream crossings. Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) include changes in water flow, timing and duration (especially elevated peak flows), and, elevated temperatures. These effects generally appear at larger scales and are expressed in terms of risk thresholds of watershed disturbance. For this analysis, CWE have been evaluated at the subwatershed, or 6th field hydrologic unit level. Risk Indicators considered are increased road density in miles/square mile and current level of CWE risk. This information has been developed through GIS analysis of the alternatives. 8. Proposals to eliminate or designate mixed use on existing roads would present no change to current hydrologic conditions. As long as these existing roads are designed to carry cars and trucks, the

- 71 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

addition or elimination of off highway vehicle use has no to very minimal, likely undiscernible effect on the road’s hydrologic impact. 9. Regulations regarding dispersed camping prohibit development of new routes, avoid use near potable water sources and municipal watersheds, and prohibit crossing of any stream, wetland, or water body (unless on a designated route). Given these resource protections, motorized use associated with camping described in this document would have very minimal and likely undiscernible, detrimental impact to aquatic resources or water quality. 10. To the extent that wheeled motor vehicle traffic is often a primary cause of erosion and sedimentation, prohibiting public wheeled motor vehicle use of existing routes would result in less erosion. Road- related erosion is often the result of a combination of factors that include poor route design or location, lack of drainage, and inadequate maintenance. 11. Roads and trails through wetland areas can impact the shallow surface hydrology resulting in either draining/drying of the wetland or increased ponding, which can affect the type and quality of wetland habitat provided. Mitigations can be designed into the road/trail to allow for diffuse water transmission under and through the road base. Most wetlands on the Umpqua National Forest are associated with stream and riparian reserves.

General relationship between roads, water temperature, and aquatic biota Roads and, to a lesser extent, trails, affect water quality directly through associated sediment supply and reduction in canopy cover from trees that can reduce stream shading and contribute to increased summer water temperature in streams. In addition to the potential to increase sediment, portions of these routes also have the potential to reduce the amount of vegetation that surrounds and parallels streams or other riparian areas. Vegetation in these areas contributes to bank stability, shade, and large woody debris in streams. Access route segments that parallel streams or that have direct access to stream banks have the greatest potential for decreasing these vegetation components. Aquatic biota generally requires stable temperature regimes. Recruitment of large woody debris is a key element of properly functioning aquatic habitats. Elevated water temperatures are common during the summer low-flow stream conditions and are the result of a variety of natural and human-caused factors. Water quality effects of National Forest management activities are governed by Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) established by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), which provides a list of water quality impaired streams. On the Umpqua National Forest, most of the listed streams are listed as impaired for water temperatures that exceed State standards. As stated previously, Forest-wide implementation of Best Management Practices and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy are generally accepted by the State of Oregon as a management approach that will maintain or allow attainment of water quality standards.

General relationship between roads, sediment, and aquatic biota Numerous researchers have established that roads are the primary source of fine sediment delivered to streams in otherwise relatively undisturbed watersheds, such as forests and rangelands. In addition, research has concluded that fine sediment from roads can result in adverse effects to streams and aquatic habitat (MacDonald and Stednick 2003; Gucinski et al. 2001; Dissmeyer 2000; Meehan 1991). Road- related sedimentation is a result of road-induced hydrologic changes. The hydrology of road networks has important implications for both road surface sediment production (Coe 2004) and mass-wasting (Montgomery 1994; Veldhuisen and Russell, 1999; Wemple et al. 2001).

Erosion of the road travel-way, cutbanks, ditches, and fill slopes results in increased sediment loading to streams. Once sediment is delivered to stream channels, coarse-grained sediments typically deposit in the channel while fine-grained (clay, silts, and fine sands) sediment are often transported downstream as suspended sediment, depending on flow (Bilby 1985). Coarse-grained sediments are transported

- 72 - Umpqua National Forest downstream as bedload during high flows. Channel characteristics, such as the amount of wood and floodplain connectivity, have a major influence on where introduced sediment is deposited. Roads also present a relatively impermeable surface to rain and snow (Luce, 1997), resulting in additional runoff that increases erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Roads and trails on steep slopes intercept infiltrated water that would otherwise flow more gradually through subsurface soils and weathered rock. Intercepted subsurface slope flow is converted to concentrated surface flow that will contribute to erosion and sediment transport, as well as to increased peak flows for any storm event or snow melt (Ziegler et al. 1997).

Suspended sediment and turbidity are naturally occurring features of fish habitat in the analysis area and the variability in annual suspended sediment yield is very high. In streams of the Oregon Cascade Range, the highest turbidities usually occur during the first high flows in fall (Beschta 1980) as well as spring snowmelt. Native fish species of the Forest are adapted to this wide ranging exposure to turbidity. For example, Noggle (1978, as cited in Everest et al. 1987) demonstrated that coho salmon (recognized as a Management Indicator Species) tolerance for suspended sediment was highest in fall when increased suspended sediment concentrations usually occur. Juvenile coho salmon acclimated to clear water (<0.3 NTU) and turbid water (2-15 NTU) did not exhibit significant sediment avoidance until turbidity reached 70 and 100 NTU, respectively (Bisson and Bilby 1982). A gradual increase in suspended sediment to produce a turbidity of 20 NTU did not alter behavior of coho salmon juveniles in laboratory streams (Berg and Northcote 1985).

Most sediment inputs from roads are delivered to small, non-fish bearing streams (Bilby et al. 1989). Duncan et al. (1987) found that about half of the fine sediment (<2 mm) input into small streams was not transported more than about 400 feet downstream during high flows, but retained within the small streams, particularly those with abundant wood. They found that transport distance was inversely related to particle size. Retention and sorting of sediment inputs from roads in small streams plays an important role in determining effects to fish and their habitat downstream.

The effect of sediment inputs from roads on spawning gravel composition in fish bearing channels in Washington was studied by Bilby (1985). He estimated that 21% of the annual suspended sediment load carried by the study stream was contributed from the road. Over 80% of the road sediment delivered to the stream, by weight, had a very small particle size (<0.004 mm). In contrast, more than 80% of the fine particle sizes in the spawning gravel ranged from 0.25 – 2.0 mm. Freeze core samples of streambed gravel upstream and downstream of the sediment inputs from the road found no significant difference (P<0.05) in the proportion of fine sediment, by weight, in the gravel. Bilby (1985) concluded that, in this case, road surface sediment was not making an appreciable contribution to the amount of sediment stored in the channel due to the small particle size of sediment inputs from the road. He noted that under different conditions, such as a steeper road segment, unvegetated ditch, or higher flow, larger particle sizes may be delivered to streams.

General relationship between roads and flow timing, volume, and duration Overland flow occurs whenever rainfall intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil. In humid, forested landscapes, rainfall intensity rarely exceeds infiltration capacity, and overland flow occurs infrequently (except where heavily compacted). In contrast, road surfaces are highly compacted, have high bulk densities, and have little or no pore space (Luce 1997). Although roads occupy a very small percentage of most watersheds, they can be responsible for the majority of overland flow in forested basins. Road surfaces can also produce runoff in the majority of storm events (Ziegler et al. 1997).

Hillslope runoff processes in the Pacific Northwest are dominated by subsurface stormflow. Subsurface stormflow occurs when permeable soil overlies relatively impermeable bedrock. Since roads are typically

- 73 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment cut into the soil profile, and sometimes into underlying decomposed and solid bedrock, roads are capable of intercepting, concentrating, and rerouting subsurface stormflow from upslope contributing areas.

Studies have shown that interception of subsurface stormflow is responsible for over 90% of the runoff from roads in the Pacific Northwest (LaMarche and Lettenmaier, 2001; Wemple and Jones 2003). Roads with deep road cuts and roads constructed on shallow soils are especially prone to intercepting subsurface stormflow. Road cuts that do not expose the entire soil profile and roads constructed on benches are less likely to intercept subsurface stormflow (Wemple and Jones, 2003).

Published research has not established consistent numerical criteria for determining when roads are likely to contribute sediment to streams and other aquatic features such that the water quality of those features is adversely affected. Direct, quantitative, cause-and-effect links between roads and trails and aquatic conditions have been difficult to document (Gucinski et al. 2001). As a result of these limitations, the analysis of the alternatives in this section uses surrogate measures to quantify and compare effects to water quantity, water quality, fish and other aquatic biota on the Umpqua National Forest (e.g. open road/trail crossings of streams and waterbodies, open road/trail in riparian reserves).

No Action Alternative and Existing Condition Comparison There are some differences between the no action alternative (current management direction) and the existing condition (actual use on the ground). The main difference is on ML 1 roads and motorized trails where some have received authorized use, some no use at all, some have been used by OHVs 50 inches or less wide and others used by full-size vehicles (Table 4 and Table 5). Some ML1 roads have grown in with trees so large and dense that the road could not feasibly be driven on with any motorized vehicle, without being cleared and maintained. For this analysis, all action alternatives are compared to the existing condition in terms of the effects on resources, as the existing condition provides a baseline of effects on resources that can be easily understood by observing existing conditions from a soils, watershed and aquatic resources viewpoint.

In 2010, the Umpqua National Forest conducted a Watershed Condition Classification for all subwatersheds (6th field hydrologic unit code) with 25 percent or more of land managed by the Umpqua National Forest. The subwatersheds were classified on 12 indicators, of which one was roads and trails. This indicator addresses changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes because of the density, location, distribution, and maintenance of the road and trail network. To assess the indicator of roads and trails, four attributes were considered: open road density, road and trail maintenance, proximity to water and mass wasting due to changes associated with roads. Of the 107 subwatersheds that touch some part of the Umpqua National Forest, only 72 have at least 25 percent of their land base management by the Umpqua National Forest. Of the 72 subwatersheds, four (5 percent) were classified as Good, or Functioning Properly; 15 (21 percent) were classified as Fair, or Functioning at Risk and 53 (74 percent) were classified as Poor, or Impaired Function. Note these classifications only apply to the land within the subwatershed managed by the Umpqua National Forest.

Current road density on the Umpqua National Forest is approximately 3.3 miles of road per square mile of land. This figure is the same for designated roads on National Forest land and for all roads within subwatersheds that include non-National Forest System land (land and roads outside of the National Forest are included in the second calculation). The second road density area stated, all roads within subwatersheds that include non-National Forest System land, includes all of the roads that are part of this decision, along with roads documented on other National Forests, on BLM land, on private land and on National Forest System land, but have not been verified. These non-verified roads on National Forest System land were digitized from aerial photos and have not been field verified. These roads include old temporary roads, roads on private land within the National Forest boundary, and in some cases, linear

- 74 - Umpqua National Forest features misidentified as roads. This helps to identify the potential additional roads on the landscape beyond what is officially designated and, in turn, helps to inform the potential hydrologic impact of roads within each subwatershed.

Road densities by subwatershed ranged from 0 miles per square mile to 6.2 miles per square mile. This is a relatively high road density compared to National Forests across the country. As stated previously, the alternatives in this project would not change physical road density, rather only the amount of roads or area authorized as open to motorized travel (Table 35).

Comparison of Alternatives Table 27 shows the differences in mileage of routes open to motorized use within Riparian Reserve areas by alternative, as compared to the existing condition. Table 28 shows the differences in stream crossing by alternative, as compared to the existing condition. Table 29 shows the differences in mileage of routes open to motorized use that cross waterbodies, including wetlands, as compared to the existing condition.

Table 27. Comparison of Alternatives: Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use within Riparian Areas

Vehicle Type Miles Existing Condition/ Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Actual Use Highway legal vehicles only 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 Open to all vehicles 608 608 608 608 608 647 647 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads 50 0 0 0 0 12 12 available for all vehicle classes Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” or less in 107 157 98 0 99 48 48 width Trails open to all motor vehicles 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 Trails open to motorcycles 13 15 12 10 13 13 11 Total 946 948 886 786 888 888 886

- 75 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 28. Comparison of Alternatives: Streams Crossed by Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use (number of crossings)

Vehicle Type Number Existing Condition/ Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Actual Use Highway legal vehicles only 702 702 702 702 702 702 702 Open to all vehicles 4683 4686 4683 4683 4690 4994 4994 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads 373 0 0 0 0 79 79 available for all vehicle classes Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” or less in 722 1099 736 7 736 353 353 width Trails open to all motor vehicles 22 11 11 11 11 11 11 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 0 12 12 11 12 12 11 Trails open to motorcycles 48 52 42 37 47 47 42 Total 6550 6562 6186 5451 6198 6198 6192

Table 29. Comparison of Alternatives: Wetlands/Waterbodies Crossed by Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use (miles)

Vehicle Type Miles Existing Condition/ Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Actual Use Highway legal vehicles only 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Open to all vehicles 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Trails co-located on ML 1 roads 0.3 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 available for all vehicle classes Trails co-located on ML 1 roads available for vehicles 50” or less in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 width Trails open to all motor vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trails open to vehicles 50” or less 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trails open to motorcycles 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6

Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative represents the current management situation as defined by Forest Plan direction and activity/project planning documents (see Chapter 2). Consequently, current effects to the watershed and fisheries resources from the motorized route system would persist. These effects are described in general terms above. Site specific effects from individual routes or groups of routes do vary in magnitude and scope across the Forest and by alternative. Common watershed and landscape scale effects include: sediment influx into stream channels, altered succession of vegetation, migration barriers due to improperly designed road-stream crossings, water temperature increases, altered stream flow regimes, and reduced soil productivity.

- 76 - Umpqua National Forest

This alternative, as described in Chapter 2, is defined by current designated uses which include authorized use of maintenance level 1 (ML1) roads by Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) less than 50 inches wide and cross-country travel by OHVs up to full-size.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action This alternative (Proposed Action) was developed to meet the intent of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212). As such, the effects would result from changes, mostly reductions, to the existing motorized use across the Forest. One of the key benefits to watershed and fisheries resources under this alternative is the elimination of motorized cross-country travel on the Forest. This action should limit current and future expansion of unauthorized user-created routes, thus, potentially limiting degradation of high value aquatic habitats and furthering soil productivity restoration. This alternative would maintain an extensive system of motorized trails, including nearly all designated motorized trails in the existing condition and the designation of many miles of ML-1 roads as motorized trails. It would, however, reduce the amount of ML-1 roads open to motorized use by 9 miles, relative to the existing condition. These ML- 1 roads are closed in all action alternatives to address resource concerns (Table 30). Most of these closures are related to impassable stream crossings (fords) that involve direct delivery of sediment to the stream channel. Closing these roads would minimize sediment delivery potential from motorized vehicles driving through streams, though existing conditions could still direct sediment laden runoff from these closed roads into stream channels and affect fish and other aquatic biota. In the short-term, potential effects to aquatic biota from Alternative 2 are expected to occur at the stream crossing site scale and be minimal and of a short duration, such that fish and other aquatic organisms would likely re-distribute and resume natural habitat use within minutes of any alteration of sediment or other habitat feature. In the long-term, the road surface would become armored and vegetation would grow in the road bed of the closed roads, alleviating this sediment input. As these roads are passively restored, trees would provide additional shade and habitat complexity to stream channels. This would provide additional, unmeasurable reductions in solar inputs in the riparian reserve and associated stream temperatures. Increased stream habitat complexity would benefit fish and other aquatic biota.

Table 30. Roads Closed in All Action Alternatives Due to Resource Concerns

Existing Stream Conditions Subwatershed Road Surfacing Authorized Actual Use & Reason for Mileage Name Number Use Closure

Non-fish bearing; Impassable perennial 1610-410 Aggregate None stream crossing on 0.8

tributary to Three Cabin Creek

50 Inches 1610-436 Native 1.3 or Less 50 Inches or Impassable non-fish- Beaver Creek Less bearing perennial and intermittent 50 Inches 1610-438 Native stream crossings at 0.2 or Less 1610-436 on Devil’s Knob Creek and on non-fish bearing 50 Inches 1610-440 Native intermittent tributary 0.7 or Less to Pipestone Creek

1610-444 Native 50 Inches 0.3

- 77 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Existing Stream Conditions Subwatershed Road Surfacing Authorized Actual Use & Reason for Mileage Name Number Use Closure

or Less

Non-fish bearing spring in soft 3100-670 Native None roadbed that leads to 0.6 non-fish bearing perennial stream

Headwaters Little Rock hounding site; 2759-680 Aggregate None 0.4 River no stream crossings

Impassable ford of South Umpqua None; bank River; OC Coho and 2800-353 Native access Spring Chinook 1.7 feasible Skillet Creek- bearing South Umpqua

River Perennial non-fish 50 Inches or bearing tributary to 2800-354 Native None 0.9 Less the South Umpqua River No stream crossings; connected to 3230-200 Native None 0.2 impassable 3230- 800 Lower Elk Creek Impassable OC None; bank Coho bearing stream 3230-800 Native access 1.4 crossing at Callahan feasible Creek Non-fish bearing 50 Inches crossings; Squaw Creek 6800-950 Native 0.4 or Less Wilderness trail access conflict

Table 31. Roads closed in all action alternatives that cross OC Coho occupied and Critical Habitat

Existing Subwatershed Road Actual Surface Authorized Comments Mileage Name Number Use Use

50 Inches None; no Occupied crossing closed Calf Creek 4750-040 Native 0.2 or Less access Alt 2-6

None; Impassable ford of South Skillet Creek- 50 Inches bank Umpqua River; OC Coho South Umpqua 2800-353 Native 1.7 or Less access and Spring Chinook River feasible bearing; closed Alt 2-6 None; Impassable OC Coho 50 Inches bank bearing stream crossing at Lower Elk Creek 3230-800 Native 1.4 or Less access Callahan Creek; closed feasible Alt 2-6

- 78 - Umpqua National Forest

Table 32. Proposed changes1 in road use within one site potential tree height (180 feet) of OC Coho occupied and Critical Habitat, by Alternative

Exist- Min.

ing Proxim- Stream Actual Total Road# Surface Auth- ity to

Name Use Miles2

Alt. Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 orized Coho Alt. 1 Use (feet)3

South 2980- Motorcy ≤50”/ ≤50”/ Umpqua Native ≤50” 0.7 81 ≤50” ≤50” Closed ≤50” 990 -cle Mixed Mixed River Jackson 2925- Native ≤50” Mixed 0.3 149 ≤50” ≤50” Closed ≤50” Mixed Mixed Creek 037 Williams 4700- Aggre- ≤50” ≤50” 1.4 113 ≤50” ≤50” Closed ≤50” ≤50” ≤50” Creek 550 gate 1 Only roads with differences between the No Action and/or Actual Use condition and one or more Action Alternative scenarios are listed. 2 Total mileage of road; not the length of road segments within one site potential tree height of Coho. 3 Approximate distances based on GIS analysis.

Dispersed recreation is presently a common activity across the Forest under the existing condition that is likely to continue and is an activity that can result in detrimental impacts to adjacent aquatic habitats. These effects may include increased sediment influx into water bodies from bank damage and user- created crossings, reduced riparian plant composition and structure, and increased risk of aquatic nuisance species transfer and introduction. Each of these effects has the potential to reduce fisheries habitat condition, alter fish community structure, and lower soil productivity at the site scale. Overall, although there are still risks to aquatic resources, the risks of adverse consequences from Alternative 2 would be less than under the No Action Alternative, via the restriction of the potential for cross-country travel throughout the Forest to within 50 feet of a designated motorized route (Chapter 2; Table 16).

Alternative 2 would not designate ML 1 roads currently not being used for OHVs less than 50 inches or full size vehicles as open for motorized use. This would allow for continued long-term recovery of these roads (Table 27 almost 60 miles within riparian reserves). If these roads are not minimally utilized for administrative use they would continue to vegetate, which would result in reduced solar inputs into the riparian reserve and some, likely inconsequential, reductions in stream temperatures in the long term. By not designating these ML1 roads not currently being used, more than 300 road crossings would continue to have little to no motorized use, helping to limit direct sediment inputs and potentially allowing these crossings to grow back in and help further shade the stream. The reduction of open road miles involves not officially designating ML1 roads that travel through a small wetland complex. This closure is in all action alternatives (2-6).

Alternative 3 This alternative would substantially reduce OHV use as compared to Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6. In addition to the elimination of off-road motorized use common to all action alternatives, this alternative would greatly reduce the system of motorized trails. As a consequence, the risk of unintended adverse effects to aquatic resources would be greatly reduced and the likelihood of recovery through natural revegetation would be enhanced, as compared to all the other alternatives due to the substantial reduction of disturbance to soil and vegetation. Road and trail closures under this Alternative would minimize sediment delivery potential from motorized vehicles driving through streams, though existing conditions could still direct sediment laden runoff from these closed roads into stream channels and affect fish and other aquatic biota. Potential effects to aquatic biota from Alternative 3 are expected to occur at the

- 79 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment stream crossing site scale and be minimal and of a short duration, such that fish and other aquatic organisms would likely redistribute and resume natural habitat use within minutes of any alteration of sediment or other habitat feature. In the long term, road and trail surfaces would become armored and vegetation would grow in these areas, alleviating this sediment input. As these roads are passively restored, trees would provide additional shade to stream channels, which would provide additional, likely inconsequential reductions in solar inputs in the riparian reserve and associated stream temperatures. There would be approximately 730 fewer road-stream crossings open to motorized use and about 99 fewer miles of ML1 road open to motorized use within riparian areas (see Table 27). By subwatershed, most change in miles of road open to vehicles 50 inches or less status to closed to motorized vehicles status, within the riparian buffer, are relatively small (0.1 to 4.1 miles), but the Layng Creek subwatershed at the north end of the Umpqua National Forest would have 13.2 miles of ML1 road within riparian buffer areas closed to motorized vehicles (approximately 100 total stream crossings).

Table 33. Miles of ML1 Roads with Riparian Buffers (as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan) that are Closed to Motorized Use in Alternative 3 and the Number of Stream Crossings Impacted by the Change by Waterbody Type

Riparian area ML1 Road, Waterbody Type closed to Stream Crossing motorized use

Miles Number Perennial Stream - anadromous fish bearing or municipal drinking water 4 2

Perennial Stream - resident salmonid fish bearing 13 7

Perennial Stream - non-salmonid fish bearing 25 214

Intermittent Stream 52 508

Lake or Pond, Large 5

Total 99 732

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 reduces motorized access for dispersed camping compared to Alternative 1 to 300 feet or less off of open roads and beyond 300 feet at 26 sites by making user-created routes into ML2 roads. Relative to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 increase motorized access for dispersed camping within the 300-foot corridor at these 26 sites. Dispersed recreation is a common activity across the Forest that can result in detrimental impacts to adjacent aquatic habitats. To ensure that stream and aquatic biota are protected from impacts of dispersed recreation within the 300-foot and 50-foot corridors, motorized vehicles have a setback of 30 feet from all streams and waterbodies (Chapter 2 – Items common to all action alternatives). This road use reduction could lead to improvement of existing high quality fisheries habitat. However, limiting access for dispersed camping may, in some cases, increase use in sites that are located directly adjacent to fish bearing waters. This may have the effect of slightly increasing fine sediment input to stream or lake systems from bank damage and user-created crossings, reduced riparian plant composition and structure, and increased risk of aquatic nuisance species transfer and introduction (Gucinski et al. 2001). Due to the slight potential changes and scattered nature of dispersed sites across

- 80 - Umpqua National Forest the Forest, these increases would not be measureable relative to the background condition and otherwise inconsequential to fish and other aquatic biota.

A geospatial analysis of the 26 sites shows seven stream crossings on the Diamond Lake District. One crossing near Highway 138 and Windigo Road intersection is on a previously closed road section where the stream crossing culvert was left in place so there are currently no negative impacts to the stream or water quality. Another stream crossing is further south where the stream channel is a dry swale during most of the year and only flows during high intensity rainfall events. Use of the existing routes is not causing resource damage at the present time. Three of the crossings are on one stream where the user created route parallels an intermittent (usually dry) headwater channel very closely. The route may not actually cross the stream channel on the ground but the use would impact the local hydrology to a minor extent. The remaining crossings are also minor and would have minimal impacts on local hydrology and aquatic biotas.

The system snowmobile trails that would be added as full-size motorized trails includes 7 stream crossings (3 of the stream crossings are listed as perennial streams – Porcupine, Camp and an unnamed stream which flow into Diamond Lake). All of these crossings are around Diamond Lake and as such pose lower risks to hydrologic resources due to the high infiltration capacity of the area’s pumice soils. The four segments of motorized trail added are existing disturbances on the landscape and have resulted in minimal off-site hydrology impacts. This would not be a change from the existing condition on the landscape. Similarly, the Lemolo OHV open area currently exists and, due to soil and topography conditions, does not result in off-site impacts to the aquatic environment. On-site impacts are limited to localized soil displacement, but due to local pumice soils, the water infiltration of the area is, and is expected to continue to be, minimally impacted by vehicle compaction.

The benefits of reduced cross-country travel compared to the No Action Alternative, are not expected to occur at magnitudes where the effects are measurable when compared to the ongoing natural sediment production, and that which would continue to occur as a result of the remaining road and trail system. Road and trail closures under this Alternative would minimize sediment delivery potential from motorized vehicles driving through streams, though existing conditions could still direct sediment laden runoff from these closed roads into stream channels and affect fish and other aquatic biota. Potential effects to aquatic biota from Alternative 4 are expected to occur at the stream crossing site scale and be minimal and of a short duration, such that fish and other aquatic organisms would likely redistribute and resume natural habitat use within minutes of any alteration of sediment or other habitat feature. In the long term, road and trail surfaces would become armored and vegetation would grow in these areas, alleviating this sediment input. As these roads are passively restored, trees would provide additional shade to stream channels, which would provide additional, likely inconsequential reductions in solar inputs in the riparian reserve and associated stream temperatures.

Alternative 5 Although, cross-country vehicle use is currently restricted to that which avoids resource damage, it cannot be enforced until the damage has occurred and is identified. This approach would be reactive rather than proactive. To ensure that stream and aquatic biota are protected from impacts of dispersed recreation within the 300-foot and 50-foot corridors, motorized vehicles have a setback of 30 feet from all streams and waterbodies. This design feature is include in the alternatives where a 50-foot and 300-foot motorized vehicle use corridor is provided (Alternative 4, 5 and 6).

Some of the biggest differences between Alternative 5 and Alternative 4 are the change of the use levels on some ML1 roads. Some ML1 roads become designated as full-size use trails and others become ML2, open high-clearance roads. Additionally, the snowmobile trails added as full-size trails in Alternative 4

- 81 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment would be ML2 roads in Alternative 5. These changes in Alternative 5 result in an increase in allowable use and the same, or a slight increase in, existing use of these roads. These changes have the greatest potential for effects (increased potential for stream sedimentation, storm flow increases due to rutting and lack of road/trail maintenance, alterations to fish community structure, reduction in fisheries habitat condition) in riparian areas and at stream crossings (Table 34).

Table 34. Alternative 5: Additional ML 2, High Clearance Roads and Full-Size Trail - Miles in Riparian Areas and Stream Crossings Relative to Alternative 4

Riparian area

Open, high Waterbody Type Trail Full- Stream Crossing clearance size Road

Miles Miles Number Perennial Stream - anadromous fish bearing and/or municipal drinking water 1 0.1 1

Perennial Stream - resident salmonid fish bearing 4 2 4

Perennial Stream - non-salmonid fish bearing 12 3 125

Intermittent Stream 20 6 252

Lake or Pond, Large 1 0 1

Total 37 11 383

Stream crossings of ML2 roads, not in other alternatives, occur on fish-bearing, perennial streams at Forest Road 1745432 on Dinner Creek and several tributaries, Forest Road 1700421 on Prather Creek, Forest Road 1700480 on Layng Creek and at Forest Road 4776450 on Clearwater River.

Stream crossings of full-size trails, not in other alternatives, occur on fish-bearing, perennial streams at Forest Road 2300808 on Quartz Creek. Similar to Alternatives 2, Alternative 5 designates OHV 50 inches or less on most ML1 roads. Compared to Alternatives 2, there are fewer routes open to OHVs 50 inches or less as these routes are open as full-size trails or ML2 roads, open to all vehicles, in Alternative 5.

Potential effects to aquatic biota from Alternative 5 are expected to occur at the stream crossing site scale and be minimal and of a short duration, such that fish and other aquatic organisms would likely re- distribute and resume natural habitat use within minutes of any alteration of sediment or other habitat feature. Road and trail closures under this Alternative would minimize sediment delivery potential from motorized vehicles driving through streams, though existing conditions could still direct sediment laden runoff from these closed roads into stream channels and affect fish and other aquatic biota. In the long- term, road and trail surfaces would become armored and vegetation would grow in these areas, alleviating this sediment input. As these roads are passively restored, trees would provide additional shade to stream channels, which would provide additional, likely inconsequential reductions in solar inputs in the riparian reserve and associated stream temperatures.

- 82 - Umpqua National Forest

Alternative 6 The only change from Alternative 5 to Alternative 6 is the change in use of motorized trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas. Most of these trails are motorcycle trails along ridgetops where the impact on local hydrology and aquatic ecosystems is very minimal. One trail that would be closed to motorized use in Alternative 6 does cross an unnamed fish-bearing perennial stream at the outlet of Bullpup Lake, which contains brook trout – 1534 Bulldog Rock trail. The change in use from motorized to non-motorized may result in reduced sedimentation into this headwater stream.

Overall, Alternatives 5 and 6 are very similar in effects to the aquatic and hydrologic environment. Alternative 6 would result in an increase in allowable use and the same, or a slight increase in, existing use of some roads. These changes have the greatest potential for effects (increased potential for stream sedimentation, storm flow increases due to rutting and lack of road/trail maintenance, alterations to fish community structure, reduction in fisheries habitat condition) in some riparian areas and at some stream crossings (Table 32). Potential effects to some aquatic biota from Alternative 6 are expected to occur at the stream crossing site scale and be minimal and of a short duration, such that fish and other aquatic organisms would likely redistribute and resume natural habitat use within minutes of any alteration of sediment or other habitat feature. Road and trail closures under this alternative would minimize sediment delivery potential from motorized vehicles driving through streams, though existing conditions could still direct sediment laden runoff from these closed roads into stream channels and affect fish and other aquatic biota. In the long-term, road and trail surfaces would become armored and vegetation would grow in these areas, alleviating this sediment input. As these roads are passively restored, trees would provide additional shade to stream channels, which would provide additional, likely inconsequential reductions in solar inputs in the riparian reserve and associated stream temperatures.

Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would not incrementally add to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities to cause a cumulative effect to the sediment regime since no action would occur. Cumulative effects are bound spatially by hydrologic unit code 6 subwatersheds. The beginning temporal bounds include previous activities that still impact the hydrologic and aquatic environments (some impacts like roads can persist for decades while others may persist for only a few years, such as a low intensity controlled burn). These earlier activities are represented by the existing condition. The future temporal boundary for this analysis is based on the time for closed roads to passively restore hydrologically. Reasonably foreseeable activities (see beginning of Chapter 3 for list of activities) are considered below.

All of the action alternatives would result in, at most, minimal changes at the subwatershed and watershed scales, but changes at the larger (watershed, landscape) scales would likely be undetectable or difficult to quantify. Detrimental effects to aquatic biota habitat and communities from the motorized route network would either be reduced or maintained when compared to the current condition. Alternative 3 would eliminate off-road use and eliminate all OHV use on ML-1 roads, relative to the existing condition and other action alternatives, and may, as a consequence, have future unquantifiable beneficial effects through a reduction of site-specific sedimentation and erosion resulting in vegetative recovery. This may benefit fish and other aquatic biota by improving water quality and increasing in-channel recruitment of woody material and subsequent habitat cover.

The No Action alternative (Alternative 1) is expected to maintain existing water temperature regimes where no changes to existing public road and trail use occur. Fish and other aquatic biota would continue to be adversely affected by habitat impacts associated with existing public road and trail use. The potential adverse effects to fisheries resources and communities include localized increases in turbidity, decreases in vegetation and associated shade or bank stability, and potential increases in sediment loads in

- 83 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment streams. Potential positive effects to fisheries from implementation of all action alternatives could result indirectly from decreases in erosion and bank instability, and increases in vegetative cover (shade) from limiting cross-country travel and changing the conditions for motorized access for dispersed camping. Under Alternatives 2-6, the potential for turbidity, fine sediment bed load, and increases in stream temperature from the effects of motorized access is reduced when compared to the no action alternative, and would have a beneficial effect on these resources at the localized scale, especially in relation to motorized access for dispersed camping. Water temperatures may slightly decrease at a stream reach site scale under Alternatives 2 and 3 where public road and trail use is reduced, as area vegetation cover and associated shade increases over the long-term. Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 have slightly more negative effects on the aquatic environment, but overall the environmental impacts of the action alternatives would be very similar to each other. Fish and other aquatic biota would be affected by all action alternatives, but effects would vary among these alternatives, with differences in affected species occurring at the stream reach and road crossing site scale. Alternatives 5 and 6 are the only action alternatives that result in an increase in road density at the subwatershed scale. Note that closing roads to motorized vehicles in other alternatives do not physically remove any roads from the National Forest System. Alternatives 5 and 6 are unique in that they add existing trails (system and user-created) to the road system. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 also add short user created routes to the National Forest Road system to access dispersed campsites. The changes in system roads are seen in the road densities for Alternatives 4-6 in the Pumice Desert, Camp Creek-Diamond Lake, Lake Creek and Middle Clearwater River subwatersheds. Given the soil types and their relatively high infiltration capacity in these watersheds, there would be no to very minimal impacts to the area hydrology at the subwatershed scale. These impacts, combined with recently planned land management activities in these subwatersheds, would not result in measurable cumulative watershed effects at the subwatershed scale.

Table 35. Open Road Density in Subwatersheds that Change Across Alternatives. (Includes roads off National Forest System lands, roads managed by other jurisdictions and past roads systems that have a foot print remaining on the land). Northwest Forest Plan Key Watersheds designated with an asterisk (*).

Alternative Subwatershed Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Layng Creek 4.5 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 Brice Creek 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 Pumice Desert 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

Tolo Creek-North Umpqua 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 River Thirsty Creek 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 Lake Creek 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2

Lemolo Lake-North Umpqua 2.9 2.6 1.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 River Upper Clearwater River 2.1 2.1 0.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 Bear Creek 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 Middle Clearwater River 4.5 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lower Clearwater River 4.6 3.8 2.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 Upper Fish Creek 2.7 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 Rough Creek 3.4 3.0 1.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 Middle Fish Creek 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lower Fish Creek 3.8 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

- 84 - Umpqua National Forest

Alternative Subwatershed Name 1 2 3 4 5 6

Warm Springs Creek-North 3.6 3.2 1.8 3.2 3.2 3.2 Umpqua River Loafer Creek 3.7 3.2 1.9 3.2 3.2 3.2

Potter Creek-North Umpqua 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 River Deer Creek 3.6 3.3 2.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

Soda Springs Reservoir- 3.4 3.2 2.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 North Umpqua River Lower Canton Creek* 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8

Headwaters Steamboat 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 Creek* Upper Steamboat Creek* 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 Big Bend Creek* 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 Middle Steamboat Creek* 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 Steelhead Creek* 3.3 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 Lower Steamboat Creek* 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.9 Boulder Creek* 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Copeland Creek* 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.4

Deception Creek-North 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Umpqua River* Calf Creek* 2.8 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 Panther Creek 4.1 4.0 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0

Apple Creek-North Umpqua 3.1 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.1 River

Williams Creek-North 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 Umpqua River*

Thunder Creek-North 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 Unpqua River* Headwaters Little River 4.2 4.0 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 Black Creek 4.9 4.7 3.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 Upper Little River 5.1 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 Emile Creek 4.3 4.1 3.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 Middle Little River 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 Upper Cavitt Creek 5.0 4.6 3.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 Lower Cavitt Creek 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 Castle Rock Fork 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Black Rock Fork* 4.1 3.7 3.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 Quartz Creek* 3.4 3.0 2.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 Buckeye Creek* 4.7 4.3 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.3

- 85 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative Subwatershed Name 1 2 3 4 5 6

Skillet Creek-South 4.7 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 Umpqua River* Upper Jackson Creek* 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 Middle Jackson Creek* 4.0 3.8 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.8 Squaw Creek* 2.4 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 Beaver Creek* 4.7 4.3 3.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 Lower Jackson Creek* 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.9 Boulder Creek* 1.1 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dumont Creek* 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6

Ash Creek-South Umpqua 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.9 River*

Francis Creek-South 4.7 4.4 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 Umpqua River* Deadman Creek* 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.4

Dompier Creek-South 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 Umpqua River* Upper Elk Creek* 4.2 4.1 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 Middle Elk Creek* 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.7 Drew Creek* 4.2 4.1 3.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 Lower Elk Creek* 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.2

Corn Creek-South Umpqua 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 River* South Fork Cow Creek* 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 Dismal Creek-Cow Creek* 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 Upper Trail Creek 5.2 5.2 4.8 5.2 5.2 5.2

Under Alternative 1, the open road/trail system and cross-country travel combined with existing, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would continue to have effects on the timing and magnitude of runoff, stream flows, stream water temperatures, sedimentation and shallow subsurface hydrology. The existing road/trail system has resulted in faster times to peak flows in streams and higher peak flows over all through more efficient routing of runoff by extending the stream system on the hardened road/trail system. Some cross country use increases this impact on the landscape, but this is relatively limited currently. Timber harvest levels have dropped in the past twenty or so years so tree regrowth lowers base flows in the stream channel through increased transpiration.

Given the very minimal effect of each action alternative in respect to the no action alternative or existing condition, there are no measurable cumulative watershed effects. The action alternatives do not have the potential to result in any meaningful cumulative effects to water quality, stream flows, or the sediment regime that would affect sensitive fish or sensitive aquatic invertebrates. This is due to the lack of any substantial risk of direct or indirect effects associated with this project. The action alternatives would have

- 86 - Umpqua National Forest no meaningful or measurable elements (either adverse or beneficial) that would incrementally add to any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the affected 5th and 6th field watersheds.

Combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, Alternative 3 has the most positive environmental effects from a hydrology and aquatic biota perspective. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the most beneficial effects, as it removes motorized travel on all ML 1 roads, which no other action alternative proposes. Eliminating cross country travel and reducing the road network open to OHVs less than 50 inches would help to limit the impacts of road use on water quality in the short-term and stream flows, water quality and aquatic biota in the longer-term.

Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was designed to facilitate the protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems on lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which was signed in 1994. The strategy is intended to protect and provide direction for restoration of anadromous fish habitat in streams located on federal lands within the NWFP area, which is roughly the range of the northern spotted owl. It is assumed that implementation of the ACS provides protection for all aquatic species present on the Umpqua National Forest. The NWFP requires that projects demonstrate consistency with the nine ACS objectives.

The existing condition/environmental consequences portions of the aquatics and soils sections of this EA outline the important aspects of vegetative, soils, hydrology, and fisheries resources and large areas of potential impacts that are a result of either motorized access for dispersed camping or cross-country travel. The following section outlines a generalized description of the natural range of variability for important physical and biological components across the Forest. Broadly representative descriptions are generally taken from the Copeland-Calf Watershed Analysis (2001). It is assumed for this analysis that habitat conditions in the stream and stream access to its floodplain are largely independent of motorized access for dispersed camping or cross-country travel because most motorized access is limited to terraces above the stream channel and the actions that influence channel morphology and associated habitat use are larger in scale or scope than the access for a particular dispersed site.

This analysis will be used to describe expected conditions adjacent to the stream that could be impacted by this access. Dispersed sites across the Forest are predominantly located on inactive fluvial landforms adjacent to streams. These surfaces are those that have in the past been active surfaces, either as active floodplains or as active channels. For these purposes, they are defined as those surfaces outside the 15 year floodplain and are referred to here as terraces. Vegetation on these surfaces is predominately hardwood and/or mixed conifer with a grass and shrub understory.

Active channel surfaces (floodplain, channel, etc.) are currently more likely to be at vegetation potential in stable systems. Degraded systems may have similar vegetation types but the amount/volume may be compromised compared to undisturbed conditions. Vegetation on these surfaces in most cases maintains channel form and function and is independent of motorized access to dispersed sites and cross-country travel. Following are generalized descriptions of the sediment regime and the associated range of variability across the Forest:

Erosion and sediment flux appear to have a wide range of natural variability due to the random and episodic nature of natural disturbance regimes. There is much uncertainty in establishing a range of natural variability for erosion (sediment rates) under reference conditions. Return intervals (frequency) of natural disturbance regimes range from tens to hundreds of years. Intensive management practices conducted over the past 50 years are believed to have resulted in the delivery of more chronic levels of sediment into aquatic habitats, though current management practices are expected to be reducing

- 87 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment associated sediment inputs, thereby returning to a more natural cycle, overall. An exception to this trend is found in the mainstem North Umpqua River, where hydropower dam infrastructure is impeding instream sediment transport and storage at levels outside the range of natural variability, and is on a trend away from the natural range, downstream of Soda Springs Dam.

Surface erosion, characterized by rain splash and sheet wash, can occur along forest roads where vegetation is not well established or is absent, such as cut and fill slopes, road surfaces, and ditch lines. Surface erosion generally generates fine-textured sediment that may be delivered directly to stream channels via ditch lines, and in some instances by cross drains.

The road transportation network is an integral component influencing sediment generation within the Project area. Localized alteration (interception and diversion) of groundwater and surface flow patterns by roads affects hydrologic function and response. Native road surfaces, road cuts and fill slopes, and ditch lines represent potentially exposed surfaces that are subject to surface erosion mechanisms. Subsurface flow may be partially intercepted along road cuts and transferred to more rapid runoff via ditch lines. Ditch lines that feed directly into streams act as extensions of stream networks. Ditch lines may transport and deliver fine sediment, as well as intercepted ground and surface water, directly into stream channels. In the absence of long term monitoring data regarding magnitude and duration of ditch line flow, hydrologic effects to stream channels cannot be quantified.

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no change to consistency with the nine ACS objectives relative to the existing condition. Under all the Action alternatives, there would be an elimination of off- road motorized use and a small reduction in ML1 road miles open to OHVs 50 inches or less. Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in area and miles of road and trail open to motorized use. Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 would result in a reduction in area open to cross-country use with an increasing mileage and corridor area open to motorized use (Table 15 and Table 16). The consistency of the Action alternatives with the nine ACS objectives is discussed below.

Objective 1--Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape- scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted.

All action alternatives would utilize existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites, and eliminate off-road use, therefore; the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features would be maintained. This project would not affect landscape-scale features in any alternative in this project due to the site specificity of the access to dispersed sites and access confined to designated routes.

Objective 2--Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life-history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

Since all action alternatives would utilize existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites and reduce off-road use, the spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds would be maintained. The physical nature of existing movement corridors would remain unchanged. Reductions in off-road use would not adversely affect those aquatic network connections that include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia, since areas that would have potential for habitat degradation are precluded from the proposed authorized access sites.

- 88 - Umpqua National Forest

Objective 3 --Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Roads within Riparian Reserves are contributing, or have the potential to contribute, sediment to streams and increase erosional energy within the aquatic system. While all action alternatives would reduce areas where off road use would be allowed, Alternative 3 provides for the most overall reduction in motorized use, resulting in less potential for adverse Riparian Reserve impacts. There is the potential for some restoration of the physical integrity of the aquatic system under Alternatives 2 and 3, due to the reduction of the occasional damage that occurs from current off road uses. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 are slightly less restorative than 2 and 3 but still meet this objective.

Objective 4--Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

The action alternatives would reduce areas where off road use would be allowed resulting in a reduction in the potential for damage from use and potential for increased sedimentation, turbidity and other pollutants. There is the potential for some restoration of water quality, which is necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems due to the reduction of the occasional damage that occurs from current off-road uses. Use of OHVs on open roads and existing sites would have no additional adverse effect on water quality under any action alternative.

Objective 5--Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

The action alternatives would use existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites. The elimination of motorized OHV use on several hundred miles of ML-1 roads and reducing off-road use in Alternative 3 would be the most beneficial to the sediment regime. Alternative 3 provides for the largest reduction in motorized use and as a consequence would have the least number of stream crossings which can result in management- related sediment delivery to streams. All action alternatives would maintain the sediment regime that currently exists and would meet this objective.

Objective 6--Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

All action alternatives would utilize existing roads, trails, and dispersed sites. As such there would be no changes in riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats or wood routing. Minimal changes in road use levels between alternatives would result in minor, likely immeasurable, changes in nutrient and sediment routing. Timing, duration and distribution of peak, high and low flows would not be impacted by changes in road use, as the road prisms would remain on the landscape. As unused roads grow over, the effects to stream flow, especially peak flows would subtly attenuate.

Objective 7--Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Floodplain inundation and water table elevation would not be influenced by any of the proposed alternatives, where access would be limited to existing sites, due to the small scale of the project. Wetland

- 89 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment habitat conditions would be protected under all action alternatives because they do not officially designate ML1 roads that travel through a small wetland complex.

Objective 8--Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

The no action alternative/existing condition would not contribute to the accomplishment of this objective, as cross-country travel would continue to occur, which will have impacts on native vegetation in some riparian and wetland areas. Small changes on the ground may occur under any of the action alternatives, so overall, the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands in those areas would be maintained and potentially improved. None of the action alternatives would likely have any quantifiable effect on summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, channel migration, and amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris, sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Objective 9--Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Implementation of any alternative would result in negligible effects to aquatic biota and habitat across the Forest. In general, the actions included within the alternatives are related to changes in use designation on various routes across the Forest. Adverse impacts to aquatic biota and habitats related to the existing road system would continue to occur regardless of the alternative selected. These impacts include sedimentation, alteration of runoff, fragmentation of aquatic habitats, and increased risk of chemical pollution (Gucinski et al. 2001, Trombulak and Frissell 2000).

As an overall conclusion, the effects associated with all alternatives, either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively are not likely to retard or prevent attainment of either the Aquatic Conservation Strategy or the nine ACS objectives, at the site, watershed, or landscape scales.

Determination of Effects - Fisheries

Essential Fish Habitat Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook and Coho salmon has been designated on the Forest. Alternative 1 and the existing condition would result in continued baseline fluctuations in the sediment regime and vegetation and shade density and distribution in many riparian areas. Based upon the proximity of Essential Fish Habitat to existing roads (Table 32) and that no new ground-disturbing activities would occur under Alternative 1, these ongoing conditions do not have the potential to result in changes to water quality, stream flows, succession of vegetation, or the baseline sediment regime that would adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook and Coho salmon. Therefore, the existing condition and Alternative 1 would have no adverse effect to Essential Fish Habitat.

Under all administrative action alternatives (2-6), there may be a decrease in localized turbidity and fine sediment in some stream channels, and increases in vegetative cover, as a result of actions involving a reduction in motorized access. Proposed administrative actions that authorize an increase in motorized access could result in minor increases in turbidity and potentially some decreases in shading of localized areas, and changes in riparian vegetation conditions from motorized access for dispersed camping and cross-country travel. Based upon the proximity of Essential Fish Habitat to existing roads (Table 32), these potential changes do not have the potential to result in changes to water quality, stream flows, succession of vegetation, or the baseline sediment regime that would adversely affect Essential Fish

- 90 - Umpqua National Forest

Habitat for Chinook and Coho salmon. As a result of this analysis, for Alternatives 2 through 6, there has been a finding of no adverse effect to Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook and Coho salmon in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Public Law 94-265.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat This biological evaluation has been prepared to document possible effects of proposed activities on threatened and endangered species in the project area. There are no endangered aquatic species known or suspected to occur on the Forest. Coho salmon and Oregon chub are the only threatened aquatic species known or suspected to occur on the Forest. Critical Habitat has been designated for Coho salmon and Oregon chub on the Forest to protect areas essential to the conservation of the species and includes all occupied habitat in addition to small stream and floodplain segments beyond occupied habitat. The Oregon chub occupies one small pond on the Cottage Grove Ranger District that is isolated from the transportation system. As such, all project Alternatives would have no effect upon this species or its designated Critical Habitat due to the very limited range of this species on the Forest.

The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (as developed by National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service), which is designed to summarize important environmental parameters and levels of condition of habitat for ESA listed species, includes a variety of habitat attributes that could be affected by federal actions. While it is difficult to measure specific effects due to the scattered nature of the dispersed sites and erosional areas, if no federal action is taken (existing condition and Alternative 1), there would be continued baseline fluctuations in the sediment regime and vegetation and shade density and distribution in riparian areas. Since the No Action Alternative and existing condition would not constitute a federal action, for Coho salmon and Oregon chub under this alternative, there is no federal action upon which to base a determination of the effect on individuals or their habitats under the ESA. Effects and trends of effects of the existing condition are described in the No Action Alternative/Existing Condition section, which serves as a baseline for comparison with the action alternatives.

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) are those physical and biological features necessary in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of a species and these may require special management considerations and protection. PCEs of overall habitat include but are not limited to (50 CFR Part 17 p. 20):

 Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior  Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements  Cover or shelter  Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring  Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species Specific PCEs common to Oregon coast Coho salmon, N.A. Green sturgeon, and Oregon chub include but are not limited to:  An abundant food base  A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph.  Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth and survival are not inhibited.

- 91 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Specific PCEs common to Oregon coast Coho salmon and N.A. Green sturgeon include but are not limited to:  Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, and freshwater and estuarine foraging habitats  Complex aquatic environments and processes with features such as pools and a range of substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. In some streams, under all administrative action alternatives (2-6), turbidity, shade/water temperature, vegetation cover/structure, and fine sediment could be affected by an increase and/or decrease in vehicular use. These effects are based on an overall decrease in the acres across the Forest available for cross-country travel, and a decrease in size of the dispersed sites in riparian areas adjacent to water bodies. This could decrease erosion from motorized use, decrease areas with bank instability, and increase riparian plant and shrub cover as motorized use decreases, thereby decreasing the potential for disturbance or direct mortality of some aquatic species suspected at potentially affected stream sites, including Oregon Coast Steelhead trout, Umpqua chub, Rotund Lanx, Namamyia plutonis caddisfly, and Western Ridged Mussel. There is the possibility of increased use under Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 as a result of changing authorized vehicular use and/or limiting the extent of dispersed camping to existing, defined, or designated sites. As a result, turbidity, fine sediment, and loss of shade and vegetation cover/structure could increase at some sites, but this increase would likely be unmeasurable relative to the background condition and otherwise inconsequential to fish and other aquatic biota.

In Coho bearing streams, there is no potential of Alternatives 2 through 6, based upon the proximity of Coho Listed Fish Habitat to proposed project roads (Table 29), to result in changes to water quality, stream flows, succession of vegetation, or the baseline sediment regime that would adversely affect Listed Fish Habitat for Coho salmon. Specifically, Coho rearing, migrating, and spawning site selection in locations identified above (see Table 30, Table 31 and Table 32); would not be affected by the administrative action alternatives 2 through 6. Therefore, Alternatives 2 through 6 would have no effect upon Oregon Coast Coho salmon and its designated Critical Habitat; and would have a beneficial impact for Oregon Coast Steelhead trout, Umpqua chub, Rotund Lanx, Namamyia plutonis caddisfly, and Western Ridged Mussel (USFWS and NMFS Consultation Handbook – March 1998).

Table 36. Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Aquatic Species Species/Habitat No Action Alternative (1) Action Alternatives (2–6) Oregon Coast Coho salmon No Effect (NE) No Effect (NE) (Threatened) OC Coho salmon Designated Critical No Effect (NE) No Effect (NE) Habitat North American Green sturgeon No Effect (NE) No Effect (NE) (Threatened) North American Green sturgeon No Effect (NE) No Effect (NE) Designated Critical Habitat

Oregon chub (Threatened) No Effect (NE) No Effect (NE)

Oregon chub No Effect (NE) No Effect (NE) Designated Critical Habitat

Oregon Coast steelhead (sensitive) Beneficial Impact (BI) Beneficial Impact (BI)

Umpqua chub (sensitive) Beneficial Impact (BI) Beneficial Impact (BI)

- 92 - Umpqua National Forest

Species/Habitat No Action Alternative (1) Action Alternatives (2–6) Pacific Coast chum salmon No Impact (NI) No Impact (NI) (sensitive) Rotund Lanx (sensitive) Beneficial Impact (BI) Beneficial Impact (BI)

Western Ridged Mussel (sensitive) Beneficial Impact (BI) Beneficial Impact (BI) Namamyia plutonis caddisfly Beneficial Impact (BI) Beneficial Impact (BI) (sensitive)

Wildlife Resources

Biological Evaluation The following is a summary of the Biological Evaluation (BE) and Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Interest analysis prepared for this project. The complete BE prepared by the Forest Wildlife Biologist is part of the project record and is incorporated by reference.

The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.4) requires a biological evaluation to determine potential effects of proposed ground-disturbing activities on sensitive species. This evaluation analyzes the proposed action and the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area and on the species as a whole, and makes recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for adverse effects. It must include: (1) sensitive species that may be present; (2) identification of occupied and unoccupied habitat; (3) an analysis of the effects of the proposed action on the species or its habitat; (4) a discussion of cumulative effects; (5) a determination of no impact, beneficial impact, or may impact; and, (6) recommendations for avoiding or mitigating any adverse impacts if needed.

This includes direct, indirect and cumulative effects or impacts to all terrestrial species and habitats covered in this document. This section covers the effects to species listed under the Endangered Species Act, species identified by the Regional Forester as “Sensitive”; species identified by the Umpqua National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990) as Management Indicator Species (MIS); species identified as Survey and Manage species as part of the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision; and landbirds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

This analysis and biological evaluation addresses the no action alternative (Alternative 1) and all five action alternatives (Alternatives 2-6) for the Umpqua National Forest Travel Management Plan and their effects on sensitive wildlife species, including federally listed species and designated critical habitat. This Biological Evaluation is incorporated into the documentation of the Environmental Assessment (EA), specifically Chapter 3. There is one species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act, 32 Regional Forester sensitive species (2011), seven MIS and one MIS guild identified in the Umpqua National Forest LRMP (1990), and 31 birds of conservation concern (identified by the USFWS in 2008) and 25 focal species landbirds (identified by Partners in Flight, Altman and Alexander 2012) discussed within this evaluation.

- 93 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 37. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act Common Legal Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Northern Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Mature, old growth mixed conifer forests Spotted Owl

Table 38. Characteristics Making a Species Vulnerable to Road Effects (from Forsman et al. 2003) Main Effects of Roads Characteristics making a Species Vulnerable to Road Effects Road Habitat Reduced Mortality Loss Connectivity Attraction to Road Habitat X High Intrinsic Mobility X Habitat Generalist X Multiple Resource Needs X X Low Density/Large Area Requirement X X X Low Reproductive Rate X X X Forest Interior Species X X Behavioral Avoidance of Roads X X

Table 39. Regional Forester Sensitive Species as of 12/09/2011 for the Umpqua National Forest Birds Common Name Scientific Name Habitat American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Forest, Nests on Cliffs Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Lakes, Rivers Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest, Nests Behind Waterfalls Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Lakes, Ponds Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Rivers Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Lakes, Ponds Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Ponderosa pine forests Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Mature, old growth mixed conifer forests Purple Martin Progne subis Open areas adjacent to forest edges Red-Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Lakes, Ponds White-Headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Ponderosa pine forests, burned habitats Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Wetlands on edges of lakes, ponds Mammals Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Fisher Martes pennanti Forests, woodlands Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes Drier grasslands, forests, woodlands North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus High elevation talus slopes, wide ranging Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Grasslands, Forests, Caves Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Caves, Forests

- 94 - Umpqua National Forest

Amphibians and Reptiles Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii Low gradient streams Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa Streams, marshes Pacific Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata Ponds, lakes Invertebrates Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Vanduzeeina borealis California Shield-Backed Bug High elevation grassland meadows californica Cascades Axetail Slug Carinacauda stormi Moist Western Red cedar forest habitat Chace Sideband Monadenia chaceana Rock outcrops, talus slopes Coronis Fritillary Speyeria coronis coronis Meadow, grassland habitats Crater Lake Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris Wet edges of higher elevation streams, seeps Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium Wet meadows in forested areas Plebejus podarce Gray-Blue Butterfly High elevation meadows klamathensis Johnson's Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Mature forests with western hemlock mistletoe Mardon Skipper Polites mardon Mid elevation grasslands adjacent to water Oregon Shoulderband Helminthoglypta hertleini Rocks and downed wood in Forests Rotund Lanx Lanx subrotunda Rivers, large streams Siskiyou Short-Horned Chloealtis aspasma Meadow, grassland habitats Grasshopper

Table 40. Umpqua National Forest Management Indicator Species

Species Habitat Indicator

Northern Spotted Owl Mature/Old Growth Habitat Blacktail Deer and Roosevelt Elk Big Game Winter Range Bald Eagle None/Special Management Peregrine Falcon None/Special Management Pileated Woodpeckers Mature/Old Growth Habitat

Pine Marten High elevation mountain hemlock/lodgepole pine

Primary Cavity Excavators Pileated Woodpecker Acorn Woodpecker Lewis Woodpecker Snag Habitat Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker Wouldiamson Sapsucker Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker

- 95 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment The Umpqua National Forest is a recreation destination in southern Oregon as it bounds the State’s only national park to the south (Crater Lake National Park), and is home to some of the finest fly fishing habitat in the Pacific Northwest, as well as big game hunting opportunities, kayaking, and some off- highway vehicle use. The main effects of roads are direct effects causing wildlife mortality, direct and indirect effects as result of loss of habitat, reduced habitat connectivity and disturbance associated with traffic along roads. Species that are attracted to openings or edge habitats, or species that prey upon species that are attracted to roadside habitats are more susceptible to being killed by motor vehicles. However, not all wildlife interactions with roads are necessarily negative as some species utilize existing roads for dispersal/migration, forage opportunities, or for the unique microhabitats created by roads. For the sake of this analysis, motorized trails have been included to have the same impacts of forest roads in that the rate of speed and noise of vehicles are similar to that of vehicles traveling along forest roads, and from a disturbance perspective function similarly.

Consistency with the Umpqua’s 1990 LRMP The Umpqua’s LRMP (1990) addresses impacts to roads and wildlife through the application of seasonal restrictions, primarily for Peregrine Falcons (Prescription C3-1), Big Game (elk and black-tailed deer, Prescriptions C4-1, 2 and 3). Seasonal restrictions for big game winter range would be enforced in all action alternatives. Further discussion of big game impacts is disclosed in the MIS section. Seasonal restrictions for peregrine falcon sites on the Forest have been developed at a site specific scale and are addressed in the peregrine falcon section. There are no Standards and Guidelines in the wildlife section of the Umpqua LRMP. There are no new roads or new trails being proposed for construction as part of any alternative, therefore all alternatives are consistent with the Umpqua’s LRMP guidance on wildlife and roads (1990).

Scientific Literature on the Impacts of Roads There is a wealth of scientific literature on the effects of roads and vehicular traffic on wildlife and this section includes a brief overview of generalized effects of roads. More site specific/species specific impacts are discussed in the individual species analysis section. While the purpose of this project is to designate a system of routes open to motor vehicle use and prohibit use off that system, the ecological implications of different densities of road networks as described in the action alternatives would have direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The major sources of scientific information on the impacts of roads on wildlife mortality and roads used were books and papers that provided literature syntheses of generalized impacts of roads and OHV travel on wildlife and their habitats in Forman et al. (2003), Gaines et al. (2003), Ouren et al. (2007), Fahrig and Ritwinski (2009) and Bennett et al. (2011).

As described in Table 38, the three main adverse effects of roads on wildlife are direct mortality, habitat loss, and reduced connectivity (landscape permeability and habitat fragmentation). Additionally disturbance associated with the traffic that occurs on roads is the main indirect effect that affects wildlife. Conversely, some species benefit from the presence of roads in that roadsides provide habitat in the form of food sources or dispersal mechanisms. A general discussion of the adverse and beneficial impacts will follow.

Direct Effects-Mortality Direct mortality resulting from animals attempting to cross roads varies based upon travel speed, road prism visibility, and traffic volume. All of the animals considered within this analysis are susceptible to direct mortality from being struck by vehicles. The majority of studies involving wildlife mortalities relating to roads involve travel along paved roads at higher rates of speed and higher volumes of traffic.

- 96 - Umpqua National Forest

Decreased traffic speed does not limit mortality on smaller species like terrestrial mollusks, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles as often times drivers do not see these small animals. All of the taxa considered, invertebrates, mammals, bird, reptiles and amphibians can be susceptible to direct mortality from roads (see Gaines et al (2007), Ouren et al. (2007), and Bennet et al. (2011) among others). The majority of the roads managed by the Umpqua are non-paved roads with travel speeds in the 20-30 mph range. As the rate of travel is reduced, the risk of direct mortality is reduced, but the relatively short sight distance associated with closed canopy, windy forest roads do provide opportunities for wildlife-vehicle collisions. Species with low reproductivity rates are more susceptible to impacts associated with road mortality in that individuals, in particular females, if killed can have a negative impact on population levels on the forest (of particular note are species like wolverines with large home ranges and low reproductive rates).

Indirect Effects-Habitat Loss No new roadbeds are being proposed to be developed as part of any of the action alternatives, and all action alternatives would eliminate cross-country travel. The amount of reduction in habitat loss due to the closure of cross-country vehicle travel is extremely difficult, if not impossible to accurately quantify as the majority of the Umpqua consists of relatively steep, closed canopy forest with live tree and downed wood densities that prevent cross-country travel from being feasible for all types of vehicles.

Indirect Effects-Landscape Permeability and Fragmentation Landscape permeability refers to the degree to which wildlife individuals are able to move across a landscape (Bennett et al. 2011). Roads and especially high densities of roads decrease or make movement amongst habitat patches more difficult for a variety of wildlife species. High volume, high speed roads like highways are more impermeable than lower volume, lower speed roads, but even native surface or gravel roads, especially at high densities can slow down or impede individual animals’ dispersal between habitats. These impacts are magnified for species with lower mobility like terrestrial mollusks, amphibians and some reptiles (Ouren et al. 2007, Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). Other species, particularly avian cavity dependent species are adversely impacted by the reduction of snag habitat by a combination of wind throw associated with roadsides and roadside clearing and maintenance (Gaines et al. 2003).

Habitat fragmentation refers to the changes in habitat configuration that result in the reduction of patch size and associated loss of suitability of habitat adjacent to the mechanism causing fragmentation, which in this case is roads and mechanized trails. While current condition assumes cross-country travel is open in all areas with the exception of wilderness areas, as discussed earlier, this is infeasible across much of the forest. The more roaded an area, the more fragmented the habitat in that area is. While roads themselves fragment habitat, additional impacts associated with roads increase this fragmentation. Roads are pathways for invasive species (as discussed later in this document) which can alter habitat function; they can facilitate easier movement of predators and hunters which can increase mortality of wildlife species, increase habitat edge; decrease snag and downed wood abundance; and increase disturbance (Forman et al. 2003, Gaines et al. 2003, Ouren et al. 2007, Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009, Bennett et al. 2011 among others). All of these mechanisms can reduce the amount of total suitable habitat, impact localized metapopulation dynamics of species that view roads as barriers or impediments to movement which can lead to reduced genetic diversity or localized extirpation.

Some species benefit from increased fragmentation. Some rodent populations can increase adjacent to roadsides due to increased disturbance and solar penetration which can promote more grass/shrub habitat for food. Other habitat generalists utilize roadsides for dispersal, food sources (both vegetation responding to increased solar penetration as well as increased carrion associated with road kill) Bennett et al. 2011. The increased habitat suitability of roadsides can serve as ecological traps in that increased use

- 97 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment of roadside habitats, especially adjacent to roadsides where the travel speeds are higher, increase the risk of mortality associated with vehicular collisions.

Indirect Effects-Disturbance Roads and motorized trails cause disturbance that can extend well beyond the area of the road footprint through increased noise from vehicular traffic (Forsman et al. 2003, Gaines et al. 2003, and Ouren et al. 2007, among others). This can lead to avoidance of varying distances based upon the species of wildlife. Several studies have documented the avoidance of areas adjacent to roads in bird species, ungulates, carnivores and amphibians, and noise disturbance is a factor in this avoidance. Birds have been documented to be more sensitive to noise disturbance than other taxa groups, especially during the breeding season (Kaseloo 2006). Avoidance increases along highways or more heavily traveled roads when compared to low speed, low traffic forest roads, but even forest roads have been documented to be areas of avoidance in ungulate, carnivore, amphibian and avian species (Gaines et al. 2003). OHV’s can be even louder than passenger car traffic with volumes up to 110 decibels (Ourens et al. 2007), and avoidance of motorized trails has been documented in a variety of ungulate, reptile and avian species (Gaines et al. 2003, Ourens et al. 2007). Disturbance associated with road noise has been measured to accelerated heart rate and metabolic function as a result of noise disturbance (Ourens et al. 2007). The distance at which the disturbance effects of vehicular traffic varies by taxa group and varies by traffic density and rate of travel.

Threatened and Endangered

Northern Spotted Owl The northern spotted owl is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Its recovery plan was revised in 2011 and its critical habitat re-designated in 2012. The Umpqua NF consists of 53% (or 504,419 acres) of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat (NRF) habitat and contains 90% (or 890,302 acres) of lands capable of developing into NRF habitat. None of the alternatives including the no action alternative would result in the loss of any NRF, dispersal or capable habitat as none of the alternatives involve habitat removal or downgrading; therefore there are no direct effects. The effects of all alternatives are therefore limited to indirect effects in the form of disturbance and habitat degradation associated with hazard tree removal.

In 2009 the Umpqua National Forest consulted with the USFWS on the effects of ongoing activities that may cause disturbance to northern spotted owls (USFWS 2009). For this consultation, the USFWS recommended using a distance of 60m for noise disturbance for a variety of activities as the basis for seasonal restrictions. They did not recommend any seasonal restrictions for regular vehicle or OHV travel along roads, and neither the Umpqua LRMP (1990) or NWFP (1994) recommends seasonal restrictions for vehicle travel on roads within owl habitat or adjacent to 100 acre owl cores. To compare alternatives, the 60m disturbance buffer was applied to all roads or motorized trails proposed to be open for travel across all six alternatives. A comparison of the acres within this 60m disturbance buffer, the number of 100 acre NWFP owl cores within the 60m buffer, as well as the acres of the Umpqua NF where cross- country travel beyond the 60m buffer are displayed in Table 41.

- 98 - Umpqua National Forest

Table 41. Potential Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owl Disturbance within 60m of Roads & Trails

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

Acres of Disturbance within 60m of Road or Motorized Trail 215,596 199,685 161,707 200,127 200,127 198,665 Number of NWFP Owl Cores within 60m Buffer 258 247 225 247 247 247 Acres of NRF within 60m of Road or Motorized Trail 89,474 83,174 68,831 83,212 83,212 82,646 Acres Where Cross-Country Travel is Prohibited beyond 60m Dispersal Distance 113,786* (11%) 792,651 (80%) 830,629 (84%) 792,209 (80%) 792,209 (80%) 793,671 (80%) *This acreage was calculated by removing the 60m road buffer from the areas where cross-country motorized travel was prohibited by the Umpqua LRMP (1990) which includes management areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 and parts of the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area.

All of the action alternatives would result in a reduction of potential disturbance when compared to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1, Table 41). The acres without cross-country travel beyond 60m in Alternative 1 is likely understated due to the infeasibility of cross-country travel in most parts of the Forest. In regards to the metrics compared in Table 41, Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 all have more or less the same effects in regards to disturbance to owls, with Alternatives 4 and 5 having slightly more effects than Alternatives 2 and 6 in all factors described in Table 41, but the difference is minor. Alternative 3 has the least disturbance of any action alternative

Consistency with the 2011 Recovery Plan All alternatives are consistent with the 2011 recovery plan in that no habitat altering activities are being proposed with any alternative. All alternatives are consistent with the plan’s recovery goal, recovery objective and all 33 recovery actions.

Critical Habitat The final rule for the revised northern spotted owl critical habitat was implemented on January 3rd, 2013. The Umpqua NF contains two different recovery units, the Western Cascades South and Klamath East, of which the Umpqua contains two sub units, Western Cascades South sub unit 5 (WCS-5) and Klamath East sub unit 1(KLE-1). As stated earlier, there are no habitat altering activities proposed as part of any alternative, so none of the primary consituent elements would be impacted by any of the alternatives. All alternatives would maintain the same amount of NRF habitat in each sub unit displayed in Table 42.

- 99 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 42. 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Sub Units on the Umpqua National Forest

Sub Unit Total Acres Acres NRF Percent NRF KLE 1 243,244 138,446 57% WCS 5 353,393 216,178 61%

Determination of Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl There is no habitat removal proposed as part of any alternative. Alternative 1 would have “no effect” to the northern spotted owl as this is the current condition. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the northern spotted owl due to the indirect effect associated with roadside hazard tree removal (loss of important structural habitat characteristics as snags, large trees, down wood and cavities) from general road maintenance, with the designation of camping corridors and in Alternatives 5 and 6 which increase the amount of ML 2 roads which are maintained at a higher standard. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least adverse effects as it removes motorized travel on all ML 1 roads, which no other action alternative proposes. Additional indirect impacts to NSO’s from this project are: 1) A reduction in abundance of prey species and their habitat if they are utilizing the hazard tree when felled. Generally this would result in an insignificant impact to the NSO. There are potential circumstances when this may not be true. Felling of an occupied communal flying squirrel den (average occupancy is from 4 to 10 squirrels) in winter may result in localized impacts to NSO available prey which may directly influence their ability to successfully reproduce. 2) Loss of NSO nests trees or a potential nest trees. 3) Felling of a hazard tree that is occupied by a NSO or their active nest. When possible, felling of these hazard trees would be done outside of the March 1 through September 31 reproductive season. However, it is foreseeable that in some instances public safety would necessitate felling during the primary reproductive season. For a more complete impact discussion please refer the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion for this project.

Management activities may also have an effect on nesting spotted owls resulting from disturbance. If these activities are above ambient noise levels and are reoccurring and frequent, or of long duration, they may alter breeding and reproductive activities. Disturbance activities within 60 meters of NSO owl cores or suitable, unsurveyed NRF habitat conducted between March 1 and July 15 may cause effects likely to adversely affect the NSO. By July 15th the vast majority of the young NSOs have left the nest and are mobile enough to follow their parents to forested stands outside the area of disturbance. Presuming that fledglings have the ability to distance themselves from perceived threats, disturbance activities conducted from July 16 to September 30 may result in effects that are not likely to adversely affect owls. Activities conducted after September 30th but prior to March 1 are not anticipated to result in disturbance of NSOs. Indirect disturbance impact associated with road use and camping activities has been addressed in earlier consultation USFWS 2009 Disturbance Programmatic.

Determination of Effects to 2012 Critical Habitat The primary constituent elements (PCE’s) for 2012 critical habitat are nesting and roosting habitat, foraging habitat and dispersal habitat. Snags are elements of each of these PCE’s the indirect impacts associated with roadside hazard tree removal from general road maintenance, with the designation of camping corridors and in Alternatives 5 and 6 which increase the amount of ML 2 roads which are maintained at a higher standard would be “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” 2012 critical habitat as a result of implementing any of the alternatives. For a more complete impact discussion please refer the Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion for this project.

- 100 - Umpqua National Forest

Sensitive Species The sensitive species discussion lumps effects analysis to taxa by functional groups: birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and invertebrates.

Sensitive Birds Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would have “no impact” to all 12 sensitive bird species as this reflects the current condition for disturbance effects and seasonal restrictions for travel within the primary flight zone of the 17 peregrine falcon eyries on the Umpqua National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would result in “beneficial impacts” to the Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Black Swift, Bufflehead, Harlequin Duck, Horned Grebe, Red-Necked Grebe and Yellow Rail as a result of the reduction in disturbance to these species habitat from the prohibition on cross-country travel.

For the Purple Martin, Lewis’s and White-headed woodpeckers, all action alternatives “may impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Umpqua NF, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Lewis’s and White-headed woodpeckers in that these alternatives all have the same or higher amounts of ML 2 or higher roads, as well as camping and parking corridors. Of these five action alternatives, Alternatives 5 and 6 would have the most impact in that it would increase the miles of ML 2 or higher roads by 326 miles when compared to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. ML 2 and higher roads are maintained to a higher standard which may result in increased loss of snag habitat when compared to Alternatives 3 and 4.

Sensitive Mammals The wolverine is proposed to be listed as threatened under the ESA, and is also a Regional Forester Sensitive species on the Umpqua National Forest. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative would have “no impact” to the fisher, wolverine, fringed myotis, pallid bat or Townsend’s big eared bat as this reflects the current condition.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would result in “beneficial impacts” to the fisher and wolverine in that they would reduce disturbance by limiting off road travel to existing disturbance. Of these alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the most beneficial impact in that it reduces motorized travel the most out of all action alternatives, thus reducing disturbance more than any other action alternative.

For the three bat species, the fringed myotis, pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat, all action alternatives “may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Umpqua NF, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” in that these alternatives contain parking and or camping corridors which may be maintained for safety purposes resulting in a potential decrease in snag habitat over time. Of these action alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the most impact in that it would increase the miles of ML 2 or higher roads by 326 miles and is tied for the most acres of cross-country travel, parking and camping corridors. Alternative 3, then Alternative 2 would have the least impacts to these bat species in that they have no new non-system roads being added to the system and they do not have 300’ camping corridors which may result in increased loss of snag habitat.

Sensitive Herpetofauna The Umpqua has known occurrences of foothill yellow-legged frogs in rivers and larger streams on the Umpqua, and Pacific pond turtles occur throughout the Umpqua NF in suitable pond and lake habitats. There are no known occurrences of Oregon spotted frogs on the Forest, but there is suitable habitat that has not been surveyed, so they are covered here. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would have “no impact” to the foothill yellow-legged frog, Oregon spotted frog or Pacific pond turtle as this reflects the current condition.

- 101 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

All of the action alternatives would result in “no impact” to the foothill yellow-legged frog; Oregon spotted frog and Pacific pond turtle in that the aquatic rivers, streams and ponds which consist of their habitat are already prohibited from cross-country travel. The additional 3 miles of non-system road being added as ML2 roads proposed in alternatives 4, 5 and 6 are not located near occupied habitat for these species and would therefore have no impact.

Invertebrates There are 12 sensitive invertebrates on the Umpqua, and they would be discussed in functional groups, terrestrial mollusks, butterflies and insects.

Terrestrial Mollusks The Umpqua has known occurrences of the Crater Lake tightcoil, evening field slug, Oregon shoulderband and Chace sideband. The Forest currently does not have any documented observations of the Cascades axetail slug, but does have suitable Douglas-fir and Western hemlock forests with a vine maple understory for habitat for the species. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would have “no impact” to the Crater Lake tightcoil, evening field slug, Oregon shoulderband, Chace sideband or Cascades axetail slug as this reflects the current condition.

The Crater Lake tightcoil is limited in distribution to perennially moist areas adjacent to streams. There is one location along the 2612 road on the Diamond Lake RD where this species occurs within the 300 foot camping corridor along this road in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6. However, there would be no new disturbance allowed within these areas as these are perennially wet locations where parking or driving would not be allowed, and these locations are tied to existing streams within the buffer. For this species, as Alternatives 2 and 3 would not have camping corridors designated, these alternatives would have a “beneficial impact” to the Crater Lake tightcoil. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would have “no impact” to this species as disturbance along the camping corridors would be restricted to existing disturbance and users of these corridors are not allowed to cause environmental damage which could cause direct mortality or indirect effects through habitat alteration.

The Oregon shoulderband is found in rocks and downed wood within forests, often adjacent to areas with grass or other herbaceous vegetation. All action alternatives contain three occurrences of this species within the 50 foot pull-out areas or the 300 foot camping corridors. One is on the 2900 Road and the others on the 2810 and 2810-320 road junction on the Tiller RD. All action alternatives “may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Umpqua NF, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Oregon shoulderband. As this species can disperse between rocks and downed logs, there is the potential for direct impacts (mortality as road kill) with these alternatives. Because they do not include the 300 foot camping corridors, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less adverse effects on the Oregon shoulderband than Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would. It is recognized that the overall disturbance would be less under these three action alternatives in that cross-country travel would be prohibited, but there is the potential of indirect effects from vehicles running over rocks in these buffer areas.

The Chace sideband, also known as the Siskiyou shoulderband is found within rocky outcrops amongst down wood and forested habitats. All action alternatives contain three occurrences of this species within the 50 foot pull-out areas along the 2810-320 RD on the Tiller RD. As this species can disperse between rocks and downed logs, there is the potential for direct impacts (mortality as road kill) with these alternatives. Because they do not include the 300 foot camping corridors, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less adverse effects than Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, but all action alternatives “may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Umpqua NF, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Chace sideband. It is recognized that the overall disturbance would be less under these three action

- 102 - Umpqua National Forest alternatives in that cross-country travel would be prohibited when compared to the existing condition in Alternative 1.

The evening fieldslug is associated with very wet habitats. The evening fieldslug is found in wet meadows. There are no observations of this species in any of the camping corridors or pull-out areas and as disturbance adjacent to streams and meadows within these corridors is limited to existing disturbance and no resource damage is permitted with these corridors, they should not impact this species. All of the action alternatives would prevent cross-country travel, including cross-country travel through streams and wet meadows which provide habitat for the evening fieldslug, therefore Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would result in “beneficial impacts” to the evening fieldslug through decreased potential for disturbance or direct mortality (as off road kill).

The Cascades axetail slug has not been documented on the Umpqua, but as previously stated, suitable forested habitat does occur. As this species occurs in the litter layer of coniferous stands, there is the potential that all action alternatives may result in mortality from the 50 foot pull-out areas. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 include pull-out areas as well as 300 foot camping corridors where suitable forest floor litter habitat could be traveled across or parked on, therefore potential mortality as road kill cannot be dismissed. Therefore Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less adverse effects than Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 but all action alternatives could result in potential mortality to this species by vehicles traveling across suitable habitat to park or camp, therefore these alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Umpqua NF, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Cascades axetail slug. It is recognized that the overall disturbance would be less under these five action alternatives in that cross-country travel over potential habitat would be prohibited when compared to the existing condition in Alternative 1.

Butterflies and Insects There are four sensitive butterfly species and two sensitive insects with potential to occur on the Umpqua. The coronis fritillary, Mardon skipper, gray-blue butterfly, California shield-backed bug and the Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper have potential meadow habitat on the Umpqua, but have no actual observations on the Umpqua (though the Coronis fritillary has been observed within Douglas County (Opler et al. 2013). All five of these species are associated with dry meadow habitats. Roads are a source of mortality for butterflies, and paved roads have documented in limited studies to have higher mortality than unpaved roads (Mungira and Thomas 1992, Ries et al. 2001). Roads are not however barriers for dispersal and roadsides can be habitat in that they often have additional sunlight penetration and are habitat to potential nectar species on the Forest more than closed canopy forests which comprise the majority of the Forest (Mungira and Thomas 1992, Ries et al. 2001, Chapman pers. Obs). Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative would have “no impact” to the coronis fritillary, Mardon skipper, gray-blue butterfly, California shield-backed bug or Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper as this reflects the current condition.

All action alternatives would reduce impacts to potential meadow breeding habitat by prohibiting cross- country travel, and some benefits could be realized for these five meadow dependent species. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have less adverse impacts than Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 which would have roadside camping corridors and pull-out areas that could lead to mortality of any larvae or eggs attached to host species within these areas that are driven over. Therefore, all action alternatives “may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Umpqua NF, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the coronis fritillary, Mardon skipper, gray-blue butterfly, California shield-backed bug and Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper.

Johnson’s hairstreak butterflies are found in older forested habitats containing an overstory of Western and mountain hemlock infested with hemlock dwarf mistletoe upon which females lay their eggs and the

- 103 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment larvae feed upon. Johnson’s hairstreak adult’s nectar on a variety of flowers in the asteraceae family which are often found along roadsides on the Umpqua NF (Chapman personal obs). Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative would have “no impact” to the Johnsons hairstreak butterfly as this reflects the current condition.

Johnson’s hairstreaks are largely associated with older forests where cross-country travel is very difficult due to the amounts of downed wood, densities of trees, and steepness of slopes. Consequently, the prohibition on cross-country travel is unlikely to have an effect on this species. Therefore, all action alternatives would have “no impact” to the Johnson’s hairstreak in that they are not impacted by disturbance along roads as their larvae live in the canopy of trees and adults spend the majority of their time nectaring and flying in the canopy of older forests.

Table 43. Summary of Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species on the Umpqua National Forest Birds Determination for Common Name Scientific Name All Action Alternatives American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum B.I. Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus B.I. Black Swift Cypseloides niger B.I. Bufflehead Bucephala albeola B.I. Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus B.I. Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus B.I. Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis M.I. Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina B.I. Purple Martin Progne subis M.I. Red-Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena B.I. White-Headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus M.I. Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis B.I. Mammals Determination for Common Name Scientific Name All Action Alternatives Fisher Martes pennanti B.I. Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes M.I. North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus B.I. Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus M.I. Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii M.I. Herpetofauna Determination for Common Name Scientific Name All Action Alternatives Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii N.I. Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa N.I. Pacific Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata N.I.

- 104 - Umpqua National Forest

Invertebrates

Determination for Common Name Scientific Name All Action Alternatives California Shield-Backed Bug Vanduzeeina borealis californica M.I. Cascades Axetail Slug Carinacauda stormi M.I. Chace Sideband Monadenia chaceana M.I. Coronis Fritillary Speyeria coronis coronis M.I. Crater Lake Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris N.I. Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium B.I. Gray-Blue Butterfly Plebejus podarce klamathensis M.I. Johnson's Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni N.I. Mardon Skipper Polites mardon M.I. Oregon Shoulderband Helminthoglypta hertleini M.I. Siskiyou Short-Horned Grasshopper Chloealtis aspasma M.I.

Management Indicator Species The Umpqua National Forest Plan (1990) designated the northern spotted owl, elk, black-tail deer, pine marten, Peregrine Falcon, Pileated Woodpecker, and a group of cavity nesters as Management Indicator Species (MIS). MIS were “selected because its (their) welfare is presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat” (Umpqua LRMP 1990). The Umpqua’s Forest Plan measured its impacts to MIS by measurements of impacts to the species habitats: “The first area of management requirements addressed the need to provide for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native vertebrate species and provide that habitat for species chosen under 219 19 (Management Indicator Species) is maintained and improved to the degree consistent with multiple use objectives established in the plan ‘(36 CFR 219 27 a(6)). The Umpqua addressed this requirement by providing for an adequate amount and distribution of appropriate habitat for every indicator species and all threatened and endangered species. FEIS B p. 183”

Table 44. Umpqua National Forest Management Indicator Species: Habitats & Presence Presence Within the Analysis Species Habitat Indicator Area

Northern Spotted Owl Mature/Old Growth Habitat Yes Blacktail Deer and Roosevelt Big Game Winter Range Yes Elk Bald Eagle None/Special Management Yes Peregrine Falcon None/Special Management Yes Pileated Woodpeckers Mature/Old Growth Habitat Yes High elevation mountain hemlock/lodgepole Pine Marten Yes pine Primary Cavity Excavators Snag Habitat Yes

- 105 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Presence Within the Analysis Species Habitat Indicator Area Pileated Woodpecker Acorn Woodpecker Lewis Woodpecker Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker Williamson Sapsucker Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker

Effects to the bald eagle, northern spotted owl and peregrine falcons were discussed previously as Threatened and Sensitive species, but would be discussed here as MIS for their respective habitat indicators.

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) The NSO was selected as a MIS for mature and old growth habitat, and in the 1990 Forest Plan there was 392,000 acres of modeled suitable NSO habitat and 154 inventoried pairs (Chapter III p.90). The Northwest Forest Plan (1994) amended the Umpqua’s Forest Plan (1990), and the Northwest Forest Plan was designed to ensure the population viability of the NSO. As part of the Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring, Ray Davis developed a habitat model for NSO habitat to track changes in NSO habitat from the inception of the Northwest Forest Plan (1994) through 2006 for the 15 year monitoring report for the NSO. This model was peer reviewed and published in a GTR in 2011 (Davis et al. 2011). This model applied to the Umpqua National Forest, and updated for timber sales and fires through January 2014 predicts that there is 504,419 acres of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat, which is an increase of 112,419 acres of suitable NSO habitat from what was predicted in the 1990 Forest Plan.

Through surveys for spotted owls that have occurred from the early 1990s through 2013 on the Umpqua, there are 294 pairs of NSO documented to have occurred or are occurring on the Umpqua National Forest, with an additional 51 resident singles. There has not been Forest wide spotted owl surveys conducted in the last 10 years, the last Forest wide surveys were completed in 1992, only small project level survey efforts which have documented new owl sites (included within the 294 pairs discussed above). However, as part of monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan, there has been ongoing demography work being done in eleven demographic study areas in Washington, Oregon and northern California. The three closest demographic study areas to the Umpqua; Tyee, Klamath and South Cascades, have stationary population trends over the last 23 years (1985-2008) of monitoring while the rest of the demographic study areas in Oregon and Washington have declining population trends. This, in conjunction with the increase in modeled habitat as compared to 1990 Forest Plan estimates, indicate that the NSO on the Umpqua NF are doing better in terms habitat and population trend than most Forests in Region 6.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects As discussed in the earlier section on northern spotted owls, there are not expected to be any direct effects as a result of any alternatives. The acres without cross-country travel beyond 60m in Alternative 1 are likely understated due to the infeasibility of cross-country travel in most parts of the Forest. In regards to the metrics compared in Table 41.

- 106 - Umpqua National Forest

Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 all have more or less the same effects in regards to disturbance to owls, with Alternative 6 having slightly less effects than Alternative 2 and 6 in all factors described in Table 41, but the difference is minor. Alternative 3 has the least disturbance of any action alternative.

Cumulative effects of closing the forest to cross-country travel would be beneficial for the northern spotted owl. Reasonably foreseeable actions like road maintenance, decommissioning, and road inactivation will not result in additive cumulative effects for this species, as they all will occur at a lower level than the existing condition.

Conclusion Though the northern spotted owl is declining throughout most of its range, habitat conditions on the Umpqua National Forest are slowly improving over time. There would be no direct impacts to spotted owl habitat as a result of any alternative. The action alternatives would reduce disturbance but decrease snag habitat for the northern spotted owl. Therefore, the Forest’s Travel Management Plan would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Umpqua National Forest for the northern spotted owl.

Columbia Black-tail Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) Columbia black-tail deer and Roosevelt elk were selected as MIS for big game wildlife for their socio economic importance and as a habitat indicator for big game winter range habitat. The Forest Plan describes winter range as follows: Big Game Winter Range Winter range for deer and elk occurs at elevations less than 3,500 feet and usually on slopes with southerly aspect. An exception occurs on the Diamond Lake Ranger District where animals winter at somewhat higher elevations. Elk wintering occurs almost entirely on National Forest land. Some wintering of Black-tail deer on private lands does occur, however, it is not felt that the number of animals is large enough to justify detailed analysis. Areas having conditions capable of providing winter habitat requirements total 202,371 acres. Early successional stages are considered prime forage producing areas, the mid-stages can provide hiding cover and thermal cover, and the late stages provide optimum thermal cover. FEIS Appendix B p. 18

The Monitoring Plan (Chapter V of the Forest Plan) calls for annual monitoring of black-tail deer and elk populations by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and requires that monitoring results are summarized every 5 years. Black-tail deer population trends have been stable with a slight decrease (Figure 10), while elk populations have been declining in numbers (Figure 9) as detected through spotlighting surveys (for black-tail) and helicopter surveys (for elk). While there are not black-tail deer management objectives, the benchmarks for herd composition set by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Dixon unit is 25 bucks to 100 does and 3.0 deer/mile in their spring trend surveys; while for the Indigo unit benchmarks for herd composition are 25 bucks to 100 does and 3.3 deer/mile in spring trend surveys. Detectability of elk during helicopter surveys has been reduced as regeneration harvest units on the Forest have grown in and reduced the ability of observers to detect elk (Tod Lum ODFW personal communication). However there has been over 130,000 acres of wildfire on the Umpqua since 2002 which has created a patchwork of early seral habitat and improved forage production within the fire perimeters.

- 107 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The management objective for elk in the Dixon unit is 3,750 elk, with a bull to cow ratio of 10:100, and for the Indigo/West Fork Rock units it is 4,700 elk with a bull to cow ratio of 10:100. Both units are considered to be at or slightly above the bull to cow ratios; however this cannot be interpreted that the populations are at management objective levels due to the aerial survey counts are highly variable on a year to year basis depending upon snow (low or no amounts of snow decrease detectability (Tod Lum, ODF&W Roseburg District Biologist, personal communication 2012). The South Indigo unit is used for elk survey data as the North Indigo unit is only occasionally flown due to low detection probability from the lack of forested openings from which to count elk during winter survey flights. The data presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10 are for trend estimates, and do not reflect actual population numbers for these species within the management units.

Figure 9. Elk numbers by management unit for wildlife management units that occur on the Umpqua National Forest from 1992-2013. These are not population numbers, but results from winter aerial detection surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Figure 10. Black-tailed deer numbers by management unit for wildlife management units that occur on the Umpqua National Forest from 1992-2012. These are not population numbers, but results from spotlighting surveys conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Seasonal restrictions for big game winter range (December 1st through April 30th) would be enforced for all non through roads under all alternatives. Therefore, direct effects (road kill) to individuals of both

- 108 - Umpqua National Forest species would be limited during those months. Distance to open roads has been documented to be a significant factor in deer and elk distribution (Wisdom et al. 2005). Elk have been documented to avoid roads, both opened and closed (Rowland et al. 2004) while deer have been documented to be distributed closer to roads when compared to elk, though the relationship to roads is confounded by the deer’s avoidance of habitat being used by elk (Rowland et al. 2005). As documented in the generalized road effects section, roads are a source of direct effects via road kill and habitat loss and indirect effects such as landscape fragmentation, landscape permeability and disturbance from traffic. Additional impacts specific to deer and elk are increased hunting and poaching pressure due to increased road densities. Decreased road densities and seasonal restrictions benefit deer and elk as they serve to reduce disturbance from road traffic during the late fall/early winter when deer and elk need to increase or at least maintain body fat reserves when heading into winter (Johnson et al. 2005). To compare alternatives for the effects on deer and elk, a distance band from open roads based habitat suitability model at a Forest wide scale was run for each alternative (Table 45).

Table 45. Habitat Effectiveness by Road (HEr) Densities for Deer and Elk

Alternative *HEr Alternative 1 46.5% Alternative 2 46.4% Alternative 3 54.9% Alternative 4 46.3% Alternative 5 46.3% Alternative 6 46.3% * Higher values indicate better habitat effectiveness

Alternative 3 has the highest HEr value, in that it has the lowest motorized road densities of any action alternative. The differences between Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are negligible, in that the miles of roads and trails opened to motorized traffic are ameliorated when analyzed at the Forest scale. The measurement of HEr does not capture the closure of the Forest to cross-country traffic in all action alternatives, but this would benefit deer and elk by reducing potential disturbance to roads and roadsides in the action alternatives.

Cumulative effects of closing the forest to cross-country travel would be beneficial for both deer and elk. Reasonably foreseeable actions like road maintenance will adversely affect elk habitat use by increasing the potential for disturbance from vehicles while activities like decommissioning and inactivation of roads will result in a beneficial effect to elk habitat use by reducing road densities.

Conclusion All action alternatives would have a beneficial effect to deer and elk by eliminating cross-country travel. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would improve conditions for deer and elk the most across the Forest, while Alternatives 2, 4, 5 and 6 would improve conditions to a lesser degree (~8% HEr). Therefore, the Umpqua National Forests Travel Management Plan would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Umpqua National Forest for both deer and elk.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The Bald Eagle was selected as a MIS because it was listed as Threatened under the ESA at the time the Forest Plan was finalized in 1990. The Bald Eagle was delisted in 2007, but it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This species is

- 109 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment associated with larger bodies of water on the Umpqua National Forest, and the only known nest sites are on the Diamond Lake Ranger District. The Forest Plan monitoring plan (Chapter V) calls for annual monitoring of all known Bald Eagles on the Forest to determine site occupancy and productivity on an annual basis. At the time of the Decision of the Forest Plan (1990) there were two nest sites (one at Diamond Lake and one at Lemolo Lake), now there are four known nesting pairs on the Forest that have fledged 60 eagles since 1990 (FEIS Chapter 3 p.84, Figure 6). The trend for Bald Eagle reproduction has been increasing over the 21 years since the Forest Plan was signed (Figure 11). Bald Eagle reproduction on the Umpqua National Forest has been trending slightly positive over the past 21 years, therefore Bald Eagle populations on the Umpqua National Forest are being maintained at viable levels.

Figure 11. Bald Eagle Reproduction on the Umpqua National Forest from 1990-2012.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There are no direct effects of either the No Action Alternative or any of the action alternatives on Bald Eagles. For indirect effects, eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by the usual use of roads that pre-date the eagle’s successful nesting in a given area (USFWS 2007). The locations of the four current nesting pairs of eagles make it unlikely that cross-country traffic is impacting eagle nesting due to the steepness of the slopes and the high amounts of downed wood in nest locations making cross-country OHV travel unlikely. Eagles are known to feed upon carrion, so there are limited benefits of roads to the eagles prey base. The cumulative effects of road maintenance have been ongoing and have not been documented to have an additive effect on eagle reproductive success.

Conclusion All action alternatives would have the benefit of closing the Forest to cross-country vehicle travel. Eagles are not impacted by the current road system; therefore, the Umpqua National Forests Travel Management Plan would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Umpqua National Forest for Bald Eagles.

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) The Peregrine Falcon was selected as a MIS because it was listed as Endangered under the ESA at the time the Forest Plan was finalized in 1990. The species was delisted in 1999, but it is still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Forest Plan monitoring plan (Chapter V) calls for annual monitoring of all known Peregrine Falcon sites, and to report the number of active nests. At the time of the decision for the Forest Plan (1990) there were seven known nesting pairs (FEIS Chapter 3 p. 84), and in 2011 there were 16 known nesting pairs on the Forest that have fledged 183 young since 1990 (Figure 12). The

- 110 - Umpqua National Forest

Umpqua is now considered a source population for Peregrine Falcons in southwestern Oregon, and the Peregrine reproduction has been increasing with numbers of eyries detected, as well as number of young fledged, therefore the Peregrine populations on the Umpqua are being maintained at a viable level, with a positive trend in population size on the Umpqua National Forest. Peregrine Falcon Reproduction 30 (1990-2013) 28

25

21 20 20 17 16 15 15 12 12 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 Number of Young Fledged Young ofNumber 5 5 4 5 2 1 0 0 0

Number of Young Fledged

Figure 12. Peregrine Falcon Reproduction on the Umpqua National Forest from 1990-2013.

Seasonal restrictions for Peregrine Falcons would be maintained under all alternatives as described in the Umpqua National Forest Peregrine Management Plan. In this plan, seasonal restrictions are limited to non through roads within the primary flight zone of each of the 17 known eyries. The Umpqua’s LRMP (1990) required the development of site specific management plans for each eyrie located on the Forest, and in these site specific plans, roads were identified to be seasonally closed from January 1st through July 31st within the primary flight zone, approximately 0.5 mi. around the eyrie location. This resulted in 60 miles of roads being seasonally restricted.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There are no direct effects from any of the alternatives as seasonal restrictions limit vehicle travel adjacent to eyries during the nesting season (on approximately 60 miles). Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6 all have the same number of road miles within the Peregrine Falcon flight zones (1,261 mi.) while Alternative 3 has 205 less miles within the flight zones (total of 1,057 mi.). For indirect effects, every falcon site is different relative to the amount of disturbance tolerated by road use. Falcons at sites adjacent to a busy highway are accustomed to traffic in the vicinity of their eyrie. Falcons in wilderness areas may become highly agitated if people are detected within their territory and may actively defend against these human “intrusions” even when they take place several hundred meters from the nest ledge. Seasonal restrictions reduce road disturbance during the nesting season when peregrines are more sensitive to

- 111 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment disturbance which could impact nesting success or cause abandonment of nests. Outside of the breeding season peregrines below 4,000 feet are primarily residents and 15 of the Umpqua’s 17 eyries are located below 4,000 feet. Therefore, the closure of the forest to cross-country travel could be a benefit for overwintering peregrines, but due to the location of the eyries in rocky, steep areas within forests, it is unlikely that cross-country travel currently occurs adjacent to the eyries in the winter. For cumulative effects, ongoing maintenance of roads has not been shown to impact peregrines outside of the breeding season, and peregrine sites and number of young fledged has continually been climbing since forest wide monitoring has been conducted since 2003. Therefore, there are no additive adverse cumulative effects for Peregrine Falcons on the Forest.

Conclusion As ongoing seasonal restrictions would be maintained, and as Peregrine Falcon sites have been increasing steadily with the current amount of disturbance associated with cross-country travel, closure of the forest to cross-country travel should be a beneficial impact to the Peregrine Falcons on the Umpqua. All action alternatives would improve conditions for the Peregrine Falcon in the project area, while Alternative 3 would result in the most improvement due to the 205 fewer miles of road within the peregrine flight zones on the forest. Therefore, the Umpqua’s Travel Management Plan would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Umpqua National Forest for the Peregrine Falcon.

Pine Marten (Martes americana) Pine marten were selected as an MIS for high elevation (generally >4,500 feet) mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contortus) habitat. There was an estimate of 125,143 acres of mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine capable pine marten habitat on the Umpqua in 1990, 7% of that was considered unsuitable due to habitat loss from timber harvest, for a total of 121,389 acres of suitable habitat remaining on the Forest in 1990 (FEIS Chapter 3 p.82). The NWFP amended the Umpqua LRMP and changed the management of habitat for marten and other late-successional associated species. The Forest Plan monitoring plan (Chapter V) calls for monitoring the acres of habitat to determine if the appropriate distribution of suitable habitat is occurring on the Forest. The Forest Plan specified the need for one pine marten habitat area of 160 acres to be dispersed every 4,000 to 5,000 acres (about three miles apart, FEIS Appendix B p.185). The Forest Plan states that there was little concern about the persistence of this species due to the high amount of suitable habitat occurring in reserved land allocations like the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, Mount Thielsen Wilderness, roadless areas and areas removed from the timber base (lodgepole pine was considered removed from the timber based due to low productivity). The Umpqua’s LRMP was written in 1990, and since then more information is available on the size of marten home ranges which have been documented to average over 6,000 acres in size (Bull and Heater 2001), much greater than the 160 acres suggested in the LRMP.

Current amounts of pine marten habitat are derived from a habitat suitability model created by Davis and Chapman (2008), as well as a query of data on lodgepole pine and mountain hemlock distribution based upon 2006 imagery (Ohmann et al. 2010). Modeled pine marten habitat is 133,483 acres, an increase of 12,094 acres of suitable habitat from the 1990 estimate. As a result of the habitat modeling for pine marten, three pine marten habitat areas were delineated in areas open to timber harvest to ensure the suitable amount of 160 acre habitat areas are distributed across the Forest every three miles to ensure pine marten’s ability to disperse across the Forest’s suitable habitat (56% of the modeled habitat is within land allocations protected from timber harvest (Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, Mount Thielsen Wilderness, Mount Bailey Unroaded Recreation Area, Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness, Boulder Wilderness). While the pine marten is an MIS for mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine, the modeled habitat exceeds the current modeled distribution of mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine habitat (Ohmann et al. 2010) as the habitat model is trained upon observations of pine marten, which includes

- 112 - Umpqua National Forest observations of individuals in dispersal habitat of differing ecoclasses like Douglas-fir and white fir. Therefore the modeled habitat exceeds the acres of mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine distribution. For more detailed information about pine marten habitat characteristics, life history, distribution and threats see the MIS Information Sheet for pine marten prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean (2011).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Pine marten are susceptible to the direct effect of mortality as road kill. Indirect effects include the same discussed in the generalized effects section, habitat fragmentation, loss of landscape permeability, habitat loss and disturbance. However, in the one study looking at the effects of OHV use on pine marten there was no measureable effects of habitat use or behavior when comparing areas with and without low volume OHV use (Zielinski et al. 2008). The authors of that study urged that additional studies are needed to see if their results would be duplicated in areas with higher OHV traffic, and that their study did not address synergistic effects like habitat fragmentation or vegetation management (Zielinski et al. 2008). The proposed Lemolo OHV area is within suitable pine marten habitat, but as the disturbance and habitat impacts from this area are already ongoing, the action alternatives that propose to designate it as an Open Area (Alternatives 4-6) would not increase disturbance or habitat loss from what has already taken place. Winter recreational use of snowmobile cross-country travel in pine marten habitat on the Umpqua is not covered by any of the alternatives, so the ban on cross-country travel would not reduce winter habitat disturbance. Table 46 documents the miles of road within the three habitat classes of pine marten habitat on the Forest (Chapman and Davis 2008). Alternative 3 has the lowest road mileage by 31-37 miles, with the rest of the alternatives having very similar miles of road (plus or minus 6 miles). Pine marten are dependent upon snags and downed wood to forage along and den within. Of these five action alternatives, Alternatives 5 and 6 would have the most impact in that it would increase the miles of ML 2 or higher roads by 326 miles when compared to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. ML 2 and higher roads are maintained to a higher standard which may result in increased loss of snag habitat used for denning and foraging when compared to Alternatives 3 and 4.

Table 46. Habitat Class by Alternatives for the pine marten on the Umpqua National Forest Miles of Road and Motorized Trails Habitat Class Alt 1 Alt 2 Alts 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Marginal 76 70 43 73 73 68 Suitable 17 16 12 17 17 16 Highly Suitable 11 10 8 10 10 10 Grand Total 103 97 63 100 100 94

The effects of ongoing road maintenance, snow removal, and cinder application on the pine marten has been and would continue to occur. As this work occurs on main highways, and would continue to occur regardless of whether or not a Travel Management Plan is implemented, there would be no additive cumulative effects for pine marten as the result of the implementation of this project.

Conclusion All action alternatives would improve conditions for pine marten in the project area, while Alternative 3 would result in the most improvement due to the 40 fewer miles of road within pine marten habitat on the forest when compared to the current condition. Therefore, the Forest’s Travel Management Plan would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Umpqua National Forest for the pine marten.

- 113 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Primary Cavity Excavators [Includes Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Lewis Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), Williamson Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) and Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)]

Cavity excavators were selected as a group to be MIS for “dead and defective tree (snag) component within conifer forest habitat, as they excavate cavities for nesting that are in turn used by a whole host of avian and mammalian secondary cavity nesters (FEIS Chapter III p. 80)”. There was estimated to be 803,917 acres of capable cavity nester habitat, with 244,473 acres being altered by timber harvest, for a total of 559,444 acres of suitable cavity nester habitat (FEIS Chapter 3 p.73). The Forest Plan monitoring plan (Chapter V) calls for monitoring the acres and percent of snag habitat through project plans, environmental analyses or assessments done for timber sales or other projects to determine if Forest Plan objectives are being met. The Forest Plan used potential population capacity (PPC), which “provides an indicator of the number of cavity-nesting species likely to be present on the Forest in comparison to the Forest's total potential.” The understanding of the importance of snags and downed wood have increased greatly since 1990, so the PPC levels identified within the Umpqua’s LRMP are inadequate to provide for suitable snag habitat for cavity nesters.

To monitor current cavity excavator habitat on the Forest, snag habitat was assessed using the data derived from 2006 imagery (Ohmann et al. 2010) for snags per acre greater than or equal to 10” dbh. This results in 857,196 acres of habitat with one or more snags per acre (to meet the 60% PPC for Hairy Woodpecker of 1.15 snags per acre, which is the highest snag per acre requirement for any of the selected cavity excavators), and 776,970 acres with two or more snags per acre (which exceeds the 100% PPC for Hairy Woodpecker). At one snag per acre this represents 297,752 acre increase from the 559,444 acres of suitable snag habitat documented in the 1990 Forest Plan, and at two snags per acre this represents a 217,526 acre increase of suitable snag habitat (Umpqua Forest Wide MIS Analysis 2012). With the current distribution of snag habitat across the Umpqua increasing as compared to the 1990 Forest Plan, primary cavity excavator habitat is being maintained in its amount and distribution to meet the viability requirements of the Forest Plan. For more detailed information about cavity excavator habitat characteristics, life history, distribution and threats see the MIS Information Sheet for Primary Cavity Nesters/Excavators prepared by Kim Mellen-McLean (2011).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There are unlikely to be any direct effects as a result of the No Action Alternative or any action alternative for the cavity nesters. Indirect effects include potential loss of snag habitat under the action alternatives with the camping corridor and parking pull-outs, due to the potential for the removal of hazard tree (snag) in these areas to maintain public safety. Alternatives 5 and 6 include the proposal to shift current ML 1 roads to ML 2, which could involve the loss of additional snags as ML 2 roads are maintained to a higher standard. For cumulative effects, ongoing road maintenance would not have an additive adverse cumulative effect for this group of species as it would continue whether or not this project is implemented.

Conclusion All action alternatives would have a small impact to cavity nesters due to potential hazard tree (snag) cutting that would occur due to the presence of the parking and camping corridors as well the increased mileage of ML 2 roads in Alternatives 5 and 6. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would have the least impact on cavity nesters across the Forest due to its having the lowest number of road miles to be maintained. Alternative 2 would be slightly more impactful due to the increased road miles but no camping corridors, followed by Alternative 4 which contains additional system roads and camping

- 114 - Umpqua National Forest corridors/pull-out areas where snags may potentially be felled. Alternatives 5 and 6 contain the most ML 2 roads and camping corridors/pull-out areas. Because this project impacts less than a small portion of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend of loss of snag habitat. The loss of snag habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Umpqua’s Travel Management plan is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of cavity nesters is expected on the Umpqua National Forest.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Landbird Analysis Federal land management agencies are required by treaty and executive order to consider the effects of their land management activities on a variety of bird species. The following describes the project’s adherence to, and consistency with, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and regional and national avian conservation plans.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-704). The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States, however, under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the Forest Service has implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA process when actions have the potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species of concern.

Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”: This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. The Forest Service has completed, and are currently implementing, their MOU’s with the USFWS.

Forest Service & FWS MOU: The purpose of this MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration between the Parties, in coordination with State, Tribal, and local governments.” Under the MOU the Forest Service Shall: Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands, consistent with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. When developing the list of species to

- 115 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

be considered in the planning process, consult the current (updated every 5 years) FWS Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008 (BCC), State lists, and comprehensive planning efforts for migratory birds. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. To the extent practicable: Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions. Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area. Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as: 1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season; 2. retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented; 3. retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use and; 4. giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and stop-over habitats. 5. minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environments utilized by migratory birds whenever practical by assessing information on environmental contaminants and other stressors relevant to migratory bird conservation.

PIF Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S) Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCR’s are a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC framework comprises a hierarchy of 4 levels of eco-regions. At each spatial level, spatial resolution increases and eco-regions encompass areas that are progressively more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics. The Umpqua National Forest falls within BCR 5 (Northern Pacific Forest) and the BCR 5 species, habitats and their occurrence on the Forest are displayed in Table 47.

Table 47. Birds of Conservation Concern in Bird Conservation Region 5, Northern Pacific Rain Forest

Bird Species Preferred Habitat Present on the Umpqua

Yellow-billed Loon Winters along the coast from AK to Baja CA. Transients can No be found on inland bodies of water.

Marbled Godwit (nb) Prefer coastal mudflats, sandy ocean beaches, wet margins No of large reservoirs or brackish lakes and sewage ponds.

- 116 - Umpqua National Forest

Bird Species Preferred Habitat Present on the Umpqua Found along the coast foraging in open estuarine tide flats, Red Knot (Roselaari ssp.) (nb) inland on margins of sewage ponds & at larger brackish No lakes.

Short-billed Dowitcher (nb) A bird of wet mud or shallow water with underlying mud. No Common in tidal mudflats and adjacent shallow water. Aleutian Tern Primarily pelagic, coming to land only to nest and roost. No

Found in marine, coastal estuarine, salt marsh brackish and Caspian Tern freshwater habitats near large bodies of water. Often nests No on islands in rivers and salt lakes. Arctic Tern Found offshore migrating along the coast, rarely near land. No

Marbled Murrelet Found in nearshore (within 5 km) waters and within 50 miles No inland in old growth forest stands. Kittlitz’s Murrelet Alaskan species. No

1 Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep rock faces and Black Swift canyons, usually near or behind waterfalls and sea caves. Yes Forage over forests and open areas in montane habitats.

Rufous Hummingbird1 Found in a variety of habitats, most likely in brushy areas Yes with flowers and forests with a well-developed understory.

Allen’s Hummingbird Found in narrow, moist coastal fog zones in open areas of Yes coastal scrub. Nest in nearby wooded areas.

Open conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover) and edge Olive-sided Flycatcher1 habitats where standing snags and scattered tall trees Yes remain after a disturbance.

Associated with riparian shrub dominated habitats, especially Willow Flycatcher (non listed brushy/willow thickets. In SE WA also found in xeric brushy Yes subspecies) uplands.

Horned Lark (Strigata ssp.) (ESA Open fields with short herb dominated ground cover < 31 cm Yes candidate) tall and patches of bare ground.

Lightly grazed pastures with scattered shrubs and grass Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Affinis ssp.) Yes height < 30-60 cm) high

Marshes with open water and on lakes and reservoirs Western Grebe (nb) Yes supporting emergent vegetation.

Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep rock faces and Laysan Albatross (nb) canyons, usually near or behind waterfalls and sea caves. No Forage over forests and open areas in montane habitats.

Black-footed Albatross (nb) Pelagic, far offshore seabird No Pink-footed Shearwater (nb) Pelagic offshore seabird No Red-faced Cormorant Alaskan species No Year round nearshore marine and estuarine habitats, on Pelagic Cormorant (pelagicus ssp.) No ledges and vertical cliffs, on rocky islands and headlands.

- 117 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Bird Species Preferred Habitat Present on the Umpqua Associated with large bodies of water, forested areas near Bald Eagle (delisted species) the ocean, along rivers, and at estuaries, lakes and Yes reservoirs. A habitat generalist that prefers to nest in mature forests with Northern Goshawk Yes large trees on moderate slopes with open understories.

Wide range of habitats, nests on cliff ledges, bridges, Peregrine Falcon (delisted species) Yes quarries. Black Oystercatcher Rocky shores and sand/gravel beaches along the coast. No Small and partly wooded patches of water, and high altitude Solitary Sandpiper (nb) No bogs and wet meadows

Migrates through east of the Cascade crest. A wader of Lesser Yellowlegs (nb) shallow pools often found near mudflats on seasonally Maybe flooded fields and small isolated ponds.

Migrating through coastal estuarine mud flats and on sandy Whimbrel (nb) ocean beaches. Inland on fields or mud flats around lakes No and ponds. Short-grass or mixed-prairie habitats with flat to rolling Long-billed Curlew (nb) No topography. Also found in agricultural fields. Hudsonian Godwit (nb) Rare migrant along the west coast. No nb= non breeding within this BCR, 1species are also focal species identified in Altman and Alexander 2012.

The Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington list of focal species (2012) and BCC species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Table 48 displays a list of focal landbird species identified in the 2012 PIF Habitat Conservation Plan on the Umpqua National Forest that are known or likely to be present in the planning area and could be affected by the proposed actions.

Table 48. Focal Landbird Species by Forest Stage and Habitat (Altman and Alexander 2012) Forest Stage Habitat Attribute Focal Species Large snags Pileated Woodpecker Old-Growth/Mature Forest (Multi- Large trees Brown Creeper Layered/Late-Successional) Deciduous canopy/sub-canopy trees Pacific-slope Flycatcher Mid-story tree layers Varied Thrush Closed canopy Hermit Warbler Mature/Young Forest (Multi- Open mid-story Hammond’s Flycatcher Layered/Understory Reinitiating) Deciduous understory Wilson’s Warbler Forest floor complexity Winter Wren Young/Pole Forest (Understory Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated Gray Warbler Reinitiating/Stem Exclusion) Sapling/Seedling Forest (Stand Residual canopy trees Olive-sided Flycatcher

- 118 - Umpqua National Forest

Forest Stage Habitat Attribute Focal Species Initiation/Early Successional) Snags Northern Flicker Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned Warbler Mineral springs Band-tailed Pigeon Wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow Alpine grasslands American Pipit Unique Forest Habitats or Waterfalls Black Swift Conditions Nectar-producing plants Rufous Hummingbird Large hollow snags Vaux’s Swift Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse Pine-oak canopy/subcanopy trees Purple Finch Dense shrub understory Nashville Warbler Klamath Mountains Mixed Shrub-herb interspersion understory Hermit Thrush Conifer/Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forests Forest canopy edges Western Tanager Montane brushfields Fox Sparrow Post-wildfire Lazuli Bunting

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There would be no direct effects for any of these species as no direct habitat manipulation would occur as a result of the selection of either the No Action Alternative or any of the action alternatives. The prohibition on motorized cross-country travel would result in a beneficial impact for most of the avian species in that disturbance would be reduced by the elimination motor vehicle use off the designated system of roads and trails. Riparian and lake dependent species (Black Swift, Willow Flycatcher, Western Grebe, Lesser Yellowlegs, Lincoln’s Sparrows) would not be impacted in that their riparian or aquatic habitats are currently closed to cross-country travel. Cavity nesting species like the Pileated Woodpecker and Northern Flicker may be impacted in all the action alternatives that designate camping corridors and pull-out areas which may reduce snag densities in these areas. Ongoing road maintenance, decommissioning and passive closures would not affect any of the BCC or PIF species.

Therefore, overall under all action alternatives landbirds would benefit from a decreased amount of disturbance due to the closure of the Forest to cross-country travel. The action alternatives are consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186, and the Forest Service and USFWS MOU to strengthen migratory bird conservation on Forest Service lands.

Survey and Manage Species In 2001 the Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage standards and guidelines were amended by the Forest Service and BLM (“the agencies”) in January 2001 through the signing of a Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (FS & BLM 2001 ROD). The 2001 amendment added clarity, removed duplication, and increased or decreased levels of management for specific species based on new information affecting the level of concern for their persistence. The 2001 ROD identified some categories of species that require site-specific, pre-disturbance surveys to be conducted prior to signing NEPA decisions for habitat disturbing activities. Habitat disturbing activities are defined as “those disturbances likely to have a significant negative impact on the species’ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements (p.22 FS & BLM 2001)”.

- 119 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The Umpqua National Forest’s Travel Management Plan is not a habitat disturbing activity in that no new activities are being proposed that are not already occurring as part of the existing condition. There are no new roads being built, nor new OHV areas being developed, rather these existing disturbances are being proposed as part of the Umpqua National Forest’s designated system of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use. As there are no habitat disturbing activities being proposed, no pre-disturbance surveys were conducted for species listed under the 2001 ROD that occur on the Umpqua National Forest. However, there are impacts to Survey and Manage species that occur on the Umpqua National Forest and those impacts are described below. The additional species on the 2001 ROD vertebrate and invertebrate species list do not occur on the Umpqua National Forest and are therefore not discussed as part of this analysis.

Known sites of survey and manage species would be managed on a species by species basis based upon the habitat requirements of the species.

Table 49. 2001 Survey and Manage Terrestrial Species Occurring on the Umpqua National Forest Vertebrates

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa In Oregon Western Cascades Oregon Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus Mollusks Deroceras hesperium Helminthoglypta hertleini Monadenia chaceana Pristiloma arcticum crateris

Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) The Great Gray Owl (GGOW) utilizes a variety of habitats, but on the Umpqua National Forest it generally prefers mature mixed conifer stands adjacent to montane meadows or clear-cuts (Williams 2011). On the Forest, the GGOW have been found on the North Umpqua, Diamond Lake and Tiller Ranger Districts.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects GGOW are susceptible to direct effects from vehicle collisions. Indirect effect of habitat loss associated with hazard tree removal, and habitat fragmentation and increased disturbance associated with roads and vehicle traffic. The prohibition on cross-country travel would be a benefit to the GGOW in that some of their preferred foraging habitats (meadows) are often areas where off road OHV use has been the most obvious on the Forest (Chapman, personal observation). By closing the Forest to cross-country travel, and therefore the majority of the meadows on the Forest, there would be less foraging habitat disturbance which could also benefit GGOW prey which utilizes the meadows. The pull-out areas in Alternatives 2 and 3 intersect with 6 observations of GGOW’s (three each on the Tiller and Diamond Lake RD’s), while Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 have three additional observations (two on Diamond Lake RD and one on North Umpqua RD) overlapping in camping corridors. The utilization of these corridor areas will result in more disturbance effects for Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, which do not designate any camping corridors. Cumulative effects, including road maintenance, road decommissioning and snow removal would not have an additive effect on the effects of the proposals to GGOWs.

- 120 - Umpqua National Forest

Determination As there is no proposed habitat removing activities occurring as a result of any of the action alternatives, there would be no threat to the persistence of the Great Gray Owl on the Umpqua National Forest. Indirect impacts (hazard tree removal and vehicle traffic) are not measurably different than what is currently ongoing; therefore the effects are insignificant resulting in no additional concern for the persistence of the Great Gray Owl on the Umpqua National Forest. As the camping corridors and pull-off areas would not involve any canopy removal or habitat disturbance, and as roadside maintenance is considered “routine maintenance” there would be no buffers applied to the known sites of Great Gray Owls occurring within the camping corridors and pull-out areas.

Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) The Oregon red tree vole is found in the majority of mature to old growth mixed conifer stands below 5,000 ft. elevation on the Umpqua National Forest. It is an arboreal rodent which nests on limbs of larger, older Doug-fir within mixed conifer forests (USDA, USDI 2000). Red tree voles have been found on all Districts on the Forest. The majority of the Umpqua National Forest falls within the Mesic zone, except for a small portion of the southern tip of the Tiller Ranger District (Huff et al. 2012).

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Red tree voles (RTVs) are primarily arboreal and nocturnal which therefore makes them much less susceptible to direct effects from becoming road kill. They are susceptible to the indirect effects of landscape fragmentation, landscape permeability and disturbance discussed earlier. Their preferred habitats of closed canopy, older forests are unlikely experiencing much disturbance from cross-country travel currently due to the infeasibility of OHVs being able to drive through their habitats, but there would be some small benefit of reduced disturbance in the few areas with suitable RTV habitat that can be driven through. The parking pull-outs in Alternatives 2 and 3 contain 35 known RTV nest sites, while the camping corridors in Alternative 4, 5 and 6 contain 10 additional nest sites for a total of 45 (out of a total of 1,204 known RTV nest sites on the Forest, or 4% of known nests). A caveat however is that only about 17,000 acres of habitat on the Forest has been surveyed for RTVs, so those 1,204 nests come from approximately 8% of the total acres that comprise the Umpqua National Forest. These sites would be subject to disturbance associated with driving and camping, but are not likely to be subject to habitat impacts in that the nest trees would remain on site. Cumulative effects of ongoing road maintenance or decommissioning would not be additive in their effects to the RTV as they would have minimal impact on RTVs.

Determination As there are no habitat disturbing activities that would occur as a result of any of the action alternatives, there would be no threat to the persistence of the red tree vole on the Umpqua National Forest. As the camping corridors and pull-out areas would not involve any canopy removal or disturbance, and as roadside maintenance is considered “routine maintenance” there would be no buffers applied to the known sites of red tree vole nests occurring within the camping corridors and pull-out areas.

Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium) The evening fieldslug is found near perennially wet meadows in and amongst forested habitats in microsites that include a variety of low vegetation, wood litter and debris and rocks (Burke and Duncan 2005). This species is known from only two locations on the Forest, one on the North Umpqua Ranger District and one on the Tiller Ranger District.

- 121 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This species is a low mobility slug for which very little is known. It is always found in wet meadow habitat in and amongst forests, areas in which there have been instances of resource damage from cross- country travel in the past. All action alternatives would prohibit cross-country travel, which should limit the chances of direct effects to this species. There are no known sites for this species within any of the camping corridors or pull-out areas in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Cumulative effects of road maintenance and decommissioning would not be additive in their effects for the evening fieldslug in that they would have minimal impact on the wet habitats that the species prefers.

Determination As there is no habitat disturbing activities occurring as a result of any of the action alternatives, there would be no threat to the persistence of the evening fieldslug on the Umpqua National Forest.

Oregon shoulderband (Helminthoglypta hertlieni) The Oregon shoulderband is a terrestrial mollusk (snail) associated with talus/rocks and woody debris in dry conifer, mixed conifer/hardwood vegetation types (Weasma and Duncan 2004). During the wet seasons, individuals may be found away from rock refugia, foraging for green vegetation and fruit, feces, old leaves, leaf mold, and fungi (Weasma and Duncan 2004). This species is only known to occur on the Tiller Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This snail is associated with rocky habitats, and as such, is not likely to be directly impacted by vehicles during dry seasons; however they may be impacted while foraging away from rock outcrops in the wet seasons. Therefore the closure of the Forest to cross-country travel would be beneficial for this species by reducing the potential for direct mortality or by altering microclimates by disturbing rocks or downed wood by OHVs. There are 2 known sites within the road pull-out corridors common to all action alternatives (this is out of 59 known sites for this species on the Forest, or 4% of known sites). Within these corridors during the wet season, direct mortality could occur to foraging snails by vehicles traveling to campsites or parking areas. Cumulative effects of ongoing road maintenance and road decommissioning should not be additive in their effects to this species as they would have minimal impact on the rocky habitats that the Oregon shoulderband prefers.

Determination As there is no habitat disturbing activities occurring as a result of any of the action alternatives, there would be no threat to the persistence of the Oregon shoulderband on the Umpqua National Forest. The 2 known sites that occur within the parking pull-out areas are buffered by one site potential tree (150 ft.) and would be marked as unavailable for camping and parking on the MVUM. The site potential tree buffer would maintain the microsite conditions of talus, rocks and downed wood that are utilized by this species.

Chace sideband (Monadenia chaceana) The chace sideband is a terrestrial mollusk (snail) associated with dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forests and open talus or rocky areas (Weasma and Duncan 2005). During the wet seasons, individuals may be found away from rock refugia, foraging for green vegetation and fruit, feces, old leaves, leaf mold, and fungi (Weasma and Duncan 2005). This species is known to occur on the North Umpqua, Diamond Lake and Tiller Ranger Districts.

- 122 - Umpqua National Forest

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This snail is associated with rocky habitats, and as such, is not likely to be directly impacted by vehicles during dry seasons; however they may be impacted while foraging away from rock outcrops in the wet seasons. Therefore, the closure of the Forest to cross-country travel would be beneficial for this species by reducing the potential for direct mortality or by altering microclimates by disturbing rocks or downed wood by OHVs. There are 3 known sites within the pull-out areas common to all action alternatives (this is out of 138 known sites for this species on the Forest, or 7% of known sites). Within these corridors during the wet season, direct mortality could occur to foraging snails by vehicles traveling to campsites or parking areas. Cumulative effects of ongoing road maintenance and road decommissioning should not be additive in their effects to this species as they would have minimal impact on the rocky and downed wood habitats that the Chace sideband inhabits.

Determination As there is no habitat disturbing activities occurring as a result of any of the action alternatives, there would be no threat to the persistence of the chace sideband on the Umpqua National Forest. The 3 sites occurring within the camping corridors and pull-out areas are buffered by one site potential tree (150 ft.) and would be marked as areas of no camping/parking on the MVUM. This would protect the species microhabitat conditions.

Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) The Crater Lake tightcoil is a small (2.75 mm diameter) mostly aquatic mollusk found in perennially moist areas in conifer forests and meadows among rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation, or under rocks and woody debris within 10m of perennially open water (Burke and Gowan 2005). Movement of this species is believed to be mostly passive; as adults and eggs may be carried by mud particles by vertebrates such as waterfowl or ungulates (Burke and Gowan 2005). Their habitats are often snow covered for much of the winter months due to the elevations at which they are found. This species has only been found on the Diamond Lake Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This species is associated with perennially wet habitats where cross-country travel is not likely to currently occur. However, there is a chance that some cross-country travel could be impacting this species as they can occur as far as 10m away from water, so the prohibition of all cross-country travel should be a benefit for this species. There is one location along the 2612 road on the Diamond Lake RD where this species occurs within the 300 ft. camping corridor in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 (1 of the 15 known sites, or 7% of known sites). However, there would be no new disturbance allowed within these areas as these are perennially wet locations where parking or driving would not be allowed, and these locations are tied to existing streams within the buffer. Being that no resource damage would be allowed within these camping corridors and that this species is found within perennially moist habitats, these sites should be not be impacted. Cumulative effects of road maintenance and decommissioning should not be additive in their effects for the Crater Lake tightcoil in that they will have minimal impact on the wet habitats that the species prefers.

Determination As there is no habitat disturbing activities occurring as a result of any of the action alternatives, there would be no threat to the persistence of Crater Lake tightcoil on the Umpqua National Forest. The 1 known site within a camping corridor is along the wetted riparian area where camping and parking is already not allowed, as camping or parking there would cause resource damage. Therefore, this location would not be buffered, but it would be unavailable for camping and parking due to the wetness of the site.

- 123 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Botanical Resources

Noxious Weeds

Management Direction The final EIS for Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA 2005) amended the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan to prescribe standards for prevention, inventory, early detection and rapid response on new invasive plant populations as well as restoration guidelines for treatment sites and cooperation with other agencies and landowners. The Umpqua National Forest Integrated Weed Management Environmental Assessment (USDA 2003) identified management for specific weed infestations based on species classification and location.

Existing Condition The health of native plant communities throughout the Pacific Northwest is at risk by noxious weeds and other invasive plants. Some introduced plant species thrive in new ecosystems for various reasons including a lack of natural predators, change in disturbance regime, adaptations for growing on nutrient- poor soils, and allelopathic (plants with natural pesticides) abilities. As a result, many weeds are capable of out-competing native plants, ultimately altering the structure and lowering the diversity of native plant communities. The frequency of fire can also be altered in ways that are detrimental to natural ecosystems (Brooks et al. 2004, Harrod and Reichard 2001, Keely 2001). Further, different soil organisms predominate under different kinds of vegetation. Replacement of native plant communities with weed species can be expected to change soil microbial populations and nutrient cycling processes.

Roads facilitate the establishment and movement both by providing a seedbed that favors disturbance adapted species and as a vector, in the way of vehicular traffic, for distributing weed seeds (Duncan et al. 2003, Brooks 2007, Mortensen et al. 2009). Roads, and associated features such as ditches, road shoulders, landings, quarries and disposal sites, result in compacted soils with little or no humus or soil development. They often include gravel, rock or dirt imported from other areas. Roads also create permanent openings in the forest canopy allowing sunlight to reach the soil. All of these characteristics favor the establishment and persistence of early seral species that require sunlight and disturbance, including noxious weeds. Vehicles also provide the primary vector for long-distance movement for many or most invasive species. Weeds can become ensnared in the undercarriage of vehicles, trapped in the wheel wells and frames of trailers or caught in doors. Weed seeds are often tiny thus easily transported with mud affixed to tires or bumpers. The linear nature of roads allow for a dispersal network that penetrates throughout the landscape, allowing weeds to more rapidly colonize the forest than would otherwise be possible through passive dispersal means Including wind, water and wildlife through a forested, unroaded landscape.

The vegetation that occupies roads and road shoulders throughout the Umpqua NF is almost entirely non- native. Much of this non-native vegetation reflects past seeding associated with the original road construction and timber sale activities. This includes several species of non-native grasses and legumes. Some of these species, such as bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), can be quite persistent and move beyond where they were originally seeded. Roadsides are also typically occupied by other non-native species that have spread along the roads on their own but will not generally compete well with native vegetation away from severely disturbed areas. This includes species such as forget-me-not (Myosotis discolor), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata) chicory (Cichorium intybus) and white sweetclover (Meliotus albus). There are other non-native species that are commonly found along roadsides that can be invasive in some circumstances although they are not currently classified as noxious weeds. This group includes ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), sweet pea (Lathyrus latifolius) and most of the exotic

- 124 - Umpqua National Forest annual grasses. Classified noxious weeds have been identified by the Oregon State Weed Board as “injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or any public or private property” (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2012). Some of these species, particularly St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum), are relatively common to nearly ubiquitous along roads on the Umpqua NF. Invasive species that are not as well established have been identified for priority treatment (Table 50). Secondary priority species are managed on a situational basis as the budget allows.

As a general rule, the abundance and diversity of weeds along road shoulders is directly related to the amount of travel that the road receives. The North Umpqua Highway has broad road shoulders and provides direct access to weeds from Eastern Oregon. It is almost certainly the weediest road through the Umpqua NF although less so at higher elevations. Fortunately, the cold mountain pass and excessively well-drained pumice soils south of Diamond Lake are a challenge to establishment of even the weediest species. Lower elevation sites and locations closest to the boundary with private lands often harbor more weeds although isolated sites of priority weeds do occur along less-traveled ML-1 roads. When these infestations are behind barriers they can be a challenge to locate before they become well-established. It is rarely possible to determine whether these infestations became established with logging equipment associated with the timber sale that the road was originally built for or came in later.

Table 50. Noxious Weed List for the Umpqua National Forest Common Name Scientific Name Priority Species False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis Malta thistle Centaurea melitensis Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Scotch broom Cystisus scoparius Portuguese broom Cystisus striatus French broom Genista monspessulana English ivy Hedera helix Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica Yellow floating heart Nymphoides peltata Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Gorse Ulex europaeus Secondary Species Meadow knapweed Centaurea pratensis Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Canada thistle Cirsium arvense St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor

- 125 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Common Name Scientific Name Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea Medusahead rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae Other Weeds of Concern Common burdock Arctium minus Poison hemlock Conium maculatum Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Wild carrot Daucus carrota Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Curly pondweed Potamogeton crispus Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Because no new roads would be created, only reclassification of existing routes, there would be no direct effects under any alternative. There would be indirect effects due to the potential for spread of weeds from vehicle traffic and continued maintenance of roads and road shoulders in a condition that favors weed establishment. The alternatives that have the most miles of roads and trails open to motorized traffic would have greater potential for spreading invasive weeds than those with fewer miles of motorized road and trail. Alternative 1 would have the greatest miles of roads open to motorized traffic because it would leave open routes that are currently considered to be infeasible to traverse. Because all ML 1 roads would be closed to motorized traffic, Alternative 3 would have far fewer miles of open road than any other alternative. The other action alternatives provide similar miles of motorized road access that are intermediate between Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 1 would also have the most miles of motorized trails and Alternative 3 the fewest. Alternative 6 would have nearly as few motorized trails as Alternative 3 because it eliminates motorized use from Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Roads and trails that are open to motorized traffic behind barriers or only open to smaller vehicles of 50 inches or less pose a greater challenge to early detection and rapid response to new infestations since they are not as readily accessed and traversed for inventory. Alternative 1 would allow access to all ML 1 roads by motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width. However, since this includes roads that are considered to be infeasible to travel, there would likely be little difference in actual motorized travel between Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 5 and 6 upgrade ML 1 roads to ML 2 where inventories have indicated that full size vehicle traffic is possible and there are no barriers to restrict access. Because this reflects the actual conditions on the ground, there is probably little practical difference between motorized use under these alternatives and Alternative 1, 2 and 4 in this regard. What is unique to Alternatives 5 and 6 is that they allow full size vehicle use on 85 miles of ML 1 roads behind existing barriers. Because the Forest Service fleet is not equipped with high-clearance off-road vehicles, this last category could pose the greatest challenge to early detection of noxious weeds and rapid response to treat infestations before they get out of hand.

Alternatives that provide the most access for cross-country travel would result in greater likelihood of weeds spreading beyond the road system and particularly to unique and mosaic habitats. Alternative 1 would allow for unrestricted off-road use across most of the forest although, because of dense vegetation and steep rocky slopes that characterize most of the forest, only a small percentage of this acreage could actually be driven. Alternatives 2-6 would close the Forest to unrestricted travel but allow for vehicles to pull off the road into existing tracks within 50 feet of ML 2 through ML 5 roads. Alternatives 4-6 additionally allow for 300 foot camping corridors along 487 miles of ML 2-5 roads. Because no new

- 126 - Umpqua National Forest ground disturbance would be allowed in the camping corridors, there would be little actual difference among any of the alternatives with regards to legal off-road travel. Alternatives 4-6 also adopt three miles of existing routes that can be driven by full-sized vehicles to existing dispersed campsites and 2 acres near Lemolo Lake that has a user created oval track and trails for quads and motorcycles. This area currently is free of any priority noxious weeds.

The areas that would generally be most susceptible to weed invasion and where weeds would have the greatest consequences would be unique and mosaic habitats. Because most weeds are not shade tolerant, these openings provide areas where sunlight adapted weeds can thrive. Effects from weeds to these habitats are discussed in the following section.

Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. Nearly all actions undertaken on National Forest System lands involve use of roads and will contribute to potential spread of invasive weeds. All commercial activities, including road work and timber sales, however, include mitigation measures to minimize the spread of weeds. These mitigation measures include cleaning of heavy equipment prior to entering the Umpqua National Forest, use of certified weed-free straw, hay and seed, and inspection of rock and gravel sources (USDA 2005). Standards from the Pacific Northwest Region Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005) provide standards for mitigation of road maintenance. These standards include coordinating road blading, brushing and ditch cleanout with invasive weed coordinators and inspecting gravel and rock sources for invasive weeds.

Based on the above analysis, Alternative 3 poses the least risk to spread of invasive weeds while Alternative 5 would pose marginally greater risk than Alternatives 1, 2, 4 or 6.

Unique and Mosaic Habitats

Management Direction and Existing Condition Unique and mosaic habitats are non-forested openings that vary in size from 1 to 75 acres and include meadows, hardwood stands, wetlands, ponds, caves, cliffs, and rock outcrops (USDA Forest Service 1990). They are important due to their scarcity in the forest environment and high wildlife and plant values. Approximately 85% of the plant species diversity of the Western Cascades is found in non- forested habitats (Hickman 1976) which make up about 3% of the Umpqua National Forest. The Umpqua LRMP currently allows for off road vehicles only in in “unroaded dispersed recreation and OCRA management areas consistent with the direction for these management areas” (LRMP IV-200). Most meadow openings are susceptible to persistent rutting, compaction and damage to plant communities when driven on while wet. Although such damage occasionally occurs, resource damage is never allowable and would be unchanged under any Alternative including the no action Alternative in which most of the forest is open to off-road vehicles. Camping corridors would be included in Alternatives 4-6 while 50 foot existing road pull-out areas would be included in Alternatives 2-6 but both limit off-road vehicle traffic to existing tracks and prohibit resource damage.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Although vehicles have the potential to severely impact unique habitats directly through rutting, compaction and displacement of soils, this manner of resource damage is not currently legal and would remain so under all alternatives. Roads do have the potential to indirectly impact unique and mosaic habitats through the spread of invasive weeds and pathogens. The alternatives that provide the most direct access to these habitats would therefore be most likely to diminish the habitat quality.

- 127 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 hypothetically allows the greatest access to unique and mosaic habitats because it allows for off-road vehicle access over much of the forest although there are limits under most prescriptions. For example, off-road vehicles are not allowed in plantations or sensitive areas in the intensive volume timber prescription (LRMP IV-213) and are not allowed seasonally in the winter range prescriptions (LRMP 195-197). In practice, the rugged, timbered nature of most of the forest limits vehicle access to most unique and mosaic openings unless they have roads leading directly to or near them. Many roads bisect unique and mosaic openings. Alternative 1 would include approximately 38 miles of ML1 roads within mapped unique or mosaic openings with legal access by vehicles 50 inches in width or less. Alternatives 2 and 4 include approximately 28 miles. Alternatives 5 and 6 include only about 11 miles of ML1 roads within mapped unique or mosaic openings because about 15 miles of roads currently classified as ML 1 would be changed to ML 2 making them accessible to all vehicle classes. Another approximately 2 miles would remain ML 1 but be accessible to full size vehicles that could drive over or around the barrier. These figures are all approximate based on unique and mosaic data that is only generally accurate at a landscape scale.

Alternative 1 would have the greatest miles of roads open to motorized traffic because it would leave routes that are currently infeasible to traverse. Because all ML1 roads would be closed to motorized traffic, Alternative 3 would have far fewer miles of open road than any other alternative. It would, consequently, provide the least access to inadvertent or illegal damage to unique and mosaic habitats but no direct impact would legally be allowed under any alternative. The other action alternatives provide similar miles of motorized road access that are intermediate between Alternatives 1 and 3. The alternatives that allow for the greatest motorized access would have the greatest potential to indirectly impact these habitats by spreading invasive species and pathogens.

Alternative 1 would also have the most miles of motorized trails and Alternative 3 the fewest. Alternative 6 would have nearly as few motorized trails as Alternative 3 because it eliminates motorized use from inventoried roadless areas.

Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. Past timber harvest and road building have impacted many unique and mosaic habitats by removal of timber up to the edge and sometimes of isolated trees within these openings. Natural openings have historically often been used for landings and staging areas when they were flat enough. Roads in some cases have altered the hydrology of some openings. In addition, fire suppression has allowed younger timber to encroach upon many historically open openings over-topping or out-competing often centuries old oaks, madrone, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and Jeffery pine. Invasive and non-native plants have altered many openings. Non-native annual grasses, in particular, are an ubiquitous component of most shallow-soiled openings.

The proposed Pacific Connector Natural Gas Pipeline project that would cross the Tiller Ranger District would impact some unique habitats permanently altering some areas to a maintained corridor opening. Many recent timber sale projects include units, or parts of units that are intended to restore unique habitats through removal of encroaching conifers through timber harvest or non-commercial means. The Oak Flats and Kincaid’s projects are entirely focused on oak habitat restoration while the Elk Creek project that is still in the planning phase may include extensive unique and mosaic habitat restoration. Most large prescribed fire projects include unique and mosaic opening restoration. Ragged Ridge, Donegan Prairie and Beaver, in particular, include burning intended to help restore unique habitats.

Because no new road decommissioning is proposed under any alternative, the amount of actual road bed that contributes to invasive weed habitat that can, in turn, spread to unique habitats would remain unchanged under any of the alternatives. Continued or increased access to roads facilitates spread of weeds that contributes to the cumulative impacts of past and ongoing actions.

- 128 - Umpqua National Forest

Conversely, the presence of roads can indirectly benefit unique and mosaic habitats by providing more efficient access for attaining certain types of restoration projects, particularly those that require removal of encroaching timber that is too large to efficiently or effectively treat through non-commercial means. Roads are not essential but can greatly facilitate prescribed burning by providing lines for holding fire and positioning equipment and personnel for managing fires.

Because roads may adversely impact unique habitats by spreading invasive species but can contribute beneficial affects by providing access for restoration, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each of the alternatives is negligible and roughly equal. Alternative 3 has the least miles of open road but it does not propose eliminating any ML 1 roads so these roads could be administratively opened to accommodate restoration work. Alternative 1 would include the most miles of roads open to motorized use although many of these roads aren’t actually feasible to drive. Because Alternatives 5 and 6 open the most roads to full size vehicles, including behind barriers, these alternatives would likely contribute the most to the spread of invasive species and pose the greatest challenge to inventory, early detection and rapid response to treating weed infestations that could spread to unique and mosaic habitats.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species

Management Direction It is Forest Service policy to “ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired plant or contribute… trends towards Federal listing of any species” (FSM 2672.41). The Umpqua Land and Resource Management plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI, 1994) provides direction that any management activity that would negatively impact sensitive plant species will be modified to avoid or minimize the impact. No activity may result in the loss of a subpopulation that is “important in the natural distribution of the species” (LRMP IV-37).

There are two species known or suspected to occur on the Umpqua NF that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is listed as threatened and has been documented on the Tiller Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest. This species occurs in low- elevation upland prairies and is primarily known from Willamette Valley grasslands although there are isolated occurrences documented throughout the Umpqua basin as well. Plagiobothrys hirtus is listed as endangered and is confined to low-elevation wetlands in the vicinity of Sutherlin in northern Douglas County. It has not been documented on the Forest to date.

Existing Condition No botanical surveys were conducted specifically for this project since no new habitat disturbing activities are proposed under any alternative. Most of the affected area has been surveyed for sensitive and invasive plants, or at least traversed, in recent years in the course of analyzing other projects. Of the threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) plants known or suspected to occur on the Umpqua National Forest, a few species can grow along road shoulders. No species are known to grow within the road beds themselves.

Several populations of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii occur along road shoulders in Douglas County however the one verified population that is documented to occur on the Umpqua National Forest is approximately 300 feet uphill of the closest road. Where roads cut through serpentine soils, Calochortus umpquaensis occasionally will persist in the road cuts. These habitats are confined to the Tiller Ranger District. Eucephalus vialis is also known to occur along roadsides in Douglas County. Although documented populations occur close to the Umpqua National Forests, it has yet to be found on the Forest. Iliamna latibracteata, on the other hand, is a species that requires disturbance for the open habitat that it

- 129 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment prefers and frequently occurs adjacent to roads, particularly in or along ditches. However, roadside occurrences of this species usually only consist of a few plants. Frasera umpquaensis is a robust member of the gentian family that occurs occasionally along roads and is locally abundant in meadows or open forest that could potentially be impacted by off-road use. In particular it occurs in forest openings along the Rogue-Umpqua Divide area where off-road camping and parking can and does occur on top of isolated plants. This is mostly confined to the general vicinity of Donegan Prairie along FS road 2925-800 that is an ML 2 road common to all alternatives.

Romanzoffia thompsonii is a small annual that occurs in seeps within rocky openings including a few sites that are near roads. There are at least a couple of sites that are flat enough that they could be accessed by off-road vehicles. Other rare vascular plant species typically occur in places that are too steep and rocky for vehicle travel. Several populations of Kalmiopsis fragrans occur within the 300-foot camping corridors and 50-foot existing road pull-out areas, however in all of these areas K. fragrans is confined to rock outcrops that cannot be accessed by any class of vehicle. Similarly, Lewisia columbiana var. columbiana occurs on one rock outcrop along a ML2 road that is common to all alternatives as well as the Bulldog Rock trail that is open to motorcycle use under all alternatives except for 3 and 6.

Cypripedium fasiculatum is an orchid that occurs on the Umpqua NF only within the Apple Creek Campground where recreational activities including parking of vehicles and trailers have been observed to occasionally damage plants near the road. This is a disjunct occurrence of this species that otherwise has numerous locations known from the Klamath Mountains in Oregon and the Wenatchee area of Eastern Washington with only this Apple Creek population between them. Modeling of the habitat suggests that the habitat potential for this species is indeed marginal between the major population centers such that Apple Creek probably represents a relic population (Helliwell and Benz 2011). This road into the campground is open to mixed vehicle use under all alternatives.

All known sites of bryophytes, lichens and fungi typically occur away from roads and the immediate road shoulder. Numerous sites occur within the designated camping corridor and existing road pull-out area designated widths but no sites are known, or would be anticipated, to occur within existing road tracks or dispersed camping areas. Potential impacts from off-road travel otherwise are likely to be impossible or incidental under the current condition because the rugged and heavily timbered nature of the forest restricts vehicle access to only a few areas of the forest. The major exception to this would be some of the open lodgepole pine forest on the Diamond Lake Ranger District but this area includes no habitat for any TES plant species.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Because the single verified site of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is actually in a meadow set back about 300 feet from any road and roads in the vicinity have been thoroughly searched for additional populations without success, there would be no direct or indirect effect of any of the action alternatives upon this species. The road accessing this area is currently seasonally closed for winter range and would remain so under all action alternatives. For these reasons, there would be no effect to this species due to actions under any of the action alternatives. There would, likewise be no effect to Plagiobothrys hirtus which is not known to occur on the Umpqua National Forest.

Direct and indirect effects to Calochortus umpquaensis would be similar under all alternatives except for Alternative 1. Alternative 1 allows for unrestricted off-road travel. There has been occasional off-road vehicle tracks observed at populations, most of which appears to be associated with illegal cedar bough cutting in the autumn. To date, there has been only occasional attempts to drive on these meadows when the soils are wet and most susceptible to damage. Each of these instances of off-road incursions into C. umpquaensis habitat would be illegal because of the resource damage involved although enforcement is

- 130 - Umpqua National Forest difficult to administer because of size and extent of the road system. One major population occurs in an opening that is accessed by an ML 1 road that would be closed to motorized vehicles under Alternative 3, open to vehicles 50 inches or less under Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, and converted to an ML 2 road under Alternatives 5 and 6. In practice, this road is currently drivable by all classes of vehicles and lacks any barricade. Another road that has plants growing along the road shoulder would be closed under all action alternatives because there is no legal access to this road through private land. This would have little direct benefit but could indirectly reduce the potential for illegal off-road travel into the meadow openings in the winter and early spring months when the soils are wet and most subject to damage.

A few occurrences of Iliamna latibracteata are along existing ML 2 roads, the management of which is identical among all alternatives. There are four known locations of I. latibracteata along ML1 roads. One of these roads would be open to vehicles 50 inches or less under Alternative 1 but closed under all other alternatives. Two other roads would be closed to all vehicles under Alternative 3 but open to vehicles 50 inches and less under all other alternatives. The remaining road would be open to vehicles 50 inches or less under Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, closed under Alternative 3 and reclassified as an ML 2 road open to all vehicles under Alternatives 5 and 6. In practice, there is little difference between the alternatives. There would be greater potential for incidental impact to plants under alternatives that leave these roads open to motorized travel but these roadside occurrences consist of few plants.

Camping corridors on roads in the Rogue-Umpqua Divide area in Alternatives 4 through 6 would continue to allow vehicle damage to individual plants of Frasera umpquaensis. However, this species occurs in very large, diffusely scattered populations in that area so damage to individual plants is not anticipated to have much effect to viability of the populations. The entire area is currently open to off- road travel under the current condition. There are two ML 1 roads that traverse through the general population area that are theoretically feasible to drive and two additional roads that are not. One of these roads would be closed to all vehicles under Alternative 3 but open to vehicles 50 inches or less under all other alternatives. A second road would be open to vehicles 50 inches or less under Alternatives 1, 2 and 4, closed to all vehicles under Alternative 3 and converted to a ML 2 road under Alternatives 5 and 6. The other two roads would be closed to all vehicles under all alternatives other that Alternative 1.

Only one identified occurrence of Romanzoffia thompsonii occurs near an ML1 road. This road would be closed under Alternative 3 but open to vehicles under 50 inches under all other alternatives. There is no record of vehicle damage to this population. A second population occurs in a rocky area along the motorized trail to Bulldog Rock. This trail would be open to motorcycles under all alternatives except for Alternatives 3 and 6 in which it would be closed to all motor vehicles. Because this plant is confined to mostly rocky seep areas there is little potential for vehicles to access the specific microsites that this species occupies.

There are potential indirect impacts to most TES species due to establishment and spread of invasive weeds. Roads are the primary establishment points for weeds and vehicles are the primary vector for movement of weeds on the forest (see the noxious weed section). Alternative 1 has the most miles of open road while Alternative 3 has the least. The absence of camping corridors in Alternatives 2 and 3 would restrict off-road movement of weeds compared to other Alternatives, particularly Alternative 1 which has relatively few restrictions to off-road travel. Otherwise there would be limited potential for incidental damage from camping and other recreational activities associated with increased vehicle access.

Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. Based on the limited direct and indirect effects of this action, no cumulative effects are identified for the Proposed Action or any other action alternative.

- 131 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Roads in all alternatives have limited potential to impact Calochortus umpquaensis, Frasera umpquaensis, Iliamna latibracteata and Romanzoffia thompsonii. All alternatives have the potential to impact individuals or habitat but would not be likely to contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species, although the no-action Alternative would be most likely to affect individuals and habitat for the reasons discussed above. For all other sensitive species there would be no impact anticipated under any of the alternatives.

Table 51. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species Species Occurs NAME Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 with Roads Federally listed Species

Plagiobothrys hirtus N NE NE NE NE NE NE Lupinus Sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Y NE NE NE NE NE NE USFS Sensitive Species Bryophytes Anastrophyllum minutum N NI NI NI NI NI NI Andreaea schofieldiana N NI NI NI NI NI NI Blepharostoma arachnoideum N NI NI NI NI NI NI Bryum calobryoides N NI NI NI NI NI NI Calypogeia sphagnicola N NI NI NI NI NI NI Cephaloziella spinigera N NI NI NI NI NI NI Codriophorus depressus Y NI NI NI NI NI NI Encalypta brevicollis N NI NI NI NI NI NI Encalypta brevipes N NI NI NI NI NI NI Entosthodon fascicularis N NI NI NI NI NI NI Gymnomitrion concinnatum N NI NI NI NI NI NI Harpanthus flotovianus N NI NI NI NI NI NI Helodium blandowii N NI NI NI NI NI NI Lophozia gillmanii N NI NI NI NI NI NI Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica N NI NI NI NI NI NI Meesia uliginosa N NI NI NI NI NI NI Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. vulcanicum N NI NI NI NI NI NI Porella bolanderi N NI NI NI NI NI NI Schistostega pennata N NI NI NI NI NI NI Schofieldia monticola N NI NI NI NI NI NI Splachnum ampullaceum N NI NI NI NI NI NI Tayloria serrata N NI NI NI NI NI NI Tetraphis geniculata N NI NI NI NI NI NI Tomentypnum nitens N NI NI NI NI NI NI Trematodon asanoi N NI NI NI NI NI NI Tritomaria exsectiformis N NI NI NI NI NI NI

- 132 - Umpqua National Forest

Species Occurs NAME Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 with Roads Fungi Boletus pulcherrimus Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Cortinarius barlowensis Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Dermocybe humboldtensis Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gastroboletus vividus Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gymnomyces fragrans Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Pseudorhizina californica Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Ramaria amyloidea Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon exiguus Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Rhizopogon inquinatus Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Stagnicola perplexa Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Lichens Lobaria linita N NI NI NI NI NI NI Pseudocyphellaria mallota Y NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramalina pollinaria N NI NI NI NI NI NI Vascular Plants Adiantum jordanii N NI NI NI NI NI NI Arabis suffrutescens var. horizontalis N NI NI NI NI NI NI Arnica viscosa N NI NI NI NI NI NI Asplenium septentrionale N NI NI NI NI NI NI Botrychium pumicola N NI NI NI NI NI NI Calamagrostis breweri N NI NI NI NI NI NI Calochortus umpquaensis Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Carex crawfordii N NI NI NI NI NI NI Carex diandra N NI NI NI NI NI NI Carex lasiocarpa var. americana N NI NI NI NI NI NI Carex nardina N NI NI NI NI NI NI Carex vernacula N NI NI NI NI NI NI Collomia mazama N NI NI NI NI NI NI Cypripedium fasciculatum Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Elatine brachysperma N NI NI NI NI NI NI Eucephalus vialis Y NI NI NI NI NI NI Frasera umpquaensis Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gentiana newberryi var. newberryi N NI NI NI NI NI NI Iliamna latibracteata Y MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Kalmiopsis fragrans Y NI NI NI NI NI NI Lewisia columbiana var. columbiana Y NI NI NI NI NI NI Lewisia leeana N NI NI NI NI NI NI Ophioglossum pusillum N NI NI NI NI NI NI

- 133 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Species Occurs NAME Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 with Roads Pellaea andromedifolia N NI NI NI NI NI NI Perideridia erythrorhiza N NI NI NI NI NI NI Poa rhizomata N NI NI NI NI NI NI Polystichum californicum N NI NI NI NI NI NI Romanzoffia thompsonii Y NI NI NI NI NI NI Rotala ramosior N NI NI NI NI NI NI Scheuchzeria palustris var. americana N NI NI NI NI NI NI Schoenoplectus subterminalis N NI NI NI NI NI NI Utricularia minor N NI NI NI NI NI NI Utricularia ochroleuca N NI NI NI NI NI NI Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis N NI NI NI NI NI NI Wolffia borealis N NI NI NI NI NI NI Wolffia columbiana N NI NI NI NI NI NI NI No Impact MIIH May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. WOFV Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. BI Beneficial impact.

Survey and Manage Botany

Management Direction In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) amended the planning documents of the 19 National Forests and nine BLM units within the range of the northern spotted owl. Those amendments were intended to conserve late-successional forest related species and produce a sustainable level of timber harvest. Species experts assisting in the preparation of the Northwest Forest Plan predicted the Plan would provide adequate habitat for nearly 800 late-successional forest-associated species but could not predict the Plan would adequately protect about 400 other late-successional forest related species that were apparently rare or about which little was known. In response to this concern, eight mitigation measures, including Survey and Manage, were added to the final Plan to provide additional benefits for these apparently rare species of fungi, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, several vertebrates, and four arthropod groups.

In January 2001, a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision were issued that amended to the NWFP to update and clarify the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. That Decision removed about 70 species, and adopted new Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines applying to the 337 remaining species that included: direction to manage known sites for nearly all species; a pre-disturbance survey requirement if characteristics of the species made locating them with such surveys practical; and a new criteria-driven process for annually evaluating new information about species and determining whether this new information was basis for adding or removing species from Survey and Manage or changing assigned management categories (the Annual Species Review process).

On November 6, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it authorized two timber sales that did not apply Survey and Manage provisions to a species removed from

- 134 - Umpqua National Forest

Survey and Manage by the Annual Species Review (ASR) process (Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center et al. v. Boody et al., 468 F.3d 549, Ninth Circuit 2006). The court found the ASR category change and subsequent removal of the red tree vole from the Mesic Biological Zone constituted a Resource Management Plan amendment, which should have had accompanying NEPA analysis.

On January 9, 2006, Judge Pechman signed an Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. v. Mark E. Rey et al., No. 04-844P). This ruling set aside a Record of Decision dated March 22, 2004 entitled “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” and reinstated the previously discussed 2001 ROD. Acting on a request to narrow the scope of the injunction, Judge Pechman issued on October 11, 2006 an order exempted from the previous order four categories of projects: a. “Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old; b. Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; c. Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood (sic), channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and d. The portions of projects involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and manage requirements except for thinning of stand younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.”

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2011. Projects that were within the range of the northern spotted owl were subject to the survey and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.

On April 25, 2013, the 9th Circuit reversed the District Court's approval of the 2011 Survey & Manage Settlement Agreement. The opinion by Judge Tashima determined the settlement agreement was more appropriately considered to be a consent decree and that “[b]ecause the consent decree allows for substantial, permanent amendments to Survey and Manage, it impermissibly conflicts with laws governing the process for such amendments." The 9th Circuit remanded the decision back to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On February 18, 2014, the District Court issued a summary judgment based on the 9th Circuit ruling. That judgment provided for the Forest Service and BLM “to proceed developing and implementing projects under the terms of the 2011 Consent Decree for projects that fall within one or more of the following categories of projects: (1) projects in which any Survey and Manage pre-disturbance survey(s)

- 135 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment has been initiated (defined as at least one occurrence of actual in-the-field surveying undertaken according to applicable protocol) in reliance upon the Consent Decree on or before April 25, 2013; (2) projects, at any stage of project planning, in which any known site(s) (as defined by the 2001 Record of Decision) has been identified and has had known site-management recommendations for that particular species applied to the project in reliance upon the Consent Decree on or before April 25, 2013, and (3) projects, at any stage of project planning, that the Agencies designed to be consistent with one or more of the new exemptions contained in the Consent Decree on or before April 25, 2013.”

The project analysis is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Because this project analysis has spanned several legal rulings, the analysis includes the 2001 species list without consideration of species removed under the Annual Species Review conducted between 2001 and 2003.

Existing Condition No botanical surveys were conducted specifically for this project since no new habitat disturbing activities are proposed under any alternative. Routine road maintenance activities are not considered to be habitat disturbing (USDA and USDI 2001). Much of the area has been inventoried for Survey and Manage species for other projects. Currently there are known sites for twenty three different Survey and Manage botanical species within areas that would be designated as either camping corridors under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6) or 50 foot existing road pull-out corridors under the action alternatives.

There are five bryophytes currently on the Survey and Manage list that are known to occur on the Umpqua NF. Of these, none occur in roads or road shoulders although eight sites of Buxbaumia viridis occur within proposed camping corridors or 50-foot road pull-out corridors. This species occurs on large, old logs so it would not occupy areas that are drivable. Also within these corridors are single sites of Rhizomnium nudum and Tritomaria exsectiformis. Both of these species are associated with wet areas where off-road vehicle travel would remain prohibited. There are 17 species of Survey and Manage lichens that are known to occur on the Umpqua NF. At least four of these occur within corridors with limited off-road vehicle access, all of which grow on tree branches or boles. There are two flowering species of Survey and Manage plants that occur within corridors. Sites of both mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum) and clustered lady’s slipper (C. fasciculatum) occur within corridors. The clustered lady’s slipper site is actually within a designated campground so off-road travel is already regulated at that site. Two sites of mountain lady’s slipper occur along an ML 1 road that currently is not receiving any use and may not be feasible to drive. Another site occurs within 50 feet of an ML 2 road. This species tends to occur within or near thickets of vegetation rather than in open areas where off-road travel would be more feasible.

At least 18 different species of Survey and Manage fungi occur within corridors. This includes: Albetrellus flettii, Clavaridelphus truncatus, Craterellus tubaeformis, Cudonia monticola, Gomphus clavatus, Gyromitra esculenta, G. melaceucoides, Helvella elastica, H. maculata, Mycena overholtsii, Nivatogastrium nubigenum, Ramaria amyloidea, R. celerivirescens, R. rubripermanens, Sarcodon imbricatus, Sparassis crispa, Spathularia flavida and Tremiscus helvelloides. One site of T. helvelloides actually occurs alongside a roadside ditch. The others occur in the forested areas adjacent to roads. Of these others, only Gyromitra esculenta, which is a category F species that does not require management of sites, has been observed to occur on disturbed substrates where a vehicle might legally drive. One of the eight identified sites of T. helvelloides and one of the three sites of R. amyloidea are in the 50 foot corridors under Alternative 5 but not Alternatives 3 or 4. There are many more sites of both species that occur beyond any corridors. Otherwise, all of the other occurrences of the above listed bryophytes,

- 136 - Umpqua National Forest lichens, vascular plants and fungi are found in all alternatives with corridors. The complete list of Survey and Manage species can be found in Table 52.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There are limited potential direct effects to Survey and Manage species anticipated under all alternatives. Although one fungus actually occurs along a road which could easily be damaged by visitor traffic or road maintenance, there is nothing in any alternative that changes how this road is currently managed. This does however demonstrate the very limited potential for some fungi to occupy disturbed sites including existing road pull-out areas and areas in and around dispersed camping sites. Tremiscus helvelloides, the species with an occurrence along a ditch, appears to be more closely associated with wet areas than with old-growth forest, which would explain why it was found in a ditch. All of the 35 known sites of this bright orange, jelly-like fungus on the Umpqua NF occur near streams or wetlands.

Indirect impacts from activities associated with roads are possible. Trampling and disturbance of logs, branches and duff occur around campsites. Lichens that occur on branches, bryophytes and fungi associated with logs and all species that occur on the ground could be impacted by recreationists. However, none of the alternatives authorize any new routes to new dispersed campsites and since virtually all camping occurs within existing disturbances, there would be little or no new indirect impacts to Survey and Manage species or their habitats. The same is largely true of indirect impacts from edge effects of roads on the microclimate within the adjacent stands. Alternative 3, which closes all ML 1 roads to motorized use would result in amelioration of edge effects on those roads which become encroached with trees in the absence of vehicle use. The relative lack of limits to off-road travel under Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for direct and indirect impacts to Survey and Manage plants and fungi. As previously discussed, in practice there may be little difference between Alternative 1 and effects of the alternatives with camping corridors and 50-foot pull-out areas. The 85 miles of full-size vehicle use of ML1 roads behind barriers is unique to Alternatives 5 and 6 but there are no known sites directly associated with any of these roads.

Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and foreseeable future actions. The scale of analysis is defined as the Umpqua National Forest. The vast majority of the road system was built to access areas for timber harvest. This timber harvest and associated road building would have impacted sites and removed habitat for many Survey and Manage species prior to the initiation of surveys for these species in the late 1990s. Since that time and into the foreseeable future, surveys have been conducted and occurrences and habitat managed for according to each species need. The one exception would be the Pacific Connector Pipeline project that crosses the southern part of the Umpqua NF. This pipeline, if implemented, would result in a permanent open corridor that would impact numerous occurrences of several species of fungi. The route of the proposed pipeline has been adjusted to avoid impact to that rarest species where there was a persistence concern. The route would eliminate or impact occurrences of several species that are common enough that can withstand the loss of a few sites. This includes most of the Survey and Manage fungi that have sites within camping corridors and 50 foot pull-out areas. The fact that these species are common enough to occur both along the proposed pipeline route and near roads, supports the conclusion that these species are relatively abundant and well-distributed across the landscape. Planned road inactivation, decommissioning and gating would have no adverse or beneficial effect in the foreseeable future since road habitat is not favorable habitat for these species and would not be expected to become good habitat for many decades following decommissioning.

For each of the Survey and Manage species discussed above, each of the alternatives may affect individuals or habitat but would not lead to a loss of viability of the species or lead to a trend towards listings, although the no-action Alternative would be most likely to affect individuals and habitat for the

- 137 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment reasons discussed above. For all other Survey and Manage species there would be no impact anticipated under any of the alternatives.

Table 52 - Survey and Manage Plant Species

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Fungi

Acanthophysium farlowii (Aleurodiscus B NI NI NI NI NI NI farlowii) Albatrellus avellaneus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Albatrellus caeruleoporus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Albatrellus ellisii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Albatrellus flettii B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Alpova alexsmithii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Alpova olivaceotinctus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Arcangeliella camphorata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Arcangeliella crassa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Arcangeliella lactarioides B NI NI NI NI NI NI Asterophora lycoperdoides B NI NI NI NI NI NI Asterophora parasitica B NI NI NI NI NI NI Baeospora myriadophylla B NI NI NI NI NI NI Balsamia nigrens (Balsamia nigra) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Boletus haematinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Boletus pulcherrimus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Bondarzewia mesenterica (Bondarzewia B NI NI NI NI NI NI montana) Bridgeoporus nobilissimus (Oxyporus A NI NI NI NI NI NI nobilissimus) Cantharellus subalbidus D NI NI NI NI NI NI Catathelasma ventricosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Chalciporus piperatus (Boletus piperatus) D NI NI NI NI NI NI Chamonixia caespitosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Choiromyces alveolatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Choiromyces venosus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Chromosera cyanophylla (Mycena B NI NI NI NI NI NI lilacifolia) Chroogomphus loculatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Chrysomphalina grossula B NI NI NI NI NI NI Clavariadelphus ligula B NI NI NI NI NI NI Clavariadelphus occidentalis B NI NI NI NI NI NI (Clavariadelphus pistillaris) Clavariadelphus sachalinensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Clavariadelphus truncatus (syn. B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Clavariadelphus borealis) Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola B NI NI NI NI NI NI (Clavulina ornatipes)

- 138 - Umpqua National Forest

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Clitocybe senilis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Clitocybe subditopoda B NI NI NI NI NI NI Collybia bakerensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Collybia racemosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cordyceps capitata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cordyceps ophioglossoides B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius barlowensis (syn. Cortinarius B NI NI NI NI NI NI azureus) Cortinarius boulderensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius cyanites B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius depauperatus (Cortinarius B NI NI NI NI NI NI spilomeus) Cortinarius magnivelatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius olympianus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius speciosissimus (Cortinarius B NI NI NI NI NI NI rainierensis) Cortinarius tabularis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius umidicola (Cortinarius B NI NI NI NI NI NI canabarba) Cortinarius valgus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius variipes B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius verrucisporus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Cortinarius wiebeae B NI NI NI NI NI NI Craterellus tubaeformis (syn. D MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Cantharellus tubaeformis) Cudonia monticola B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Cyphellostereum laeve B NI NI NI NI NI NI Dermocybe humboldtensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Destuntzia fusca B NI NI NI NI NI NI Destuntzia rubra B NI NI NI NI NI NI Dichostereum boreale (Dichostereum B NI NI NI NI NI NI granulosum) Elaphomyces anthracinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Elaphomyces subviscidus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Endogone acrogena B NI NI NI NI NI NI Endogone oregonensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Entoloma nitidum (Rhodocybe nitida) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Fayodia bisphaerigera (Fayodia B NI NI NI NI NI NI gracilipes) Fevansia aurantiaca (Alpova aurantiaca) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Galerina atkinsoniana B NI NI NI NI NI NI Galerina cerina B NI NI NI NI NI NI Galerina heterocystis E NI NI NI NI NI NI Galerina sphagnicola E NI NI NI NI NI NI

- 139 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Galerina vittaeformis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus imbellus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus ruber B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus subalpinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus turbinatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastroboletus vividus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastrosuillus amaranthii E NI NI NI NI NI NI Gastrosuillus umbrinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gautieria magnicellaris B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gautieria otthii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gelatinodiscus flavidus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Glomus radiatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gomphus bonarii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gomphus clavatus B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gomphus kauffmanii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gymnomyces abietis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gymnomyces nondistincta B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gymnopilus punctifolius B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gyromitra californica B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gyromitra esculenta F MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gyromitra infula B NI NI NI NI NI NI Gyromitra melaleucoides B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Gyromitra montana (Gyromitra gigas) F NI NI NI NI NI NI Hebeloma olympianum (Hebeloma B NI NI NI NI NI NI olympiana) Helvella crassitunicata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Helvella elastica B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Helvella maculata B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Hydnotrya inordinata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Hydnotrya subnix B NI NI NI NI NI NI Hydnum umbilicatum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Hydropus marginellus (Mycena B NI NI NI NI NI NI marginella) Hygrophorus caeruleus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Hygrophorus karstenii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Hygrophorus vernalis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Hypomyces luteovirens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Leucogaster citrinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Leucogaster microsporus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Macowanites chlorinosmus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Macowanites lymanensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Macowanites mollis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Marasmius applanatipes B NI NI NI NI NI NI

- 140 - Umpqua National Forest

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Martellia fragrans B NI NI NI NI NI NI Martellia idahoensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Mycena hudsoniana B NI NI NI NI NI NI Mycena monticola B NI NI NI NI NI NI Mycena overholtsii B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Mycena quinaultensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Mycena tenax B NI NI NI NI NI NI Mythicomyces corneipes B NI NI NI NI NI NI Neolentinus adhaerens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Neolentinus kauffmanii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Neournula pouchetii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Nivatogastrium nubigenum B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Octavianina cyanescens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Octavianina macrospora B NI NI NI NI NI NI Octavianina papyracea B NI NI NI NI NI NI Otidea leporina B NI NI NI NI NI NI Otidea onotica F NI NI NI NI NI NI Otidea smithii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia attenuata D NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia californica B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia dissiliens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia fallax D NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia gregaria B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia kauffmanii D NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia olivacea B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia oregonensis (syn. B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia carmanahensis) Phaeocollybia piceae B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia scatesiae B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia sipei B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phaeocollybia spadicea B NI NI NI NI NI NI Phellodon atratus (Phellodon atratum) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Pholiota albivelata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Pithya vulgaris D NI NI NI NI NI NI Plectania melastoma F NI NI NI NI NI NI Plectania milleri B NI NI NI NI NI NI Podostroma alutaceum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Polyozellus multiplex B NI NI NI NI NI NI Pseudaleuria quinaultiana B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria abietina B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria amyloidea B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

- 141 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Ramaria araiospora B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria aurantiisiccescens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria celerivirescens B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Ramaria claviramulata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria concolor f. marrii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria concolor f. tsugina B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI (Ramaria fasciculata var. sparsiramosa) Ramaria coulterae B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria cyaneigranosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria gelatiniaurantia B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria gracilis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria largentii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria lorithamnus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria maculatipes B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria rainierensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria rubella var. blanda B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria rubribrunnescens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria rubrievanescens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria rubripermanens B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva B NI NI NI NI NI NI (Ramaria spinulosa) Ramaria stuntzii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria suecica B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria thiersii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramaria verlotensis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon abietis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon atroviolaceus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon brunneiniger B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon chamaleontinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon ellipsosporus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon exiguus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon inquinatus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizopogon truncatus D NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhodocybe speciosa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rickenella swartzii (Rickenella setipes) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Russula mustelina B NI NI NI NI NI NI Sarcodon fuscoindicus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Sarcodon imbricatus B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

- 142 - Umpqua National Forest

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Sarcosoma latahense (Plectania B NI NI NI NI NI NI latahensis) Sarcosphaera coronaria (Sarcosphaera B NI NI NI NI NI NI eximia) Sedecula pulvinata B NI NI NI NI NI NI Sowerbyella rhenana (Aleuria rhenana) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Sparassis crispa D MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Spathularia flavida B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH Stagnicola perplexa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Thaxterogaster pavelekii B NI NI NI NI NI NI Tremiscus helvelloides (syn. Phlogiotis B MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH helvelloides) Tricholoma venenatum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Tricholomopsis fulvescens B NI NI NI NI NI NI Tuber asa B NI NI NI NI NI NI Tuber pacificum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Tylopilus porphyrosporus (Tylopilus D NI NI NI NI NI NI pseudoscaber)

Lichens

Bryoria pseudocapillaris B NI NI NI NI NI NI Bryoria spiralifera B NI NI NI NI NI NI Bryoria subcana (syn. Alectoria subcana) B NI NI NI NI NI NI Bryoria tortuosa, OR Western Cascades A NI NI NI NI NI NI Province Bryoria tortuosa, OR Klamath Province D NI NI NI NI NI NI Buellia oidalea E NI NI NI NI NI NI Calicium abietinum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Calicium adspersum E NI NI NI NI NI NI Calicium glaucellum F NI NI NI NI NI NI Calicium viride F NI NI NI NI NI NI Cetrelia cetrarioides E NI NI NI NI NI NI Chaenotheca chrysocephala B NI NI NI NI NI NI Chaenotheca ferruginea B NI NI NI NI NI NI Chaenotheca furfuracea F NI NI NI NI NI NI Chaenotheca subroscida E NI NI NI NI NI NI Chaenothecopsis pusilla E NI NI NI NI NI NI Cladonia norvegica B NI NI NI NI NI NI Collema nigrescens, in WA and OR, except in OR Klamath Physiographic F NI NI NI NI NI NI Province Dendriscocaulon intricatulum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Dermatocarpon luridum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Heterodermia sitchensis E NI NI NI NI NI NI

- 143 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Hypogymnia duplicata (syn. Hypogymnia A NI NI NI NI NI NI elongata) Hypogymnia oceanica F NI NI NI NI NI NI Hypogymnia vittata (Hygomnia vittiata) E NI NI NI NI NI NI Hypotrachyna revoluta (syn. Parmelia E NI NI NI NI NI NI revoluta) Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum (syn. A NI NI NI NI NI NI Leptogium hirsutum) Leptogium cyanescens A NI NI NI NI NI NI Leptogium rivale B NI NI NI NI NI NI Leptogium teretiusculum E NI NI NI NI NI NI Lobaria linita A NI NI NI NI NI NI Microcalicium arenarium B NI NI NI NI NI NI Nephroma bellum F NI NI NI NI NI NI Nephroma isidiosum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Nephroma occultum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Niebla cephalota (syn. Desmazieria A NI NI NI NI NI NI cephaolta, Ramalina cephalota) Pannaria rubiginosa E NI NI NI NI NI NI Pannaria saubinetii F NI NI NI NI NI NI Peltigera pacifica E NI NI NI NI NI NI Platismatia lacunosa C C NI NI NI NI NI NI Pseudocyphellaria sp. 1 B NI NI NI NI NI NI (Pseudocyphellaria mougeotiana) Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis A NI NI NI NI NI NI Pyrrhospora quernea (syn. Lecidea E NI NI NI NI NI NI quernea, Protoblastenia quernea) Ramalina pollinaria E NI NI NI NI NI NI Ramalina thrausta A NI NI NI NI NI NI Stenocybe clavata E NI NI NI NI NI NI Teloschistes flavicans A NI NI NI NI NI NI Tholurna dissimilis, south of Columbia B NI NI NI NI NI NI River Usnea hesperina B NI NI NI NI NI NI Usnea longissima, In California and in Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties, A NI NI NI NI NI NI Oregon Usnea longissima, In Oregon, except in Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties F NI NI NI NI NI NI and in Washington

Bryophytes

Brotherella roellii E NI NI NI NI NI NI Buxbaumia viridis D NI NI NI NI NI NI Diplophyllum albicans D NI NI NI NI NI NI Diplophyllum plicatum B NI NI NI NI NI NI

- 144 - Umpqua National Forest

NAME Category Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Encalypta brevicolla v. crumiana B NI NI NI NI NI NI Herbertus aduncus B NI NI NI NI NI NI Iwatsukiella leucotricha B NI NI NI NI NI NI Kurzia makinoana B NI NI NI NI NI NI Marsupella emarginata v. aquatica B NI NI NI NI NI NI Orthodontium gracile B NI NI NI NI NI NI Racomitrium aquaticum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Rhizomnium nudum B NI NI NI NI NI NI Schistostega pennata A NI NI NI NI NI NI Tetraphis geniculata A NI NI NI NI NI NI Tritomaria exsectiformis B NI NI NI NI NI NI Tritomaria quinquedentata B NI NI NI NI NI NI

Vascular Plants

Botrychium minganense, In Oregon and A NI NI NI NI NI NI California Botrychium montanum A NI NI NI NI NI NI Coptis asplenifolia A NI NI NI NI NI NI Coptis trifolia A NI NI NI NI NI NI Corydalis aquae-gelidae C NI NI NI NI NI NI Cypripedium fasciculatum (entire range) C NI NI NI NI NI NI Cypripedium montanum (entire range) C NI NI NI NI NI NI Eucephalus vialis ( Aster vialis) A NI NI NI NI NI NI

Fire and Fuels

Management Direction Guidance for fire and fuels management is contained in the Umpqua Forest Plan. The Forest-wide goal is to provide and execute a fire management program that is cost efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives. This Forest-wide goal is achieved through the use of prescribed fire (planned ignition) and active wildfire (unplanned ignition) suppression. Prescribed fire is used to manage (i.e. reduce) fuel loadings and/or achieve other resource objectives. According to current federal fire policy, unplanned ignitions (wildfires) can be managed using a wide variety of responses, ranging from aggressive direct attack strategies to monitoring depending on the current and expected fire behavior, values at risk, resource availability, projected costs, and other factors. Different suppression strategies can be used on different parts of a given fire and can change with time.

Existing Condition The current motorized travel system on the Forest includes about 4,400 miles of roads and trails open to motorized use. Nearly 859,000 acres within the forest is open to cross-country travel, although only a small portion is accessible to vehicles due to terrain, vegetation, and other features that make the areas impassable, or at best very difficult to navigate on wheeled motorized vehicles. The remainder of the Forest (127,300 acres) is closed to cross-country travel through previous decisions or designations (such as designated Wilderness Areas).

- 145 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The road system is an important resource for fire management and is used to quickly and safely provide means for personnel and equipment to gain access to a wildfire, or portion of a fire, or to get within hiking distance. Roads of each category are used in fire management to move resources, including ML 1 roads which can be opened up to equipment and fire vehicles when responding to a wildfire. Roads are also an important feature used in fire suppression strategies, such as burn outs or serving as anchor points, to transport water to the fire location, to provide logistical support to firefighters and as escape routes firefighters can follow to safety zones or provide emergency access for injured firefighters. The Forest’s fire resource mix (i.e. crews, engines, air resources) is based largely on the percentage of the landscape accessible to ground based personnel and equipment. Where road densities are low, aerially delivered resources are often preferable.

Roads also serve as a transportation conduit for recreationists and forest users which increase the potential for human caused ignitions. Human caused ignitions tend to be concentrated in the highest use areas which are generally accessible by road. The risk (probability) of human caused ignitions generally increases with access and use (number of visitors). It also varies by type of recreational use (i.e. motorized vs. non-motorized). However, many other factors influence the risk of human caused ignition including prevention/awareness activities, weather and fuel moistures, fuel amount and arrangement, profile of large destructive and recent wildfires in the media, and many other unknown factors and interactions among these factors. Due to the unpredictability of human caused ignitions, it is not possible to quantify changes, with any degree of known accuracy, to risk from changes to recreational use and access. However, trends and generalizations can be discerned based on the assumption that human caused ignition risk generally increases with (motorized) access. Key indicators are:

 Changes to access for managing wildfire  Changes to the risk of human caused ignitions Vehicles can emit sparks when not properly fitted with a working spark arrestor. They can also start fires when hot engine components come in contact with light fuels such as dry grass. Vehicles also provide and increase access which increases the risk of other forms of human caused ignition such as from campfires or smoking.

By law, motorized vehicles intended for off highway use must be equipped with functional spark arrestors, which greatly reduce the risk of ignition (USDA 2012). Even properly equipped vehicles can start wildfires through contact between wildland fuels and hot engine components (Pitts 2007). Based on fire history data on the Umpqua National Forest, a relatively small number of fires are human caused (from about 1 to 20%1) however, because of limitations in how data is collected, it is not possible to discern the human caused fires that are directly or indirectly caused by motorized recreational users from those started by other recreationists such as backpackers, hunters, fishermen, etc. who would use the area regardless of motorized accessibility.

1 Human causes include equipment caused (recreational or industrial), smoking, campfires, etc. Misc causes include human associated fire causes not categorized elsewhere. For example, fires caused by power lines, or other unknown anthropogenic causes can be classified as misc. Generally misc fires are of human origin, but not normally associated with recreational or forest management activities (i.e. does not include campfires, smoking, equipment use, debris burning, etc). Human caused fire starts are generally associated with recreational use or with forest management activities. Misc fires are less commonly associated with recreational use, but may be. Because it is not possible to discern recreation associated ignitions from industrial sources, or to discern those associated with motorized from non-motorized forms of recreation, a range is used in the related discussion.

- 146 - Umpqua National Forest

Table 53. Wildfire Ignitions on the Umpqua National Forest by Source, 2002 to 2012 Fire Cause Number Acres Percent Human 25 46 <1% Natural 584 91,316 78% Misc. 25 26,096 22% Total 713 117,458 ~100%

Alternative 1 - No Action Under this alternative, cross-country travel would not be prohibited and a system of motorized routes would not be designated. Since there would be no prohibition on cross-country travel and no changes to motorized access, there would be no effect on fire and fuels management on the Forest.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Due to the minor (in the context of fire management) differences in acres and roads open to motorized vehicles between action alternatives, differences to the key indicators between alternatives would be immeasurable and small. Therefore effects are compared between Alternative 1 (No Action) and the composite of effects for Alternatives 2 through 6.

Because no physical road closures would occur as part of this decision and because wildfire response is considered an emergency action, the alternative implemented would have no measurable impact on wildfire response or management. Fire (and other emergency) vehicles would continue to be allowed to access areas as necessary to ensure a safe and effective response. It is very rare for fire vehicles to have the ability and/or need to drive cross-country (off road) on the Umpqua National Forest. However, cross- country travel would be allowable for fire vehicles when prudent and where feasible. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in terms of the Forest’s ability to respond to wildfire.

The elimination of cross-country travel and limited road closures (not designated for motorized use) would have a positive (lower risk), but negligible impact on fire starts, although it is not possible to discern exactly how much of an impact action alternatives would have on this metric. Reducing motorized cross-country travel would reduce the opportunity for fire starts associated with vehicles and increased user access. It is anticipated that unplanned human caused ignitions associated with motor vehicle use, and associated recreation, would decrease with the reduction of areas open to motorized travel under each alternative. However, because cross-country travel is already limited by existing decisions as well as terrain and vegetation on the vast majority of the Forest and because human caused ignitions are relatively infrequent compared to natural ignitions, this change would be negligible. Furthermore, it is likely that these fire starts would simply be more concentrated where motorized use is allowed. The distribution of human caused ignitions across the landscape would be expected to decrease in spatial extent with access with any action alternative, but the number of starts would be expected to remain fairly constant across all alternatives (because the number of users is assumed to remain constant). It is also possible that non- motorized recreational use may increase under action alternatives in areas previously motorized, but designated as non-motorized under any given action alternative, partially offsetting the reduced fire risk from motorized use. For example, for Alternative 3, ML 1 roads formally used by motor vehicles that become closed to motorized access may become more attractive to non-motorized recreational users and receive more use from this user group.

- 147 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Table 54. Effects to Fire and Fuels by Alternative Indicator Effect Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 - 6 Fire Management Access No Change No Change Human Caused Ignitions No Change Slightly reduced/ negligible

In summary, the differences between action alternatives are small in terms of magnitude and extent from a fire management standpoint and it is not possible to discern meaningful differences to the key indicators between action alternatives. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects were assessed based on past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in Chapter 2 of this document. The scale of analysis is the Umpqua National Forest boundary.

All past activities, whether described in this analysis or unknown to the planning team, that impacted roads or road access is captured in the existing conditions section. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities are not expected to impact road access or designations, or the impact(s) would be negligible, in terms of fire management. Vegetation Management and Soils Productivity

Management Direction - Vegetation Management Direction for timber management is contained in the 1990 Umpqua LRMP, as amended. The overall goal of the Forest’s timber/vegetation program is to provide for the efficient production of wood fiber to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies consistent with multiple resource objectives. This comprehensive goal is achieved through planned timber harvest using appropriate silvicultural practices to provide for a forest structure that ensures perpetual timber harvest at the long-term sustained yield capacity.

Existing Condition The roads and access on the Umpqua National Forest are mostly the result of forest timber management activities. In the latter half of the twentieth century especially, access to stands was needed for harvest to meet the demands of a thriving wood products industry. In harvesting high value stands good access was crucial, so roads were planned, financed and built for, and by, timber sales. The roads were located on the landscape to meet control points and to facilitate the removal of trees. Most of the roads (approx. 75%) on the Forest were built in the 1960’s and 1970’s and were generally designed geometrically (i.e. relatively straight alignments and grades) which required large cuts and fills. Design standards changed in the late 1970’s to allow non-geometric design, which resulted in roads that follow the contours more closely. These roads generally had less overall impact to the land and resources. The roads were developed to meet current and future needs for timber harvest serving as local, collector or arterial system links in the transportation system.

Currently, timber sales are re-entering these same areas using the existing roads and, along with temporary roads, are carrying out different harvest and management activities. System road construction is now rare and the temporary roads are closed upon the completion of the work.

- 148 - Umpqua National Forest

Effects Common to All Alternatives None of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative), propose construction of new roads or physical closure of any existing roads. As such, implementation of Subpart B would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effect on Vegetation Management. In future years as vegetation projects (e.g. timber sales) are implemented annual coordination will be necessary to show temporarily closed roads on MVUM updates for public safety. Soil Productivity

Management Direction and Existing Condition – Soil Productivity Soil productivity on the Umpqua National Forest has been directly impacted by the type, extent, and location of designated roads, motorized trails, and cross-country motor vehicle use. These impacts have affected the existing condition of all districts to varying degrees.

Soil productivity includes the inherent capacity of a soil under management to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. The following text describes loss or degradation of soil productivity in two aspects:

 Total Soil Resource Commitment is defined as the conversion of a productive site to an essentially non-productive site for a period of more than 50 years. In this analysis, quantifiable Commitment of the soil resource is associated with roads and trails. These areas are dedicated to a specific management use, like roads or motorized trails, which preclude other uses of the land and removes the majority of the productive capability of the land. These types of disturbances also affect water quality because they often create the greatest amount of accelerated soil erosion and thus sedimentation. Under Umpqua and Regional Forest Soil Standards and Guidelines detrimental soil conditions would not exceed 20% of any activity area.  Detrimental Soil Disturbance (LRMP IV-67 S&G 1) is the alteration of natural soil characteristics that results in immediate or prolonged loss of soil productivity and soil-hydrologic conditions. These conditions can result from off-road motorized activities and can produce unacceptable levels of soil degradation by compacting, moving, eroding, or pudding the soil. Motorized vehicles can damage soils directly from impact from surface traffic and indirectly by hydrologic modifications, soil transport, and deposition. Motorized vehicle use off roads and trails can degrade soil productivity. Direct mechanical impacts have several components: abrasion, compaction, shearing, and displacement. Compaction reduces soil voids and causes surface subsidence. Shearing is the destructive transfer of force through the soil. Displacement results in the mechanical movement of soil particles. Indirect impacts include hydraulic modification, such as the disruption of surface water flow, reduction in infiltration and percolation, surface ponding, and the loss of water holding capacity.

Disturbances from roads and motorized trails can increase erosion and sediment delivery. Existing roads and trails are a primary source of long-term management-related sediment. The type, extent, and location of a designated motorized system of roads, trails, and areas contribute to the amount of accelerated erosion, and can vary widely across the landscape (Gucinski et al. 2001). Accelerated erosion and sediment delivery have been identified as a source of water quality pollution. Reduced soil productivity, manifested through a decline in tree growth, adjacent to roads and trails can also be expected due to changes in soil physical properties along the cut and fill slopes, as well as on road prisms that have been closed but not decommissioned (Gucinski et al. 2001).

- 149 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

The following text provides a summary of how and why each Soil Indicator is used to evaluate effects on the soil resource.

Soil Indicator 1: Acres of the forest designated open to cross-country motor vehicle use The area designated open to cross-country motor vehicle use is used as a general measure of potential effects to soil productivity. Motorized cross-country travel can pioneer new trails across alpine areas, wetlands, steep slopes, and other areas with sensitive soils. Degraded areas become a major environmental problem because of their direct effects on vegetation, soils, and site hydrology. Under Umpqua and Regional Forest Soil Standards and Guidelines the allowable cumulative and detrimental soil impacts from cross-country travel would not exceed 20% of any area (LRMP IV-67 S&G 1).

Soil Indicator 2: Acres of Compaction and/or Unacceptable Soil Displacement from Roads and Trails Roads represent a long-term commitment of the soil to a non-productive condition. This is a total resource commitment of the soil resource. Unacceptable soil displacement is considered a removal of fifty percent or more of the mineral A or AC horizon over a 100 square foot (i.e. 5 by 20 feet) or larger area.

Soil Indicator 3: Acres of designated motorized trail (<50-inch width) OHV trails can have similar effects to soil productivity as roads but the effects differ based on the width of the travel way. As with two-wheel motorized trails, OHV trails create additional problems due to steep grades, lack of designed stream crossings, and difficulty of maintaining water management features.

Soil Indicator 4: Acres of soil restoration Severe soil compaction is a long-term (>50 years) cumulative disturbance which requires remediation through subsoiling treatments to a minimum depth of 18 to 20 inches. Soil displacement is a cumulative disturbance which requires remediation of the A or AC horizon through side cast fill pull-back or the application of carbon rich soil amendments such as Class A biosolid or other carbon rich composts, and/or biochar. Once remediated these areas would be considered to be in a restored condition. However, full soil restoration to a pre-disturbance soil condition is a long-term biologic (decades) process that which will only have begun.

Roads are considered to be in a long-term unacceptable condition until they have been ‘restored’. Therefore a 50-inch wide road designated as a <50-inch wide trail would remain in a compacted condition over the entire 50 inches unless subsoiling is scheduled to occur.

Total Soil Resource Commitment across the Forest from Roads and Trails This assessment includes detrimental disturbance associated with roads, trails, and cross-country motor vehicle use and tiers to the Umpqua National Forest 2011 Watershed Condition Assessment which also addresses soil compaction from legacy ground based logging disturbances. Off-road use, and motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails are sources of long-term management-related sediment. Standards and Guidelines (S&G’s) in the Umpqua LRMP establish that no more than 20% of any activity area can be in a detrimental soil condition (LRMP IV-67 S&G 1). This Standard includes the cumulative detrimental disturbances from all soil disturbing activities including new and legacy roads, skid trails, landings, cross-country travel, recreation, and trails. Under Alternative 1, travel routes would not exceed 20% (200 acres) of the 1,000 acres designated for cross-country travel. Under all the alternatives approximately 2,870 acres of the soil resource is currently, and remains committed to roads and OHV trails on the Forest.

- 150 - Umpqua National Forest

Widespread and unregulated cross-country travel on the Umpqua NF is fairly rare due to the challenges of operating vehicles in the difficult terrain presented by the Forest’s dense vegetation and irregular topography, severe adverse consequences can happen where it does occur; such as in and adjacent to stream courses, in riparian areas, and in meadow habitat. Alternative 3 would designate 300 foot wide camping corridors. Dispersed camping is inherently associated with roads and generally within the same zone of impact as the road. Dispersed camping is unlikely to generate measureable watershed impacts over and above those associated with roads. Under these conditions dispersed camping activities would have no more than a localized, short-term direct and indirect effect on aquatic resources. Changes in allowable road and motorized trail use would constitute the majority of variability in effects of alternatives. The magnitude and extent of road and trail impacts to erosion and sediment delivery to streams would be highly variable depending on site specific characteristics.

Rates of erosion due to roads and trails have been extensively studied and documented in published literature (Coe and MacDonald, 2001). Exposure of native material and aggregate fines on the road surface of travel right-of-ways, cut banks, and to a lesser extent revegetated fill slopes associated with roads and trails, provide a continuous source of loose material that can be moved to streams by road drainage. Vehicle use of roads and trails generally increases surface erosion through substrate displacement, rutting, and dust generation. Roads and trails are often surfaced with rock or pavement and drainage is managed by ditches and culverts to disperse surface flows and reduce weathering and deterioration of the road as well as to reduce accelerated erosion and deposition in streams.

Over time normal road wear breaks down the road surface along the wheel tracks to flatten the road crown. A flattened road surface holds water for longer periods and eventually causes pot holes and ruts to form. Once ruts have formed precipitation is no longer being effectively dispersed off the surface but begins to concentrate and travel down the road surface, often with enough energy to displace and move soil aggregate. This break down of the road surface is made worse with the more use a road receives when it is wet. A rutted road surface can be insignificant when it only runs a short distance, but can increase in significance as ruts extend and redirect concentrated surface flow past relief culverts. As roads weather either because they have been given a low priority for maintenance or as maintenance schedules are extended due to lack of funds we will see more roads on the Forest in a rutted condition. Increased maintenance, seasonal restrictions, reduced travel, or accentuated techniques for dispersing runoff such as surface grading, constructing waterbars, rolling dips, or subsoiling can be effective measures for preventing the concentration of surface flow and reduce erosion. No alternatives would call for seasonal restrictions in road or trail use to address possible rutting and/or erosion.

None of the action alternatives propose road removal, restoration, or decommissioning. Road densities at the watershed scale would remain the same over all alternatives. Some roads would be closed to travel but not be physically removed from the landscape. Although roads would be closed to public motorized travel, they would continue to be Forest System roads that are available for administrative use (typically timber harvest), or will close themselves over time. Roads that are allowed to close without mitigating measures such as subsoiling to reduce compaction and increase water infiltration would be expected to remain in a low productive capacity until the roots of trees that establish themselves extend beyond the compacted surface or soil builds from offsite or the cut banks.

Proposals to eliminate or designate mixed use on existing roads would present no change to current hydrologic conditions. As long as a road is designed and maintained to carry cars and trucks, the addition or elimination of off highway vehicles has no to very minimal effect on the road’s hydrologic impact. Dispersed motorized camping prohibits development of new routes, avoids use near streams, and prohibits crossing of any stream, wetland, or water body (unless on a designated route). Given these

- 151 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment resource protections motorized camping described in this document would have very minimal detrimental impact to sediment delivery.

All alternatives would have similar direct and indirect effects on sediment delivery potentials to streams. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would potentially result in a slight improvement to overall sediment delivery potential by restricting road use.

The decision to allow or prohibit the use of public wheeled motor vehicle on routes would have no direct effects on soils. However, a route designation decision does have the potential to affect soils indirectly to the extent that it affects the concentration of use on roads and trails, the levels of maintenance needed, and the potential for damaged areas to recover. The magnitude of the indirect effects on soils and sediment delivery will depend on (1) how effectively law enforcement can confine traffic to designated routes; (2) how effectively law enforcement can keep traffic off routes that are not designated; (3) public trust in the Forest Service, (4) public understanding of restrictions, and (4) how well routes closed to public wheeled motor vehicle use recover on their own, without restoration treatments.

To the extent that wheeled motor vehicle traffic is the primary cause of erosion, prohibiting public wheeled motor vehicle use of existing routes will result in less erosion. In most situations, however, erosion is the result of a combination of factors that include poor route design or location, lack of drainage, and inadequate maintenance. In addition metal culverts on the Forest have an expected life- span of 25 to 50 years before they rust-out and begin to fail. Culverts also require periodic inspection and routine maintenance to clear debris to prevent plugging. Roads with culverts would not be suitable for closing without first removing the culvert.

The routes being evaluated already exist. They are compacted and generally lack vegetation, and some are eroded. From the standpoint of soil productivity, these routes are already non-productive. Therefore, the potential effects on soils are only related to sustaining route function, protecting adjacent soils from runoff and gully erosion, or restoring the routes to a productive state. These routes would not be restored to a productive state. Subsoiling to ameliorate soil compaction would not occur and none of the alternatives proposed soil restoration.

As an overall conclusion, the effects associated with all alternatives, either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively are not likely to prevent attainment of either the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) or the nine ACS objectives, at the site, watershed, or landscape scales. Cultural Resources

Introduction The Umpqua National Forest is responsible for stewardship of a large share of the region’s cultural resources including a wide variety of archaeological sites, buildings, structures, objects and cultural landscapes. The Forest also manages natural resources, which are critical to the continuation of the lifeways of indigenous peoples (referred to as traditional cultural properties). Preserving the important cultural, educational and scientific values of these nonrenewable resources for future generations is a Forest Service priority. The proposed project was designed to ensure compliance with federal historic preservation laws, and management strategies were developed to balance resource protection, cultural values and recreation opportunities. The following provides a summary of the effects of the proposed project to cultural resources, as well as proposed mitigation measures, where needed.

The Congress in 1966 declared it to be our National policy that the Federal government “administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship

- 152 - Umpqua National Forest for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations” (National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470-1(3)). This need was made more explicit when the National Historic Preservation Act was amended in 1980 and Section 110 was added to expand and underscore Federal agency responsibility for identifying and protecting historic properties and avoiding unnecessary damage to them. Many historic properties are fragile and once damaged or destroyed they cannot be repaired or replaced.

Section 106 of the NHPA directs federal agencies to take into account the effect of its undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60) (Historic Properties). The Travel Management Rule requires that the effects on cultural resources be considered, with the objective of minimizing damage, when designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.55(a), 212.55(b)(1)).

Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Direction relevant and specific to the alternatives as they affect cultural resources includes:

The Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic properties by several laws. However, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) (NHPA), provides comprehensive direction to federal agencies about their historic preservation responsibilities. Executive Order 11593, entitled Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, also includes direction about the identification and consideration of historic properties in Federal land management decisions.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467) to include resources that are of State and local significance, expands the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO). NHPA Section 106 directs all Federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) regulations (36 CFR 800) implements NHPA Section 106. NHPA Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for Federally-owned historic properties.

The Forest Service’s policy for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in travel management with respect to route designation for motor vehicle use was issued in 2005: USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005). This policy was developed in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It outlines minimal requirements for considering possible effects to historic properties that may be associated with designating routes and areas as part of a National Forest’s Transportation System (NFTS). This policy statement recognizes that Forests with programmatic agreements for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA will follow the terms of those agreements.

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHPs implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to comment on those undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide alternative procedures for complying with 36 CFR 800. Region 6 has such an agreement: Programmatic Agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service. This agreement defines the Area of

- 153 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Potential Effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.4(a)(1)) and includes a strategy outlining the requirements for cultural resource inventory, evaluation of historic properties, and effect determinations; it also includes protection and resource management measures that may be used where effects may occur.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, issued May 13, 1971, directs Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to nominate to the National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that Federal plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-Federally owned properties.

Effects Analysis Methodology

Geographic Scope of Analysis Motorized uses on roads, ML 1 roads and trails, which are designed for that purpose, have little to no potential to effect historic resources. Under the PA this type of use would have limited potential to cause effects as described under the NHPA. Motorized use of designated routes and motorized access for dispersed camping can affect archaeological sites by rutting and disturbing the fragile nature of some historic properties. Historic properties found in open meadows have the most potential to be affected by rutting. Historic sites can be accessed and removal or theft of historic resources would affect the informational value of the sites.

The majority of existing dispersed camps across the Forest has been inventoried to some degree for historic properties. Where historic properties are discovered and resource damage has occurred, placement of barriers is recommended. New campsites are monitored and if historic properties are discovered, protective measures are put in place. Archaeological damage, including rutting by OHV use, is investigated by Law Enforcement and an archaeological damage assessment is completed.

Some dispersed sites are located near or on historic properties and may have associated archaeological components. Identification of at-risk properties or other areas of cultural concern may be accomplished through use of existing information and consultation, and these concerns are developed into a monitoring plan. Known archaeological sites or areas of high probability are monitored to assess protection of these non-renewable resources. Monitoring, under the 2004 Programmatic Agreement among the United States Forest Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and State Historic Preservation Office (PA) (Oregon) B:7,14 will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Historic properties can be adversely affected by off road vehicle traffic by increased rutting and ground disturbing activities, increased damage to traditional use plants, and increased accessibility for looters. There can be an increased use of designated roads, which would put specific vulnerable historic properties at greater risk to vandalism and looting. Archaeological and historical sites (over 100 years of age) are protected by the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA), which has criminal and civil penalties. Historical sites less than 100 years old are protected under the 36 CFR §261.9. No ground disturbing activities are authorized with any of the alternatives.

A variety of protection measures are available to protect cultural sites from effects resulting from Travel Management decisions, including posting law enforcement signs (ARPA), creating physical protection barriers, and closure or restriction of motorized traffic to historic properties. Restricting access to Traditional Cultural Properties can be an adverse impact under the NHPA. Tribal elders depend on access to Traditional Cultural Properties for continued use of these areas. Use of these areas can include the gathering of plant resources.

- 154 - Umpqua National Forest

Monitoring of historic properties continues to be the most effective way of determining if there has been degradation. Questions of concern include the following: Is there the potential for damage? Is the road or trail bedrock, native surface, gravel or paved? Is there evidence of previous motorized vehicle/human effects to the ground surface or site features? Does the route intrude on a culturally important location, such as traditional plant gathering site or a sacred site? Conversely, is access to the traditional use area or sacred site needed by tribal elders?

Monitoring of historic properties is ongoing throughout the year. Monitoring is a proactive strategy that helps protect historic properties from further degradation. These alternatives include all unauthorized or user-created routes proposed for adding to the NFTS as trails under the action alternatives.

Assumptions Specific to Cultural Resources Analysis 1. Unauthorized, user-created routes and areas have already affected historic properties within route/area prisms. 2. Under the action alternatives, use would continue at current levels or increase over time on the designated system with the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. 3. None of these actions are considered an undertaking subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance (USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005)). Motor vehicles can already use NFTS roads. Allowing or prohibiting non-highway vehicle use will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on cultural resources

Data Sources An overview of existing data was undertaken consulting the program’s cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, site record files, and GIS spatial layers to provide the basis for understanding the nature and extent of cultural resources within the project area, and the effects of the proposed additional trails to the NFTS on these resources:

Archival and literature sources were reviewed and data from Forest Service cultural resource records, maps and GIS layers compiled to provide a prehistoric and historic overview of the geographic region, identify major historical themes and events, and to provide information on previous archaeological inventories, known site locations, and the likelihood of unidentified resources within the project area. Tribal consultation occurred concurrently with other public involvement activities. The project was discussed with the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz.

Basis for Analysis/Cultural Resources Indicators All cultural resources identified within the APE are considered historic properties, as defined by the NHPA (36 CFR 60), for purposes of this undertaking (Region 6 PA) unless they have already been determined not eligible in consultation with the SHPO or through other agreed upon procedures (36 CFR 60.4; 36 CFR 800).

For purposes of this analysis, cultural resources effects are defined as follows:

Direct effect is or will be caused by motor vehicle use or the consequences of such use, including physical damage resulting from erosion, down-cutting or displacement of resources.

Indirect effects are associated with motor vehicle uses outside unauthorized routes and areas, for example, adjacent camping areas or areas where motorized travel off of unauthorized routes or areas may

- 155 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment occur. The proximity of sensitive cultural resources to unauthorized routes is an important factor when determining where resources are at greater risk. Indirect effects could include those listed for direct effects, but may also include other destructive actions like vandalism and looting.

Types of effects: None, Direct, Indirect, Cumulative

Nature of effects: Erosion, down-cutting, rutting, displacement, disturbance, damage, deterioration, vandalism, removal/alteration of historic structures, visual/auditory/atmospheric effects to historic setting or cultural landscape.

Severity of effects: Low, Moderate, High, Extreme

 Low - only minor disturbances confined to unauthorized routes; no obvious displacement of artifacts, features or archaeological deposits other than original unauthorized route placement (i.e. slight disturbance but no apparent effect to integrity of NRHP values).  Moderate - Less than 2 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone (i.e. slight affect to artifacts/features, but overall site integrity and NRHP values are retained.  High - Estimated 3-5 cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; displaced artifacts (i.e. localized or multiple areas of effects). Overall site integrity and NRHP values are damaged or altered.  Extreme - Estimated 5+ cubic meters of disturbance within the unauthorized route zone; displaced artifacts in several locations and or vandalism noted (i.e. severe effects to NRHP values, artifacts and features associated with NRHP values have been diminished or altered. The prohibition of motor vehicle use off of existing NFTS and areas would have a beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the Forest in both the short and long term. It would curtail ongoing effects and reduce the threat to cultural resources and historic properties that would occur should past unauthorized use patterns continue. Prohibiting cross-country travel would eliminate the effects resulting from the creation of additional unauthorized routes. Under this prohibition, most if not all, future permitted or other unauthorized motorized vehicle travel off of the NFTS would be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural resources and historic properties could be identified at that time.

Changes to the existing NFTS None of these actions are considered an undertaking subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance (USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005)). Motor vehicles can already use NFTS roads. Allowing or prohibiting non-highway vehicle use will have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects Short-term timeframe: Not applicable; cumulative effects analysis will be done only for the long-term timeframe.

Long-term timeframe: 20 years

Spatial boundary: Forest administrative boundary (outside of designated wilderness).

Indicator(s): Degree to which the integrity of historic property values are diminished, related to: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

- 156 - Umpqua National Forest

Methodology: Use existing data from cultural resource site atlas, historic archives, maps, site record files, and GIS spatial layers, and information obtained from archaeological inventories of unauthorized routes, to identify cultural resources in the APE that may have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects.

Affected Environment Archaeology can provide valuable contextual information for assessing existing conditions on the Forest. Cultural resources provide a record of the dynamic relationship between humans and the natural landscape—a relationship in the project area which has spanned thousands of years. Cultural remains in the analysis area include a wide-array of objects, sites, buildings, and cultural landscapes from both the prehistoric and historic period, and natural/traditional cultural resources, which are used by modern indigenous peoples.

Prehistoric Period Prehistoric sites represent activity by Native Americans prior to European contact. Intensive archaeological research has generally not occurred with the exception of documentation of resources associated with Forest Service undertakings. There is a significant time-depth of human occupation on the Forest, and a high potential for archaeological work to reveal critical information about the history of the natural environment and human adaptation in the Umpqua Basin.

The Umpqua National Forest has been occupied by humans for thousands of years. Archaeological sites have been discovered dating to 9,000 years before present. Various archaeological sites types have been documented on the Umpqua National Forest during inventories. Prehistoric resources include flaked-stone artifacts scatters reflecting resource procurement activities and seasonal campsites, habitation sites with diverse cultural deposits, and in some instances, house pits. Other types of archaeological sites include rock cairns, rock shelters, rock art, and culturally modified trees.

Consultation is undertaken with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians on proposed actions that have the potential to affect these resources. Traditional Cultural Properties, recorded in consultation with the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, are the primary traditional use areas of the Cow Creek. Tribal consultation is ongoing to identify additional traditional use areas. These studies relied on the use of “ethnographic information obtained from living tribal members who have spent their lives in the aboriginal homeland” and provide the first step in identifying traditional use areas. Sacred sites are identified in consultation with the appropriate tribes.

Historic Period The Umpqua National Forest was originally established as part of the Cascade Forest Reserve by the General Land Office in 1893. In 1905, the Cascade Forest Reserve lands were transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture and in 1908 the Cascade Forest Reserve was subdivided into Mt. Hood, Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River National Forests.

Sheep ranchers grazed their flocks on the unassigned lands in the Cascade Forest Reserve prior to the creation of the Umpqua National Forest. Forest records delineate grazing allotments, camps and stock driveways. Sheep grazing slowed during World War II and after the war, cattle allotments became common.

In 1907, Southern Pacific began exploring the area for power production and built trails and bridges in the area of Toketee Falls. In 1922 the California Oregon Power Company (COPCO) completed a reconnaissance of the North Umpqua River drainage between Little River and Diamond Lake for power

- 157 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment production plants. In 1945, the application for a permit for the North Umpqua Project was submitted and in 1947 the North Umpqua Hydroelectric Facility was approved for license.

Tourism and recreation began in the 1920s with construction of the Pacific Highway. In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) established several camps and side camps on the Forest. From these camps, the CCC built Forest Service Ranger Stations, fire lookouts, campgrounds, bridges, and roads. Improved access to public lands encouraged tourism and recreational use expanded. In 1939, the North Umpqua Forest Highway opened to Diamond Lake drawing the interest of campers, hikers, fishermen, and hunters.

Fishing, camping, hiking, and swimming were a mainstay of summer entertainment. Summer homes and privately owned cabins were permitted on Forest Service lands in 1924 starting in 1924. The initial development of a recreational tract at Diamond Lake included permits for cabins, outhouses, storage sheds, garbage pits, and sleeping cabins. In 1948, there were 50 cabin permits issued. There are now 102 cabins in the completed tract.

Logging and mining industries also played a key role in the early years. Small mills across the Umpqua National Forest supplied the material needs of the miners and settlers. Small-scale operators began working in the drainages in the 1920s. Crews felled and bucked logs by hand and used steam donkeys to get timber to the mills. The development of timber resources on the Forest increased dramatically after World War II with new technologies improving the ability to create roads.

Historic sites on the Umpqua National Forest represent the cultural and economic development in Oregon dating back over 160 years. Examples of historic settlements include homesteads, outbuildings, and cabins. Mining activity is present on the landscape and includes features such as vertical and horizontal shafts, placer mining tailing piles, linear features such as the “China Ditch”. Contributions of the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s still exist as trails, roads, and occasional isolated rock wall features and wooden culverts. Logging-related sites include mill locations, springboard stumps, donkey engines and sleds, and logging camps with domestic refuse.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations 36 CFR 800, and an appropriate Programmatic Agreement (PA) under NHPA require that federal agencies take into account the effect of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as archaeological, historical, sacred and traditional use sites and locations. Key factors to be considered in regards to the project include the degree to which designation of open routes would change existing use patterns, the likely presence of historic properties, and the potential of the actions to adversely impact these cultural resources.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 Under the No Action alternative, the existing condition would continue. Cross county travel would be allowed. Roads, trails and areas that are currently open to motorized use would continue to be open unless special closure orders were developed. Resource damage would continue to be a concern with the potential for increased damage as populations grow. Monitoring of historic properties would continue and with increased use, damage to historic properties is expected to increase. There would be no changes in or effects on motorized use adjacent to historic properties.

- 158 - Umpqua National Forest

Direct/Indirect Effects As described in Chapter 2, under the No-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No changes would be made to the current NFTS and no cross- country travel prohibition would be put into place. This No-action alternative has the greatest potential to directly affect historic properties located within route corridors, as well as the probability that these and additional sites would be impacted by unrestricted, random impacts from cross-country travel. However, it is difficult to quantify when and where cultural resources would be impacted by motor vehicles over time. In the short term, disturbances on unauthorized routes would not change.

Cumulative Effects The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis was limited to the Forest’s administrative boundary because impacts to cultural resources accumulate at their specific locations, irrespective of actions in surrounding areas. Cumulative effects would likely occur under Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 Under this alternative, monitoring would continue to be the main protection measure for ground disturbing activities. There would be no recreation (camping) corridors designated in the Proposed Action, which has the potential to adversely affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas.

Direct/Indirect Effects For the action alternatives, the prohibition of motor vehicle use off designated transportation systems and areas would have a beneficial effect on cultural resources throughout the forest in the short and long terms. It would curtail ongoing potential for adverse effects and reduce the threat to cultural and historic properties that would occur if use were to continue on all unauthorized roads and trails. It would also help eliminate potential effects resulting from the creation of any new routes and trails if cross-country motorized vehicle use was not prohibited. Under this prohibition, most if not all future permitted or other authorized motorized vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads will be subject to NHPA Section 106 compliance and potential effects to cultural and historic properties can be identified. An indirect effect of this alternative could adversely affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 2 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential effects (both direct and indirect) would be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Management Actions and Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.

Alternative 3 Under Alternative 3, no camping corridors would be designated. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 has the potential to affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas.

With the elimination of motor vehicle use on all ML 1 roads (1,186 mi.) and existing trails in IRAs (31 mi.), access and potential damage to historic properties would be reduced. Resource damage would continue to be a concern with the potential for increased damage as populations grow. Monitoring of historic properties would continue and with increased use, damage to historic properties is expected to increase slightly. Closures would be sought for the roads with increased damage to historic properties.

- 159 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Direct/Indirect Effects Under this alternative, a slight decrease in the risk of ground disturbing activities and vandalism of historic properties is expected. Closures would be sought for the roads with increased damage to historic properties.

Alternative 3 has the potential to affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 3 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.

Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4, the designation of dispersed camping corridors could lead to damage of archaeological resources. Camping corridors provide for motorized use of existing routes to access existing dispersed campsites. Camping corridors would provide for the “limited” use of motor vehicles off the designated system of routes. Pioneering new routes within camping corridors would not be allowed. Upland high meadows and meadow mosaics often have historic properties associated with them and, if they are in a dispersed camping corridor; these sites have a high potential to be damaged by OHV use.

Under this alternative, the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel coupled with the designation of camping corridors would have limited potential to affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas.

Under Alternative 4, an existing 2 acre OHV Open Area would be designated at the east end of Lemolo Lake. The proposed Lemolo OHV Open Area was inventoried for cultural resources and no archaeological, historical, or traditional resources were identified. As such, designation of this area would have no effect on heritage resources.

Direct/Indirect Effects This action alternative favors resource protection by minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 4 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential effects will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology sections above.

Alternative 5 Under this alternative, 398 miles of ML 1 roads would be designated as ML 2 roads or trails open to full size vehicles. These roads, while currently open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width, are being used by full size vehicles. There would be an additional 314 miles of ML 2 roads with the accompanying 50 foot pull-out area that would increase the potential for damage to historic properties and cultural resources.

Direct/Indirect Effects The reclassification of these roads and designation of trails for full sized vehicle use has the potential to affect historic properties with increased rutting. There may be increased maintenance activities associated with elevating the Maintenance Level from 1 to 2, which has the potential to affect historic properties.

- 160 - Umpqua National Forest

Cumulative Effects Similar to Alternative 4, the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel coupled with the designation of camping corridors would have limited potential to affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas. Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 5 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) would be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology section above.

Alternative 6 This alternative is similar to Alternative 5, with the exception of the closure of 31 miles of motorized trails in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). The closure of the additional 31 miles of trails in IRAs has limited potential to affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas.

Direct/Indirect Effects The effects of Alternative 6 on heritage resources are similar to those described under Alternative 5.

Cumulative Effects Similar to Alternative 5, the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel coupled with the designation of camping corridors would have limited potential to affect the access of Tribal elders to traditional use areas. Cumulative effects are not anticipated under Alternative 6 because the NFTS would be well defined and all identified and potential adverse effects (both direct and indirect) will be mitigated. This assertion presupposes the assumptions listed under the Effects Analysis Methodology section above.

Long and Short-term Cumulative Effects - The prime purpose of the Travel Management Rule is to reduce negative effects to natural and cultural resources from unregulated cross-country use. By amending the Land and Resource Management Plan from “cross-country use open, unless designated as closed” to “motorized cross-country use closed, unless designated as open”, greater control of access is expected. No ground disturbing activities are authorized by any of the Alternatives. Designating camping corridors may attract more use and possible damage to fragile historic properties over time. Monitoring of use would continue with historic properties removed from the dispersed camping corridors if damage is occurring. Law Enforcement

Existing Condition The Forest plan specifies that, “All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on all open Forest Development Roads (roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5), except where Federal orders under 36 CFR 261 have been issued (36 CFR 212).” (LRMP p. IV-83). The Oregon State Motor Vehicles Division has strict rules for operating non-highway legal motor vehicles on roads, and the mixing of highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821 specifically addresses off-highway vehicles (OHV) and establishes vehicle classes, driver requirements, equipment requirements and where various classes of vehicles may and may not operate. Forest Service law enforcement personnel enforce Oregon traffic rules and regulations on Forest Development Roads and are assisted by state and county law enforcement through multi-jurisdictional cooperative enforcement agreements.

The Forest Plan provides the current direction for off road vehicle use on the Forest and that use is monitored and enforced by Forest Service law enforcement personnel. Citations are generally issued only for damage to Forest resources. Title 36 CFR 261.15(h) states, “It is prohibited to operate any vehicle off

- 161 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

National Forest System, State or County roads in a manner which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources.”

Currently, Forest Service officials are somewhat limited in the effectiveness of enforcing off road vehicle use rules and regulations. With the 87% of the Forest being open unless closed by special order, and officers being concentrated near high use recreation areas, often times resource damage caused by unlawful off road vehicle use goes undetected for long periods of time. Additionally, Forest visitors complain it is not clear to the public where mixed use by highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles is allowed. Consequently, unlawful and unmitigated mixed use is occurring, creating the potential for a serious operator safety issue.

Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the existing condition would continue. Roads, trails and areas that are currently open to motorized use would continue to be open unless special closure orders were developed. Resource damage would continue to be an issue off-road, and where mixed use traffic may occur would continue to remain unclear and be a safety issue.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives The Forest Plan amendments, the implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, improved signing, and the issuance of the MVUM would all work together to improve the ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce travel management designations and promote sustainable OHV opportunities. Restricting motorized use to a system of designated routes and distribution of the MVUM would clarify motor vehicle use regulations to Forest users and reduce violations. The MVUM, as the enforcement tool, would provide forest managers the ability to protect resources currently being damaged by off road vehicles and would provide a safer driving situation for forest visitors by designating and illustrating where motorized mixed use is and is not allowed.

Cumulative Effects In addition to the Forest Plan amendment, implementation of the final rule, improved signing, and the issuance of the MVUM, the Forest continues to implement site-specific management actions that protect riparian areas, meadows and other sensitive areas from impacts associated with motorized use. The continual improvement/revision of travel management designations, signage and public education would improve the ability of law enforcement personnel to prosecute people who knowingly break the law and cause damage to natural resources. Other Resources

Air Quality Motor vehicles produce exhaust emissions and create air-borne dust when operated on dry road, trail, or soil surfaces. These effects are generally localized in extent, short-lived, and well dispersed within a large airshed. Because none of the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) are expected to change the number of vehicles operating on the Forest, there are no anticipated impacts to air quality from any action alternative compared to the no-action alternative.

Climate On January 13, 2009, the Washington Office of the Forest Service released guidance to Forest Service units regarding the incorporation of climate change science into project-level NEPA documents (USDA 2009d). This guidance document provides that units should consider two kinds of climate change effects.

- 162 - Umpqua National Forest

First, units may, where appropriate, consider the effect of a project on climate change. Second, units may, where appropriate, consider the effect of climate change on a proposal. This latter category may include the effect of changed snowfall regimes on special use permit issuance for ski areas or the effect of rainfall changes on reforestation following a timber sale. Forest Service direction on climate change consideration also notes, “[i]t is possible, and in some projects likely, that proposals may meet the Agency’s mission while also enhancing the resilience or adaptive capacity of resources to the potential impacts of climate change. For example, projects designed to restore the health, resilience, and productivity of forested ecosystems may also improve the capability of the stands or landscape to withstand climate change stresses” (USDA 2009a).

Addressing the first type of effects, none of the alternatives in the Umpqua National Forest Travel Management Plan would have a direct effect on emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and thus potential climate changes. This is due to the fact that no changes in the level of motorized recreation activities are expected as a result of any of the alternatives, only small changes to location and concentration of activities.

As to the effects of climate change on proposed alternatives, any alternative which would make the forest more resilient to a changing climate, especially with respect to water quantity and flows, would have a beneficial effect. Potential impacts from climate change include warming temperatures (air and water), earlier spring runoff with increased flood potential, and more evapotranspiration leading to dryer vegetation and soils and thus higher fire risk (USDA, 2008). As cross-country travel has the potential to degrade water and soil resources through erosion and subsequent sedimentation, all action alternatives that eliminate cross-country travel on the forest would help the forest become more resilient to climate change in comparison to the no-action alternative.

Economics Participation in motorized and non-motorized activities has the potential to impact local economies. The No Action Alternative would continue current management and there would be no economic impact to local communities since there would be no Forest Plan amendment or designation of a system of motorized routes. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would restrict motorized use to the designated system and eliminate motorized cross-country travel, resulting in a potential reduction of motorized recreation opportunities. Because of the steep terrain and dense vegetation over most of the Forest, opportunities for motorized travel off existing roads and trails are limited, and the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel is not expected to have effects on motorized recreation use patterns. It is not expected to have any meaningful effect on how many people use the Umpqua National Forest or how many days they spend recreating on the Forest. There would be no meaningful economic impact to local communities associated with the Forest Plan amendment or the designation of a system of motorized routes.

Specifically Required Disclosures Based on the Interdisciplinary Team’s evaluation of effects, it was the conclusion that:

1. This EA is tiered to the Umpqua Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and is consistent with those plans and their requirements. Implementation of any of the alternatives would not conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including Tribes. None of the action alternatives would conflict with any other policies, regulations, or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. The No Action Alternative would not comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

- 163 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

2. No pre-disturbance surveys or management of known sites are necessary for any rare species, including threatened, endangered, sensitive or other rare or uncommon species, since no alternative proposes any new habitat disturbing activities. 3. None of the proposed alternatives would affect known prehistoric or historic sites. As outlined in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, no effects are anticipated on American Indian social, economic, subsistence rights, or sacred rights. 4. No adverse effects on unique habitats, wetlands and floodplains, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers are anticipated; and no prime farmlands, rangelands, forestlands, or parklands would be affected because none are present on the Forest. The complete Wetlands and Floodplains Declaration prepared by the Forest Hydrologist is part of the project record and incorporated by reference. 5. No potential or unusual expenditures of energy or adverse impacts to potential development of energy sources are associated with the implementation of any of the alternatives because all of the action alternatives represent administrative action only. 6. None of the proposed alternatives would affect minority groups, women, and consumers differently than any other groups. None of the alternatives adversely affect civil rights, as no contracts are to be awarded as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives. 7. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to address environmental justice by identifying and disclosing the effects of the proposed activities on minority and low-income populations. The effects of alternatives on the human environment (including minority and low-income populations) are expected to be minor, as the majority of the forest is currently unavailable for cross-county travel and use, due to natural terrain features such as steep slopes. Any impacts would be similar for all human populations regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income. No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations are expected as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives, due to the limited impacts expected. No impacts to environmental justice would occur under the no action alternative, as no actions would be taken that would change current or future use.

CHAPTER 4

Consultation with others

Introduction As described in Chapter 1, comment on the Proposed Action was solicited through letters, brochures, newspapers, open houses, presentations to organizations and the Forest website. The following is a summary of Forest Service consultation with Federal, state and local agencies and tribes and interested publics during the development of this Environmental Assessment. Agency Consultation Forest Service - The Umpqua National Forest coordinated with the Willamette, Deschutes and Rogue River National Forests to assure that roads connecting the Forests are designated consistently across Forest boundaries.

- 164 - Umpqua National Forest

Bureau of Land Management - The Bureau of Land Management’s Eugene, Roseburg and Medford Districts were consulted to ensure the compatibility of travel management across jurisdictional boundaries and avoid any differences that may be confusing to public land visitors.

US Fish and Wildlife Service - The US Fish and Wildlife Service was informed of the project during initial scoping and consultation is ongoing.

US Congressional Representatives - Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden and Representative Peter DeFazio were informed of the project during initial scoping. Comments and inquiries were received from Representative DeFazio.

Tribes - The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Siletz and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians were informed of the project during initial scoping. Comments were received from the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians regarding access to traditional use areas.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) was informed of the project during pre-scoping was involved in the development of the proposed action.

State Historic Preservation Office - The State Historic Preservation Office was informed of the project’s proposed actions during the initial public scoping process.

County Commissioners - County Commissioners of Douglas, Lane and Jackson counties were notified of the proposed actions during initial scoping. Consultation with Douglas county commissioners continued throughout the planning process. Interdisciplinary Team The members of the interdisciplinary team involved in the preparation of this environmental analysis are:

Miguel Amat y Leon Recreation Planner

Miles Barkhurst Transportation Engineer

Ted Huffman Forest Hydrologist

Josh Chapman Forest Wildlife Biologist

Gabe Dumm Fuels Specialist, Fire Ecologist

Scott Elefritz Natural Resource Specialist, IDT Leader

Debra Gray Hydrologic Technician

Richard Helliwell Forest Botanist

Chris Kelly Heritage Program Manager

Greg Orton Soil Scientist

Melissa Swain Recreation Technician

Jane Beaulieu Forest Environmental Coordinator

Jason Wilcox Forest Fisheries Biologist

- 165 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Other team members involved in the project are:

Cheryl Caplan Public Affairs Officer

Alice Carlton Forest Supervisor, Deciding Official

Ed Hall GIS Analyst

Steve Marchi Staff Officer-Recreation/Engineering/Lands&Minerals

Javier Masiel Law Enforcement Officer

- 166 - Umpqua National Forest

References Beschta, R.L. 1980. Turbidity and suspended sediment relationships. In Proceedings of Watershed Management Symposium, Irrigation and Drainage Division, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Boise, Idaho, July 21-23, 1980. 1-12.

Bilby, R.E. 1985. Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream. For. Sci. 31:827-838.

Bilby, R. E., K. Sullivan, and S. H. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface sediment inforested watersheds in southwestern Washington, Forest Science, 35(2), 453-468.

Bisson, P.A., and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. NorthAmer. J. Fish. Mange. 4:371-374.

Berg, L, and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior in juvenilecoho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended sediment. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci., 42:1410-1417.

Coe, D., and L.H. MacDonald. 2001. Sediment Production and Delivery from Forest Roads in the Central Sierra Nevada, California. Eos Trans., AGU, 82(47), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H51F-03.

Coe, D. 2004. The hydrologic impacts of roads at varying spatial and temporal scales: a review of the published literature as of April 2004. Final Report prepared for the Upland Processes Science Advisory Group of the Committee for Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation, and Research (CMER). Nooksack Indian Tribe, Bellingham, Washington. 30 p.

Dissmeyer, G.E., editor. 2000. Drinking water from forest and grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report SRS-39.

Duncan, S.H., R.E. Bilby, J.W. Ward, and J.T. Heffner. 1987. Transport of Road-Surface Sedimentthrough Ephemeral Stream Channels. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 23. No. 1: 113-119.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act [As Amended Through P.L. 107–303, November 27, 2002]. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Gucinski, H., M. J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer, and M. H. Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: a Synthesis of Scientific Information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

LaMarche, J.L. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2001. Effects of Forest Roads on Flood Flows in the Deschutes River, Washington. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: 115-134.

Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of Road Ripping in Restoring Infiltration Capacity of Forest Roads. Restoration Ecology. 5(3): 265-270.

MacDonald, L.H., and J.P. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water: A state-of-the-art review for Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Report No. 196.

Meehan, W. R., ed. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society. 751 p.

- 167 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road Surface Drainage, Channel Initiation, and Slope Instability. Water Resources Research. 30(6): 1925-1932.

Noggle, C.C. 1978. Behavioral, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediment on juvenile salmonids. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 87 p.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2006. Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). October 2006. Medford OR.

Oregon Regulatory Statues. 2013. Off- Road Vehicles; Snowmobiles; All-Terrain Vehicles. Chapter 821. Salem, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Documentation for sediment yield tables. Umpqua National Forest. Roseburg, OR. 97470

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan). Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume 1. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late- successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System. FS-643. Washington DC. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 119 p.

USDA Forest Service. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 86 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Road Analysis Report. Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295. Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 70, Number 216, Wednesday November 9, 2005, pages 68264-68291.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Travel Management Directives; Forest Service Manual 2350, 7700, and 7710 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55; Final Directives. Federal Register, Volume 73, Number 237, Tuesday December 9, 2008, pages 74689 – 74703.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Climate Change and Water: In Brief. http://www.fs.fed.us/kidsclimatechange/products/water-climate-brochure.pdf 4 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Forest Service Internal Document. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis. January 13, 2009.

- 168 - Umpqua National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2014. 36 CFR 261 – Prohibitions; 36 CFR 261.9 - Property. Federal Register; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 2: U. S. Government Printing Office. Last amended June 17, 1994.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. 36 CFR 261 – Prohibitions; 36 CFR 261.15 – Use of vehicles off roads. Federal Register; Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 2: U. S. Government Printing Office. Last amended Nov. 9, 2005.

Veldhuisen, C. and P. Russell. 1999. Forest Road Drainage and Erosion Initiation in Four West-Cascade Watersheds. TFW Effectiveness Monitoring Report: TFW-MAG1-99-001.

Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. 2001. Forest Roads and Geomorphic Process Interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: 191-204.

Wemple, B.C. and J.A. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, mountain watershed. Water Resource Research. 39(8).

Ziegler, A.D. and T.W. Giambelluca. 1997. Importance of Rural Roads as Source Areas for Runoff in Mountainous Areas of Northern Thailand. Journal of Hydrology. 196: 204-229.

Appendix 1 Current Travel Management Direction Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) Desired Future Condition of the Forest (Forest Plan p. IV-5 thru IV-10) The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act, the implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. The Forest Plan sets forth the direction of land and resource management of the Umpqua National Forest and guides all natural resource management activities on the Forest. Desired future conditions defined in the Forest Plan emphasize public participation and a collaborative approach in multiple-use management by blending the needs of resource-dependent communities and people with environmental values to ensure that forest ecosystems are diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable. The Forest Plan states, “The Umpqua National Forest will continue to play a major role in the economic vitality and stability of surrounding communities by providing stable harvest of high-value timber and a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities and by working with other government agencies, local businesses, and the communities themselves in a spirit of interdependency and cooperation that has always existed at the local Ranger District level.” (Forest Plan p. IV-7).

The Forest Plan describes the overall desired future condition as “...Areas with no timber harvest, such as wilderness, research natural areas, and dedicated areas, remain essentially unchanged except for the effects of fire storm, and the slow process of natural succession. Areas with programmed timber harvest will be a mosaic of stands of various sizes and ages. The desired condition of this available commercial forest land is that of a regulated forest where the stands exist in age and size class proportions and grow at rates such that a high level of timber yield can be sustained. A completed road system will ensure easy access to the vast majority of the forest. Because of the continuing need to protect watershed conditions, provide for wildlife needs, and control costs, a portion of the road system will be managed in a self-

- 169 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment maintaining condition, with no vehicle traffic planned. Viewsheds and vegetation patterns within the general Forest will be formed primarily by cultural activities and not by nature. Only areas excluded from timber harvest will retain their natural appearances. Cultural resource sites, especially historic, are inventoried and protected….and/or developed as visitor interpretative centers or sites. High quality forage and habitat will be available for big game….Snag patches and unique wildlife habitats will be available to provide a distribution of wildlife species throughout the Forest. Habitat for threatened and endangered species will be provided and managed to meet the requirements of recovery plans. Stream habitat for resident and anadromous fish will be maintained at or near potential Forestwide….Anadromous fish populations will be maintained at or near maximum in all streams on the Forest. Water yield and quality will not be significantly reduced or degraded as a result of human activity. More intensive use of all of the resource opportunities on the Umpqua National Forest will result in much broader economic contributions to the primary economic influence area (Douglas, Lane, and Jackson Counties)….timber harvest will consist of a stable supply of wood fiber to support local area mills….economic dependence on the Umpqua for its recreation, fishing, and wildlife opportunities will increase significantly. Each community will have capitalized on its uniqueness and involved its citizens in the development of a desired future.” (Forest Plan p. IV-7 thru 10) Forestwide Resource Management Goals (Forest Plan p. IV-11 thru IV-95) 1. To provide a broad spectrum of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities to all segments of society. 2. Manage Forest landscapes for their scenic values commensurate with other resource values. 3. To protect and enhance identified outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing conditions of designated and potential wild, scenic and recreation rivers on the Forest. 4. To provide for the identification, management, preservation, restoration, maintenance and enhancement of prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and objects of archaeological, historical, and architectural significance. 5. To preserve the natural conditions and outstanding opportunities for solitude represented in the three wildernesses on the Forest. Manage activities on lands outside the wilderness so as not to seriously detract from the quality of the desired wilderness experience. 6. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the productivity of fish habitat to provide for the populations of resident and anadromous fish for scientific, recreational and commercial uses, both on and off the Forest. 7. To provide for present and future habitat needs of wildlife species which are present on the Forest. 8. To provide for present and future habitat needs to contribute to the recovery of all threatened or endangered species in accordance with approved recovery plans. 9. To manage the forage resources for an upward or stable vegetative trend, and utilize suitable range in a manner that is compatible with other resources. 10. To provide for efficient production of wood fiber to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies consistent with multiple resource objectives. 11. Provide fuelwood (firewood) for personal and commercial uses. 12. To maintain of enhance water quality, quantity, and timing of streamflow, for the beneficial uses of human and aquatic life on the National Forest System lands and downstream.

- 170 - Umpqua National Forest

13. Land management activities shall be planned and conducted to maintain and enhance soil productivity and soil stability. 14. To conduct basic and applied research on the function and operation of forest ecosystems in both natural and disturbed states. 15. To provide for natural ecological areas designated for research on the Umpqua National Forest as part of a National network. 16. Foster and encourage the prospecting, discovery, exploration, development and extraction of locatable minerals, gas, oil, and geothermal leases, and common variety minerals within the limits of applicable laws. 17. To provide for the use and occupancy of the Forest by private individuals or Federal, State and local governments when such use is consistent with Forest management objectives, is in the public interest and cannot be reasonably served by development on private land. Facilitate land ownership adjustments which meet the demand for sound, effective resource management and administration, and provides for benefits in the public interest that cannot be provided or assured by private ownership. Maintain a program of landline location that physically identifies and documents public lands administered by the Forest Service. 18. To develop and manage an economical and safe Forest transportation system that is responsive to land and resource management goals. 19. Permit corridors and rights-of-way for highway and roads under the jurisdiction of public road agencies, and utility transmission lines that are compatible with the Forest resource protection and management, and are in the public interest. 20. Provide and manage administrative sites and facilities which meet organizational needs through the most beneficial means possible. 21. Provide and execute a fire management program that is cost efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives. 22. Protect Forest resources from unacceptable losses due to destructive forest pests. 23. To ensure compliance of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to the Forest while providing protection for Federal property and resources and the safety of the Forest user. 24. To provide all persons equal opportunity for employment and use of the Forest regardless of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, physiological condition or origin. To promote community stability within the zone of influence of the Forest. Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Recreation (Forest Plan p. IV-14 to IV-18)

Dispersed Roaded and Unroaded Recreation  The Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) shall be jointly managed by the Deschutes, Willamette and Umpqua National Forests as directed by the management plan shown in Appendix E, and semi-primitive motorized (SPM) no harvest and semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) no harvest.  Unroaded recreation management areas (URMA – MA1) shall be managed in accordance with SPM no harvest, SPNM no harvest and unroaded concentrated direction.

- 171 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Off-Road Vehicles  Provide opportunities for ORV use on appropriate National Forest System lands. The use of off-road vehicles on the Forest shall conform to guidance in EO 11644 as amended by EO 11989 (FSM 2355.01) and Appendix F.  Manage ORV use to minimize: a) disturbance to wildlife habitat, b) recreation use conflicts, c) damage to soil and water resources, and d) damage to vegetation.  Site specific recreational vehicle use will be in accordance with Appendix F, titled Recreation Travelway Management Guide. This document is a summary of prescriptive direction for motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Also see the Facilities (Transportation) standards and guidelines for additional discussion of road use, including licensing requirements.  A travel management plan will be prepared within three years of signature of the Forest Plan and will specify closures and restrictions of the use on non-roaded areas, roads, and trails based on the broad direction summarized in Appendix F in the Forest Plan.  Vehicle travel off roads is prohibited in the Layng Creek municipal watershed. ORV opportunities will be directed towards blocked roads, developed trails, the OCRA, and dispersed unroaded recreation management areas. ORV use will be managed to assure that significant resource damage and/or conflicts with non-motorized users do not occur. Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Transportation (Forest Plan p. IV-81 to IV-85)

Transportation System Management and Maintenance 1. All Forest development roads will be maintained to protect the resources, perpetuate the intended road management objective, and to protect the investment in the facility. These roads will be maintained in accordance with maintenance standards in FSH 7709.15, Transportation System Maintenance Handbook. Road maintenance planning and priorities should emphasize the maintenance of: a. Drainage and erosion control structures and features, including bridges, on all Forest development roads. b. Signs and traffic control devices. c. Arterial and collector roads. d. Trailhead and recreation site access roads, and campground roads. 2. Management of roads will be in accordance with the Highway Safety Act on roads intended to be used by the public for travel with normal passenger cars (normally roads in Maintenance Levels 3 through 5). 3. Road ditches that show no sign of erosion, i.e., grassed-in, rocky, etc., should not be disturbed by road maintenance unless necessary to maintain drainage. 4. Forest development roads will be managed with a mix of traffic management strategies to accomplish road management objectives and to reduce road user conflicts. Traffic management guidelines are: a. Roads may be available for different user groups at different times, or otherwise restricted. All Forest development roads are subject to short-term traffic restrictions and/or closures, due to seasonal or unusual weather conditions, safety hazards, emergency traffic, or when necessary to permit reconstruction and maintenance.

- 172 - Umpqua National Forest

b. Roads will not be used if their use causes irreparable damage to the road or unacceptable impacts to adjacent resources (36 CFR 261). Damage is exclusive of normal wear, involves a reduction in the ability of a road or roadway structure to carry traffic, and cannot be corrected by normal maintenance practices. c. Vehicle load, weight, height, length, and width limitations may be imposed (36 CFR 212.7). Variance from these limitations will require a permit or other written authorization. d. All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on all open Forest development roads (roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5). 5. Road entrance management information that visually communicates to Forest visitors the road conditions and purpose of the road, such as mixed traffic, passenger car use, high clearance vehicles only, of logging use only, will be provided for each Forest development road. Emphasis will be on providing this information at the entrance of roads not maintained for passenger cars. 6. Assure short-term (temporary) roads are closed within one year of when the timber purchaser has completed contractual requirements for the portion of the timber sale served by the road. Re-establish vegetation cover to put land back into production within ten years of contract, lease, or permit termination on roads not remaining a permanent part of the Forest transportation system. 7. Forest development roads will generally be open to use by vehicles licensed for highway travel, except when closed for one of the following reasons: a. The mode of access causes unacceptable damage to, or negates adequate protection and management of Forest resources. b. Safety hazards to the road user exist. c. Prescriptions in this Forest Plan recommend closures. d. To provide security to contractors/cooperators, special use permittees, private land owners, and Forest Service administrative facilities. e. Road maintenance costs to keep a road open are high compared to existing or expected use of the road. Roads closed for one of the above reasons may be closed seasonally or year-around. Seasonal closures are preferred over year-around closures, wherever feasible, consistent with Forest Plan prescriptions, and if the objectives of the closure can be met.

The Forest Supervisor, under the authority of 36 CFR 261, may enter into cooperative road closures during hunting season with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for protection of Forest resources.

8. Some open roads will only be maintained for high clearance vehicle use (Maintenance Level 2). Roads with seasonal road closures will be maintained in accordance with Maintenance Level 2 through 5 standards. Roads closed for one year or more (year-around closure) will generally be maintained to Maintenance Level 1 standards, except for those closed to provide security to administrative facilities, which may be maintained to a higher level. 9. During development and subsequent review of District Travel Management Plans (Appendix F), existing road closures will be evaluated as to the specific objectives to be accomplished by the closure, the type of closure device used, and the need to continue the closure. Prior to blocking or closing an existing Forest development road the following will be documented: a. Reason or objective for the closure. b. The closure period (seasonal or year-around). c. Exceptions to the closure; i.e., who or what type of vehicle may use the road, and under what circumstances.

- 173 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

d. The type of closure device (physical barriers, signing, natural barrier, or locked gate). Law enforcement needs and prescriptions will be identified prior to issuing regulatory closures. Advisory devices and natural barriers (earth berms, rocks, brush, etc.) are preferred over regulatory road closures and locked gates where it is necessary to close roads. Use an advisory sign (or poster) near locked gates to describe the reason for the closure. Notify the public before closing an existing open road with a locked gate (except for emergencies). Give sufficient lead time in the notice. Use advisory signs in advance of road closures where adequate turnarounds for public traffic is not available at the closure or where significant inconvenience to the public may occur.

10. Various road management techniques and strategies may be used to accomplish land and resource management goals and prescriptions in this plan. Following their development, the travel management plans will be reviewed annually and updated every two years, if necessary. Guidelines for travel management planning are in Appendix F. 11. Some closed roads (Maintenance Level 1) may be converted to other uses such as all-terrain vehicle (ATV) routes, and special purpose trails. Some roads in Maintenance Levels 2 through 5 may be closed to highway legal vehicle use during the winter, when sufficient snow depth exists, for use as winter sports trails (Nordic skiing, snowmobiles, etc.). See Forestwide standards and guidelines for dispersed recreation, and Appendix F, for additional guidelines for use of closed roads. 12. Existing airfields or heliports are to be operated and maintained using existing direction documented in appropriate Forest Service manuals and Handbooks. 13. Input and comment will be requested from facility users, the FAA and the Oregon Aeronautics Division of the Department of Transportation on any proposed closure of an airfield or heliport. Closure of any aviation facility will be in conformance with Forest Service and FAA standards. Oregon Cascades Recreation Area Management Plan (Forest Plan Appendix E) The Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) was established as part of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-328). Management direction for the nonwilderness portion of the OCRA is to increase opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation as well as to facilitate wildlife and other resource enhancement. The OCRA is divided into seven zones, four of which lie within the boundaries of the Umpqua National Forest.

Management Direction by Zone (Forest Plan p. E-13 to E-23)

Zone 3 - Calamut Lake Goal – Emphasize opportunities for semiprimitive motorized recreation.

Recreation Management – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) direction is semi-primitive motorized (SPM). Motorized use on and off roads and trails may be allowed in designated areas. Trails should be located to meet established objectives, and will not necessarily follow existing roads or trails. Trail Maintenance Levels 1 through 3 are typical. Trail length and difficulty will vary. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

Facilities – Existing roads will be managed to Maintenance Level 2 (high clearance), or they may be improved to access new recreation facilities. No new roads will be constructed unless needed to access recreation facilities. Design trails for multiple uses including, but not limited to, ATV use, trail biking, mountain bicycling, snowmobiling, hiking, horse riding, nordic skiing, and use by the physically

- 174 - Umpqua National Forest challenged. Emphasize construction and maintenance of trails for motorized use. Emphasize construction of loop trails for day use.

Zone 5 – North Umpqua Goal – Improve wildlife habitat. Improve opportunities for nonmotorized summer use, and both motorized and nonmotorized winter use. Redistribute existing nonconforming motorized use to Zones 3 and 6.

Recreation Management – ROS direction is semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM). Motorized use is prohibited, with the exception of over-the-snow use. Special orders will specify the terms of area and seasonal closures to motorized use. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

Zone 6 – Thirsty Point Goal – Emphasize opportunities for semiprimitive motorized recreation. Improve wildlife habitat.

Recreation Management – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) direction is semi-primitive motorized (SPM). Motorized use on and off roads and trails may be allowed in designated areas. Winter vehicle use may be allowed on and off roads and trails. Trails should be located to meet established objectives, and will not necessarily follow existing roads or trails. Trail Maintenance Levels 1 through 3 are typical. Trail length and difficulty will vary. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed.

Facilities – Existing roads will be managed to Maintenance Level 2 (high clearance), or they may be improved to access new recreation facilities. No new roads will be constructed unless needed to access recreation facilities. Design trails for multiple uses including, but not limited to, ATV use, trail biking, mountain bicycling, snowmobiling, hiking, horse riding, nordic skiing, and use by the physically challenged. Emphasize construction and maintenance of trails for motorized use. Emphasize construction of loop trails for day use.

Zone 7 – West Thielsen Goal – Provide a variety of opportunities for nonmotorized uses, in close proximity to the Diamond Lake Composite. Serve as a transition between the concentrated developed recreation use at Diamond Lake and the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness.

Recreation Management – ROS direction is semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM). Motorized use is prohibited year-round, and the zone will be closed to such use by special order. Search and rescue with motorized equipment is allowed. Recreation Travelway Management Guide (Forest Plan Appendix F)

Objectives (Forest Plan p. F-1) The objectives of this guide are:

 To provide broad direction for travel management of vehicles used for recreation specific to each prescription and identified by vehicle type.  To summarize National direction dealing with recreation travel management.

- 175 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

 To provide general Forest guidelines for preparation and implementation of travel management plans for the purpose of assigning specific access management goals and objectives to individual routes, trails, and land areas.

National Direction (Forest Plan p. F-1 to F-2) In 1977 Executive Order 11644 was amended by Executive Order 11989. This Order has the purpose of “…establishing policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of these lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands.” This Executive Order requires that each National Forest look for opportunities for off-road vehicles that are compatible with resources, provide safety for all users and minimize conflicts between different user groups. It has left the decision on how much land to allow off- road vehicle use to the public land agencies.

1. If the use of one or more vehicle types off roads is expected to cause considerable adverse effects on the resources or other Forest visitors, use of the affected areas and trails by the vehicle type or types will be restricted or prohibited until such time as the adverse effects can be eliminated. (36 CFR 295.2) [the final rule removed part 295-Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads and integrated it’s requirements, except for the annual review under 295.6, into part 212] 2. Information and maps will be published and made available to the public, describing (36 CFR 295.4) [the final rule removed part 295-Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads and integrated its requirements, except for the annual review under 295.6, into part 212] ♦ the regulation of vehicle use, ♦ time periods when use is allowed, restricted or prohibited, and ♦ the type of vehicle regulated. 3. Traffic on Forest development roads is subject to State traffic laws where applicable except when in conflict with rules established under Federal orders. (36 CFR 212.7) 4. Provide a diversity of off-road vehicle recreational opportunities (FSM) when: ♦ the use is compatible with established land and resource objectives, ♦ the use is consistent with the capacity and suitability of the resources, ♦ the type of off-road vehicle opportunity is an appropriate National Forest Recreation activity, and ♦ there is demonstrated demand which cannot be satisfied elsewhere. 5. Use the monitoring activities established in the Forest LRMP and the management review procedures to monitor and evaluate off-road vehicle use, its effects, and enforcement of restrictions and closures. (FSM 2355)

State Direction (Forest Plan p. F-2) The Oregon State Motor Vehicles Division has strict rules for operating non-highway legal motor vehicles on roads, and the mixing of highway legal and non-highway legal motor vehicles.

The State of Oregon has established rules for two classes of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles. Class 1 ATVs are defined as a motorized off-highway recreational vehicle that is 50 inches or less in width having a dry weight of less than 600 pounds which travels on three or more low-pressure tires and having a saddle. Class 2 ATVs are defined as a vehicle weighing more than 600 pounds and less than 8,000 pounds, able to travel cross-country on or over land, water sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland or

- 176 - Umpqua National Forest other natural terrain, and actually being operated off a highway. Many Class 2 ATVs are registered as passenger cars or street legal vehicles.

It is illegal to operate Class 1 ATVs, Class 2 ATVs that are not licensed as passenger cars, and snowmobiles on roads and highways open to street-legal vehicles. This eliminates use of Class 1 and many Class 2 ATVs on all Maintenance Level 2,3,4 and 5 roads unless a Federal order is issued to eliminate all traffic except Class 1 and 2 ATVs.

[The State Direction listed above is an excerpt from the Recreation Travelway Management Guide (Appendix F in the Forest Plan). Since that time, State law has changed. It is important to note that Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 821.055; Operation of all-terrain vehicles on certain highways, states…”Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV all-terrain vehicles may operate on any highway in this state that is open to the public and is not maintained for passenger car traffic.” This provides an exemption for use of non-highway legal vehicles on ML 2 roads. ORS 821.200; Exemptions from general prohibition on operating on highway or railroad, provides a further exemption for ATV use on paved roads “Where the highway is posted to permit snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.” This allows the Forest Service to designate certain paved roads, or segments of paved roads, as open to non-highway legal vehicles and be in compliance with state statutes.

The State of Oregon now (beginning January 1, 2012) recognizes four classes of ATVs:

Oregon State Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Classes:

Class I ATV - (quads, 3-wheelers): 50” wide or less, 1,200 lbs. or less, has a straddle seat, handlebars and travels on three or more pneumatic tires.

Class II ATV - (Jeeps, Sand rails, SUVs, etc.): wider than 50”, and more than 1,200 lbs. and is not a Class IV ATV.

Class III ATV - (motorcycles): travels on two tires.

Class IV ATV - (Side x sides): 65” wide or less, 1,800 lbs. or less, has nonstraddle seating, steering wheel and travels on four or more pneumatic tires.]

Forest Guidelines (Forest Plan p. F-2 to F-3) 1. To provide enhanced experiences for four-wheel-drive (4 X 4) vehicles, some Forest development roads will be moved from Maintenance Level 1 status to Maintenance Level 2 status and will be maintained to minimal standards in the maintenance level 2 classifications. Maintenance of these routes will have the objective of protecting adjacent resources and by performing only maintenance items that will directly improve the recreational experience for the four-wheel-drive vehicle users. This may include brushing to allow passage….and other items consistent with enhancing the experience to four-wheel-drive vehicles. 2. Individual travel management plans will be prepared by each District, and approved by the Forest Supervisor, using the table in this appendix as a guide. The plans will propose and identify site specific opportunities for off-road vehicles and street legal vehicles, i.e. four-wheel-drive vehicles, involving participation by public interest groups and individuals, and in coordination with Federal and State agencies that administer lands adjacent to the Umpqua National Forest. 3. Direction for vehicle use for the Oregon Cascade Recreation Area …. Can be found in the OCRA Management Plan.

- 177 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

4. All State of Oregon traffic rules and regulations apply on Umpqua National Forest roads, except where Federal Orders under 36 CFR 261 have been issued. 5. The travel management plans, when established, will be reviewed annually and modified every two years, if necessary. 6. As new recreation vehicles are used on the forest, they will be evaluated as to resource and visitor protection needs and managed accordingly. Access and Travel Management Plans (ATM) The Umpqua NF LRMP (1990) directed the development of District travel management plans (Chapter IV and Appendix F) and provided prescriptions for management of road, off-road vehicle and trail access and travel. District level ATM Plans were developed and implemented in 1994. These ATM Plans changed the maintenance levels for certain National Forest System roads and included both permanent and seasonal road closures. Seasonal closures for wildlife protection (i.e., elk winter range, calving areas) were established as well as permanent closures for resource protection (i.e., Unique Wildlife or Mosaic Habitats, Resource Natural Areas, Non-Motorized Semi-Primitive Areas, etc.).

In 1998 the ATM Plans were updated to identify the primary and secondary road system essential for public access and travel throughout the Forest. This was done to match road maintenance budgets with the priorities and standards for road maintenance. Historically, the Umpqua National Forest emphasized access for timber management and recreation. With the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994 and the listing of the Coho salmon as threatened, the amount of timber harvested on the Umpqua NF decreased by 80 percent. An indirect effect of this harvest reduction was a drastic decrease in the Forest’s ability to maintain roads. Traditionally, timber sale purchasers preformed local road maintenance and deposited funds towards cooperative road maintenance. About two-thirds of the road maintenance on the Umpqua NF was accomplished through timber sales, with the remaining from appropriated funding. The reduction in timber harvest meant there would be insufficient funds to maintain all the roads in service. Without maintenance, roads erode and become unsafe for travel. The intent of the updated District ATM Plans was to wisely allocate limited funds to the highest priority roads first. Primary Roads would get highest priority for funding followed by Secondary Roads and then “Other” roads. Copies of District ATM Plans are available upon request at District offices and the Supervisor’s Office.

The ATM Plans included the creation and distribution of travel maps for use by the public. These maps were completed and published by 2000 and show roads maintained for both passenger car and high clearance vehicle use. Trails are shown on the maps highlighted by the recommended method of travel, with prohibited uses identified. The ATM map for the North Umpqua Ranger District was completed and published, but never distributed to the public. The other three ATM maps are currently available to the public at the Umpqua NF Headquarters and Ranger Stations. Generally, all Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) and ML2 roads are open to non-street legal ATV use unless signed otherwise. Oregon State Vehicle Code prohibits the use of non-street legal OHVs on roads maintained for passenger car traffic (i.e., ML 3-5 roads). Forest Orders Orders are forest level regulations issued by the Forest Supervisor which close or restrict the use of described areas, National Forest System roads or trails within the area over which he has jurisdiction. (36 CFR 261.50) The following is a list of Forest Orders pertaining to motor vehicle use on the Umpqua National Forest, including what orders would change under the Travel Management Plan.

- 178 - Umpqua National Forest

Table 55. Forest Orders Pertaining to Motor Vehicle Use Order Date of Changes during TMP District - Prohibitions Number Order Implementation Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would vehicles off of Forest Development Roads supersede portions of this order. The 3 4/22/1986 (Diamond Lake Recreation Area) when snow remaining portions may be rewritten. depth is less than two feet. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would vehicles off of specific Forest Development supersede this order. 5 10/4/1977 Roads yearlong, seasonally (12/1 - 4/30), and when snow depth is less than two feet. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would vehicles off of Forest Development Roads supersede portions of this order. The 9 6/8/1984 (Lemolo Lake Recreation Area) seasonally remaining portions may be rewritten. (4/1 - 10/31). Cottage Grove - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would 14 2/15/1996 vehicles on road 1700-420 (Rujada supersede this order. Campground) seasonally (11/15 - 5/15). Cottage Grove - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would vehicles on specific Forest Development supersede this order. 24 9/28/1988 Roads (Layng Creek Municipal Watershed) yearlong and seasonally (10/1 - 5/31). Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of non-highway The Travel Management Plan would legal motor vehicles on Forest Development supersede this order. 51 3/18/1983 Roads 4795-000 (Diamond Lake loop) and 2610-000 (Lemolo Lake loop) when managed as public roadways under state law. North Umpqua - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would 60 9/28/1988 vehicles on specific Forest Development supersede this order. Roads seasonally (12/1 – 4/30). Cottage Grove - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would vehicles on Forest Development Trail 1403 supersede portions of this order. The 69 3/15/1988 (Brice Creek), 1403.1 (Cedar Creek spur), remaining portions may be rewritten. and Cedar Creek bridge. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would 123 5/24/2002 vehicles, other than aircraft, on Toketee supersede this order. Airstrip. Diamond Lake - Prohibits use of motor The Travel Management Plan would 124 5/24/2002 vehicles off road in Big Camas Meadow. supersede this order. Tiller - Prohibits motorized and non-motorized The Travel Management Plan would 169 9/5/2002 traffic on Rocking R Ranch Bridge. supersede this order. Diamond Lake - Prohibits the use of motor The Travel Management Plan would vehicles on Forest Development Winter Trails supersede portions of this order. The 203 3/16/2005 and specific Forest Development Roads when remaining portions may be rewritten. posted on the ground. Forest Wide - Prohibits the use of motor The Travel Management Plan would 204 4/1/2005 vehicles on specific Forest Development supersede portions of this order. The Trails and Roads when posted on the ground. remaining portions may be rewritten. Prohibits possessing or using a vehicle in the The Travel Management Plan would 228 7/23/2008 Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. supersede portions of this order. The remaining portions may be rewritten. Prohibits possessing or using a vehicle in the The Travel Management Plan would 229 7/23/2008 Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness. supersede portions of this order. The remaining portions may be rewritten.

- 179 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Order Date of Changes during TMP District - Prohibitions Number Order Implementation Prohibits operating a vehicle in violation of This order would not be changed. any official traffic control device or in violation 313 12/9/2013 of state law. Prohibits operating a vehicle carelessly or recklessly. Prohibits parking or leaving a vehicle in violation of a posted sign.

- 180 - Umpqua National Forest

Appendix 2 Proposed Amendments to the Forest Plan

Table 56. Proposed changes to the Forest Plan by citation Citation Existing Forest Plan Language Proposed Forest Plan Language Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Recreation p. IV-16 Provide opportunities for ORV use on Wheeled motorized travel is allowed only on appropriate National Forest System Lands. designated roads, trails and areas and will be identified The use of off-road vehicles on the Forest on the Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) by shall conform to the guidance in EO 11644 type of vehicle and time of year. Travel off of the as amended by EO 11989 (FSM 2355.01) designated system of routes by any type of motorized and Appendix F. vehicle is prohibited.

The following vehicles and uses are exempt from these designations:  Aircraft  Watercraft  Over-snow vehicles  Limited administrative use by the Forest Service  Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes.  Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes.  Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit.  Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.  Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county or other local public road authority.

Motorized travel off the designated system for other government entities on official business, contractors, leasees, permittees, and others with valid access rights will require written authorization from the Forest Supervisor or District Rangers in their respective Districts. This may be in the form of a contract, lease, permit, or other type of waiver as required to recognize valid rights of access.

An exception is allowed for the limited travel off of the designated system by motor vehicles solely for the purpose of dispersed camping on existing routes only within 300 feet of certain designated routes as displayed on the MVUM. This exception may be administratively applied in appropriate locations within any Management Area unless specifically noted or unless all motorized access is prohibited. p. IV-18 ORV opportunities will be directed towards Omit blocked roads, developed trails, the OCRA, and dispersed unroaded recreation management areas.

- 181 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Citation Existing Forest Plan Language Proposed Forest Plan Language Forestwide Multiple-Use Resource Management Standards and Guidelines: Transportation p. IV-84 Some closed roads (Maintenance Level 1) Some closed roads (Maintenance Level 1) may be may be converted to other uses such as all- converted to other uses such as off-highway vehicle terrain vehicle (ATV) routes. (OHV) routes. Management Area 5: Oregon Cascades Recreation Area p. IV–116 Motorized use, both summer and winter, Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated are encouraged on and off trails in the system or inconsistent with the designations displayed areas assigned to A1-IV. on the MVUM is prohibited. Management Prescriptions Rx A1-I Offroad vehicles are prohibited. No Change p. IV-144 Rx A1-IV ORV use is encouraged on roads and trails Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-146 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. Rx A1-V Summer ORV use is not permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-148 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. Rx A3-I ORV use is accepted consistent with other, Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-150 more restrictive prescriptions. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. Rx A4-I Within developed sites, ORV use will be Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-152 restricted to designated routes except as system or inconsistent with the designations displayed noted in applicable CFR. on the MVUM is prohibited. A4-II Motorized use over snow only, otherwise No Change p. IV-154 non-motorized. A4-III ORV use will normally be limited to access Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-156 purposes except as stipulated in system or inconsistent with the designations displayed appropriate CFRs. on the MVUM is prohibited. A4-IV ORV use will normally be limited to access Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. 157 purposes except as stipulated in system or inconsistent with the designations displayed appropriate CFRs. on the MVUM is prohibited. A4-V Not Addressed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-159 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. A5-II ORV use will be restricted to roads and Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-161 parking areas. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. B1-II Mechanized equipment, including mountain No Change p. IV-162 bikes, is not allowed. B1-III Mechanized equipment, including mountain No Change p. IV-164 bikes, is not allowed. C1-I ORV use is not allowed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-166 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C1-II Do not permit ORV use off trails year- Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-167 round; discourage ORV use on roads and system or inconsistent with the designations displayed trails April 1 to August 15. on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-I ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-169 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited.

- 182 - Umpqua National Forest

Citation Existing Forest Plan Language Proposed Forest Plan Language

C2-II ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-171 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-III ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-174 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-IV ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-176 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-V ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-179 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-VI ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-181 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-VII ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-183 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-VIII ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-186 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-IX ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-188 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C2-X ORV use is not permitted except on Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-190 designated, hardened trail prisms. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C3-I No new trails or other recreation facilities No new trails or other recreation facilities will be p. IV-192 will be constructed within 1.5 miles of nest constructed within 0.5 miles of nest site. site. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated ORV use closed during January 1 – July system or inconsistent with the designations displayed 31. on the MVUM is prohibited. C3-II Not Addressed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-193 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C4-I No ORV use December 1 – April 30. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-195 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C4-II No ORV use December 1 – April 30. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-197 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C4-III No ORV use December 1 – April 30. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-199 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-I ORV use permitted in unroaded dispersed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-200 recreation and OCRA management areas system or inconsistent with the designations displayed consistent with the direction for these on the MVUM is prohibited. management areas. ORV use not permitted in other areas.

- 183 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Citation Existing Forest Plan Language Proposed Forest Plan Language C5-III ORV use permitted in unroaded dispersed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-202 recreation and OCRA management areas system or inconsistent with the designations displayed consistent with the direction for those on the MVUM is prohibited. management areas. C5-V ORV use permitted, consistent with soils Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-203 standards and guidelines. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-VI ORV use permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-204 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-VII ORV use is permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-206 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-VIII ORV use is permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-207 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-IX ORV use is permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-209 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. C5-X ORV use permitted. Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-210 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-I ORVs permitted except when closed by Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-211 Forest order. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-II ORVs permitted except within plantations or Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-213 other sensitive areas, or when closed by system or inconsistent with the designations displayed Forest order. on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-IV ORVs permitted except when closed by Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-214 Forest order. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E1-V ORVs permitted except when closed by Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-216 Forest order. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. E2-I ORVs are allowed for administrative Motor vehicle use off the designated system is allowed p. IV-217 purposes only, as approved by the Forest for administrative purposes only, as approved by the Supervisor. Forest Supervisor. E2-II ORVs are allowed for administrative Motor vehicle use off the designated system is allowed p. IV-219 purposes only, as approved by the Forest for administrative purposes only, as approved by the Supervisor. Forest Supervisor. E3-I Not Addressed Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-220 system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. F1-II Vehicle travel off roads should be Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-221 prohibited. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. J1-II ORVs will generally be permitted, except in Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. IV-223 Hardesty Mountain Area. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. Appendix E: Oregon Cascades Recreation Area Management Plan OCRA Motorized use on and off roads and trails Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. E-13 may be allowed in designated areas. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited.

- 184 - Umpqua National Forest

Citation Existing Forest Plan Language Proposed Forest Plan Language OCRA Motorized use is prohibited, with the Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. E-18 exception of over-the-snow use. Special system or inconsistent with the designations displayed orders will specify the terms of area and on the MVUM is prohibited. seasonal closures to motorized use. OCRA Motorized use on and off roads and trails Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. E-19 may be allowed in designated areas. system or inconsistent with the designations displayed on the MVUM is prohibited. OCRA Motorized use is prohibited year-round, and Use of wheeled motor vehicles off the designated p. E-21 the zone will be closed to such use by system or inconsistent with the designations displayed special order. on the MVUM is prohibited. Appendix F: Recreation Travelway Management Guide RTMG Use of Table F – 1, “Recreation Travelway Omit Section p. F–3 Management Guide RTMG Terms, Definitions and Methods for Omit Section p. F-4 Accomplishment as Shown in Table F - 1 RTMG Table F -1 Recreation Travelway Wheeled motorized travel is allowed only on p. F-5 to F- Management Guide designated roads, trails and areas and will be identified 8 on the Forest’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) by type of vehicle and time of year. Travel off of the designated system of routes by any type of motorized vehicle is prohibited.

The following vehicles and uses are exempt from these designations:  Aircraft  Watercraft  Over-snow vehicles  Limited administrative use by the Forest Service  Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes.  Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes.  Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit.  Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.  Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county or other local public road authority. Motorized travel off the designated system for other government entities on official business, contractors, leasees, permittees, and others with valid access rights will require written authorization from the Forest Supervisor or District Rangers in their respective Districts. This may be in the form of a contract, lease, permit, or other type of waiver as required to recognize valid rights of access.

An exception is allowed for the limited travel off of the designated system by motor vehicles solely for the purpose of dispersed camping on existing routes only within 300 feet of certain designated routes as

- 185 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Citation Existing Forest Plan Language Proposed Forest Plan Language displayed on the MVUM. This exception may be administratively applied in appropriate locations within any Management Area unless specifically noted or unless all motorized access is prohibited.

Appendix 3 Existing Condition Trail Survey 1405 – 4WD NOONDAY WAGON RD 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Cottage Grove RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 6.9 m TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair Managed use is Class II ATVs (4wd). Other uses include Class I ATVs, Class III ATVS, pack & saddle, hiker, mountain bike

1405A – 4WD SULTANA WAY 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Cottage Grove RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.2 m TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Managed use is Class II ATVs (4wd). Other uses include Class I ATVs, Class III ATVS, pack & saddle, hiker, mountain bike

1407 – BOHEMIA NRT 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Canton Creek IRA – 2.5 miles DISTRICT: Cottage Grove RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 7.0 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Managed use is Pack and Saddle Other uses include Class III ATV, hiker, and mountain bike Most of trail is 24-38” wide Some rock faces with large drops along the trail Receives volunteer maintenance

- 186 - Umpqua National Forest

1417 - KNOTT 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Fairview IRA – 3.2 miles DISTRICT: Cottage Grove RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 4.8 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate to Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair-Good Occasional short, steep grades reaching 25% Managed use is Class III ATVs, also popular mountain bike route, Other uses include hiker, pack and saddle Volunteers completed basic trail maintenance two years ago on portions of the trail Trail follows ridgeline and poses minimal resource concerns to watershed

1417A – KNOTT/ADAMS CONNECTION 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Cottage Grove RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.08 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Short connector trail from road to mid-section of Knott Trail Managed use is Class III ATVs, primary use is mountain bikes to connect to loop on FSR 2241 Follows Martin Creek headwaters - poses little resource risk to the watershed due to slope Trail is just outside the Fairview IRA

1426 – BEAVER CREEK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 7.4 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate-Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail affected by fire in 2013: Major portions were severely burned Trail will require high level of maintenance to open Connects with Elkhorn and Bunchgrass Trails Access to trails from Whiskey Camp Guard Station rental Too narrow for class I-best suited to class III motorized Some creek crossings on fish bearing streams

- 187 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

1426A - ELKHORN 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 2.3 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate to Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail affected by fire in 2013: some portions were severely burned, though most of trail is still green. Connects to Bunchgrass and Beaver Creek trails

1438 – PIG IRON 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 3.0 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Narrow TRAIL GRADE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Poor Trail is narrow and steep. Tread is lost to side slope in several sections Tread is giving away to side slope in several sections Extremely steep drop offs next to trail

1442 – UPPER POTTER MOUNTAIN 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 2.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: n/a TRAIL SLOPE: n/a TREAD CROSS SLOPE: n/a Trail has not been maintained for 20 years

1452 – RODLEY BUTTE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Mt. Bailey IRA – 4.0 miles DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION This trail is broken up into two sections with different trail conditions. The western portion of the trail (From Road 3703600 to a point north of Mt. Bailey) is very steep and very wide. Tread averages from 50 to 120 inches wide with slopes up to 30 to 35%. There is some rutting up to 3 to 4” deep occurring on limited portions (100 to 200 feet) of trail, but there is no sedimentation to streams. Class I ATV use is evident on this portion of the trail. The trail ends at a split, with one trail continuing up a wide boulder path and the other continuing on the Rodley Butte Trail.

- 188 - Umpqua National Forest

The western portion of the trail, along with the portion continuing through the wide boulder path is also used during winter as the Catchline trail. The trail is wide enough for the snow-cat to operate in winter. LENGTH: Approx. 3.0 miles for western portion. Total 7.0 miles. TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair to Good The eastern portion of the trail overall is more gentle and wide with short steep sections. While the eastern portion has an overall more gentle profile, there are a few sections where the grade can approach 30%. This section of the trail contains rock obstacles that make class I ATV use not feasible; however class III ATV use is evident. LENGTH: Approx. 4.0 miles for eastern portion. Total 7.0 miles. TRAIL WIDTH: Average to Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Steep to Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good

1452A - West Lake 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Mt Bailey IRA - 2.3 miles DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 2.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Narrow to Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate to Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair Minimal motorized use – class III only Tread is pumice

1454 – CALAMUT WAY 1994 ATM: Not on ATM IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION This trail is broken up into two sections with very different trail conditions. The southern portion from the 6000-700 Rd to Kelsey Valley Forest Camp is steep and prone to erosion. Volunteer crews have been working on this portion of the trail. Equestrian use is evident on trail. LENGTH: Approx. 2.2 miles for southern portion. Total 3.1 miles. TRAIL WIDTH: Narrow TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Poor The northern portion of the trail, from the 600-700 Rd to Calamut Lake is relatively flat and very wide (61” plus), Trail has some check bars into forest-some rilling occurring, Class I ATV and equestrian use evident on trail, Two sites next to the lake, one more developed than the other, receive Class I ATV use LENGTH: Approx. 0.7 miles for northern portion - -Total 3.1 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Slight TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good

- 189 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

1455 – WATERBAG WAY 1994 ATM: Not on ATM IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 3.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail is in the motorized section of Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) Section around lake receives Class I ATV use Trail then narrows and continues as single track One moist meadow was encountered-no resource damage, even right after two Class III ATVs went past

1457D – PIZZA CONNECT 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.5 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good This trail connects one of the main ATV staging areas in Diamond Lake to the ATV network This trail receives ATV Class I and III use during the summer This trail is also used during the winter to connect Diamond Lake Loop to Summit Rock trail

1461 – DREAD AND TERROR 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 6.0 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair Trail slopes range from 10% to 17%with at least one 20% slope Tread is in good shape Several areas with side slope and steep drop

1464 – SKOOKUM LAKE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.6 miles

- 190 - Umpqua National Forest

TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail slope up to 21%. Steep drop off adjacent to trail Equestrian use evident on trail

1468 – LEMOLO FALLS 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD ASSESSMENT: Survey TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 1.0 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Wide to Narrow TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good to Fair to Poor Tread starts as a decommissioned road then narrows to 16” then 12” with final 200 feet narrow and rocky Very Steep drop off adjacent to trail

1475 – FISH CREEK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 2.6 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average to none TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Poor Several logs and brush intruding into trail and could not be followed past Fish Creek. Fish creek does not look fordable by motorized users Shelter has fallen down and is no longer usable Class III motorized access possible part way

1494 – CALAMUT LAKE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 1.4 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Too narrow for Class I use Equestrian use evident Most of the trail is fairly flat with good tread

- 191 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

1503 – GROTTO FALLS 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.3 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Wide to narrow TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Average 24” tread 15% Slope Poor Cross Slope for a small section of trail Trail narrows near the waterfall between fence & rock wall and continues past waterfalls as a narrow steep user created trail Short sections with steep drop offs Limited to no turn-around area at water fall for motorized vehicles Receives moderate to heavy use by pedestrians Pedestrian/motorized use may present safety concerns

1504 – SHADOW FALLS 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.8 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Solid 12 to 16 inch trail Fairly flat trail Bridge is 32 inches wide between railings – not designed for class III ATVs: too narrow

1505 – HEMLOCK CREEK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 3.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Some ATV Class III is evident on the trail

- 192 - Umpqua National Forest

1509 – OVERHANG 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: NORTH UMPQUA TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: .2 TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair Some Class III use evident

1512 – COPELAND CREEK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Calf-Copeland Creek IRA – 2.6 miles DISTRICT: Diamond Lake RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 3.6 miles TRAIL WIDTH: None TRAIL SLOPE: N/A TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Poor Trail has not been maintained for over 20 years Not possible to drive with motorized vehicle Extremely difficult to find trail

1513 – WILLIAMS CREEK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Williams Creek IRA – 4.0 miles DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 5.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Wide to Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate to Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Tread varies from 60” to 10” with 12” as average for most of the trail Portions include slopes up to 24%. 13% average Lots of encroaching vegetation – lots of thorns from blackberries / blackcaps

1517 – SNOWBIRD TRAIL 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 3.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good to Poor(short sections) Tread varies between 50 to 65 inches Most of the trail has a grade below 10%, with a few exceptions where the grade reaches 20%

- 193 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Equestrian and Class III ATV use has worn one track down as much as 6 inches in a few sections, proving a slight challenge for Class I ATVs Trail crosses two dry meadows showing no signs of resource damage

1518 – MACE MOUNTAIN 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Williams Creek IRA – 4.0 miles DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 4.8 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide to Narrow TRAIL SLOPE: Steep to Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good to Poor Much of the trail is very narrow Northern portion of the trail eventually connects and overlaps with a bulldozed fire break with tread varying between 51 to 120 inches The fire break section ends approx. 1.5 miles in from the top After the fire break section the tread changes to a very narrow 6” talus tread and extremely steep 35-45% grade for approximately half a mile with several parts up to 55% grade-very steep drop off through this section- steepest portion ends once the trail crosses the first road from the north. After crossing the first road, the trail ranges from flat to 25% grades Switchbacks are tight and poorly designed, especially on the steep portion There were several places where the trail path breaks off to a spur and the actual trail disappears Had to search for the path several times in order to stay on course- the lower part of the trail, however, is well marked with trail blazes Minimal evidence of motorized use reported by maintenance crews Becoming difficult to maintain due to Williams Creek Fire-burned trees are falling into the trail, tree growth requires continual brushing Lower portion of trail may cross private land

1522 – YELLOW JACKET LOOP 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 5.5 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Part of Yellow Jacket Loop trail is a continuation of Snowbird trail. Class I ATVs continue from snowbird trail and go approximately 200 – 300 feet south on Yellow Jacket Loop Trail towards a trailhead on the 2700-625 rd. This is the only section of Yellow Jacket Loop that is wide enough for Class I ATVs Tread on the rest of the trail is an average of 16” and is well designed for Class III ATV use. Class III ATV use was evident on the trail

- 194 - Umpqua National Forest

Class I ATV use was evident on the west portion of the trail. Class 1 ATV tracks on either side of the 16” trail were observed in a few sections, clearly distinguished by trampled vegetation. If use is discontinued the vegetation should recover within one season. The Class I ATV use on the NW portion of the trail is likely unrelated to the Class I ATV use leaving from snowbird, as the trail is too rocky and narrow for use to go past the trailhead on the 2700-625 road. The Class I ATV use on the west side likely originated from the trailhead at the 2759 road No Class I ATV signage is well posted at the trailhead in Hemlock Meadows Campground No Class I ATV use was evident from that location, likely due to clear signage

1522A – HEMLOCK LAKE LOOP 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 1.2 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Carsonite post shows Class I ATV and Class III ATV as allowed Evidence of Class III motorized use Lots of mixed use – horse, pedestrian, mountain bike Some erosion across the trail – does not reach a water body

1522C – HEMLOCK CREEK REMOTE CAMP 1994 ATM: Not on ATM IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.2 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Small side branch going towards Hemlock Lake from trail 1522 Trail provides access to remote sites

1522E – CAVITT TIE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 1.0 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail connects trail 1522 with a trail head to the 2750 road Seems to be used by Class I ATVs to enter trail 1522 – Trail 1522 is too narrow for Class I ATVs

- 195 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

1523 – BLACK CREEK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 1.5 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Narrow to Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Adjacent to Yellowjacket trail system connects via road system Has views of N and S Umpqua drainages Short section across rock face with 6” tread width- technical in this 20-30’ long section Rocky tread – minimal erosion potential Most of trail is of average difficulty for Class III

1525 – COUGAR SHELTER 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Cougar Bluff IRA – 0.1 miles DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.3 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average to narrow TRAIL SLOPE: Fairly flat TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair Access to Cougar shelter Appears to receive minimal use Some sections have slope of 5+% most less than 10% Some sections with narrow tread and shear drop-offs

1526 – FLAT ROCK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.8 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair Limited motorized use – class III only due to width of trail Mostly pedestrian use, some equestrian and mountain bike use

1528 – LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.5 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average

- 196 - Umpqua National Forest

TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Carsonite post shows Class III ATV use Solid 12” tread 20% slope average Some steep drops for very short sections – nothing terrible

1530 - RIVERVIEW 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 6.4 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good A very small portion of the trail is technically inside the Williams Creek IRA – approx. 0.005 miles Used for power line access and access to Williams Creek trail Used by equestrian, hikers, and mountain bikes Limited motorized use Becoming difficult to maintain due to large trees and rocks falling in the trail. When cut, trees have the potential to slide all the way to the highway Seasonal closure currently in place

1530A – RIVERVIEW TIE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.3 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Access from Bogus Creek Campground to Riverview trail

1532A – LONG RIDGE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 1.0 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Narrow TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Poor Tread varies between 8 to 12 inches Tread slope starts at 15% then increases to 20%. Gets steeper on final stretch Tread cross slope is giving away to the hillside in several places Trail has steep drops

- 197 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Trail has several spots where the trail is covered in very slick dry madrone leaves, which coincide with steep drops, narrow tread and poor cross slope. Hiking was difficult in those sections

1534 – BULLDOG ROCK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: Bulldog Rock IRA – 4.6 DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 5.6 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Tread has an average tread of 18” and shows minimal wear due to class III ATV use, even on steep slopes Trail has several steep slopes with 22 to 35% grade over short distances. One particular slope was 55% over 30 feet. Longest slope was 25% over 100 feet Several dry meadows were encountered, however no resource damage was observed Very technical trail (rocky/boulders) would limit use to expert class III ATV users

1535 – WILD ROSE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 2.4 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Narrow -Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate –Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Some very steep section a few hundred feet long Rocky tread Could accommodate class III

1540 – EMILE BIG TREE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.06 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average - Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Actual trail path is very narrow, less than 12” in some spots, wider path along main trail is relatively free of brush Appears to receives light use, no evidence of motorized use

- 198 - Umpqua National Forest

1543 – FULLER LAKE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.8 miles TRAIL WIDTH: TRAIL SLOPE: TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Class I ATVs currently using the trail. No known resource damage A short portion of the trail is technically inside the Bulldog Rock IRA – approx. 0.03 miles

1543A – FULLER LAKE MOTORIZED 1994 ATM: Not in ATM IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.19 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Very Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Gentle TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good This portion of the trail is a decommissioned road Provides access to the lake and shelter Class III motorized access would be possible

1549 – EMILE SHELTER BIG TREE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: North Umpqua RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.2 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average -Wide TRAIL SLOPE: Good TREAD CROSS SLOPE Good Access to large old growth Douglas Fir grove, limited parking Trail is relatively flat Appears to receive very light use, tread is narrow but wider area along trail is relatively free of brush

1561 – SMITH RIDGE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.6 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate to Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair

- 199 - Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment

Rock/soil mix at bottom rocky trail tread at top Technical for motorized use – suited best for class III Tight switchbacks

1562 – LITTLE BLACK ROCK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.7 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Very Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good to Poor Access to decommissioned look-out Trail starts on old skid trail Some sections have very steep slope and cross slope Minimal pedestrian or motorized use Technical for motorized use – best suited to class III

1575 – BUNCHGRASS MEADOWS 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 4.6 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Moderate to Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail affected by 2013 fire: some areas were severely burned while others are still green Once maintenance is complete, expect to keep open to motorized use Connects to Beaver Creek and Elkhorn trails

1575A – COFFIN BUTTE 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.2 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Flat TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Good Trail affected by 2013 fire: area was moderately burned Once maintenance is complete, expect to keep open to motorized use Leads to decommissioned lookout. Trees have grown up and now block the view

- 200 - Umpqua National Forest

1585 – ACKER ROCK 1994 ATM: Motorized IRA: N/A DISTRICT: Tiller RD TRAIL CONDITION LENGTH: 0.4 miles TRAIL WIDTH: Average TRAIL SLOPE: Steep TREAD CROSS SLOPE: Fair-Good Trail has steep grades and switchbacks Tight switch backs-likely difficult/very technical for Class III use Trail leads to Acker Rock Lookout rental cabin Seasonal closure on motorized use Mainly pedestrian use

- 201 -